Can you justify the Bomb?

[Rosacrux]

The poll choices are rather clear.

To start things off, I believe that two of the answers (3 and 5 - of course the "GAH" option has it's own dynamic http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif ) are covering my own view of the subject - USA could win the war in a dozen other ways, without "commiting 1 million servicemen and getting half of them killed" as the A-Bomb apologists nowadays are stating over and over. But it needed to show off the capabilities of the A-Bomb so Joe Stalin would stop in Germany instead of going all the way to the Pyrrenes.

[Loki]

What a bunch of revisionist history //// So you know something the allied general staff didn't know in WWII?

What exactly is your magic elixir for defeating Japan without loosing a half of a million men?

Do you alone know some secret strategy that you have devised? Please enlighten the rest of us with your "dozens of other ways we could have won the war"

Just curious, are you a serious student of the conflict or a casual commentator that is coloring the actions of historical figures with modern day hand wringing?

What pray tell are the reasons behind ANY of the bombing that took place in WWII. Are there murky anti communist political motivations behind those as well?

Following your logic to it's conclusion we should never send more of our soldiers to a battle than the enemy has there already, right? I mean we wouldn't want to have any unfair advantages in combat would we? That just wouldn't be moral And if they don't have automatic weapons for their soldiers then we should take automatic weapons away from our soldiers right? I mean we wouldn't want to have any unfair advantages in combat would we? That just wouldn't be moral

BTW, why aren't you as up in arms about what happened in Dresden? More people were killed there than Hiroshima

GAH

[-Isapostolos-]

Don't be so hard on him, there is no need to flame, he just wants to ask your opinion. Why should not use the gift of hindsight? If you look back, you can prevent mistakes in the future.

Anyway, I voted that the bombing wasn't necessary at all. I mean, Japan was virtually harmless, and could just have been conventionally bombed into surrender. Secondly, I think it's worse to destroy a city's future, than it is to destroy it’s present. I wouldn't think about living in Hiroshima or Nagasaki if I had the choice today.

Dresden isn't polluted by radio activity to this day, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are.

I even heard that by the time Hiroshima was bombed, the Japanese were already suing for peace, but the Americans thought they should have another go, so they threw another bomb on Nagasaki. I think that's just sick.

[Rosacrux]

Quote[/b] ]
BTW, why aren't you as up in arms about what happened in Dresden? More people were killed there than Hiroshima
Loki

You seem a bit over the edge there... revisionist history?

Pull yourself together and then we might actually discuss this ...seriously and not bully-wise http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-argue.gif

[71-hour Ahmed]

Nuclear weapons are just another type of weapon, just more powerful, partic seen that way then before radiation was known about. So the moral difference we percieve today did not exist.

[Kalle]

The options are simple to understand thats true, but in fact they are so simple it is impossible to choose only one.




Quote[/b] ]
Poll choices Votes Statistics
The A-Bomb was necessary,it saved lives 4 [44.44%]
The A-Bomb was not necessary, but justified 1 [11.11%]
USA just wanted to scare Joe Stalin 0 [0.00%]
There was no need to use the A-Bomb 3 [33.33%]
The A-Bomb is the road to hell 1 [11.11%]
GAH 0 [0.00%]


The a bomb was not necessery to win the war, but i think one can be pretty sure it saved lives (at least american ones). I think it is pretty obvious that scaring Stalin is a thing the americans didnt mind doing. The a-bomb is the road to hell? Well thats not relevant in this question imo, at least the world so far hasnt ended up there and if its going there i cant see that at this moment it has anything to do with the a-bomb, many thinks the terrorbalans with a-bombs instead was the thing that saved the world from another disastrous war.

Also i seriusly doubt Stalin would have had an easy walk to the atlantic had the western nations and Stalin clashed.

Anyway they didnt clash and eastern europe thereby was condemned to about 50 years of hell and tyranni. (not saying i rather would have seen them clash)

Kalle

[DojoRat]

Necessary and Justified are words I find hard to use for any action in war. Yet, if I was president Truman, I would've dropped the bomb.

It can be argued that Japan would've eventually surrendered. But US losses on Okinawa and the refusal of civilians their to surrender made a big impression on the US military and public alike. Their perception, however shaded by hatred and fear, was that Japan would fight to the bitter end and that American and Japanese casualties would be enormous.

As president I also would've wanted to show the world, and Stalin in particular, what we had and our willingness to use it. This is cold, but might prevent needless testing, and escalating conflict down the line.

What we know now about about Hiroshima and Nagasaki is horrifying. What we can't know is what would've happened without them.

[Loki]

isopostolos,

Your statement about the Japanese suing for peace and the Americans dropping another bomb is yet another piece of revisionist history ////. Do you two also subscribe to the camp that says the Holocaust never happened?

And FYI, I did NOT flame Rosacrux, I disagreed with his ideas. Why would you construe that as a flame? I guess anyone that would dare to disagree with you is a flamer eh?

Rosacrux,

You seem to me to be "over the edge" as it were. If you are going to make grand sweeping statements about "At least a dozen other ways..." Then be prepared to back them up. BTW I'm still waiting for you to list out those dozen.

And also we are discussing. You don't have to agree to discuss.

If you are at all interested in this subject in genuine, then there are several very good books on the subject (The conventional invasion of Japan). One that I might humbly suggest you read before espousing these type of theories is

The Battle For History : Re-fighting World War II by John Keegan

For a more dramatic and first person account of what the conventional invasion of Japan would have been like for the allies, read

The Burning Mountain: A Novel of the Invasion of Japan by Alfred Coppel.

[Loki]

Rosacrux,

Another thought has just occurred to me. It's sort of off the topic but one I'm curious to know your response to.

Your handle states that you are from the proud Balkans. Is that true? If so then have you ever reflected that you are typing away freely on an Internet forum, saying whatever you would like without fear of persecution retribution or censorship, because of the Wests opposition to Stalin, Communism, the cold war, and the eventual downfall of the CCCP?

Hmmmm, Ironic isn't it?

[Mount Suribachi]

Quote[/b] (Isopostolos @ Feb. 05 2004,15:18)]I mean, Japan was virtually harmless, and could just have been conventionally bombed into surrender.
Wrong. Every other city had already been fire-bombed into oblivion by waves of B-29s. Hiroshima & Nagasaki had been specifically left alone so that the Bomb could be used on them, if needed. Every other Japanese city was a smoking ruin and there was nothing left to bomb, yet they hadn't surrendered and were determined to fight on.


Quote[/b] ] even heard that by the time Hiroshima was bombed, the Japanese were already suing for peace

Wrong. There were civilian politicians within the cabinet who knew the game was up and wanted to negotiate a peace, however, the military still had control of the government and any form of a surrender was anthema to them.


Quote[/b] ]but the Americans thought they should have another go, so they threw another bomb on Nagasaki. I think that's just sick. I'm sorry, but thats just an ill-informed comment. Have you ever seen any interviews or read any books quoting the senior members of the US administration at the time? They were intelligent human beings and there was much in depth cabinet discussion about the bomb, japan and ending the war.

US casualties in battles as they got closer & closer to Japan were horrific. 20,000 killed, 80,000 wounded in the battle for Okinawa alone. Japan could only lose the war, yes. But to the Japanese way of thinking surrender, especially to inferior gajin, was totally dishonourable. Better to die an honourable death in battle and kill as many of the foreigners as possible.

But you know what really convinces me? The fact that it took TWO bombs to get Japan to surrender. Clearly the first one was not enough to convince the government that the game was up.

For those interested in the real goings on in the 2 governments at the time, I highly recommend the World at War episode on The Bomb, it features interviews with surviving members of *both* governments and it is quite clear that Japan would have fought on to the bitter end without the bomb. And more to the point, more people would have died, more civilians would have suffered and the war would have dragged on for maybe another year or more. Dropping the bomb was the quickest, most painless way of ending the war.

Oh, and btw, if Japan hadn't surrendered, the plan was to drop a bomb on the invasion beaches just before the US Marines went ashore..........

[Mount Suribachi]

Oh, and also its worth pointing out that in the 60 years since, no one has used a nuke in anger - we all know their terrible destructive power. Without Hiroshima & Nagasaki they almost certainly would have been used in Korea and the policy of MAD keeping the east/west peace would have been nowhere near as effective.

[Rosacrux]

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-stunned.gif

Loki, I am stunned. You are using the best trolbait in town and I surely have to grab it http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

But first some serious remarks:

You have the right to your opinion, so much is true. I have the right to my opinion, so much is also true. I also have the right not to engage to a conversation with someone who feels that ranting and badmouthing is an approprate way to debate a historical subject (thous one lying in the distant or not so distant past, effectively providing a non-sentimental ground for discussion).

If you lower your tone and state your opinion in an acceptable manner, without namecalling and silly - if you don't mind me saying so - rants, I'll be happy to elaborate on my view. But I won't respond to ad hominem attacks.

Got it? Good.

Now lets move on to the fun stuff.


Quote[/b] ]you are typing away freely on an Internet forum, saying whatever you would like without fear of persecution retribution or censorship, because of the Wests opposition to Stalin, Communism, the cold war, and the eventual downfall of the CCCP?

Now, what could I possibly say to reply to such an inspired assertion? A statement of such a collosal stature requires an appropriate answer... I wonder, am I enough man to live up to this challenge? Oh, I can try...

What could I possibly say?

Perhaps an equally enlighted (and equally true) sweeping statement like if it wasn't for my ancestors who brought the light of civilization to Europe in the times your ancestor were still happy treehuggers, you'd be probably still living in caves
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

How's that for serious discussion? Oh, wait, I got more.

If it wasn't for my ancestors who stopped the Persian when they invaded Europe, you would now try to clarify what that damn Zaratustra said, while playing zatricium http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Getting better, huh? Wait, more to come.

If it wasn't for my ancestors that stopped twice the Arabs when they tried to invade Europe, your only turist destination in Asia would be the Kashbah.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

That was faboulous, right?

If you want more ludicrous stuff, just whistle. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif

[magnatz]

Quote[/b] (Isopostolos @ Feb. 05 2004,09:18)]Anyway, I voted that the bombing wasn't necessary at all. I mean, Japan was virtually harmless, and could just have been conventionally bombed into surrender.

And how many japanese civilians would have died in a conventional bombing campaign ? FYI just the latest raids on Tokio, Osaka and Kobe killed many more people than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined, but even that plus Hiroshima still wasn't enough to force Japan into surrender. In order to be effective a conventional campaign should have killed millions of persons and destroyed any infrastructure, basically reverting the country to the stone age.

Also when the Hiroshima bomb was dropped the Soviet Union had already declared war to Japan, destroyed the Japanese forces in Manchuria and invaded the Kurili Islands (which they still occupy today, and btw last time I checked Russia and Japan still had to sign a peace treaty). Stalin would either have insisted to be part of any mainland invasion (and pulled a Berlin at the first chance), or mounted his own invasion and seized Hokkaido (the northern island). I doubt that this would have done much for either the Japanese people or for world peace in general.


Quote[/b] ]Dresden isn't polluted by radio activity to this day, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are.
It is not like the Americans had twenty years to study the long term effects of radioactive fallout... for that matter they kept exploding nukes in their own country until the '50s, for example only in 1953 the US military tested 11 atomic bombs at Yucca Flats, Nevada.

[biguth dickuth]

Loki, from what i've read in other topics and forums, i think that Rosacrux is not from a former communist state of the balcans, if that's what you mean.
However, i suppose we can wait for his answer to clear this out.

also,

Quote[/b] ]What a bunch of revisionist history
i found some info in another topic and i'd like to share it with you here.
you know, Loki, the roman historians of the antiquity wrote that general lucculus beat the armenian king tigran with 17,000 soldiers, while tigran had 125,000 soldiers with him and that the armenians lost 100,000 men in the battle, while the romans lost a few dozens.
now, if i were a roman who lived a few decades after this event, i might as well have thought that these numbers are true and that my country's glorious army realy achieved all this, as was officially reported.
but as the time passed, more and more people would start to seriously doubt the event and the accuracy of the official information, as we do now...

no matter if the a-bombing was trully necessary or not, the western governments needed their people to believe that, which was very easy indeed, due to the hatred that had sprang during the war. when the war was only a few years over, there would be almost noone to seriously doubt the actions that their governments had taken against such "terrible" foes. so any historical text written the decades after WW2 would go along with these guidelines.

remember that history writing, although based on the objective and scientific gathering and sorting of information, still alowes subjectivity to sneak inside, as the historian is human and his opinion and interpretation of the events can never be totally objective.
it is interesting that many people who have lived during WW2 or who have older relatives who have lived the war and have heard stories, are quick to reject any revisionist or alternative interpretation of WW2 history, because the conventional version is strongly imprinted into them.

thus, my opinion is that we should always be suspicious with history and always try to find out if necessity or interest have kept some events into obscurity and emphasized on other, in order to produce a certain result.

as for the use of the a-bomb, i find it hard to think such a dramatical event was the only reeasonable option. for instance, conventional bombings and embargo would have probably brought japan to its knees, sooner or later. starving doesn't do well to a person's fighting spirit.

but the us wanted to test their new weapon in "real" targets and to make a statement of what they can do to anyone who opposes them. and of course it gave a quicker ending to the war, saving time, money and the government's reputation which would have suffered if they had commited some more thousands of soldiers into death. but you might agree that they would never share all these thoughts with the public. so they justified their actions and that official option of the events was included in the conventional history of the war.
history showes that governments (and any kind of authority) usually do that, and i believe that this is the case with the recent iraq war too.


Quote[/b] ]Do you two also subscribe to the camp that says the Holocaust never happened?

i personally don't and i'm not a nazi sympathiser either. if you think that questioning conventional history is like creating "conspiracy theories", you are wrong.
besides, the movie is poor... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[biguth dickuth]

Quote[/b] ]
It is not like the Americans had twenty years to study the long term effects of radioactive fallout... for that matter they kept exploding nukes in their own country until the '50s, for example only in 1953 the US military tested 11 atomic bombs at Yucca Flats, Nevada.


when they did that, they already knew enough of the effects of the Bomb and they just used their people as experiment rats. they even gave them special pins to wear and were told that there is no danger due to the proximity of the explosions, but in case there is, those pins would protect them...
however, those pins were there to measure the amount of exposure to radiation and most of these people died, sooner or later, by cancer.

now, most of you may think that this is "leftish, communist, anti-american" propaganda, but there is serious evidence and some people who have survived this have sued the military and anyone responsible for the tests. however, i doubt they will win in court and of course most people in america don't know that because it never gets to the media... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wall.gif

[magnatz]

So they were poisoning their soil and athmosphere just for the sake of killing volunteers, when they knew the effects already ? How evil http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[-Isapostolos-]

Quote[/b] (Loki @ Feb. 05 2004,09:56)]isopostolos,

Your statement about the Japanese suing for peace and the Americans dropping another bomb is yet another piece of revisionist history crap. Do you two also subscribe to the camp that says the Holocaust never happened?
Call it what you want, but I don't think it's bad to look back at history and try to learn something from it and try to make your on view to it. I read that certain piece of information in "A history of warfare" by Bernard Montgomery. Yes he is that arrogant Brit that lost Market Garden which you might call him as an American, but I think he is still very credible as an ally of the US. And no I am no nazi (Or why would you be if one would think otherwise about the holocaust?)


Quote[/b] ]And FYI, I did NOT flame Rosacrux, I disagreed with his ideas. Why would you construe that as a flame? I guess anyone that would dare to disagree with you is a flamer eh

You were not merely disagreeing, you had a certain 'tone' that gave me that impression. This message gives me the same one.

[Ithaskar Fëarindel]

Simple; people have their own opinions. Don't call them, flame them, abuse them or anything of the sort if they don't share yours.

This might not be the Tavern, but it isn't a boxing ring either.

[Lazul]

Whats so hard to understand, the japs had allready lost, they had NOTHING to put against the US forces... the A-BOMB was nothing, NOTHING but a SHOWOFF... To show the world that the US called the shots from now.

nuclear warfare can NEVER be justified

[Rosacrux]

Quote[/b] (Lazul @ Feb. 07 2004,12:01)]Whats so hard to understand, the japs had allready lost, they had NOTHING to put against the US forces... the A-BOMB was nothing, NOTHING but a SHOWOFF... To show the world that the US called the shots from now.

nuclear warfare can NEVER be justified
Actually my dear crazy Swede, that's precisely my view:

Nothing, absolutely nothing on earth, can justify the A-Bomb. Accepting a defeat is preferable than droping the bomb - and on this occasion the US was not excactly losing the war...

Nuclear warfare is the road to hell, period. We have enough nuclear firepower to sterilize this earth, exterminate every living being above the level of a cocroach, not once but 8 times.

Ithaskar

Thank you. It takes quite a man (or woman) to admit wrong and you showed you have that quality. You should know I did not intend to let this go the way of the flamefest. But I can not control other posters.

[rasoforos]

The bomb saved lives. American lives...and as we all know those are superior to any other form of life http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

Seriously now the bomb did save lives since a lot of soldiers would die to capture Japan. However the Americans could use the bomb against an uninhabited target near a place where the japanese could see. I bet you a nuclear mushroom piercing the skies , an earthquake and a blast wave that destroyed trees for miles would clearly show to the japanese what would happen to their cities if they would not surrender...

...the americans though wanted to test the bomb on humans, moreover they wanted to see the difference of a plutonium and uranium bomb. And they did so. And thats a war crime...but what the hell , only the warcrimes of the others should have a place in history.


Rosa congrats for withstanding all this trolling man , you are indeed a patient person :D

[Beirut]

As I understand it, the US demanded free elections in post-war Japan and an unconditional surrender. The Japanese wanted to keep the Emperor. The war continued.

Also, the two bombs did not trully end the war. After several days of silence after Nagasaki, over 800 B-29s hit Tokyo and that raid was the last of the war.

And given what the Japanese did to prisoners and indeed whole countries, and has never accepted blame for it or even apologised, I have a very hard time feeling sorry for them.

Should it have been dropped. You're damn right it should have.

[Obex]

I saw a fascinating history channel program on post a-bomb japan. i dont remember all the details, but it describes the military coup that was attempted to prevent the emperor from surrendering. the idea was to intercept the emperor's recorded surrender declaration to the people of japan, and instead command every man, woman, and child to fight to the death. the coup almost worked. the military occupied the imperial palace (a taboo), but the loss of electrical power due to american bombing caused just enough confusion for the recording to escape.

two things that stood out to me from my stw days:

the emperor's voice was sacred, and no one involved in the recording process wanted to be entrusted with the responsibility of safeguarding it. one of the sound technician, from the honorable samurai house tokugawa, stepped up to the task.

secondly, for the coup to work, they needed the help (or elimination) of a well respected general mori. he was called 'the monk' for his deep Buddhist roots.


people here talk of the lives saved by the bomb, and scornfully remark only on american lives saved. it is clear from the battles waged to take the other islands in the pacific that the death toll among the japanese would have been much, much larger than the numbers killed in the two a-bomb strikes.

[Lazul]

Its intresting to see how you ppl justifie the bomb. Some claim that just becouse the japs did horrible things to the prisoners or other countrys more then 300 000 civilians could be killed.
Does really ONE bad thing justifie ANOTHER bad thing?

Yes the japs wanted to keep the Emperor, is that so hard to understand really? its tradition and you ppl must understand that you cant bomb a country inte to democracy... if so, then why dont you go bomb 1/3 off the world, inclouding Sweden, we have a king... bomb us PLEASE http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wall.gif

The US never had to invade and take Japan, a siege would have been enough.



Det finns verkligen inget hopp för mänskligheten http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

[Crimson Castle]

Quote[/b] (Isopostolos @ Feb. 05 2004,14:18)]Anyway, I voted that the bombing wasn't necessary at all. I mean, Japan was virtually harmless, and could just have been conventionally bombed into surrender. Secondly, I
I'm afraid you're terribly wrong there.

Japan was not "virtually harmless". The Japanese were killing thousands of Asian civilians - particularly in China and East Asia. They were also brutally oppressing the populations of the nations they had conquered. You know the deal - the comfort women etc...

