What is your take on the A-bomb droppings on Japan?

[Kralizec]

As has been earlier established, morality is subjective. However, the necessity of the bombings is difficult to defend based on what Truman & Co knew and when they knew it. As of three days before the bombing, they at least knew that Japan wanted peace, and was actively seeking it (http://www.thenation.com/blog/162533/countdown-hiroshima-august-3-1945-x-minus-3-days) - only a politically unacceptable peace through America's new rival. Such information - and there is plenty - kind of renders the position that Truman saw the bomb as the only option to avert an American invasion untenable, except if one accepts the caveat that an American invasion would have had to be launched to keep Russia off the islands - which destroys the necessity argument.

In hindsight, South Korea wouldn't have existed without Japan's timely surrender. I'm sceptical of the USSR's ability to invade Japan. The Normandy invasions were an unprecedented feat (in terms of logistics), Japan would surely have been a much more daunting task. The US had plenty of naval assets in the general area, the Soviets next to none.

However; even if we accept that the main purpose of the bomb detonations was to thwart the Soviets, it's still a military purpose, based in rationality. Allthough it's not exactly chivalrous, it's certainly less heinous than the reasons for which the Germans sought to exterminate entire cultures and the Japanese utter contempt for occupied peoples. I agree that the Allies' misconduct during the war doens't get the attention it deserves, but in my view the Axis still occupy the moral low grounds alone.

[PanzerJaeger]

I'm sceptical of the USSR's ability to invade Japan. The Normandy invasions were an unprecedented feat (in terms of logistics), Japan would surely have been a much more daunting task. The US had plenty of naval assets in the general area, the Soviets next to none.

I'm not so sure an invasion would be any more difficult than Normandy, but invasion wasn't the American concern - it was Japan opening the proverbial gates and letting them in. The big fear was that Japan would negotiate a more favorable peace through a then-neutral Soviet Union which the US would be compelled to accept, denying American influence on the islands. Hence the impetus at Potsdam to get Russia on board (and thus in tandem with the US) with war against Japan, and then the rush to compel a Japanese surrender before Russia actually got into the fight.

Again, allow me to quote Truman.

"One of the main objectives of the Potsdam Conference was to get Russia in as quickly as we could and then to keep Russia out of Japan—and I did it."



However; even if we accept that the main purpose of the bomb detonations was to thwart the Soviets, it's still a military purpose, based in rationality. Allthough it's not exactly chivalrous, it's certainly less heinous than the reasons for which the Germans sought to exterminate entire cultures and the Japanese utter contempt for occupied peoples.

Yet Germany didn't invade Poland for fun, and Japan didn't create Manchukuo for sport. Hitler's talk of race war was little more than propaganda, he invaded the USSR because it had the land and resources he needed to build a greater German empire. Japan as well infused its citizens with a sense of superiority, but its moves were far less ideological and instead based on practical resource considerations. Both nations made the geopolitical decisions they did based on very rational, although ultimately miscalculated, assessments of their national self interest, just as the America, Britain, and of course the Soviet Union did during the war. Certainly the Axis ended the war with higher body counts, but that isn't particularly unusual when you look at empires forged out of other empires (the Americans, for example, had just finished clearing their new nation of indigenous undesirables). WW2 was a battle between established empires and aspiring ones. As such, the Axis took their inspiration from the way nations such as America, Great Britain, and France dealt with their own subhuman indigenous populations.

I mean, at some point a more objective and holistic analysis of the period must recognize, for example, what was going on under the Americans in the Philippines before the Japanese even invaded. The desperate need in the West to cling to a black and white moral righteousness in the face of all fact and reason does a serious disservice to our collective understanding of our own history.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I discussed Japanese brutality here (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125177-What-is-your-take-on-the-A-bomb-droppings-on-Japan&p=2053383819&viewfull=1#post2053383819). I'm not the one trying to whitewash the atrocities of any of the nations involved in the conflict.

If you have already "established" that morality is subjective, then military might (might) as well be right. They did bad things, we did bad things, but we won, so why bother throw these pictures of japanese kids in our face?

[PanzerJaeger]

If you have already "established" that morality is subjective, then military might (might) as well be right. They did bad things, we did bad things, but we won, so why bother throw these pictures of japanese kids in our face?

I would have thought it would have been obvious that my response was to Warman's line of reasoning and not the discussion between myself and Econ. Attempting to apply scale to the morality of various atrocities is a wholly different discussion from attributing guilt for those atrocities to various peoples.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I would have thought it would have been obvious that my response was to Warman's line of reasoning and not the discussion between myself and Econ. Attempting to apply scale to the morality of various atrocities is a wholly different discussion from attributing guilt for those atrocities to various peoples.

Attributing guilt gives the assumption that there should be something to be guilty about. If the Japanese felt Nanking was right and glorious why should there be any "guilt" attached to it? Attributing cause, or responsibility, sure go ahead. But not guilt. They are not guilty of anything if they felt it wasn't wrong.

[Samurai Waki]

A tragedy of circumstances-- The thousands of women Japanese soldiers raped, their testing of biological and chemical weapons on civilians.. does that mean that the ordinary Japanese citizens, who knew nothing or little about what had happened, and only wanted to feed, clothe, and shelter themselves and their family deserve to be obliterated, maimed, or worse? No. Of course not. However, if you had asked a soldier who had lost many of his mates, or a mother who had lost a son-- You might have felt very differently.

War is a nasty, horrible business-- and there are no winners. Only losers.

[PanzerJaeger]

Attributing guilt gives the assumption that there should be something to be guilty about. If the Japanese felt Nanking was right and glorious why should there be any "guilt" attached to it? Attributing cause, or responsibility, sure go ahead. But not guilt. They are not guilty of anything if they felt it wasn't wrong.

Guilty (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/guilty) - Deserving blame, as for an error. No moral dimension assumed. :book2:

Edit: A re-reading of your above posts seems to highlight a misunderstanding of the discussion involving my 'morality is subjective' statement. I was describing the difficulty in trying to apply a scale of 'wrongness' to the atrocities. Was it worse to bomb cities or starve people? I think there is agreement on a more general scale that these acts were not morally right (I don't think anyone has argued that) - the dissent surrounds just how wrong they were in relation to each other. I probably should have been more clear, but I assumed a basic level of understanding that obviously wasn't shared by all. :shame:

[econ21]

As has been earlier established, morality is subjective.

I really don't know what it means when people say that. Does it mean that anything goes if you have the military might, as ACIN mentioned? Does it mean that all decent people cannot agree that human suffering such as that shown in your photo of the injured is undesirable in and of itself? Does it mean that we should abandon discussions of what is the right thing to do based on centuries of debate and reflection, instead turning to a calculus of what is "necessary" for every fatuous goal a politician might vocalise (whether it is a greater Germany or a racially pure one?).

I find the subjectivity vs objectivity of morals rather like free will vs determinism, ultimately a pointless debate. Yes, we do things because of our environment, genes, whatever; yes, decent people can disagree on the importance of some values or the probity of some acts. But still, it is essential to make careful decisions, based on a concern for others and decency, and worth debating these decisions, because they are difficult.


I was describing the difficulty in trying to apply a scale of 'wrongness' to the atrocities. Was it worse to bomb cities or starve people?

It is difficult, but then most things worth spending time over are difficult. The reason it is worth discussing issues like this - aside from trying to persuade others - is that they are so complicated and to adopt a coherent position, one has to try to make sense of all the potentially conflicting intuitions, principles etc one has on the subject.


I think there is agreement on a more general scale that these acts were not morally right (I don't think anyone has argued that) - the dissent surrounds just how wrong they were in relation to each other.

Lots of people are arguing that allied bombing in WW2, conventional and atomic, was morally right - instrumentally, in that it saved lives overall or whatever. Not you or I, but that's the conventional wisdom in the West. But if you mean that no one is arguing that it is instrinically good to kill civilians, then of course you are right. I can see the instrumental argument - hence my disputing the facts with you - although I am not wholly persuaded of its ethical premises (e.g. that we should do what saves lives overall, rather than never engage in mass killing of civilians).


However, the necessity of the bombings is difficult to defend based on what Truman & Co knew and when they knew it. As of three days before the bombing, they at least knew that Japan wanted peace, and was actively seeking it (http://www.thenation.com/blog/162533/countdown-hiroshima-august-3-1945-x-minus-3-days)

Before the A-bombs and the Russian invasion, the Japanese were not willing to surrender unconditionally (even after, it was a close run thing). They could have responded to Potsdam and achieved the same terms as they obtained in the end - unconditional surrender, but with an implicit understanding they could keep the Emperor. What they were seeking from the Russians was mediation for surrender on better terms - for example, no trial of war criminals, the army retaining control of any demilitarisation and no occupation of Japan etc. I am not convinced this factor weighed large in Truman's mind - public sentiment towards Japan in the US being what it was, I don't see how he would have been compelled to accept a surrender on those terms even if the Russians backed it. I suspect he wanted the Russians in the war to put more pressure on the Japanese to cave, but then did not want them running riot over the Far East - as their subsequent success in Manchuria showed them capable of doing. I agree with Sarmatian that Russia invading Japan was a year or more off. China was probably the bigger concern, with a civil war imminent.


Both nations made the geopolitical decisions they did based on very rational, although ultimately miscalculated, assessments of their national self interest,...

That's a very charitable reading of Nazism and Japanese militarism. There is a reason those ideologies are dead - they were very far from rational and devastated the countries that adopted them, as well as their victims.


...just as the America, Britain, and of course the Soviet Union did during the war.

You are conflating decisions over starting wars with decisions over winning them. The 1930s German and Japanese leadership showed a level of aggression and disregard for others quite distinct from that of that of America, Britain and even the Soviet Union in that era. They were also reckless and ignorant in their "miscalculations", making colossal blunders that more astute Germans and Japanese recognised at the time.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Guilty (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/guilty) - Deserving blame, as for an error. No moral dimension assumed. :book2:

Edit: A re-reading of your above posts seems to highlight a misunderstanding of the discussion involving my 'morality is subjective' statement. I was describing the difficulty in trying to apply a scale of 'wrongness' to the atrocities. Was it worse to bomb cities or starve people? I think there is agreement on a more general scale that these acts were not morally right (I don't think anyone has argued that) - the dissent surrounds just how wrong they were in relation to each other. I probably should have been more clear, but I assumed a basic level of understanding that obviously wasn't shared by all. :shame:

Ahhh kk. The fault lies with me, since I was the one who misunderstood.

[Brenus]

“The Allies may not have started the war, but they surely finished it on the same level as the Axis.” PJ, I do like your historical knowledge, but I have to disagree on your “moral” statement… The allies didn’t built concentration camps, or extermination camps… They didn’t enslave German, Italian, Finish, Japanese, Hungarian, Rumanian, Bulgarian and Croatian populations. They didn’t slaughter randomly villages, or starved to death entire regions. The Axis populations got a much better treatment (and that was not difficult) than the Axis’ occupied territory after surrender…
Yes, the Allies were not all nice… We all know about the Cossack given back to the Soviet, and all the HIWIS… The French SS didn’t expect much mercy and this is the reason why they were the last one to fight in Berlin…
However, you have no Bodensee Conference in the Allies side.

