Military Buffs I need your help.

[Atrocities]

I am looking for a copy of the speech Douglas Macarther spoke at the surrender of Japan on board the Battleship Missuri. I can not seem to find it.

Any help is much appreciated.

[Prince Xizor]

I know it's out there on the Web somewhere because I used an excerpt from it as my signiture on the GolemLabs Boards. So I must've found it somehow.

"It is my earnest hope, and indeed the hope of all mankind, that from this solemn occasion a better world shall emerge out of the blood and carnage of the past -- a world dedicated to the dignity of man and the fulfillment of his most cherished wish for freedom, tolerance and justice." - General Douglas MacArthur [surrender ceremony on the USS Missouri, Sep. 2, 1945]

[narf poit chez BOOM]

i must point out that the US nuked two japanese cities.

[Fyron]

Yes, and the alternative was for millions to die on each side during an invasion of mainland Japan, including many more civilians than died in the atomic bombings.

[Prince Xizor]

And this must be where I found it at:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/macarthur/filmmore/reference/primary/macspeech04.html

Incidentally, MacArthur was opposed to the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[Atrocities]

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
i must point out that the US nuked two japanese cities. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yes, yes we did drop two nukes on Japan. At the time it was to end a war and save human lives. Especially the lives of Americans who where brought into the war as a result of a Japanies sneak attack upon Pear Harbor that killed over 2,000 Americans both civilan as well as military men and women.

Need I remind you Narf of the Batton death march, or about how the Japanies used chemical weapons against the Chinese and how they used captured US, Australian, and british soldiers as slave labor. Or that the Japiness would behead American service men just to see how sharp their swards were?

You can choose to believe in the revisionist rewrite of history Narf, but the bitter God forsaken truth is that people die in war, and those to bombs ended a war that had already taken Ten plus million lives.

And if we had it to do over again, I think we would have still dropped the bombs because back then it was the only way to save lives, including those of the Japanies. Was it the right thing to do? Well not if you choose to believe the utter BS that the revisionistic historieans are trying to shovel down our throats. But if you want to believe in the truth, then you know that the US took every step possible to end the war and protect lives. That for nearly a month befoe the US dropped the first bomb, leaflets were dropped telling people to leave the cities.

The US chose the two targest specifically to avoid the loss of life and do as much damage to Japans war machine as possible. They specificially rulled out many cities including their capital city.

War is not something that can be historically rewritten fifty years after the fact.

"We must go forward to preserve in peace what we won in war." - Douglas Macarthur

No truer words were ever spoken my friend. What happened to the japanies should never have to happen to another human ever again. An I pray that humans never again use nukes against each other, but we both know that eventually it will happen again. And that deeply saddens me.

But at the time we dropped those two bombs, we were at war and regardless as to how we feel about it now, and I am sure we all feel horrible about it, it was a decision made by men who are mostly dead now. A decision that did end a war and did save lives, on both sides.

[ December 11, 2003, 07:07: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

[narf poit chez BOOM]

aside from the invasion arguement, i hadn't heard most of that...but only the arguement that less lives, and less civilian lives would be lost, is important to me. i'm not suggesting that military lives are less important than military lives, but there's no children in the military. in addition, i have to wonder if the bombs had to be dropped on a city. weren't there any isolated military bases?

Canada's history education, at least while i was in school, was horribly lacking. i suppose i should find a good history book or two and add it to my mental note to reread up on physics and astronomy one of these days. any suggestions?

[Atrocities]

Hind sight is always 20/20 Narf.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

yeah? then where did 'revisionist history' come from? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

and what does your comment have to do with anything anyway? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

[rextorres]

That the bomb ended the war is a myth that we Americans like to tell ourselves. The US was already killing 100,000s of civilians every night from fire bombings in the capital cities so please don't give me any altruistic crap about saving innocent civilian lives.

The Japanese were actually ready to surrender - they just wanted a guarantee that Hirohito would not be tried as a war criminal. The US would not agree to this. The US, however, agreed to this condition AFTER the bomb was dropped mainly because we didn't want the Russians to know that we were out of them.

We simply dropped the bomb out of revenge as Atrocities inadvertantly and explicitly highlights AND probably more importantly to show the Russians that we were willling to use them.

[Narratio]

Isolated military bases?
Nope.
No room for them, no need for them. Pre WWII the military dominated Japanese society. Schools ran training classes for the military skills and conscription was in force. The military was a lifestyle with the noble Samuraii as the pinnacle of archetype good guy.

It was a different world then and Japan was / is a decidedly different culture. The Emporer was worshipped (still is an an offbeat manner) as an incarnation of god. Think of a Medieval European mindset but with modern technology. Xenophobia was (and still is) part of the culture. Japanese are human, everybody else isn't. How else could the "Beheading contest" have occurred in Nanjing?

No, the nukes were the easiest, cheapest way to go in terms of both human life saved and money spent. (And don't think that that had no influence in the matter.) Also remember that, as nobody had ever used these puppies before, there was no stigma to using them. The ingrained social horror we feel at these weapons is based upon the fact that they WERE used and the effects WERE seen.

[deccan]

Wow, never seen anyone post here from Thailand before.

[Atrocities]

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
yeah? then where did 'revisionist history' come from? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

and what does your comment have to do with anything anyway? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It is easy to look back into the past and say now what we should have done. Hense hindsight is always 20/20

Originally posted by rextorres:
That the bomb ended the war is a myth that we Americans like to tell ourselves. The US was already killing 100,000s of civilians every night from fire bombings in the capital cities so please don't give me any altruistic crap about saving innocent civilian lives.

The Japanese were actually ready to surrender - they just wanted a guarantee that Hirohito would not be tried as a war criminal. The US would not agree to this. The US, however, agreed to this condition AFTER the bomb was dropped mainly because we didn't want the Russians to know that we were out of them.

We simply dropped the bomb out of revenge as Atrocities inadvertantly and explicitly highlights AND probably more importantly to show the Russians that we were willling to use them. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">RexTorres, that has got to be the most conspiritorial revisionistic comment that I have ever read. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Seriously I am ROTFLMAO. Thanks for the humor man.

Narratio - Well spoken. Thank you.

[Gryphin]

I can't take a stand on this one. I'm a little biased. My father was being trained to place transponders on the beaches of Japan as part of the pre invasion. These transponders would be used to help the battleships targeting.
Survial rate of the pre invasion forses was not expected to be very high.
What I mean is I would not be here to post this if ....

[ December 11, 2003, 11:25: Message edited by: Gryphin ]

[Loser]

Erax you are officially my favorite Brazilian.

Thanks for that full and well-written post on the matter.

Narf, you are a walking, breathing red herring. You make things interesting. Thank you.

[oleg]

The use of A-bomb was totally unjustified.
Here are the thoughts of the people who new much more about the true state of WWII at that moment than anybody else:
__________________________________________________

~~~DWIGHT EISENHOWER
"...in [July] 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."

- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380

In a Newsweek interview, Eisenhower again recalled the meeting with Stimson:

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

- Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63

__________________________________________________

~~~ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. LEAHY
(Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman)
"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

- William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441.

[minipol]

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
aside from the invasion arguement, i hadn't heard most of that...but only the arguement that less lives, and less civilian lives would be lost, is important to me. i'm not suggesting that military lives are less important than military lives, but there's no children in the military. in addition, i have to wonder if the bombs had to be dropped on a city. weren't there any isolated military bases?<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well, if they wouldn't have dropped the bomb, IMO more children would have suffered. An invasion is preceded by areal bombardments (dumb bombs), shore bombardements, city being shot it ruins and eventually lead to big populations seeking refuge. I think this would have affected more children than what happened with the bombs.
Off course this would have all depended on how long the Japanese would have defended their country before they would have surrendered. If they ever would surrender...
And being the proud people that they are, i think it could have been a LOOOOONG war.