And hey I guess all the prisoners of war - including the asians - were having a randy time in the Japanese version of Club Med?

So before you make any further comments about the "harmlessness" of Imperial Japan in 1945. Please do read more about the state of the comfort women, the POWs, civilian populace under the tender protection of the Japanese military.

[Crimson Castle]

Quote[/b] (Lazul @ Feb. 08 2004,13:06)][quote]Its intresting to see how you ppl justifie the bomb. Some claim that just becouse the japs did horrible things to the prisoners or other countrys more then 300 000 civilians could be killed.
Does really ONE bad thing justifie ANOTHER bad thing?
Sweden, we have a king... bomb us PLEASE http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wall.gif [quote]
One bad thing does not justify another - poor choice there.

So if someone is raping your sorry behind, what should the police do?

(a) start a preliminary negotiation with the rapist?
(b) start a sociology course in the oppression nature of Swedish society?
© contact the United Nation rep. on human rights and report a possible incident?

LOL

[Ironside]

Citera[/b] ]Det finns verkligen inget hopp för mänskligheten

Det har det aldrig funnits och ändå lever vi här idag. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Beirut]

(Bomb Sweden?

Hmmmm, I'm part Norweigen and from what I hear, that part of me isn't supposed to line Swedes much. But I digress. Swedes are delicious. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif)

I think what Ol' General William Sherman said hasa lot of merit to it, "I will make war on them in such a fashion that generations wil pass before they ever think of using war as an option again.

And after the carnage Japan caused across Asia, including genocide (they killed millions of Chinese), using whole countries for slave labour and rape camps and torturing POWs as a matter of policy, I think they needed to be taught a lesson that would last generations. And guess what... it worked.

Justified? Damn straight.

[Lazul]

The thing is, was it raelly necessary to drop a-bombs on 2 rather big citys? Shouldnt it be enough to drop one in the ocean and tell the japs: "Look what we can do... surrender or we bomb a bit closer to your country?" http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/flat.gif

[Loki]

Gee,

I thought this thread was closed? Glad it's back up. Oh where to begin


Quote[/b] ]The bomb saved lives. American lives...and as we all know those are superior to any other form of life

I quoted several credible authors in an earlier post in this thread. Had any of you opponents to dropping the bomb cared to study up since our last "Discussion" you would understand that many more lives of Japanese (some military but many many more civilians) were saved by the dropping of the bomb and a swift end to the war.




Quote[/b] ]Seriously now the bomb did save lives since a lot of soldiers would die to capture Japan. However the Americans could use the bomb against an uninhabited target near a place where the Japanese could see. I bet you a nuclear mushroom piercing the skies , an earthquake and a blast wave that destroyed trees for miles would clearly show to the Japanese what would happen to their cities if they would not surrender...

As has been stated here before, The first bomb dropped onto an actual city was not enough to make the Japanese government surrender. Thats why the second one was ordered. Once again, if you had studied this subject honestly you would understand that this option (dropping it on a demo target) was very seriously considered by the president and the joint chiefs of staff. Ultimately the president was advised by those of his cabinet who were experts in Japanese affairs that this (dropping it on a "pretend" target as a demonstration) would not be effective. It was a horrible decision to have to make and one that haunted the president, (again if you read some on this subject you will understand that this wasn't a decision made glibly at all).

My personal opinion based on having read many books on this subject, was that the A-Bomb was the only thing that would have made the Japanese government surrender. Japanese government/society at the time of WWII was run by the military. Saving face was THE paramount thing. Since the A-bomb was a "super weapon", something never seen before and almost unexplainable, it allowed them to save face by surrendering. The Japanese would have resisted a conventional invasion with conventional weapons almost to the last man woman or child. The toll on Japanese civilians would have been much much worse in this scenario. Also there would have been virtually nothing left of the infrastructure after Japans conquer, setting back the rebuilding process decades and prolonging the suffering of the Japanese population even further.


Rosacrux: Still waiting for you to list your "Dozens of ways that Japan could have been defeated without costing half a million lives"... Are you avoiding this or don't you really have "Dozens of ways.."

Also Rosacrux, I have stated here that my opinions on this subject have been formed by reading books regarding it. If I may ask, could you please list the books and authors you have read that have led you to your current opinion? You could tack that onto your response where you spell out the "Dozens of ways..."

Thank you
Loki http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-book2.gif

[Rosacrux]

Loki

Your tone is still the wrong one, mon amis. But for discussion's sace, I'll try to reply to your question.

Dozens of Ways

1. They could accept the surrender of Japan (they have offered to surrender, through USSR and directly to USA, more than one times. In their first attempts they placed a series of conditions, but in the last - after the drop of "little man" on Hiroshima - the only condition was to keep the emperor in place. That is all they wanted. But USA believed that to be - as Truman stated in his infamous radio message to the nation - "unacceptable". So they bombed Nagashaki and 150.000 people to oblivion too.

2. They could let the Soviets do the "dirty job". Stalin had 1.2 mi. men and the corresponding tanks and firepower just nearby and was eager to "aid" USA in taking down Japan - the post -WW race to the "new world order" has already begun.

3. They could conventionaly bomb Japan into the stone age. Probably it would cost more (Japanese) lives and (American) money, not to mention that they wouldn't justify to the taxpayers the 2 billion dollars investment to the A-Bomb. And it would give Stalin the chance to seize control of China too. And the last seems to have been the nightmare of USA at the point.

4. They could starve Japan to an unconditional surrender. There was no food, no oil, no nothing on Japan at the time. A blockade for 6-9 months would bring Japan to the point of extinction. But that wouldn't fit the plans of USA because of the above reasons (give Stalin time to expand his sphere of influence and deprive USA from the chance to test the bomb, for strategical and show-off reasons).

5. They could simply invade. Yes, it would cost the (precious, nevertheless) lives of many, many servicemen, but in 6 months (without the Russkies) or 3 months (with the Russkies) the empire would lie in rabbles. But, I guess, American lives are too precious to waste...

6-24: There are quite a few combinatios of the abovementioned five scenarios, and those could lead us to the alleged "dozens".

You have read books, you say? Have you read any book regarding the results of the bombing? Have you read any book regarding the strength of the Atom bomb? Have you read any book regarding the results of a nuclear war?

Take a look at this little site. (http://www.geocities.com/rameysrealm/hiroshima.htm) (warning: it contains extreme gor). Maybe you'll understand a tad bit more.

And after you have read this, please answer one question of mine: Beyond petty revenge and geopolitical-strategical reasons, WHY was USA justified in dropping the bomb?

[Brutal DLX]

There are a couple of things one has to take into consideration.
First, the major decision makers weren't in place when the test nuke was ignited as part of the Manhattan project. It is one thing to know about a big bomb, and another to actually be there to "see" it explode.
Second, although some scientists were aware of what radioactive radiation can do to humans, again, the military was completely clueless to it. You have to remember at that point it was a new technology.
With this in mind, and also the growing woes about the Soviet Union in regard to their plans in Asia, it is understandable that the president and his advisors decided to use this new technology (after all they had also paid a lot of money and resources, and it's the old dilemma, if you have something, you will sooner or later use it). To them, it was logical that a couple of big bombs and the bluff to claim they have more of them could achieve the same or more in less time as countless bombing raids by conventional bombers.
However, I do think a complete sea blockade and maintaining aerial superiority would have been absolutely successful, the Japanese forces had been pushed back to Japan and they were not a big threat anymore by any means, it was possible to "besiege" them with very little loss of men and material, but results wouldn't come quickly. The US went for the quick way.
However, conventional carpet bombing and levelling of whole cities might be a quick way to end wars, yet this procedure is what I would call a warcrime, no matter if you do it with conventional or nuclear bombs. Wars should be fought between armed forces and not against civilians. If the enemy does it and you reply in kind, you will make yourself guilty as well. And if you are the one to start, it's even worse.
In hindsight, knowing what we know now, it is not justified to unleash such a terrible weapon, back then it wasn't either unless you conduct an all out war without claiming to have some sort of high ground.

[rasoforos]

Quote[/b] (Loki @ Feb. 08 2004,13:27)]As has been stated here before, The first bomb dropped onto an actual city was not enough to make the Japanese government surrender. Thats why the second one was ordered. Once again, if you had studied this subject honestly you would understand that this option (dropping it on a demo target) was very seriously considered by the president and the joint chiefs of staff. Ultimately the president was advised by those of his cabinet who were experts in Japanese affairs that this (dropping it on a "pretend" target as a demonstration) would not be effective. It was a horrible decision to have to make and one that haunted the president, (again if you read some on this subject you will understand that this wasn't a decision made glibly at all).
do you have any idea of how many terrorist attacks does a reasoning like that justify? Al Qaeda officials would totally agree with you , the goal sanctifies the means. So what if they might not surrender immediately? AND WHAT IF THE DO? isnt it worth a try to make a demonstration first? No it isnt , it was not american lives...

...thats dangerous thinking my friend...i hope you never join a fundamentalist group...

[Rosacrux]

Brutal

Yes, hindsight is 20/20 and one might be tempted to view it that way. But the scientists taking part in the Manhattan project knew very well what radiation can do to humans and excactly what their precious baby was worth.

Isn't Oppenheimer the one with the famous Mahabharata quote ("I have become death, destroyer of worlds" or something like that, depending on the translation)?? And he said that before Hiroshima, I think, after the testing in Nevada.

And the scientists working for USA (btw only the minority of them were Americans... they were doing this stuff to stop Hitler, not to provide USA with the means to dominate the post WW globe) were conducting a race with Nazist Germany. Since the race (and the war) was won, dropping the bomb would be moraly unjustifiable, no matter what view we pick to look at it from.

Nevertheless, USA got its chance to test the A-Bomb not only in vitro - two cities as a lab are quite a treat. And Joe Stalin followed by exposing whole divisions of his own servicemen (and German POWs, if some sources are stating the truth) to the effects of the toys other German scientists have provided him with.


edited to add

BTW about the examination of the other options and especially the one regarding carpet bombing Japan. Yes, it would be a warcrime, horrible as - let's say - Dresden.

But it would be only an old-fashioned warcrime, nothing nuveau or the road to hell, as the A-Bomb is.

Nobody justifies any warcrime, no matter if the "good" guys or the "bad" guys did it. But anything would be preferable to starting the Nuclear Era.

[Brutal DLX]

Yes, most knew it, not all, because there was strict security there, some mathematicians who were working there didn't even know for what they did all those calculations for.
It's ironic that the main instigators of the project were the ones who tried to stop it most desperately after it was clear that Germany didn't develop a similar device. They petitioned, even with the help of Einstein again to stop it, but to no avail. Oppenheimer had been changed by putting so much responsibility and subsequently fame on him, he became more a politician/advisor than a scientist, and thus left his conscience behind. Of course he knew very well, maybe he was one of about four or five persons at that time, that they were about to unleash a weapon of biblical proportions.
My point was that while the core group of scientists knew about the radiation effects, virtually no one else within the military or government did, and the scientists only knew about the short term effects, at least one of them was killed while experimentally trying to determine the critical mass (unprotected). This has been underestimated immensely and attempts to explain it to laymen weren't very successful at this time. It's not that they didn't try. Most of them, anyway.

Yes, I agreed in my initial post that such acts are not morally justifiable, but outside of morality, you could find arguments for doing so.

By the way, Stalin had his own project running at less speed, but mostly Russian scientists worked on it, just some basic ideas were provided by foreigners that also wanted to counter the possibility of Nazi Germany building a bomb.

[Somebody Else]

If this is still relevent, I remember reading somewhere that a single night's raid on Tokyo killed around 100,000 people. 75,000 died in Hiroshima. Neither are good, but Hiroshima and Nagasaki did catalyse the end of the war.

Granted, radiation does have a lasting effect - harming future generations... then again, not having parents, or grandparents or whatever does put a cramp on existing anyway.

But what's done is done. We can't change it, merely learn not to do anything like it again. Happily, with precision targeting technology, with the USAF as a major proponent, hardly ever misses... (Chinese embassy - Kosovo, John Simpson - Afghanistan, British Tornado - Afghanistan etc.)

Regardless, one should really focus on the root of all such wars, and remove it. I suggest Dr Strangelove's doomsday device.

In case anyone's wondering what side I'm on in this "discussion"... I don't really know. Both, neither... take your pick.

[Mysterium]

Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ Feb. 09 2004,03:37)]And the scientists working for USA (btw only the minority of them were Americans... they were doing this stuff to stop Hitler, not to provide USA with the means to dominate the post WW globe) were conducting a race with Nazist Germany. Since the race (and the war) was won, dropping the bomb would be moraly unjustifiable, no matter what view we pick to look at it from.

No, no no. I'm afraid I'm gonna have to call you out on that one. Our intention in building the first A-bomb was not simply to have an A-bomb before Nazi Germany, it was to HAVE an A-bomb before Nazi Germany. Possession was, ultimately, the point. I mean, the Manhattan Project wasn't some glorified science fair project, it was an attempt by one side to gain a weapon of terrible destructive power before the other side got it. Any discussion of the moral implications of DROPPING the bomb must begin from the standpoint of HAVING the bomb. To theorize about the reasons for developing the bomb should not play into it, that's ranging too far afield.


Quote[/b] ]2. They could let the Soviets do the "dirty job". Stalin had 1.2 mi. men and the corresponding tanks and firepower just nearby and was eager to "aid" USA in taking down Japan - the post -WW race to the "new world order" has already begun.

So, instead, a land invasion should be launched by the army whose troops were reported to have said something like "We don't shoot women after raping them, we're not Germans." (The final chapters of Stephen Ambrose's Citizen Soldiers in case anyone's keeping me honest). This may sound a tad sensationalist, but imagine it? An occupying force under Stalin, working systematically through Japan with a huge advantage in numbers and machinery, fighting against folks whose civilian status becomes a little shadowy when they fight and refuse to surrender. It's their homeland, true, but if they're civilians, they shouldn't be shooting. And then the subsequent occupation of an indefinite (let's be honest, while we're speculating, it could've been until the Iron Curtain fell) length of time. You seem to regard the atomic bomb as the Ultimate Evil, and in many ways it is. But there still are some conceivable alternatives to the bomb which are worse, which precludes the bomb being the Ultimate anything.

There is very little morally justifiable in killing anyone. The task lies in finding the least morally unjustifiable option.


Quote[/b] ]Nobody justifies any warcrime, no matter if the "good" guys or the "bad" guys did it. But anything would be preferable to starting the Nuclear Era.

The Nuclear Era had already begun. The only question is whether or not it would've been a Nuclear Era with the bomb having been dropped or not. I, personally, don't believe in the deterrent effect of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Are there terrorists out there with their fingers on buttons, stayed only by haunting images from the aftermath of those bombs? No. Did the US and USSR not launch because they'd seen it in action? Doubt it. The human race tends to collectively live in the present, and M.A.D. probably did much more than the dropping of the bomb did to insure no bombs would be launched in the subsequent Nuclear Era.

[Gallowglass]

Nice thread going on here. Might as well make a stab at it.

Here are some interesting quotes from people who were more qualified about the overall situation. This what they say:

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

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

- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380

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

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

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

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

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

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

~~~HERBERT HOOVER
On May 28, 1945, Hoover visited President Truman and suggested a way to end the Pacific war quickly: "I am convinced that if you, as President, will make a shortwave broadcast to the people of Japan - tell them they can have their Emperor if they surrender, that it will not mean unconditional surrender except for the militarists - you'll get a peace in Japan - you'll have both wars over."

Richard Norton Smith, An Uncommon Man: The Triumph of Herbert Hoover, pg. 347.

On August 8, 1945, after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, Hoover wrote to Army and Navy Journal publisher Colonel John Callan O'Laughlin, "The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul."

quoted from Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 635.

"...the Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945...up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped; ...if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs."

- quoted by Barton Bernstein in Philip Nobile, ed., Judgment at the Smithsonian, pg. 142

Hoover biographer Richard Norton Smith has written: "Use of the bomb had besmirched America's reputation, he [Hoover] told friends. It ought to have been described in graphic terms before being flung out into the sky over Japan."

Richard Norton Smith, An Uncommon Man: The Triumph of Herbert Hoover, pg. 349-350.

In early May of 1946 Hoover met with General Douglas MacArthur. Hoover recorded in his diary, "I told MacArthur of my memorandum of mid-May 1945 to Truman, that peace could be had with Japan by which our major objectives would be accomplished. MacArthur said that was correct and that we would have avoided all of the losses, the Atomic bomb, and the entry of Russia into Manchuria."

Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 350-351.

~~~GENERAL DOUGLAS MacARTHUR
MacArthur biographer William Manchester has described MacArthur's reaction to the issuance by the Allies of the Potsdam Proclamation to Japan: "...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary."

William Manchester, American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 512.

Norman Cousins was a consultant to General MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan. Cousins writes of his conversations with MacArthur, "MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed." He continues, "When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."

Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71.

~~~JOSEPH GREW
(Under Sec. of State)
In a February 12, 1947 letter to Henry Stimson (Sec. of War during WWII), Grew responded to the defence of the atomic bombings Stimson had made in a February 1947 Harpers magazine article:

"...in the light of available evidence I myself and others felt that if such a categorical statement about the [retention of the] dynasty had been issued in May, 1945, the surrender-minded elements in the [Japanese] Government might well have been afforded by such a statement a valid reason and the necessary strength to come to an early clearcut decision.

"If surrender could have been brought about in May, 1945, or even in June or July, before the entrance of Soviet Russia into the [Pacific] war and the use of the atomic bomb, the world would have been the gainer."

Grew quoted in Barton Bernstein, ed.,The Atomic Bomb, pg. 29-32.
~~~JOHN McCLOY
(Assistant Sec. of War)
"I have always felt that if, in our ultimatum to the Japanese government issued from Potsdam [in July 1945], we had referred to the retention of the emperor as a constitutional monarch and had made some reference to the reasonable accessibility of raw materials to the future Japanese government, it would have been accepted. Indeed, I believe that even in the form it was delivered, there was some disposition on the part of the Japanese to give it favorable consideration. When the war was over I arrived at this conclusion after talking with a number of Japanese officials who had been closely associated with the decision of the then Japanese government, to reject the ultimatum, as it was presented. I believe we missed the opportunity of effecting a Japanese surrender, completely satisfactory to us, without the necessity of dropping the bombs."

McCloy quoted in James Reston, Deadline, pg. 500.

~~~RALPH BARD
(Under Sec. of the Navy)
On June 28, 1945, a memorandum written by Bard the previous day was given to Sec. of War Henry Stimson. It stated, in part:

"Following the three-power [July 1945 Potsdam] conference emissaries from this country could contact representatives from Japan somewhere on the China Coast and make representations with regard to Russia's position [they were about to declare war on Japan] and at the same time give them some information regarding the proposed use of atomic power, together with whatever assurances the President might care to make with regard to the [retention of the] Emperor of Japan and the treatment of the Japanese nation following unconditional surrender. It seems quite possible to me that this presents the opportunity which the Japanese are looking for.

"I don't see that we have anything in particular to lose in following such a program." He concluded the memorandum by noting, "The only way to find out is to try it out."

Memorandum on the Use of S-1 Bomb, Manhattan Engineer District Records, Harrison-Bundy files, folder # 77, National Archives (also contained in: Martin Sherwin, A World Destroyed, 1987 edition, pg. 307-308).

Later Bard related, "...it definitely seemed to me that the Japanese were becoming weaker and weaker. They were surrounded by the Navy. They couldn't get any imports and they couldn't export anything. Naturally, as time went on and the war developed in our favor it was quite logical to hope and expect that with the proper kind of a warning the Japanese would then be in a position to make peace, which would have made it unnecessary for us to drop the bomb and have had to bring Russia in...".

quoted in Len Giovannitti and Fred Freed, The Decision To Drop the Bomb, pg. 144-145, 324.

Bard also asserted, "I think that the Japanese were ready for peace, and they already had approached the Russians and, I think, the Swiss. And that suggestion of [giving] a warning [of the atomic bomb] was a face-saving proposition for them, and one that they could have readily accepted." He continued, "In my opinion, the Japanese war was really won before we ever used the atom bomb. Thus, it wouldn't have been necessary for us to disclose our nuclear position and stimulate the Russians to develop the same thing much more rapidly than they would have if we had not dropped the bomb."

War Was Really Won Before We Used A-Bomb, U.S. News and World Report, 8/15/60, pg. 73-75.

