plumage Wrote:I think we did the right thing and if I went back in time, would recommend it again. Ask the Chinese/Koreans/Philippinos/etc.. if America did the right thing in nuking them, too.

I had a little too much beer today and may become too emotional, so I refrain from getting too deep into this now, and I repeat, I am not bashing the use of nukes. There was a certain circumstance and we are just human. But I have never met a Chinese, Korean or Philippine person who approve that, and I know a bunch.

Philippine was a United States' colony and you killed a lot there sir.

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

plumage Wrote:

harhol Wrote:Nanking has nothing to do with nukes. Both were unforgivable atrocities. The fact that the Japanese did X, Y and Z does not change the fact that the United States committed mass murder of civilians.

Yep, sure did. Because it's called war.

This is well said. It's called war. It is not some fight sanctioned by the Marquis of Queensberry.

And the idea of a "limited war" implies without any argument that at least one side is going to accept a "limited defeat". That is to say, they are going to give up before exhausting every method at their disposal to not lose.

When countries can accept, universally, "limited defeat", then we can have "limited war". Until such time, war is best avoided, because it is, by its very nature, unlimited. To argue that one side or the other went too far in a contest that by its nature is unlimited is silly. It's akin to saying, "No fair; you won!"

I read the beginning of Embracing Defeat (winner of the Pulitzer Prize) which starts off describing conditions in Japan at the end of the war.

At the end of the war, Japanese troops were dying of starvation in the field. They had no way to get home after the war. Hundreds of thousands of them never did. Major cities were hugely destroyed... 65 percent of residences in Tokyo, 89 percent in Nagoya. The people in Japan were also in a famine due to the prolongation of the war. A majority of Japanese already were malnourished at the time of surrender.

This gave me the impression that there was no way that Japan wasn't going to lose, and that's why the use of the atomic bombs were not actually necessary.

drivers99, there was no question that Japan was losing/had already lost the war. But the decision to bomb Hiroshima was reached after the invasion of Okinawa, and an analysis of the losses on both sides of that battle. Let me quote from wikipedia: "the Japanese lost over 100,000 troops, and the Allies (mostly United States) suffered more than 50,000 casualties, with over 12,000 killed in action. Hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed, wounded or attempted suicide. Approximately one-fourth of the civilian population died due to the invasion." Had the invasion of the main islands been carried out, the losses on both sides of that battle (military and civilian) would probably have outnumbered the Holocaust, Nanjing, and the Russian front combined. Japan, as we know it today, would not exist. Believe it or not, the use of nuclear weapons was viewed as the more humane option if it would force an early end to the war.

War is an evil thing, and in my opinion no action in war can be considered morally righteous. But sometimes the alternatives (if any) are even worse.

drivers99 Wrote:I read the beginning of Embracing Defeat (winner of the Pulitzer Prize) which starts off describing conditions in Japan at the end of the war.

At the end of the war, Japanese troops were dying of starvation in the field. They had no way to get home after the war. Hundreds of thousands of them never did. Major cities were hugely destroyed... 65 percent of residences in Tokyo, 89 percent in Nagoya. The people in Japan were also in a famine due to the prolongation of the war. A majority of Japanese already were malnourished at the time of surrender.

This gave me the impression that there was no way that Japan wasn't going to lose, and that's why the use of the atomic bombs were not actually necessary.

"Necessary" can be debated until the end of the world. Japan was informed that "unconditional surrender" was required. Despite the facts you cite above, Japan continued to reject those terms. Therefore, the war continued. The atomic bombs were simply a method that was used during that war. Any attempt to separate them from any other method, such as the Tokyo firebombing, is silly.

Yes, Japan was losing. It was being beaten like a red-headed step-child. No, Japan would not quit or give up. Japan continued to use all the means at its disposal to kill "enemy" troops, despite its dire condition. Japan's propaganda organs continued to suggest that Armageddon on the beach was what was in store for US troops. One-hundred million would be there to meet them.

One does not win until one subdues the other side. One does not lose until one gives up. A war doesn't end until a winner wins or a loser loses. What part of that don't you get?

The dire conditions outlined above would have been immediately ameliorated by a Japanese surrender. But that would entail "loss of face". Now talk to me about morality, please. "Face" is obviously more important than the lives of your own people, yes? And I'm speaking here about Japanese leadership, if you want to call it that. Those people were willing -- in a futile attempt to save THEIR face -- to see their own people ground into the dirt.

