Japan tried to surrender before hiroshima

[GodisEnergy]

This article put forth by jon pilger

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/06/secondworldwar.warcrimes

[Corsair 115]

Two things:

1) It is no secret that part of the Japanese government extended feelers about possibly surrendering. However, other parts of the government were adamantly against surrendering and were prepared to fight to the death. Thus the government remained divided on what to do, even after attack on Hiroshima. Also, look no further than the attempted coup which took place once the Emperor had in fact decided that surrender was necessary (though he never actually calls it that directly) as evidence of the deep division within the Japanese government.

2) The main difference between the dropping of the atomic bombs and the conventional bombing raids which had gone on over Europe and Japan was that the former required just one plane and one bomb while the latter required thousands of bombs on hundreds of planes. But either was more than capable of reducing a city to ruins.

[JoeyDonuts]

I'm sorry. Did I miss something?

Are you hinting at a conspiracy or did you wander into the wrong subforum?

[lionking]

Pilger has not written anything truthful, or even interesting, for many years now.

[jaydeehess]

I'm sorry. Did I miss something?

Are you hinting at a conspiracy or did you wander into the wrong subforum?

The conspiracy goes something like this;

The USA was prepared to use the atomic bombs on Japan but Japan was already losing the war and wanted to surrender. However accepting a surrender would mean that the 'tests' of atomic weaponry at Hiroshima and Nagasaki would then not take place. So surrender was not accepted so that the US could see exactly what the effects of an atomic blast would be on a populated city, one on a plain and the other in hilly terrain.

Oh, yeah , and this also showed the Soviets what they could expect to happen to their cities if they got too ambitious.

[Foolmewunz]

This belongs in History. (Oh, that's right, it's already there in numerous discussions.)

[tyr_13]

But that's beyond dumb. Not only would the US not really need that sort of 'test' if Japan surrendered, but for this conspiracy to work, Japan would have to be in on it. That's just insane.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Pilger has not written anything truthful, or even interesting, for many years now.

Nonsense!!!!

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Please people, don't defend the nuke atrocities at the end of WW2. Not only were the bombings an experiment, given the two types of weapons used, but there was no need to drop them on inhabited areas to prove that more could come if surrender wasn't forthcoming.

The nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was one of the most hideous acts of genocide ever.

The hapless victims that were evaporated instantaneously were lucky. The poor people who suffered for years with cancer and other effects of radiation weren't so lucky.

This act makes Israel seem like the salvation Army.

[lionking]

Nonsense!!!!
Well it's no surprise he appeals to you.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

The conspiracy goes something like this;

The USA was prepared to use the atomic bombs on Japan but Japan was already losing the war and wanted to surrender. However accepting a surrender would mean that the 'tests' of atomic weaponry at Hiroshima and Nagasaki would then not take place. So surrender was not accepted so that the US could see exactly what the effects of an atomic blast would be on a populated city, one on a plain and the other in hilly terrain.

Oh, yeah , and this also showed the Soviets what they could expect to happen to their cities if they got too ambitious.

Its not a conspiracy. No one who was born before yesterday is gullible enough to believe the bombings were not a sick experiment. Two bombs, one gun type, one implosion type. A second plane designated specifically to record and monitor the event.

Anyone who even remotely justifies the nuking of Japan is one sick individual.

I feel even more strongly about this than I do about the atrocities committed by the Zionists.

Thousands of Japanese murdered for an experiment. Totally and utterly *********** sick!!! :mad: :mad:

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Well it's no surprise he appeals to you.

John Pilger is great. He's exposed a whole lot of vile atrocities. I'm proud to support him.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Just reading the article linked by the OP, it's not surprising that John Pilger has attracted criticism from certain people in this forum. Guess what? He criticizes Israel. It's all making sense now. This forum is infested with Zionist extremists.

Pilger says: "There is only one rampant nuclear power in the Middle East and that is Israel."

Which is true. but it's bound to raise the hackles of the Zionists.

Pilger is also spot on when he says:

"In defiance of UN resolutions, Israel is today clearly itching to attack Iran, fearful that a new American administration might, just might, conduct genuine negotiations with a nation the west has defiled since Britain and America overthrew Iranian democracy in 1953."

Pilger finishes off the article by saying: "Catching war criminals is fashionable again. Radovan Karadzic stands in the dock, but Sharon and Olmert, Bush and Blair do not. Why not? The memory of Hiroshima requires an answer."

How could a decent person not support that?

Godisenergy! Thanks for linking to the article.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

The day after Hiroshima was obliterated, President Truman voiced his satisfaction with the "overwhelming success" of "the experiment".

Exactly. Vile people. Murderers!!!

[Tin Foil Timothy]

http://www.allbusiness.com/services/business-services-miscellaneous-business/4680497-1.html

The Press and Hiroshima: August 6, 1945

Not surprising the establishment controlled media was in full force back then.

[Corsair 115]

Two bombs, one gun type, one implosion type.


You are aware of the purely mundane technical and logistical reasons why there were two types, yes?


A second plane designated specifically to record and monitor the event.


What is so unusual about that? It was a new weapon, and an untried one. So naturally the military is going to want to know how it works in actual combat conditions as opposed to testing. (There is a long history of weapons which worked well in testing only to fail miserably when put into actual use. Look no further than U.S. torpedoes at the start of the war for an example.)


Anyone who even remotely justifies the nuking of Japan is one sick individual.


It should be noted that it took two atomic bombings for the Japanese government to finally surrender (and even then, a diehard group of army officers attempted a coup to stop the surrender broadcast from being made). If we're going to proclaim outrage, perhaps some should be reserved for the Japanese leadership which stubbornly refused to surrender for months even though it was painfully clear they had long ago lost the war. They needlessly sacrificed many of their own citizens, civilian and military, as a consequence of refusing to accept the futility of their situation.

Also, should I then presume that you are similarly against the entire Stratetgic Bomber Offensive? It seems to me you'd have to be in order to be consistent in your philosophy.

[GodisEnergy]

im a proud supporter of anyone who is against the vapourisation of children

[Corsair 115]

im a proud supporter of anyone who is against the vapourisation of children


Does this mean you do not object to them being killed by blast, shrapnel, or fire?

[lionking]

Anyone who even remotely justifies the nuking of Japan is one sick individual.



It ended the war and potentially saved hundreds of thousands of allied soldiers, as well as Japanese fighting the invasion to the last man, so call me sick to your heart's content.

But this has been done to death in other threads only recently. Look them up, you may learn something. Doubtful though.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

It ended the war and potentially saved hundreds of thousands of allied soldiers, as well as Japanese fighting the invasion to the last man, so call me sick to your heart's content.

The excuse that the nukes were the sole reason for ending the war is BS

But this has been done to death in other threads only recently. Look them up, you may learn something. Doubtful though.

Oh dear. how embarrassing for you. Please remember that forums aren't always an easy ride. Better luck next time.

[lionking]

The excuse that the nukes were the sole reason for ending the war is BS
Is this in English? I think you may be repeating your earlier suggestion that the bombs were some sort of experiment. But you may also be saying that there were other reasons (involving conspiracies?) the war ended.

Hard to say.

[JoeyDonuts]

Ask anyone in Australia (with the exception of Old Bob perhaps) about whether or not the Japanese Imperial war machine swallowing the Pacific should have been stopped at any cost.

I'll wait.

[gtc]

Nonsense!!!!

Yes. That's what he writes.


:)

Well, you did walk it into it.

[GodisEnergy]

Amazing how people can justify vapourising children , when a simple blockade of the nation would have worked,

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Anyone else notice the anti-semitic twoofer (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/06/secondworldwar.warcrimes) quoted in the article?

The question begs: are the rest of us to be mere bystanders, claiming, as good Germans did, that "we did not know"? Do we hide ever more behind what Richard Falk has called "a self-righteous, one-way, legal/moral screen [with] positive images of western values and innocence portrayed as threatened, validating a campaign of unrestricted violence"?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Amazing how people can justify vapourising children , when a simple blockade of the nation would have worked,

Really?

Which is more humane? Blowing 200,000 up and forcing a surrender?

Or laying siege and starving 50 million to death?

I don't think you've thought this through.

[JoeyDonuts]

Amazing how people can justify vapourising children , when a simple blockade of the nation would have worked,

And yet you have chosen an avatar that seems to celebrate the moment when a couple thousand innocent people were murdered.

Welcome to ignore.

[Foolmewunz]

Amazing how people can justify vapourising children , when a simple blockade of the nation would have worked,


Do you actually know anything about WWII? It was in all the papers, and I'm sure you could find something on it.

Blockade? In 1945? Do you see the abject stupidity of that comment? The country was blockaded and the blockaders were closing in on all sides. What more of a blockade would you propose? A big ol' Cyclone fence? And in the face of said blockade they had housewives and children preparing to defend the empire with broomsticks and shovels.

[kageki]

But that's beyond dumb. Not only would the US not really need that sort of 'test' if Japan surrendered, but for this conspiracy to work, Japan would have to be in on it. That's just insane.

How do you reckon that Japan would have to be in on it!? That makes no sense at all.

The point here is that the US propaganda that the "bomb saved lives" is an atrocious lie. Japan was already looking to surrender prior to the bomb, but the US insisted on an "unconditional" surrender. In any regards, there were crazies that wanted to use it and got their wish.

[MRC_Hans]

Amazing how people can justify vapourising children , when a simple blockade of the nation would have worked,Kindly point to any recent example in history where a blockade has brought a warring country to surrender.

The die-hard groups in WW2 Japan were literally die-hards: In their ideology, death was preferable to surrender. If an effective blockade could have been implemented (rather doubtful considering the technology of the era), it might eventually have brought Japan to surrender, but not before the whole population had suffered horribly for a long period.

But, perhaps you prefer starving children to death, rather than vapourizing them?

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

How do you reckon that Japan would have to be in on it!? That makes no sense at all.

The point here is that the US propaganda that the "bomb saved lives" is an atrocious lie. Japan was already looking to surrender prior to the bomb, but the US insisted on an "unconditional" surrender. In any regards, there were crazies that wanted to use it and got their wish.

Ehr no, the bomb did save lives. Allied lives. Wether it saved Japanese lived is surely questionable, but I don't really think US people of the era were much concerned about that.

I think one of the errors here is trying to judge a 1945 event with 2008 morals. It just won't work.

Hans

[kageki]

Ehr no, the bomb did save lives. Allied lives. Wether it saved Japanese lived is surely questionable, but I don't really think US people of the era were much concerned about that.

I think one of the errors here is trying to judge a 1945 event with 2008 morals. It just won't work.

Hans

No. As the article points out that Japan was already considering to surrender. Another issue was the US insistence on "unconditional surrender".

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html



General Douglas MacArthur, Commander of US Army forces in the Pacific, stated on numerous occasions before his death that the atomic bomb was completely unnecessary from a military point of view: "My staff was unanimous in believing that Japan was on the point of collapse and surrender."

General Curtis LeMay, who had pioneered precision bombing of Germany and Japan (and who later headed the Strategic Air Command and served as Air Force chief of staff), put it most succinctly: "The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war."

[KDLarsen]

Institute for Historical Review as a credible historical source? Don't make me laugh.

From an excellent (albeit a few years old now) article on the Ultra interceptions of Japanese (and as it turned out, Neutral countries') communications: (my highlighting)
The diplomatic intercepts included, for example, those of neutral diplomats or attachés stationed in Japan. Critics highlighted a few nuggets from this trove in the 1978 releases, but with the complete release, we learned that there were only 3 or 4 messages suggesting the possibility of a compromise peace, while no fewer than 13 affirmed that Japan fully intended to fight to the bitter end. Another page in the critics' canon emphasized a squad of Japanese diplomats in Europe, from Sweden to the Vatican, who attempted to become peace entrepreneurs in their contacts with American officials. As the editors of the "Magic" Diplomatic Summary correctly made clear to American policymakers during the war, however, not a single one of these men (save one we will address shortly) possessed actual authority to act for the Japanese government.
The full article is here: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/894mnyyl.asp?pg=1

[kageki]

Institute for Historical Review as a credible historical source? Don't make me laugh.

You're telling me those quotes aren't real?

Can you people ever even debate the facts. :rolleyes:

[kageki]

Ask anyone in Australia (with the exception of Old Bob perhaps) about whether or not the Japanese Imperial war machine swallowing the Pacific should have been stopped at any cost.

I'll wait.

They wouldn't have done that if the US didn't impose an oil embargo in the first place.

Besides the Pacific were colonies by european countries at that point. I suppose it's perfectly ok when they invade and occupy countries?

[kageki]

The fact remains that the Japanese did extend a peace offer, whether or not there was a small group that still wanted to fight doesn't really matter. The emperor himself wanted peace and inevitably the reality would be too overwhelming when the entire army and navy is essentially defeated and the country already heavily damaged by conventional bombings.

[MRC_Hans]

No. As the article points out that Japan was already considering to surrender. Another issue was the US insistence on "unconditional surrender".


And, as others have pointed out, considering to surrender is not the same as being about to surrender. There were no doubt groups in Japan who would have preferred surrendering long before, but there were others who were ready to fight literally to death.

As for unconditional surrender, which conditions exactly do you think the US should have been ready to accept?

There are people, also some with good military insight who claim that the A-bombs ere not necessary, just as some claim that the bomber offensive in WW2 Europe accomplished nothing of real value. One may agree or disagree, but such speculations and evaluations are only possible in hindsight.

But of course, there were no doubt people who were eager to demonstrate their shiny new toy. I just don't see why the US govt should have allowed them to do it, unless there was some reasonably sober reason to do so.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

They wouldn't have done that if the US didn't impose an oil embargo in the first place.

I think it is prett naive to try to point to any one single reason for the Pacific war. Still, two wrongs don't make a right. An oil embargo is a peaceful weapon.

Besides the Pacific were colonies by european countries at that point. I suppose it's perfectly ok when they invade and occupy countries?

Hahah, good point. But then, point me to a country where the current population has an eternal heritance to the territory.

Hans

[gtc]

Besides the Pacific were colonies by european countries at that point. I suppose it's perfectly ok when they invade and occupy countries?

Thailand, Hawaii and Australia weren't European colonies to name three.

[kageki]

And, as others have pointed out, considering to surrender is not the same as being about to surrender. There were no doubt groups in Japan who would have preferred surrendering long before, but there were others who were ready to fight literally to death.

As for unconditional surrender, which conditions exactly do you think the US should have been ready to accept?

There are people, also some with good military insight who claim that the A-bombs ere not necessary, just as some claim that the bomber offensive in WW2 Europe accomplished nothing of real value. One may agree or disagree, but such speculations and evaluations are only possible in hindsight.

But of course, there were no doubt people who were eager to demonstrate their shiny new toy. I just don't see why the US govt should have allowed them to do it, unless there was some reasonably sober reason to do so.

Hans

A peace offer was made. A couple even. That is not just a consideration! You seem to not understand that the peace offers were rejected by the US! So what if there were some that were ready to fight? Were they the majority?


In April and May 1945, Japan made three attempts through neutral Sweden and Portugal to bring the war to a peaceful end. On April 7, acting Foreign Minister Mamoru Shigemitsu met with Swedish ambassador Widon Bagge in Tokyo, asking him "to ascertain what peace terms the United States and Britain had in mind." But he emphasized that unconditional surrender was unacceptable, and that "the Emperor must not be touched." Bagge relayed the message to the United States, but Secretary of State Stettinius told the US Ambassador in Sweden to "show no interest or take any initiative in pursuit of the matter." Similar Japanese peace signals through Portugal, on May 7, and again through Sweden, on the 10th, proved similarly fruitless.

By mid-June, six members of Japan's Supreme War Council had secretly charged Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo with the task of approaching Soviet Russia's leaders "with a view to terminating the war if possible by September." On June 22 the Emperor called a meeting of the Supreme War Council, which included the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, and the leading military figures. "We have heard enough of this determination of yours to fight to the last soldiers," said Emperor Hirohito. "We wish that you, leaders of Japan, will strive now to study the ways and the means to conclude the war. In doing so, try not to be bound by the decisions you have made in the past."

The Japanese were ready to accept almost everything demanded by the US except that the "Emperor must not be touched". That was their only real condition.

Such speculation is only possible in hindsight and yet we believe that the "bomb saved lives" as gospel. The point is it didn't.

[kageki]

Thailand, Hawaii and Australia weren't European colonies to name three.

Hawaii is basically an American colony.

Where do you think Australians come from?

[gtc]

Where do you think Australians come from?

I suspect I have a better understanding of Australian history than you do.

[kageki]

I suspect I have a better understanding of Australian history than you do.

So then explain to me where Australians come from?

[KDLarsen]

In April and May 1945, Japan made three attempts through neutral Sweden and Portugal to bring the war to a peaceful end. On April 7, acting Foreign Minister Mamoru Shigemitsu met with Swedish ambassador Widon Bagge in Tokyo, asking him "to ascertain what peace terms the United States and Britain had in mind." But he emphasized that unconditional surrender was unacceptable, and that "the Emperor must not be touched." Bagge relayed the message to the United States, but Secretary of State Stettinius told the US Ambassador in Sweden to "show no interest or take any initiative in pursuit of the matter." Similar Japanese peace signals through Portugal, on May 7, and again through Sweden, on the 10th, proved similarly fruitless.
The Ultra-interceptions made it clear, that none of these officials had official authority from the Japanese government to make these attempts.

The Japanese were ready to accept almost everything demanded by the US except that the "Emperor must not be touched". That was their only real condition..
.. except that it wasn't:

But when Foreign Minister Togo informed Ambassador Sato that Japan was not looking for anything like unconditional surrender, Sato promptly wired back a cable that the editors of the "Magic" Diplomatic Summary made clear to American policymakers "advocate[s] unconditional surrender provided the Imperial House is preserved." Togo's reply, quoted in the "Magic" Diplomatic Summary of July 22, 1945, was adamant: American policymakers could read for themselves Togo's rejection of Sato's proposal--with not even a hint that a guarantee of the Imperial House would be a step in the right direction.
The "Magic" Diplomatic Summary of July 22, 1945 can be read in its entirety here: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/40.pdf The relevant section is on the first 2 pages.

[kageki]

I think it is prett naive to try to point to any one single reason for the Pacific war. Still, two wrongs don't make a right. An oil embargo is a peaceful weapon.