~~~LEWIS STRAUSS
(Special Assistant to the Sec. of the Navy)
Strauss recalled a recommendation he gave to Sec. of the Navy James Forrestal before the atomic bombing of Hiroshima:

"I proposed to Secretary Forrestal that the weapon should be demonstrated before it was used. Primarily it was because it was clear to a number of people, myself among them, that the war was very nearly over. The Japanese were nearly ready to capitulate... My proposal to the Secretary was that the weapon should be demonstrated over some area accessible to Japanese observers and where its effects would be dramatic. I remember suggesting that a satisfactory place for such a demonstration would be a large forest of cryptomeria trees not far from Tokyo. The cryptomeria tree is the Japanese version of our redwood... I anticipated that a bomb detonated at a suitable height above such a forest... would lay the trees out in windrows from the center of the explosion in all directions as though they were matchsticks, and, of course, set them afire in the center. It seemed to me that a demonstration of this sort would prove to the Japanese that we could destroy any of their cities at will... Secretary Forrestal agreed wholeheartedly with the recommendation..."

Strauss added, "It seemed to me that such a weapon was not necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion, that once used it would find its way into the armaments of the world...".

quoted in Len Giovannitti and Fred Freed, The Decision To Drop the Bomb, pg. 145, 325.

~~~PAUL NITZE
(Vice Chairman, U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey)
In 1950 Nitze would recommend a massive military buildup, and in the 1980s he was an arms control negotiator in the Reagan administration. In July of 1945 he was assigned the task of writing a strategy for the air attack on Japan. Nitze later wrote:

"The plan I devised was essentially this: Japan was already isolated from the standpoint of ocean shipping. The only remaining means of transportation were the rail network and intercoastal shipping, though our submarines and mines were rapidly eliminating the latter as well. A concentrated air attack on the essential lines of transportation, including railroads and (through the use of the earliest accurately targetable glide bombs, then emerging from development) the Kammon tunnels which connected Honshu with Kyushu, would isolate the Japanese home islands from one another and fragment the enemy's base of operations. I believed that interdiction of the lines of transportation would be sufficiently effective so that additional bombing of urban industrial areas would not be necessary.

"While I was working on the new plan of air attack... [I] concluded that even without the atomic bomb, Japan was likely to surrender in a matter of months. My own view was that Japan would capitulate by November 1945."

Paul Nitze, From Hiroshima to Glasnost, pg. 36-37 (my emphasis)

The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey group, assigned by President Truman to study the air attacks on Japan, produced a report in July of 1946 that was primarily written by Nitze and reflected his reasoning:

"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

quoted in Barton Bernstein, The Atomic Bomb, pg. 52-56.

In his memoir, written in 1989, Nitze repeated,

"Even without the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it seemed highly unlikely, given what we found to have been the mood of the Japanese government, that a U.S. invasion of the islands [scheduled for November 1, 1945] would have been necessary."

Paul Nitze, From Hiroshima to Glasnost, pg. 44-45.

~~~ELLIS ZACHARIAS
(Deputy Director of the Office of Naval Intelligence)
Based on a series of intelligence reports received in late 1944, Zacharias, long a student of Japan's people and culture, believed the Japan would soon be ripe for surrender if the proper approach were taken. For him, that approach was not as simple as bludgeoning Japanese cities:

"...while Allied leaders were immediately inclined to support all innovations however bold and novel in the strictly military sphere, they frowned upon similar innovations in the sphere of diplomatic and psychological warfare."

Ellis Zacharias, The A-Bomb Was Not Needed, United Nations World, Aug. 1949, pg. 29.

Zacharias saw that there were diplomatic and religious (the status of the Emperor) elements that blocked the doves in Japan's government from making their move:

"What prevented them from suing for peace or from bringing their plot into the open was their uncertainty on two scores. First, they wanted to know the meaning of unconditional surrender and the fate we planned for Japan after defeat. Second, they tried to obtain from us assurances that the Emperor could remain on the throne after surrender."

Ellis Zacharias, Eighteen Words That Bagged Japan, Saturday Evening Post, 11/17/45, pg. 17.

To resolve these issues, Zacharias developed several plans for secret negotiations with Japanese representatives; all were rejected by the U.S. government. Instead, a series of psychological warfare radio broadcasts by Zacharias was later approved. In the July 21, 1945 broadcast, Zacharias made an offer to Japan that stirred controversy in the U.S.: a surrender based on the Atlantic Charter. On July 25th, the U.S. intercepted a secret transmission from Japan's Foreign Minister (Togo) to their Ambassador to Moscow (Sato), who was trying to set up a meeting with the Soviets to negotiate an end to the war. The message referred to the Zacharias broadcast and stated:

"...special attention should be paid to the fact that at this time the United States referred to the Atlantic Charter. As for Japan, it is impossible to accept unconditional surrender under any circumstances, but we should like to communicate to the other party through appropriate channels that we have no objection to a peace based on the Atlantic Charter."

U.S. Dept. of State, Foreign Relations of the United States: Conference of Berlin (Potsdam) 1945, vol. 2, pg. 1260-1261.

But on July 26th, the U.S., Great Britain, and China publicly issued the Potsdam Proclamation demanding "unconditional surrender" from Japan. Zacharias later commented on the favorable Japanese response to his broadcast:

"But though we gained a victory, it was soon to be canceled out by the Potsdam Declaration and the way it was handled.

"Instead of being a diplomatic instrument, transmitted through regular diplomatic channels and giving the Japanese a chance to answer, it was put on the radio as a propaganda instrument pure and simple. The whole maneuver, in fact, completely disregarded all essential psychological factors dealing with Japan."

Zacharias continued, "The Potsdam Declaration, in short, wrecked everything we had been working for to prevent further bloodshed...

"Just when the Japanese were ready to capitulate, we went ahead and introduced to the world the most devastating weapon it had ever seen and, in effect, gave the go-ahead to Russia to swarm over Eastern Asia.

"Washington decided that Japan had been given its chance and now it was time to use the A-bomb.

"I submit that it was the wrong decision. It was wrong on strategic grounds. And it was wrong on humanitarian grounds."