As the level of violence, war is use of violence… The Axis got the pay-back of what they unleashed. When the Dornier, Junkers and other Messerschmitt were roaming the sky and killing all what was moving, the Axis populations were applauding… Just re-watch the parade of Hitler after the fall of France…
When receiving the goods from the Occupied Territories, when they were watching the forced Labourers (slaves) crossing their villages and towns, they did enjoy throwing them stones and denouncing them to the SS guards were some tried to drink at some fountain…

None of the Axis populations got the same treatment, and were mostly treated fairly… In this I don’t include the one considered at traitors…

[PanzerJaeger]

I really don't know what it means when people say that. Does it mean that anything goes if you have the military might, as ACIN mentioned? Does it mean that all decent people cannot agree that human suffering such as that shown in your photo of the injured is undesirable in and of itself? Does it mean that we should abandon discussions of what is the right thing to do based on centuries of debate and reflection, instead turning to a calculus of what is "necessary" for every fatuous goal a politician might vocalise (whether it is a greater Germany or a racially pure one?).

I find the subjectivity vs objectivity of morals rather like free will vs determinism, ultimately a pointless debate. Yes, we do things because of our environment, genes, whatever; yes, decent people can disagree on the importance of some values or the probity of some acts. But still, it is essential to make careful decisions, based on a concern for others and decency, and worth debating these decisions, because they are difficult.

That statement seems to have poorly worded on my part. Maybe a more accurate phrase would have been 'immorality is subjective beyond a certain point'. In the context of this discussion, I meant that it is rather fruitless to discuss which side's attrocities were more heinous.

I personally believe the decision by Truman and Co. to decimate two cities full of civilians of a defeated and impotent enemy based purely on geopolitical calculation when other options were clearly available was just as immoral as any actions taken by the Japanese during the war to further their own geopolitical position. The careful preservation and documentation of said cities just to be able to test the effects of the bombs after the cities were subsequently destroyed reminds me more of the kind of macabre work Unit 731 was doing than that of a government engaging in the anguish of moral utilitarianism.

Obviously, though, others disagree, and there is little more that can be said on that level. However, we can discuss justifications Truman & Co. gave for the bombings versus the reality of the situation with a bit more certainty. In my opinion, what we know that Truman knew alone shoots holes in that justification. We know that he felt Russian entry into the war would have a major impact on the Japanese, regardless of how 'fini' is interpreted. Why wasn't time allowed to assess the impact of that event? We also know that the Truman knew that the Japanese were seeking surrender negotiations. That knowledge alone should have taken the use of such horrible weapons off the table. Both facts completely fly in the face of the standard line about a suicidal and determined enemy, the inevitability of an American invasion, and the saving American lives in such an imaginary invasion agreed on by Truman and Co. and subsequently exaggerated beyond all reason after the war. From page 517 of Alperovitz's 'The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb':


In 1952 Thomas L. Cate, a scholar helping to prepare the official history of the Air Force in World War II, wrote Truman to ask about the decision to use the atomic bomb. Truman's initial thought--and his idea of what to tell Cate--was set down in a handwritten draft response dated December 31, 1952:

I asked Gen. Marshall what it would cost in lives to land on the Tokio plane [sic] and other places in Japan. It was his opinion that 1/4 million casualties would be the minimum cost as well as an equal number of the enemy. The other military and naval men present agreed.

As he reworked the draft, a White House aide, Kenneth W. Hechler, noticed a problem with the response: Truman's estimate of "1/4 million casualties" was considerably different from an (unsubstantiated) "over a million casualties" estimate previously published by Secretary of War Stimson in a 1947 Harper's article and repeated in his memoirs. Hechler brought the problem to the attention of another White House aide, David D. Lloyd, in a January 2, 1953, memorandum:

On page 2, it is stated: "I asked Gen. Marshall what it would cost in lives to land on the Tokio plane [sic] and other places in Japan. It was his opinion that 1/4 million casualties would be the minimum cost as well as an equal number of the enemy." Stimson says in his book On Active Service, p. 619: "We estimated that if we should be forced to carry this plan to its conclusion, the major fighting would not end until the latter part of 1946, at the earliest. I was informed that such operations might be expected to cost over a million casualties, to American forces alone." I think it is important that the President's casualty figure be changed to conform with that of Secretary Stimson, because presumably Stimson got his from Gen. Marshall; the size of the figure is very important.

Lloyd promptly prepared a memorandum to Truman on the basis of Hechler's observations which pointed out:

In your draft, you state that General Marshall told you that a landing in Japan would cost a quarter of a million casualties to the United States, and an equal number of the enemy. Mr. Stimson, in his book written by McGeorge Bundy, says that Marshall's estimate was over a million casualties. Your recollection sounds more reasonable than Stimson's, but in order to avoid a conflict, I have changed the wording to read that General Marshall expected a minimum of a quarter of a million casualties and probably a much greater number -- as much as a million.

Although neither Hechler nor Lloyd seem to have bothered to check any actual records of casualty estimates ("your recollection sounds more reasonable")--and although Stimson's estimate had no documentary basis whatsoever Truman approved Lloyd's revision as if it were historical fact.


Interestingly enough, critical views of the bombings did not emerge in the '60s with the revisionists, but instead directly after the bombs were dropped, which is what prompted the Truman administration to create the myth of an ever-expanding number of Americans (and later Japanese!) who were saved. Many (dare I say most) of America's most notable military leaders also felt the bomb was unneccesary, such as Eisenhower, MacArthur, Halsey, Nimitz, Arnold, Spaatz, Lemay, and Chennault, among many other lesser known officers. The decision took most in the military by surprise, as they all knew from the MAGIC intercepts about the Japanese surrender attempts. Nimitz, for example, said in October of '45 in the New York Times 'The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan. '





Before the A-bombs and the Russian invasion, the Japanese were not willing to surrender unconditionally (even after, it was a close run thing). They could have responded to Potsdam and achieved the same terms as they obtained in the end - unconditional surrender, but with an implicit understanding they could keep the Emperor. What they were seeking from the Russians was mediation for surrender on better terms - for example, no trial of war criminals, the army retaining control of any demilitarisation and no occupation of Japan etc. I am not convinced this factor weighed large in Truman's mind - public sentiment towards Japan in the US being what it was, I don't see how he would have been compelled to accept a surrender on those terms even if the Russians backed it. I suspect he wanted the Russians in the war to put more pressure on the Japanese to cave, but then did not want them running riot over the Far East - as their subsequent success in Manchuria showed them capable of doing. I agree with Sarmatian that Russia invading Japan was a year or more off. China was probably the bigger concern, with a civil war imminent.

I disagree. The American public was already extremely apprehensive about an invasion of Japan proper, and if the Russians had announced that they had accepted a reasonable surrender of Japan - that they would give up their overseas possessions, that they would lay down their arms and demilitarize, that they would accept the main points of Potsdam under the supervision or occupation of Soviet troops - I do not believe it would have been politically feasible for Truman to continue the war, to send more American boys to die in a pointless invasion of an already surrendered nation. Obviously if the conditions were completely ridiculous the situation may have been different, but the Japanese intentions toward the end did not appear to be deal breakers in my assessment of the American public's attitude. The headline 'JAPAN SURRENDERS' would have all over every newspaper in the country. That would have been pretty difficult for Truman to overcome.




That's a very charitable reading of Nazism and Japanese militarism. There is a reason those ideologies are dead - they were very far from rational and devastated the countries that adopted them, as well as their victims.

If successful, which they very nearly were, they would have been superpowers.



You are conflating decisions over starting wars with decisions over winning them. The 1930s German and Japanese leadership showed a level of aggression and disregard for others quite distinct from that of that of America, Britain and even the Soviet Union in that era. They were also reckless and ignorant in their "miscalculations", making colossal blunders that more astute Germans and Japanese recognised at the time.

Well, I wouldn't extend that to the Soviet Union. The invasion of Finland was pretty reckless and ignorant. Of course, my point is that WW2 did not occur in a vacuum. If we take a broader view of the period, the Axis nations' moves were not all that different than those of the Allies in the construction of their empires.



PJ, I do like your historical knowledge, but I have to disagree on your “moral” statement…

I just don't think the manner of killing makes much difference, it is the decision to engage in mass slaughter that puts them on a similar level.

[Subotan]

:yes:
Don't ever vote.

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

Papewaio beat me to it about Nanking. I read the book The Rape of Nanking when I was in my AP World History class, now I can't really take anyone seriously when they try hard to apologize for Japan.

I think you might need to reevaluate some things.

Tell that the to the nazis who rounded up woman and shot them naked. They did far more brutal crimes than the Japanese, though it is on the same leval.

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

Surely a death is a death is a death. Nukes killed less people then an invasion was projected to do (Okiniwa had lots of citizens on it, Iwo Jima was more of an atoll with a hill on it, not a huge amount of civilians). What is worrying is that most people ignore that the nuclear attacks were pre-surrender.



Less Brutal? Interesting definition. Surely having systematic brothels housed by captured sex slaves run by the military for the comfort of their soldiers is a pretty brutal start.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_human_experimentation_on_the_Chinese#Experiments_on_humans_and_biological_warfare



Then the likes of the Nanking Massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre)



Not the numbers aren't during battle, these are post surrender numbers. Now are conventional weapons or atomics worse?







One city, and not unusual

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Military_Hospital,_Singapore#Second_World_War

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Changde_chemical_weapon_attack#Use_of_chemical_weapon_attack



=][=

End of the day relationships both Love and War are recipricol. The easiest way to answer the question were the way the Allies utilised the Atomics good or bad is to see how the recipricol relation would have worked.

WWJD?

What Would Japan Do? Well they would have dropped the nukes and then some, plus the plague.

Then after surrender they would have killed a quarter of the civilian population, raped the majority of the women, killed the pregant women in games of chance, beheaded men as a sports event and killed 90%+ of the prisoners of war who were Asian. This is based purely on their standard operating procedure in Asia.


Surely a death is a death is a death. Nukes killed less people then an invasion was projected to do (Okiniwa had lots of citizens on it, Iwo Jima was more of an atoll with a hill on it, not a huge amount of civilians). What is worrying is that most people ignore that the nuclear attacks were pre-surrender.


I know. Why don't we nuke your city? I think it will be absolutely fine. How would you like to see your family dead? I am sure you wouldn't like it. Tell that to them. The Nukes were a new type of weapon. Believe me, if there was a war, it would be nuclear war and we would be dead.

Then after surrender they would have killed a quarter of the civilian population, raped the majority of the women, killed the pregant women in games of chance, beheaded men as a sports event and killed 90%+ of the prisoners of war who were Asian. This is based purely on their standard operating procedure in Asia.

The Nazis did the same thing. They rounded all inferior people and jews.Sent them to concentration camps. The japanese did not kill asian just as well, but amercian pows as well.

[Samurai Waki]

Surely a death is a death is a death. Nukes killed less people then an invasion was projected to do (Okiniwa had lots of citizens on it, Iwo Jima was more of an atoll with a hill on it, not a huge amount of civilians). What is worrying is that most people ignore that the nuclear attacks were pre-surrender.


I know. Why don't we nuke your city? I think it will be absolutely fine. How would you like to see your family dead? I am sure you wouldn't like it. Tell that to them. The Nukes were a new type of weapon. Believe me, if there was a war, it would be nuclear war and we would be dead.