Edit: i just saw that Erax also referred to the German Cities bombardements. People shouldn't really forget those.
About the aerial bombings taking more toll than the A-bombs in the long run:
Quote from http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/ww2/A1138385:
"...With the city's population swollen with refugees from the east, the death toll from fire and suffocation is unknown, but probably lies between 40,000 and 100,000. ... "
And that's just 1 city: Dresden. Not to mention people will have died later because of sustained wounds that where not properly looked after, hunger, drinking contaminated water of bodies floating in it and so on.

[ December 11, 2003, 15:40: Message edited by: minipol ]

[Puke]

Yeah, there really is no history, except as written by the victors. Some stories about the founding of America are downright comical, and we are still re-learing what the world was like just a few hundred years ago. odds are, we will never get it right.

alot of what we know is propaganda, not just revisionist propaganda, but propaganda from the times that has been adopted and believed. The firebombings of Tokyo and Dresden were brutally destructive, far beyond the nuclear devices we used in the war. Just as much contraversy surrounds those:

Dresden was esentially a civilian target, with some railroads that were used by the military. but every city had at least some reason to make it a target. the reason (in my opinion) that Dresden was targeted, was that it had no military importance, it was out of the way - far from our line of advance. we would have gone far far around it, and the city would never have been important in the war. By devoting massive ammounts of resources to destroying it, we were sending a message. that message was "look, we have all these resources to waste on a target that has no importance whatsoever. why dont you give up?"

and so we dropped blockbuster bombs on it to crack open all the buildings. then we waited for people to come out and inspect the damage, and bombed it again when everyone was outside. then we firebombed it, once it was cracked open and the flamable materials on the interior of buildings were exposed - and the place got hot enough to melt STONE. the next morning, we sent in dive bombers to shoot anyone walking through the streets, that might have survived.

Needless to say, Germany didnt take it well, and fought on until we reached Berlin. Tokyo was much the same, but their buildings were made of wood rather than stone. Now you can hear all sorts of arguements about why the firebombings were performed or why it might have been a crime, and it can get about as impassioned as with the nukes.

but the point (which i have strayed far from) is that even though we have this nicely composed history fed to us, there are not necessarily conspiricays and coverups everywhere. most conspiracy theories stem from the fact that you are looking for a rational explination for why people have done something stupid or unexplainable.

people, yes governments, are largely big, dumb, and uncoordinated. Some people probably thought we needed to drop the A-bombs - and perhaps we did. maybe it was a calculated show of force to the Russians. maybe it just seemed like a good idea at the time. maybe certain decision makers didnt think the Japanese were really going to surrender. nobody will know - but it probably isnt a plot, and theres about f*ck-all to be done about it now.

the only thing you can do, is assemble your own evidence, consider the sources, and form your own oppinion. relying on someone elses Version of history is never going to get you anywhere, becase its become such a subjective thing.

on a side note, i must applaud the rationality of this discussion, and how calm everyone has been. kudos to everyone providing historical sources and references and examples, and helping others to form their own opinions with information from multiple sources.

[geoschmo]

Ike's opinion not withstanding, we have no direct knowledge that Japan ws ready to surender. There are many theories of course. I do believe Emperor Hirohito was probably ready to call it quits. But there was a significant portion of the military establishment who wished to fight on to the Last man, woman and child. There was in fact an aborted military coup that occured after the bombs were dropped that, if it had been sucessful would have made the Emporers wishes on the matter totally irrelevant. It would have extended the war, and if the information about our lack of additional nuclear weapons was correct, would have neccesitated the dreaded blody invasion that people in support of the two bombings always suggest.

[Geckomlis]

To Oleg,

1. Those statements were written after the fact by politicians in uniform, or uniforms that became politicians - take your pick.
2. At the time, both the US Army and Navy were totally defensive in trying to justify their existence – other politicians wanted to radically scale them down and rely on nuclear weapons for force projection and defense.


To all,

If you are interested in the debate over the use of the atomic bombs, there are many excellent resources out there. A good place to start would be:

Pathfinder: The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb
http://www.rhodes.edu/library/pathfinders/Atomic_Bomb.html

The guide is not meant to all-inclusive, but should help you to locate books, journals, databases, and Internet resources.

Remember your critical thinking skills:

How to distinguish fact from opinion and bias from reason
How to distinguish between primary and secondary sources
How to evaluate information sources
How to recognize deceptive arguments
How to recognize ethnocentrism and stereotypes

-Gecko

[Chronon]

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
i suppose i should find a good history book or two and add it to my mental note to reread up on physics and astronomy one of these days. any suggestions? <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">On the diplomatic reasons for dropping the bomb try Martin J. Sherwin "A World Destroyed: the Atomic Bomb and the Grand Alliance." It's an excellent history of atomic policy within the United States, and the beginning of the Cold War. Some would call it a "revisionist history," but I think it's a very cogent argument. Martin Rhodes has a number of good (but huge) books about building of the bombs. You could also try Lawrence Badash "Scientists and the Development of Nuclear Weapons," a very readable account of the science behind the bomb, the making of the bomb, and the scientific community.

"Revisionist history," by the way, is usually what historians' whose arguments are being superceded (and/or contradicted) by more recent work tend to call the new arguments. Often it has pejorative connotations.

As Erax has so eloquently pointed out, it is misleading to judge the decision to drop the bomb using our current assumptions about nuclear weapons. When exploring historical questions, the context is all important.

Historical context is the main reason why I, sadly, cannot agree with you Atrocities about history being 20/20. Historians are human, and like everyone else (including scientists, by the way) we are influenced by the culture in which we live (the historical context). Historians working in the immediate post-war period were living in an extremely nationalistic culture, had very little access to secret documents, and were loath to criticize the government. It is no surprise that they followed the party line on the bomb. It took some time for the documents to become available, and when they did the history of the bomb was "revised." This is natural; historians are constantly working out new interpretations of past events, based on new evidence and more extensive exploration of historical cultures.

This is not to say that any one interpretation (traditional or revisionist) is definitively correct. On most large historical questions there are no truly right answers, but different interpretations of the events. This can be frustrating but it's what makes debates about the bomb (and evolution and eugenics, to name a few others) so interesting. We can have alot of fun arguing about them for a long, long time. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Chronon]

Wow! That's three Posts in the time it took me to write the Last one. Thanks for the link, Gecko - excellent material there.

[Baron Munchausen]

Originally posted by rextorres:
That the bomb ended the war is a myth that we Americans like to tell ourselves. The US was already killing 100,000s of civilians every night from fire bombings in the capital cities so please don't give me any altruistic crap about saving innocent civilian lives.

The Japanese were actually ready to surrender - they just wanted a guarantee that Hirohito would not be tried as a war criminal. The US would not agree to this. The US, however, agreed to this condition AFTER the bomb was dropped mainly because we didn't want the Russians to know that we were out of them.

We simply dropped the bomb out of revenge as Atrocities inadvertantly and explicitly highlights AND probably more importantly to show the Russians that we were willling to use them. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">AND didn't want the Russians to take too much territory on the mainland of Asia. They had declared war as agreed and were advancing into the lands held by the Japanese. As in Europe they were not likely to let go of anything they took, even if they used proxies to hold it. Look at the course of events in Korea.

What if the Russians managed to get a foothold in Japan itself before the US could take control? That was a big risk if there was to be a long, bloody conquest. So you can see the incentive to accept this condition. And they actually turned it into an 'advantage' by turning the Emperor into a spokesman for their modernization campaign.