Ellis Zacharias, How We Bungled the Japanese Surrender, Look, 6/6/50, pg. 19-21.

~~~BRIGADIER GENERAL CARTER CLARKE
(The military intelligence officer in charge of preparing intercepted Japanese cables - the MAGIC summaries - for Truman and his advisors)
"...when we didn't need to do it, and we knew we didn't need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn't need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs."

Quoted in Gar Alperovitz, The Decision To Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 359.

[Beirut]

I still refer to General Sherman's comment I quoted above concerning making an impression on those who start the war.

Given that the world was at the end of six years of total war that killed tens of millions and affected everyone, everywhere, it is not unreasonable that the powers that be (the US, perhaps Britain) would not blink at ending the whole affair with a moment that would freeze time, and force other government's attentions to a different option in the future, not war.

The end of WWI was simply the curtain call for WWII. The end of WWII, if one was on the spot and looking at historical mistakes, would have to finish so clearly, so completely that a blind man in a cave at the South Pole would say "Holy Jesus" and know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the war was indeed, and in fact, OVER

Justified. Then and now.

[Obex]

Very, very good post, Gallowglass. your quotes/sources are credible and powerful arguments. While your post was one-sided and the opinions expressed contrary at times to other 'facts' ive learned elsewhere, it has made me begin to examine my thoughts on the subject more carefully. i begin to wonder if ive just bought into the company line thus far.

A much more compelling argument than the crazy, sensationalized link that Rosacrux posted before, but then again i respond better to logic than emotion in general.

nothing personal rosacrux.

[Ser Clegane]

After reading your post, Gallowglass, I can only second Obex - very interesting material indeed ... thanks for posting it as it adds a lot of actual "meat" to the discussion.


Quote[/b] ]
I think what Ol' General William Sherman said hasa lot of merit to it, "I will make war on them in such a fashion that generations wil pass before they ever think of using war as an option again.

And after the carnage Japan caused across Asia, including genocide (they killed millions of Chinese), using whole countries for slave labour and rape camps and torturing POWs as a matter of policy, I think they needed to be taught a lesson that would last generations. And guess what... it worked.

Justified? Damn straight.



Quote[/b] ]
The end of WWII, if one was on the spot and looking at historical mistakes, would have to finish so clearly, so completely that a blind man in a cave at the South Pole would say "Holy Jesus" and know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the war was indeed, and in fact, OVER

Justified. Then and now.


Beirut, I have to say that I find the idea of "we'll teach them" and ending WWII with an exclamation mark slighly revolting.
IMO WWII already provided the world with enough suffering to see and come to the conclusion that a war of that scale would not be very desirable - even without two A-bombs wiping out two cities.

BTW, Germany did not get a couple of A-bombs dropped on its cities, and guess what ... it still worked out that we did not start another war.

[Kalle]

Quote[/b] ]1. They could accept the surrender of Japan (they have offered to surrender, through USSR and directly to USA, more than one times. In their first attempts they placed a series of conditions, but in the last - after the drop of "little man" on Hiroshima - the only condition was to keep the emperor in place.

I believe the allies had agreed upon that an unconditional surrender was the only thing acceptable. The war in europe could also have ended sooner since germany also sue for peace. This would not have solved anything as i think u know.


Quote[/b] ]
2. They could let the Soviets do the "dirty job". Stalin had 1.2 mi. men and the corresponding tanks and firepower just nearby and was eager to "aid" USA in taking down Japan - the post -WW race to the "new world order" has already begun.


This must be the most inhumane and unrealistic proposition i have seen. Not only would hundreds of thousands (both russians and japanese) die during the invasion and war. But after it Japan would be in the hands of the soviets like eastern europe. Condemning the Japanese to another 50 years of torture, gulag and hell. Had the russians been the ones putting military troops in Japan they would not be the industrius rich nation they are today.


Quote[/b] ]
3. They could conventionaly bomb Japan into the stone age. Probably it would cost more (Japanese) lives and (American) money, not to mention that they wouldn't justify to the taxpayers the 2 billion dollars investment to the A-Bomb. And it would give Stalin the chance to seize control of China too. And the last seems to have been the nightmare of USA at the point.


Uuummm in what way would this have been good?


Quote[/b] ]
4. They could starve Japan to an unconditional surrender. There was no food, no oil, no nothing on Japan at the time. A blockade for 6-9 months would bring Japan to the point of extinction. But that wouldn't fit the plans of USA because of the above reasons (give Stalin time to expand his sphere of influence and deprive USA from the chance to test the bomb, for strategical and show-off reasons).


Oh yes, lets starve millions of people to death, a great solution. And for every bit of influence denied Stalin and soviets one should be thankful.


Quote[/b] ]
5. They could simply invade. Yes, it would cost the (precious, nevertheless) lives of many, many servicemen, but in 6 months (without the Russkies) or 3 months (with the Russkies) the empire would lie in rabbles. But, I guess, American lives are too precious to waste...


Yes invading was an option but it is true it would cost many lives. Im not at all sure where u get ur timeframe though, u sound awfully sure, to sure i think.

And what do u mean with american lives are to precius to waste??? Lmao, I think they proved in numerous situations especially in this war we discuss here that they were prepared to fight, bleed and die for others then only themselves.

By the way I seriously doubt Stalin had the transports needed to ship his mighty army over to Japan any time soon.

Kalle

[Brutal DLX]

The decision to let people starve would be put into the hands of the Japanese. It is an indirect pressure. If they surrender, the blockade would be lifted. Japan can support itself food-wise if rations are limited for a while. However, there would be no chance for trading or to break the blockade with the resources and capacity left in Japan.
These arguments would make even the most fanatic military commander consider capitulation, especially, if the allies offered the retention of the emperor too, as was suggested by some statesmen.
Of all possible actions in that war, this would seem to me like the least atrocious one to win...

[Rosacrux]

[QUOTE=Quote ]1. They could accept the surrender of Japan (they have offered to surrender, through USSR and directly to
I believe the allies had agreed upon that an unconditional surrender was the only thing acceptable. The war in europe could also have ended sooner since germany also sue for peace. This would not have solved anything as i think u know.
In what way does the one (practically) condition the Japanese have stripped their demands down ("keep the emperor") stood in the way of peace?


Quote[/b] ]This must be the most inhumane and unrealistic proposition i have seen. Not only would hundreds of thousands (both russians and japanese) die during the invasion and war. But after it Japan would be in the hands of the soviets like eastern europe. Condemning the Japanese to another 50 years of torture, gulag and hell. Had the russians been the ones putting military troops in Japan they would not be the industrius rich nation they are today.

I won't get into the political side of it, since it is completely irrelevant not to mention that it is the most amoralistic stuff I've read in a great deal of time - "nuke them to keep them off the commie block" http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif I guess that's the same thinking that led the "leader of the western world" to establish about 60 bloody, ruthless, savage dictators worldwide in the post WW2 world.

I said there was a host of alternatives to the A-bomb. Loki has called me upon that and I've written down the alternatives - personally I would go with option 1 = accept their surrender.

Obex

I am afraid you got my message terribly wrong. I was trying to show Loki, who "has read books", what the A-bomb is all about. Why do you keep the subject tied to that link and not to a rather large post explaining with reason and political thinking what this whole thing is about?

Methinks you do not respond better to logic, but to Ad Officio statements - "if someone big said it, it must be worth it". Quotes is not logic, logic is analytical and critical thinking. Quotes is pre-chewed food or, at best, the incentive to make you wish to dig for more info. But to reach (whatever) truth, you actually need to analyze things and use your own mind.

Nothing personal, just wish to put things into the right perspective.

[Crimson Castle]

Despite all the arguments - you can't argue against the facts. It took no less than TWO A-bombs to force the surrender of Japan - not to mention the near destruction of all their major cities, the annilation of their once proud navy, and a 100% proof blockade etc..

If the Japanese were really serious about surrendering - they would have sent peace negotiators to the US in 1944 after the fall of Saipan - and guess what the local Japanese population in Saipan did?

And don't forget - the Japanese were holding and brutalizing their Asian slaves and POWs - at the same time. Think of them before calling for the halt of the a-bomb.

[rasoforos]

Quote[/b] (Crimson Castle @ Feb. 10 2004,05:17)]Despite all the arguments - you can't argue against the facts. It took no less than TWO A-bombs to force the surrender of Japan - not to mention the near destruction of all their major cities, the annilation of their once proud navy, and a 100% proof blockade etc..

If the Japanese were really serious about surrendering - they would have sent peace negotiators to the US in 1944 after the fall of Saipan - and guess what the local Japanese population in Saipan did?

And don't forget - the Japanese were holding and brutalizing their Asian slaves and POWs - at the same time. Think of them before calling for the halt of the a-bomb.
Yeah ok , the japanese had a warlike regime and every warlike regime deserves to be dethroned. WHAT did the civilians who served as guinea pigs for the bomb have to do with it?

[Beirut]

Ser Clegane,

I understand that you find this revolting. And I think the people who were alive at the time, after six years of war and fifty million dead, were revolted as well at the whole process of war destroying the very fabric of society.

As for the people already realizing that another war would be intolerable, many did not. Perhaps in retrospect we could say that just as WWI began WWII, so did WWII begin the Cold War. But the bombs left a very powerful impression that certain lines could not be crossed. And the knowledge that the US had them and was willing to use them, IMHO, kept Stalin, a mass murderer on par with Hitler, from getting ahead of himself (more than he did). The bombs were the exclamation point we both refer to. It was a way of saying "The war is over. Do you understand"

Germany, being in the middle of Europe and several armies, was finished militarily. Japan was going to be invaded by the US alone (for the most part) and as stated, after years of carnage and millions of dead, how could anyone refuse the chance of ending things more swftly. Besides, the bombs is reality did little more, and less in cases, damage than conventional air raids. If lives are the most important thing, we should not be discussing the bombs, but the conventional bombing of Tokyo that killed 83,000 in one night.

Also, and this is where it gets weird, there is the (possible) racial aspect to who would be the recipient of the bomb. I'l leave that to someone else to dive into.

And, this is so important, Japan started the war and propogated it in ways that bring the word revolting to new and unprecedented heights.

[Crimson Castle]

Quote[/b] (rasoforos @ Feb. 10 2004,11:33)]
Yeah ok , the japanese had a warlike regime and every warlike regime deserves to be dethroned. WHAT did the civilians who served as guinea pigs for the bomb have to do with it?[/QUOTE]
Fine, if they wanna be warlike. But noone asked Japan to go out and conquer China and the rest of Asia.

As for the civilians in Hiroshima - well you have to remember that the HQ for the 2nd Army, which would direct the defense of Kyushu, was based there. The city was also a manufacturing center for ball-bearings needed for warplanes etc.., and a staging area for Japanese troops.

War is a cruel thing. You should know that. What matters most is that the side that is less evil wins. You can talk til you're blue in the face about the morality of the A-bombs. But the fact remains that the Japanese in 1945 were still holding large sections of Asia - together with their civilian populations + prisoners of war - hostage and treating them as bad as the Nazis.

And check it out, after the war, look at Japan and Germany now. Both surrendered unconditionally, and we have had peace between the major nations for over 50 years.

[Ser Clegane]

Quote[/b] (Crimson Castle @ Feb. 10 2004,09:14)]War is a cruel thing. You should know that. What matters most is that the side that is less evil wins. You can talk til you're blue in the face about the morality of the A-bombs. But the fact remains that the Japanese in 1945 were still holding large sections of Asia - together with their civilian populations + prisoners of war - hostage and treating them as bad as the Nazis.

And check it out, after the war, look at Japan and Germany now. Both surrendered unconditionally, and we have had peace between the major nations for over 50 years.
The question still is "was dropping the bombs really necessary?"

The quotes that Gallowglass provided that this was not the case and that the surrender cound have been achieved without the bombs (and without an invasion).

The argument that Japan has been at peace afterwards is irrelevant since it does nothing to prove that the situation would have been different without the bomb (it's a bit like putting a murderer to prison for a 20 years and in addition shooting his child and afterwards arguing that the shooting was obviously justified because the burglar did not commit another murder after his time in prison)

[Lazul]

"I have become Death, Destroyer of Worlds" ...any bells ringing?

[Mysterium]

True, all of the quotes in Gallowglass' post support the idea that the A-bomb didn't need to be dropped. But how many of those quotes are from AFTER the A-bomb was dropped? All. How many sources came forward after Sept. 11 to say "they'd seen it coming", if only someone in power had listened to them? A few people made some very hard decisions concerning the A-bomb, and it would be only natural for everyone not ultimately responsible for the dropping of the bomb to distance themselves from it after the decision was made.

I am NOT saying that all of those people are liars. I am NOT saying that none of them brought forward objections to the bomb before it was dropped. But those objections were probably considered, weighed against other factors, and a decision was reached. And after a decision is made to use something as horrendous but possibly necessary as the A-bomb, it's doubtful whether many people are going to be standing on the "All for it" side of the line.

And, in defense of Obex, Gallowglass' post was, indeed, simple statements by people in power. But it was thought-provoking, the staments were rational, and in all, the effect was one of greater logic than a site full of pictures of the atrocities the bomb created. No one here is arguing whether the effects of the bomb (or war, I would think) are horrible. The question is whether they were justifiable.

[Ser Clegane]

Quote[/b] (Mysterium @ Feb. 10 2004,12:33)]But how many of those quotes are from AFTER the A-bomb was dropped? All.
Not quite true - the very first quote already refers to a meeting that took place before the bombs were dropped.

Of course the source itself is from afterwards - but how could it be different (what would you expect - a tape of Eisenhower making a radio announcement where he condemns the plan of dropping the bomb?)

[Mysterium]

Alright, I mighta missed a few in there.

But that's my point. Just as you won't see Eisenhower condemning it before it happens, you won't hear people supporting it after it happened. The best one can do is defend a horrendous action. Besides, while the quote REFERS to a meeting beforehand, it's still after the fact. Again, I'm not saying they're lying, I'm just saying that they're speaking from a world changed by the action itself.

And I did accept that fact that these views were expressed in meetings beforehand, and were - in all likelihood - weighed into the ultimate decision. But after seeing the horrors it caused, you can expect "I wasn't in favor", but who's going to stand up and say they supported it from the start? In the wake of something like that, any supporters would adopt a "what's done is done" attitude.

I put forth that one would be hard pressed to find an equal number of quotes in support of dropping the bomb. And that does not mean more people think, or thought, that it was the wrong action to take.

[Ser Clegane]

Quote[/b] (Mysterium @ Feb. 10 2004,14:44)]But after seeing the horrors it caused, you can expect "I wasn't in favor", but who's going to stand up and say they supported it from the start? In the wake of something like that, any supporters would adopt a "what's done is done" attitude.

I put forth that one would be hard pressed to find an equal number of quotes in support of dropping the bomb. And that does not mean more people think, or thought, that it was the wrong action to take.
I agree - if you made a poll before the bomb was dropped and one afterwards the results would probably differ significantly (however, that does not mean that nobody would support it now, as this thread proves).

Of course things are always looking differently with hindsight, but then - the original question of this thread was "Can you justify the bomb?" to which some people answered yes bringing forward arguments, and some people answered no bringing forward their arguments.

I, personally, could not justify the bomb and I think it is fair to use hindsight to come to this conclusion as it lies in the nature of things to judge actions after they happened.

A lot of terrible actions that happen during a war can be explained - but that still does not make them right.

[Mysterium]

Quote[/b] (Ser Clegane @ Feb. 10 2004,13:02)]I agree - if you made a poll before the bomb was dropped and one afterwards the results would probably differ significantly (however, that does not mean that nobody would support it now, as this thread proves).

My point is that, while that thread is interesting, informative, and thought-provoking, it proves nothing. If anyone can find equally rational and informed views in favor, the credence of both will increase tenfold.

As to two popular objections, I pose two questions.

One, if a test of a nuclear warhead in a prominent place near Japan would've demonstrably scared the government into surrender, why were TWO dropped? And I don't think it was because the American gov't is simply trigger happy (at least not then. These days, I ain't so sure).

Two, in what way does what happened differ - politically and strategically - from fire-bombing the snot out of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

[Ser Clegane]

Quote[/b] (Mysterium @ Feb. 10 2004,15:12)]Two, in what way does what happened differ - politically and strategically - from fire-bombing the snot out of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
At least IMO it does not differ much - we had a similar thread going on reagrding the bombings of Dresden and Hamburg http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin....;t=2077 (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=3;t=2077)

In both cases the question would have to be if the action taken was necessary to prevent greater suffering and was there to viable alternative.

[Beirut]

Since we are discussing history, in humanitarian terms, I find it very interesting that we are focused on what happened to the Japanese.

If the people who are against the bomb are against it for humanitarian reasons, why has there been no, or at least very, very little, discussion of what the Japanese did to others as opposed to what "we" did to them.

The innocent that died in Japan numbered, probably, in the hundreds of thousand at least. The innocents that Japan raped and killed number, certainly, in the millions.

If humanitarianism is paramount, and the lives of the innocents killed are to be mourned above all, then my heart, first and foremost, goes out to the Koreans and the Chinese. The true victims of the war.

The A-bombs are merely a politcal focal point for those who do not like history as it unfolded. The focus on two bombings that killed, perhaps, 150,000 to 250,000 out of a war that killed 50,000,000 and saw entire peoples nearly put to extinction, is nothing but political wordplay and politics gone astray.

[Loki]

OKEY Dokey,

Sorry all, was busy with work and family, but I'm back now. Rosacrux: That was a very weak effort at best I ask you for what you had read on the subject and you post a link to a website with some pictures of dead bodies and phoney quotes, (notice they are not attributed to anyone).

What exactly was so horrible about that site (you warned everyone of extreme GORE). Dead bodies are dead bodies. I am in no way being callous about this, my point is simply that ALL war and DEATH is horrible, not just what happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those bodies are not any more or less horrible than the dead bodies at Dresden, London, Pearl Harbor etc. etc. etc.

I fervently wish that WWI and WWII had never happened. That Hitler had never come to power. That the militarists had never come to power in Japan. But they did.

As far as your "dozens of ways" list goes, you listed

1) Accept Japans surrender: To little too late. Too many mixed messages from Dai Nippon regarding surrender. I love to counter your emotional views with facts but should you ever want to read up on this here are some good sources and quotes.

No End Save Victory: Perspectives on World War II, edited by Robert Cowley (G.P. Putnam's Sons, New York 2001), is a collection of essays by distinguished historians. The very last essay, entitled "The Voice of the Crane," by Thomas B. Allen and Norman Polmar, reveals that in spite of the bombs, and Hirohito's recorded proclamation accepting President Truman's Potsdam Proclamation demanding unconditional surrender, elements of the Japanese Supreme Council for the Direction of the War, including Korechika Anami, Admiral Soemu Toyoda and General Yoshijiro Umezu, supported a coup that would remove the Emperor. They would destroy the surrender recording, engage the Allies in a fight to the death on the home islands, and turn American opinion against the war, forcing a negotiated peace.

Hirohito's "surrender" message (which, by the way, never acknowledged surrender nor any remorse for any Japanese actions in the war) was not broadcast live because he was not an accomplished public speaker and did not want the Japanese people, most of whom had never before heard his voice, to hear him stumble or stutter. Two readings were completed and two sets of two-record 78 rpm recordings were made.

The Imperial Japanese Army headquarters sent statements to the newspapers after the bombing that the army would fight on. But the coup, supported by some members of the cabinet, ultimately failed as we now know. Still, several members of the cabinet and many more military officers committed seppuku. Before the recordings could be played, members of the coup attempted to take over the NHK radio studio and prevent the broadcast. At noon on August 15, the "voice of the crane" was heard for the first time by that generation when Hirohito announced the surrender. This was at 6 P.M. the previous day in Washington, in time for President Truman to add to his address the American people that the war was over.

2)They could let the Soviets do the "dirty job": Not Sure if you are being serious here or not? How is it moraly OK for the soviets to invade (and most likely kill more innocent civilians) than us drop the bomb? Are you really serious or were you being facetious? Are you honestly taking the position that the long term outlook for the Japanese would have been better in this scenario? I think alot of Japanese would disagree with you about this. What you and most of the other Abomb revisionists must admit was that the bomb saved many thousands of lives (both allied and Japanes). Its just simple mathamatics. whether you want them to die of starvation, bullets, stab wounds, disease, artillery, conventional bombs, incendiary bombs and firestorms, the net was that many more people were going to die.

3) They could conventionaly bomb Japan into the stone age.: This is so moraly repugnant I can't even think of a reply. Can someone else help me out here? How is OK with you to kill more civilians as long as they are with conventional bombs? See my points above in #2.

4) They could starve Japan to an unconditional surrender: Wrong again If you had read up on this subject you would understand that there was no global economy then. Japan was a rice based society. They certainly would be doing without any imports, BUT THE DIDN'T NEED IMPORTS TO FEED THEIR PEOPLE Many of you are history buffs here, and as such you must know what happens in times of siege like this. The army gets fed first. That means that women and children and the old die like flies. Good solution Rosacrux. Here's more reading for you.

by James Martin Davis
reprinted from the Omaha World Herald:
Admiral William Leahy estimated that there would be more than 250,000 Americans killed or wounded on Kyushu alone. General Charles Willoughby, chief of intelligence for General Douglas MacArthur, the Supreme Commander of the Southwest Pacific, estimated American casualties would be one million men by the fall of 1946. Willoughby's own intelligence staff considered this to be a conservative estimate.

During the summer of 1945, America had little time to prepare for such an endeavor, but top military leaders were in almost unanimous agreement that an invasion was necessary.

While naval blockade and strategic bombing of Japan was considered to be useful, General MacArthur, for instance, did not believe a blockade would bring about an unconditional surrender. The advocates for invasion agreed that while a naval blockade chokes, it does not kill; and though strategic bombing might destroy cities, it leaves whole armies intact.

So on May 25, 1945, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, after extensive deliberation, issued to General MacArthur, Admiral Chester Nimitz, and Army Air Force General Henry Arnold, the top secret directive to proceed with the invasion of Kyushu. The target date was after the typhoon season....

5. They could simply invade: See point 2,3 and 4 above. Once again you feign horror at the bomb and your alternative is a solution that would kill many more men women and children on both sides Makes no sense, and worse your estimate of how long the invasion would have taken is ludicrous. The people involved in the planning of it were saying between 18 months and 3 years.

Rosacrux, you started off this thread with a poll and proudly told everyone what your opinion was. When people questioned you about it and asked you for the sources that you based your opinion on you had no response except a website with some pictures and unattributable quotes. Of course in America we believe in free speach and the freedom of ideas so you have every right to your opinion. In fact I would defend your right to disagree with me. But what I must ask you to do is admit that your opinion on this topic is coming from an emotional source not a factual source.