Then after surrender they would have killed a quarter of the civilian population, raped the majority of the women, killed the pregant women in games of chance, beheaded men as a sports event and killed 90%+ of the prisoners of war who were Asian. This is based purely on their standard operating procedure in Asia.

The Nazis did the same thing. They rounded all inferior people and jews.Sent them to concentration camps. The japanese did not kill asian just as well, but amercian pows as well.

By the lead up to the the A-Bombings, the gloves had already long been off. I think the majority of us today *hate* the idea that so many lives were destroyed, perhaps on the eve of a Japanese surrender. Sadly, no matter which way I look at it -- in the interests of American/Allied leadership at the time... the decision as Spock would say "was logical."

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

By the lead up to the the A-Bombings, the gloves had already long been off. I think the majority of us today *hate* the idea that so many lives were destroyed, perhaps on the eve of a Japanese surrender. Sadly, no matter which way I look at it -- in the interests of American/Allied leadership at the time... the decision as Spock would say "was logical."

Logical? Crap. Berlin should have been nuked then.

[Samurai Waki]

Logical? Crap. Berlin should have been nuked then.

It probably would have been, had the technology been available earlier, and had the war turned into a stalemate..

[a completely inoffensive name]

Tell that the to the nazis who rounded up woman and shot them naked. They did far more brutal crimes than the Japanese, though it is on the same leval. So? what is your point? The Japanese behaved evil, as did the Germans, as did the Americans. To me the dropping of the atomic bombs is a question of whether the action was necessary in the continuation of what was a just war for the US or if it was extraneous and not necessary, in which case it was a mark of extreme evil and should be condemed. Since the war was a just one for the US in the case of Japan (we were attacked first and thus had to defend ourselves) I tend to think that the atomic bombs were allowable on the condition that the Japanese had abandoned some of their intrisic rights by being the aggressors, violating the intrisic rights of Americans in the same way that propery owners can bring lethal force in self defense to those breaking and entering. All this measurement of who did the worst crimes and how we rank them is pointless, they were all evil and the question is if the atomic bombs were or not.

[Vladimir]

Logical? Crap. Berlin should have been nuked then.

The A-bomb was developed to be used against Germany.

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

So? what is your point? The Japanese behaved evil, as did the Germans, as did the Americans. To me the dropping of the atomic bombs is a question of whether the action was necessary in the continuation of what was a just war for the US or if it was extraneous and not necessary, in which case it was a mark of extreme evil and should be condemed. Since the war was a just one for the US in the case of Japan (we were attacked first and thus had to defend ourselves) I tend to think that the atomic bombs were allowable on the condition that the Japanese had abandoned some of their intrisic rights by being the aggressors, violating the intrisic rights of Americans in the same way that propery owners can bring lethal force in self defense to those breaking and entering. All this measurement of who did the worst crimes and how we rank them is pointless, they were all evil and the question is if the atomic bombs were or not.

Don't boast to me about how greatly you won the war. The Japanese attacked your navy. That has nothing, nothing to do with a nuke bomb! It should never have been put through

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

The A-bomb was developed to be used against Germany.

It was never used.

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

It probably would have been, had the technology been available earlier, and had the war turned into a stalemate..

Well, Germany would have surrended. Then Japan maybe.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Don't boast to me about how greatly you won the war. The Japanese attacked your navy. That has nothing, nothing to do with a nuke bomb! It should never have been put through Not boasting bro. When a burgler comes into your house and starts walking away with your stuff and you tell him to stop, if he doesn't stop, are you allowed to take action? if the burgler is in the position to do a great deal of harm to you (he is a foot taller and 50 pounds heavier), arn't you justified in having to say, pull out a gun and shoot him if necessary? He is only taking your stereo, isn't shooting him overkill? Well, not when he has the potential to harm you and is bent on doing you an injustice. Same thing applies here. When the Japanese bombed the US navy, they accepted the consequences of war. In war, technology that was experimental last year could be practical the following year. By continuing to fight until the end, after 4 years of conflict, it was inevitable that new technologies they didnt expect would arrive on their doorstep and by not surrendering before the tragic bombings hit, they accepted the consequences of their actions.

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

Not boasting bro. When a burgler comes into your house and starts walking away with your stuff and you tell him to stop, if he doesn't stop, are you allowed to take action? if the burgler is in the position to do a great deal of harm to you (he is a foot taller and 50 pounds heavier), arn't you justified in having to say, pull out a gun and shoot him if necessary? He is only taking your stereo, isn't shooting him overkill? Well, not when he has the potential to harm you and is bent on doing you an injustice. Same thing applies here. When the Japanese bombed the US navy, they accepted the consequences of war. In war, technology that was experimental last year could be practical the following year. By continuing to fight until the end, after 4 years of conflict, it was inevitable that new technologies they didnt expect would arrive on their doorstep and by not surrendering before the tragic bombings hit, they accepted the consequences of their actions.

Rubbish. Absolute Rubbish.

First. You don't use a nuke bomb on a country simply because they attacked the amercian navy

2nd. The Bugarlar issue is something more domestic. You fight him back simple. It has nothing whatsover to do with this disccusion.The Japanese attacked the amercian navy. SO don't go saying that we needed to develop nuclear bombs and bomb Japan and not Germany. If so, why didn't you bomb on Berlin then?

3rd. Accept consequences? Hahah.:I. Tell that to a real japanese person and I am sure he would be outraged ,I would feel the same as well, for when France was defeated in the Napoleonic wars, the english would have said something familiar like that.

4th.Amercia forced Japan into war. There is no doubt about as they saw Japan was a rival. Thanks to you amercians, the Japanese Millitary is no longer what it once was. You don't see daily reports of them on the news? Do you? Yet they create the WII and games. And you feel it is perfectly fine to say ''If Japan attacked amercia this year ,let's bomb it with nucealr bombs shall we? ''. Thanks to you people, now we can die in a WW3 due to Nuclear bombs.

[Vladimir]

It was never used.

Yes it was. Two of them, in fact, were used.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Rubbish. Absolute Rubbish. First. You don't use a nuke bomb on a country simply because they attacked the amercian navy2nd. The Bugarlar issue is something more domestic. You fight him back simple. It has nothing whatsover to do with this disccusion.The Japanese attacked the amercian navy. SO don't go saying that we needed to develop nuclear bombs and bomb Japan and not Germany. If so, why didn't you bomb on Berlin then?3rd. Accept consequences? Hahah.:I. Tell that to a real japanese person and I am sure he would be outraged ,I would feel the same as well, for when France was defeated in the Napoleonic wars, the english would have said something familiar like that.4th.Amercia forced Japan into war. There is no doubt about as they saw Japan was a rival. Thanks to you amercians, the Japanese Millitary is no longer what it once was. You don't see daily reports of them on the news? Do you? Yet they create the WII and games. And you feel it is perfectly fine to say ''If Japan attacked amercia this year ,let's bomb it with nucealr bombs shall we? ''. Thanks to you people, now we can die in a WW3 due to Nuclear bombs. 1. You do if the alternative is the enemy killing tens of thousands of your soldiers in guerilla warfare.2. Do you not know basic history? The bombs were not finished by the time Germany surrendered.3. I don't care if he feels outraged, the truth is the truth.4. How did America force Japan into war? How did the Japanese empire which controled the entire area of East Asia get forced by an isolationist country into attacking all the way across the Pacific. They made the decision willingly.Whatever, you are just here to bash America and not have an actual discussion. :daisy:

[econ21]

We know that he felt Russian entry into the war would have a major impact on the Japanese, regardless of how 'fini' is interpreted. Why wasn't time allowed to assess the impact of that event?

I already answered that - the second bomb was dropped to show they could; that they had more bombs. If the Japanese thought they had only one nuke, Hiroshima would have been inconsequential. If they thought it was the first of 100, surrender would have been the only option. Leaving more time to elapse would lessen the "shock and awe" aspect of the A-bomb, which is a large part of what set it apart from the conventional bombing.


We also know that the Truman knew that the Japanese were seeking surrender negotiations. That knowledge alone should have taken the use of such horrible weapons off the table. ... The decision took most in the military by surprise, as they all knew from the MAGIC intercepts about the Japanese surrender attempts. Nimitz, for example, said in October of '45 in the New York Times 'The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan. '

I suspect Nimitz was partly saying that the A-bomb had a psychological rather than military impact: the two cities were not major military targets, after all. As for suing for peace, Japan did not approach America to sue for peace and I think Nimitz's language is misleading there. It made feelers to Russia to try to get it to act as an intermediary, but refused to accept the Potsdam terms (we will kill them with silence, was the Japanese primer minister's response). The war cabinet was divided on whether to offer terms the US would accept: it took 2 a-bombs, Russian invasion and the personal intervention of the Emperor to break the deadlock. I think implicitly you are making a Bush Sr/Iraq 1991 argument: to avoid further killing of defenceless people, the US should have negotiated a conditional surrender. That's an honorable position and my inner pacifist has sympathy with it. But after Versailles and all the blood of WW2, my pragmatic side inclines to the view that unconditional surrender and, crucially occupation of Japan was a wiser settlement.

I think your scenario of Japan surrendering to Russia and accepting Russian occupation is rather far fetched. I suspect it was occupation that was the deal breaker for the war party in the Japanese cabinet prior to Nagaski/Russian invasion, as it ensured they or people like them could not retain power. And I can't see Russia in 1945 unilaterally accepting Japanese surrender, leaving the Japanese free to continue to fight the US. It would have got the Cold War off to a much earlier and potentially hotter start.

[Beskar]

4. How did America force Japan into war? How did the Japanese empire which controled the entire area of East Asia get forced by an isolationist country into attacking all the way across the Pacific. They made the decision willingly.Whatever, you are just here to bash America and not have an actual discussion.

That was actually false. I need to try to dig out the information and source again, but I remember reading in a book about the subject that Japan got their fuel from America and other supplies via trading with America who embargo'd them for their actions in China and being part of the Axis. This caused a massive hit for the future of the Japanese efforts, so they tried to force America to continue trading by attacking them.

I never really understood the last part where attacking them would make them re-open trade, but I guess they thought America would simply re-trade again since they were distracted in Europe.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Rubbish. Absolute Rubbish.

First. You don't use a nuke bomb on a country simply because they attacked the amercian navy

2nd. The Bugarlar issue is something more domestic. You fight him back simple. It has nothing whatsover to do with this disccusion.The Japanese attacked the amercian navy. SO don't go saying that we needed to develop nuclear bombs and bomb Japan and not Germany. If so, why didn't you bomb on Berlin then?

3rd. Accept consequences? Hahah.:I. Tell that to a real japanese person and I am sure he would be outraged ,I would feel the same as well, for when France was defeated in the Napoleonic wars, the english would have said something familiar like that.

4th.Amercia forced Japan into war. There is no doubt about as they saw Japan was a rival. Thanks to you amercians, the Japanese Millitary is no longer what it once was. You don't see daily reports of them on the news? Do you? Yet they create the WII and games. And you feel it is perfectly fine to say ''If Japan attacked amercia this year ,let's bomb it with nucealr bombs shall we? ''. Thanks to you people, now we can die in a WW3 due to Nuclear bombs.


I disagree on the first part. When you attack a nation you must accpect the consequences of your actions.