[ December 11, 2003, 18:02: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

[geoschmo]

Of course this can be written off as self-justification, but the use of the two bombs may have indeed helped humanity in the long run. The history of man has been a long series of bloody conrfontations with progressivly more efficent technology developed to destroy each other. Once we used the two we had, the temporary lack of additional devices, and the war ending gave us time to consider them and gain perspective about their use. Later conflicts have all had the spectre of nuclear holocaust hanging over us, but we have figured out a way to avoid using them.

One could come up with a very plausible alternate history in which the US did not use the bomb on Japan. The war of course would have still ended, perhaps a little later, perhaps a lot. The cold war would have still likely occured, but perhaps without the perspective given by Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there would have been less hesitance to use them. In this case it wouldn't have been a nuclear power using two bombs against a non-nuclear power. Once the first one was used, the other side would have the incentive to retaliate, and means to do so. Instead of two cities nuked at the end of a war, it might have been 20, or 200 before it was all over.

[rextorres]

Originally posted by Atrocities:
[QUOTE]RexTorres, that has got to be the most conspiritorial revisionistic comment that I have ever read. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Seriously I am ROTFLMAO. Thanks for the humor man.

Narratio - Well spoken. Thank you. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Atrocities - dropping the a-bomb wasn't meant to save civilian lives - I guess it's hard for flag wavers to admit that the U.S. was already killing hundred of thousands of civilian lives - not admitting THIS is revisionist.

The Japanese were already shocked and awed and just needed a way to surrender.

Here is a quote from President Truman to Samuel McCrea Cavert, August 11, 1945 that talks about the revenge factor.
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/bomb/small/mb13a.htm

Also we didn't tell the Japanese we had an A-bomb until AFTER we dropped it so there was no way they would have known what was coming. Those leaflets you are so proud of were not dropped until AFTER Hiroshima. So the Japanese were not given any warning prior to the dropping in Hiroshima and Nagasaki happened only 3 days later not enough time for them to even think about the first bomb's effects.

Just because I don't agree with you that the Japanese deserved getting hit with an A-bomb doesn't make me wrong.

On the bright side - it probably stopped a nuclear war with the Russians.

[ December 11, 2003, 19:14: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[Wardad]

I read that there were only two potential landing sites for an invasion of Japan (main island) and these were well defended. The Japanese also believed the Divine Wind (typhoon) would also protect them from invasion, as it did against the Mongols.
http://danielroy.tripod.com/cgi-bin/alternate/mongolia/opi2.html

The bombs demonstrated that landing defenses could easily be shattered. The bombs could not be stopped by typhoon.

I am sure that some military men lost the desire to see it through to the bloody end because of the bomb. It is one thing to sacrifice yourself, another thing to sacrifice yourself in vain, and worse to sacrifice yourself and everything you are fighting for.


BTW: http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq102-6.htm
Okinowa was hit by a typhoon a month after the Japanese surrender. A lot of material was lost, a lot of ships were scrapped, and there was a loss of life.
But, it was nothing compared what could have happen if the island was full of troops, planes and ships preparing for an invasion. The survivors would have been defenseless.

[ December 11, 2003, 19:20: Message edited by: Wardad ]

[Parasite]

Originally posted by Prince Xizor:
"It is my earnest hope, and indeed the hope of all mankind, that from this solemn occasion a better world shall emerge out of the blood and carnage of the past -- a world dedicated to the dignity of man and the fulfillment of his most cherished wish for freedom, tolerance and justice." - General Douglas MacArthur [surrender ceremony on the USS Missouri, Sep. 2, 1945] <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">With help from the prince, this came up...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/macarthur/filmmore/reference/primary/macspeech04.html

[Cyrien]

What is this I keep hearing about the US only having the two atomic bombs? Even while the US was bombing it was producing more atomic cores for a sustained atomic bombing effort if Japan failed to surrender. The next one was scheduled to be shipped from Los Alamos and arrive for use against Japan on August 17 or 18. There was a whole list of potential targets. The leaflets were deployed after the first atomic bomb was dropped warning other Japanese cities to evacuate. The leaflets scheduled for Nagasaki didn't get their until August 10 which would have been before the original schedule for bombing but the schedule was moved up due to bad weather forcasts, and of course Nagasaki was the backup target. The primary target had been the Kokura Arsenal however weather prevented the bombing of that target and Nagasaki was the only backup target which weather permitted the bombing of.

I won't go into the morality of the use of atomic bombs on Japan. Or the morale justification for the Japanese release of the first modern bio weapons over China etc... etc...

A timeline:http://vikingphoenix.com/public/JapanIncorporated/1895-1945/abombchr.htm

Japanese Bio Weapons:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/japan/bw/

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Narf, you are a walking, breathing red herring. You make things interesting. Thank you.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">um...thanks????

from one of those sources, it seems like they didn't make any great effort with the leaflets. both that and the short interval's between the bombs lends credence to the theory that the bombs were dropped to kill and terrify. ok, now can anyone point to any official corrospondence that indicates that Japan was ready to surrender? any that indicates that the Japanese emporer was involved in the war crimes? or that the refusal to surrender was hinged on wether or not he'd be charged? and even if so, would that be enough reason to extend the war to get him?

i'm not trying to make a point with the questions, just asking.

[ December 11, 2003, 21:09: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Cyrien:
What is this I keep hearing about the US only having the two atomic bombs? Even while the US was bombing it was producing more atomic cores for a sustained atomic bombing effort if Japan failed to surrender. The next one was scheduled to be shipped from Los Alamos and arrive for use against Japan on August 17 or 18<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I had always told that the US had no more and wasn't likely to have any more for months at best. Don't have anything to support it really, just thought it was common knowledge and accepted it as fact.

Geoschmo

[Geckomlis]

Narf,

Try:

Behind Japan's surrender; the secret struggle that ended an empire
by Lester Brooks

Gecko

[Fyron]

Originally posted by rextorres:
Atrocities - dropping the a-bomb wasn't meant to save civilian lives - I guess it's hard for flag wavers to admit that the U.S. was already killing hundred of thousands of civilian lives - not admitting THIS is revisionist. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Could you please drop the inflammatory tone? Statements like this are only meant to provoke people.

[Erax]

The two A-bomb attacks... you cannot really understand them unless you get into the mindset of the times. I can provide some related facts which you will weigh and judge to reach your conclusion, as I have reached mine.

First, the two bombs that were dropped on Japan were not the modern megalopolis-busting nukes. I believe they were in the 40-80 kiloton range (too lazy to do a web search right now). This is actually less than the destructive power that was being delivered to German cities (via conventional bombs) on a routine basis just a few months before... and the loss of life from the initial bLasts may also have been less than in some conventional attacks over Germany.

Second, no one who lived in those times was acting rationally any more. After six years of continous fighting (eight, in the case of Japan) the level of hatred for 'the enemy' was... hard to describe, except by example. I have a friend whose mother was a child in Japan during the war. One day, she was standing alone in a field, got shot at by a passing American plane, ran for cover and survived. What made this fighter pilot want to kill an six-year-old girl ?

Third, no one knew about fallout and the aftereffects of the bLast. Some people may have suspected them, but no one knew exactly what was going to happen.

Fourth, and perhaps most important, Japanese behavior was completely alien to Americans and on a certain level it terrified them. During the island hopping campaign - Tarawa, Iwo Jima and so on - the Japanese military on those remote bases had fought to the Last man, and the civilians (yes, the civilians) had committed suicide rather than face capture. Invading mainland Japan was a nightmare for the US military, because they did not know what to expect, and therefore expected the very worst.

Which leads to my conclusion... yes, the A-bombs may have been a bad decision judged by today's standards, but at the time they seemed like a reasonable one. We cannot judge the past by today's standards, instead we should be glad that those standards have evolved.