http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-toff.gif

[Loki]

Interesting reply Galowglass

At least you've taken the time to read up on the subject before forming your opinion (Unlike some). I can respect that, even though our opinions after your research do not agree...... Or was it really after? What I mean to say is, was your opinion formed after you did your reasearch? Or rather did you have a preconcieved notion and then go looking for material to support your position? This is one of the historians most deadly traps. Let me take a moment to quote from one of your own sources.
By Capt. Ellis M. Zacharias, USN


Quote[/b] ]What prevented them from suing for peace or from bringing their plot into the open was their uncertainty on two scores. First, they wanted to know the meaning of unconditional surrender and the fate we planned for Japan after defeat. Second, they tried to obtain from us assurances that the Emperor could remain on the throne after surrender. As long as there was doubt on these issues, they decided to remain in the background and to support Premier Koiso's efforts to prolong the war.

The atmosphere created by the implied ambiguity of the term "unconditional surrender" was skillfully exploited by the Japanese. In their propaganda to their own people they represented unconditional surrender as meaning total destruction. In their propaganda beamed to us, they emphasized the Japanese determination to fight to the bitter end. Of course, their maneuvers were not confined to routine propaganda. (my emphasis) You can always find agents and operatives who are willing to face both ways at the same time. Such agents were used by the Japanese extensively, planting with us "unimpeachable" reports, all describing Japan as far stronger and more determined than she really was.

It was a peculiar situation, but characteristic of the last stages of a global war. When we analyzed the Japanese designs, manifested in their frantic diplomatic plants, we recalled similar German efforts in 1918, and discounted them. But we could not fail to recognize that in so far as psychological warfare was concerned, Japan had the initiative and made the best possible use of it. Our own psychological warfare was on the defensive. We ourselves supported the Japanese campaign by conducting a public debate about the meaning of unconditional surrender and describing the Japanese war as a long, hard fight requiring the total mobilization of our strength.

And so we see here that the Japanese government influential insiders, although being carpet bombed virtually daily and suffering unimaginable civilian casualties, are perfectly willing to sit on their hands and MAKE NO OVERT EFFORT to sue for peace and actually let the war continue.

Again from your source Capt. Ellis M. Zacharias, USN


Quote[/b] ]Voices were loud in the United States that Japan would never surrender. One experienced veteran of the Pacific war said "Japan will have to be defeated in China, but even then the war will continue until 1947, and possibly until 1948." An official release of the Office of War Information in the fall of 1944 estimated that the defeat of Japan would require a minimum of eighteen months after the collapse of Germany.

All these prognostications and judgments were justified, in as much as they were made solely on the basis of military factors. My long association with the Japanese had convinced me, however, that in so far as Japan was concerned, the psychological factors outweighed all other considerations.

Actually if you read the entirety of Zacharias' text you'll agree that he feels it was his Psy War campaign that won the surrender NOT the bombs.


JAPAN LOOKS FOR A WAY OUT OF THE WAR
Emperor Hirohito approved the appointment of the aged Admiral Kantaro Suzuki as the new Prime Minister. But Suzuki's government was hobbled by severe tensions between civilian politicians interested in peace and die-hard military leaders who wished to fight a last battle in Japan. Surrender could not be openly discussed, nor could direct negotiations with the United States be undertaken, because hawkish Army generals dominated the government. As a result, opportunities to end the war early were greatly limited.

NUCLEAR VERSUS CONVENTIONAL BOMBING

Many of the decision-makers knowledgeable about the bomb did not consider it drastically different from conventional strategic bombing, which had already killed hundreds of thousands of civilians throughout the world. Nor was there any guarantee that the bomb would automatically end the war.

When Oppenheimer suggested on May 31 that several atomic attacks be carried out on the same day to shock the Japanese, Groves opposed the idea on the grounds that "the effect would not be sufficiently distinct from our regular air force [bombing] program." At that time, the firebombing of Japan had already devastated many cities. The explosive power of the first atomic bombs was also estimated at only 1/10th to 1/2 of what it turned out to be, and no one had a clear impression of the heat and radiation effects.

With these types of discussions that take place many years after the fact, it is important to try to remember what was known and NOT known at the time the decision was made. For instance, even the scientists that made the bomb were unsure of its exact power as stated above. They also didn't know the exact effects or casualties after the first one was dropped. These facts were not gathered for many months after the horrible event. Yes that's right I said horrible. The whole world war was one of humanities darkest hours. However the casualties of Hiroshima and Nagasaki deserve no special consideration above the casualties of Nanking, Seoul, The Phillipines, London, Paris Berlin, Auschwitz, Stalingrad.... And sadly the list goes on and on and on.



http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-book2.gif

[Beirut]

Loki,

Bravo. Excellent post.

I appreciate that you brought up the equality of devastation between conventional and atomic bombings so well.

To draw another historical anology, it is written that Scipio Africanus burned and killed 40,000 Carthaginians in one night on a raid on two camps in North Africa. Two thousand years later, it took more than a week of sustained fire bombing to kill the equal number in Hamburg during Operation Gomorah.

So how do we deal with this? Do we admonish Rome as inhumane because they killed as many in one night as it took the Allies a week with thousands of air sorties? And does this absolve the Allies of causing innocents to die in Hamburgh because they performed the killing with less expediency? Is it all a numbers game played with revisionist history?

If Hiroshima and Nagasaki were laid waste with conventional bombs instead of atomic, my guess is barely a word would be mentioned. This focus on the atomic bombs, and the people who used them, is misplaced and bordering on contemptuous hypocrisy.

If someone is stabbed to death, they blame the murderer. If someone is shot, they blame the gun maker. It is ridiculous that the tool is worse than the intention or the outcome.

[Obex]

Ive got to agree with you, Beirut. Mostly.

The problem, however, is the lingering side effects of the a-bombs. Conventional bombs or a-bombs, the cities could both have been destroyed, but the associated radioactivity introduced by atomic weapons continued to kill innocents for generations. This is the objectionable factor, as far as im concerned, not just the number kill in a single blast.

Rosacrux - i suspect that you are feeling a little defensive, so ill try to look past the contemptuous and patronizing tone of your last comments directed to me. Mysterium defended my point sufficiently, without tempting me towards the evils of sarcasm for which i was recently censored elsewhere. Understand that my disregard for your linked site wasnt intended as a personal slight.

[Crimson Castle]

Quote[/b] (Ser Clegane @ Feb. 10 2004,14:45)]
The question still is "was dropping the bombs really necessary?"

The quotes that Gallowglass provided that this was not the case and that the surrender cound have been achieved without the bombs (and without an invasion).[/QUOTE]
Yes, mentioned already. A lot of those quotes were done after the war had ended. After the conflict, plenty of retrospection can be done.

Put yourself in the shoes of the US sailors, marines and soldiers - not to mention the Asian slaves and Prisoners of War of Japan.

Would you have said in 1945. "We have a bomb that can end the war???? Hell no We shouldn't use it - we'll wait for awhile and see how things go. Never mind the torment of the comfort women (sex-slaves), and the horrendous conditions of the prisoners of war and occupied populations."

The question should have been - why didn't the Japanese surrender prior to the dropping of the A-bomb?"

Why did it take no less than two a-bombs to force the Japanese to surrender? And even then There were many in Japan who wanted to carry on the war"

Doesn't it remind you of the much amputated Knight in the Monty Pythons's Holy Grail???

[Loki]

It's a good point Obex and one I've tried really hard to research.

Undoubtedly there was lingering radioactivity at both cities. What I have been unable to find are good solid facts on the exact numbers of deaths and birth defects caused by "radiation" specifically.

Unfortunately post war Japan as a whole suffered from birth defects due to the effects of pesticides, industrial pollutants, mercury etc. For some chroniclers all birth defects (regardless of cause or location) were attributed to "The Bomb". It's even harder to track because the war itself caused a huge upheaval in Japanese society (not to mention the loss or destruction of records and files) so that people migrated all over the country.

Someone who during the war moved away from Hiroshima/Nagasaki to the far North (before the bombs were dropped) and then later suffered an ailment (like cancer) or gave birth to a child with a birth defect were counted as a statistic (attributed to radiation) because they gave their hometown as Hiro/Naga. I have found wildly ranging estimates on this topic, but one thing I am fairly certain of is that the number of people affected by these problems were far less in number than the people that would have been outright killed in Rosacrux's invasion/carpet bombing scenario. And that doesn't even take into account the maimings woundings disfigurements etc. etc. etc.

The devastating effects of both kinds of bombs depended essentially upon the energy released at the moment of the explosion, causing immediate fires, destructive blast pressures, and extreme local radiation exposures. Since the bombs were detonated at a height of some 600 meters above the ground, very little of the fission products were deposited on the ground beneath. Some deposition occurred however in areas near to each city, owing to local rainfall occurring soon after the explosions. This happened at positions a few kms to the east of Nagasaki, and in areas to the west & north-west of Hiroshima. For the most part, however, these fission products were carried high into the upper atmosphere by the heat generated in the explosion itself.

In Hiroshima, of a resident civilian population of 250 000 it was estimated that 45,000 died on the 1st day and a further 19,000 during the subsequent 4 months. In Nagasaki, out of a population of 174,000, 22,000 died on the 1st day and another 17,000 within 4 months. Unrecorded deaths of military personnel and foreign workers may have added considerably to these figures.

It is impossible to estimate the proportion of these 103,000 deaths, or of the further deaths in military personnel, which were due to radiation exposure rather than to the very high temperatures and blast pressures caused by the explosions. From the estimated radiation levels, however, it is apparent that radiation alone would not have been enough cause death in most of those exposed beyond 1 km of the ground zero below the bombs. Most deaths appear to have been from the explosion rather than the radiation.

To the 103,000 deaths from the blast or acute radiation exposure have since been added those due to radiation induced cancers and leukemia, which amounted to some 400 within 30 yrs, and which may ultimately reach about 550. Some 93,000 exposed survivors are still being monitored.

Teratogenic effects on fetuses was severe among those heavily exposed, resulting in birth deformities and stillbirths over the next 9 months. Beyond this, no genetic damage has been detected in survivors` children, despite careful and continuing investigation by a joint Japanese-US Foundation.

The other meaningful thing regarding your point to keep in mind is that both cities are currently shining beautiful metropolises that hold many more times the number of inhabitants than they originally did.

[Pindar]

Loki,

I just came across this thread. Well done on your responses to revisionist sentiments.


Quote[/b] ]Undoubtedly there was lingering radioactivity at both cities. What I have been unable to find are good solid facts on the exact numbers of deaths and birth defects caused by "radiation" specifically.


I actually lived in Japan for eight years. Part of that time involved being in Hiroshima. All of the data, on the effects of radiation, I have seen has indicated no credible evidence of multi-generational radiation. The Peace Park and memorials to the bomb certainly exist, but radiation effects due to the bomb do not appear to have visited the subsequent generations of Japanese.

As I looked over some of the posts here and the critiques of actual events as they played out I was stuck by one feature: war theory is typically justified along utilitarian lines. Those who have offered counter proposals of invasion or a blockade are faced with the fact such policy would have killed vastly larger numbers of Japanese. Those who condemn the bomb simply because of what it is, are introducing a position to judge based along a position other than utility. Just what the parameters are for this counter view remain unclear. If it is a pacifism then the whole war lies condemned. If it is the singleness of the action and the subsequent deaths involved, then the view appears arbitrary given fire bombing killed larger numbers and there are other European bombing episodes (i.e. Dresden) where more died as well. I am uncertain what grounds one can provide for a blanket condemnation of the bomb once utility is no longer an issue.

[Obex]

Quote[/b] ]Teratogenic effects on fetuses was severe among those heavily exposed, resulting in birth deformities and stillbirths over the next 9 months. Beyond this, no genetic damage has been detected in survivors` children, despite careful and continuing investigation by a joint Japanese-US Foundation.


Thats very interesting. Im going to look into this a little further, as my hippie public educators have led me to believe otherwise.

As a side note, im personally glad a mainland invasion wasnt attempted. My grandfather would have been in one of the initial waves to try the beach landing, which would have greatly reduced my chances to be born and offer random, sarcastic non sequiturs here at the org.

[rasoforos]

Quote[/b] (Obex @ Feb. 11 2004,01:55)]
Quote[/b] ]Teratogenic effects on fetuses was severe among those heavily exposed, resulting in birth deformities and stillbirths over the next 9 months. Beyond this, no genetic damage has been detected in survivors` children, despite careful and continuing investigation by a joint Japanese-US Foundation.


Thats very interesting. Im going to look into this a little further, as my hippie public educators have led me to believe otherwise.
Yep. Yhe rdioactive fallout decided that 9 months in Japan was enough and proably went to Hawaii for a bit of Vacation... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif


IN any case , both sides argue righteously and sit confortably on their own arguments and NOONE tries to give a DECENT argument to the question ' why wasnt the bomb used in uninhabited areas near cities to demonstrate its potential BEFORE it was really used on people' . So i m asking it again...
Its moral to try to find the easier and less lethal way to end a war....unless you need guinnea pigs for your new toy.

[Crimson Castle]

Quote[/b] (rasoforos @ Feb. 11 2004,09:36)]IN any case , both sides argue righteously and sit confortably on their own arguments and NOONE tries to give a DECENT argument to the question ' why wasnt the bomb used in uninhabited areas near cities to demonstrate its potential BEFORE it was really used on people' . So i m asking it again...
Its moral to try to find the easier and less lethal way to end a war....unless you need guinnea pigs for your new toy.
Hello there,

Look here - what makes you think a bomb test would have changed their minds?

What about the continuous bombing and destruction of the Japanese cities?

What about the utter destruction of the entire once mighty Japanese Navy?

What about the utter annihilation of entire Japanese Army Groups in Saipan, the Phillipines, Guadalcanal, New Guinea etc..?

What about the complete blockade of Japan that was causing their entire population to starve to death?

Any number of these things should have caused them to sue by peace in 1944 not 1945.

But they didn't surrender.

And look - it took no less than two A-bombs to force them to surrender. Two not one.

And before you start criticizing the US and using words like "guinea pigs", can you please look at how the Japanese were treating their "comfort women" and prisoners of war?

[Brutal DLX]

Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Feb. 11 2004,06:44)]As I looked over some of the posts here and the critiques of actual events as they played out I was stuck by one feature: war theory is typically justified along utilitarian lines. Those who have offered counter proposals of invasion or a blockade are faced with the fact such policy would have killed vastly larger numbers of Japanese. Those who condemn the bomb simply because of what it is, are introducing a position to judge based along a position other than utility. Just what the parameters are for this counter view remain unclear. If it is a pacifism then the whole war lies condemned. If it is the singleness of the action and the subsequent deaths involved, then the view appears arbitrary given fire bombing killed larger numbers and there are other European bombing episodes (i.e. Dresden) where more died as well. I am uncertain what grounds one can provide for a blanket condemnation of the bomb once utility is no longer an issue.
Pindar, it's not quite appropriate to give labels such as "revisionist" to some sentiments when you apparently just looked over the posts and not read them in detail. This is a sensitive topic and requires an according approach.
I can only speak for myself, and I will try to explain my position concerning the quoted question you raised:
My parameters are quite clear, I cannot justify the dropping of the bomb on a moral level, as it is just another warcrime that obviously happens in every war. This of course means I cannot morally justify war at all and it doesn't matter if you kill less people in this way than in others. As long as you kill, especially civilians, you make yourself guilty of crimes angainst humanity.
Some of the alternative ways suggested are just an option to come out of this war not only as the winner, but also as the one who didn't have to resort to additional atrocities to win it. This is due to the reason the war is being fought by the the opposing countries. For Japan, it was clearly Asian superiority and aquisition of additional resources. For the US it was fought to defend themselves and the values of humanity they propagate (That's the official position from which we have to start, before you call me naive.). Committing comparable war crimes of killing innocents as the Japanese or others did when there are possible alternatives that save as many lives as possible, even though more costly, defy those very same values. One has to stick to them through good or bad, otherwise one is left with a questionable reputation concerning said values.

On a logical level, when people's lives are reduced to numbers, it is, as I priorly stated, possible to find reasons to justify the use of the bombs as a means to quickly end the war and achieve a few secondary goals as well (warning to Russia etc). It's not the only option, but in fact, it may have been the most efficient way to achieve the most with the least effort. However, this implies that the official position isn't true and that this war was lead with lack of conscience and adherence to human values/rights (which, I believe are included in the constitution of the USA) and would place them on an equal level with their opponents. The purpose doesn't justify all means at all costs when all things are considered.

[Brutal DLX]

I would guess that the second bomb was dropped to show that the US had more than one unit of this weapon, and thus a whole bomber fleet equipped with these could eradicate all of Japan rather quickly.
You have to remember that it was a new weapon that no one had ever seen before, until the Japanese command could get a physicist to figure out what hit them and whether the Allied explanation is true, it took a while. Of course the Japanese didn't surrender easily due to their mind set and the many hardliners in the military, and of course we can only theorise about what else could have made them surrender. Yet we have no proof that the bomb was the only thing, especially because we have reason to think there have been slight attempts to negotiate with the Allies before.

[Crimson Castle]

Yah, sure. Dropping the A-bomb was immoral. Let's give the Japanese military leaders what they want. Aw, forget about the Rape of Nanking. Forget about the Asian civilians, prisoners-of-war that are dying everyday under Japanese military rule.

Let's wait awhile and negotiate.

LOL


http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP3.HTM

"From the invasion of China in 1937 to the end of World War II, the Japanese military regime murdered near 3,000,000 to over 10,000,000 people, most probably almost 6,000,000 Chinese, Indonesians, Koreans, Filipinos, and Indochinese, among others, including Western prisoners of war."

[Loki]

Brutal,

I totally understand your point. I have wracked my brain thinking on this same subject. I have run different scenarios through my head over and over. Here is your argument...


Quote[/b] ]My parameters are quite clear, I cannot justify the dropping of the bomb on a moral level, as it is just another warcrime that obviously happens in every war. This of course means I cannot morally justify war at all and it doesn't matter if you kill less people in this way than in others. As long as you kill, especially civilians, you make yourself guilty of crimes angainst humanity.
Some of the alternative ways suggested are just an option to come out of this war not only as the winner, but also as the one who didn't have to resort to additional atrocities to win it. This is due to the reason the war is being fought by the the opposing countries.

The first thing that comes to mind here is the question, "What if your enemy is ready willing and able to kill your civilians (who make your food stuffs and manufacture your military hardware, and you are not willing to do the same?" That obvious question put aside, the biggest problem with your statement, is the argument that there was a way to end the war and cause less casualties than dropping the bomb. This clearly is not the case. A naval blockade would not have ended the war. Remember, Japan is not a castle we would be besieging, it was a country. We would have had no way to cut off water and food. The Japanese, being a very hard working, industrious and clever people would have tilled gardens like mad and although they would have done without many imported goods, a naval blockade would not have removed their armies numbers or their willingness to fight. Another thing to remember here is that Japan had recalled most of its front-line battle hardened troops to the main land for a last stand. I have some good data on this if anyone is interested. Some have argued that this strategy would have further entrenched the militarists that were then running the government, further removing any chance of a peace offering.

Here is some interesting reading on the subject

Quote[/b] ]Source of additional casualties Notes and Survey References Japanese military and civilian casualties resulting from continued air attack. The Survey's pet scheme was to interdict transportation. It believed this would have "reduced Japan to a series of isolated communities, incapable of any sustained industrial production, incapable of moving food from the agricultural areas to the cities, and incapable of rapid large-scale movements of troops and munitions." (Summary Report, p. 19). In addition, the Survey said, "In order to bring maximum pressure on the civilian population and to complicate further the Japanese economic problems, night and bad weather attacks on urban areas could have been carried out simultaneously with the transportation attack." (Summary Report, p. 20) Given that 185,000 casualties were sustained during the first Tokyo attack on 9 March 1945 (Summary Report, p. 20), it seems likely that direct casualties from continued conventional bombardment would have exceeded those caused by the atomic bombs. Civilian casualties from malnutrition and disease. "The average diet suffered even more drastically from reductions in fats, vitamins and minerals required for balance and adversely affected rates of recovery and mortality from disease and bomb injuries. Undernourishment produced a major increase in the incidence of beriberi and tuberculosis." (Summary Report, p.21) Obviously significant casualties would have accrued, had the war been prolonged several months, from malnutrition and disease. (Remember that antibiotic treatment for tuberculosis and other bacterial infections was not available to Japanese civilians at that time.) Japanese military casualties in bypassed areas. "In the Central Pacific, many of the islands the Japanese expected us to attack were bypassed, and the garrisons left to wither and die. Survey examination of the bypassed islands in the Pacific and interrogation of the Japanese survivors confirmed their intolerable situation. Their planes and ground installations were destroyed by air attack. Cut off from any supplies or reinforcements, except occasionally by submarine, their food ran out. On certain of the islands, Japanese actually ate Japanese." (Summary Report, p. 13) Prolonging the war would have resulted in even greater suffering for these soldiers, and for any civilians unfortunate enough to be on the same islands. Civilian casualties in Japanese-occupied areas. The savage mistreatment of civilians in Japanese-occupied China (e.g. germ warfare experiments and promiscuous slaughter of civilians) and French Indo-China (more slaughter, including the use of mustard gas) is well known. These areas were still in Japanese possession at the time of the Japanese surrender. Prolonging the war would have prolonged the agony of these civilian populations. United States military casualties. Although those who criticize the use of the atomic bombs seem not to care at all about U.S. military casualties, the result of continuing the war for several additional months would have been substantial casualties -- from combat, tropical diseases, accidents and losses at sea. Economic cost of continuing the war. False piety aside, war is a very expensive business, and delaying our demobilization by several months would have been very, very costly.


Of course there is always Rosacrux's solution to carpet bomb them into submission. Personally I find this so morally repugnant that I find it hard to piece together a coherent reply. Hopefully the other readers of this thread will help me out here.

From a moral standpoint, you are 100% correct. The problem is that war is not moral. All war is an abomination.

[Obex]

Quote[/b] ]From a moral standpoint, you are 100% correct. The problem is that war is not moral. All war is an abomination.

Brutal DLX, Loki,

Is it your opinion that the allied opposition to the axis powers was immoral, or that the war initiated by the axis powers was immoral in general? If ALL war is an abomination, then what would be the moral solution to the war waged by the axis powers throughout europe, asia, and africa?

[Loki]

Obex,