[johnhughthom]

That was actually false. I need to try to dig out the information and source again, but I remember reading in a book about the subject that Japan got their fuel from America and other supplies via trading with America who embargo'd them for their actions in China and being part of the Axis. This caused a massive hit for the future of the Japanese efforts, so they tried to force America to continue trading by attacking them.

I never really understood the last part where attacking them would make them re-open trade, but I guess they thought America would simply re-trade again since they were distracted in Europe.

You sure you just haven't been playing LA Noire recently?

[Nowake]

Hmm, I don't know where your reference comes from john, so I couldn't taste it, but Tiaexz is correct, at least according to my lectures on the subject.
Not to enter the debate when I'm not even sure there is one, I would at least provide a few figures which will help the discussion move forward one way or the other.


Main Oil Exporters in 1935
United States 6,958 kt
Iran 6,860 kt
Romania 6,221 kt
Dutch East India(Indonesia) 5,139 kt
Russia 3,369 kt
Columbia 2,279 kt

Main Oil Importers in 1935
Great Britain 10,487 kt
France 6,390 kt
Canada 4,509 kt
United States 4,366 kt
Germany 3,863 kt
Japan 3,680 kt


Japan's Dependence on Oil Import in 1940
From the United States btw 3820 - 4366 kt 80%
From Dutch East India (Indonesia) btw 621 - 709 kt 13%


Dependence of Japanese Economy on Foreign Import Other Than Oil in 1941
Steel industry raw materials 88%
Zinc 50%
Tin 80%
Cotton 100%
Wool 99%
Rubber 100%


The US did apply an embargo on all these products, culminating with the total stop of oil exports towards Japan in August 1941. It was basically leaving the fleet of an insular maritime power literally dead in the water, nevermind the rest of its forces. All these were at that point in time engaged in wars in mainland Asia, thus the embargo meant a complete defeat in a matter of a year to eighteen months in several conflicts which went on since 1931 -- forcing a defeat having been the reason the US actually enforced the embargo in the first place.

[johnhughthom]

I was only joking really, there is a cut scene in LA Noire with the main character saying something similar to Beskar's post. I actually thought it was common knowledge to be honest, not that I have studied WW2 in depth.

[Nowake]

Yep, I knew it was a joke, I was simply unsure whether or not it was derisive or merely friendly in tone, so I tried to cover all my bases before posting. And yeah, it is common knowledge as far as I know as well, but it seems not everyone is on the same page yet.

[johnhughthom]

Beskie knows I wouldn't dare post something derisive toward a big important moderator like him. :wink:

Those oil import figures you posted are very interesting, specially the UK importing twice as much as the US. I'm guessing thats a combination of the US being less reliant on oil imports at the time, and the British figure being for the Empire as a whole, rather than just Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the UK still having a decent manufacturing base at the time? Still a surprising difference.

[a completely inoffensive name]

That was actually false. I need to try to dig out the information and source again, but I remember reading in a book about the subject that Japan got their fuel from America and other supplies via trading with America who embargo'd them for their actions in China and being part of the Axis. This caused a massive hit for the future of the Japanese efforts, so they tried to force America to continue trading by attacking them.

I never really understood the last part where attacking them would make them re-open trade, but I guess they thought America would simply re-trade again since they were distracted in Europe.

I know about the oil embargo, and as you have even pointed out, the reasoning seems lacking. We want them to trade, so lets try to bomb their entire fleet? As if they thought America would just roll over and die? Nahh, the Japanese were not forced to go to war. They chose that war the best option for some apparently dumb reason, but there were other options they could have gone with. Japan would have had setbacks in some campaigns, but at the rate of expansion they had, once they got the oil problem solved, they would have been back immediately and regained all of it. The long term didn't really seem too terrible considering the sphere of influence they had, and if it was only because of the short term crisis that they decided to go toe to toe with a country on the other side of the world (which takes a lot of gas getting there), then that is still not good enough in my book to say, "Oh they were forced to bomb Pearl Harbor."

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

1. You do if the alternative is the enemy killing tens of thousands of your soldiers in guerilla warfare.2. Do you not know basic history? The bombs were not finished by the time Germany surrendered.3. I don't care if he feels outraged, the truth is the truth.4. How did America force Japan into war? How did the Japanese empire which controled the entire area of East Asia get forced by an isolationist country into attacking all the way across the Pacific. They made the decision willingly.Whatever, you are just here to bash America and not have an actual discussion. :daisy:##

hey made the decision willingly.Whatever, you are just here to bash America and not have an actual discussion.

Then I will do it. Since you outrage me, here is a little something that you should read:


I am stating here that the Japanese wouldn't surrender. Neither did they deserve to be nuked. You can see the heavy resistance the Japanese put up,when the amercians invaded .... I think it was Iwo Jima. Yes,that one,they put up a might defence against the Amercians. I don't think the Japanese citizens were that keen to defend their homeland,but they're innocent civialns,but they still would have defended their homeland.The British did not gain India that easily,they met with massive resistance,it was not until the duke of Wellington arrived that things began to change.And they managed to rule India.But there had been a revolution of 1857,explained well in the Bollywood historical drama Mangel Pandey. Had that revolution been successful, Britain wouldn't rule India.In the same way,the Japanese would have given a massive amount of resistance(Makes me laugh) And you can have so much respect for these people.They are truly like the French,or the bravest of the lot.You can't do much with them.It's the Japanese Army however that didn't want to give up,but the Japanese were forced into this war,believe it or not. They had to take measures. I don't think they were that willing to go with war with the USA.They must have realized this when they only failed to destroy the american fleet.Had they destroyed the whole fleet, it would have been a massive success to them. The Japanese of course did have a empire.Even if the soviets had invaded,the Japanese were pretty much like Napoleon's army in spain,wouldn't that easily give up their lands. Lastly I never believed the fact that you all think the soviets could win and conquer Japan,when if they did,they would find it to extreme to their tastes. Their war efforts were mainly directed at the Nazis. The Amercians had also planned a attack on the British empire itself. One must wonder, Why would the amercians care about a communist Japan? Maybe they could face a invasion from the soviets,but it was far from that,I don't think the soviets were that perilous to think of it.They had the war effort to deal with first.As I have told time and time again,the Japanese would never submit to anybody,unless precautions were taken,the nuke bomb was one:(,and Japan was never saved from America. America did apply economic sanctions on Japan before the war, after it invaded Indochina,and the economic sanctions were put in place until the end of the war. So it was difficult for the Japanese to do everything they wanted ,they couldn't even get supplies or guns,so they had to secretly deal with other companies or nations. The other thing they were aslo faced was that since they invaded Indochina,it could lead war with the powerful British navy or the american navy,either way, America gave Japan 2 options: Either don't invade Indochina and we will not apply the ecomonic sanctions or if you do invade indochina,then this will lead to war. '' The Japanese Prime Minister himself knew of the dangers precceded in front of him,but he had no choice to but to do it

And no,it was not right for the Japanese to be nuked. The Germans were defeated stragitcally. The Japanese should and should have been defeated stragitcally.Even if it meant thousands of deaths. What would have happened if Japan had discovered the nuclear bomb? They could have used it and made weapons of it,and bomb the amercian navies,cities and land. But if Japan had done this,they would have been seen as evil.However if the allies dropped the bomb on Japan's cities ,they would be seen as heroes .

Now that is pure evil isn't it? The Japanese were less brutal than the soviets and the Nazis. Even their crimes they committed only relates to the fact that they're doing what their ancestors attempted 100 or 1000 years ago. They had tried to expand ,but couldn't due to civil war. The Korean Invasions of 1598-99 ,I think were an example. Crimes were committed. But no says anything about it. But most civliastions one way or the other have done this for centuries,or lets say Humans kills Human,its common.

I aslo agree with Made's point here,because he's made a perfectly explainable ,well written,brilliantly written answer here:

We're forgetting the sense of duty and honor that these people had towards their superiors. There were plenty of Japanese generals that were more than ready to take the fight further, and it was only through Imperial intervention that they were forced not to. Hell, some of those generals committed sepuku right after they were told they would surrender.

You don't care? If Japan had the won the war and nuked washington, how would you feel? Tell me then.

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

[QUOTE=ELITEOFMRPEANUTWARMAN888888888;2053388814]I disagree on the first part. When you attack a nation you must accpect the consequences of your actions.[/QUOT

really? If someone attacked your house, would you use a nuclear bomb against them?

Of course the Japanese attacked in the first place.

[a completely inoffensive name]

But if Japan had done this,they would have been seen as evil.[/B]However if the allies dropped the bomb on Japan's cities ,they would be seen as heroes .
That is just pure navel gazing. Bringing up some alternate universe and declaring that this is how history would have went down is not in any way a proper argument when arguing about what actually happened.



Now that is pure evil isn't it? The Japanese were less brutal than the soviets and the Nazis. At least the Germans simply gassed or shot the prisoners and didn't rape every prisoner like the Japanese did. Oh gee, now you got me comparing tragedies.



Even their crimes they committed only relates to the fact that they're doing what their ancestors attempted 100 or 1000 years ago. They had tried to expand ,but couldn't due to civil war. The Korean Invasions of 1598-99 ,I think were an example. Crimes were committed. But no says anything about it. But most civliastions one way or the other have done this for centuries,or lets say Humans kills Human,its common.
What a piss pour argument and you have undermined what you are arguing. Japan's crimes are ok because it was tradition? Nope, tradition or culture isn't an acceptable justification bro. And by saying that humans have been killing humans, that means that you shouldn't care about the atomic bombs being used, because hey, humans have been killing humans, it's natural right?



We're forgetting the sense of duty and honor that these people had towards their superiors. There were plenty of Japanese generals that were more than ready to take the fight further, and it was only through Imperial intervention that they were forced not to. Hell, some of those generals committed sepuku right after they were told they would surrender.
Which is a prime justification of using the atomic bombs. The resistance would kill more people by the end of the campaign than using the atomic bombs. Why are you blatantly contradicting yourself?



You don't care? If Japan had the won the war and nuked washington, how would you feel?
Depends on the context, which is an abstract idea that you apparently don't comprehend.

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

That is just pure navel gazing. Bringing up some alternate universe and declaring that this is how history would have went down is not in any way a proper argument when arguing about what actually happened.

At least the Germans simply gassed or shot the prisoners and didn't rape every prisoner like the Japanese did. Oh gee, now you got me comparing tragedies.


What a piss pour argument and you have undermined what you are arguing. Japan's crimes are ok because it was tradition? Nope, tradition or culture isn't an acceptable justification bro. And by saying that humans have been killing humans, that means that you shouldn't care about the atomic bombs being used, because hey, humans have been killing humans, it's natural right?


Which is a prime justification of using the atomic bombs. The resistance would kill more people by the end of the campaign than using the atomic bombs. Why are you blatantly contradicting yourself?


Depends on the context, which is an abstract idea that you apparently don't comprehend.

You have not fully read what I have said. :) I will provide a answer soon, but whatever you have written here makes no sense to me whatsoever:)

[gaelic cowboy]

Beskie knows I wouldn't dare post something derisive toward a big important moderator like him. :wink:

Those oil import figures you posted are very interesting, specially the UK importing twice as much as the US. I'm guessing thats a combination of the US being less reliant on oil imports at the time, and the British figure being for the Empire as a whole, rather than just Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the UK still having a decent manufacturing base at the time? Still a surprising difference.