[Cyrien]

Narf and others can try

http://www.nuclearfiles.org/hiatomicbomb/manhattan.html

for lots of information and actual documents from the time. Haven't looked through most of it so can't say if it has what you want. But it has alot related to the atomic bombs and the decision to use them.

[oleg]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by rextorres:
Atrocities - dropping the a-bomb wasn't meant to save civilian lives - I guess it's hard for flag wavers to admit that the U.S. was already killing hundred of thousands of civilian lives - not admitting THIS is revisionist. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Could you please drop the inflammatory tone? Statements like this are only meant to provoke people. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Direct that to Atrocities. We have been trying to tell him the truth, but being totaly brain-washed by official US propaganda he started it all by an uncivilized (by the standards of this board ) smirking on the people with different opinions. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

[Cyrien]

Ah yes... the Truth with a capitol T. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[oleg]

Originally posted by Cyrien:
Ah yes... the Truth with a capitol T. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Ah yes... the one told by CNN and Fox News

"we are watching Fox" - Simpsons family

[Cyrien]

Sorry. But my truth never ever comes from a single source. I always review as many different sources and what lots of different people and Groups are saying and claiming and formulate my own opinion based on that. And I would never allow myself to think of it as anything but my opinion. Do I think that some people in power are doing something I don't like for the wrong reasons at times now and in the past? Yes. Due I think I can read their minds and know every motive they may or may not have? No. Do I think I can psychoanalyze dead people and know their motives? No. Do I think everyone is 100% honest in all the written materials they leave behind? No.

I have studied to be a historian and in the specific area of Historic Method you learn to try and be as impartial as possible and view each piece of information on its own merits as primary, secondary, tertiary, etc sources and to get a bead on the biases of each person. Because EVERYONE has biases and they WILL get into what they say, write, and do. Even with the best and most unbiased it isn't totally unbiased.

So CNN and Fox aren't good enough. What is the supreme authority that you get the Truth with a capitol T from? Maybe BBC? Some European news network? Independent reporters?

Please let us all know so we can get in on the Truth, as well.

[President_Elect_Shang]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by rextorres:
Atrocities - dropping the a-bomb wasn't meant to save civilian lives - I guess it's hard for flag wavers to admit that the U.S. was already killing hundred of thousands of civilian lives - not admitting THIS is revisionist. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Could you please drop the inflammatory tone? Statements like this are only meant to provoke people. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I second Imperator Fyron.

Rextorres your opinion should always count for something as it is a reflection of your thoughts and learning. If you start throwing around statements/comments that are written hastily than others could be offended. The end result is that people will not want to take you seriously; from here it no longer becomes a matter of sharing your thoughts as it does wasting your breath. You should rephrase or temporarily retract the statement for rephrasing as it appears very inflammatory.

[rextorres]

Hmm . . . why would calling someone a "flag waver" be considered inflammatory!!?? I would think that Atrocities et. al. would be proud of being a flag waver.

Atrocities, however, did call me a "revisionist" his tone to me sounded inflammatory he certainly didn't mean it as a complement.

[Geckomlis]

Originally posted by Cyrien:
Please let us all know so we can get in on the Truth, as well. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The only Truth he has to share (yet again) is that he does not like the United States very much. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

[Puke]

Originally posted by geckomlis:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by Cyrien:
Please let us all know so we can get in on the Truth, as well. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The only Truth he has to share (yet again) is that he does not like the United States very much. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Flame me, moderate me down, ignore me, but...

sorry, cant resist:

"Vae Victis."

I now return you to your regularly scheduled pissing contest. I mean, discussion of 'historical' events.

[Fyron]

Originally posted by rextorres:
Hmm . . . why would calling someone a "flag waver" be considered inflammatory!!?? I would think that Atrocities et. al. would be proud of being a flag waver.

Atrocities, however, did call me a "revisionist" his tone to me sounded inflammatory he certainly didn't mean it as a complement. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You used the term "flag waver" in a negative context, implying that flag wavers do not think and just accept whatever their government tells them. Also, there is the implication that patriots can't be right. You may not have meant this, but this is how it has come across. There is at least one other person who saw this (or something like it) in your post, so I am not just making it up. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Both of your Posts in this thread were inflammatory, actually (the first to a lesser degree than the second). They dismiss the person, whereas AT's post was dismissing the idea... His post could also be considered inflammatory, but of a different nature.

[Atrocities]

Oleg Please read your PM's


Originally posted by rextorres:
Hmm . . . why would calling someone a "flag waver" be considered inflammatory!!?? I would think that Atrocities et. al. would be proud of being a flag waver.

Atrocities, however, did call me a "revisionist" his tone to me sounded inflammatory he certainly didn't mean it as a complement. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Rextorres, I did not call you a revisionist. I think you should reread what I did say. I did not mean to offend you. I don't know you and I had no way of knowing that you would take my post as a personal attack. It certainly was not intended as such. But in retrospect, I can see your point, and I do apologize for it. I hope this clears up any misunderstandings.

We should not judge events of our past nor pass judgement on those who participated in those events because most of us were not there to witness or participate in them first hand.

[ December 12, 2003, 07:34: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

[AssHat]

Just saw on tv the opening of the new Air & Space museum near D.C. A couple of veterans near the Enola Gay exhibit recounted how the bombs saved their lives and the lives of every man (U.S. and Japanese) who would have died in Operation Olympic.

[Wardad]

The incendiary firestorms from the 300 and 1000 plane raids over Japans cities were far more devastating then the A bombs.

The A bombs could be used on fortifications and prepared defenses in depth. This may have killed some Japanese hopes of stopping a landing long enough for a typhon to come along and destroy our fleets.

[oleg]

My apologies to Atrocities and others.

I made several Posts here inflamantory in nature.
I did not mean it. I have a deep respect to Will and do not want to offend anybody. Sorry.

[primitive]

A Histoy lesson. Well worth 5 minutes (http://www.gprep.org/~sjochs/Bernstein.htm)

As always when reading history; "facts" are "events of high probability" and "conclusions" are "interpretations".

These are my interpretations of the events. Feel free to interpret differntly:

* The bombs did nothing to help the ending of the war
* The first bomb was dropped for testing, to justify the budget for the Manhattan project and to intimidate the Soviets.
* The second bomb was just plain murder. If it had been dropped on the original target, it may have been justifiable as testing of a new type of target.

But as Rex already pointed out. If the (first) bomb hadn't been dropped, its very doubtfull we would have made it through Korea and the cold war without the bomb beeing dropped somewhere else.

[AssHat]

I find it shocking to see how many people believe with perfect hindsight that the U.S. was wrong to deploy atomic weapons against the empire of Japan.

The decision was made in the context of a brutal war of aggression waged by samurai warriors equipped with western arms. They neither gave nor expected quarter during their decade long murder spree throughout the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. The military junta went against Yamamoto's advice not to provoke the U.S. and they reaped the whirlwind.

Attack the U.S. directly in a war that threatens U.S. survival and you will end up like the Confederate States of America, Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan....smokin' friggin' ruins. The righteous might of free men bestirred is a power to behold.

That said, there is no more magnanimous victor than the United States and any country rehabilitated by U.S. force of arms is sure to benefit in the long run.

[rextorres]

I don't know if the US was wrong or not in dropping the bomb (frankly the fire bombings sound more horrific based on accounts I've read) - but a lot of people - even a couple on this forum have implied that the bombs were dropped for some altruistic reasons.

In reality the US was fire bombing civilians already and dropped the bomb on a civilian target, probably dropped the bomb out of revenge (as your posting and some others on the board highlights), for strategic leverage after the war, and based on what some Japanese documents suggest could have gotten a surrender without the need to drop the bombs.