My point was that once war is joined, arguments regarding morality are difficult to put forth, particularly when your enemy is willing to wage "Total War" (defined as war acts being targeted at all members of a society not just the military of said society). This situation becomes even more cloudy when you look at two warring societies that have completely different ethical/religious frameworks by which they judge their own actions by. Civilized societies have recognized this for some time and tried to put forth overarching rules to govern conduct during conflict (Geneva convention etc.)

As a footnote it was very clear from the outset (invasion of China Korea) that the Japanese were not abiding by these rules.

Noted Japanese Ace Saburo Sakai said it best when asked about the Atomic bomb.


Quote[/b] ]Saburo Sakai On the atomic bomb:
Once, I was on a discussion panel with [Enola Gay pilot] Col. Paul Tibbets in the U.S. and somebody asked me what I thought about the A-bomb. I said "If Japan had had the bomb, and they told me to fly the plane that carried it and bomb San Francisco or something, I would have done it gladly. That's a soldier's job. To follow orders and fight for his country." I think Tibbets was a great hero for the U.S. To fly out there with just two B-29s and no fighter escort, that takes a lot of guts. At the time, nobody knew about the A-bomb; there was no international treaty against its use, like there was for chemical weapons. The U.S. even dropped leaflets warning people in Hiroshima that a new weapon was going to be used. That's just war.

Please don't misunderstand my stance here. I am in no way an apologist for the axis powers during WWII. A Friend of mine put it best when we were discussing this thread when he said, "Hey, No Pearl Harbor, No Hiroshima"

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-toff.gif

[Gallowglass]

I must apologise that I have took a while to reply. Work really is a bitch. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-angry.gif

Loki,

To answer your question. To be perfectly honest, I am actually quite new to the proper researching of this subject and at the moment I haven’t really formed my full opinion yet. Both the Pro-Bombers and Anti-Bombers have quite compelling arguments for their cases. Until recently I was very much in the Pro-Bomb camp. Most point of views from historians and sources have more or less gave the view that despite how horrible it was, it had to be done. I must admit I had more or less accepted this view. It was basically holy writ and how dare anyone consider a different view against it

That was when I came across these statements from individuals who were actually in the know and with a very different take on the situation. It was these statements that actually got me wondering. Could it be I was wrong? Could the conventional view of the necessity of the A-Bomb’s be actually a load of crap? Is it really propaganda dressed up to look nice and pretty to the masses? Is it true that those acts didn’t need to have happened....?

You see, these were the thoughts that passed through my mind and I then realised that I wanted to know what the real unvarnished truth was. Were the dropping of the A-Bombs a justified but regrettable act or was it an act that wasn’t really required to end the war and was only done to impress the Russians? I have then went to find out.

At the moment I am researching other sources and other points of view. Please don’t think I am naïve enough to only research sources from the Anti-Bomb camp. I am equally taking on board the views from the Pro-Bombers'. I am happy that after a while I will then be satisfy myself and conclude which was the proper course of action.

My reason for the post is that these quotes, paraphrasing Kant, basically woke me up from my “dogmatic slumbers”. If they do the same for others, then it is all to the good. Other people might get interested and research into what is a very interesting and important subject. They may then be willing to draw their own conclusions and not a view that could be or could not be what they have been spoon-fed to believe.

Also, thanks for your sources, I will take them on board. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-book2.gif

Regards.

P.S. Sorry, but the individuals in my post can’t just be classed as these people, which some posters have designated them. If their points of view differentiate from what many people believe, then tough titty. These views must be considered seriously. They were in a much better position to judge the events than we.

[Crimson Castle]

Quote[/b] (Beirut @ Feb. 10 2004,21:45)]Since we are discussing history, in humanitarian terms, I find it very interesting that we are focused on what happened to the Japanese.

If the people who are against the bomb are against it for humanitarian reasons, why has there been no, or at least very, very little, discussion of what the Japanese did to others as opposed to what "we" did to them.

The innocent that died in Japan numbered, probably, in the hundreds of thousand at least. The innocents that Japan raped and killed number, certainly, in the millions.

If humanitarianism is paramount, and the lives of the innocents killed are to be mourned above all, then my heart, first and foremost, goes out to the Koreans and the Chinese. The true victims of the war.

The A-bombs are merely a politcal focal point for those who do not like history as it unfolded. The focus on two bombings that killed, perhaps, 150,000 to 250,000 out of a war that killed 50,000,000 and saw entire peoples nearly put to extinction, is nothing but political wordplay and politics gone astray.
Excellent argument there Beirut.

People keep on coming up with all sorts of excuses for not dropping the A-bombs.

But none of the detractors have considered the factual evidence for not ending the war sooner.

[Crimson Castle]

Quote[/b] (Loki @ Feb. 11 2004,14:21)]Prolonging the war would have resulted in even greater suffering for these soldiers, and for any civilians unfortunate enough to be on the same islands. Civilian casualties in Japanese-occupied areas. The savage mistreatment of civilians in Japanese-occupied China (e.g. germ warfare experiments and promiscuous slaughter of civilians) and French Indo-China (more slaughter, including the use of mustard gas) is well known. These areas were still in Japanese possession at the time of the Japanese surrender. Prolonging the war would have prolonged the agony of these civilian populations. United States military casualties. Although those who criticize the use of the atomic bombs seem not to care at all about U.S. military casualties, the result of continuing the war for several additional months would have been substantial casualties -- from combat, tropical diseases, accidents and losses at sea.
Brilliant quote there. None of the A-bomb detractors have ever considered the lost of lives of the civilians in the occupied nations of Japan that were BEING LOST EVERY DAY THE WAR CONTINUED.

[MiniKiller]

Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ Feb. 05 2004,06:03)]The poll choices are rather clear.

To start things off, I believe that two of the answers (3 and 5 - of course the "GAH" option has it's own dynamic http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif ) are covering my own view of the subject - USA could win the war in a dozen other ways, without "commiting 1 million servicemen and getting half of them killed" as the A-Bomb apologists nowadays are stating over and over. But it needed to show off the capabilities of the A-Bomb so Joe Stalin would stop in Germany instead of going all the way to the Pyrrenes.
I hate what it did, i hate tha a bomb but we HAD to use it.

just wouldnt have one with out it, it truely turned the tides of the war. and they attacked us unprovoked first when we just wanted to stay out of it.

[Pindar]

Hail Brutal DLX,


Quote[/b] ]it's not quite appropriate to give labels such as "revisionist" to some sentiments when you apparently just looked over the posts and not read them in detail. This is a sensitive topic and requires an according approach.


Fair enough. But I think the term revisionist is accurate in that: one, Modern critiques of the bomb are an attempt to 'revise' popular sentiment. Two, such sentiment is arguing against a counter-factual, namely that Japanese did not surrender prior to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.



Quote[/b] ]My parameters are quite clear, I cannot justify the dropping of the bomb on a moral level, as it is just another warcrime that obviously happens in every war. This of course means I cannot morally justify war at all

I take it then you are assuming a pacificist position. If so, I have the following question: Do you consider the Nazi regime and the actions of Imperial Japan evil?




Quote[/b] ]On a logical level, when people's lives are reduced to numbers, it is, as I priorly stated, possible to find reasons to justify the use of the bombs as a means to quickly end the war and achieve a few secondary goals as well (warning to Russia etc). It's not the only option, but in fact, it may have been the most efficient way to achieve the most with the least effort. However, this implies that the official position isn't true and that this war was lead with lack of conscience and adherence to human values/rights (which, I believe are included in the constitution of the USA) and would place them on an equal level with their opponents. The purpose doesn't justify all means at all costs when all things are considered.

What is the "official position" and according to who?

The appeal to basic rights discourse, as found in the Declaration of Independance reference being made above, errs in assuming "life" is inviolate. The American Revolution was itself a long conflict which the newly formed Congress actively supported. The ability to wage war and to demand the conscription of citizenry (and even to execute disertion amoung volunteers) in order to prosecute war has always been considered a proper and just role of government.

Further, natural rights discourse is based upon natural law theory which itself is derrived from Thomistic Scholasticism. Aquinas grounded natural law upon appeals to Divine law under a Christian rubric which looks to the Bible as primary source material. Christianity has not been traditionally pacifistic.

Regarding the utility of dropping the bomb(s): killing in order to end a war of agression and killing in order to conquer are not moral equivalents. The former bases its decisions on the degree of loss (suffering) any action would have upon its own charges (citizens) and the recipients of any action. Invasion would have led to more as oppossed to less suffering for Japan and the U.S. Blockade would have also have increased Japan's suffering as well as the suffering in China, given Japan still had over a million men in arms inside the country.

[Loki]

Check out the big brain on Pindar Nice post Pindar http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif Haven't heard (or thought of i might add) of Thomistic Scholasticism since my college days.... And when I think about my college days I get THIRSTY http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif

[Pindar]

Quote[/b] ]Nice post Pindar Haven't heard (or thought of i might add) of Thomistic Scholasticism since my college days....

Bows.

Loki,

I feel obligated to stand side by side with anyone who quotes Patton in his signature.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

[rasoforos]

Quote[/b] (Crimson Castle @ Feb. 11 2004,05:45)]And look - it took no less than two A-bombs to force them to surrender. Two not one.
And the point is.... people can get used to carpet bombing but a huge nuclear mushroom piercing the skies scares the hell out of them. People who did not surrendered earlier surrenered with the bomb. Chances are if the bomb was demostrated by hitting non urban areas near cities the awe created would lead the japaneese to surrender. What if 5 instead of 2 bombs were needed? ...but oh i keep forgeting...several thousants of japanese lives are cheaper than a couple more bombs.

The point is, and you can see it from your won post, that the power of the bomb does not lie on how many it kills ( normal bombing kills as well) but on its shock value. The japanese did not surrender after hundreds of thousants died by normal bombs (as you very well mentioned) but surrendered when they faced the terror of The Bomb. AND the bomb could demonstrate that shock value by hitting an uninhabited area near a city where people could see

I think all in all your post was a good argument against everything you tried to say. You agreed that its shock value that counts...have a nice day.

[Brutal DLX]

Quote[/b] (Loki @ Feb. 11 2004,15:21)]The first thing that comes to mind here is the question, "What if your enemy is ready willing and able to kill your civilians (who make your food stuffs and manufacture your military hardware, and you are not willing to do the same?" That obvious question put aside, the biggest problem with your statement, is the argument that there was a way to end the war and cause less casualties than dropping the bomb. This clearly is not the case. A naval blockade would not have ended the war. Remember, Japan is not a castle we would be besieging, it was a country. We would have had no way to cut off water and food. The Japanese, being a very hard working, industrious and clever people would have tilled gardens like mad and although they would have done without many imported goods, a naval blockade would not have removed their armies numbers or their willingness to fight. Another thing to remember here is that Japan had recalled most of its front-line battle hardened troops to the main land for a last stand. I have some good data on this if anyone is interested. Some have argued that this strategy would have further entrenched the militarists that were then running the government, further removing any chance of a peace offering.


From a moral standpoint, you are 100% correct. The problem is that war is not moral. All war is an abomination.
Yes, I'm glad you agree. I know war is abominable, but when it is forced on you doesn't automatically mean you have to win by all means necessary IF you want to represent that you are resisting the enemies' intentions not only on a military level. That was my second argument.

The first question you raised doesn't apply in our case as the American homeland was never under continued attack. But to answer it theoretically, if war is forced upon you, should of course try to win it by disrupting the enemy manufacturing capabilities, but you should stay on target. Mass bombing cities in kind is not the right way, military bases and even factories are legitimate targets, but on a moral level you cannot afford to kill innocent bystanders by using large scale bombardment. If it comes to the bitter end, for example when human shields are used, you would have to assume more losses by your own military to conquer the enemy land rather than to bomb it into ruins and submission. On a morale standpoint, you have to pay for your principles, it's borderline morally justifiable to lose your soldiers and theirs who are trained for war than to harm innocent people. If you don't keep your principles in a war, you cannot call on them during times of peace with authority.

Now, I would still argue that the war was a good as finished during the time the bombs were dropped. A blockade might not lead to a surrender, we can only speculate, but while the Japanese are an industrious people, how much of a threat can they pose if they are limited to their isles? They clearly lack the resources (most of all the fuel) to keep their war machines running for a prolonged period. Sooner or later their newly produced planes would be grounded, as well as any ships, which, by the way could be attacked by the blockading forces as soon as they leave Japan. They would be unable to penetrate the blockade and thus prove no threat anymore. An invasion would possibly not be necessary anymore. It might take years, but eventually they have to come to the conclusion that they have to negotiate to improve their dire situation. This would be less atrocious than dropping atomic bombs or carpet bombing them, wouldn't you agree?
With the knowledge of that time being considered, both ways of bombing are equally as bad, nowadays, nuclear weapons are clearly not an option anymore as they not only harm the enemy but all of the earth.

[Brutal DLX]

Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Feb. 12 2004,01:00)]Fair enough. But I think the term revisionist is accurate in that: one, Modern critiques of the bomb are an attempt to 'revise' popular sentiment. Two, such sentiment is arguing against a counter-factual, namely that Japanese did not surrender prior to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Agreed.


Quote[/b] ]I take it then you are assuming a pacificist position. If so, I have the following question: Do you consider the Nazi regime and the actions of Imperial Japan evil?

Indeed I am. It is a generalising question, but I will say this: I consider any actions these regimes undertook which include violation of principles of humanity and its resulting morals such as waging an agressive war and killing/oppressing innocent people to be in opposition with my pacifist stance as well as my entire code of morality. I do not like to use terms such as good an evil, as they depend on one's point of view and are as such, subject to change.



Quote[/b] ]What is the "official position" and according to who?
I would suppose the one that is persistent in the speeches given by goverment officials at the time. While I have no source at the moment, I would think them to be consistent to ones given by, for example, presidents like Lincoln during time of crisis. Someone recently posted Eisenhower's retirement speech, I would suppose something along those lines, however I'm open to different or opposite claims by major officials, which then could could serve to justify the event for the US, but still would not make it morally justifiable by my standards derived from humanism.


Quote[/b] ]The appeal to basic rights discourse, as found in the Declaration of Independance reference being made above, errs in assuming "life" is inviolate. The American Revolution was itself a long conflict which the newly formed Congress actively supported. The ability to wage war and to demand the conscription of citizenry (and even to execute disertion amoung volunteers) in order to prosecute war has always been considered a proper and just role of government.

I would suppose this is so under the implicit premise that no war ever should be initiated once the citizens gained their constitutional rights, only in defense of said rights and the land. Thus, I don't think this appeal can be disregarded so easily, given that the founders of the constitution couldn't foresee every possible scenario.


Quote[/b] ]Further, natural rights discourse is based upon natural law theory which itself is derrived from Thomistic Scholasticism. Aquinas grounded natural law upon appeals to Divine law under a Christian rubric which looks to the Bible as primary source material. Christianity has not been traditionally pacifistic.

While that is true, strict adherence to biblical commandments would not justify a war, furthermore the bible provides us with clear examples where god explicitly states "It is not the death of the evildoer that I seek, but that he changes his ways". Christianity not having been pacifistic doesn't mean it is an inherent fault in its doctrine but rather failure to abide the rules.


Quote[/b] ]Regarding the utility of dropping the bomb(s): killing in order to end a war of agression and killing in order to conquer are not moral equivalents. The former bases its decisions on the degree of loss (suffering) any action would have upon its own charges (citizens) and the recipients of any action. Invasion would have led to more as oppossed to less suffering for Japan and the U.S. Blockade would have also have increased Japan's suffering as well as the suffering in China, given Japan still had over a million men in arms inside the country.

They are no moral equivalents, but both a morally condemnable in all cases. Invasion primarily would have lead to more losses on the military personnel, who pledged to defend their country and its values for the right cause. Loss of these is borderline morally justifiable when trying to end a war. Certainly more than killing civilians who might or might not resent war or the actions of their respective governments, but are merely living their normal daily lives.
You can look at it any way you want, bringing one's moral concepts into a war forces one to often make decisions that aren't the most obvious or most efficient ones. I suppose that's why most discard them once a war has started and go by the "Anything is fair in love and war" line - sadly.

[Crimson Castle]

Quote[/b] (rasoforos @ Feb. 12 2004,08:05)]The point is, and you can see it from your won post, that the power of the bomb does not lie on how many it kills ( normal bombing kills as well) but on its shock value. The japanese did not surrender after hundreds of thousants died by normal bombs (as you very well mentioned) but surrendered when they faced the terror of The Bomb. AND the bomb could demonstrate that shock value by hitting an uninhabited area near a city where people could see
Alright - we finally agree :)

[Crimson Castle]

Quote[/b] (Brutal DLX @ Feb. 12 2004,08:51)]A blockade might not lead to a surrender, we can only speculate, but while the Japanese are an industrious people, how much of a threat can they pose if they are limited to their isles? They clearly lack the resources (most of all the fuel) to keep their war machines running for a prolonged period. They would be unable to penetrate the blockade and thus prove no threat anymore. An invasion would possibly not be necessary anymore. It might take years, but eventually they have to come to the conclusion that they have to negotiate to improve their dire situation. This would be less atrocious than dropping atomic bombs or carpet bombing them, wouldn't you agree?
You're horribly wrong there.

You forget - and it has been mentioned numerous times already - that the Japanese were also occupying and waging a most BRUTAL war of aggression in China- and also occupying Indonesia, Malaya, Singapore.

Every day, hundreds of prisoners of war and non-Japanese civilians were dying under the rule of the Japanese army.

So whilst you wait for your blockade to make an impact on the Japanese leadership, how many innocent non-Japanese civilians do you expect to sacrifice?

What about them?

[Loki]

Rasoforos:

Sorry my Friend, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Now you are saying the bomb WAS necessary to get the Japanese to surrender? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/idea.gif


Quote[/b] ]And the point is.... people can get used to carpet bombing but a huge nuclear mushroom piercing the skies scares the hell out of them. People who did not surrendered earlier surrendered with the bomb.

Thanks for coming around My work here is done

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-book2.gif

[Anselm]

Some say it was necessary some say it wasn't.

I say it was inexcusable.
Not because lots of Japanese people died. Not because there were other ways to win.

Its inexcusable to use a weapon that is so incredibly powerful that it will kill any living thing instantly that isn't in cover from nearly 4,000 meters away, if you do not even know its full capabilities.

I'm sure the U.S.A counted out every one of the lives they expected the bomb to kill. I expect their figures weren't far off.

But what about the people not killed in the blast?
People have been dying in and around those two cities for the last sixty years. Thats a long time.

The U.S.A can account those casualties in 1945 as forcing surrender. But the lives after that?

People who had never had a war in their life time died because the U.S.A. deemed it appropriate. The U.S.A. deemed it OK, for those civilians to pay the price of an evil that took place 15 years before they were born.

Oh yes Japan were evil too weren't they? Yeah, they were. I agree. Nothing excuses what they did. But thats past now, it stopped because they knew exactly what they were doing and why. And after war there was no reason so they stopped the killing and genocide.

Americas killings went on.

It was a war crime on the verge of idiocy, and it horrifies me to think that anybody could imagine giving that order and not knowing its consequences.

Anselm

[Loki]

(guess I spoke too soon)

Err... Ummmm. Anselm?

Thanks for joining the discussion but you should have read it all before posting.

As has been cited here in a previous post, there are very good statistics regarding the deaths after the bombs were dropped due to radiation etc. And no there are not people that have been dying ever since. As a matter of fact both cities a thriving at this moment with many more people in them than they originally supported.

If you doubt these statistics then you doubt the veracity of the Japanese government, who is one of the governing bodies of the institution formed to track these things.

Your post is a very emotional one, but the facts are that dropping the bombs, ending the war quickly and decisively saved many thousands of lives of Japanese, Allies, Chinese, Koreans, Pacific Islanders, Manchurians etc. etc.




Quote[/b] ]Anselm Posted on Feb. 12 2004,10:50
-----------------------------------------------------------
Some say it was necessary some say it wasn't.

I say it was inexcusable.
Not because lots of Japanese people died. Not because there were other ways to win.....

...I'm sure the U.S.A counted out every one of the lives they expected the bomb to kill. I expect their figures weren't far off.

OK lets recap. What exactly were these other ways to win that the US knew about (that would have killed less people)? Please list them out for us all.

And when you say that "the USA counted out every one of the lives they expected the bomb to kill" do you mean that this is your feeling or opinion, or are you stating this as a fact? Either way, there must be something you've read that would lead you to have this opinion or know these "facts" right? Could you please list out your sources (authors, titles, page numbers etc.) I love to learn new things, and so far in my study of this subject I've never come across these type of "facts"

Looking forward to your reply

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-book2.gif

[Lazul]

Ok, i had enough, some ppl in here accualy say that Japan wasnt beaten and that the A-bomb turned the tide of the war... think it was MiniKiller that said that.
TURNED THE TIDE OF THE WAR?... omg, the japs didnt even have fuel for either the ships or the planes, they couldnt even had used Kamikaze cus they had NO fuel WHAT SO EVER

IIRC the might Yamoto(the battleship) was driven up on a beach to be used as costal defence.

There was no other reason for the US use the bomb but to SHow the world that they now called the shots.

enough said... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/flat.gif

[Loki]

Lazul:

I would agree with you that to say the bomb turned the tide of war is incorrect. I have certainly never asserted that, nor has anyone who seriously has studied the situation.

What I am saying however is that the bombs were a quicker and less costly (in lives all around) way to end the war.

If you read some of the sources I've quoted above with an open mind you will see the predicament the allies were in.

Remember, when I say lives saved I'm talking about Japanese lives as well as Koreans, Chinese, Pacific Islanders, POW's, Manchurians and Allied lives.

Most people misinterpret this statement and think that the person meant only saved American lives. This is false, and proved out factually in the sources listed above.

[Beirut]

The bomb was a tool in the toolchest of weapons. War had waged for six years across the planet and killed 50,000,000 people. This historical pandering to humanitarianism sixty years after the fact is more than a touch odd.

Had we existed in an age where a world war, even at it's end, was killing a milion people a month, we would have bought Truman the best bottle of scotch we could have for dropping the bomb.

"You say you can end the war in days Mr. Truman? End it as in over, finished, it's done?"

"Yes I can."

"Well you just go right ahead sir and pop over for dinner when you're done."

My father was a tank officer in the Canadian Army in Italy. I'll bet he didn't wince when the bomb was dropped. I'll bet he was just glad the whole thing was OVER Point finale.