Hahah, good point. But then, point me to a country where the current population has an eternal heritance to the territory.

Hans

It is NOT a peaceful weapon. You are pretty naive to say that. Explain to me then why Japan decided to invade those countries in the Pacific?

The point is that it is ridiculous to harp about how Japan was invading other countries and then a turn a blind eye to your own entire history. Again Japan wouldn't have done that if they didn't need to.

[Damien Evans]

Amazing how people can justify vapourising children , when a simple blockade of the nation would have worked,

:dl:

[kageki]

The Ultra-interceptions made it clear, that none of these officials had official authority from the Japanese government to make these attempts.


.. except that it wasn't:


The "Magic" Diplomatic Summary of July 22, 1945 can be read in its entirety here: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/40.pdf The relevant section is on the first 2 pages.

That quote is merely an opinion asserted by that magazine. I will quote the entire first half that you omitted:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/894mnyyl.asp?pg=2


This last comment triggered a fateful exchange. Critics have pointed out correctly that both Under Secretary of State Joseph Grew (the former U.S. ambassador to Japan and the leading expert on that nation within the government) and Secretary of War Henry Stimson advised Truman that a guarantee that the Imperial Institution would not be eliminated could prove essential to obtaining Japan's surrender. The critics further have argued that if only the United States had made such a guarantee, Japan would have surrendered.

But when Foreign Minister Togo informed Ambassador Sato that Japan was not looking for anything like unconditional surrender, Sato promptly wired back a cable that the editors of the "Magic" Diplomatic Summary made clear to American policymakers "advocate[s] unconditional surrender provided the Imperial House is preserved." Togo's reply, quoted in the "Magic" Diplomatic Summary of July 22, 1945, was adamant: American policymakers could read for themselves Togo's rejection of Sato's proposal--with not even a hint that a guarantee of the Imperial House would be a step in the right direction. Any rational person following this exchange would conclude that modifying the demand for unconditional surrender to include a promise to preserve the Imperial House would not secure Japan's surrender.

Italics denote the opinion by the magazine.

From the "Magic" Diplomatic summary:


It is in order to avoid such a state of affairs we are seeking a peace which is not so-called un-conditional surrender through the good offices of Russia.

Certainly you cannot deny that Japan was interested in making peace and did make offers? It doesn't even matter if those people technically didn't have the authority since the US rejected them anyways. It was the US that demanded unconditional surrender and rejected anything, but that. We can also say that had the US made some concessions then peace would have been easily achieved and off course the bomb was nowhere near "necessary".

[MRC_Hans]

A peace offer was made. A couple even. That is not just a consideration! You seem to not understand that the peace offers were rejected by the US! So what if there were some that were ready to fight? Were they the majority?

Majority? My friend, Japan in 1945 was not a democracy. Peace offers from whom? From people who were actually in a position to enforce a peace?


The Japanese were ready to accept almost everything demanded by the US except that the "Emperor must not be touched". That was their only real condition.


And one condition they got.

Such speculation is only possible in hindsight and yet we believe that the "bomb saved lives" as gospel. The point is it didn't.

Who "we"? I certainly don't take it as gospel. But I also don't take the opposite as gospel, like you seem to.

The point, the real point, however, is not whether we might NOW, after we have uncovered all the facts, find that the bomb did not have the effect advertised, the point is whether the decision-makers of that time had any chance to know.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

It is NOT a peaceful weapon. You are pretty naive to say that. Explain to me then why Japan decided to invade those countries in the Pacific?

The term "peaceful weapon" is, obviously, an oxymoron. Nevertheless, embargos are generally considered a peaceful alternative to real war.


The point is that it is ridiculous to harp about how Japan was invading other countries and then a turn a blind eye to your own entire history. Again Japan wouldn't have done that if they didn't need to


That is silly. So because my distant forefathers invaded the country I am now in, I should not resist if some other country decides to invade it now, for some reason they deem necessary?

Hans

[kageki]

Majority? My friend, Japan in 1945 was not a democracy. Peace offers from whom? From people who were actually in a position to enforce a peace?



And one condition they got.



Who "we"? I certainly don't take it as gospel. But I also don't take the opposite as gospel, like you seem to.

The point, the real point, however, is not whether we might NOW, after we have uncovered all the facts, find that the bomb did not have the effect advertised, the point is whether the decision-makers of that time had any chance to know.

Hans

The emperor himself wanted peace. If those people didn't have the authority then who did?

They did not get that condition of safety for the Imperial House. That's the whole point.

[kageki]

The term "peaceful weapon" is, obviously, an oxymoron. Nevertheless, embargos are generally considered a peaceful alternative to real war.



That is silly. So because my distant forefathers invaded the country I am now in, I should not resist if some other country decides to invade it now, for some reason they deem necessary?

Hans

That is your opinion as to others it is an act of war.

You do realize that the US didn't want anything to do with WWI or WWII initially? At least the people anyways. I'm not sure what you are talking about at this point if you are referring to the Pacific countries or something else. I hope you don't mind when other countries resist the US invasion of Iraq as well.

[funk de fino]

I'd like to know why Israel and Zionists are mentioned so many times in this thread. By the same person.

Scarily obsessed. Surely you can keep the dirge in your other threads and not pollute this one?

[funk de fino]

I suppose the japanese military are well known for their ability to surrender and accept defeat in a calm and non emotional manner.

They would never fight to the death or commit suicide when they feel ashamed or have been defeated?

would they?

[twinstead]

Well. Hindsight certainly IS 20/20, isn't it?

Historical backseat drivers ROCK!

[JimBenArm]

im a proud supporter of anyone who is against the vapourisation of children
I see you're not a parent...

[Dave Rogers]

It is NOT a peaceful weapon. You are pretty naive to say that. Explain to me then why Japan decided to invade those countries in the Pacific?

If I recall correctly, Japan had sufficient sources of energy to fuel its domestic economy without the addition of US oil supplies. The specific need for additional oil supplies from the US arose from Japan's desire to continue to conduct a war of conquest in China. The US embargo was specifically linked to the Japanese war effort in China, and it was made clear that a cessation of aggression against China would result in a lifting of the embargo. The Japanese therefore went to war with the USA in order to safeguard their ability to attack China. This involved annexation of the oil fields in the East Indies, sited in what at the time were Dutch colonies, and the establishment of a defensive perimeter to safeguard delivery of the oil from those fields to Japan.

The oil embargo was the only peaceful means available to the USA to influence Japan to abandon this course of action, and was fully in line with international law at the time. In the circumstances, the embargo need not have caused any suffering in the Japanese population. Given that Japan was acting illegally and the USA was not, what exactly is a possible cause for complaint about the embargo?

Dave

[JimBenArm]

This thread reminded me of some T-shirts that I saw in Olongapo in the '70s. Big mushroom cloud on the front with the text "Made in America. Tested in Japan."
Ah, memories.

[DevilsAdvocate]

The fact remains that the Japanese did extend a peace offer, whether or not there was a small group that still wanted to fight doesn't really matter. The emperor himself wanted peace and inevitably the reality would be too overwhelming when the entire army and navy is essentially defeated and the country already heavily damaged by conventional bombings.I'm certainly no expert, so explain it to me. My understanding is that the U.S. stayed out of WWII. Then the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. So the U.S. engaged war against the Japanese, and the axis forces. The Germans were defeated and the U.S. was winning the war against the Japanese. The allies demanded “unconditional surrender by Japan” or "the alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction". Japan rejected surrender and Hiroshima was bombed. Japan was given another chance to surrender, but refused and Nagasaki was bombed.

The U.S. and the allies did not want a “peace offer”, and rightly so. The U.S. already had “peace” with the Japanese but had been attacked without warrant. After getting the upper hand the U.S. had no reason to accept a “peace offer”. The U.S. had peace before Pearl Harbor, after that, it didn’t need a “peace offer” but a “unconditional surrender”. Japan was the attacker. The U.S. had the upper hand. The U.S. had a moral and military position to demand unconditional surrender. The U.S. held it’s hand and its position and followed through.

I don’t see the conspiracy. Japan had numerous opportunities to avoid the bombings from the Potsdam Declaration to Hiroshima, and beyond. I think Truman really wanted to avoid the bombings, but Japan gave him little choice.

[kageki]

If I recall correctly, Japan had sufficient sources of energy to fuel its domestic economy without the addition of US oil supplies. The specific need for additional oil supplies from the US arose from Japan's desire to continue to conduct a war of conquest in China. The US embargo was specifically linked to the Japanese war effort in China, and it was made clear that a cessation of aggression against China would result in a lifting of the embargo. The Japanese therefore went to war with the USA in order to safeguard their ability to attack China. This involved annexation of the oil fields in the East Indies, sited in what at the time were Dutch colonies, and the establishment of a defensive perimeter to safeguard delivery of the oil from those fields to Japan.

The oil embargo was the only peaceful means available to the USA to influence Japan to abandon this course of action, and was fully in line with international law at the time. In the circumstances, the embargo need not have caused any suffering in the Japanese population. Given that Japan was acting illegally and the USA was not, what exactly is a possible cause for complaint about the embargo?

Dave

I don't believe you are recalling correctly. Perhaps you can offer details as to Japan's sources and how much the US provided.

It's not like the US really cared as you make it seem. The people certainly didn't care and didn't want to get involved.

Should Japan have interefered with Hong Kong or the Philippines or those Dutch colonies? It seems like you don't have a problem when your country does it.

[kageki]

I'm certainly no expert, so explain it to me. My understanding is that the U.S. stayed out of WWII. Then the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. So the U.S. engaged war against the Japanese, and the axis forces. The Germans were defeated and the U.S. was winning the war against the Japanese. The allies demanded “unconditional surrender by Japan” or "the alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction". Japan rejected surrender and Hiroshima was bombed. Japan was given another chance to surrender, but refused and Nagasaki was bombed.

The U.S. and the allies did not want a “peace offer”, and rightly so. The U.S. already had “peace” with the Japanese but had been attacked without warrant. After getting the upper hand the U.S. had no reason to accept a “peace offer”. The U.S. had peace before Pearl Harbor, after that, it didn’t need a “peace offer” but a “unconditional surrender”. Japan was the attacker. The U.S. had the upper hand. The U.S. had a moral and military position to demand unconditional surrender. The U.S. held it’s hand and its position and followed through.

I don’t see the conspiracy. Japan had numerous opportunities to avoid the bombings from the Potsdam Declaration to Hiroshima, and beyond. I think Truman really wanted to avoid the bombings, but Japan gave him little choice.

As discussed, Japan would not have attacked or bombed Pearl Harbor had the US not imposed an oil embargo.

Japan specifically rejected UNCONDITIONAL surrender. Not just surrender.

You haven't read a thing in this thread or any of the articles posted. I don't see why you even feel your post has any merit at all.

[kookbreaker]

im a proud supporter of anyone who is against the vapourisation of children

You prefer that they be used for bayonet practice like at Nanking?

[lordofwaffles]

The United States cared very little on a whole what was happening in the 1930's in China. On a whole, it had more pressing issues, like the Great Depression to worry about, and the post World War One isolationist stance further diminished any interest the American people had in getting involved in a war that did not directly involve American interests on a whole.

After continued Japanese atrocities (don't even try to deny the treatment of the Chinese by the Japanese military was beyond the pale), some outcry was raised. The route chosen by the American government was fairly simple, in that we did not want our resources funding Japan's war. A very sensible, and simple argument, and by no means an act of war (unless shooting me because i wouldn't loan you my ladder to break into your neighbor's house to rape his wife counts as self defense that is).

Pearl Harbor was a deliberate attack intended to ensure US non-intervention in Japanese conquests of areas that contained resources it needed to continue the war in China. The fact the US continued the fight, and beat the daylights out of Japan was a consequence Japan had failed to anticipate.

And for the record, your colonialism excuse is pretty threadbare. If my uncle got rich robbing houses, by no means would that justify your breaking and entering to rob my apartment.

Dropping the atomic bomb was a rational choice, made by rational individuals to end the worst war we've ever seen. Did they have all the information? Of course not. Where there other courses of action that might have worked better? Maybe. Are there a whole host of horrible ideas that people are convinced should have been pursued? Hell yes.

But at the end of the day, the constant is the same. Truman made the choice to drop the bomb as a means of pushing the Japanese to surrender. The US insistence on unconditional surrender hinged largely on the desire to ensure Japan did not profit in any way from the war, and would be brought down to the point where it would be unable to wage aggressive war again, which was largely a result of "learning" from the Versailles treaty.

Japan wanted peace, but it wanted peace with the land it still held, her colonies intact, surviving military intact, and no accountability for what it had wrought. Hardly a peace suitable for anyone who isn't Japanese.

[kageki]

You prefer that they be used for bayonet practice like at Nanking?

Let's say that happened. Yes that would be better. Bayonets do not obliterate entire cities and cause generational damage in the form of radiation poisoning and threaten the world.

[funk de fino]

How many world wars have there been since the bomb was dropped?

Not saying the end justifies the means, but the end has a great result nonetheless. It's not like the US started this one (for once:rolleyes:).

[kookbreaker]

Japan wanted peace, but it wanted peace with the land it still held, her colonies intact, surviving military intact, and no accountability for what it had wrought. Hardly a peace suitable for anyone who isn't Japanese.

Yup. What Japan wanted was half-time, not a true surrender.

[kookbreaker]

Let's say that happened.


Wow. A Rape of Nanking denier. What fun


Yes that would be better. Bayonets do not obliterate entire cities


Nagasaki and Hiroshima are still around, in case you didn't notice.


and cause generational damage in the form of radiation poisoning and threaten the world.

The radiation from those cities never 'threatened the world'. The radiation level dropped pretty quickly.

As for 'generational damage', the joint Japanese-US monitoring programs found no evidence of it beyond the 9-month period after the blast.

[kageki]

Wow. A Rape of Nanking denier. What fun



Nagasaki and Hiroshima are still around, in case you didn't notice.



The radiation from those cities never 'threatened the world'. The radiation level dropped pretty quickly.

As for 'generational damage', the joint Japanese-US monitoring programs found no evidence of it beyond the 9-month period after the blast.

In case you didn't realize they were rebuilt. Is this a joke?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hiroshima_aftermath.jpg

The world is still threatened by a prospect of nuclear war. Are you actually arguing that atomic bombs are just dandy?

[Dave Rogers]

I don't believe you are recalling correctly. Perhaps you can offer details as to Japan's sources and how much the US provided.

I may be wrong. As far as I know the US provided about 80% of Japanese oil imports. It hardly matters, as Japan was engaged on an illegal war of aggression in China and the US oil embargo was a legally acceptable means of influencing Japan to desist. Refusing to sell commodities is not an act of war.

It's not like the US really cared as you make it seem. The people certainly didn't care and didn't want to get involved.

Argumentum ad populam. See above.

Should Japan have interefered with Hong Kong or the Philippines or those Dutch colonies? It seems like you don't have a problem when your country does it.

Argumentum ad hominem tu quoque. See above.

Dave

[kookbreaker]

In case you didn't realize they were rebuilt. Is this a joke?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hiroshima_aftermath.jpg


So was Nanking, so were almost all the cities devastated by conventional munitions.


The world is still threatened by a prospect of nuclear war. Are you actually arguing that atomic bombs are just dandy?

You seem to have this delusion that the US not developing the A-Bomb would have meant nuclear weapons would never have been developed. Should I remind you that both Japan and Germany had their own fission weapon programs?

[twinstead]

You seem to have this delusion that the US not developing the A-Bomb would have meant nuclear weapons would never have been developed. Should I remind you that both Japan and Germany had their own fission weapon programs?

And I'm sure the Soviets would have thrown up their hands and given up on nuclear weapons had the US not developed them. Obviously some people think that the US is so omnipotent that had we not developed the nuclear bomb the laws of physics would be different and the world would have been free of fear.

[kageki]

The United States cared very little on a whole what was happening in the 1930's in China. On a whole, it had more pressing issues, like the Great Depression to worry about, and the post World War One isolationist stance further diminished any interest the American people had in getting involved in a war that did not directly involve American interests on a whole.

After continued Japanese atrocities (don't even try to deny the treatment of the Chinese by the Japanese military was beyond the pale), some outcry was raised. The route chosen by the American government was fairly simple, in that we did not want our resources funding Japan's war. A very sensible, and simple argument, and by no means an act of war (unless shooting me because i wouldn't loan you my ladder to break into your neighbor's house to rape his wife counts as self defense that is).

Pearl Harbor was a deliberate attack intended to ensure US non-intervention in Japanese conquests of areas that contained resources it needed to continue the war in China. The fact the US continued the fight, and beat the daylights out of Japan was a consequence Japan had failed to anticipate.

And for the record, your colonialism excuse is pretty threadbare. If my uncle got rich robbing houses, by no means would that justify your breaking and entering to rob my apartment.

Dropping the atomic bomb was a rational choice, made by rational individuals to end the worst war we've ever seen. Did they have all the information? Of course not. Where there other courses of action that might have worked better? Maybe. Are there a whole host of horrible ideas that people are convinced should have been pursued? Hell yes.

But at the end of the day, the constant is the same. Truman made the choice to drop the bomb as a means of pushing the Japanese to surrender. The US insistence on unconditional surrender hinged largely on the desire to ensure Japan did not profit in any way from the war, and would be brought down to the point where it would be unable to wage aggressive war again, which was largely a result of "learning" from the Versailles treaty.

Japan wanted peace, but it wanted peace with the land it still held, her colonies intact, surviving military intact, and no accountability for what it had wrought. Hardly a peace suitable for anyone who isn't Japanese.

Have you ever condemned your uncle for robbing houses? No.

I believe Japan was ready to give up all the land and dropping the bomb wasn't a rational choice.

You really better start citing sources because this is just coming across as typical propaganda nonsense that you just made up.

[Damien Evans]

Let's say that happened. Yes that would be better. Bayonets do not obliterate entire cities and cause generational damage in the form of radiation poisoning and threaten the world.

You sicken me.

[kageki]

So was Nanking, so were almost all the cities devastated by conventional munitions.



You seem to have this delusion that the US not developing the A-Bomb would have meant nuclear weapons would never have been developed. Should I remind you that both Japan and Germany had their own fission weapon programs?