Some people feel uncomfortable with this "revisionist" history because it doesn't show the US in the best light and in today's Jingoistic climate if your not 100% pro US your unpatriotic . . . I guess if it lets them sleep better at night good for them.

[ December 13, 2003, 20:22: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[President_Elect_Shang]

First off as to the bombings, I feel that there had to be an alternate way to overcome the Japanese and bring peace, for peat’s-sake it’s an island, blockade it. Not the best idea but you get the point right? As to the comments about revisionist history, I have seen a plethora of alternate ideas and explanations. Many of which appeared well thought out and valid, to me at least.

The big point I see in this thread is that hindsight is not truly 20/20. By this I mean to say that today we can only speculate as to the emotions that played a part in the making of the [two] decisions to drop. It would be nice to have an accurate record since, as we all know this is sometimes the biggest factor in any decision. Cool heads don’t always prevail. To this I can at least concur whole-heartedly.

The other item I would like to touch on is that here in America the Revolutionary War is discussed in some High School classrooms in more depth than WW2 is. Why is that? Are the leaders of this nations school system (yes it is my nation also) afraid to admit that we committed what can be easily argued as one of the most horrid acts of humanity. It is done and in the past. I think it should be taught in every school around the world in the hopes that facing similar circumstances those teens, now turned adults will not make the same mistake. Isn’t that why we teach our children, so that they will be better than us?

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Hat, your saying that the US has the right to act as brutal or more brutal than there opponents and that afterword they'll be better off having been defeated by the US. there might be a few things wrong with this viewpoint.

[AssHat]

My main point is that the decision was made with the proper historical context: Japanese war of aggression against the west, no surrender, no mercy. We responded in kind assuming they would not surrender to McArthur without having devastation wrought upon them. That is what happened.

As for the revenge factor, I just wanted to make it clear the Japanese got what they deserved.

The U.S. was NOT as brutal as the Japanese or the Germans (Nanking, Bataan, Malmedy, Auschwitz and lots more). The rebuilt Japanese and German societies are more wealthy and free than the majority of countries today, and they are two of our staunch allies. So what was wrong with that viewpoint?

[ December 13, 2003, 23:02: Message edited by: AssHat ]

[narf poit chez BOOM]

indeed? including two-month old children?

[AssHat]

Please. That's lame.

At least any two-month old children killed by U.S. action were collateral damage, and not killed at the tip of laughing soldiers' bayonets (Nanking) or cruelly separated from their family and gassed (Auschwitz). From now on you need to provide specifics, not platitudes.

[TerranC]

Originally posted by President Elect Shang:
First off as to the bombings, I feel that there had to be an alternate way to overcome the Japanese and bring peace, for peat’s-sake it’s an island, blockade it.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Japan wasn't limited to the japanese islands back then; Korea was Japanese territory in that era; giving the Japanese a foothold in Asia.

Therefore, A blockade would've only delayed the inevitable.

Edit: And manchuria. Forgot Manchukuo.

[ December 13, 2003, 23:10: Message edited by: TerranC ]

[Gryphin]

AssHat,
Reffering to "Thats Lame".
Everyone one here has their own style. There is no need to denigrade a persons contribution. One could say that my refusal to take a stand is cowardice. It would be a waste of time but they could say it.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

other peoples brutality's do not excuse retalitory brutalities. and more reason is needed out of you than simply dissmissing apposing points.

[AssHat]

Gryphin -

npcB was just yankin' my chain with the baby thing. And it is a lame comeback.

I was not attacking npcB.

Edit: I am not dismissing viewpoints, I am making specific points about why those viewpoints are lacking factual evidence.

[ December 13, 2003, 23:48: Message edited by: AssHat ]

[narf poit chez BOOM]

i wasn't yanking your chain, i was seeking clarification. your statements have sounded incredibly bloodthirsty.

[AssHat]

Hey you're the one with the vampire sig http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[CNCRaymond]

Originally posted by rextorres:
I don't know if the US was wrong or not in dropping the bomb (frankly the fire bombings sound more horrific based on accounts I've read) - but a lot of people - even a couple on this forum have implied that the bombs were dropped for some altruistic reasons.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Really, and who are these people? From what I read, most of the people here say that war was war, and they make no excuses for what the US did given the fact that in that day and age, the ends did justify the means. Fire bombing civilian targets, why the hell not, if they could have done it to use, they would have. But as history would have it, we were the ones to pull it off. Was that the right thing to do by today’s standards, sure, why not, by the standards of then, oh hell yes. People die in war Rex, that is the horror of it. It is a crying shame, but again, it was war and even now when we look back on our history through the optics of revisionism, it was still war and no one can deny that. I lost family in that war as did a great many people, and we all know how horrible war can be. But to look back on it now and say that it was done out of hatred alone is utterly wrong.

The truth is those cities were fire bombed mainly because they were made out of wood and paper and were industrial centers. They did not deliberately target civilians although they knew that the fires would spread. To the military leaders of that time, it was the best tactical way to subdue and demoralize the population of Japan. Break their will to fight and soften them up for an invasion.


In reality the US was fire bombing civilians already and dropped the bomb on a civilian target, probably dropped the bomb out of revenge (as your posting and some others on the board highlights), for strategic leverage after the war, and based on what some Japanese documents suggest could have gotten a surrender without the need to drop the bombs.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">

Or as you point out, it was just pay back for the war right? They dropped those bombs because they wanted revenge. The sad truth is simply that in war miscommunications between enemies is a common place occurrence. The Japanese culture was different from that of our own and that too played a part in what happened. Simply we did not know, or did not understand that they were considering surrender.

The horror of war can not be ignored, nor can it be excused even after 50 years. Horrible things happen in war Rex, things that should be considered war crimes that are not, and things that should never have happened did happen. Its in the past now, and all we can do is live with the guilt of what happened.


Some people feel uncomfortable with this "revisionist" history because it doesn't show the US in the best light and in today's Jingoistic climate if your not 100% pro US your unpatriotic . . . I guess if it lets them sleep better at night good for them. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I have to disagree with this assessment of your assumption on what people think. No where in any of the threads of this topic have I read where any one becomes uncomfortable with your comments about history. You have your view, and they have theirs. The only one I have seen get upset about any thing has been you Rex. In fact, I think, and forgive me for not being politically correct here, that you enjoy the argument and are not willing to be humble and professional enough to conduct yourself with the professionalism that is this board.

Frankly rex, I think much of what you have said is spot on, but your delivery of it has been deliberately hostile with the intent to provoke animosity

[ December 14, 2003, 00:33: Message edited by: CNCRaymond ]

[rextorres]

Hmmm . . . since I wasn't alive and to my knowledge none of my relatives died because of it . . . I guess I don't feel as strongly as some people seem to about that war.

Still, I know what I have read, and it enlightening that there is still so much vitriol towards the Japanese and so much self-righteousness about A-bombing a civilian target even after 50 years. And I guess that's what's upsetting.

Anyway, if we had lost the war fire bombing and A-bombing cities probably would have been a war crime. Sure sometimes a country has to commit an evil act for self-preservation but it doesn't make it a good act; it's still an evil act. In my opinion fire bombing or A-bombing a city with civilians is an evil act even if it was against the JAPS.

I think President Truman captures how many felt about "the beasts" as he says -

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/bomb/small/mb13a.htm

Sure he is disturbed BUT they deserved it.

[ December 14, 2003, 01:18: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[CNCRaymond]

I agree with you Rex, I wish they could have found another way than to have dropped those bombs, I really do.

The motivations back then were skewed by the war, and in war we spend a lot of time making our enemies evil. It is easier to kill a thing, than it is a man. This kind of thing dates back to the dawn of time, and I feel it will go on long after we are gone.

I often wonder how we would all respond to a world war situation if one occured now. If say China bombed Seattle or New York, how we would view them? Or how they would view us when we retalated.