[BlackWatch McKenna]

Some things I have done in my life that I can still visualize to this day:

(1) Walking around in Hiroshima. Visiting the Memorial Areas is haunting. They have not been re-built. The ashes and burnt human shadows are there. The Hiroshima Museum is a clinical study in destruction. Steel girders as big around as your car are melted and twisted and blown like they were made of wax. The photos and accounts are horrifying. I did the visit in off-season on a week day.

(2) Walking around Ravenstock concentration camp. Again - done in off-season when no one was around. I stood in the alley where folks were executed. I saw the giant round bone-crusher (used to grinding bones). I saw the barraks and guard houses.

(3) Walking around the Kiev War Memorial and learning about 20,000,000 dead. Walking around the Berlin Holocaust Museum with my Swedish friend and us both feeling suicidal afterwards.

This thread makes me think of those moments and I am not always sure if a Quick End is better than a Slow End when it comes to killing and war. I visited all those places on cloudy cold days when no one else was around.

From a safe and clinical computer terminal I say the Bomb was the right way to end the war quickly. Being there and walking around the sites, if you ask me again, I will say "how can more killing be better?".

Well - I need to think about this a bit more.

//BW

[Loki]

BlackWatch,

I too have visited some of those same sights, and share your sentiments. But your sum up is EXACTLY the point

My argument, (and I've tried very hard to show that I reached this conclusion by research rather than an emotional reaction) is that the A-bombs DIDN'T kill more people than if we HADN'T dropped them. I'll admit it's counterintuitive at first blush. But when you actually take the time to read what happened during the invasions of Tarawa and Okinawa, (and here I'm not even referring to the massive US casualties but rather the civilians), when you actually take the time to read what happened during the fire bombing of Tokyo, Yokohama etc., when you actually take the time to read what happened during the high intensity bombing of Japanese population centers, when you actually take the time to read what happened to the native peoples during the occupation of Korea, China, Manchuria, The Philippines, ALL of the Pacific Islands, when you actually take the time to read what happened to the POW's of the countries that Japan was at war with, when you actually take the time to read what was happening inside the Japanese government and what the mindset of these men were like during that time, you start to understand that lives were saved. Many, many thousands of lives, by ending it quickly and without an invasion or a protracted siege/blockade.

[Pindar]

Brutal DLX,




Quote[/b] ]Indeed I am. It is a generalising question, but I will say this: I consider any actions these regimes undertook which include violation of principles of humanity and its resulting morals such as waging an agressive war and killing/oppressing innocent people to be in opposition with my pacifist stance as well as my entire code of morality. I do not like to use terms such as good an evil, as they depend on one's point of view and are as such, subject to change.


Here's some difficulties I see with the above:

1) You assume a relativistic position regarding morality yet your judgement is itself an appeal to a moral stance. This is a contradiction.

2) If you refuse to assign a moral position to the participant nations of WWII then you cannot then charge them with a moral violation.

3) If the actions of said nations were actually amoral (based upon the assumed moral relativism) then, they are by that recognition, immune to moral critiques.

4) If there is some moral condemnation that applies: i.e. there was a bad guy (say the Axis) then one is duty bound to oppose them, non-action is contemptable. A simple example would be: if there were a fellow who saw a woman about to be drug into an ally to be ravished across the street from him, and he had the means to stop that act from occuring, that fellow, as a moral man, must stop that act. If he were to ignore the woman's plight and simply go his own way, his non-action would be condemable.


Quote[/b] ]I would suppose this is so under the implicit premise that no war ever should be initiated once the citizens gained their constitutional rights, only in defense of said rights and the land.

If you admit defense as justifiable that contradicts your ascribed pacifism. Further, the above is not self evident. Why should this serve as the only criteria? If a nation had the means and will to stop a slaughter occuring in Rwanda between two ethnicities: why should they be prevented from using force to accomplish this?


Quote[/b] ]I don't think this appeal can be disregarded so easily, given that the founders of the constitution couldn't foresee every possible scenario.


What is clear, is that the founders of the U.S republic saw the waging of war as an implicit right of the Government. They saw no tension between that belief and any appeal to "inalienable rights".


Quote[/b] ]While that is true, strict adherence to biblical commandments would not justify a war,

What is this based upon?



Quote[/b] ]the bible provides us with clear examples where god explicitly states "It is not the death of the evildoer that I seek, but that he changes his ways".

Reference?




Quote[/b] ]Christianity not having been pacifistic doesn't mean it is an inherent fault in its doctrine but rather failure to abide the rules.


I don't believe there are any 'rules' that state pacifism as a necessary tenent of Christianity.




Quote[/b] ]They are no moral equivalents, but both a morally condemnable in all cases.

Why?

[Crimson Castle]

Quote[/b] (Anselm @ Feb. 12 2004,15:50)]But what about the people not killed in the blast?
People have been dying in and around those two cities for the last sixty years. Thats a long time.

Anselm
What about the civilians and Prisoners of War (not to mention US armed forces personnel) that were being killed and injured every day that JAPAN chose to carry on the war?
What about their offspring? By not dropping the bomb - you damn them. The Japanese Try to think about that if you can.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP3.HTM
"From the invasion of China in 1937 to the end of World War II, the Japanese military regime murdered near 3,000,000 to over 10,000,000 people, most probably almost 6,000,000 Chinese, Indonesians, Koreans, Filipinos, and Indochinese, among others, including Western prisoners of war."

[Loki]

(Read in your best Rob Schneider voice from "Saturday Night Live" making copies) http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

Check out the big brain on Pindar Pullen out the Symbolic Logic and getten medievil on ole Brutal DLX

Showen the Phallacy of his argument....
All contradictory....
The Pindarnator...
Pindarino
Shuten em up

[No offense meant to anyone, just trying to lighten things up a bit]

[Loki]

Crimson Castle,

Your point is valid, although I'm more interested in Anselms position regarding "People have been dying in and around those two cities for the last sixty years. Thats a long time.

Wondering if he didn't read the whole thread (specifically the sources and statistics on this very subject) or if has discovered some new unkown facts that no one else seems to know.

Hope he comes back soon, I'm eager to see what he hays to say

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-book2.gif

[Pindar]

Quote[/b] ]Check out the big brain on Pindar Pullen out the Symbolic Logic and getten medievil on ole Brutal DLX



Brutal DLX and I were actually allies in the furious and fearsome "Judgement Day" Thread that lasted so long.

[Brutal DLX]

Quote[/b] (Crimson Castle @ Feb. 12 2004,13:28)]You're horribly wrong there.

You forget - and it has been mentioned numerous times already - that the Japanese were also occupying and waging a most BRUTAL war of aggression in China- and also occupying Indonesia, Malaya, Singapore.

Every day, hundreds of prisoners of war and non-Japanese civilians were dying under the rule of the Japanese army.

So whilst you wait for your blockade to make an impact on the Japanese leadership, how many innocent non-Japanese civilians do you expect to sacrifice?

What about them?
I don't see why I am wrong here. These armies in mainland Asia can be defeated conventionally, rather than to resort to such atrocious measures. The dilemma is that are you willing to act against your moral code to actually save it?
Do you kill innocents to save other innocents?
I am discussing the leading of this war under a moralistic point of view, I already admitted that on a detached modus operandi, one could give reasosn to justify the dropping of the bomb.

[Crimson Castle]

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP3.HTM

"From the invasion of China in 1937 to the end of World War II, the Japanese military regime murdered near 3,000,000 to over 10,000,000 people, most probably almost 6,000,000 Chinese, Indonesians, Koreans, Filipinos, and Indochinese, among others, including Western prisoners of war."

FFS, go read it.

The Japanese were still waging war in China and holding captive the populations in Indonesia, Malaya, Korea, Foromosa etc..

Every damn day people were dying because the Japanese leadership wanted to continue carrying on their stupid war.

The 2 a-bombs forced them to end it. Isn't that so obvious?

And please if you think that conventional fighting will end the war - PLEASE GO STUDY THE FIGHTING IN THE PHILLIPINES AND SAIPAN. The Japanese military went on a wanton rampage and killed thousands of innocent civilians.

http://members.aol.com/bcmfofnm/atrocities2.html

During the Battle of the Phillipines, the Japanese were ordered to kill any non-Japanese civilians.

"All people on the battlefield with the exception of Japanese military personnel, Japanese civilians and special construction units will be put to death."

The following is a paragraph from a Japanese battalion order dated Feb. 8, captured in the Intramuros by 14th Corps soldier:

"When Filipinos are to be killed, they must be gathered into one place and be disposed of with the consideration that ammunition and manpower must not be used to excess. Because the disposal of dead bodies is a troublesome task, they should be gathered into houses which are scheduled to be burned or demolished. They should also be thrown into the river."

A diary, presumably belonging to a member of the Akatsuki force in Manila and captured by the 14th Corp, contained the following items:

Feb. 8—Guarded 1,164 guerrillas newly brought in today.

Feb. 9—Burned 1,000 guerrillas to death tonight.

Feb. 13—150 guerrillas were disposed of tonight. I personally stabbed and killed 10.

The pattern of atrocities as described in the affidavit reports is so similar as to indicate strongly they were by general order to all Japanese troops.


Right, and you want to do the same thing elsewhere? I think not.

[Brutal DLX]

Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Feb. 13 2004,01:08)]
Salve Pindar

I don't think we were allies, but we were both critically examining Sat's philosophical claims. Sharing a common goal doesn't make us allies in technical terms, or did I miss a negotiation request? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif


Quote[/b] ]Here's some difficulties I see with the above:

1) You assume a relativistic position regarding morality yet your judgement is itself an appeal to a moral stance. This is a contradiction.

No, I assume a relativist position regarding the terms good or evil, as they depend on the entity using them. What is evil for me , might be considered to be good for the evildoer. My judgment is given on my moral stance, and I said I oppose the measures of the regimes that don't go conform to my moral stance. I put it this way, because undoubtedly there were some "good" things undertaken such as the building of highways etc, thus a generalising answer would be inaccurate.


Quote[/b] ]2) If you refuse to assign a moral position to the participant nations of WWII then you cannot then charge them with a moral violation.
I do assign a moral position to the participant nations, as clearly stated, although I have to review whether moral intentions played such a big role for other nations to intervene when examining some of their actions during the war. This is based on judging all actions individually on a moral level, and it includes the possibility to bring up charges even to the nations who I would initially back in their resistance.


Quote[/b] ]3) If the actions of said nations were actually amoral (based upon the assumed moral relativism) then, they are by that recognition, immune to moral critiques.

This is the point. If said actions were amoral, then at the same time, future appeal by those nations to some sort of moral argument to justify specific actions taken during the conflict would equally have to be discarded, and future involvement of said nations in other conflicts would tend to be seen as probably having a rather amoralistic rationale as well. This includes all participant nations.


Quote[/b] ]4) If there is some moral condemnation that applies: i.e. there was a bad guy (say the Axis) then one is duty bound to oppose them, non-action is contemptable. A simple example would be: if there were a fellow who saw a woman about to be drug into an ally to be ravished across the street from him, and he had the means to stop that act from occuring, that fellow, as a moral man, must stop that act. If he were to ignore the woman's plight and simply go his own way, his non-action would be condemable.

Exactly, IF the guy is a man guided by the morals we are talking about, he has to act. However, based on the same morals, he has to choose his actions with care, otherwise he would hurt the same morals he tries to stand for. Just because a moral men is acting against an amoral one, doesn't mean he can use any means possible to stop him. Now, if he did, we would have either have to ponder the extent or strength of his morals, or we have to assume there are other reasons that compelled him to act (such as earning some sort of gratification from the woman in return for saving her).



Quote[/b] ]If you admit defense as justifiable that contradicts your ascribed pacifism. Further, the above is not self evident. Why should this serve as the only criteria? If a nation had the means and will to stop a slaughter occuring in Rwanda between two ethnicities: why should they be prevented from using force to accomplish this?

Pacifism means you should not eagerly wage war, if everyone ascribed to this, you would never be in a position where you have to defend yourself. But since this is not so, it produces this seemingly perceived contradiction. I theorised implicity if one ponders about the consequences of the given constitutional rights. The morale code as derived from human rights and Kant's imperative should indeed serve as the only criterium to base your actions on IF you adhere to these morals.
This is self-evident if you ponder the scope of it. Failure to do so will forfeit any moral argument you could bring forth in order to defend your actions.
On your example, they should not be prevented to use force, but not consider it an option if there are other ways to achieve the same goals. Everytime you have to resort to force you admit failure of humanism, either on your part, on theirs, or both.


Quote[/b] ]What is clear, is that the founders of the U.S republic saw the waging of war as an implicit right of the Government. They saw no tension between that belief and any appeal to "inalienable rights".

True, but in light of what I said above, they must have been clearly thinking about waging defensive wars only, in order to conserve the very same inalienable rights. Which could be evidenced by the non-involvement policy in European and other nations' matters during the early phase of the union.
Of course the whole thing is open to interpretation, based on what rationale you start with. If it's strict humanism, you can't possibly come to another conclusion.


Quote[/b] ]What is this based upon?

Upon the commandments and the rules laid out therein. Thou shalt not kill pretty much sums it up.


Quote[/b] ]the bible provides us with clear examples where god explicitly states "It is not the death of the evildoer that I seek, but that he changes his ways".

Reference?

I can't look up the exact passage at the moment, but will do so if still requested. Another passage that shows that god has bound himself to a morale code would be Genesis 18 where Abraham "reminds" god that it is unlike him "to slay the righteous with the wicked". Murder is a grave sin in any case, even if it is an evildoer.


Quote[/b] ]I don't believe there are any 'rules' that state pacifism as a necessary tenent of Christianity.

Again, I refer to the ten commandments. Of course it could be argued that Christianity changed over time as well as the notion of god changed. Sometimes the bible contradicts itself, but if we assume Christ to be the son of God, we have to buy into his message, and it is clearly one of love and pacifism at its core. But if you talk about what has been made out of it in real life, you are right.


Quote[/b] ]They are no moral equivalents, but both a morally condemnable in all cases.
Why?

Simply because it is morally condemnable to kill, no matter what purpose one does it for. See prior reasoning about moral failure.


PS: Yesterday was the 200th anniversary of Kant's death, so I felt compelled to do a little homage to his philosophies, which, I believe still maintain their validity up to this date. Hope you indulge. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Brutal DLX]

Quote[/b] (Crimson Castle @ Feb. 13 2004,10:44)]http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP3.HTM

"From the invasion of China in 1937 to the end of World War II, the Japanese military regime murdered near 3,000,000 to over 10,000,000 people, most probably almost 6,000,000 Chinese, Indonesians, Koreans, Filipinos, and Indochinese, among others, including Western prisoners of war."

FFS, go read it.

The Japanese were still waging war in China and holding captive the populations in Indonesia, Malaya, Korea, Foromosa etc..

Every damn day people were dying because the Japanese leadership wanted to continue carrying on their stupid war.

The 2 a-bombs forced them to end it. Isn't that so obvious?

And please if you think that conventional fighting will end the war - PLEASE GO STUDY THE FIGHTING IN THE PHILLIPINES AND SAIPAN. The Japanese military went on a wanton rampage and killed thousands of innocent civilians.

http://members.aol.com/bcmfofnm/atrocities2.html

During the Battle of the Phillipines, the Japanese were ordered to kill any non-Japanese civilians.

"All people on the battlefield with the exception of Japanese military personnel, Japanese civilians and special construction units will be put to death."

The following is a paragraph from a Japanese battalion order dated Feb. 8, captured in the Intramuros by 14th Corps soldier:

"When Filipinos are to be killed, they must be gathered into one place and be disposed of with the consideration that ammunition and manpower must not be used to excess. Because the disposal of dead bodies is a troublesome task, they should be gathered into houses which are scheduled to be burned or demolished. They should also be thrown into the river."

A diary, presumably belonging to a member of the Akatsuki force in Manila and captured by the 14th Corp, contained the following items:

Feb. 8—Guarded 1,164 guerrillas newly brought in today.

Feb. 9—Burned 1,000 guerrillas to death tonight.

Feb. 13—150 guerrillas were disposed of tonight. I personally stabbed and killed 10.

The pattern of atrocities as described in the affidavit reports is so similar as to indicate strongly they were by general order to all Japanese troops.


Right, and you want to do the same thing elsewhere? I think not.
I think you still do not understand my point.

[Beirut]

Regardless of the intricacies of the relevatism of inherent pacifism that runs coherently with enexorable Nietzhe-ism and the long standing nihilism of the preconceived notion...

Japan started a war of brutal aggression and got their asses kicked for it. And now they don't do it anymore. Simple enough.

Sometimes it ain't that hard to figure out.

[Ser Clegane]

Quote[/b] (Beirut @ Feb. 13 2004,07:18)]And now they don't do it anymore. Simple enough.

Sometimes it ain't that hard to figure out.
The same justification could be used if the Americans had eradicated all life on the Japanese islands.

Your argument seems a bit too simple, Beirut...

[Loki]

Another simplistic argument would be that the Atomic bombs killed people therefore using them was a bad thing.

[Beirut]

Ser Clegane,

Yes, overly simple in fact.

But I find it difficult to stomach the existentional meandering that runs rampant when discussing the bomb. Sometimes simple isn't such a bad thing.

They started it.
They conducted themselves like dirty bastards.
They got beaten into the cement for it.

The scary thing is that maybe it really is that simple.

And I understand fully well the plight of the civilians killed. I also understand the plight of civilians like my father and grandfather who lost their civilian status and were forced into war because of a******* like Japan in WWII.

It wasn't fair that civilians were killed. It also wasn't fair that my old man was forced from home to fight a war three thousand miles away.

Life isn't fair. Even my five year old understands that.

[Pindar]

Brutal DLX,

To maintain a degree of coherence, at the moment there are three basic elements you have put forward: 1) a moral positioning, 2) an appeal to the ideals of the founders of the U.S., 3) an appeal to Christian precept. These are what I will focus on.


Quote[/b] ]No, I assume a relativist position regarding the terms good or evil, as they depend on the entity using them. What is evil for me , might be considered to be good for the evildoer. My judgment is given on my moral stance

The 'No' that begins the above positioning does not conform with what follows it. What follows is a standard relativism. A moral relativism, as the above demonstrates, is subject focused, as such, any utterance is emotive. Your views on evil are akin to another's views on vanilla ice cream and therefore, regardless the passion one may feel towards an evil or vanilla, the statement tells us nothing about the world. Moral systems, by their very nature, claim to describe reality and do not allow rival claimants: if one's morality condemns rape, it applies universally. One cannot say that because someone lives on another street, or really wants to, or because everybody is doing it that it then becomes acceptable.

Relativism's subject centeredness disallows any judgements beyond the subject which puts it in direct opposition to the pacifist stance assumed to condemn the bomb. This is the contradiction.




Quote[/b] ]This is the point. If said actions were amoral, then at the same time, future appeal by those nations to some sort of moral argument to justify specific actions taken during the conflict would equally have to be discarded

If one accepts an amoral view then clearly no future justification for any action taken would be either required or made. Citizens of the U.S. typically see WWII in moral terms and those who approach the bomb question justify or condemn according to moral appeals. Interestingly, this stands as a contrast to many Japanese (and the Japanese Governement) who do not see WWII along moral lines, but rather as an amoral affair (except perhaps the bomb question).


Quote[/b] ]Exactly, IF the guy is a man guided by the morals we are talking about, he has to act. However, based on the same morals, he has to choose his actions with care, otherwise he would hurt the same morals he tries to stand for. Just because a moral men is acting against an amoral one, doesn't mean he can use any means possible to stop him. Now, if he did, we would have either have to ponder the extent or strength of his morals, or we have to assume there are other reasons that compelled him to act (such as earning some sort of gratification from the woman in return for saving her).


Intent always plays a role in moral judgement. The key element to the presented scenario was that the moral man must act. There is no choice: morality demands action against an apparent evil.

Regarding means: being forced to kill a woman's attacker in order to save her virtue would be considered by most individuals (and legal systems) as justifiable.



Quote[/b] ]Pacifism means you should not eagerly wage war,

This is not what pacifism means. Pacifism is an opposition to violence and killing.


Quote[/b] ]one ponders about the consequences of the given constitutional rights. The morale code as derived from human rights and Kant's imperative should indeed serve as the only criterium to base your actions on IF you adhere to these morals.


There is no Constitutional right forswearing violence. Neither does the catergorical imperative demand pacifism.


Quote[/b] ]Everytime you have to resort to force you admit failure of humanism,

Humanism is not an ethical positioning. Humanism does not admit to an obvious purpose. Originally, humanism referred to an intellectual reorientation toward Classical forms and motifs. In Modern parlence, humanism is most typically applied to secularism. Most simply, humanism is a focusing on Man without any other referent and can best be summed up by the words of Protagorus: "Man is the measure of all things". For Plato and others within the Western Traditon this was the seed of amorality.


Quote[/b] ]True, but in light of what I said above, they must have been clearly thinking about waging defensive wars only, in order to conserve the very same inalienable rights.

Not so, the War of 1812 serves as a counter example.


Quote[/b] ]Which could be evidenced by the non-involvement policy in European and other nations' matters during the early phase of the union.


Here I take it you are referring to the European Community's ignoring of the slaughter that occured in Bosnia.




Quote[/b] ]Upon the commandments and the rules laid out therein. Thou shalt not kill pretty much sums it up.


You are making a mistake. The Biblical passage: "Thou shall not kill" does not mean what you assume. The word, most typically taken to be 'kill' (as found in the King James Translation of the Bible for example) in the Hebrew is retsach which actually means to commit murder, as in homicide. There is no prohibition against state war in the Bible.




Quote[/b] ]Quote
the bible provides us with clear examples where god explicitly states "It is not the death of the evildoer that I seek, but that he changes his ways".

Reference?


I can't look up the exact passage at the moment, but will do so if still requested. Another passage that shows that god has bound himself to a morale code would be Genesis 18 where Abraham "reminds" god that it is unlike him "to slay the righteous with the wicked". Murder is a grave sin in any case, even if it is an evildoer.


Deity being moral is not under discussion. The question is whether pacifism is the Biblical position. The above recognition that God slays the wicked seems to contradict a pacifist stance.




Quote[/b] ]Sometimes the bible contradicts itself, but if we assume Christ to be the son of God, we have to buy into his message, and it is clearly one of love and pacifism at its core.

Where does Christ renounce state war in the N.T.?




Quote[/b] ]it is morally condemnable to kill, no matter what purpose one does it for. See prior reasoning about moral failure.


You have not demonstrated any moral failure. Hiroshima and Nagasaki still stand as jusfitfied acts.

[Ser Clegane]

Quote[/b] (Beirut @ Feb. 13 2004,17:51)]It wasn't fair that civilians were killed. It also wasn't fair that my old man was forced from home to fight a war three thousand miles away.

Life isn't fair. Even my five year old understands that.
Hmmm... reagarding the question that started this thread would you now say that the decision to use the bomb was justified or would you say that it was unjustified but unfortunately life is not just?


Quote[/b] ]
Another simplistic argument would be that the Atomic bombs killed people therefore using them was a bad thing.


That would indeed be a simplistic argument, Loki ... but then ... I did not use that argument, did I?

[Crimson Castle]