My understanding as well, drivers, is that that is true. They did put up a brave front. Shame about leaders, because their "god" emperor really should've surrendered far sooner and spared his people. I guess he assumed Japan would be no more. Last I checked, they still spoke Japanese. Wonder how that worked, since America is so completely imperial and whatnot and the country was ours for the taking.

masa, I'll consider as you said that you are inebriated. Perhaps I wasn't clear, I meant the (insert nation's people) *of the day* probably weren't that upset to see Japan defeated by nuke or whatever. What their survivors' grandchildren think seems hardly relevant. None of them were murdered/tortured/raped, and many if not most probably have been told very little of what did happen. Because people who are systematically murdered/tortured/raped aren't always so keen on talking about it. And I mean real torture, not being forced to listen to loud music for days.

I wish we'd developed the bomb much sooner. A nuke over, say, Frankfurt (at random) much earlier in the war would've saved many countries thousands if not millions of lives (when considering the concentration camps), civilian and military. And probably would've saved many German civilian lives in other cities that were instead leveled more slowly by conventional bombs. Ditto if it had happened in Japan much earlier. Nukes, I believe, have saved more lives than we can possibly imagine in the past 60 years through staving off major conflicts that would've otherwise ensued. They may yet prove to be our undoing, but for now I support their having been used when they were.

I'm not for nukes for any reason, even most. But when two nations decide they are superior races and split the world map up to conquer it *all*, committing horrible atrocities along the way....

I guess one of the great ironies about the entire war would be if one could resurrect a dead Japanese soldier from, say, 1943, and then take him on a walking tour of Tokyo circa 1970. "My God, we won, didn't we!", would be his obvious instinctual gut reaction.

So what was it all about, Alfie?

It was about the hubris and hanna-ga-takainess of "leaders". Period. Nothing else. The rest of us are forced to eat their shit.

masaman Wrote:

kazelee Wrote:Read a little more about that era. All sides have something to be ashamed of. What country has made a good decision in the time of war?

Did I ever say Japan made a good decision? Why do you think I should read a little more about that era? I'm not angry or anything but I'm just curious.

You use the word humane when talking about a war that was well... shit... Neither side was humane. All side are guilty of inhumane, disgusting and atrocious acts. There is no... "well this side was worse," because it all was shit. It was a shitty stupid pointless war (like most wars are).

harhol Wrote:Nanking has nothing to do with nukes. Both were unforgivable atrocities. The fact that the Japanese did X, Y and Z does not change the fact that the United States committed mass murder of civilians.

No one has said that anything changes any fact. That's what makes this thread pointless. It's not a history lesson. It's a one-way trip to the blame game.

You wanna know another time the US committed mass murder of civilians in history....

SLAVERY! Wait, that wasn't just the US was it?

How productive is this... really?

I wouldn't say it was "pointless." Japan had a point: domination of about half the world and all the power/wealth/natural resources/etc.. that come with that. America had a point: stopping that, considering our own land had been divvied up by Germany/Japan.

I'd say Japan's point was far more pointless. Using war to stop a country from taking yours by force is far from what I would call pointless.

plumage Wrote:I wouldn't say it was "pointless." Japan had a point: domination of about half the world and all the power/wealth/natural resources/etc..

I know people like you, and I know it's pointless to talk to people like you. But I don't know why you want to learn Japanese. I mean, it's some racist gook's language. Why? Are you forced to learn it in a military?

What land did Japan take from America? Oh, you mean those ill-gotten colonies?
WW2 in the pacific wasn't an attempt to save the homeland, or the homeland of others, it was competition for colonies between (Imperial) America/Britain/etc and Imperial Japan.

There was no good side in the pacific. No one was fighting for freedom. Both sides fought dirty, both sides killed lots of civilians. America might have treated occupied Japan fairly well, but Japan treated occupied Taiwan fairly well too. Even the occupation of Korea was gentler than the previous native government. America also treated some of their other occupied territories very poorly (ex: Kwajalein Atoll). It's also worth noting that Japan's treatment of the colonies was in the height of a war it was losing badly. I wonder how well America would have treated Japan if America was losing a war against one of their allies.