I am a believe that a third world war will come, a war not over politics, but a war over resources. It will be a bloody and unholy war unlike any war we have ever seen before. Billions will die, and in the end, those who survive it will have nothing left to fight with say sticks and stones.

You put 5 people on an island with enough food to Last 50 days. It won't take long for on or two of them to figure out that if s/he bumps off the others, that 50 days of food will Last 250.

[primitive]

Originally posted by AssHat:
Please. That's lame.

At least any two-month old children killed by U.S. action were collateral damage, and not killed at the tip of laughing soldiers' bayonets (Nanking) or cruelly separated from their family and gassed (Auschwitz). From now on you need to provide specifics, not platitudes. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">And if (note the if, as I believe we are still discussing this) the bombing was done for no other purpose than revenge, is there really a difference ?

While there are several good arguments for dropping the first bomb, can anybody come up with one single decent argument for the second.

[Loser]

Originally posted by primitive:
While there are several good arguments for dropping the first bomb, can anybody come up with one single decent argument for the second. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yes, because the Japanese government clearly, directly, and confidently told the American government that it was a fluke, would not work again, and that they would not surrender. Originally posted by AssHat:
That said, there is no more magnanimous victor than the United States and any country rehabilitated by U.S. force of arms is sure to benefit in the long run. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I wouldn't lean to heavily on that magnanimity, because it really only happened once. The Union crushed the South, abused it and pushed it down. They did this so that the South would not be able to rebel again. The South was still broken fifty years later, and the scars remain today in poverty and racial hatred.

The only time we have rebuilt our conquered enemies was the end of World War Two. That is the only time in history that something like that has happened, but it did not happen for magnanimous reasons, it happened because the American leadership saw another war coming and needed to be ready. And the Third World War did come, we call it the Cold War and we did need those allies we built up. Without them we would not have been able to face the Soviet threat.

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by primitive:
While there are several good arguments for dropping the first bomb, can anybody come up with one single decent argument for the second. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">There is only one argument that needs to be given for the second bombing. The war was not over. Japan had not surendered, even after the first bombing. All of the theories, opinions, and estimates about what the Japanese were planning to do or might do are just that, theories, opinions and estimates. The only thing that we knew for sure, and the only thing we know now for sure is that as of the time of the bombing of Nagasaki, they had not surendered.

Perhaps a case can be made that neither bombing was acceptable, that both were inhumane. That's an argument I won't attempt to make on either side because I have not truly decided for myself. But if you accept the first bombing, as you seem to do from your statement, then you must accept the second bombing as well. As we would have to accept every subsequent bombing after the first two if they had not surendered when they did.

Geoschmo

[Thermodyne]

Some of you people should really step back and listen to what you are saying. War is not a polite little game played between gentlemen. It is economic competition at its worst. And the idea that civilians should be immune is just pure stupidity. Anyone that contributes to the economic well being of the enemy is a viable target. In all out war, the idea is to kill them and theirs, before they kill you and yours. To say that the atomic bombs were any worse that the mass bombing of Tokyo or Dresden or Hamburg is pure nonsense. They biggest difference was a merely economics. It would have been cheaper and more efficient to use fission bombs than it was to use HE and incendiaries.

Often we hear that the next war will be fought over resources. Well if you bothered to study WWII, you would already know that it too was fought over resources. The Japanese went to war to secure the resources that their economy needed. Resources that the US had taken great lengths to deny to them. Resources that they had invaded China to secure. Germany went to war so that they could sustain an economic model that was only sustainable by war. And England, well once they allowed the Germans the time to face them; it was a war of economic survival. A point that is often lost in the texts of the war is what the major resource of the western Pacific is. In the late 1930’s it was rubber and oil. The rubber is not much of a resource these days, but there are still several billion barrels of oil under the South China Sea. Anyone ever notice what effect North Slope oil had on American foreign policy? Oil and Iron were the two most fought over resources in WWII. So if WWIII is fought over resources, we will just be repeating history once again.


Now about those civilians. In a war, there are no civilians. Every person that is able to contribute to the economy is a target. Every farm that produces food is a target. Every worker in a factory is a target. Every home that shelters a worker is a target. Every medical facility that contributes to the well being of these workers is a target. Every school that educates the next generation of workers will become a target if the war is allowed to continue long enough. To say that only combatants should be targeted is short sighted and naive. It should be noted that the four greatest slayers of civilians were Mao, Stalin, Polpot (sp) and Hitler in the order listed. It should also be noted that Japan lost less people in WWII than did China. What is a human life worth? There is no easy answer to that; it depends on the point of ones perspective. But to say that the taking of life with a fission devise is worse that the taking of lives with napalm is not supportable by reasonable logic. The same holds true for all forms of death that war provides. Starvation surly has to be several time more horrible. I would dare say that the soldiers that gave their lives at Stalingrad would have died kinder deaths had they been nuked. And what about Berlin, how many people died there? More than a million? Well, no one knows for sure, but Soviet casualties were in excess of that number after they crossed into Germany. And what of an invasion of Japan? Estimates ran from 400,000 to 800,000 Americans with 1/3 of these being fatalities. After the war this was revised to over a million based on the results of Sipan, Okinawa, and Iwo Jima. From that just do the math. Use the numbers form the previous three battles, and use the low end American number. That gives you 4.5 million dead Japanese. Add in another half million for continuing the strategic bombardment for a year and at least another million who would have died from starvation and disease. Real quick it would appear that the bomb saved both American and Japanese lives. Sure, Japan might have surrendered based on the fact that the war was already lost, but that would have taken a reversal of the culture. And time was not a luxury that the allies had to waste. America has elections every two years, and England was in very bad shape. To have paused and then accepted less than total victory would have been political suicide on both sides of the Atlantic.


I for one have no pity for Japan. Japan could have avoided the war by removing its troops from China. But they chose to attack America, France, England, and the Dutch instead. They justified it based on the genetic purity and superiority of the Japanese race. And in the end they bit off more than they could chew. They started the war, and as a result, they became the target of the might of America. The two cities that were attacked had been forfeited long before the bombs fell. That fact that they both died as a result of single bombs is of little consequence. Dead from one bomb or dead from the bombs of a thousand B29s is no different. To die from radiation burns is little different than dieing from phosphorous burns. And when taken as a whole, I would think that the people of Dresden suffered a worse death, their torment Lasted a full night and much of the next day.

And as a Last point, I would offer this. Where does it say that a nation can not use a weapon of mass destruction in a declared war? Especially when the war was forced upon said nation by an aggressor? It must be remembered that the allies had been killing people on this scale for more than a year when the fission bombs were dropped. The morality of the times found little fault with it.

[ December 14, 2003, 03:36: Message edited by: Thermodyne ]

[TerranC]

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
Now about those civilians. In a war, there are no civilians. Every person that is able to contribute to the economy is a target. Every farm that produces food is a target. Every worker in a factory is a target. Every home that shelters a worker is a target. Every medical facility that contributes to the well being of these workers is a target. Every school that educates the next generation of workers will become a target if the war is allowed to continue long enough. To say that only combatants should be targeted is short sighted and naive.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I don't get what you're trying to say here thermo; are you saying that any and every body who just happens to be a fellow citizen of the enemy nation should be wiped out?

[ December 14, 2003, 03:55: Message edited by: TerranC ]

[oleg]

Thermo' arguments are valid in the situation when the outcome of the war has not been decided yet. That was most certainly not true in the case of Hiroshima/Nagasaki. Please read my older Posts with quotes of people intimately involved in the desision. I regard their opinions much higher than canonised official US history books.