It's rather large British naval fleet circa 1935 plus all the imperial stuff as you say that must be gobbling up the oil, I suspect a 1943-1945 figure is differ though.

[Kralizec]

I know about the oil embargo, and as you have even pointed out, the reasoning seems lacking. We want them to trade, so lets try to bomb their entire fleet? As if they thought America would just roll over and die? Nahh, the Japanese were not forced to go to war. They chose that war the best option for some apparently dumb reason, but there were other options they could have gone with. Japan would have had setbacks in some campaigns, but at the rate of expansion they had, once they got the oil problem solved, they would have been back immediately and regained all of it. The long term didn't really seem too terrible considering the sphere of influence they had, and if it was only because of the short term crisis that they decided to go toe to toe with a country on the other side of the world (which takes a lot of gas getting there), then that is still not good enough in my book to say, "Oh they were forced to bomb Pearl Harbor."

I thought (could very well be wrong about this) that the principal reason for the Pearl Harbor attacks was prevent the USA from reacting while Japan absorbed the Philippines and the European colonies in the general area. These lands, together, would have provided the military with ample recources to continue their conquest of China, while they expected that the USA would simply have taken their losses and accepted the status quo.

[Cute Wolf]

Japanese war crimes aren't slauhtering Jews, they're doing much worse:

- Organized forced military prostitutions, taking even girls as young as 8 years old (google : Jugun Ianfu or japanese ww2 comfort women)
- ALWAYS - sacking, looting, and raping any city who doesn't proclaim them as liberators
- Taking away virtually all gold, metals, and even oils from the area they "conquer", to be sent for japanese war efforts
- Forcing every male to perform duty works for japanese (google : romusha)
- kempetai, secret police that kills every male in the family who found a resistance fighters in
- forcing ridiculous laws, such as for stealing a rifle, not only you got executed, your father, grandfathers, brothers, and sons will be as well
- Foring vegetarianism for peasants, every meat is taken from military use
- Not to mention they ban Christianity, only allowing some Church to stay open BECAUSE OF GERMAN LOBBIES

[Subotan]

I am stating here that the Japanese wouldn't surrender. Neither did they deserve to be nuked. You can see the heavy resistance the Japanese put up,when the amercians invaded .... I think it was Iwo Jima. Yes,that one,they put up a might defence against the Amercians. I don't think the Japanese citizens were that keen to defend their homeland,but they're innocent civialns,but they still would have defended their homeland.
So you think that the combined deaths of an amphibious invasion are a smaller crime than that of ending the war quickly with nuclear weapons?


The British did not gain India that easily,they met with massive resistance,it was not until the duke of Wellington arrived that things began to change.And they managed to rule India.But there had been a revolution of 1857,explained well in the Bollywood historical drama Mangel Pandey. Had that revolution been successful, Britain wouldn't rule India.
This is completely irrelevant, but I have to respond to this - the Mutiny was only put down with the help of Indian allies of the British Empire. The Indian Empire as a project and institution only survived for as long as it did because there was a huge amount of support for British rule in India by Indian elites and institutions until about the 1930s.


In the same way,the Japanese would have given a massive amount of resistance(Makes me laugh) And you can have so much respect for these people
You are either clueless as to the nature of the Japanese Empire, or you have just said something that is is absolutely appalling.


They are truly like the French,or the bravest of the lot.
LOL


You can't do much with them.It's the Japanese Army however that didn't want to give up,but the Japanese were forced into this war,believe it or not. They had to take measures. I don't think they were that willing to go with war with the USA.They must have realized this when they only failed to destroy the american fleet.Had they destroyed the whole fleet, it would have been a massive success to them. The Japanese of course did have a empire.
Japanese Imperialism was a maleovelent project justified by quasi-racial superiority theories. It was born out of the insecurity and fear the Japanese felt when confronted by both Western technology and military and economic power. The drive to continuously expand to secure resources and a defensive perimeter for Japan was a terrible positive feedback cycle, as the larger borders required ever more resources to defend them. Japanese ultra-nationalism was the most vicious example of the idea that manifested itself outside of Europe, and its contempt for democracy was matched only by its deluded self-belief.

Japan went to war willingly, and they proceeded to reap what they had sown. The use of nuclear weapons was the consequence of sowing a whirlwind. Arguing that Japan had no choice is apologism for the crimes committed throughout the Japanese Empire.


Even if the soviets had invaded,the Japanese were pretty much like Napoleon's army in spain,wouldn't that easily give up their lands.
Actually, the once-mighty Kwangtung Army in Manchukuo crumbled like a sandcastle when the Red Army swept into Manchuria like a tsunami.


Lastly I never believed the fact that you all think the soviets could win and conquer Japan,when if they did,they would find it to extreme to their tastes. Their war efforts were mainly directed at the Nazis.
Stalin wanted Hokkadio partitioned. Soviet foreign policy could probably be fairly interpreted as wanting to expand communism as far as possible around Soviet borders in order to ensure a defensive perimeter around the USSR. This is why they insisted on partitioning Korea, for example.


The Amercians had also planned a attack on the British empire itself.
lolwut


One must wonder, Why would the amercians care about a communist Japan? Maybe they could face a invasion from the soviets,but it was far from that,I don't think the soviets were that perilous to think of it.
You're really having to ask that?


America did apply economic sanctions on Japan before the war, after it invaded Indochina,and the economic sanctions were put in place until the end of the war. So it was difficult for the Japanese to do everything they wanted ,they couldn't even get supplies or guns,so they had to secretly deal with other companies or nations. The other thing they were aslo faced was that since they invaded Indochina,it could lead war with the powerful British navy or the american navy,either way, America gave Japan 2 options: Either don't invade Indochina and we will not apply the ecomonic sanctions or if you do invade indochina,then this will lead to war. '' The Japanese Prime Minister himself knew of the dangers precceded in front of him,but he had no choice to but to do it
I'm just going to emphasise the key contradiction here, and let it stew.


no,it was not right for the Japanese to be nuked. The Germans were defeated stragitcally. The Japanese should and should have been defeated stragitcally.Even if it meant thousands of deaths...

Now that is pure evil isn't it? The Japanese were less brutal than the soviets and the Nazis. Even their crimes they committed only relates to the fact that they're doing what their ancestors attempted 100 or 1000 years ago. They had tried to expand ,but couldn't due to civil war. The Korean Invasions of 1598-99 ,I think were an example. Crimes were committed. But no says anything about it. But most civliastions one way or the other have done this for centuries,or lets say Humans kills Human,its common...

We're forgetting the sense of duty and honor that these people had towards their superiors. There were plenty of Japanese generals that were more than ready to take the fight further, and it was only through Imperial intervention that they were forced not to. Hell, some of those generals committed sepuku right after they were told they would surrender.
Millions, actually. Contemporary estimates for American casualties based upon underestimates of Japanese strength ranged from 1.1 to 4 million, with Japanese casualties running into the tens of millions. Had American casualty rates been at the same per unit as were incurred at Okinawa, there would have been almost six million Allied casualties. Saying that this should have been preferred over the use of nuclear weapons solely in order to preserve the honour of a gang of fascists is irredeemably monstrous.


What would have happened if Japan had discovered the nuclear bomb? They could have used it and made weapons of it,and bomb the amercian navies,cities and land. But if Japan had done this,they would have been seen as evil.However if the allies dropped the bomb on Japan's cities ,they would be seen as heroes...You don't care? If Japan had the won the war and nuked washington, how would you feel? Tell me then.

What if questions are bad history.

As an aside, how old are you?

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

So you think that the combined deaths of an amphibious invasion are a smaller crime than that of ending the war quickly with nuclear weapons?


This is completely irrelevant, but I have to respond to this - the Mutiny was only put down with the help of Indian allies of the British Empire. The Indian Empire as a project and institution only survived for as long as it did because there was a huge amount of support for British rule in India by Indian elites and institutions until about the 1930s.


You are either clueless as to the nature of the Japanese Empire, or you have just said something that is is absolutely appalling.


LOL


Japanese Imperialism was a maleovelent project justified by quasi-racial superiority theories. It was born out of the insecurity and fear the Japanese felt when confronted by both Western technology and military and economic power. The drive to continuously expand to secure resources and a defensive perimeter for Japan was a terrible positive feedback cycle, as the larger borders required ever more resources to defend them. Japanese ultra-nationalism was the most vicious example of the idea that manifested itself outside of Europe, and its contempt for democracy was matched only by its deluded self-belief.

Japan went to war willingly, and they proceeded to reap what they had sown. The use of nuclear weapons was the consequence of sowing a whirlwind. Arguing that Japan had no choice is apologism for the crimes committed throughout the Japanese Empire.


Actually, the once-mighty Kwangtung Army in Manchukuo crumbled like a sandcastle when the Red Army swept into Manchuria like a tsunami.


Stalin wanted Hokkadio partitioned. Soviet foreign policy could probably be fairly interpreted as wanting to expand communism as far as possible around Soviet borders in order to ensure a defensive perimeter around the USSR. This is why they insisted on partitioning Korea, for example.


lolwut


You're really having to ask that?


I'm just going to emphasise the key contradiction here, and let it stew.


Millions, actually. Contemporary estimates for American casualties based upon underestimates of Japanese strength ranged from 1.1 to 4 million, with Japanese casualties running into the tens of millions. Had American casualty rates been at the same per unit as were incurred at Okinawa, there would have been almost six million Allied casualties. Saying that this should have been preferred over the use of nuclear weapons solely in order to preserve the honour of a gang of fascists is irredeemably monstrous.


What if questions are bad history.

As an aside, how old are you?

Thank you Subaton for looking at my agruement in detail.

But ,if I may, tell you

1. Your tone is a bit agrresive, please quieten it for a bit.
2.I agree with some of your points,not all.
3.You can't really ask about age. I am not interested in that subject,it is revelant.

And finally ,a thank you for looking at my reply and doing it, I don't have much time left,but if i do,I will answer what you have written.

[ReluctantSamurai]

You can't really ask about age. I am not interested in that subject,it is revelant.

Actually, age has a very important bearing on this topic. I will use my own as a poignant example....

My father fought in the US Army's 40th division in the Pacific. For most of the war, they were clean-up duty...on Guadalcanal after the main fighting was over, on New Britain Island, and on Peleliu. But......the proposed invasion of the Japanese Home Islands found the 40th leading the first wave ashore to secure Yukushima and Tanegashima Islands just to the south of Kyushu, which, considering the reception that would await, greatly impacted my chances of sitting here typing this reply. So yes, age has just a wee bit of influence if your father happened to be part of the planned Operation Downfall....

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

Actually, age has a very important bearing on this topic. I will use my own as a poignant example....

My father fought in the US Army's 40th division in the Pacific. For most of the war, they were clean-up duty...on Guadalcanal after the main fighting was over, on New Britain Island, and on Peleliu. But......the proposed invasion of the Japanese Home Islands found the 40th leading the first wave ashore to secure Yukushima and Tanegashima Islands just to the south of Kyushu, which, considering the reception that would await, greatly impacted my chances of sitting here typing this reply. So yes, age has just a wee bit of influence if your father happened to be part of the planned Operation Downfall....

He was asking me about my age. That I can never answer.

[Samurai Waki]

Either you're ageless, or under the age of 18.

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

Either you're ageless, or under the age of 18.