In regards to the nuke being the only option because even though Japan was offering to surrender, they wouldn't do it unconditionally...

That makes it so America nuked Japan to gain a bit extra in the surrender, not to gain the surrender itself. The main thing the Japanese wanted in a conditional surrender was the continuance of the emperor system. They got that ANYWAYS after the conditional surrender. So what was the point of the nuke? Answer: scaring the Russians & satisfying the taxpayers in regards to the cost of the Manhattan Project

Also, the "supposed" Japanese attempts at an early surrender isn't a he said/she said thing, you can view actual historical documents from the US/Russian/Japanese sides from the period. It's documented undisputed fact.

Someone earlier said that the 'god emperor' should have saved his people by surrendering earlier. They need to learn some Japanese history. The Emperor of Japan has been a mere figurehead (aka no actual power at all) for hundreds of years. It would be like the Queen of England declaring Canada's surrender in some hypothetical war that happens next year.

masaman Wrote:

plumage Wrote:I wouldn't say it was "pointless." Japan had a point: domination of about half the world and all the power/wealth/natural resources/etc..

I know people like you, and I know it's pointless to talk to people like you. But I don't know why you want to learn Japanese. I mean, it's some racist gook's language. Why? Are you forced to learn it in a military?

Come on now. I hope that's a joke. Please say that's a joke.

"One does not win until one subdues the other side. One does not lose until one gives up. A war doesn't end until a winner wins or a loser loses. What part of that don't you get?"

What I'm hearing is a few things: that dropping nukes on populated cities and a mainland invasion were the only two choices. But that makes me wonder what if we had continued with the policy of economic strangulation only? Would the emperor / the establishment have watched millions upon millions of his people die rather than surrender? I wonder if they would have. The emperor cited the new bombs as the reason for surrendering.

But this logic of "look what you made me do" just doesn't fly with me. That's opinion obviously. It is a fact though that many wars end with negotiations. We didn't because we didn't have to. That doesn't make it right. I think we did it because we could, unlike poison gas, which no side decided to use for fear of a likewise response from the other side.

Why did they need to drop it on populated cities to make the point? Someone above said you could have accomplished the same effect by dropping it on Frankfurt. Well, we had already lit one off in the desert not too far from where I am right now, but they kept it a secret. I guess they wanted to surprise them.

kazelee Wrote:

masaman Wrote:

plumage Wrote:I wouldn't say it was "pointless." Japan had a point: domination of about half the world and all the power/wealth/natural resources/etc..

I know people like you, and I know it's pointless to talk to people like you. But I don't know why you want to learn Japanese. I mean, it's some racist gook's language. Why? Are you forced to learn it in a military?

Come on now. I hope that's a joke. Please say that's a joke.

My grandfather lived in Tokyo in 1945. He lost the sight of his right eye as a child and so he couldn't shoot a gun. He was a civilian. Let me just tell you that he've seem a lot with his one eye. Now there may be some western guys whose grandfathers were tortured to death, so I wouldn't bitch about it. But again, please tell me. I'm just curious. Why would you want to learn some racist gook's language? I'm puzzled.

@drivers99

Read your original post. The difference between "that" and heroism is "perspective."

masaman Wrote:

kazelee Wrote:

masaman Wrote:I know people like you, and I know it's pointless to talk to people like you. But I don't know why you want to learn Japanese. I mean, it's some racist gook's language. Why? Are you forced to learn it in a military?

Come on now. I hope that's a joke. Please say that's a joke.

My grandfather lived in Tokyo in 1945. He was half blind and he was a civilian. Let me just tell you that He've seem a lot. Now there may be some western guys whose grandfathers were tortured to death, so I wouldn't bitch about it. But again, please tell me. I'm just curious. Why would you want to learn some racist gook's language? I'm puzzled.

You are speaking a language that's spoken by some of the most racist human being on this planet man. It's called English. Ignorance isn't limited to one specific area and you know this. Just curious though, why are you taking this tone? I don't know plumage personally, but I don't think he/she considers Japanese a racist gooks language.

I think you are letting this thread get to you a bit too much. This is about the time where I'd suggest a warm glass of milk.

masaman Wrote:

plumage Wrote:I wouldn't say it was "pointless." Japan had a point: domination of about half the world and all the power/wealth/natural resources/etc..

