25 Mar 08
As for option three, I don't find it convincing. Part of the fanaticism coming from the side of the Japanese stemmed from the belief that their emeror was, in fact, a god. Both before and after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki the Japanese were prepared to surrender on the condition that they keep their emperor, and there's reason to think that the US would have been ok with that condition -- after all, we let them keep their emperor in the end anyway and never tried him for war crimes. Also article 10 of the Potsdam Proclamation (our letter to Japan saying surrender or we'll destroy you completely) was ambiguous about our willingness to let them keep their emeror. Had we clarified this Article the Japanese may have surrendered without us ever having to drop the atomic bomb.
We may well have killed thousands for nothing. Nothing new for us, though. Dresden was just as bad.
- Joined
- 21 Jul 06
- Moves
- 94148
25 Mar 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungCorrect me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a distinction between 'being a pacifist' and 'being sickened by the murder of 220,000 people'. Especially when it appears that not all possible was done to prevent them.
Even Gandhi and Jesis weren't pacifists.
25 Mar 08
Originally posted by HumeAnope ...
HAHAHAHAHA!
Don't know if anyone has replied to this already, but great joke AThousandYoung. Shocking other people into sanity by using an atomic bomb. Priceless.
And I like the way you alluded to American treatment of PoWs and civilians with the gang rape bit. You are a very funny man.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanjing_massacre
"During the occupation of Nanking, the Japanese army committed numerous atrocities, such as rape, looting, arson and the execution of prisoners of war and civilians. Although the executions began under the pretext of eliminating Chinese soldiers disguised as civilians, it is claimed that a large number of innocent men were intentionally identified as enemy combatants and executed as the massacre gathered momentum. A large number of women and children were also killed, as rape and murder became more widespread.
According to the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, estimates made at a later date indicate that the total number of civilians and prisoners of war murdered in Nanking and its vicinity during the first six weeks of the Japanese occupation was over 200,000. That these estimates are not exaggerated is borne out by the fact that burial societies and other organizations counted more than 155,000 buried bodies. Most were bound with their hands tied behind their backs. These figures do not take into account those persons whose bodies were destroyed by burning, by throwing them into the Yangtze River, or otherwise disposed of by the Japanese."[1] The extent of the atrocities is debated between China and Japan, with numbers[2] ranging from some Japanese claims of several hundred,[3] to the Chinese claim of a non-combatant death toll of 300,000[4]. A number of Japanese researchers consider 100,000 – 200,000 to be an approximate value.[5] Other nations usually believe the death toll to be between 150,000–300,000.[6] This number was first promulgated in January of 1938 by Harold Timperly, a journalist in China during the Japanese invasion, based on reports from contemporary eyewitnesses. Other sources, including Iris Chang's The Rape of Nanking, also promote 300,000 as the death toll. In addition, on December 12, 2007, newly declassified U.S. government documents revealed an additional toll of around 500,000 in the area surrounding Nanking before it was occupied.[7]
"
26 Mar 08
3 edits
Originally posted by HumeAI think that the bomb was used for other reasons than simply ending the war with Japan. Sure it could have been dropped on a deserted island, but with the same effect? I think not. Anyone who has seen the films shortly after the bomb was dropped will always have the image of the "survivors" forever embedded in their minds with faces half burned off etc. At the time the US was the only world power to have the bomb and we were faced with a possible face off with the USSR. In a way I think the US government was hoping not only to save lives by ending the war early with Japan thus not trying to take Japan by convensional means which probably would have taken millions upon millions of lives but also stop any Soviet ideas of starting up a war with a nation that can remove a city with a single blink of an eye. To be honest, had it not been for the unthinkable bomb I am almost sure that other world wars would have arisen in its absence.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a distinction between 'being a pacifist' and 'being sickened by the murder of 220,000 people'. Especially when it appears that not all possible was done to prevent them.
26 Mar 08
Originally posted by whodeyWhy do these urban myths persist?
In a way I think the US government was hoping not only to save lives by ending the war early with Japan thus not trying to take Japan by conventional means which probably would have taken millions upon millions of lives ...