You can't be serious. Obliterated. Not devastated. Not ruins. Gone completely. Evaporated.

The point was originally that bayonets are indeed better off then atomic bombs. Let's not derail this any further.

[kageki]

I may be wrong. As far as I know the US provided about 80% of Japanese oil imports. It hardly matters, as Japan was engaged on an illegal war of aggression in China and the US oil embargo was a legally acceptable means of influencing Japan to desist. Refusing to sell commodities is not an act of war.



Argumentum ad populam. See above.



Argumentum ad hominem tu quoque. See above.

Dave

The US very well understood the consequences of imposing an oil embargo. Besides that wasn't the only thing they did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sino-Japanese_War#Allies.27_support

[kookbreaker]

You can't be serious. Obliterated. Not devastated. Not ruins. Gone completely. Evaporated.


You might want to look at the comparitive damages of the Tokyo firebombing and other spread damages to the effects of Fat Boy. You seem to have this idea that the vaporization range is more extensive that it actually is.


The point was originally that bayonets are indeed better off then atomic bombs. Let's not derail this any further.

I specifically said 'bayonet practice', if you recall. The point of which you missed from the start, or rather you implied it never happened.

[kageki]

How many world wars have there been since the bomb was dropped?

Not saying the end justifies the means, but the end has a great result nonetheless. It's not like the US started this one (for once:rolleyes:).

How many wars did the US start after?

Japan was never interested in fighting the US. Just throwing that out there.

[kookbreaker]

The US very well understood the consequences of imposing an oil embargo.


They did? Wow. Such perfect foresight


Besides that wasn't the only thing they did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sino-Japanese_War#Allies.27_support

Oh my! Loans, material assistance and the formation of a Volunteer Flying group to help a country being invaded, raped and plundered! What a horrible, horrible monster the US is!!!

[kageki]

You might want to look at the comparitive damages of the Tokyo firebombing and other spread damages to the effects of Fat Boy. You seem to have this idea that the vaporization range is more extensive that it actually is.



I specifically said 'bayonet practice', if you recall. The point of which you missed from the start, or rather you implied it never happened.

You're comparing an extensive bombing campaign to just one bomb? Kook show me one person who would take you seriously.

[MRC_Hans]

The emperor himself wanted peace. If those people didn't have the authority then who did?

Methinks he forgot to inform the Americans about that.

They did not get that condition of safety for the Imperial House. That's the whole point.

On this planet they did. Notice that the empire is still here.

Hans

[kageki]

They did? Wow. Such perfect foresight



Oh my! Loans, material assistance and the formation of a Volunteer Flying group to help a country being invaded, raped and plundered! What a horrible, horrible monster the US is!!!

This is what people do Kook. They plan stuff and think ahead. Ever hear of war games? Was it really hard to anticipate what the Japanese would do if an oil embargo was imposed?

The point is that the US was openly assisting the enemy to Japan and that the oil embargo was not the only thing. This also ties into the notion that Pearl Harbor was a "surprise" and that Japan attacked for no reason. What an utter joke.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCollum_memo


If by these means Japan could be led to commit an overt act of war, so much the better. At all events we must be fully prepared to accept the threat of war. -- A. H. McCollum

[kageki]

Methinks he forgot to inform the Americans about that.



On this planet they did. Notice that the empire is still here.

Hans

Methinks the US government forgot to inform their own people. Besides it was informed to the US government which is the important part.

They did not ensure the safety at that time. That is the point.

[kookbreaker]

You're comparing an extensive bombing campaign to just one bomb? Kook show me one person who would take you seriously.

The Tokyo firebombing was one night's worth of raids. It did extensive damage to the city and easily have killed as many as either of the A-bombs. We may never know because of wartime secrecy, but the casualties were comparable.

You seem to be almost whining that the A-bomb was unfair because it was only one bomb and one bomber. Why?

[kookbreaker]

Japan was never interested in fighting the US. Just throwing that out there.

Which makes their attacks on Pearl Harbor, Phillipines, et al all the more idiotic, doesn't it?

[kookbreaker]

This is what people do Kook. They plan stuff and think ahead. Ever hear of war games? Was it really hard to anticipate what the Japanese would do if an oil embargo was imposed?


Yes.

You seem to think that holding wargames = inevitable war. Militaries
plan for war all the time, wars that may never happen. The US and NATO planned for war with the Soviet Union that never happened. They held wargames for decades. We even put a few embargos on the Soviets as well. Didn't start a war.


The point is that the US was openly assisting the enemy to Japan and that the oil embargo was not the only thing.


The US was giving aid to a country that was being devastated and having atrocities being inflicted on it by Imperial Japan. Why is that a bad thing?


This also ties into the notion that Pearl Harbor was a "surprise" and that
Japan attacked for no reason. What an utter joke.


The utter joke is any notion that Japan 'had' to attack the US as a result of political actions. Does it ever occur to you in your apologies for Imperial Japan that maybe, just maybe they could have loosened up on their rapine of other Pacific countries?

[Dave Rogers]

The US very well understood the consequences of imposing an oil embargo.

The US understood very well that the Japanese would have to either abandon their illegal war of aggression and mass murder in China or embark on another war of aggression against the USA, yes. It's like the way that when a policeman says "Stop or I'll shoot", he understands that the criminal has a choice between stopping acting illegally or being shot. Japan in the 1930's was a vicious, murderous criminal of a state. It was extraordinarily charitable of the USA to offer the country the opportunity to stop before being shot. Sadly, that offer was refused. It would have been foolish to accept anything less than unconditional surrender in the circumstances.

Dave

[JamesB]

To paraphrase the troofers and their Operation Northwoods stuff, "Google Operation Downfall".

[jaydeehess]

Its not a conspiracy. No one who was born before yesterday is gullible enough to believe the bombings were not a sick experiment. Two bombs, one gun type, one implosion type. A second plane designated specifically to record and monitor the event.

Anyone who even remotely justifies the nuking of Japan is one sick individual.

I feel even more strongly about this than I do about the atrocities committed by the Zionists.

Thousands of Japanese murdered for an experiment. Totally and utterly *********** sick!!! :mad: :mad:


Perhaps you need to look up the meaning of the word "conspiracy".

Genocide you call it. Were the firestorms created in European cities by conventional weapons also genocide?

As has been pointed out the sole difference between the use of atomic weapons and the convetional high explosive+incindiary weapons is the number of bombs and aircraft used.

After each of those bombings a recon aircraft passed over the city to survey the result, that is to capture photos of the burning city directly after the raid, or the next day to check the final result.
The recon aircraft for the atromic bombings HAD to be created specially for the task as it would be in danger from the blast effect itself.
The first time any new eapon is tested in battle there is recon of how it functioned. The first time naplam was used there were videos, cruise missiles were followed by satellite and nowadays the aircraft that drop bombs take their own videos of the attack. That you find it somehow especially significant that there was a recon aircraft accompanying the attack aircraft is pretty dumb.

The USA had the wherewithal to have waited a few weeks later and had several new atomic weapons available all on the same day,(say half a dozen, and then used 12 planes (6 with weapons and 6 observer aircraft) to obliterate 6 Japanese cities all on one day. Hell they mounted aircraft attacks in Europe consisting of hundreds of bombers easily. Tell me, how many European cities were razed as completely as Hiroshima or Nagasaki? 2? 5? 10? dozens?
They could have mounted a 100 aircraft attack targeting 50 Japanese cities. The only thing preventing this was the availability of atomic bombs.

[jaydeehess]

So then explain to me where Australians come from?

Not from Japan.

The peoples of Japan did not originate in Japan either. You know full well that the people we regularily refer to as Japanese consist of two races and that the dominant one is the late comer to the islands of Japan.

Just because there is no written history of the original colonization of Japan does not make it any different that the Europen colonization of other areas of the world.

Tell me, did Japan invade China in order to create a benevolent Empire for all east Asians and to free them from the Euopean colonists? How about the Phillipines? Japan had its sights on Australia as well. How would that fit into such a benevolent Empire of Asian races?

[Roadtoad]

Oh, joy. TFT strikes again.

1.) Yes, Japan had diplomats trying to sue for peace. However, as has been pointed out in earlier posts, they had no authority to do so, and it was a last ditch effort to try and save what there was of Imperial Japan.

This has been discussed in numerous books by far more reliable (and factual) writers. The goal of the bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not to kill children, but to end the war and save lives. In fact, according to Alexander Haig in one of his books, by fighting a war as a war, (instead of a "police action"), casualties are far less, and lives are saved.

2.) Japan, as has been noted in numerous other books, was prepared to fight to the death. This meant that anything with a pulse would have been thrown at American, British, Australian, and other allied soldiers attempting a landing anywhere on the Japanese mainland. Considering the success of such actions in the past, (re: the fleet of Kublai Khan, which wound up being sunk), that didn't seem like such a smart move to American military planners, who, in 1945, seemed to have a better handle on history.

3.) Japan attacked first. Period.

4.) As you are attempting to smear the reputation of millions of people, you might want to remember Unit 731. Google it. Read up on it. Japan cannot deny what that unit did. There's far more evidence for their actions than there is for what you're claiming the US did.

5.) At no point in history has a blockade or embargo had any real effect. It's a political move, smart sometimes, but not often. Militarily, it's a joke. During the Albigenian Crusades of the 13th and 14th Centuries, the crusaders would attempt to block off supplies to the Citadelles Vertiginous, only to discover that they were being resupplied with insulting ease by those who supported Languedoc. Hell, we've blockaded Cuba, and they still managed to stay well supplied. So blockading Japan would have been nothing short of a joke.

Can you say "ill-informed"?

[beachnut]

...
...
Japan wouldn't have done that if they didn't need to.
Japan needed to bayonet babies in China?
Japan needed to have a Bataan death march?
Japan needed to kill civilians for no reason?
Japan had to murder hundreds of thousands POWs?

Japan needed two nukes to stop them? yes

I see; they needed to be nuked because they needed what they wanted when they wanted it.

Why did the Japanese fight so hard in Okinawa if they wanted to surrender? Why not save 100,000 troops and surrender? Oops, they kept fighting because they ejected Gandhi as a role model?

Japan tried to surrender before Hiroshima and they failed. Not much of a conspiracy.

Japan’s brutal defense of Okinawa is not that of a nation trying to surrender. No conspiracy, this was a war started by Japan because they needed it. Cool

[PhantomWolf]

Just wanted to remind people that Kageki is Japanese and their education system treats WW2 a little differently to our own.

[Thunder]

i dont believe it one bit. the Japanese refused to surrender. we gave them three days. then we dropped the 2nd bomb.

[Roma]

I can't believe that anyone would ever accuse the U.S. of unnecessarily bombing another country.....:covereyes

[dudalb]

i dont believe it one bit. the Japanese refused to surrender. we gave them three days. then we dropped the 2nd bomb.

And even then, Extremists within the Japanese Army attempted a coup against the peace party that damn near suceeded when it was decided to accept the Potsdam terms.

[dudalb]

I can't believe that anyone would ever accuse the U.S. of unnecessarily bombing another country.....:covereyes


Nice Cheap shot.

[Hokulele]

Which makes their attacks on Pearl Harbor, Phillipines, et al all the more idiotic, doesn't it?


And Alaska...

[jaydeehess]

Just wanted to remind people that Kageki is Japanese and their education system treats WW2 a little differently to our own.

I believe that most of us realized that he is Japanese. Some of what we have here is a clash of nationistic pride on both sides.

There is ample horror in WW2 to show both sides as commiting grevious acts.

However history shows that Japan began the war with the USA by attacking not only Hawaii but also the Phillipines. To suggest that this was done to liberate those island groups from American colonization is absurd.
To suggest that Japan had no choice but to attack the uSA is just as absurd. It was pointed out that the events leading up to that attack were reactions to the Japanese invasion of China and Japan's desire to create a Pacific Empire of its own. Obviously the Japanese would have expected a push back when they began to take the colonies of the west by force. By invading China they garnered an embargo, by attacking Hawaii and The Phillipines they gained war with the USA, by attacking British colonies the got war with England and by attacking Australia they got war with Australia.

Dumb moves all around. We often cite Hitler's decision to attack Russia as the beginning of the downfall of the 3rd Reich, the war on two fronts being unsustainable. Japan jumped into a war that brought in the single most powerful country not already involved in WW2, a country they had little chance of being able to defeat on its home ground which is much the same as the Germans against Russia. The major difference being that Russia is an emmense land area whereas the Pacifac is an emmense ocean area. Both involve very long, difficult to maintain and defend, supply lines.

There wasn't much the British could have done to stop the Japanese, had they concentrated only on European colonies they might have survived. The supply lines would have been shorter and more easily defended and it would not have brought the USA into the war.

Of course had Japan waited until Germany defeated England it may have gone better, if Germany had waited until England was defeated before attacking Russia it may have gone better,,,, coulda, shoulda, woulda.

Back to the OP though. Japan was not going to surrender, a few politicians and diplomats does not a surrender make. Besides, if I recall they wanted a conditional surrender. The Allies wanted an unconditional surrender for obvious reasons.

[kageki]

Just wanted to remind people that Kageki is Japanese and their education system treats WW2 a little differently to our own.

I grew up in the US and still live here. What would you know about me anyways?

[kageki]

i dont believe it one bit. the Japanese refused to surrender. we gave them three days. then we dropped the 2nd bomb.

You don't believe it because you don't want to.

UNCONDITIONAL surrender.

[twinstead]

You don't believe it because you don't want to.

UNCONDITIONAL surrender.


It appears there may a few things YOU don't believe because you "don't want to" as well. You do realize you're not the only person in the world to have studied the Second World War, right?

[kageki]

I believe that most of us realized that he is Japanese. Some of what we have here is a clash of nationistic pride on both sides.

There is ample horror in WW2 to show both sides as commiting grevious acts.

However history shows that Japan began the war with the USA by attacking not only Hawaii but also the Phillipines. To suggest that this was done to liberate those island groups from American colonization is absurd.
To suggest that Japan had no choice but to attack the uSA is just as absurd. It was pointed out that the events leading up to that attack were reactions to the Japanese invasion of China and Japan's desire to create a Pacific Empire of its own. Obviously the Japanese would have expected a push back when they began to take the colonies of the west by force. By invading China they garnered an embargo, by attacking Hawaii and The Phillipines they gained war with the USA, by attacking British colonies the got war with England and by attacking Australia they got war with Australia.

Dumb moves all around. We often cite Hitler's decision to attack Russia as the beginning of the downfall of the 3rd Reich, the war on two fronts being unsustainable. Japan jumped into a war that brought in the single most powerful country not already involved in WW2, a country they had little chance of being able to defeat on its home ground which is much the same as the Germans against Russia. The major difference being that Russia is an emmense land area whereas the Pacifac is an emmense ocean area. Both involve very long, difficult to maintain and defend, supply lines.

There wasn't much the British could have done to stop the Japanese, had they concentrated only on European colonies they might have survived. The supply lines would have been shorter and more easily defended and it would not have brought the USA into the war.

Of course had Japan waited until Germany defeated England it may have gone better, if Germany had waited until England was defeated before attacking Russia it may have gone better,,,, coulda, shoulda, woulda.

Back to the OP though. Japan was not going to surrender, a few politicians and diplomats does not a surrender make. Besides, if I recall they wanted a conditional surrender. The Allies wanted an unconditional surrender for obvious reasons.

So all you people can do is make opinions about not going to surrender although I've quoted the Emperor himself who wanted peace.

What was the obvious reason when all the facts point to the notion that Japan was ready to surrender and was already devastated?

As outlined in the McCollum memo, it was not in the interest of the US that England be defeated. This is why they baited Japan to get into war or else they knew they couldn't just wage war because the people didn't want it.

[kageki]

It appears there may a few things YOU don't believe because you "don't want to" as well. You do realize you're not the only person in the world to have studied the Second World War, right?

It was not necessary and an abominable lie that it "saved lives". Off course the US goes even further and continues to suppress information about the real effects of the bomb.

[dtugg]

I would have dropped the bombs too. If the Japanese were ready to surrender, they could have just surrendered. Hell, they didn't even surrender after Hiroshima and almost didn't after Nagasaki.

Did kageki try to deny the horrible things Japan did in their war of conquest?

[kageki]

And Alaska...

It doesn't concern you that the Philippines were a colony? Again it's ok when europeans do it.

What do you think about Vietnam and Iraq?

[Biscuit]

As outlined in the McCollum memo, it was not in the interest of the US that England be defeated. This is why they baited Japan to get into war or else they knew they couldn't just wage war because the people didn't want it.


It is precisely the desire of the U.S. people to stay out of WWII that lead the government them to do everything short of attacking Japan to counter Japan's aggression towards and atrocities to their neighbors.

The U.S. tried an oil embargo in order to stop Japan. No one ever forced Japan to attack America, that was the response they chose. You can view it as baiting if you wish but it is not as if the Japanese were just sitting on their hands being good. Japan earned that embargo and made a huge mistake when it decided to attack America.

The use of a new weapon for the first time is by the very act an experiment but to suggest that the U.S. government dropped those bombs for fun is something you will have to provide a lot more evidence for. A U.S. memo from before the war and a quote from the emperor do not cut it.

If Japan had a nuclear bomb do you think they would have dropped it on pearl harbor? You bet they would have. They would have dropped a bomb as they believed, as did the NAZI's, that they were chosen to rule the world. Their treatment of POW's is evidence enough of their disregard for the lives of others during WWii. Had they won the war there would have been no money from Japan to help rebuild America, there would have been no America left, there would have been conquering and enslavement.

Dropping the two bombs was horrific and finding ways to justify it is not the point. Accepting the consequences of such weapons is the lesson that needs to be learned.

[kageki]

I would have dropped the bombs too. If the Japanese were ready to surrender, they could have just surrendered. Hell, they didn't even surrender after Hiroshima and almost didn't after Nagasaki.


Right with a not a so unconditional surrender as Togo put it.


Did kageki try to deny the horrible things Japan did in their war of conquest?

Argumentum ad populam

Argumentum ad hominem tu quoque

[Hans]

The Tydings-McDuffie Act (officially the Philippine Independence Act; Public Law 73-127) approved on March 24, 1934 which would have made the Philippine's a commonwealth for ten years then full independence. Implemented but modified on July 4th 1946. So the US was already preparing to free the Philippines. Did the Imperial government free them after they invaded? Nope

[kageki]

It is precisely the desire of the U.S. people to stay out of WWII that lead the government them to do everything short of attacking Japan to counter Japan's aggression towards and atrocities to their neighbors.