I know people like you, and I know it's pointless to talk to people like you. But I don't know why you want to learn Japanese. I mean, it's some racist gook's language. Why? Are you forced to learn it in a military?

Like you said, you drank too much. I'll let such foolishness slide.

If the trade-off was between having a "conditional" surrender, or the death of hundreds and thousands in a terrifying act of technological mass murder, I think any person with a shred of compassion would choose the former. Thanks to those on here who've opened my eyes and exposed that lie that Japan would never surrender before the bombs for what it is - a lie.

Told you I'll get emotional.

When I come back sober tomorrow, I'll have a lot to talk about.

drivers99 Wrote:> The difference between "that" and heroism is "perspective."

I don't really know what you're saying but this whole thread is going down the tubes anyway. I mean, what the hell. One person points out the FACT that Japan was an aggressor, which attacked the US in an effort to remove any remaining resistance to their ability to colonize SE Asia in order to gain natural resources, and all of a sudden masaman is putting the word "gooks" in peoples' mouths? What the hell? That is low.

What the hell? Each time I hit the quote button on one of your posts it changes drastically, lol. I speaking of the word *cute puppies* that you edited out of your last post. It was something like ..."it was an act of "cute puppies*," LOL.

vinniram Wrote:If the trade-off was between having a "conditional" surrender, or the death of hundreds and thousands in a terrifying act of technological mass murder, I think any person with a shred of compassion would choose the former. Thanks to those on here who've opened my eyes and exposed that lie that Japan would never surrender before the bombs for what it is - a lie.

Was it? I've seen arguments to support both opinions. That's what the are... opinions. The only one's who will ever really know are the one's who were in charge back then.

vinniram Wrote:If the trade-off was between having a "conditional" surrender, or the death of hundreds and thousands in a terrifying act of technological mass murder, I think any person with a shred of compassion would choose the former. Thanks to those on here who've opened my eyes and exposed that lie that Japan would never surrender before the bombs for what it is - a lie.

Nice that you've seen the light, but the fire-bombings of Tokyo & Osaka were actually much worse in terms of civilian deaths than the nuke. The nuke was just one bomb (each) so it had more impact (not so very punny) and many of the victims died in an instant instead over time as they were caught by the flames.

Re several other posters: Many seem to be forgetting that we have more to go on than just eye witnesses on the ground at the time + old newspapers. We have historical internal documents & meeting minutes from all sides that shows what went into the decisions that the leaders made.

Ex: The (half)lie that one higher-up officer visited Kyoto in his youth and kept it off the (normal) bombing schedule to save the historical treasures and buildings there. In fact it was being saved as the primary nuke target to see the effects on an intact city. Only cloudy weather saved it in the end.

Masa, I probably will have moved on from this thread after going to sleep. Like I said at the top of the thread, I am a man of the present. Japan is what it is, not what it was, and I love what I've experienced of it. America is what it is, not what it was. My family are of Mexican descent, and there are tons of grudges held by some Mexicans. I hold none of them. I am a person in the year 2009, and I don't judge nations or men for actions of past regimes or ancestors. This allows me to judge folks without bitterness for imagined disadvantages I might be able to scare up and play victim by. It allows me to enjoy Japanese culture and language without thinking about what the old folk did or thought they were doing or whatever. Ditto Germany, which I've visited many times.

I wish others would drop the past and live for today and tomorrow and treat each other as if we weren't the ones who committed the evils of the past. Because we didn't, and dealing with present strife is hard enough without dredging up that past.

> What the hell? Each time I hit the quote button on one of your posts it changes drastically, lol. I speaking of the word *cute puppies* that you edited out of your last post. It was something like ..."it was an act of "cute puppies*," LOL.

Ohh... I see now. Yeah, I decided to take that out. And then I decided to delete the following post completely.

plumage Wrote:I wish others would drop the past and live for today and tomorrow and treat each other as if we weren't the ones who committed the evils of the past. Because we didn't, and dealing with present strife is hard enough without dredging up that past.

There is a difference between forgiving and forgetting. Everyone should forgive, no one should forget.

Agreed. But neither should we impute to today's Germans the sins of their grandfathers. Or today's white men the slavery sins of great-grandfathers. Or today's Spaniards the sins of their conquistador ancestors, etc..