Ageless? Yeah :) I am!

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

So you think that the combined deaths of an amphibious invasion are a smaller crime than that of ending the war quickly with nuclear weapons?


This is completely irrelevant, but I have to respond to this - the Mutiny was only put down with the help of Indian allies of the British Empire. The Indian Empire as a project and institution only survived for as long as it did because there was a huge amount of support for British rule in India by Indian elites and institutions until about the 1930s.


You are either clueless as to the nature of the Japanese Empire, or you have just said something that is is absolutely appalling.


LOL


Japanese Imperialism was a maleovelent project justified by quasi-racial superiority theories. It was born out of the insecurity and fear the Japanese felt when confronted by both Western technology and military and economic power. The drive to continuously expand to secure resources and a defensive perimeter for Japan was a terrible positive feedback cycle, as the larger borders required ever more resources to defend them. Japanese ultra-nationalism was the most vicious example of the idea that manifested itself outside of Europe, and its contempt for democracy was matched only by its deluded self-belief.

Japan went to war willingly, and they proceeded to reap what they had sown. The use of nuclear weapons was the consequence of sowing a whirlwind. Arguing that Japan had no choice is apologism for the crimes committed throughout the Japanese Empire.


Actually, the once-mighty Kwangtung Army in Manchukuo crumbled like a sandcastle when the Red Army swept into Manchuria like a tsunami.


Stalin wanted Hokkadio partitioned. Soviet foreign policy could probably be fairly interpreted as wanting to expand communism as far as possible around Soviet borders in order to ensure a defensive perimeter around the USSR. This is why they insisted on partitioning Korea, for example.


lolwut


You're really having to ask that?


I'm just going to emphasise the key contradiction here, and let it stew.


Millions, actually. Contemporary estimates for American casualties based upon underestimates of Japanese strength ranged from 1.1 to 4 million, with Japanese casualties running into the tens of millions. Had American casualty rates been at the same per unit as were incurred at Okinawa, there would have been almost six million Allied casualties. Saying that this should have been preferred over the use of nuclear weapons solely in order to preserve the honour of a gang of fascists is irredeemably monstrous.


What if questions are bad history.

As an aside, how old are you?



This is completely irrelevant, but I have to respond to this - the Mutiny was only put down with the help of Indian allies of the British Empire. The Indian Empire as a project and institution only survived for as long as it did because there was a huge amount of support for British rule in India by Indian elites and institutions until about the 1930s.

No. That is a lie. The soilders were well intent on rebelling. Remeber here that you are looking from the british point of view, not from both sides, some may have wanted support the british,some may have not.


You are either clueless as to the nature of the Japanese Empire, or you have just said something that is is absolutely appalling.

Well lets say, they killed,sacked and looted. What about Nazi Germany? Where is there nature? Why haven't you bought that up? Why blame the Japanese because of racial tensions?

Japanese Imperialism was a maleovelent project justified by quasi-racial superiority theories. It was born out of the insecurity and fear the Japanese felt when confronted by both Western technology and military and economic power. The drive to continuously expand to secure resources and a defensive perimeter for Japan was a terrible positive feedback cycle, as the larger borders required ever more resources to defend them. Japanese ultra-nationalism was the most vicious example of the idea that manifested itself outside of Europe, and its contempt for democracy was matched only by its deluded self-belief.

When a self depression hits your country, say if you were the Japanese prime minister, alright ,in 1930's, what would you have done? The Japanese imperalists did support many ideas of expansion. Ultra-Nationalism? The Nazis overdid it.

Japan went to war willingly, and they proceeded to reap what they had sown. The use of nuclear weapons was the consequence of sowing a whirlwind. Arguing that Japan had no choice is apologism for the crimes committed throughout the Japanese Empire.

Well, have you read the book ''World at war ''? A book about people ,who interviewed people from WW2. And the Japanese clearly state here that they were forced into the war. Amercia applied economic sanctions and they were clearly thinking whether to face the powerful british navy.

Actually, the once-mighty Kwangtung Army in Manchukuo crumbled like a sandcastle when the Red Army swept into Manchuria like a tsunami.

Stalin wanted Hokkadio partitioned. Soviet foreign policy could probably be fairly interpreted as wanting to expand communism as far as possible around Soviet borders in order to ensure a defensive perimeter around the USSR. This is why they insisted on partitioning Korea, for example.

Maybe. I can agree on this once.

lYou're really having to ask that?

Yes, I will. I do have a right to ask a question don't I?



Millions, actually. Contemporary estimates for American casualties based upon underestimates of Japanese strength ranged from 1.1 to 4 million, with Japanese casualties running into the tens of millions. Had American casualty rates been at the same per unit as were incurred at Okinawa, there would have been almost six million Allied casualties. Saying that this should have been preferred over the use of nuclear weapons solely in order to preserve the honour of a gang of fascists is irredeemably monstrous.

The Amercians meet the same kind of resistance from Germany. Simply a invasion of Japan would have done, or driving the Japanese fully from China and it's overseas colonies would have effected Japan itself. The Nuclear bomb didn't need to be used in the first place. But the Amercians themselves were recultant to go to war with Japan, why when japan was making it's empire, they could have liberated China! They could have done something. But no. The Amercian public weren't keen. It was 1941 , attack on pearl habour,this gave Roosevelt the excuse he needed. And now you're saying Japan accepted the ''conseqeunces. '' They could have well been defeated. I mean, Amercia could have destoryed Nazi Germany and Japan very quickly. And WW2 could never have happened. But the thing is that they were too recluctant. Imagine it like a war between Rome and Carthage, Rome = USA. Carthage = Japan.

Please reply with a lesser tone and be more civil, thank you.

[ReluctantSamurai]

They could have well been defeated. I mean, Amercia could have destoryed Nazi Germany and Japan very quickly.

Place a time frame on this statement if you would, please....

If you are referring to 1941, then the US would have had trouble punching its way out of a wet paper bag. It's airforce was flying obsolete planes, the army was very small and equipped with obsolete weapons, for the most part (even Poland had larger and better equipped armored divisions), and the USN was inferior to the IJN in both tactics and weapons.

If you are referring to 1945, the US still required the help of its allies on both fronts and would not have been able to defeat the Nazi's without the Soviets.

[Subotan]

Please quote and reply appropriately - your formatting in your latest post was poor, and made it hard to both read and respond to.


No. That is a lie. The soilders were well intent on rebelling. Remeber here that you are looking from the british point of view, not from both sides, some may have wanted support the british,some may have not.
Whatever. If you want to to believe that an entire subcontinent was held against its will for over a hundred years by a totally foreign elite with absolutely no native support, be my guest.


Well lets say, they killed,sacked and looted. What about Nazi Germany? Where is there nature? Why haven't you bought that up? Why blame the Japanese because of racial tensions?
Why do you have respect for a state which implemented "Kill All, Burn All, Loot All (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Alls_Policy)" as official military policy? What Nazi Germany did is irrelevant to this question.


When a self depression hits your country, say if you were the Japanese prime minister, alright ,in 1930's, what would you have done?
Well, not start the Second World War in Asia for a start. If we want to get technical, I would have dropped off the gold standard, implemented a public works programme etc.


The Japanese imperalists did support many ideas of expansion.
Yes they did, which is why you shouldn't respect them.


Well, have you read the book ''World at war ''? A book about people ,who interviewed people from WW2. And the Japanese clearly state here that they were forced into the war. Amercia applied economic sanctions and they were clearly thinking whether to face the powerful british navy.
This is amazingly wrong. Economic sanctions and the embargo against Japan were implemented as a punishment for starting the Second Sino-Japanese War, which the Japanese started themselves. Likewise, Japan could have easily retreated from China and had the sanctions lifted - but their pig-headed military brass couldn't deal with the "shame" of ending a war.


Yes, I will. I do have a right to ask a question don't I?
Given that the next fifty years of American foreign policy were completely focussed against halting the perceived spread of communism, even starting wars in dirt-farming pre-industrial countries such as Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia etc. the answer really should be obvious as to "Why would the amercians care about a communist Japan?"


The Amercians meet the same kind of resistance from Germany.
No, they didn't.


Simply a invasion of Japan would have done, or driving the Japanese fully from China and it's overseas colonies would have effected Japan itself. The Nuclear bomb didn't need to be used in the first place. But the Amercians themselves were recultant to go to war with Japan, why when japan was making it's empire, they could have liberated China! They could have done something. But no. The Amercian public weren't keen. It was 1941 , attack on pearl habour,this gave Roosevelt the excuse he needed.
The United States gave a lot of covert assistance to Kuomintang China, and it was as much as was feasibly possible. Again, invading China/Japan would have resulted in a horrific number of casualties, to achieve the same outcome as the use of atomic weapons did. You haven't provided an answer to the question "Why would it have been preferable for far more casualties on both sides to have been incurred through an amphibious invasion of Japan in late 1945, to the usage of atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?"


And now you're saying Japan accepted the ''conseqeunces. '' They could have well been defeated. I mean, Amercia could have destoryed Nazi Germany and Japan very quickly. And WW2 could never have happened. But the thing is that they were too recluctant.
You're grasping at straws.


Imagine it like a war between Rome and Carthage, Rome = USA. Carthage = Japan.
I don't need to.


He was asking me about my age. That I can never answer.
It is relevant, as your replies/ideas about Japan don't seem to be very mature.


Please reply with a lesser tone and be more civil, thank you.
I am being civil - I haven't made a single personal attack against you. I am, however, attacking your ideas.

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

Please quote and reply appropriately - your formatting in your latest post was poor, and made it hard to both read as respond to.


Whatever. If you want to to believe that an entire subcontinent was held against its will for over a hundred years by a totally foreign elite with absolutely no native support, be my guest.


Why do you have respect for a state which implemented "Kill All, Burn All, Loot All (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Alls_Policy)" as official military policy? What Nazi Germany did is irrelevant to this question.


Well, not start the Second World War in Asia for a start. If we want to get technical, I would have dropped off the gold standard, implemented a public works programme etc.


Yes they did, which is why you shouldn't respect them.


This is amazingly wrong. Economic sanctions and the embargo against Japan were implemented as a punishment for starting the Second Sino-Japanese War, which the Japanese started themselves. Likewise, Japan could have easily retreated from China and had the sanctions lifted - but their pig-headed military brass couldn't deal with the "shame" of ending a war.


Given that the next fifty years of American foreign policy were completely focussed against halting the perceived spread of communism, even starting wars in dirt-farming pre-industrial countries such as Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia etc. the answer really should be obvious as to "Why would the amercians care about a communist Japan?"


No, they didn't.


The United States gave a lot of covert assistance to Kuomintang China, and it was as much as was feasibly possible. Again, invading China/Japan would have resulted in a horrific number of casualties, to achieve the same outcome as the use of atomic weapons did. You haven't provided an answer to the question "Why would it have been preferable for far more casualties on both sides to have been incurred through an amphibious invasion of Japan in late 1945, to the usage of atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?"


You're grasping at straws.


I don't need to.


It is relevant, as your replies/ideas about Japan on't seem to be very mature.


I am being civil - I haven't made a single personal attack against you. I am, however, attacking your ideas.