The U.S. tried an oil embargo in order to stop Japan. No one ever forced Japan to attack America, that was the response they chose. You can view it as baiting if you wish but it is not as if the Japanese were just sitting on their hands being good. Japan earned that embargo and made a huge mistake when it decided to attack America.

The use of a new weapon for the first time is by the very act an experiment but to suggest that the U.S. government dropped those bombs for fun is something you will have to provide a lot more evidence for. A U.S. memo from before the war and a quote from the emperor do not cut it.

If Japan had a nuclear bomb do you think they would have dropped it on pearl harbor? You bet they would have. They would have dropped a bomb as they believed, as did the NAZI's, that they were chosen to rule the world. Their treatment of POW's is evidence enough of their disregard for the lives of others during WWii. Had they won the war there would have been no money from Japan to help rebuild America, there would have been no America left, there would have been conquering and enslavement.

Dropping the two bombs was horrific and finding ways to justify it is not the point. Accepting the consequences of such weapons is the lesson that needs to be learned.

Where's your proof that the bomb was justified?

No that is pure assumption. Once again just more assumptions and opinions. Funny none of you ever cite sources.

No I don't believe they were looking to conquer the US. That wasn't the objective of the attack.

Off course it's ok when it's your country that is ruling the world.

[kageki]

The Tydings-McDuffie Act (officially the Philippine Independence Act; Public Law 73-127) approved on March 24, 1934 which would have made the Philippine's a commonwealth for ten years then full independence. Implemented but modified on July 4th 1946. So the US was already preparing to free the Philippines. Did the Imperial government free them after they invaded? Nope

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine-American_War

[kookbreaker]

Right with a not a so unconditional surrender as Togo put it.

Which in this case is not a surrender at all, but at best an Armistice.

The experience of WW1 had shown the effect of leaving a belligerent nation defeated but not conquered. That was one mistake not to be repeated.



Argumentum ad populam

Argumentum ad hominem tu quoque

Wrong.

[Corsair 115]

Japan was already looking to surrender prior to the bomb...


As I said at the start, part of the Japanese government was looking to surrender, but most certainly another part was not. This means a divided government, and hence continuation of the status quo, which was war.


...but the US insisted on an "unconditional" surrender.


And why should the Allies have settled for a conditonal surrender from Japan when Germany had to surrender unconditionally? Why should Japan get special terms as one of the belligerent nations?


They wouldn't have done that if the US didn't impose an oil embargo in the first place.


And why was that embargo enacted? Because of Japan's brutal invasion and occupation of China. If Japan had agreed to end its war against China the U.S. would not have slapped an embargo on oil exports to Japan.


You're comparing an extensive bombing campaign to just one bomb?


And that is precisely why the atomic bomb was a quantum leap forward in military efficiency. No longer did you need hundreds of planes carrying thousands of bombs to knock out a city target, now you could do it with just one plane carrying one bomb. In other words, maximum damage with minimum effort.


5.) At no point in history has a blockade or embargo had any real effect


I'll disagree with the above.

The U.S. submarine campaign against the Japanese merchant fleet was devastating—by mid-1945 Japan had no appreciable merchant navy left, and it was a country that relied considerably on imports. B-29s flew over Japan relatively unmolested by that same time, having already knocked out a large number of Japanese cities, and the USAAF was just beginning to start concentrated attacks against the Japanese transportation network; if the Transportation Plan carried out in Europe is any indication, it would have strangled what little was left of the Japanese economy.

It is quite possible that Japan could have been literally starved into submission—the naval blockade and bombing campaigns crippled the economic capability that much—but the key question is how long would it take? That was something no one could predict. Japan might have lasted just a few more months before collapsing, or it might have lasted a year. Sieges do work, provided you put enough pressure on the defenders and can wait long enough. But it's very much an open question if the Allies had the political patience to wait up to a year for before the crushing effects of a naval blockade and air assault finally forced a capitulation.

[dtugg]

Right with a not a so unconditional surrender as Togo put it.

I'm not even sure what the hell you are saying. Do you think Japan should have been able to surrender on their own terms after all they did? Should they have been able to keep the lands that they conquered and their military? They are lucky they got to keep their God. He should have been executed like all the other war criminals of WWII.


Argumentum ad populam

Argumentum ad hominem tu quoque

I see you avoided the question. Earlier you implied that the Rape of Nanking might not have happened. So did it?

Also you are blathering on about the oil embargo. Should the United States have helped Japan conquer the Pacific?

[kookbreaker]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine-American_War

And yet, who was fighting against the Japanese and with the Americans?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Dropping the two bombs was horrific and finding ways to justify it is not the point.
Where's your proof that the bomb was justified?


Dude. Read.

[kageki]

Oh, joy. TFT strikes again.

1.) Yes, Japan had diplomats trying to sue for peace. However, as has been pointed out in earlier posts, they had no authority to do so, and it was a last ditch effort to try and save what there was of Imperial Japan.

This has been discussed in numerous books by far more reliable (and factual) writers. The goal of the bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not to kill children, but to end the war and save lives. In fact, according to Alexander Haig in one of his books, by fighting a war as a war, (instead of a "police action"), casualties are far less, and lives are saved.

2.) Japan, as has been noted in numerous other books, was prepared to fight to the death. This meant that anything with a pulse would have been thrown at American, British, Australian, and other allied soldiers attempting a landing anywhere on the Japanese mainland. Considering the success of such actions in the past, (re: the fleet of Kublai Khan, which wound up being sunk), that didn't seem like such a smart move to American military planners, who, in 1945, seemed to have a better handle on history.

3.) Japan attacked first. Period.

4.) As you are attempting to smear the reputation of millions of people, you might want to remember Unit 731. Google it. Read up on it. Japan cannot deny what that unit did. There's far more evidence for their actions than there is for what you're claiming the US did.

5.) At no point in history has a blockade or embargo had any real effect. It's a political move, smart sometimes, but not often. Militarily, it's a joke. During the Albigenian Crusades of the 13th and 14th Centuries, the crusaders would attempt to block off supplies to the Citadelles Vertiginous, only to discover that they were being resupplied with insulting ease by those who supported Languedoc. Hell, we've blockaded Cuba, and they still managed to stay well supplied. So blockading Japan would have been nothing short of a joke.

Can you say "ill-informed"?

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/cbw/bw.htm


Japanese scientists in American custody who had participated in the Unit 731 program were granted amnesty on the condition that they would disclose information obtained during their program.

Did the same with Nazi scientists. NASA and the CIA were both essentially started by former Nazis.

[kookbreaker]

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/cbw/bw.htm


Not a proud moment for US policy. But where the hell does letting them off the hook equate with actually experimenting on prisoners of war? What kind of twisted morality are you working with? This is sick!

[dtugg]

Guys like Wernher von Braun were much better use to the United States helping to fight the Cold War than in prison or dead.

[Roadtoad]

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/cbw/bw.htm

Did the same with Nazi scientists. NASA and the CIA were both essentially started by former Nazis.

CIA was formed from the old Office of Strategic Services, whose members included E. Howard Hunt, (later of Watergate infamy). It was not formed from former Nazis. It was originally formed to combat the Nazis. This is basic information available from Google, Wikipedia, and just about any source you choose to name.

While it is true that members of Unit 731, the SS, and other organizations were given amnesty in exchange for their assistance to the US, that does not show how your allegations are any more true, nor does it show how I'm wrong.

As far as NASA goes, Werner Von Braun did work for the Third Reich, but he was, as were many of his countrymen, more or less coerced into doing so. They either worked for the Reich, or tried like hell to find a way out of the country. Those who worked for the V2 project were not a part of the Final Solution, though they did work in the bombing of Britain.

Again, you fail to prove what you think is your point.

[Roadtoad]

Not a proud moment for US policy. But where the hell does letting them off the hook equate with actually experimenting on prisoners of war? What kind of twisted morality are you working with? This is sick!

What you said.

[Travis]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine-American_War

Do you somehow think that refutes anything? When the US first got the Philippines they inherited an insurgency against the Spanish. It was brutal and the US committed some atrocities during it but that does not invalidate the fact that the US was preparing to let the Philippines go when WWII came around.

Furthermore the Japanese were horrible to the Filipinos during their occupation. Read up on what the Japanese did to civilians in Manila right before US forces retook it.

I'm still baffled as to why you think a blockade would have worked and why starving millions of civilians to death is preferable to having a hundred thousand die at the hands of a bomb.

[JimBenArm]

It appears there may a few things YOU don't believe because you "don't want to" as well. You do realize you're not the only person in the world to have studied the Second World War, right?
I believe you meant he's the only person to have not studied WWII. I mean, really. How retarded do you have to be to think the Japanese were the aggrieved party in WWII?
Actually, they got off easy. We ran out of nuclear weapons.

[Biscuit]

Where's your proof that the bomb was justified?

No that is pure assumption. Once again just more assumptions and opinions. Funny none of you ever cite sources.

No I don't believe they were looking to conquer the US. That wasn't the objective of the attack.

Off course it's ok when it's your country that is ruling the world.

I said that finding ways to Justify isn't the point of learning from such an event. Would the holocaust have justified nuking Berlin? I do not know, do you? We need to understand the consequences of these weapons. In the end those bombs ended the worst conflict the world had ever seen. 200,000 killed in seconds or killed over another 4 years with an invasion, i don't know which is better do you?

Suggesting it was done without great consideration merely to see it go boom is ridiculous.

True the attack on Pearl harbor was meant to cripple the U.S. fleet and not conquer the main land but that attack failed in its goal and the Japanese did not think we could rebuild what we lost. Once engaged in a full scale war with the U.S. their only chance for victory would have been to nuke the main land. From a military practicality POV I fully believe the Japanese would have just dropped one nuke on Pearl Harbor if they had the option.

read this review and possibly even the book it mentions.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0802/p17s01-bogn.html

[Hokulele]

It doesn't concern you that the Philippines were a colony? Again it's ok when europeans do it.


And was China? Korea? There is a reason most Japanese aren't very popular in that part of the world.

What do you think about Vietnam and Iraq?


What I think about Vietnam and Iraq has nothing to do with the actions of the Japanese prior and during WWII.

[ElMondoHummus]

It doesn't concern you that the Philippines were a colony? Again it's ok when europeans do it.


The Tydings-McDuffie Act (officially the Philippine Independence Act; Public Law 73-127) approved on March 24, 1934 which would have made the Philippine's a commonwealth for ten years then full independence. Implemented but modified on July 4th 1946. So the US was already preparing to free the Philippines. Did the Imperial government free them after they invaded? Nope

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine-American_War

Okay, what the hell is the point about bringing up the colonial status of the Philippines in context of WWII? Is this some sort of lunatic thesis that somehow the Japanese invasion of the islands was a liberation? Because let me tell you as a Filipino who's heard from my parents and surviving grandparents about WWII, there isn't a single person in my family or among our extended group of Filipino friends who considers the Japanese incursion a "liberation", nor is there a single one who doesn't view the US retaking of the islands as anything less than necessary.

[kageki]

And was China? Korea? There is a reason most Japanese aren't very popular in that part of the world.




What I think about Vietnam and Iraq has nothing to do with the actions of the Japanese prior and during WWII.

That's my point is that you can't own up to your own facts so such moral posturing is absurd.

Taiwan? Korea was also under Chinese control before. The Chinese are committing crimes today in Tibet and against their own people. It's still a communist country.

Would you like to talk about the Korean war or as the Chinese called it "War to Resist America and Aid Korea "?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War

[tyr_13]

And what did the Chinese call the war with Japan?

[Roadtoad]

And what did the Chinese call the war with Japan?

"Attempted genocide"?

[gtc]

It doesn't concern you that the Philippines were a colony? Again it's ok when europeans do it.

What do you think about Vietnam and Iraq?

There is a big difference between the way the Japanese treated the places they conquered and the way the US treated the Phillipines or the Brits treated their colonies.

If you look at the history of nations like Sri Lanka or Papua New Guinea you can learn about how the ordinary people thought about the prospect of being invaded by the Japanese.

Yes terrible things were done by the European colonial powers but that can not excuse the terrible things that the Japanese did.

[Roadtoad]

That's my point is that you can't own up to your own facts so such moral posturing is absurd.

Taiwan? Korea was also under Chinese control before. The Chinese are committing crimes today in Tibet and against their own people. It's still a communist country.

Would you like to talk about the Korean war or as the Chinese called it "War to Resist America and Aid Korea "?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War

Actually, Hokulele had it on the nose. And if anyone's ignoring facts, it's you.

You've been shown where you're wrong, repeatedly. You, for whatever reason, choose to ignore those facts. Whether it's out of misplaced nationalism, racism, or simple willfulness, it doesn't matter. You have chosen to be stupid. Since that's the case, you can't be helped.

Hoke and El Mondo have tried like hell to show you how you're wrong, as have others. No one said you had to like the facts as presented. But you're being absurd by ignoring them simply because they show things you don't like. Too bad, bunkie. That's history.

[GodisEnergy]

Do you actually know anything about WWII? It was in all the papers, and I'm sure you could find something on it.

Blockade? In 1945? Do you see the abject stupidity of that comment? The country was blockaded and the blockaders were closing in on all sides. What more of a blockade would you propose? A big ol' Cyclone fence? And in the face of said blockade they had housewives and children preparing to defend the empire with broomsticks and shovels.

Well you dont have to invade japan ,what i meant by blockade as you pointed out it was under blockade.
So they couldnt attack china or hawaii again.
An oil blockade crippled their war machine and like a penned dog they are no harm ,
There is no need to murder the civilians who are innocent .

[Slayhamlet]

Just wanted to remind people that Kageki is Japanese and their education system treats WW2 a little differently to our own.

Actually, he's a dumb American of Japanese ancestry.

I had him on ignore ages ago, but for some reason I took him off during his long absence. Just remedied that now.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Anyone else notice the anti-semitic twoofer (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/06/secondworldwar.warcrimes) quoted in the article?

It was only a matter of time before someone had to use the standard currency of 'anti-semitic' and 'twoofer'. In a thread about Japan and WW2 no less!! If only the stock market was so predictable

[Tin Foil Timothy]

And yet you have chosen an avatar that seems to celebrate the moment when a couple thousand innocent people were murdered.

Welcome to ignore.

Celebrate? Maybe his avatar is there to ensure that people don't forget.

You assumption is offensive.

Can you tell us why the murder of tens of thousands of Japanese was OK and the murder of 3,000 Americans wasn't?

Surely it's nothing to do with their race?


I do wonder about the rationale that suggests a picture of the towers being hit by a place is automatically a celebration. I guess no one should ever show the pictures ever again. After all we don't want to celebrate it do we? :rolleyes:

[ElMondoHummus]

Well you dont have to invade japan ,what i meant by blockade as you pointed out it was under blockade.
So they couldnt attack china or hawaii again.
An oil blockade crippled their war machine and like a penned dog they are no harm ,
There is no need to murder the civilians who are innocent .

Oh for the love of God, GIE, have you even studied history?


The Japanese merchant marine started the war with 6 million tons of shipping. The Japanese Army and Navy each requisitioned a part of the merchant marine to transport and supply their respective operating forces. The Japanese leadership believed they needed to retain 3 million tons of shipping in order to meet the industrial and civilian needs of the economy- although this estimate was probably too low.(8) (http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/history/pac-campaign.html#N_8_) Two important points need to be made in order to understand the effect of the war on the Japanese transportation system. First, Japan's industrial capacity was proportional to her ability to import needed material.(9) (http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/history/pac-campaign.html#N_9_) Secondly, due to the extensive drafting of merchant vessels for military needs as well as high losses from American attacks, Japan never achieved the minimum of 3 million tons of capacity required for industrial and civilian uses.(10) (http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/history/pac-campaign.html#N_10_)

Losses of merchant vessels combined with the indirect loss of a portion of the merchant marine fleet due to convoying significantly reduced Japanese economic strength. Imports of 16 key materials fell from 20 million tons in 1941 to 10 million tons in 1944 and 2.7 million tons in the first 6 months of 1945.(11) (http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/history/pac-campaign.html#N_11_) The specifics were impressive:

"Bauxite imports fell off 88% just between the summer and fall of 1944. In 1945, pig iron imports plunged 89%, pulp 90%, raw cotton and wool 91%, fats and oils 92%, iron ore 95%, soda and cement 96%, lumber 98%, fodder 99%, and not one ounce of sugar or raw rubber reached Japan."(12) (http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/history/pac-campaign.html#N_12_)

Moreover, the reduction in imports of raw materials mirrored problems importing food. During 1944, average caloric intake fell 12% below the minimum daily requirement for the non-farming population.(13) (http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/history/pac-campaign.html#N_13_) The enormous drop in importation of raw materials resulted in a significant drop in Japanese industrial production. In fact, the Japanese mobilization committee stated in a late 1944 report: "Shipping lost or damaged since the beginning of the war amounts to two and one half times newly constructed shipping and formed the chief cause of the constant impoverishment of national strength."(14) (http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/history/pac-campaign.html#N_14_)

Submarine attacks on the oil flow to Japan were a second critical factor in destroying Japanese military potential. Japanese oil imports fell from 1.75 million barrels per month in August 1943 to 360,000 barrels per month in July 1944. In October 1944, imports fell even more due to high losses around the Philippine battlefields.(15) (http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/history/pac-campaign.html#N_15_) After September 1943, the ratio of petroleum successfully shipped from the southern regions that reached Japan never exceeded 28%, and during the last 15 months of the war the ratio only averaged 9%.(16) (http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/history/pac-campaign.html#N_16_) These losses are especially impressive when one considers that the Japanese Navy alone required 1.6 million barrels monthly to operate.(17) (http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/history/pac-campaign.html#N_17_)

Source: http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/history/pac-campaign.html

What would a blockade do that wasn't already being done by normal warfare? Besides bring US naval assets within range of Japanese home island bombers and remaining naval power?

The reason that the idea of a blockade somehow inducing Japan to surrender is silly is because there was already a defacto one in place. It's called naval warfare, and it had already reduced incoming resources to a dribble. Yet historical revisionists want to pitch the fantasy that somehow, choking off what little shipping was getting through was going to have some sort of effect? Despite the fact that the military members of the cabinet were hellbent on seeing the war through?