[Thermodyne]

Originally posted by TerranC:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by Thermodyne:
Now about those civilians. In a war, there are no civilians. Every person that is able to contribute to the economy is a target. Every farm that produces food is a target. Every worker in a factory is a target. Every home that shelters a worker is a target. Every medical facility that contributes to the well being of these workers is a target. Every school that educates the next generation of workers will become a target if the war is allowed to continue long enough. To say that only combatants should be targeted is short sighted and naive.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I don't get what you're trying to say here thermo; are you saying that any and every body who just happens to be a fellow citizen of the enemy nation should be wiped out? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">If I were forced to say it bluntly in one sentence, then yes. I would prefer to say that any and all aspects of a nation’s economy are subject to attack when at war. And this includes the people that give comfort and support to said economy. As a point of clarification, we are speaking of total war, the likes of WWI and WWII. These actions would not apply in the cases of police actions and interventions.

[rextorres]

Well the Germans used that same exact argument as they were rolling across the Soviet Union. The only difference was that instead of firebombing people (the firebombing was a terror weapon btw) they rounded them up and shot them. I don't think you believe this. So how is it OK in one instance and not the other?

[ December 14, 2003, 04:23: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[Thermodyne]

Originally posted by oleg:
Thermo' arguments are valid in the situation when the outcome of the war has not been decided yet. That was most certainly not true in the case of Hiroshima/Nagasaki. Please read my older Posts with quotes of people intimately involved in the desision. I regard their opinions much higher than canonised official US history books. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That is too simplistic a point of view. To say that the war was won at that point is easy to say now. But at that time, Japan still had several million men fighting in the field. And based on the losses in the previous battles, the prospects of invading Japan were costly at best. Had we paused, there is little evidence that Japan would have surrendered and allowed an occupation. Had we continued to bomb and relied on a blockade, then how many would have died in the next six months? And with the way politics functioned in Japan, it could easily have taken six months to replace the military majority of Japans government. It should be remembered that the emperors hold on the nation was not so strong that he could defy the wishes of the majority of the military. A final point that is seldom mentioned is the need to limit the Soviet advances into the area. While the alliance was still in place at the time, Soviet intentions were known for what they were. And there was a recognized need to contain their expansion into the Pacific basin. Several of the gamed results showed the Americans holding only the southern Island at wars end, the rest having fallen to the Soviets. I think we can all agree that American occupation was a kinder result than Soviet occupation would have been.

[ December 14, 2003, 04:26: Message edited by: Thermodyne ]

[Thermodyne]

Originally posted by rextorres:
Well the Germans used that same exact argument as they were rolling across the Soviet Union. The only difference was that instead of firebombing people (the firebombing was a terror weapon btw) they rounded them up and shot them. I don't think you believe this. So how is it OK in one instance and not the other? <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Which argument are you speaking of?

And I doubt you know much of what I do or don’t believe. I know that the Germans killed many civilians by mass execution. I also know that the resistance was a big problem for the Germans. They in turn relied on terror as a means of countering this activity. I also know that in many areas of the western Soviet Union, the Germans were initially seen as liberators. I guess it was the lesser of two evils logic at work there. But I also have no love for the Russia of Stalin. It must have been very distasteful to have to sit down with them as allies.

Don’t misunderstand me here; I am not a supporter of the German involvement in the war. I do have a certain amount of respect for the skill with which the military practiced the art of war. But I do not support the reasons for it or the actions of the government and it special organizations. And I also have nothing but contempt for the existing command structures that existed in the allied camps at the start of the war. England was poorly led at the start and the inaction of the government after declaring the war was borderline stupidity. And they continued to be poorly lead all through the war. This was offset by exceptional political leadership in large part. And as for the French actions, well let’s just not go there. There is nothing good that can be said of it. As for America, we were not much better off. We were reliant on out of date ideas and technology, and totally unprepared. The fact that we were able to reverse this in less than two years is a tribute to the abilities of the American people of the times.

[rextorres]

Well your right I don't know what you believe. All I can glean about what you believe is based on what you write in this forum.

I won't repeat your whole argument back to you but you did eloquently state that "Every person that is able to contribute to the economy is a target." etc. etc. It's written just below.

Those were some of the same arguments the Nazis used when they rounded up whole villages and shot them.

And the point I was trying to make is that it's a slippery slope when you make arguments like these. Where do you draw the line?

[ December 14, 2003, 05:09: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[President_Elect_Shang]

Here is that comparison to Nazis again. This has come up in another thread. Does anyone here think that comparing acts of genocide can really be equated to what has happened in WW2? I don’t think so; yes America did a terrible thing, however, for what ever reason [surrender of Japan, etc] the fact is it did stop and no one had the intentions of genocide. There are many other closer approximations that can be made when looking into a historical context for comparisons.

[rextorres]

Pulling out the "Nazi card" may have been hyperbolic, but Thermodyne's logic is exactly the same logic the German's were using as they were rounding up Russian civilians and shooting them. You can dismiss me for merely pointing this out or point out to Thermodyne where his logic could lead.

[ December 14, 2003, 05:57: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[Puke]

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
If I were forced to say it bluntly in one sentence, then yes. I would prefer to say that any and all aspects of a nation’s economy are subject to attack when at war. And this includes the people that give comfort and support to said economy. As a point of clarification, we are speaking of total war, the likes of WWI and WWII. These actions would not apply in the cases of police actions and interventions. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">and the US civil war! man, Sherman sure knew how to do it! those Americans really showed those darn Americans who was boss! And dont forget our colonial efforts. Take out all those women and children with smallpox infected blankets, before they breed another generation of redskins.

And lets not leave out Korea. Better nuke those cities and the staging grounds in China before more forces can be mustered. leveling a city not only hits their economy and industrial complex, but puts a quick end to alot of potential soldiers before they even get started.

Oh, wait. we didnt get to nuke Korea and China. I wonder how the world would be now, if we had applied the 'war is hell' doctrine then? Now im not going to tell you that war should be a gentlemans game, and everyone can be expected to play nice - but you have to concede that there are some very good cases for excercising moderation.

[Cyrien]

Korea wasn't a war it was a police action by the UN, the Last "War" the US engaged in was WW2. I believe that exception was already made for those. Of course now someone will come up and ask what the difference is since you are just as dead in one as the other. Well according to US and international laws there are actually quite a few differences. I won't go into those now just stating they exist.

As for thermo's arguments being the same reason that Germany executed whole villages. WRONG!

The Germans didn't kill them because they were potential warriors. The Germans killed them because they were lower than human. They weren't of the superior race and so should be exterminated before they contaminated the superior race.

The Germans were engaged in an act of Genocide that would have continued after the War was over if they had won until there were none of the inferior people left anywhere in the world.

The other argument only applies to such targets during time of actual conflict. They are valid targets to harm the enemy but not for the purpose of total annihilation of the entirety of the people. It is not an act of Genocide but of Total War.

Germany: Kill everything until it is dead forever.

Total War: Kill everything until it surrenders.

I would argue there is a vast morale difference between the two.

Germany killed those people even if they were citizens of Germany. The US might deport or lock away in detention camps (I won't call them concentration camps because they weren't. There is a vast difference between the Nazi concentration camps and the Japanese detention camps in the US. The camps in the US were awfull but not on the German scale.) but it didn't exterminate its own people when it went to war against nations of origin for those people.