I will now report you for bullying. There is no limit to writing something ,and I should be allowed to write. You are not being civil, you are being way too aggresive and I am reporting you. I will not answer any of your questions unless you quieten down your tones. Further more as a seinor member of the org, you have no right whatsover to find about my age. You HAVE NO RIGHT TO BULLY, ASK ME ABOUT MY AGE AND THEN BE AGGRESIVE!

[Subotan]

Whatever bro.

[Catiline]

Opened up for discussion. Hopefully everybody has calmed down. Please keep discussions solely to the matter in hand. Any further personal slanging matches will result in the big stick coming out.

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

What others are forgetting here is the background

Let's loil at the events leading up to WW2.

In 1920s, Japan was a great power,all right,it had a army ,a strong economy, and a empire, quite good standard for an Asian country. The Depression comes in, Amercia and China put trade barrifs. Now Japan has a strong trade ,but their trade is no longer available .So their army leaders begin to approach this problem with a military empire. The other reason is, that Japan is a hilly Country, doesn't have a lot of flat ground ,not suitable for them, they invade Manchuria,kick the Chinese out and put it under the last Emperor of China, using him as a puppet. They cl it mancukho.

They did crimes, all the axis powers did. I seem to be hinting presuming shading the Japanese. There are a lot of anti Japanese people here. When the Japanese needed to expand thief Empire ,they did. The Nuclear bombing wasn't used in Berlin. By all accounts, the amercians for Ed Japan into the war, when they clearly had no intention of waging war. The attack on pearl habour was a military battle. I am disgusted by the fact that amercians think that since the Japanese attacked their navy, they deserve a bombing. That is rubbish. The Japanese hoped to neutralize the amercians by destroying their navy.

And European races have committed crimes before. The English for one , Africa , And all the blame must go on the Japanese. Fools. You're simply ignoring the vast amounts of crimes the N
zis did in eastern Europe. Their war was fueled on racisim. They set up death camps , and killed as many Jews as they could. The Japanese were brutal,but you can't blame them, The Soviets were even more harsher to their people. I wonder why no ever started a thread saying " Nazi War Crimes" Many of you seem to support the nazi ideal and rather put all the blame on the Japanse. They are a warlike culture. You can't blame then. But Blame the axis powers thatcommited more war crimes in history.


Don't have much time, will edit this later,





















And you know the details about the League of Nations and Dicators.

[Nowake]

There are a lot of anti Japanese people here.
Fools.
Many of you seem to support the nazi ideal.
Japanse. They are a warlike culture. You can't blame then.
In the first post after he kindly reopened the thread and politely asked everyone for restraint? :shrug:
No one thinks of apologies, just a bit of consideration would go a long way Davout, please.

[Subotan]

In 1920s, Japan was a great power,all right,it had a army ,a strong economy, and a empire, quite good standard for an Asian country. The Depression comes in, Amercia and China put trade barrifs. Now Japan has a strong trade ,but their trade is no longer available .So their army leaders begin to approach this problem with a military empire. The other reason is, that Japan is a hilly Country, doesn't have a lot of flat ground ,not suitable for them, they invade Manchuria,kick the Chinese out and put it under the last Emperor of China, using him as a puppet. They cl it mancukho.
So it's acceptable to start wars solely in order to expand the economy? If so, then how come pretty much every other single industrialised economy at the time was able to make it through the Depression without a military expansion/imperialist conquest?


There are a lot of anti Japanese people here.
I'm not a bigot.


When the Japanese needed to expand thief Empire ,they did
As I said in each of my posts beforehand, they did not need to expand their Empire at all. You have also failed to give any valid reasons for this need (Expanding the economy is not a valid justification).


The Nuclear bombing wasn't used in Berlin.
This would have been difficult to implement, given that when Berlin fell to the Red Army nuclear weapons did not yet exist.


By all accounts, the amercians forcEd Japan into the war, when they clearly had no intention of waging war.
Again, had the Japanese cut off their ties with Germany, started negotiating with China and arranged for a peace settlement with the Kuomintang, the Americans would have likely lifted their trade embargo. The Americans were not planning for an attack on Japan, and they gave no indication of doing so - this means that Japan's pre-emptive attack was unjustified.


I am disgusted by the fact that amercians think that since the Japanese attacked their navy, they deserve a bombing. That is rubbish. The Japanese hoped to neutralize the amercians by destroying their navy.
I never said the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki deserved being bombed. Never. What I did say was that Japan got was coming to it - given their actions over the previous fifteen years, including blatant expansionism, war crimes carried out with official blessing, and especially the determination amongst many Japanese policy makers to delude their population into sacrificing itself to enable a warped conception of honour for the military elite. Given these three preconditions, the atomic bombing of Japan is both understandable and justified. That the Imperial Staff were so contemptuous of their fellow Japanese is the reason as to why the Americans thought that the bombings were necessary, and it a tragedy that they had to be so.


And European races have committed crimes before. The English for one , Africa ,
Have a read of the thread title. The subject matter is Japan in 1931-1945, not "Everyone who has committed crimes ever." Two wrongs don't make a right.


And all the blame must go on the Japanese.
Yep. I blame the Japanese state for all of the crimes committed by Japan during its fascist period. Or do you think that somebody else is to blame for crimes such as, say, the Rape of Nanking, Unit 731 or the Bataan Death March?


Fools.
:rolleyes:


You're simply ignoring the vast amounts of crimes the Nzis did in eastern Europe. Their war was fueled on racisim. They set up death camps , and killed as many Jews as they could. The Japanese were brutal,but you can't blame them, The Soviets were even more harsher to their people. I wonder why no ever started a thread saying " Nazi War Crimes"
I'm not going to respond to anymore arguments like this from now on, as I have repeatedly explained to you that they are irrelevant. Stop trying to dodge the questions I am asking you.


Many of you seem to support the nazi ideal and rather put all the blame on the Japanse.
So being a critic of Imperial Japan = Nazi?


They are a warlike culture. You can't blame then.
For starters, that is no longer the case. Japan is dangerously pacifistic today, to the extent that their reluctance to arm themselves has the potential to cause instability in East Asia. Their constitution forbids their Armed Forces from engaging in action for any reason other than self-defence, for example.

Second, even if they were a war-like culture, it is absolutely no excuse. I don't excuse the Aztecs for sacrificing tens of thousands of human beings to the sun because of their culture. I don't excuse the Japanese for their actions in WW2 for being motivated by a racist, imperialist agenda. That they have changed as a nation is truly admirable, and a testament to the power and value of democracy.

And finally, for a more historiographical criticism of your ideas, your conception of the history of warfare seems to be primarily derived from computer games and movies. Not once have you shown any understanding of the scale of the tragedy that was the Second World War, and your blithe indifference to the horror of conflict strongly implies that you view human casualties as mere polygon constructions that have been shot by polygon bullets from polygon guns. At multiple instances throughout this thread, you have displayed that you consider war to be on a similar level to a mere computer game, with your justifications of Japanese expansionism in China, the attack on the United States and the "honour" of Japanese elites all being plot points straight out of Command and Conquer: Red Alert 3. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3I8neQ3Bfg)I'm not sure there's anything further to discuss whilst you hold these views.


In the first post after he kindly reopened the thread and politely asked everyone for restraint? :shrug:
No one thinks of apologies, just a bit of consideration would go a long way Davout, please.
Before replying to my post, Davout, read this quote and make sure you fully understand it.

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

So it's acceptable to start wars solely in order to expand the economy? If so, then how come pretty much every other single industrialised economy at the time was able to make it through the Depression without a military expansion/imperialist conquest?


I'm not a bigot.


As I said in each of my posts beforehand, they did not need to expand their Empire at all. You have also failed to give any valid reasons for this need (Expanding the economy is not a valid justification).


This would have been difficult to implement, given that when Berlin fell to the Red Army nuclear weapons did not yet exist.


Again, had the Japanese cut off their ties with Germany, started negotiating with China and arranged for a peace settlement with the Kuomintang, the Americans would have likely lifted their trade embargo. The Americans were not planning for an attack on Japan, and they gave no indication of doing so - this means that Japan's pre-emptive attack was unjustified.


I never said the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki deserved being bombed. Never. What I did say was that Japan got was coming to it - given their actions over the previous fifteen years, including blatant expansionism, war crimes carried out with official blessing, and especially the determination amongst many Japanese policy makers to delude their population into sacrificing itself to enable a warped conception of honour for the military elite. Given these three preconditions, the atomic bombing of Japan is both understandable and justified. That the Imperial Staff were so contemptuous of their fellow Japanese is the reason as to why the Americans thought that the bombings were necessary, and it a tragedy that they had to be so.


Have a read of the thread title. The subject matter is Japan in 1931-1945, not "Everyone who has committed crimes ever." Two wrongs don't make a right.


Yep. I blame the Japanese state for all of the crimes committed by Japan during its fascist period. Or do you think that somebody else is to blame for crimes such as, say, the Rape of Nanking, Unit 731 or the Bataan Death March?


:rolleyes:


I'm not going to respond to anymore arguments like this from now on, as I have repeatedly explained to you that they are irrelevant. Stop trying to dodge the questions I am asking you.


So being a critic of Imperial Japan = Nazi?


For starters, that is no longer the case. Japan is dangerously pacifistic today, to the extent that their reluctance to arm themselves has the potential to cause instability in East Asia. Their constitution forbids their Armed Forces from engaging in action for any reason other than self-defence, for example.

Second, even if they were a war-like culture, it is absolutely no excuse. I don't excuse the Aztecs for sacrificing tens of thousands of human beings to the sun because of their culture. I don't excuse the Japanese for their actions in WW2 for being motivated by a racist, imperialist agenda. That they have changed as a nation is truly admirable, and a testament to the power and value of democracy.

And finally, for a more historiographical criticism of your ideas, your conception of the history of warfare seems to be primarily derived from computer games and movies. Not once have you shown any understanding of the scale of the tragedy that was the Second World War, and your blithe indifference to the horror of conflict strongly implies that you view human casualties as mere polygon constructions that have been shot by polygon bullets from polygon guns. At multiple instances throughout this thread, you have displayed that you consider war to be on a similar level to a mere computer game, with your justifications of Japanese expansionism in China, the attack on the United States and the "honour" of Japanese elites all being plot points straight out of Command and Conquer: Red Alert 3. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3I8neQ3Bfg)I'm not sure there's anything further to discuss whilst you hold these views.


Before replying to my post, Davout, read this quote and make sure you fully understand it.


First, you have Insulted me. Second, I will reply to your outragoues opinions. Third, Don't be that aggresive and stop treating me like a fool.


So it's acceptable to start wars solely in order to expand the economy? If so, then how come pretty much every other single industrialised economy at the time was able to make it through the Depression without a military expansion/imperialist conquest?

Well, Japan is a hilly country. There's not much fertile land there and Manchuria was the main part of Japan's supplies.They need more land to feed their people. Because Japan is growing into a powerful nation. How could they have expanded their economy when they were hit by the Great Depression? China and the USA put up trade barrifs. That's for one. And why are they not allowed to have a Empire? The English and the French had one. So why couldn't the Japanese?

There are a lot of anti Japanese people here.
I'm not a bigot.

I do not understand this, but what I am stating is that there is a lot anti Japanese racisim going on here.

When the Japanese needed to expand thief Empire ,they did
As I said in each of my posts beforehand, they did not need to expand their Empire at all. You have also failed to give any valid reasons for this need (Expanding the economy is not a valid justification).