The military leadership was already continuing the war while having little to no necessary resources. They had already demonstrated their intent to proceed in the face of near total lack of incoming shipping. So how the hell would a "blockade" have changed things?

[GodisEnergy]

Another example of us atrocity is the bombing of dresden when it was well known that germany was well defeated they bombed the city and killed half a million anyway.

But getting back to topic.
Japan was evil country that killed alot of chinese .

But in 1945 they were trapped inside japan ,with no factorys , no oil and living in wooden houses.They couldnt get to china and bayonet them again.
They couldnt get to pearl harbour again.

[jaydeehess]

So all you people can do is make opinions about not going to surrender although I've quoted the Emperor himself who wanted peace.

,,, and it has been pointed out to you, to no avail, that this was not the overwhelming majority opinion among Japanese leadership.

Overtures for a conditional surrender by Germany were also made by highly placed Nazi officers. they were rejected because Hitler would command a following that would not abide such a surrender , and because the Allies could not accept a surrender that rewarded Germany for its expansionist war mongering.

Japan was doing exactly the same thing, expanding by force.

As outlined in the McCollum memo, it was not in the interest of the US that England be defeated. This is why they baited Japan to get into war or else they knew they couldn't just wage war because the people didn't want it.


If that were true and the Japanese recognized it they had a choice that would keep the USA out of war in the Pacific, attack European colonies but leave American assets alone. I already stated that had Japan waited for germany to defeat England then the USA would not have entered the war when it did. With the USA not in it and Germany free to attack Russia, Japan could have aided germany by heading north to require Russia to fight two fronts. Russia has oil and coal. However Japan was not looking at the bulk of the Asian continent, they wanted the Pacific. Not surprising given its nature as an island.

Still, the embargo was a half measure, because Americans did not want to enter the war. That is, they did not want to until attacked and Americans were killed. The USA did not 'make' Japan declare war, Japanese leadership chose war over other choices.

That said, I still want to know if you consider the Japanese invasion of the Phillipines and the European colonies and the attack on Australia to be a war of liberation of the indigeneous peoples? If not then your discourse on the evils of other nations creating colonies is rather sarcastic. If it was not OK for the British and the Americans to do so then what makes it OK for the Japanese to subjugate others?

As for the 'morality' of atomic weapons; each advance in weaponry through the ages was designed to create a more effective way to kill humans.
Is a line of several dozen soldiers in bright uniforms firing their muskets at a line of similarily dressed soldiers any less insane than sending several thousand men across muddy open feilds against machine guns and barbed wire, or literally shovelling bombs out the cargo door of a Zeppelin onto English streets, or thousand aircraft bombing raids, or the use of a signle bomb that kills thousands?
NO!! Its all insane.
John Gacy and Ted Bundy are no more insane than serial killers who 'only' murdered 3 or 4 people.

Once a weapon is developed it will be used. The only saving grace in this instance is that the human race has, for the most part, recognized that the weapons now will kill all, not just the enemy. We are pretty close to realizing that just as inventing a hand grenade with an effective killing range of 5000 feet is a rather ineffective tool for a soldier to use, atomic weapons can have much the same effect for nations.

[GodisEnergy]

Celebrate? Maybe his avatar is there to ensure that people don't forget.

You assumption is offensive.

Can you tell us why the murder of tens of thousands of Japanese was OK and the murder of 3,000 Americans wasn't?

Surely it's nothing to do with their race?


I do wonder about the rationale that suggests a picture of the towers being hit by a place is automatically a celebration. I guess no one should ever show the pictures ever again. After all we don't want to celebrate it do we? :rolleyes:

no my avatar shows Squibs from controlled demolotion something we shouldnt forget

[dtugg]

no my avatar shows Squibs from controlled demolotion something we shouldnt forget

I thought that it was thermite that destroyed the WTC. How exactly does thermite create "squibs"? Or was it thermite and explosives?

[jaydeehess]

Another example of us atrocity is the bombing of dresden when it was well known that germany was well defeated they bombed the city and killed half a million anyway.

But getting back to topic.
Japan was evil country that killed alot of chinese .

But in 1945 they were trapped inside japan ,with no factorys , no oil and living in wooden houses.They couldnt get to china and bayonet them again.
They couldnt get to pearl harbour again.

Yes, and Germany bombed the tar out of London and other English cities, Coventry comes to mind, too bad they did it with 1940 weaponry. Was that atrocious too GIE?

Are you suggesting that;
1) the Allies should have called a halt to the war ( a cease fire) and waited for Germany to surrender unconditionally? How about Japan?
2) the Allies should have called a halt to the war ( a cease fire) and accepted a conditional surrender from Germany? Japan?

You do realize that #2 would in effect reward the aggressor nation?

Hmm, I live in a wooden house, every house on my street is constructed of wood, damn near every house in my town is constructed of wood.

[ElMondoHummus]

Another example of us atrocity is the bombing of dresden when it was well known that germany was well defeated they bombed the city and killed half a million anyway.

But getting back to topic.
Japan was evil country that killed alot of chinese .

But in 1945 they were trapped inside japan ,with no factorys , no oil and living in wooden houses.They couldnt get to china and bayonet them again.
They couldnt get to pearl harbour again.

I would dearly love to know how isolating them, then starving the population to death - and make no mistake, the population would be the first ones deprived of food, well before the military and political leadership - would be any more humane than the actions that were already taken. I swear, there is this oddly stupid white-glove fastidiousness amongst historical revisionists nowadays. Prevent the deaths from the atomic bombs... at the probably equal and possibly greater cost in terms of those same civillians dying due to the blocade cutting off external foodstuffs, manufacturing capability (and thus indirectly, health and pharmecutical production capability), and so on. But at least the blood wouldn't be on our hands.

Nobody's so benighted so as to think that the atomic bombings were anything other than the terrible, horrible events they were. But people who propose that strangling the Japanese islands slowly is any more humane is, frankly, full of it.

[jaydeehess]

Well you dont have to invade japan ,what i meant by blockade as you pointed out it was under blockade.
So they couldnt attack china or hawaii again.
An oil blockade crippled their war machine and like a penned dog they are no harm ,
There is no need to murder the civilians who are innocent .

That harmless penned dog was still waging war GIE.

[Biscuit]

Another example of us atrocity is the bombing of dresden when it was well known that germany was well defeated they bombed the city and killed half a million anyway.

But getting back to topic.
Japan was evil country that killed alot of chinese .

But in 1945 they were trapped inside japan ,with no factorys , no oil and living in wooden houses.They couldnt get to china and bayonet them again.
They couldnt get to pearl harbour again.

That was the mentality of the allies after WWI. They felt that germany had learned its lesson and enough was enough. It was that mistake which got us into WWII.

So to this day would still have a blockade of Japan and the people would be living in terrible conditions or they would have unleashed their war machine again. Japan still had around 9 million soldiers when the war ended. Instead the allies were smart this time. Once they completely destroyed their enemy they rebuilt them and not only have we not had another WW but we are allies with our former enemies.

[jaydeehess]

I would dearly love to know how isolating them, then starving the population to death - and make no mistake, the population would be the first ones deprived of food, well before the military and political leadership - would be any more humane than the actions that were already taken. I swear, there is this oddly stupid white-glove fastidiousness amongst historical revisionists nowadays. Prevent the deaths from the atomic bombs... at the probably equal and possibly greater cost in terms of those same civillians dying due to the blocade cutting off external foodstuffs, manufacturing capability (and thus indirectly, health and pharmecutical production capability), and so on. But at least the blood wouldn't be on our hands.
Nobody's so benighted so as to think that the atomic bombings were anything other than the terrible, horrible events they were. But people who propose that strangling the Japanese islands slowly is any more humane is, frankly, full of it.

Reminds one of the movies in which the bad guy dies but not as a direct result of the good guy's actions (ie. he runs into the street and gets hit by a car)

[Alareth]

It was only a matter of time before someone had to use the standard currency of 'anti-semitic' and 'twoofer'. In a thread about Japan and WW2 no less!! If only the stock market was so predictable

Oddly, YOUR second post in this thread about about Japan and WWII contained and attack on Israel and the third brought up Zionists.

I guess it was only a matter of time before you brought those up. Next time I'm starting a betting pool.

[kageki]

Actually, he's a dumb American of Japanese ancestry.

I had him on ignore ages ago, but for some reason I took him off during his long absence. Just remedied that now.

I was born in Japan, but I agree. Americans are dumb.

[jaydeehess]

I was born in Japan, but I agree. Americans are dumb.

Let's me off the hook then.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Let's me off the hook then.


Oh, that's easily rectified. He'll just claim all of the formerly Allied nations are dumb.

[Slayhamlet]

Speaking of dumb, remember when Japan decided to attack Pearl Harbor?

[kageki]

Yes, and Germany bombed the tar out of London and other English cities, Coventry comes to mind, too bad they did it with 1940 weaponry. Was that atrocious too GIE?

Are you suggesting that;
1) the Allies should have called a halt to the war ( a cease fire) and waited for Germany to surrender unconditionally? How about Japan?
2) the Allies should have called a halt to the war ( a cease fire) and accepted a conditional surrender from Germany? Japan?

You do realize that #2 would in effect reward the aggressor nation?

Hmm, I live in a wooden house, every house on my street is constructed of wood, damn near every house in my town is constructed of wood.

It wouldn't reward anything unless you would care to reveal the details of a conditional surrender.

Do you think the Versailles treaty was fair? Germany didn't and it was due to WWII that Germany's borders are where it is today and it wasn't like that after WWI.

Japan waged war with Russia and you didn't care. Then China. None of which is the US. But then the US goes on to wage war with them in Korea and Vietnam and Afghanistan. Iraq is just a whole another mess. It's not like China and Russia are exactly considered allies of the US. When the Anglo-Americans do it is it off course for a good cause.

[tyr_13]

I was born in Japan, but I agree. Americans are dumb.

English isn't your first language then? Because the sentence, "He's a dumb American," cannot be correctly read, "Americans are dumb," and not being a native speaker is the only way that kind of mistake can be excused. In this case 'dumb' modifies 'he' and not 'American', which is also describing 'he'.

Even in Nihongo the subject particle would have cleared up that 'dumb' modified 'he' and not 'American'. "Anata wa baka Amerikan-jin desu." And yes, I'm well aware that 'anata' isn't 'he'.

[TS-]

Speaking of dumb, remember when Japan decided to attack Pearl Harbor?
I wish that weren't so funny...

You know what's also funny (funny strange funny, not funny "ha ha" funny), is that I couldn't tell if kageki was an American, or Japanese- he could have easily been some lefty college student type, because the "America is bad" brand of historical revisionism is pretty popular in that peer group. Turns out he's both American and Japanese. Funny how that works out.

kageki- there are a couple flaws with your approach to this thread. Firstly, you seem to be of the impression that you know more about WWII than the other posters here- I don't believe that to be a justified assumption. I think that freeing yourself of that assumption will help you more than it will hurt you, even if you disagree.

Secondly, you fall back on ad homiem attacks rather frequently. Every time someone makes a negative statement about Imperial Japan, you just point to something bad about America, even if it happened several decades prior or hence- this is viewed by many posters (ie. me) as you changing the subject, because you have no argument.

Thirdly, you should understand that you come off as being even more biased than you seem to assume the rest of the posters here are. For example, saying or implying that the events and Nanking never happened is rather comparable to holocaust denial to a great many people. It would do you good to either drop the assumptions of a blinding bias, or, at the very least, understand that people see you the same way, and navigate accordingly.

Edit; I should add, fourthly, your strawman argument which implies that several posters here are racist- you seem to assume that people agree with European imperialism, and only have a problem with the Japanese doing it because they're not white. This is purely your assumption, and it relates to my second point/fourth paragraph in this post.

[jaydeehess]

Oh, that's easily rectified. He'll just claim all of the formerly Allied nations are dumb.

Then I'd be back on the hook.

Does it count for something if my Grandfathers both fought in WW1,,, on opposite sides? My paternal G'father got lucky twice,sort of. A shell landed within 20 feet of him twice in the same day. So much mud that little shrapnel came up and the mud absorbed most of the blast (though he could not hear for several days), he later lost three fingers to a German bullet and was fianlly out of the war. That is considered more civilised and sane by some I suppose.

My Uncle went down with the Canadian destroyer he was on in WW2. Torpedo tore it in two, it sank in seconds. That is considered more civilised and sane by some I suppose.

My paternal G'mother did not think it too sane. My father told her he 'hoped the war would last long enough' for him to join up. Her oldest, dead, her next oldest about to turn 16, and now her youngest saying he wanted the war to last longer. She slapped my father across the face.

[ElMondoHummus]

That was the mentality of the allies after WWI. They felt that germany had learned its lesson and enough was enough. It was that mistake which got us into WWII.

So to this day would still have a blockade of Japan and the people would be living in terrible conditions or they would have unleashed their war machine again. Japan still had around 9 million soldiers when the war ended. Instead the allies were smart this time. Once they completely destroyed their enemy they rebuilt them and not only have we not had another WW but we are allies with our former enemies.

Yes. Not enough emphasis is being put on this. America saw Germany as a revived power, and Japan as an aggresive one attempting to do what Germany had tried in WWI: Control their region of the world. The fact that the East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere was hardly a secret, made well obvious by Japanese actions in the 30's and openly announced by Japan's foreign minister in 1940, confirmed the accuracy of this impression. This explains why Americans in general held the attitude that it's important to not just fight the war, but to completely remove the portion of society - in the case of Germany, the Nazis, in the case of Japan, the militant members of government and the miltary members of the cabinet - that was promoting the aggresiveness to begin with: So that there would be no risk of further war after the current one was ended.

People tend to cast the "Unconditional Surrender" objective in a cynical light, painting it as evidence of US blood lust. People who do ignore the wisdom of not just beating your enemy, but removing the toxic political and social attitudes that formed the basis of that enemy's aggresiveness to begin with. When people think "Total War", they limit their definition to what's physically destroyed. They don't think about the social part. The fact remains that America's goal was not to merely to beat Japan and Germany on the battlefield, but remove the Nazi's and Japanese militants from any position of power, and absolutely discredit what those governments stood for.

Such attitudes are considered barbaric nowadays. And yes, they are. Most definitely. No question. Thing is, at a certain point, you have to ask yourself as a nation if you're willing to knowingly descend into a short period of controlled barbarism in order to end a greater threat, or to continue taking a fastidious course and allow the external threat to fester and grow more toxic, threaten greater damage, and possibly force you into less controlled barbarism anyway, and at a time not of your choosing. It's an ugly question, but it's the classic choice between evils: Which is the lesser one? History has shown us the answer. And we all know what the US chose to do back then. We also all know how it turned out; Japan and Germany are rich, comfortable, safe nations that are no longer any threats to their neighbors, and in so many ways now admirably conduct themselves. So to be blunt, I don't have many complaints about US conduct back in World War II, and yes, as harsh as this sounds, that includes the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You take the suffering up front so as to dissipate it before future generations have to endure it. And that's exactly what happened.

Frankly, I'm glad that they recognized back then that the hard course was also the better one in the long run. We today are all better for those hard, terrible choices.

[kookbreaker]

It wouldn't reward anything unless you would care to reveal the details of a conditional surrender.

Do you think the Versailles treaty was fair?


Versailles was a product of its time. 'Fair' does not enter into it.


Germany didn't and it was due to WWII that Germany's borders are where it is today and it wasn't like that after WWI.


Beg pardon? Have a look at some maps from that era again.


Japan waged war with Russia and you didn't care.


Because it was just another war. Japan did not commit any horrific atrocities during that war.


Then China.


Where Japan did commit incredible amounts of horrific atrocities.


None of which is the US.


Which is why we did not go to war over it, until Japan attacked.


But then the US goes on to wage war with them in Korea and Vietnam and Afghanistan. Iraq is just a whole another mess.


Irrelevant.


It's not like China and Russia are exactly considered allies of the US. When the Anglo-Americans do it is it off course for a good cause.

Again, wars after WW2 are not only irrelevant but do not compare to the sheer, utter level of ATROCITIES COMMITTED BY JAPAN ON THE CIVILIAN POPULATION OF CHINA AND OTHER ASIAN NATIONS.

You keep trying to bring up every conflict the US has been in as if it were some kind of moral balance for things like the Bataan Death March or the Rape of Nanking. It won't work.

[jaydeehess]

It wouldn't reward anything unless you would care to reveal the details of a conditional surrender.

If there are conditions just what would you suppose they would be?


Do you think the Versailles treaty was fair? Germany didn't

Nope, but Versaille also required reparations, something the US fought against.

and it was due to WWII that Germany's borders are where it is today and it wasn't like that after WWI.

It was precisely because Germany embarked on a course of expanding its borders that they ended up in a war. You presume that they should have been able to keep what they took by force?

Japan waged war with Russia and you didn't care. Then China.


,,,,,, and the US slapped sanctions of Japan, then Japan attacked the USA. Apparently there was care about each stage of that.

None of which is the US. But then the US goes on to wage war with them in Korea and Vietnam and Afghanistan.

Skipping forward by decades at a time in a single sentence. You recall that Patton wanted to attack Russia as Germany surrendered? Russia was only a 'friend in asmuch as there was a common enemy. Refresh my memory, why was Russia fighting Germany?:rolleyes:

Iraq is just a whole another mess. It's not like China and Russia are exactly considered allies of the US. When the Anglo-Americans do it is it off course for a good cause.

Nope Iraq was a gross error on the part of the USA for even starting it and compounded by an incompetant Secretary of Defense's interference on the prosecution of that war.

[kageki]

,,, and it has been pointed out to you, to no avail, that this was not the overwhelming majority opinion among Japanese leadership.

Overtures for a conditional surrender by Germany were also made by highly placed Nazi officers. they were rejected because Hitler would command a following that would not abide such a surrender , and because the Allies could not accept a surrender that rewarded Germany for its expansionist war mongering.

Japan was doing exactly the same thing, expanding by force.