[Thermodyne]

Originally posted by President Elect Shang:
Here is that comparison to Nazis again. This has come up in another thread. Does anyone here think that comparing acts of genocide can really be equated to what has happened in WW2? I don’t think so; yes America did a terrible thing, however, for what ever reason [surrender of Japan, etc] the fact is it did stop and no one had the intentions of genocide. There are many other closer approximations that can be made when looking into a historical context for comparisons. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The bombing of civilian populations in the enemy’s homeland is not genocide. It is not a kind thing to do, but it is not genocide. When a country goes to war, its people go with it. And to support 1 fighting man in the field, about six or seven non-fighting soldiers are needed. Each of these is supported by 7 to 22 civilians. And often, it is these civilians that are found to be the least defended targets. Strategic bombing was tested in Spain. It came of age in WWII. In the late 50’s and early 60’s, the weapon of choice became the rocket. To wage an all out war today would doom all of your major population centers to death in a few hours. I think that this is the only reason that there has not been a third world war. No one is willing to pay the price. When the cost was spread out over a series of years, and the killing of cities took thousands of aircraft, the risks were acceptable. Today they are not. And atomic weapons are the reason this stalemate occurred.

But none of the terrors of a strategic war can be compared to the actions of the Nazis. And the treatment of POW’s by the Japanese is almost as bad. The actions of the allies and the use of atomic weapons are part of war. The government has an overwhelming obligation to bring the war to an end as quickly as possible with as little loss of life by its citizens as can be achieved. The two fission devises dropped on Japan were in keeping with this mandate.

[Thermodyne]

Originally posted by Puke:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by Thermodyne:
If I were forced to say it bluntly in one sentence, then yes. I would prefer to say that any and all aspects of a nation’s economy are subject to attack when at war. And this includes the people that give comfort and support to said economy. As a point of clarification, we are speaking of total war, the likes of WWI and WWII. These actions would not apply in the cases of police actions and interventions. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">and the US civil war! man, Sherman sure knew how to do it! those Americans really showed those darn Americans who was boss! And dont forget our colonial efforts. Take out all those women and children with smallpox infected blankets, before they breed another generation of redskins.

And lets not leave out Korea. Better nuke those cities and the staging grounds in China before more forces can be mustered. leveling a city not only hits their economy and industrial complex, but puts a quick end to alot of potential soldiers before they even get started.

Oh, wait. we didnt get to nuke Korea and China. I wonder how the world would be now, if we had applied the 'war is hell' doctrine then? Now im not going to tell you that war should be a gentlemans game, and everyone can be expected to play nice - but you have to concede that there are some very good cases for excercising moderation. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Korea was not an all out war. And as such does not belong in this discussion. Korea was a display of national will as much as it was a war. It was the first application of measured response. Had it been fought as a total war, the outcome would have been different. The communist government of China would not have survived and most of Chinas major cities would have been bombed to dust. America would have been forced to draw down the troops we were defending Europe with. And the Soviets would have used the war as an excuse to expand to the west. With America out of the picture, all of Germany would have come under the soviet boot. Would England risk the soviet bomb to save Germany? And France, what of them? A quick look at to politics of the time would indicate that the socialist and communists would have easily gained power in France. Italy and Greece would have also fallen into line. So yes, the world would have been very different.

[Nodachi]

True "Total War" is no longer practiced by large nations, the fission bombs ended it.

A quick difference between Total War and Genocide- a nation at "Total War" stops killing civilians in captured areas.

[oleg]

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
... The bombing of civilian populations in the enemy’s homeland is not genocide. It is not a kind thing to do, but it is not genocide... <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">"Main Entry: geno·cide
Pronunciation: 'je-n&-"sId
Function: noun
Date: 1944
: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group"

You can think what you want but carpet bombing and A-bombs droped on civilian targets that had no military or economical value, like Hirochima, are act of genocide IMnHO.

[President_Elect_Shang]

Ok Thermordyne, I think we both just said the same thing maybe? I am not really sure as to why you took the time to explain all of that when it had nothing (that I can see) to do with my only point. However it is good that you did explain it all as some or many may not have of understood, the soldier support system in WW2 was not just so, still close enough for gold I think.

My Point:
Comparing genocide of Jews to the two atom bombs [Japanese] is not a good comparison, let’s find another.

[President_Elect_Shang]

True Oleg (edited in: By true I mean the definition you quote for genocide), but Thermodyne did not say ‘the bombing and subsequent capture and eradication of an enemy’s population’ or anything even close to that. He said “The bombing of civilian populations in the enemy’s homeland is not genocide. It is not a kind thing to do, but it is not genocide”. That tells me at least that he is drawing a line between destroying infrastructure (killing non-combatants) and genocide and not crossing it.

[ December 14, 2003, 16:04: Message edited by: President Elect Shang ]

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by oleg:
You can think what you want but carpet bombing and A-bombs droped on civilian targets that had no military or economical value, like Hirochima, are act of genocide IMnHO. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You are wrong when you say that Hiroshima and Nakisaki had "no military or economic value". Therefore according to your logic the bombing was NOT genocide.

In your opinion they may not have had sufficent value to warrant the destruction they received, but the fact is both cities had military faciliites of some kind or another, as all major cities pretty much do, and factories producing war materials.

[Thermodyne]

Originally posted by oleg:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by Thermodyne:
... The bombing of civilian populations in the enemy’s homeland is not genocide. It is not a kind thing to do, but it is not genocide... <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">"Main Entry: geno·cide
Pronunciation: 'je-n&-"sId
Function: noun
Date: 1944
: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group"

You can think what you want but carpet bombing and A-bombs droped on civilian targets that had no military or economical value, like Hirochima, are act of genocide IMnHO. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">IIRC, we warned the populations of both cities to evacuate. The leaflets were dropped over several cities so as to not identify the exact target, but fair warning was given.

[Thermodyne]

War sucks, plain and simple. But if there is one thing I have learned in my life it is that “limited war” and “measured response” sucks far worse. When a country goes to war it should do so with all of the resources that can be gathered to the extent that they fit the need. Iraq 1 and 2 are prime examples. By fighting quick intensive campaigns, loss of life and human suffering are greatly reduced.

[Puke]

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
War sucks, plain and simple. But if there is one thing I have learned in my life it is that “limited war” and “measured response” sucks far worse. When a country goes to war it should do so with all of the resources that can be gathered to the extent that they fit the need. Iraq 1 and 2 are prime examples. By fighting quick intensive campaigns, loss of life and human suffering are greatly reduced. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">supporting your arguement from the other side of the coin, we have Somolia and similar conflicts..

[CNCRaymond]

Take out all those women and children with smallpox infected blankets, before they breed another generation of redskins.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">How dare they be on our land before we ever knew it exsisted!

(This is one of those American historical facts that does make me ill to my core.)

[Thermodyne]

Originally posted by rextorres:
Well your right I don't know what you believe. All I can glean about what you believe is based on what you write in this forum.

I won't repeat your whole argument back to you but you did eloquently state that "Every person that is able to contribute to the economy is a target." etc. etc. It's written just below.

Those were some of the same arguments the Nazis used when they rounded up whole villages and shot them.

And the point I was trying to make is that it's a slippery slope when you make arguments like these. Where do you draw the line? <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That is total bull poop Rex. The Nazi’s committed acts of racial cleansing, and they handed out summery executions as a means of controlling indigent populations. They even did some strategic bombing of England. But as a whole, the killings of civilians were tactical and meant to achieve local control of small areas. The mass killings were genocide and had little to do with winning of wars. They were racial cleansing pure and simple. Other than trying to choke off the Atlantic supply lines, Germany never really made much of an effort at winning the economic war. This is laid at the feet of their air planers. They never planed for a long strategic air campaign, and concentrated on tactical air to an almost total extent. This was addressed later in the war when the German strategic rocket forces were brought down upon England.

[Puke]

of course it was OUR land, they didnt believe in land ownership. Hawaii and Panama on the otherhand, those were definitly other peoples land that we just sort of took. California and Texas too, for that matter.

If history teaches us anything, its that might makes right. We need a warior culture akin to that of feudal Japan, but less isolationist. All this goodie-goodie stuff aint good for the empire.