Of course they did! Expanding the economy is one reason. But they needed to invade other countries in order to get as much raw materials as they could. A another cunning plan of the Japanese. After all, if the English couldn't defend their colonies, then it makes perfect sense to create a empire. And why are you saying they didn't need a empire? Then the English should have abandoned their empire and make themselves a country instead. The Japanese are asians, so let them have a empire.

The Nuclear bombing wasn't used in Berlin.
This would have been difficult to implement, given that when Berlin fell to the Red Army nuclear weapons did not yet exist.

Well, then make some other kind of bomb then.

And European races have committed crimes before. The English for one , Africa ,
Have a read of the thread title. The subject matter is Japan in 1931-1945, not "Everyone who has committed crimes ever." Two wrongs don't make a right.

Yeah well, this thread seems to be blaming the Japanese entrierly. It's more like ''What the Japanese have done to us that we should hate them ''. I have rephased it.

You're simply ignoring the vast amounts of crimes the Nzis did in eastern Europe. Their war was fueled on racisim. They set up death camps , and killed as many Jews as they could. The Japanese were brutal,but you can't blame them, The Soviets were even more harsher to their people. I wonder why no ever started a thread saying " Nazi War Crimes"
I'm not going to respond to anymore arguments like this from now on, as I have repeatedly explained to you that they are irrelevant. Stop trying to dodge the questions I am asking you

Questions? Asking my age? You did it in the first place.

You're simply ignoring the vast amounts of crimes the Nzis did in eastern Europe. Their war was fueled on racisim. They set up death camps , and killed as many Jews as they could. The Japanese were brutal,but you can't blame them, The Soviets were even more harsher to their people. I wonder why no ever started a thread saying " Nazi War Crimes"

They are revelant. I read on this thread that the nazis ''did not do much war crimes, they were better, more simpler '' You must be out of your head to not know what the Nazis did in their war crimes. I was giving other examples of how humacan be cruel. If someone started a thread like this, then why not start a ''Nazi War Crimes'' thread? Why not put the blame on them?

So being a critic of Imperial Japan = Nazi?

Yes. It's simple really. The Nazis caused more war crimes and externimated more than a million jews, all types of people that were inferior to them. In Eastern Europe, this was def the case, as they killed and rounded more jews and shot them in public openeings. The Japanese did less than that. They at least killed with swords instead of shooting with bullets like the nazis did.

For starters, that is no longer the case. Japan is dangerously pacifistic today, to the extent that their reluctance to arm themselves has the potential to cause instability in East Asia. Their constitution forbids their Armed Forces from engaging in action for any reason other than self-defence, for example.


Because of the Nuclear bombings and Amercia, that Japan is forced into this dreadful humiliation. I almost feel like it when Napoleon was defeated in 1815, then our valiant army was gone. In the same way , the amercians have never allowed the Japanese to bring back their millitary to once it what was. This is the fault of theirs!



Second, even if they were a war-like culture, it is absolutely no excuse. I don't excuse the Aztecs for sacrificing tens of thousands of human beings to the sun because of their culture. I don't excuse the Japanese for their actions in WW2 for being motivated by a racist, imperialist agenda. That they have changed as a nation is truly admirable, and a testament to the power and value of democracy.

What? When did the Aztecs come in this? And they have ''changed as a nation'' so if they hadn't changed you would be nuking them for hours. They have made game products, great films and others that have truly given the world a shake. There was no democracy in nuking Japan. That was a act of blatant killing agasint civilans.

And finally, for a more historiographical criticism of your ideas, your conception of the history of warfare seems to be primarily derived from computer games and movies

Moives? I don't watch movies to know that almost of all them are historically unaccruate.

Not once have you shown any understanding of the scale of the tragedy that was the Second World War,

If I may imply, this thread is alll about blaming the Japanese on a scale of crimes they did. So bringing the Second world war makes no use.

and your blithe indifference to the horror of conflict strongly implies that you view human casualties as mere polygon constructions that have been shot by polygon bullets from polygon guns

I am a Millitary enthausist. We see things differently. Napoleon saw that as well.

At multiple instances throughout this thread, you have displayed that you consider war to be on a similar level to a mere computer game, with your justifications of Japanese expansionism in China

Well, life is a game is it not? War is merely the contuination of it.

the attack on the United States and the "honour" of Japanese elites all being plot points straight out of

The ''Attack'' was a millitary engagement. The Japanese elites had honour in them.

Command and Conquer: Red Alert 3. I'm not sure there's anything further to discuss whilst you hold these views.

I never played that game.

And what shocks me is that you think it is perfectly fine to Nuke Japan for the crimes they did. You accuse of me seeing War as a mere computer game. I know what War is. It's not good, but I have a craving for it. You say that I am not looking at this in a human's view. Well, have you considered what the Nazis ever did? The Japanese were less brutal than the Nazis in retrorespect.

Yep. I blame the Japanese state for all of the crimes committed by Japan during its fascist period. Or do you think that somebody else is to blame for crimes such as, say, the Rape of Nanking, Unit 731 or the Bataan Death March?

that's only 4 crimes. The Nazis did double the amount of it.

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

In the first post after he kindly reopened the thread and politely asked everyone for restraint? :shrug:
No one thinks of apologies, just a bit of consideration would go a long way Davout, please.

If you read, I said ''Don't have much time later, will edit this later'' I was going to edit it. Please don't misjudge by reading my post and then telling me off. I was going to change the words as well.

[johnhughthom]

Marshall, please take this request seriously.


Please quote and reply appropriately - your formatting in your latest post was poor, and made it hard to both read and respond to.

If you are going to complain about perceived insults, which seem to be little more than somebody disagreeing with you, please have the respect for fellow forum readers to use some formatting in your posts.

[Subotan]

Please format your posts correctly.


Well, Japan is a hilly country. There's not much fertile land there and Manchuria was the main part of Japan's supplies.They need more land to feed their people. Because Japan is growing into a powerful nation. How could they have expanded their economy when they were hit by the Great Depression? China and the USA put up trade barrifs. That's for one. And why are they not allowed to have a Empire? The English and the French had one. So why couldn't the Japanese?...Of course they did! Expanding the economy is one reason. But they needed to invade other countries in order to get as much raw materials as they could. A another cunning plan of the Japanese. After all, if the English couldn't defend their colonies, then it makes perfect sense to create a empire. And why are you saying they didn't need a empire? Then the English should have abandoned their empire and make themselves a country instead. The Japanese are asians, so let them have a empire.
You clearly don't have any understanding of economics, or how international trade works. I suggest you know something about both before trying to make arguments using them.

Also, I never said that the European Empires were a good thing - they often weren't. They generally did not treat their colonial subjects with the same contempt the Japanese did towards theirs, however.


I do not understand this, but what I am stating is that there is a lot anti Japanese racisim going on here.
So you're calling me a bigot?


Well, then make some other kind of bomb then.
The Allies did - have you seen pictures of Berlin taken during the finals days of the War in Europe?


Yeah well, this thread seems to be blaming the Japanese entrierly. It's more like ''What the Japanese have done to us that we should hate them ''. I have rephased it.
People are only blaming the Japanese for what the Japanese did, and nobody here hates the Japanese. You're also not allowed to change the topic of debate.



Stop trying to dodge the questions I am asking you

Questions? Asking my age? You did it in the first place.
Questions, as in, "Why are you acting as an apologist for a racist, imperialist state, and trying to use a morally questionable act of war against them in an attempt to defend their actions?", not how old you are.


You're simply ignoring the vast amounts of crimes the Nzis did in eastern Europe. Their war was fueled on racisim. They set up death camps , and killed as many Jews as they could. The Japanese were brutal,but you can't blame them, The Soviets were even more harsher to their people. I wonder why no ever started a thread saying " Nazi War Crimes"

They are revelant. I read on this thread that the nazis ''did not do much war crimes, they were better, more simpler '' You must be out of your head to not know what the Nazis did in their war crimes. I was giving other examples of how humacan be cruel. If someone started a thread like this, then why not start a ''Nazi War Crimes'' thread? Why not put the blame on them?
Again, these aren't relevant to what the Japanese did, and it pains me that I'm having to point this out to you. This is not the War Crimes Olympics.



So being a critic of Imperial Japan = Nazi?

Yes. It's simple really.
...


The Nazis caused more war crimes and externimated more than a million jews, all types of people that were inferior to them. In Eastern Europe, this was def the case, as they killed and rounded more jews and shot them in public openeings. The Japanese did less than that. They at least killed with swords instead of shooting with bullets like the nazis did.
wut


Because of the Nuclear bombings and Amercia, that Japan is forced into this dreadful humiliation. I almost feel like it when Napoleon was defeated in 1815, then our valiant army was gone. In the same way , the amercians have never allowed the Japanese to bring back their millitary to once it what was. This is the fault of theirs!
To quote the Constitution of Japan:

Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. 2) In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.

This has been maintained in the Japanese Constitution since 1947, despite attempts by neo-conservative Japanese to amend it.


What? When did the Aztecs come in this? And they have ''changed as a nation'' so if they hadn't changed you would be nuking them for hours. They have made game products, great films and others that have truly given the world a shake. There was no democracy in nuking Japan. That was a act of blatant killing agasint civilans.
I notice that you've magically forgotten your own repeated attempts to drag the Nazis into this topic, as soon as I use an analogy. If you were concerned about civilian deaths, you would have conceded that the use of nuclear weapons was the least bad option.


Moives? I don't watch movies to know that almost of all them are historically unaccruate. If I may imply, this thread is alll about blaming the Japanese on a scale of crimes they did. So bringing the Second world war makes no use. I am a Millitary enthausist. We see things differently. Napoleon saw that as well.
I notice how with none of your responses do you even attempt to address my points.


Well, life is a game is it not? War is merely the contuination of it.
Wow, just wow.


The ''Attack'' was a millitary engagement.
That's just a tautology.


The Japanese elites had honour in them.
So you define the maintenance of racist, anti-democratic, oligarchic and ghoulishly selfish values by an aristocratic and reactionary elite to be "honour"? Because there is no other way you can consider the Japanese Imperial Staff in the Second World War to be honourable.



Command and Conquer: Red Alert 3.

I never played that game.

Are you even trying to understand the criticism I'm making of your ideas? Your justifications for Japanese actions in World War II are near-identical to those used by fictional Japanese baddies in a cheesy (but cool) computer game. You may as well be using arguments made by Voldemort to justify the actions of Slobodon Milosevic.


And what shocks me is that you think it is perfectly fine to Nuke Japan for the crimes they did. You accuse of me seeing War as a mere computer game.
Given the circumstances, I believe that it was. I take no pleasure from it, and justify it primarily in terms of the trade off in casualties between the use of nuclear weapons and alternatives - nuclear weapons minimized casualties. In contrast, you advocated an amphibious invasion of Japan that would have caused tens of millions of casulaties in order to save the "honour" of the Japanese military.


You say that I am not looking at this in a human's view. Well, have you considered what the Nazis ever did? The Japanese were less brutal than the Nazis in retrorespect...that's only 4 crimes. The Nazis did double the amount of it.
As I have said, many, many times, I am not responding to your continued use of this invalid argument anymore. Stop making it.


I know what War is. It's not good, but I have a craving for it
I have no words. (https://i.imgur.com/X0I2f.jpg)