If that were true and the Japanese recognized it they had a choice that would keep the USA out of war in the Pacific, attack European colonies but leave American assets alone. I already stated that had Japan waited for germany to defeat England then the USA would not have entered the war when it did. With the USA not in it and Germany free to attack Russia, Japan could have aided germany by heading north to require Russia to fight two fronts. Russia has oil and coal. However Japan was not looking at the bulk of the Asian continent, they wanted the Pacific. Not surprising given its nature as an island.

Still, the embargo was a half measure, because Americans did not want to enter the war. That is, they did not want to until attacked and Americans were killed. The USA did not 'make' Japan declare war, Japanese leadership chose war over other choices.

That said, I still want to know if you consider the Japanese invasion of the Phillipines and the European colonies and the attack on Australia to be a war of liberation of the indigeneous peoples? If not then your discourse on the evils of other nations creating colonies is rather sarcastic. If it was not OK for the British and the Americans to do so then what makes it OK for the Japanese to subjugate others?

As for the 'morality' of atomic weapons; each advance in weaponry through the ages was designed to create a more effective way to kill humans.
Is a line of several dozen soldiers in bright uniforms firing their muskets at a line of similarily dressed soldiers any less insane than sending several thousand men across muddy open feilds against machine guns and barbed wire, or literally shovelling bombs out the cargo door of a Zeppelin onto English streets, or thousand aircraft bombing raids, or the use of a signle bomb that kills thousands?
NO!! Its all insane.
John Gacy and Ted Bundy are no more insane than serial killers who 'only' murdered 3 or 4 people.

Once a weapon is developed it will be used. The only saving grace in this instance is that the human race has, for the most part, recognized that the weapons now will kill all, not just the enemy. We are pretty close to realizing that just as inventing a hand grenade with an effective killing range of 5000 feet is a rather ineffective tool for a soldier to use, atomic weapons can have much the same effect for nations.

I never said it was a war of liberation. It was a war for resources like what every other countries do. Besides it doesn't bother you that it can even be considered a war of liberation? After all pretty much all of those countries are occupied territories.

The McCollum memo clearly states that the US wanted war and even detailed numerous steps to achieve that and it worked.

The US still continues to cover up the true effects of the atomic bomb. At the very least they can come clean with that. Not only that, but they go further and actually justify the use with such a detestable lie that it "saved lives". This is why people like you continue to make such ridiculous comparison of conventional weapons to something entirely different such as the atomic bomb. This is precisely why it's banned and not machine guns and conventional bombs.

[kageki]

Versailles was a product of its time. 'Fair' does not enter into it.



Beg pardon? Have a look at some maps from that era again.



Because it was just another war. Japan did not commit any horrific atrocities during that war.



Where Japan did commit incredible amounts of horrific atrocities.



Which is why we did not go to war over it, until Japan attacked.



Irrelevant.



Again, wars after WW2 are not only irrelevant but do not compare to the sheer, utter level of ATROCITIES COMMITTED BY JAPAN ON THE CIVILIAN POPULATION OF CHINA AND OTHER ASIAN NATIONS.

You keep trying to bring up every conflict the US has been in as if it were some kind of moral balance for things like the Bataan Death March or the Rape of Nanking. It won't work.

Oh I see it's not just war that's bad. It's only when it's "horrific atrocities".

Exactly on what facts are you basing your claim that Japan was far worse really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Gun_Ri

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodo_League_massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange


According to Vietnamese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 4.8 million Vietnamese people were exposed to Agent Orange, resulting in 400,000 deaths and disabilities, and 500,000 children born with birth defects.

I do not condone war atrocities, but trying to pretend you are somehow better is what is preposterous. There is no balance by every means since the US has run rampant since then.

[Hokulele]

Edit; I should add, fourthly, your strawman argument which implies that several posters here are racist- you seem to assume that people agree with European imperialism, and only have a problem with the Japanese doing it because they're not white. This is purely your assumption, and it relates to my second point/fourth paragraph in this post.


Oddly enough, he isn't the only one in this thread who is of Japanese descent, but he is the only one defending their actions...

[kageki]

Oddly enough, he isn't the only one in this thread who is of Japanese descent, but he is the only one defending their actions...

Not that my nationality really matters, but don't you all basically defend the actions of the US? Should I remark about you being American then?

Certainly people around here seem to be defending the use of the atomic bomb. Are you saying the atomic bomb was justified and it "saved lives"?

[Hans]

Actually I was born in Tokyo also

I would point out to かげき (Kageki) which by the way stands for radical or extreme. Since he wants to point out the "mud" of the Americans let us share then.

Systematic taking of Ainu land, taking their culture and treating them like foreigners on their own lands. Perhaps you'd like to explain the delightful aspects of the Shakushain war?

Perhaps the Japanese invasion of Korea in 1597?

Hmmm how about Japan's Gitmo, Hachijo?

Sino-Japanese war? Remember that?

Care to comment on the Japan's take over of Korea? The Colonization? The Cultural destruction?

You appear my friend to be a mythological 尻目

LOL

[kageki]

Actually I was born in Tokyo also

I would point out to かげき (Kageki) which by the way stands for radical or extreme. Since he wants to point out the "mud" of the Americans let us share then.

Systematic taking of Ainu land, taking their culture and treating them like foreigners on their own lands. Perhaps you'd like to explain the delightful aspects of the Shakushain war?

Perhaps the Japanese invasion of Korea in 1597?

Hmmm how about Japan's Gitmo, Hachijo?

Sino-Japanese war? Remember that?

Care to comment on the Japan's take over of Korea? The Colonization? The Cultural destruction?

You appear my friend to be a mythological 尻目

LOL

Would you like to talk about the entire history of the US?

Japan's history is out in the open and talked about. When it comes to anything the US has done, it's completely denied or just not talked about.

Care to comment on the destruction of the Native Americans?

Just stop pretending you are somehow morally superior. That's all I'm asking.

[JoeyDonuts]

Care to comment on the destruction of the Native Americans?


The Trail of Tears was certainly a dark chapter in our history. No one disputes that, however the Native American tribes still maintain a great deal of autonomy, and with their protected economic status are now making money hand over fist operating casinos where non-natives wouldn't be able to.

Your deflection and dodging is noted, however.

[dtugg]

Would you like to talk about the entire history of the US?

Japan's history is out in the open and talked about. When it comes to anything the US has done, it's completely denied or just not talked about.

Care to comment on the destruction of the Native Americans?

Just stop pretending you are somehow morally superior. That's all I'm asking.

Please. All you America haters ever do is talk about bad things this country has done. Some it it being stuff that was completely made up.

The United States government was definitely morally superior than Imperial Japan.

[Obviousman]

Sorry to sidetrack the thread, but.....

Kageki,

Some facts for you to be aware of.

The last convict transport ship arrived in Australia in January 1868.

The various Australian states federated in 1901.

As an Australian, I find your comments particularly offensive - especially as we have just celebrated Australia Day. If you cannot get it through your skull that we are an independent nation, and have been for over 100 years, then I suggest we arrange to meet and I'll give you a little contact counseling to help you remember.

[Hokulele]

Would you like to talk about the entire history of the US?


Sure, start another thread over in the History forum.

Japan's history is out in the open and talked about. When it comes to anything the US has done, it's completely denied or just not talked about.

Care to comment on the destruction of the Native Americans?


I have commented on U.S. atrocities quite often in other contexts. Heck, look where I live. But anyway, this has exactly what to do with the OP?

Just stop pretending you are somehow morally superior. That's all I'm asking.


Considering that I wasn't even alive at the time of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, I have no idea how my morality has any bearing on the decisions made at that time.

If you do not wish to discuss the topic of this thread, feel free to take your rantings elsewhere.

[Hans]

Why not talk about the history of Japan. Is the treatment of the Ainu taught to students there? I find that American history is extremely open - compared to the Japan.

How about the treatment of the Koreans who were kidnapped in the 16th century and brought to Japan? How about the Eta or the Hinin?

I would suspect that you didn't know about any of the situations I put in my post. Lets go thru them.

Tell us about YOUR view of the Japanese treatment of the Ainu?

Morally superior? I'm speaking from the Japanese side.

[Hans]

Ask him the fate of Japanese prisoners and criminals.....oh and ask him about Hachijo....he has no idea what that is but he should research it.

Hey やぼてん during World War II if you were a military prisoner who'd you like to be held prisoner by? The Japanese (most of the private soldiers who were guards were Koreans by the way) or the Americans......We BOTH know you won't answer that don't we!

[Corsair 115]

As far as NASA goes, Werner Von Braun did work for the Third Reich, but he was, as were many of his countrymen, more or less coerced into doing so. They either worked for the Reich, or tried like hell to find a way out of the country. Those who worked for the V2 project were not a part of the Final Solution, though they did work in the bombing of Britain.


The problem in regards to von Braun was that the V2 facility used slave labour, and there are conflicting accounts as to whether or not von Braun knew about that and if he tried to do anything about it.


An oil blockade crippled their war machine and like a penned dog they are no harm.


Japan still had a formidable army. It had stockpiled some 5,000 aircraft which it intended to use in mass kamikaze attacks against any U.S. navy invasion fleet. It had issued an order that, in the event of an Allied invasion, all prisoners of war were to be immediately executed. It had also issued a decree which made all able-bodied persons of the country members of the militia. In other words, technically, there were no more civilians.

Again, since the country's situation was that dire, where is your indignation at the Japanese government for not surrendering when it was clear they had lost and needlessly subjecting their population to continued military strikes? Shouldn't you be blaming the Japanese leadership first and foremost for pointlessly prolonging the war?


There is no need to murder the civilians who are innocent.


Ask yourself this: in an industrialized nation-state, who works in the factories producing the tanks, guns, bombs, planes, bullets, artillery pieces, and shells? Who works in the shipyards repairing and building warships? Who grows the food which feeds the military personnel? Who supplies the new military recruits? The answer to all the foregoing are civilians. An industrialized nation-state cannot maintain its military without the civilian population. No civilians, no economy; no economy, no military. It may offend our 21st century sensibilities, but in a condition of total war between industrialized nation-states, civilians are a target, albeit an indirect one.

And the degree to which civilians are hit is directly related to the technological capabilities, as well as the operational and logisitical limitations, of the militaries involved. Had the USAAF during WWII had access to conventional bombs with even half the accuracy of today's GPS- and laser-guided bombs, the war would have been over much more quickly. But such technology did not exist. The result was that oftentimes much or even most of a city had to be levelled in order to be sure of knocking out a specific factory complex.


Another example of us atrocity is the bombing of dresden when it was well known that germany was well defeated they bombed the city and killed half a million anyway.


Dresden myths:

100,000 or more were killed. This is false. Most reasonable and reliable estimates put the death toll at between 25,000 to 40,000.

There were no military targets in the city. This is false. There were indeed specific legitimate military targets within the city, along with its railway centre being a general logistical target. It is true, however, that little effort was made by Bomber Command to hit these targets; the aiming point for the raid was chosen for convenience rather that military necessity. But that goes more to operational fatigue and war weariness than to any desire to punish the city.

Also, where is your blame of the German leadership for not surrendering when it was clear they had lost the war? You criticize the Allies for bombing Dresden because "it was was well known that germany was well defeated," but had Germany surrendered the raid never would have taken place. Shouldn't you first and foremost be blaming the German government for needlessly prolonging the war?

The raid was intended to cause maximum civilian casualties. This is false. The mix of incendiary and high explosive bombs carried for the raid were entirely typical of the bombloads carried on Bomber Command missions of the period. The only reason for the high number of casualties on the raid was due to the creation of a firestorm. But Bomber Command could not create firestorms at will; they were unpredictable, rare, freak events. There were perhaps only a dozen firestorms created during the entire war.

I always find it interesting when Dresden is singled out but not a word is said about Hamburg, which in 1943 suffered a raid every bit as bad, and possibly worse, than what happened at Dresden. I usually conclude such folks are not very familiar with the history and details of the air war over Europe.


But in 1945 they were trapped inside japan ,with no factorys , no oil and living in wooden houses.


They still had factories. Granted, they were struggling mightily to produce any military hardware, but they were still operating. They still had an army, and still had an air force (albeit one crippled by a lack of trained pilots, but one quite capable of conducting devastating kamikaze attacks).

[Hans]

The Japanese had several million soldiers overseas in China, South-west Asia, Indonesia, Taiwan, Korea etc. What was left of their navy still had fuel from Bornea (well not much).

Care to guess what the guidelines to the commissary officers of food distribution points (Nenryo Kofujo) in conquered lands was? Take food from the civilian population as needed. No consideration of their needs were to be considered!

[Corsair 115]

no my avatar shows Squibs from controlled demolotion something we shouldnt forget


LOL, if you really think that, it explains much.

[Redtail]

Japan's history is out in the open and talked about. When it comes to anything the US has done, it's completely denied or just not talked about.

No, just no. This is simply a stupid argument.

[funk de fino]

How many wars did the US start after?

No world wars.

Japan was never interested in fighting the US. Just throwing that out there.

Then attacking pearl harbor was an astoundingly stupid action. A bit like that mentally ill bloke who jumped into a lion compound in a zoo and got eaten.

[Biscuit]

Would you like to talk about the entire history of the US?

Japan's history is out in the open and talked about. When it comes to anything the US has done, it's completely denied or just not talked about.

Care to comment on the destruction of the Native Americans?

Just stop pretending you are somehow morally superior. That's all I'm asking.

your argument seems to be that events that occurred after the use of nuclear weapons to end WWII do not justify the use of nuclear weapons to end WWII.

There is a reason that a trial attorney has the option to object on irrelevant grounds.

[Foolmewunz]

Would you like to talk about the entire history of the US?

Japan's history is out in the open and talked about. When it comes to anything the US has done, it's completely denied or just not talked about.

Care to comment on the destruction of the Native Americans?

Just stop pretending you are somehow morally superior. That's all I'm asking.

This is just plain ignorant. Have you actually read any of the JREF Forums? There are discussions-debates-battles over just about everything the USA has ever done from 1492 to present. How have you missed all of that?

Your arguments are senseless and your debating style (for lack of a better description) is childish.

The only people I've met who try to defend poor Japan as the victim in WWII are apologists for their racist expansion. Your repulsive insinuation that Nanking was an exaggeration or a lie would seem to put you in that camp? If that's not so then you ought to pay attention to what you're saying. (I also note that you neatly dodged the cross-examination on that topic. Do you or do you not agree that the "Rape of Nanking" is factual?)

Do you really believe what you're posting or are you just grasping at straws? It's absurd to contend that the colonization (peaceful for the most part) of various parts of the Pacific was comparable to brutal military invasion? (And I seem to have misplaced the part of my history books that mentions.... Who, exactly, was China a colony to in the30s?)

You use nonsense to justify your reprehensible defense of the Japanese war machine (not even close to being matched by the nazis in the percentage of the economy they dedicated to their imperialist aims).

[theprestige]

ITT: The U.S. has delivered savage beatings to a lot of people. Some of them had it coming, others didn't. Japan had it coming.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by kageki
Japan was never interested in fighting the US. Just throwing that out there. Then attacking pearl harbor was an astoundingly stupid action. A bit like that mentally ill bloke who jumped into a lion compound in a zoo and got eaten. .

He takes the Japanese leadership minority opinion that they should not start a war with the USA as meaning that Japan did not want war. It is patently obvious that the leadership did indeed consider war with the USA worth the risk of attacking its assets and killing its people. So the notion that Japan did not wish to be embroiled in a war with the USA is obviously false.

With that in mind it is no wonder that he also takes the fact that a portion of the Japanese leadership wanted to surrender as meaning that the Japanese leadership as a whole was trying to do so. If in fact this were the case then the order would have gone out to lay down weapons and a message would have been received by the USA to the effect that Japan was quitting the fight. But of course that was not the case until after Nagasaki burned.

So Japan had a few days to observe what happened to Hiroshima but that did not convince enough people to surrender. Instead the Japanese leadership waited and only when Nagasaki was also destroyed did it convince them to quit the fight. Tell me again then who is responsible for the deaths in Nagasaki? Sure the Americans dropped the bomb but had Japan surrendered 24 hours earlier all those people would have lived. Was Hiroshima not enough of a demonstration?

I see someone earlier alluded to the idea that the Americans could have dropped the first bomb on a sparesly inhabited area to demonstrate its capabilities. Well they did not , the dropped it on Hiroshima, and THAT demonstration was insufficient to garner surrender. So what evidence is there that dropping it where few if any people would die would have been sufficient?

[dudalb]

Hiroshima but that did not convince enough people to surrender. Instead the Japanese leadership waited and only when Nagasaki was also destroyed did it convince them to quit the fight.

And even then, elements in the Army and Navy attemted a coup against the peace party which damn near suceeded.
Frankly, the 'Allies were no better then the Axis" argument is stupid beyond belief and the only people who hold that are wackjobs on both ends of the political spectrum: Right wing loons who think it lets Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan off the hook, and Left Wing Loons who think that all capitalist
countries are evil..
Kakegi is also, as his posts of a few months ago prove, a Holocuast denier. Big Surprise there.

[Biscuit]

So Japan had a few days to observe what happened to Hiroshima but that did not convince enough people to surrender. Instead the Japanese leadership waited and only when Nagasaki was also destroyed did it convince them to quit the fight. Tell me again then who is responsible for the deaths in Nagasaki? Sure the Americans dropped the bomb but had Japan surrendered 24 hours earlier all those people would have lived. Was Hiroshima not enough of a demonstration?

There is actually some evidence that even the second bomb wasn't enough. Some historians think it may have been the treat of Russia entering the war in the pacific as talk between the Japanese and the russians had broken down. The hard core of Japanese military leadership were not scared by either bombing nor did they show any concern for the lives of their own people, victory at all cost being their only option.

[Corsair 115]

Kakegi is also, as his posts of a few months ago prove, a Holocuast denier. Big Surprise there.


I seem to recall that kakegi also believes that the U.S. government knew about the Pearl Harbor raid beforehand and let it happen (i.e. he's a Pearl Harbor conspiracist). But it is possible I'm confusing him with someone else.

[ElMondoHummus]

There is actually some evidence that even the second bomb wasn't enough. Some historians think it may have been the treat of Russia entering the war in the pacific as talk between the Japanese and the russians had broken down. The hard core of Japanese military leadership were not scared by either bombing nor did they show any concern for the lives of their own people, victory at all cost being their only option.

