21 Mar 04
Originally posted by richjohnsonthe distinction between combatants and civilans is actually blurred by the very people we are talking about - terrorists. They wear no uniform identifying them as combatants, therefore all 'civilians' may come under suspicion. A case in point is the Vietnam war, when US and allied troops entering a village could not be sure if that a woman or even child 'civilian' was not going to hurl a grenade or whatever. This is also true of the French resistance in WW2, who would qualify as terrorists i think.
I have to disagree with "no matter the cost to the other side". If you fail to consider the other side's civilian casualties likely to be caused by an attack, and only look at the lives that may be saved on your own side, you are not acting in a morally defensible manner.
For example, if there is a lone enemy combatant hiding in a village of "e ...[text shortened]... ponse to the threat posed by Japan, but dropping the second one 3 days later was overkill, imho.
if you are the commander of those troops entering the village, what are you going to tell the mother of a soldier killed by someone dressed as a civilian who was in reality a combatant?
also, civilians participate in the war effort - it is they who are employed in the munitions factories, who buy war bonds, who are related to those in the field. it must be very demoralising for a soldier to hear his home city has been massively bombed, that his relatives and friends may be dead or wounded or refugees, that the schools and playgrounds of his youth, the bars he has frequented, the girls he has dated may all be gone.
once the decision is made to fight a war, then it must be fought to be won with the fewest casualties on one's own side possible.
as for the Nagasaki bomb, the first one had evidently not persuaded Hirohito to surrender, despite wiping out an entire city...
21 Mar 04
when the japanese surrenderred they claimed it was because of the russian decision to join the attack on japan, not anything to do with the u.s. war effort.
obviously the bombs were very impressive, and especially if they had been delivered to military targets would have forced capitulation.
as with germany it was no longer a matter of who would win, but a matter of which country (u.s. or u.s.s.r.) would take the largest cut of the spoils.
21 Mar 04
1 edit
Originally posted by flexmoreI really do believe that the Russian element was by far the most important element between "the bomb" and " and "Defeat". People of that time totally understood ten million soldiers. They certainly didn't understand "the bomb". Hoping not to be censored by the royal duo... of the flash and t1000... (he doesn't deserve a capital t)
when the japanese surrenderred they claimed it was because of the russian decision to join the attack on japan, not anything to do with the u.s. war effort.
obviously the bombs were very impressive, and especially if they had been del ...[text shortened]... untry (u.s. or u.s.s.r.) would take the largest cut of the spoils.
They are after me tonight for some reason... aw! the want of reason!
Mike.
26 Mar 04
Originally posted by flexmoreI find this really hard to believe. Here is a culture with an abhorrance of the very concept of surrender, which had directly taken on the most powerful nation in the world. They were fighting grimly as they retreated back toward Japan, forbidding their troops to surrender in battles like Okinawa, and ordering their pilots to commit kamikaze attacks against US ships. Then Russia simply announces they will enter the Pacific war and they surrender??? I don't thinks so. And just a few days after the dropping of the two bombs??? Incredible! No, i think it was the bombs that 'shocked and awed' them into submission. And if it saved American and allied lives, then fair enough - the US government was elected by the American people to represent their interests.
when the japanese surrenderred they claimed it was because of the russian decision to join the attack on japan, not anything to do with the u.s. war effort.
27 Mar 04
Originally posted by dfm65Hiroshima was destroyed on August 6, 1945. Nagasaki was destroyed on August 9. The Soviet Union declared war on Japan at midnight, August 8/9, and sent a million and a half troops storming into Manchuria. The Japanese announced their surrender on August 15, which was formally signed aboard the USS Missouri on September 2.
I find this really hard to believe. Here is a culture with an abhorrance of the very concept of surrender, which had directly taken on the most powerful nation in the world. They were fighting grimly as they retreated back toward Japan, forbidding their troops to surrender in battles like Okinawa, and ordering their pilots to commit kamikaze attacks against US ...[text shortened]... fair enough - the US government was elected by the American people to represent their interests.
Which event provoked the surrender, the atomic bombings or the Soviet invasion? Or was it a combination of both? Would either of the events have been insufficient seperately?
30 Mar 04
Originally posted by rwingettI think Japan would have resisted, or attempted resistance against a land force of Russians.
Which event provoked the surrender, the atomic bombings or the Soviet invasion? Or was it a combination of both? Would either of the events have been insufficient seperately?
They had little choice resisting a nuclear attack. That they did not surrended after Hiroshima, still astounds me.