Years go by. The archives are opened up. New evidence becomes available. What we know changes. Then we have 'what we used to think' and we also have 'what we now know'.
Japan was beaten. Utterly beaten in mid-1945. It wasn't going to take "millions upon millions" of lives to finish off the war on Japanese soil. Allied planners knew that. And now we know that Allied planners knew that. That's why the U.S. was in such a hurry to use the 2 bombs. Time was running out. Without a World War to end, how else could the U.S. demonstrate its new capability to the U.S.S.R.
We know why Sam The Sham posts his "I love the smell of napalm in the morning" stuff here.
But why do you, whodey, post this 1950s-esque "millions upon millions" stuff?
What are your thoughts on the "Missile Gap"? Don't tell me you still believe there was one even though we now know - thanks to the declassification of countless official documents - it was a myth deliberately fostered by the U.S. government?
Japan was beaten in August 1945. It was like punching a boxer in the groin even as the referee had reached 9 in the count. Why do that, you ask? Well, maybe you just wanted to show everybody that you box very dirty and human morality and ethics are off the table.
26 Mar 08
Totally sorry, it was a serious error in judgement and not like us at all. We realize now that we were way out of line and over reacted in a most unbecoming and unfair manner. We feel just terrible, and beg your pardon most humbly. We will take great pains to assure you that it will never happen again should we ever go to war with Japan in the future, and agree that it was an egregious mistake on our part that should never have happened. We certainly do feel silly about it.
26 Mar 08
Originally posted by Sam The ShamYet another, albeit slightly overlong absolute zinger from Sam The Sham.
Totally sorry, it was a serious error in judgement and not like us at all. We realize now that we were way out of line and over reacted in a most unbecoming and unfair manner. We feel just terrible, and beg your pardon most humbly. We will take great pains to assure you that it will never happen again should we ever go to war with Japan in the future, ...[text shortened]... egious mistake on our part that should never have happened. We certainly do feel silly about it.
26 Mar 08
Originally posted by FMFYou put forth a fine piece of revisionist history there. What we knew for certain then and what know for certain now are two different things entirely. You're attempting to ascribe cause then based on information not known then.
Why do these urban myths persist?
Years go by. The archives are opened up. New evidence becomes available. What we know changes. Then we have 'what we used to think' and we also have 'what we now know'.
Japan was beaten. Utterly beaten in mid-1945. It wasn't going to take "millions upon millions" of lives to finish off the war on Japanese soil. Allied plan ...[text shortened]... verybody that you box very dirty and human morality and ethics are off the table.
26 Mar 08
Originally posted by MerkYou misread my post.
You put forth a fine piece of revisionist history there. What we knew for certain then and what know for certain now are two different things entirely. You're attempting to ascribe cause then based on information not known then.
"We" in my post does not include the Allied planners. "We" were fed a perspective on the A-bombing of Japan. It lasted until the true facts were known. I am not talking about hindsight here. You didn't understand me and/or my writing was unclear. Here it is again:
Japan was beaten. Utterly beaten in mid-1945. It wasn't going to take "millions upon millions" of lives to finish off the war on Japanese soil. Allied planners knew that. And now we know that Allied planners knew that. That's why the U.S. was in such a hurry to use the 2 bombs. Time was running out. Without a World War to end, how else could the U.S. demonstrate its new capability to the U.S.S.R.
Allied planners knew that - but we didn't, because we were told something else. And now we know that Allied planners knew that - so the old deliberately propagated perspective has been superseded by the truth. This happens all the time with history. Some people - maybe yourself - use the word revisionist to cast aspersions for ideological reasons. Of course, people with a genuine interest in history, the truth, and all the rest of it, know that the word revision means to make something correct by expunging errors - which include past deceptions.
Of course, if you consider "we" to include both "you" and the "Allied planners", then I ask you this: why did you feed us the it was going to take "millions upon millions" of lives to finish off the war on Japanese soil line back in 1945?
Was it in order to distract from the fact that the USA had just committed one of the greatest atrocities in modern history?
If revisionism means getting to the truth of this matter, than I am all for it, and proud of it.