I think you're right in including the role of the Soviets in the discussion; history made it clear that the Japanese would much rather surrender to the Americans than the Soviets. But I'm not sure what Japan would have done had the Soviets not indicated they would go to war in the Pacific. On the one hand, I recall in a couple of biographical works on Hirohito that he was very badly shocked by the power of the bombs, so you can read that as the Emperor deciding that enough is enough, we're ending this here, and I'm no longer going to lay down for these other people in government who want the war to continue.

On the other hand, history also makes it clear that Imperial Japan wanted at worst to keep the Soviets neutral, and at best get the USSR to help in negotiations with the Americans. At that point, which was before the USSR declared war, it's rather clear that the Japanese still had hope they could maintain what gains they had remaining, and if I'm reading things right, maybe even reverse some of the losses (someone with better knowledge than me should speak up about whether my recollection is correct or not; I'm struggling to remember books read many years ago). While that sounds like it contradicts the notion of continuing the war, keep in mind that there was no provision to actually halt hostilities in all that dreaming (at least from what I recall). Quite the contrary, it simply sounded like the climax of the originally stated objective: Conquer as much as they can, then fight hard enough to discourage the US into a settlement. It differed only in that it fleshed out the details of that endgame scenario.

But of course the Soviets entry and the dropping of the A-bombs changed that calculus. Which one ended up being the final straw, I don't know. I myself would think it's the A-bomb, but that's strictly a personal opinion. Regardless, it's obvious that the power of that bomb in conjunction with the Soviet launch of hostilities combined to get Japan to surrender. Whether they would or would not have had the element of Soviet hostilities been absent is fodder for interesting debate, but I'm not sure it's a question that can be determined with much certainty.

But again, I'm really reaching far back in my memory just to write this post, as superficial as it is on the topic. If someone has better knowledge, or better yet can correct my hazy recollections, then by all means, speak up. I'm be glad to read it.

[Metullus]

*snip*
I see someone earlier alluded to the idea that the Americans could have dropped the first bomb on a sparesly inhabited area to demonstrate its capabilities. Well they did not , the dropped it on Hiroshima, and THAT demonstration was insufficient to garner surrender. So what evidence is there that dropping it where few if any people would die would have been sufficient?IIRC the idea was floated that the Hiroshima bomb be dropped over an unpopulated area as a demonstration of force, but that the idea was nixed in no small part because it was by no means a certainty that the device would, in fact, work as intended. It was feared that a publicized failure would do much to undermine the call for Japanese surrender.

[jaydeehess]

IIRC the idea was floated that the Hiroshima bomb be dropped over an unpopulated area as a demonstration of force, but that the idea was nixed in no small part because it was by no means a certainty that the device would, in fact, work as intended. It was feared that a publicized failure would do much to undermine the call for Japanese surrender.

Yes, I recall some of the Manhattan scientists calling for such a demonstration event that the Japanese could witness without killing anyone. IIRC the thought was to obliterate a decent sized island off the coast of the main Japanese island.

What I was speaking about was the evidence that such a demonstration would not have had the desired effect since even detonating the one over Hiroshima with all of its obvious effects did not accomplish a surrender.

As for the Russian entry into the war it represented a two front war on Japan's doorstep. With the Americans to the east able to obliterate cities almost at will and the Russians coming at them from the west it certainly would be too much. I can also understand that the Japanese command would see the Americans as the better of two enemies to surrender to.
IIRC the Russians were pissed that they did not have much say in the aftermath of Japanese surrender. Didn't they want Hokkaidō as a culmanation of the plans that Russia had had for the island group in the late 19th century?

[Metullus]

Yes, I recall some of the Manhattan scientists calling for such a demonstration event that the Japanese could witness without killing anyone. IIRC the thought was to obliterate a decent sized island off the coast of the main Japanese island.

What I was speaking about was the evidence that such a demonstration would not have had the desired effect since even detonating the one over Hiroshima with all of its obvious effects did not accomplish a surrender.

Oh, I got your point, and I agree. I have always thought the idea of a demonstration was ill considered for a lot of reasons, and I could never understand why people have suggested that it should have been done that way for the very reason you pointed out: if the destruction of Hiroshima was not enough to convince Japan to surrender, the destruction of a meaningless piece of uninhabited real estate would not have done the job either.

As for the Russian entry into the war it represented a two front war on Japan's doorstep. With the Americans to the east able to obliterate cities almost at will and the Russians coming at them from the west it certainly would be too much. I can also understand that the Japanese command would see the Americans as the better of two enemies to surrender to.
IIRC the Russians were pissed that they did not have much say in the aftermath of Japanese surrender. Didn't they want Hokkaidō as a culmanation of the plans that Russia had had for the island group in the late 19th century?I have always considered Stalin's timing for entering into the war in the Pacific as being the Generalissimo at his best. While he perhaps did not get all of what he wanted he did get quite a lot with no effort expended.

[abenja1]

Japan's history is out in the open and talked about. When it comes to anything the US has done, it's completely denied or just not talked about.

Care to comment on the destruction of the Native Americans?



And as we all know, the Nanking Massacre is so prominently available in Japanese history textbooks. Care to comment on that?

[dudalb]

What can you expect from a Holocaust Denier?

[twinstead]

Yes, I'm very concerned about the total lack of recognition in the US of how the American Indians were treated in light of the totally open and honest treatment in Japan of Imperial Japan's "adventures" in China.

Somebody should do something.

[Hokulele]

And as we all know, the Nanking Massacre is so prominently available in Japanese history textbooks. Care to comment on that?


I will admit, I was pleasantly surprised by the exhibits at Peace Park and the Atomic Museum in Hiroshima when I visited there (about 10 years ago). They had a very, I guess careful would be the best word, exhibit on the lead-up to the invasion at Pearl Harbor and the war in the Pacific. Part of that was a pictorial and text display on Nanking. Maybe it was due to the fact that I only read the English text (I did read the Japanese labels on the pictures, and they seemed to be a good match to the English), but they described the atrocities in a fairly factual light. It wasn't very flattering to the Japanese, although it wasn't as condemning as a similar Chinese exhibit would be.

Many of the displays had a common theme, that nuclear war should be unnecessary, but it does take two to tango. I strongly recommend visiting should anyone be in that area. Make sure you take the full day to see all of the exhibits (there's a lot), and don't plan on feeling up for much of anything afterwards. It is a very powerful experience.

[Travis]

The idea that Americans are not taught about the destruction of the Natives is just stupid. Everyone in America knows there were acts of genocide committed against the Natives and, outside of a handful of racists, everyone thinks it was terrible.

[JoeyDonuts]

The idea that Americans are not taught about the destruction of the Natives is just stupid. Everyone in America knows there were acts of genocide committed against the Natives and, outside of a handful of racists, everyone thinks it was terrible.

Not only do we know about it, but the continuing concessions and autonomy given the native tribes that have allowed them to thrive and prosper even in this economic climate amounts an organizational concession by the United States Government that the way they were treated in the past was completely wrong.

Of course it may also have something to do with the morbidly obese trailer trash that seem to hold the slot machines to the floor 24 hours a day. . .

I do have to snicker a little bit when I see a Creek Indian casino manager driving around in a Mercedes while his patronage are frittering away their unemployment checks on the Kenny Rogers video slots.

"Come on...20 lines....DAMN!"

[Ranb]

They couldnt get to pearl harbour again.

Japanese warships have been returning to Pearl Harbor for years. But their weapons firing is mostly limited to exercises like Rimpac. :)

Ranb

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

Not only do we know about it, but the continuing concessions and autonomy given the native tribes that have allowed them to thrive and prosper even in this economic climate amounts an organizational concession by the United States Government that the way they were treated in the past was completely wrong.

Of course it may also have something to do with the morbidly obese trailer trash that seem to hold the slot machines to the floor 24 hours a day. . .

I do have to snicker a little bit when I see a Creek Indian casino manager driving around in a Mercedes while his patronage are frittering away their unemployment checks on the Kenny Rogers video slots.

"Come on...20 lines....DAMN!"
And everytime they want to build a new casino, they dust off another treaty signed in 1821 with New York State, or 1660 with the French or Dutch, and send in an army of lawyers (paid for by those casinos) AND threaten to set up tire fires across the New York State Thruway until they get their way. Recently they demanded NYS pay them per car going across their land on roads they don't maintain... or else they would enact some treaty and call for the US Military, to attack Americans driving through their land. Yeah... and they asked Obama for this. Crazy man.

Personally I'd rather let Trump run a casino with all the gaudy gold plating and hair pieces across the state than these down-trodden-turned-greedy folks.

At least then it wouldn't be tax free!

But back on subject. My wife's family was run out of China twice... Maternal side by the Japanese, Paternal side by the Cultural Revolution. The Rape of Nanking DID happen Mr Extreme-Radical kageki. I've met people who saw it.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

The United States government was definitely morally superior than Imperial Japan.

Those individuals who took the decision to drop the nukes on Japan weren't morally superior to anyone. The were on a level with the lowest of the low.

[Z]

It was war, they were the enemy. We had the power. Ultimately, we were forced into the war by the Japanese. We chose how and when we would end the war, and that's what we did.

Is it atrocious? Yes. It's war. All war is atrocious. Every action in war is dehumanizing, horrid, and evil. That's war, in a nutshell.

Should we have limited ourselves to one bomb? Nope. One bomb didn't cut it. Should we have just not developed nuclear weapons? Nope. Germany would have bombed us instead.

Ultimately, it all comes down to might makes right. If it took ten bombs, or a hundred, to stop the war, that's what we would have done. If it had taken the total genocide of the Japanese race to stop the war, I have a feeling we might have even tried to take that route.

"If you don't stop hitting me with the stick, I'll shoot you in the knee."
Whap!
BANG!
"If you hit me again with the stick, I'll shoot you in the other knee."
Whap!
BANG!
"If you hit me again with the stick, I'll shoot you in the elbow."

...

And so forth. Sooner or later, he's gonna stop hitting you with the stick.

[Corsair 115]

Those individuals who took the decision to drop the nukes on Japan weren't morally superior to anyone. The were on a level with the lowest of the low.


That comment might have more weight if you had addressed even one of the many counterpoints put to you. As yet, you haven't.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Kageki -

We won, you lost.

Deal with it.

Sure we were "manipulated by teh ebil joos" into doing their fighting for them. But at least they know how to pick a winner. :D

[KoihimeNakamura]

Let me summarize something else:

1) Others doing bad actions does not make Japan right

2) We are discussing Japan's bad actions, NOT ANYONE ELSE's here.

The history forum is -> for USA atrocities (such as Trail of Tears, the 1880-1900 treatment of native americans, etc. etc.)

[jaydeehess]

Those individuals who took the decision to drop the nukes on Japan weren't morally superior to anyone. The were on a level with the lowest of the low.

Since WW1 bombs have been dropped on civilian populations with horrendous effect.
Read the Bible and you will come across references to the destruction of cities in which no man, woman or child was spared.
THE SOLE difference is the fact that a city could be wiped out in seconds by a crew of one bomber.

There is no moral difference between sending an army with nothing more than spears and arrows, or a squadron of bombers with HE and incindiaries, or one bomber with an atomic weapon, to wipe out a city.

If you wish to put that moral position at the lowest of the low that would be your perogative.

[Biscuit]

Those individuals who took the decision to drop the nukes on Japan weren't morally superior to anyone. The were on a level with the lowest of the low.

They were great men burdened with terrible options. The choices they made saved lives regardless if you are willing to believe that. Hundreds of thousands of US soldiers would have died invading Japan and who knows how many Japanese civilians and soldiers. How dare you judge them with hindsight.

The Last Stand
The invaders who made it to shore would face Imperial Army divisions expected, as always, to fight to the last man. Civilians were recruited to fight alongside the soldiers with sharpened bamboo spears. The government held up as a model to civilians on the main islands the civilians on Saipan who had jumped off cliffs rather than surrender. Richard B. Frank, author of Downfall: the End of the Imperial Japanese Empire, describes their position: "In their war gaming of Ketsu-Go, the Japanese had worked out that they could destroy up to a third of the invasion force while it was still afloat. If you consider how General [George] Marshall recoiled when he saw the defense buildup in early August, I think the Japanese had a substantial basis to believe that Ketsu-Go could deliver something to them better than unconditional surrender."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/pacific/peopleevents/e_endgame.html

The choices our leaders made in WWII have helped to secure a better future for the entire world unless you think living under NAZI or imperial Japanese control would be better. Further more they would never have had to make the choices they made if it hadn't been for the reckless, immoral, aggressive, barbaric, and unwarranted actions of the AXIS powers.

I am not saying the civilians in Japan brought this upon themselves, I am saying their leaders did.

[Roadtoad]

I am reminded of something Lance Morrow pointed out: That those who try to equate the United States with a.) Soviet Russia, b.) Nazis, and other evil dictatorships are, in essence, moral imbeciles. If you can't figure out why Imperial Japan was evil, particularly after the rape of Nanking, particularly after the evidence (much of which is solidly documented) of what happened in the Philippines, particularly after the Bataan Death March, particularly after the evidence of what happened with Unit 731, particularly after what they did to Okinawan nurses when America was preparing to invade that island, particularly after what they did to POWs being held in Japan, particularly after what they did to their own soldiers, abandoning them on small islands in the Pacific, then I would guess that "moral imbecile" applies quite nicely.

It would also explain why an unconditional surrender was practically required.

Sorry, Kageki. You might not like the facts, but they remain the facts. And Tin Foil Timothy has yet to figure out that it's not a good idea to get your history lessons from Newgrounds.

[dudalb]

Those individuals who took the decision to drop the nukes on Japan weren't morally superior to anyone. The were on a level with the lowest of the low.

Anybody who seriously compares Harry Truman to Hitler and Stalin is, frankly, so incredibly ignorant as to be not worth having a discussion with.

[Alareth]

Those individuals who took the decision to drop the nukes on Japan weren't morally superior to anyone. The were on a level with the lowest of the low.

In a war, your primary goal is to attain victory with a minimum of losses to your own troops.

A ground invasion of Japan would have resulted in losses on both sides numbering in the millions.

The decision to drop the bombs was made to ensure the safety of US servicemen.

War is brutal, ugly and unpleasant. The decision to use these weapons wasn't made on a whim. It was a decision that did save lives despite the mental and moral gymnastics some would use to argue otherwise.

You don't have to like it, you don't have to agree with it, but it is what it was.

You can sit on your high horse and spout about immorality more than half a century later all you want. You have no real idea what the world was like then.

[Bell]

This isn't about morality.
This isn't about them versus us.
This isn't about innocent civilians.
This isn't about genocide.

No, to the conspiracy theorists it is ONLY about how BAD and EVIL the US government WAS, IS and allways WILL BE. They will (miss)use everything to further their case.

[dudalb]

I have noted that a great many CTers are very ignorant of history. That is one reason they fall for Conspiracy Woo.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

In a war, your primary goal is to attain victory with a minimum of losses to your own troops.

A ground invasion of Japan would have resulted in losses on both sides numbering in the millions.

The decision to drop the bombs was made to ensure the safety of US servicemen.

War is brutal, ugly and unpleasant. The decision to use these weapons wasn't made on a whim. It was a decision that did save lives despite the mental and moral gymnastics some would use to argue otherwise.

You don't have to like it, you don't have to agree with it, but it is what it was.

You can sit on your high horse and spout about immorality more than half a century later all you want. You have no real idea what the world was like then.

I've never heard such utter nonsense. You're just falling for the tired old propaganda that the only alternative was a ground invasion

Firstly show us how TWO nuclear bombs would persuade Japan to surrender when only ONE nuclear bomb would not.

Secondly show us why in such an important situation the US government would deploy an untested weapon, the Little Boy, instead of two previously tested Fat 'Men'. Show us why this was not an experiment.

Thirdly show us why dropping ONE nuclear weapon on an area that has the least amount of inhabitants and threatening Japan with further attacks on cities would NOT have convinced them to surrender.

I won't hold my breath.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

This isn't about morality.
This isn't about them versus us.
This isn't about innocent civilians.
This isn't about genocide.

No, to the conspiracy theorists it is ONLY about how BAD and EVIL the US government WAS, IS and allways WILL BE. They will (miss)use everything to further their case.

ignoring the chaff.....

I'm afraid it is about morality, innocent civilians and genocide. There was no need for this disgusting act of slaughter.

[dudalb]

Why is TFT so indignant about Hiroshima but quiet about The Holocaust and Japanese Atrocities like the Rape Of Nanking?

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Anybody who seriously compares Harry Truman to Hitler and Stalin is, frankly, so incredibly ignorant as to be not worth having a discussion with.

Bizarrely enough Stalin is revered by many in Russia. I don't know why such an evil **** would be revered.

But make no mistake, anyone who drops two nuclear weapons on two cities as a genocidal experiment is pure scum and is down there with the lowest of the low.

It's you're prerogative if you want to support that of course.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Why is TFT so indignant about Hiroshima but quiet about The Holocaust and Japanese Atrocities like the Rape Of Nanking?

Pure trolling. What has The Holocaust and Japanese Atrocities like the Rape Of Nanking got to do with this thread?

This thread is called: "Japan tried to surrender before hiroshima"

btw - I'm sure I could find many subjects YOU are quiet on. ocne again you make a fool of yourself with your immature and troll like comments

[dudalb]

It was the "genocidal experiment" part that is ,frankly, crap.
But since you accept John Pilger's word as Gospel, along with every other "Hate America" woo merchant out there,there is no point discussing it with you.
You just ignore any evidence that does not fit in with your worldview.

[Roadtoad]

In a war, your primary goal is to attain victory with a minimum of losses to your own troops.

A ground invasion of Japan would have resulted in losses on both sides numbering in the millions.

The decision to drop the bombs was made to ensure the safety of US servicemen.

War is brutal, ugly and unpleasant. The decision to use these weapons wasn't made on a whim. It was a decision that did save lives despite the mental and moral gymnastics some would use to argue otherwise.

You don't have to like it, you don't have to agree with it, but it is what it was.

You can sit on your high horse and spout about immorality more than half a century later all you want. You have no real idea what the world was like then.

A solid point, Alareth. May I add to this?

One thing you have to put up with while driving rigs is the occasional smartass warehouse monkey, the kind who will demand to know where the hell you got your license, and who gripes that he hopes you don't drive your car at home like you do your rig. They're instant experts when it comes to driving 18 wheelers, even though they've never cracked the cover of the driver's handbook, and they've never even sat behind the wheel of anything bigger than a Ford F150. The only difference they know between a Kenworth and a Pete is the nameplate.

On one occasion, while picking up a load of soup, I had to put up with one joker who kept griping about drivers pulling into his dock. "Hell, I could do a better job than these chumps!" he complained. (Oddly enough, the forklift driver kept shaking his head at this. Makes you wonder if THAT guy knew a thing or two that we drivers didn't.) Generally, you have to make a couple of pickups from a particular location before you get the routine down, and figure out how the hell you're going to get into the dock in the first place, but once you do, you've got it locked. From then on, it's clockwork. This warehouse guy didn't know that, obviously, but the way I see it, eventually, he'd figure it out.

On more than one occasion, I've seen drivers toss the warehouseman the keys, telling them, "Okay, smartass. If you can do a better job, knock yourself out." Sometimes, that shuts them up, especially if you've got a supervisor on site who's actually driven a rig, or one who has grown to appreciate what we do. Other times, it just fires them up worse: "I don't have to. That's YOUR job, Trucker!"

There was a load I delivered in Kent, WA. The Motormouth warehouseman kept running off at the mouth. I said something to his supervisor about it, and a moment later, the supervisor called Motormouth over. "You got a problem with this driver?" he asked.

Motormouth then began a litany of complaints, all of which had no basis in fact, backed up by the fact that the supervisor had seen me swing the rig around and back into the space for the door. Motormouth was told to shut his yap, quit hassling the drivers, or he'd be sent home.

Obviously, Motormouth didn't like this; I had infringed on his right of free speech, even as he was infringing on my right to do my job with minimal hassle. He had no idea what I did for a living, no idea how to do my job, nor did he have any idea how to improve the situation. If I were truly causing a problem, he could have come outside and ground-guided me in, or asked a couple of questions about what I needed to do to get 80,000 lbs. of tractor, trailer and freight into a narrow space between two semi-trailers, and seen what he could have done to make my job (and, in turn, his) easier.

I'm guessing that Timothy is rather young. I could easily be wrong, so I'm not sticking to this point, but it does seem to me that he grooves on this notion of moral superiority, for which he offers no supporting evidence. I have no idea if he's ever served in the military, but if I had to guess, I would say not. Contrary to popular opinion, most soldiers, and their leaders, tend to be hesitant to start using deadly force for the simple reason that most of their opponents tend to be using deadly force in return, and no one grooves on being a casualty, at least if they have any sense. Further, most military leaders are averse to contacting families and explaining how their loved ones sacrifice was somehow meaningful, especially since in order to become a military leader, you have to have spent some time watching as your comrades-in-arms families were told the same line of crap. Most families, while they appreciate such sacrifices, would rather have their loved ones return home relatively unscathed, rather than in a pine box.

Having grown up in a military family, I understand this. Having had kids in the military, I understand this. Having been in the military myself, I understand this. I don't think Timothy does.

The whole idea of war is to break your enemy's will to fight. Once you've done that, it's over. If you can do it quickly, potentially, you can save lives. Mercy on the battlefield is simply not a part of the equation. And when you realize that Japan considered its home ground a part of the battlefield, and its civilian population combatants... Seriously, what would you have done in Truman's shoes? How many options were left, particularly when you realize that the hard-liners held key positions in Japan's government?

Monday morning quarterbacks, armchair experts, and wannabe gearjammers all share the same characteristics: they want the liberty to complain about actions taken, but not the responsibility to actually effect the change they think should be taken. It's a common cowardice, frequently found wherever people use cheap cliches as a substitute for thought. Problem is that once you actually have to put rubber to the road, it's a whole 'nother matter, and you begin to realize the rationalizations, the cliches, the cheap excuses, the lies you've told yourself, just don't work. The very people you've assumed were too stupid for words, the ones who you felt were so inferior to you, are now the ones you must turn to in order to accomplish your goals.

And having been on both sides, I can tell you, it's easier when you're in Timothy's position. You can swallow your pride and ask for help. There's usually someone who will take it on. Problem is, when you're on the other side, being asked to ignore insults given, you become less and less willing to play as time goes on. And on more than one occasion, I've told the Timothys I've encountered to go screw themselves after being told what an incompetent boob I am. It's made their lives considerably less pleasant, especially when they've had to explain to others why a certain task wasn't completed, particularly when I've been the one who could have done it, with less time, less trouble, and less heartache.

I guess Timothy will learn.

Just not from me.

[gtc]

Firstly show us how TWO nuclear bombs would persuade Japan to surrender when only ONE nuclear bomb would not.

One bomb wasn't enough to get them surrender.

One bomb was dropped and they didn't surrender. Another bomb was dropped and they did surrender.

Thirdly show us why dropping ONE nuclear weapon on an area that has the least amount of inhabitants and threatening Japan with further attacks on cities would NOT have convinced them to surrender.

Because dropping one bomb on a city was not enough to get them to surrender so dropping one bomb on an uninhabited island would also not have been enough.

Why is this hard to understand?

[dudalb]

btw - I'm sure I could find many subjects YOU are quiet on. ocne again you make a fool of yourself with your immature and troll like comments

Oh, the Irony.

[Bell]

If Japan tried to surrender before Hiroshima, there must be some formal letters or other formal communiques send to the US government? I'd like to see those.

I'll wait here.

[Roadtoad]

If Japan tried to surrender before Hiroshima, there must be some formal letters or other formal communiques send to the US government? I'd like to see those.

I'll wait here.

I better break out the beer. It's going to be a while.

[gtc]

A solid point, Alareth. May I add to this?

One thing you have to put up with while driving rigs is the occasional smartass warehouse monkey, the kind who will demand to know where the hell you got your license, and who gripes that he hopes you don't drive your car at home like you do your rig.

Good post.

[Roadtoad]

Why is this hard to understand?

Haven't you figured this out, gtc? Timothy is superior to everyone else here on the board. He doesn't have to figure this out. He's more compassionate than anyone else here.

Of course, he'll ultimately damn us all with his "compassion." In the end, a grand collection of Tin Foil Timothys will roll over with love for our enemies, and wonder why the world is less kind, less compassionate, less free. They will ignore the reality that there are genuinely evil people in this world, that good people on both sides of a conflict suffer cruelly when the evil are allowed to prosper, and that it's when we ignore such evil and allow it to prosper that it grows, festers, and ultimately destroys the good that exists. His cowardice is made possible by the courage of men like Gumboot, Rikzilla, Skeptic, and others.

[ElMondoHummus]

Dug the post, Road. You obviously are aware of Teddy Roosevelt's "Man in the Arena" speech.

[Roadtoad]

Actually, no, but I'll look it up.

[Biscuit]

I've never heard such utter nonsense. You're just falling for the tired old propaganda that the only alternative was a ground invasion

Firstly show us how TWO nuclear bombs would persuade Japan to surrender when only ONE nuclear bomb would not.

Secondly show us why in such an important situation the US government would deploy an untested weapon, the Little Boy, instead of two previously tested Fat 'Men'. Show us why this was not an experiment.

Thirdly show us why dropping ONE nuclear weapon on an area that has the least amount of inhabitants and threatening Japan with further attacks on cities would NOT have convinced them to surrender.

I won't hold my breath.

What are the other options?

a. A complete military blockade of the island of Japan with 21,948 miles of coast line and a population of over 9 million soldiers. Every man woman and child taught to fight to the very last one. The result being that we would probably still have a blockade set up or the vast majority of Japanese would starve to death, disease and death would be rampant throughout the island, and even basic medical care would be missing. That sounds not only practical but morally superior.:rolleyes:

b. Conventional bombing into submission. Again practical and morally superior.:rolleyes:

c. Accept a conditional surrender, mind you none was proffered from Japan until we hit them at Hiroshima and even then not by anyone with the authority to do so. We can therefore scratch that off the list.

d. Walk away?

Please tell me what options the U.S. had to end the war without a ground invasion, the use of nuclear weapons, or conventional carpet and fire bombings. Also please explain how one would be morally superior to another.

Are you willfully ignorant? Two bombs DID cause Japan to surrender when one bomb DID NOT. What part don't you get? If two had not worked they probably would have used a third and so on and so on until the Japanese government got the point. The fact is the use of more than one bomb is on the shoulders of the imperial japanese army who refused to surrender even to the very end. It was their stupid and selfish woo belief that they could not be defeated that forced America's hand. Just as their stupid and selfish attack of pearl harbor unleashed America's military upon them in the first place.

As has been explained the use of any weapon in the field for the first time is an experiment by its nature. That does not mean it is done out of sado-masochistic desires. They saw an opportunity and took it. Would it have been somehow more ethical to use a second fat boy? They have the same results you know.

Clearly the last question you asked has been answered earlier in this thread and if you can't find it then here it is. One bomb on a city and military target did not get Japan to surrender, why would a bomb dropped on a non populated non military target have had a different effect?

[Hans]

Since WW1 bombs have been dropped on civilian populations with horrendous effect.



One little historical correction. The first aerial bombs from an aircraft were dropped during the Italo-Turkish war. On October 23, 1911, an Italian pilot, Lt Giulio Gavotti flew over Turkish lines on a reconnaissance mission, and on November 1, the first ever aerial bomb was dropped. There were also bombing mad during the Mexican Revolution and during the 1912 Balkan war.....all prior to WW I

[dtugg]

How stupid does one have to be to say that exploding the bomb in an uninhabited area might have convinced the Japanese to surrender when Hiroshima didn't and Nagasaki almost didn't?

[Peace]

In a war, your primary goal is to attain victory with a minimum of losses to your own troops.


Why wasn't they used in Vietnam, or Iraq then?

[Peace]

What are the other options?

a. A complete military blockade of the island of Japan with 21,948 miles of coast line and a population of over 9 million soldiers. Every man woman and child taught to fight to the very last one. The result being that we would probably still have a blockade set up or the vast majority of Japanese would starve to death, disease and death would be rampant throughout the island, and even basic medical care would be missing. That sounds not only practical but morally superior.:rolleyes:

b. Conventional bombing into submission. Again practical and morally superior.:rolleyes:

c. Accept a conditional surrender, mind you none was proffered from Japan until we hit them at Hiroshima and even then not by anyone with the authority to do so. We can therefore scratch that off the list.

d. Walk away?

Please tell me what options the U.S. had to end the war without a ground invasion, the use of nuclear weapons, or conventional carpet and fire bombings. Also please explain how one would be morally superior to another.

Are you willfully ignorant? Two bombs DID cause Japan to surrender when one bomb DID NOT. What part don't you get? If two had not worked they probably would have used a third and so on and so on until the Japanese government got the point. The fact is the use of more than one bomb is on the shoulders of the imperial japanese army who refused to surrender even to the very end. It was their stupid and selfish woo belief that they could not be defeated that forced America's hand. Just as their stupid and selfish attack of pearl harbor unleashed America's military upon them in the first place.

As has been explained the use of any weapon in the field for the first time is an experiment by its nature. That does not mean it is done out of sado-masochistic desires. They saw an opportunity and took it. Would it have been somehow more ethical to use a second fat boy? They have the same results you know.



Strange how America had other options in Vietnam, and walked away.

[dtugg]

What the hell are you saying? Should the United States have just walked away from WWII?

[Peace]

What the hell are you saying? Should the United States have just walked away from WWII?

I'm saying America lost a lot of people in Vietnam, didn't use nukes, then walked away. At this stage of the war Japan was almost no threat to the rest of the world.

[TheWeirdSkeptic]

I'm saying America lost a lot of people in Vietnam, didn't use nukes, then walked away. At this stage of the war Japan was almost no threat to the rest of the world.

Except to China right?

Comparing Vietnam to the Japanese and American war of WW2 is probably the most foolish thing I have ever read.

[sleeplessdwarf]

Why wasn't they used in Vietnam, or Iraq then?

You lost me right there.

[tyr_13]

Strange how America had other options in Vietnam, and walked away.

Doing a different thing in a different war where the enemy wasn't a direct threat is strange? Japan was a threat as long as it could rebuild. Vietnam was a completely different war years later.

If you think that walking away was a good option and should have been done in WWII, back it up. Vietnam isn't backup, it's an entirely different scenario.

[dtugg]

You're joking right? First, you can't compare Vietnam and WWII, two very different wars, it's apples and oranges.

Second, you actually think that it would have been a good idea to let Imperial Japan off the hook? I can tell you exactly what would have happened. They would have rebuilt and started the whole thing up again in short order, this time emboldened by the fact that nobody had the nuts to actually stop them. And by this time they might have built the bomb themselves. I thank goodness that cowards like you weren't in charge back then.

[Biscuit]

Strange how America had other options in Vietnam, and walked away.

Your lack of knowledge about how and why the Vietnam war ended is outstanding. The situation in Vietnam and the situation at the end of WWII could not have been more different.

We were not about to win the Vietnam war and were basically at a stalemate when America decided to cut its losses for various political, economical, and social reason both at home and across the world. Also by the time vietnam rolled around our enemies in Russia had nukes and would have used them or given them to our enemies in vietnam. Its a little thing called mutually assured annihilation.

Perhaps the fact that we have not used nuclear weapons in war since Nagasaki would be evidence enough that this government is not and has never been interested in dropping nukes just to hear them go boom.

The situation in Iraq is also nothing like the situation with Japan. Moral revisionists need to stop coloring past events with more current ones especially when they have little to know knowledge about those events.

[Peace]

You lost me right there.

Let me help you.

I find it funny how you guys justify nuking a country that was almost beaten by saying..

In a war, your primary goal is to attain victory with a minimum of losses to your own troops.


But got your ass kicked in Vietnam, and didn't use them.

[Peace]

Your lack of knowledge about how and why the Vietnam war ended is outstanding. The situation in Vietnam and the situation at the end of WWII could not have been more different.



The only difference is Japan was beat by the time America nuked them, and you lost in Vietnam.

[dtugg]

Yeah, risking WWIII by using nukes in Vietnam would have been a good idea, genius.

[Peace]

You're joking right? First, you can't compare Vietnam and WWII, two very different wars, it's apples and oranges.

Second, you actually think that it would have been a good idea to let Imperial Japan off the hook? I can tell you exactly what would have happened. They would have rebuilt and started the whole thing up again in short order, this time emboldened by the fact that nobody had the nuts to actually stop them. And by this time they might have built the bomb themselves. I thank goodness that cowards like you weren't in charge back then.

Yea sure Japan was going to take on the rest of the world after Germany fell.

[dtugg]

The only difference is Japan was beat by the time America nuked them, and you lost in Vietnam.

Yeah, they had all but lost the war but they weren't ready to give up. It was imperative that they surrender on the terms of the United States so nothing like that could happen again. And guess what, it didn't and now Japan is a free and very rich country.

[TheWeirdSkeptic]

Let me help you.

I find it funny how you guys justify nuking a country that was almost beaten by saying..



But got your ass kicked in Vietnam, and didn't use them.

So you're still clinging to your belief that the two wars are in fact comparable?
Do we have to break down step by step why they are not? I'm gonna make a prediction and say yes...

[tyr_13]

The only difference is Japan was beat by the time America nuked them, and you lost in Vietnam.

Really? The war with Japan was basically a civil war? We had allies in Japan that would have been killed by nukes? The Japanese had allies with nukes who could respond in kind to an attack? Vietnam is an island?

And your assumption of 'you' (that those who disagree with you are all Americans) is stupid as well. Also, unless you are talking to a Vietnam vet, chances are good that no one you are talking to got their ass kicked in Vietnam. I hate it when people talk about nations as if they are people who have a common memory of all the events in their past and should thus learn completely from them. Stupid anthropomorphizing.

[dtugg]

Yea sure Japan was going to take on the rest of the world after Germany fell.

You don't know very much about history, do you? They thought that it was their divine destiny to rule the world. The even thought their emperor was a god. They would have continued fighting. They would have lost but the bloodshed would have been much, much greater than that of two nukes.

[lionking]

Let me help you.

I find it funny how you guys justify nuking a country that was almost beaten by saying..



But got your ass kicked in Vietnam, and didn't use them.
How on earth was Japan "almost beaten"? You made the claim, justify it.

[Peace]

Yeah, risking WWIII by using nukes in Vietnam would have been a good idea, genius.

So only nuke countries if you can get away with it?

[tyr_13]

So only nuke countries if you can get away with it?

Um, duh?

[dtugg]

So only nuke countries if you can get away with it?

If it is deemed necessary, yes.

[Peace]

How on earth was Japan "almost beaten"? You made the claim, justify it.

Are you joking?

Here this might help you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II

[TheWeirdSkeptic]

Are you joking?

Here this might help you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II

Looks like we got another troll that has ignored this thread and thinks he can jump in 7 pages in without reading anything. Same old bassically.

[Peace]

Looks like we got another troll that has ignored this thread and thinks he can jump in 7 pages in without reading anything. Same old bassically.

In other words you have nothing to say, know I'm right, and resort to calling me a troll. Very nice of you.

[applecorped]

Its not a conspiracy. No one who was born before yesterday is gullible enough to believe the bombings were not a sick experiment. Two bombs, one gun type, one implosion type. A second plane designated specifically to record and monitor the event.

Anyone who even remotely justifies the nuking of Japan is one sick individual.

I feel even more strongly about this than I do about the atrocities committed by the Zionists.

Thousands of Japanese murdered for an experiment. Totally and utterly *********** sick!!! :mad: :mad:

Actually, it was a very successful experiment.

[Roadtoad]

Oh, Christ. TFT has a buddy on the board, who's just as misinformed as he is.

[applecorped]

You better inform him quick then. It's your duty you know.

[TheWeirdSkeptic]

In other words you have nothing to say, know I'm right, and resort to calling me a troll. Very nice of you.

Read the thread. Then I won't call you a troll.

Explain to me why walking away from Japan was a better idea. Tell me the consquences this would have had.

It's your claim I don't have to say **** till you prove why walking away is a good idea. Oh *hint hint* don't compare two completely different wars it's a bad start.

[tyr_13]

In other words you have nothing to say, know I'm right, and resort to calling me a troll. Very nice of you.

No, everyone else already said the other objections to your assertions, and he pointed out the last one. He didn't just call you a troll, but pointed out what actions of yours indicated such.