Quote[/b] (Brutal DLX @ Feb. 13 2004,09:19)]I don't see why I am wrong here. These armies in mainland Asia can be defeated conventionally, rather than to resort to such atrocious measures. The dilemma is that are you willing to act against your moral code to actually save it?
OK, lets backtrack a bit here....

1. you are saying that the Allied forces should have attempted to defeat the Japanese armies - on the China Mainland, Malaya, Singapore, Indonesia, Korea, Taiwan and so forth?

You obviously have absolute no idea of the Pacific War history.

When the US attempted to liberate the Phillipines, the Japanese military went on a rampage of destruction - shooting any non-Japanese civilian on sight. The civilian death toll was over 100,000.

So you wish to repeat this slaughter of non-Japanese civilians in all the other countries??

(And good grief we have not even mention the death toll from starvation and causes of war.)

So you intend to wait - whilst thousands of people are being killed, starved etc.. - until the Japanese leadership decides to negotiate for peace?

Frankly, its absolutely ridiculous.

[Crimson Castle]

To all those people who say that dropping the A-bombs was immoral. I highly recommend that you read up on the history of the Pacific War.

Some of you have suggested that conventional warfare would have ended the war without causing more innocent civilian deaths. Rubbish.

For starters read up on the war in the Phillipines, where the US forces fought to liberate in 1944.

The Japanese forces murdered thousands of innocent Filipinos during the battle.

They would have done the same in the other countries that you want to liberate.

Tell me after you have read this whether you think that dropping the two A-bombs to end the stupid war was not justified.


***************************
Genocide in the Philippines

An Annotated Bibliography Compiled by Jaydi Colmenares Raney

Historical Overview
From the invasion of China in 1937 to the end of World War II, the Japanese military regime murdered near 3,000,000 to over 10,000,000 people, most probably almost 6,000,000 Chinese, Indonesians, Koreans, Filipinos, and Indochinese, among others, including Western prisoners of war.....

.... On the Philippines (lines 336 to 342), better estimates than for any other territory are available. After the Japanese defeat on the Islands, special American units tried to document the massacres committed by Japanese forces and secret police. Still, different and inconsistent figures are given (lines 336-340), taking into account the number of American civilians (line 336) and American and Filipino POWs (lines 73, and 78-82) captured and killed. Most likely this is due to the difficulty of estimating the toll of many recorded and unrecorded massacres and atrocities. In any case, a minimum of 90,000 Filipino civilians killed seems solid.

-Statistics Of Japanese Democide: Estimates, Calculations, And Sources, By R.J. Rummel. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP3.HTM

Any soldier captured before the surrender was executed.
The Bataan Death March -- 7,000 surrendered men died. Those that could not keep up the pace were clubbed, stabbed, shot, beheaded or buried alive.
Once the prison camp had been reached, disease, malnutrition and brutality claimed up to 400 American and Filipinos -- each day.

-WW2: Little Known Facts: Acts of Terrorism and Atrocity by Japanese. http://www.marshallnet.com/~manor/ww2/atrocity.html

The Philippine people were left to fend for themselves against the Japanese Imperial Army. The Japanese came under the guise of “Asia for Asians” and with propaganda for stamping out Western Imperialism. American schoolbooks were destroyed and schools later shut down. Any American troops and their families who had been left behind were interned as prisoners of war. Houses were commandeered by the Imperial Army. Food became dangerously scarce and the civilians starved. The barter system came into play as people foraged for food to save their families. Families hid in cellars to avoid any suspicion of being guerrilla fighters and later to survive the battles and the bombings.

-Excerpt from When the Elephants Dance, Author’s Notes.

Books
1. Dowlen, Dorothy Dore (2001). Enduring What Cannot Be Endured: Memoir of a Woman Medical Aide in the Philippines in World War II. North Carolina: McFarland & Company, Inc. ISBN: 0-7864-0851-0.
This is the story of a woman who was forced to witness most of her family slaughtered by the Japanese Imperial Army during World War Two. Acting as a medical aide in Mindanao, and then as a second lieutenant for the U.S. forces as a teenager, this memoir portrays, from a child’s point of view, what life was like in the Philippines under the Japanese occupation.

2. Escoda, Jose Ma. Bonifacia M. (2000). Warsaw of Asia: The Rape of Manila. Manila: Giraffe Books. ISBN: 971-8832-37-8.
Dubbed the “Manila Holocaust”, this book is a series of oral histories collected by the author about the last month of the liberation of Manila. The work is arranged chronologically, with a day-by-day recording of events. One hundred and seventy-five pictures are also included of scenes of horrific deaths of Filipinos, Americans, and Japanese.

3. Garcia, Joaquin L. (2001). It Took Four Years for the Rising Sun to Set, 1941-1945: Recollections of an Unforgettable Ordeal. Manila: De La Salle University Press. ISBN: 971-555-402-4.
This book is a personal narrative of a boy growing up during the Japanese occupation of the Philippines. It provides a first-person account of how civilians were caught in the middle of the war between the Japanese and the United States in the Philippines.

4. Ishida, Jintaro ( 2001). The Remains of War: Apology and Forgiveness. Quezon City: Megabooks Co.

This is a very courageous work, originally written in Japanese, by a Japanese man who has traveled both to the Philippines and his own Japan interviewing survivors of World War Two. He interviews the living members of Japanese Imperial Army who were commanded to kill Filipino civilians. Many interesting answers come about from his inquiries, including the fact that, although many Filipinos attest to the Christian value of forgiveness, many have a hard time forgetting.

5. Montinola, Lourdes R. (1996). Breaking the Silence. Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press. ISBN: 971-542-128-8.
This is a series of journal entries by the daughter of the Far Eastern University founder, Dr. Nicanor Reyes. In response to the difficult questions asked to her by another author about life as a non-combatant victim of the battle for the liberation of Manila, the author here has written down her memories.

7. Polo, Elena P. (2000). The Negating Fire vs. The Affirming Flame: American and Filipino Novels in the Pacific War. Philippines: University of Santos Press. ISBN: 971-506-125-7.
This author divides and compares the varying differences between American views of the War in the Pacific to those views of Filipinos in terms of novels that have been written by both parties. Part One, American Novels of the Second World War in the Pacific, contains such chapters as “The ‘Affirming Flame’”, and “The Futile Quest”, whereas Part Two, The Philippine Novels on the Second World War, contains chapters like “Guilt, Remorse, and Purgation” and “Designs for Survival”.

8. Syjuco, MA. Felisa A. (1988). The Kempei Tai in the Philippines: 1941-1945. Quezon City: New Day Publishers. ISBN: 971-10-0347-3.
This book focuses on the Kempei Tai, or the Japanese Military Police organization in the Philippines during the Japanese occupation. The book goes on to explain how the Kempei Tai used both positive and negative means to win over the Filipinos in order to maintain peace and order.

Journals
9. Boling, David (1995). Mass Rape, Enforced Prostitution, and the Japanese Imperial Army: Japan Eschews International and Legal Responsibility? Occasional Papers/Reprints Series in Contemporary Asian Studies, 3 (128). ISSN: 0730-0107.
This is a reprint of a study done by a lawyer of the trials brought before the Tokyo District Court. Two groups of women, Korean and Filipina, sued the Japanese government for the human rights abuses against women that the Japanese Imperial Army committed in Asia during World War Two. This article was first published in The Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, Volume 32, Issue 3.

[Beirut]

Ser Clegane,

Justified.

Unfortunate but justified.

I am unvaivering in my "tough love" approach to violence. To stop violence, to really STOP it, the threat and at times, the implemenation of overwhelming force, is absolutely required.

To stop a mugger who stomps old women and steal their purses does not require a group hug, nor a counseling session, or a visit with the local preacher. It requires a furious beating followed by the threat of even worse to come.

Allow me to bore you for a second with an old story: When I was about 15, I was in the park one night , holding a smaller guy against a tree and slapping him across the face. Being a tough guy, you know. Then my brother's friend Corey, a football player, came up, grabbed me, put me against the tree and, while slapping me across the face, told me how not-nice is was to slap people smaller than you.

Lesson learned. Justified.

[Ser Clegane]

Quote[/b] (Beirut @ Feb. 14 2004,09:44)]Allow me to bore you for a second with an old story: When I was about 15, I was in the park one night , holding a smaller guy against a tree and slapping him across the face. Being a tough guy, you know. Then my brother's friend Corey, a football player, came up, grabbed me, put me against the tree and, while slapping me across the face, told me how not-nice is was to slap people smaller than you.
I am seldomly bored by "old stories", often they are quite interesting and say a lot about the one one tells them (BTW, I am not trying to imply something with this statement).

I think one aspect in which our view differs is that I do not see Japan as one single-minded entity that is guilty of the war. Some of the people of Nagasaki and Hiroshima might have derserved death, some people might have supported Japan's war some people might have not.

To stick with your story, I would rather compare the dropping of the bomb with a situation in which Corey would have grabbed your younger brother (I am just making up that you have one), put him against the tree and slapped him across the face.

If you had learned your lesson that way, would Cory's action be justified?

[Loki]

Ser Clegane:

WOW http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif Not sure what to make of you post. What a muck of conflicted moral soup. Feel free to clarify my understanding of your post, but if I understand it/you correctly you are saying that, "it's OK to kill some of the Japanese (Because they are bad and supported the war), but not others (because they are good and did not support the war).

My question to you would be, what about all the civilians that the Japanese raped, tortured, and murdered throughout Asia.....were some of them "bad" and deserving of death?

Regardless if your answer is yes or no some of the millions of innocents didn't deserve death, and would continue to be slaughtered as the war dragged on. Are these people somehow less worthy in your opinion that the unfortunate (and in your estimation) undeserving Japanese civilians who died at Hiro/Naga?

The thing that I find most disturbing about the latest turn of this thread is the "moral relativism". The refusal to acknowledge that there are good and evil, right and wrong. I truly believe that regardless of whether we are talking about a knife fight or a world war, If you have the ability to stop the slaughter, then you have an obligation to stop it as quickly as possible.

The other thing that you detractors continually overlook and don't address are the facts (cited above) that more people would have been killed (on all sides) if the war would have been brought to an end conventionally.

None of you have bothered to even attempt (although Gallowglass quoted some influential individuals who had opinions on this subject) to refute the facts. Given this I am having a hard time understanding what the exact objection to the bomb is? If you object to people being killed, then your criticism should be directed at the Imperial Japanese. Some have put forth that the bomb was inhumane because it left the two cities poisoned and uninhabitable. This has been show to be false (see earlier post). If you believe instead that more people (Japanese civilians in particular) were killed because of the bombs being dropped then bring out your facts and quote your sources. Otherwise there is really no other logical argument.

[Beirut]

Ser Clegane,

First, I would like to say that I appreciate that this debate has remained civil and well spoken. Very nice that it has not degenerated in a flame war. What a fine bunch we are. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-toff.gif

I do see your point about about the fine gentleman smacking my brother for something I did, and would that teach me a lesson. Although completely unfair, I guess it would have.

My problem here is that in a war setting, involving millions of people, entire continents and distances counted in thousands of miles, the separation of innocent and guilty is problematic at best. And I think it is safe to assume that every bombing in WWII took its toll of innocents. In a World War, where entire coutries and peoples faced extinction, the fine line between doing what you must, and the avoidance of civilian casualties, is not only blurred, but cannot in reality be abided by.

Obviously there were innocents killed by the bombs, many thousands of them. And it is and was regretable. But since every bombing took innocent lives, some bombings more than the A bombs, I have a problem with why they are singled out. It just seems like nuclear politics, not humanitarianism.

And I do truly believe the bombs saved lives. On both sides. As well as ending the war very, very clearly for all to see. That is a point that should not be disregared.

(BTW, even if you did imply something, you would have been right. I was being a s***head and got exactly what I desreved. Mind you, that event was an aberation, not my usual relaxed Pink Floydish behaviour. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif )

[Brutal DLX]

Quote[/b] (Crimson Castle @ Feb. 14 2004,15:07)]
Quote[/b] (Brutal DLX @ Feb. 13 2004,09:19)]I don't see why I am wrong here. These armies in mainland Asia can be defeated conventionally, rather than to resort to such atrocious measures. The dilemma is that are you willing to act against your moral code to actually save it?
OK, lets backtrack a bit here....

1. you are saying that the Allied forces should have attempted to defeat the Japanese armies - on the China Mainland, Malaya, Singapore, Indonesia, Korea, Taiwan and so forth?

You obviously have absolute no idea of the Pacific War history.

When the US attempted to liberate the Phillipines, the Japanese military went on a rampage of destruction - shooting any non-Japanese civilian on sight. The civilian death toll was over 100,000.

So you wish to repeat this slaughter of non-Japanese civilians in all the other countries??

(And good grief we have not even mention the death toll from starvation and causes of war.)

So you intend to wait - whilst thousands of people are being killed, starved etc.. - until the Japanese leadership decides to negotiate for peace?

Frankly, its absolutely ridiculous.
You still don't understand my position, but of course you are allowed to dub it as ridiculous. I've stated my reasoning, and I don't see the need to repeat myself.

[Ser Clegane]

Quote[/b] (Loki @ Feb. 14 2004,12:50)]Ser Clegane:

WOW http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif Not sure what to make of you post. What a muck of conflicted moral soup. Feel free to clarify my understanding of your post, but if I understand it/you correctly you are saying that, "it's OK to kill some of the Japanese (Because they are bad and supported the war), but not others (because they are good and did not support the war).
Loki,

actaully what your are saying is not what I meant (but then, re-reading my post I sure partly have to take the blame for the misunderstanding).

My point is that if the bomb was a means to "teach the Japanese a lesson" as it was put by Beirut it cannot be justified as a lot of the people who were killed by the bomb were innocent and did not need to get a lesson taught in the first place.
The fact that other innocent people were dying at the hands of Japanese war criminals (and those would be for example people to who I referred to as that they "might have deserved death") does not make the people of Nagasaki, Hiroshima or any city that was carpet bombed during the war less innocent.

If in your opinion the differentiation between guilty and innocent qualifies as "muck of conflicted moral soup" then so be it - I guess that cannot be helped...


Quote[/b] ]
The other thing that you detractors continually overlook and don't address are the facts (cited above) that more people would have been killed (on all sides) if the war would have been brought to an end conventionally.

None of you have bothered to even attempt (although Gallowglass quoted some influential individuals who had opinions on this subject) to refute the facts.


Interesting statement ... the quotes that Gallowglass gave and that state that the war could have been stopped quickly are mere "opinions of influential individuals" while the sources you give to support the view that without the bomb the war would have raged and could only have been stopped at the expense of even more innocent lifes are "facts".

I agree with you that if it was a "fact" that the war could not have been stopped without the bomb there would be the moral dilemma of either killing innocents by dropping the bomb or sacricing innocents by not doing so (the moral dilemma that rises in most wars and that is usually/always solved by deciding to sacrifice the innocents that happen to be part of the enemy's nation). And I have to admit that I do not see the "golden path" that solves that dilemma.

I disagree with you, however, when you say it is a "fact" that the war could not have been stopped without the bomb. No source that states this can be more or less opinion/fact than the sources Gallowglass quoted.
And if there had been a way to end the war quickly (and thus without the ongoing killing of innocents by the Japanese) without dropping the bomb then the bomb was unjustified

[Crimson Castle]

Quote[/b] (Ser Clegane @ Feb. 15 2004,09:43)][quote=Loki,Feb. 14 2004,12:50]Ser Clegane:
I disagree with you, however, when you say it is a "fact" that the war could not have been stopped without the bomb. No source that states this can be more or less opinion/fact than the sources Gallowglass quoted.
And if there had been a way to end the war quickly (and thus without the ongoing killing of innocents by the Japanese) without dropping the bomb then the bomb was unjustified
Yeah sure there was a quick way to end the way without resorting to the A-bomb- the Japanese realize that they have well and truly lost the ability to win victory and for their stupid Emperor to say, "Our cause is f@cked. We SURRENDER". They should have said it in 1941, or 1942, or 1943 or 1944 or January 1945.

But guess what the Japanese Emperor said in his surrender speech in August 1945?

"the war has lasted for nearly four years. Despite the best that has been done by everyone the gallant fighting of the military and naval forces, the diligence and assiduity of our servants of the State and the devoted service of our 100,000,000 people the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage...

Oh my goodness - "not necessarily to our advantage?" What you mean the dying starving people out on the street, the daily bombings, the USN blockade, the lost of the entire IJN navy, enemy fighters and bombers buzzing over daily etc.. WAS NOT A DEAD GIVEAWAY that you fking lost the war??? Hmm... I wonder what would have convinced them otherwise to consider surrendering???

How do you think the war could have been ended any more swiftly? What get all the Allied soldiers and civilians to bend over, grab their ankles, and let the Japanese have a right rogering time???

Same like D-Day and the bombing of Germany - oh the porr Germans. We shouldn't bomb them. Besides, why die for the French and ungrateful Europeans? Just tell Hitler - we'll surrender and supply him with whatever he needs in his war against the godless Russians.

LOL.

[Crimson Castle]

Quote[/b] (Loki @ Feb. 14 2004,17:50)]Ser Clegane:

WOW http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif Not sure what to make of you post. What a muck of conflicted moral soup. Feel free to clarify my understanding of your post, but if I understand it/you correctly you are saying that, "it's OK to kill some of the Japanese (Because they are bad and supported the war), but not others (because they are good and did not support the war).

My question to you would be, what about all the civilians that the Japanese raped, tortured, and murdered throughout Asia.....were some of them "bad" and deserving of death?

Regardless if your answer is yes or no some of the millions of innocents didn't deserve death, and would continue to be slaughtered as the war dragged on. Are these people somehow less worthy in your opinion that the unfortunate (and in your estimation) undeserving Japanese civilians who died at Hiro/Naga?

The thing that I find most disturbing about the latest turn of this thread is the "moral relativism". The refusal to acknowledge that there are good and evil, right and wrong. I truly believe that regardless of whether we are talking about a knife fight or a world war, If you have the ability to stop the slaughter, then you have an obligation to stop it as quickly as possible.

The other thing that you detractors continually overlook and don't address are the facts (cited above) that more people would have been killed (on all sides) if the war would have been brought to an end conventionally.

None of you have bothered to even attempt (although Gallowglass quoted some influential individuals who had opinions on this subject) to refute the facts. Given this I am having a hard time understanding what the exact objection to the bomb is? If you object to people being killed, then your criticism should be directed at the Imperial Japanese. Some have put forth that the bomb was inhumane because it left the two cities poisoned and uninhabitable. This has been show to be false (see earlier post). If you believe instead that more people (Japanese civilians in particular) were killed because of the bombs being dropped then bring out your facts and quote your sources. Otherwise there is really no other logical argument.
I think what Serg and Brutal are trying to say is this-

1. The bombing Hiroshima was evil.
2. Forget Nanking, Phillipines, Malaya, the sex-slaves, the massacre of non-Japanese civilians. Their lives and deaths don't count.
3. For further clarification see 1.

[Ser Clegane]

Quote[/b] (Crimson Castle @ Feb. 15 2004,10:40)]1. The bombing Hiroshima was evil.
2. Forget Nanking, Phillipines, Malaya, the sex-slaves, the massacre of non-Japanese civilians. Their lives and deaths don't count.
3. For further clarification see 1.
That's what I like about some people who justify a-bombs and firebombings ... resorting to the claim that those who disagree that these actions were the only solution automatically are defending or denying the atrocities that have been comitted by the Japanese or Germans in WWII.

Care to point to the posts were either Brutal or myself did this?
Or is there the possibility that you are just trolling?

[Beirut]

Ser Clegane,

"That's what I like about some people who justify a-bombs and firebombings ... resorting to the claim that those who disagree that these actions were the only solution automatically are defending or denying the atrocities that have been comitted by the Japanese or Germans in WWII."

Excellent point.

But perhaps the reason people think like this is because they are exasperated that after so many years, and with so many people knowing the facts of what happened in WWII, that the bombs are singled out as THE major act of barbarism in the war.

People rally and cry aloud about the bombs, about how inhumane they were, about the terrible US and the poor innocent Japanese who would have cherrfully surrendered anyway.

But where are the threads and newspaper articles and moral indignation about what the Japanese did. To obsess upon the atomic bombings, to the point of disregarding, however unitentionaly, everything else that happened in the war, is to invite skepticism about one's historical revisionism.

The bombings cannot be looked at as a singular act, but as an epilogue to a scenario that saw war waged on a planetary scale. It is not a thin isolated book about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but an opus about Poland, France, Blitzkrieg, Africa, D-Day, concentration camps, Iwo Jima, Pearl Harbor, The Rhine, firebombings, genocide, the Atlantic Convoys, the Battle of Britain, the invasion of Russia, Hitler, Stalin, China, Korea, conscription, food rations, starvation, million man armies, and so very much more.

[Ser Clegane]

Quote[/b] (Beirut @ Feb. 15 2004,11:51)]But where are the threads and newspaper articles and moral indignation about what the Japanese did. To obsess upon the atomic bombings, to the point of disregarding, however unitentionaly, everything else that happened in the war, is to invite skepticism about one's historical revisionism.
I fully agree with you in this point.

Last year when I traveled through Japan I also visited the Atmic Bomb Museum in Nagasaki. While this experience was very disturbing, the exhibition were also painfully leaving out any reference to the context in which the bomb had been dropped on Nagasaki.
The fact that Japan started the war in the Pacific and that the Japanese army committed atrocities rivaling those of the German SS in Eastern Europe has been completely omitted.

Including this part of history would have made the exhibition of the museum a much stronger and more credible statement about the cruelty of war and what war causes us to become.

I wonder I Japan ever will have the guts to take responsibility and to tell the world "see, these are the horror that we brought upon others because of war, and these are the horrors that were brought upon us because of war".

[Beirut]

I doubt Japan will see the light and take responsibility for its actons. If they haven't done it by now, they probably never will. As I underdstand it, there are powerful right wing forces that threaten any attempt to speak or teach the truth in Japan.

Their refusal to take responsibility, I believe, causes many people, including myself, to offer less than a full bowl of sympathy. It might not be sound reassoning, but it is very human none the less.

I don't feel sorry for the Japanese one little bit. They have to live up to their past before they can expect any sympathy. We are all our own worst enemies, and Japans actions, backed up by its astounding silence, have forged this hard opinion people hold towards them.

[Loki]

Ser Clegane,

That was very well put and well reasoned reply. I would like to clarify my position. I have never ever put forth that the bomb was dropped to "teach them a lesson".

I do believe after doing some research that it was the quickest and least costly in terms of lives (again for clarity here let me state BOTH Allied and Japanese military and civilian as well as all those peoples caught in the war zone) way to end the war.

I have yet to read a serious scholar on the subject who has put forth a scenario where the war could have been ended and caused less loss of life. Ironically, some of those military leaders who were quoted earlier stating that the bombs weren't necessary simply meant that we could have won without them by the continuation of the conventional war or a blockade and starvation approach. These scenarios would have would have undoubtedly cost more Japanese civilians their lives than the bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

If you have read something other than that I would love to read it.

[Beirut]

I would opine that the reason the bomb was dropped was definitely to teach a lesson. A big one.

To teach the Japanese that the war must end immediately.
To teach the Japanese never to use war again.
To teach that war will be "expensive" from this point on.
To teach Stalin to keep his pants zipped.
To teach everyone who was boss.
To teach the world how WWII ended. (A real-time lesson.)
To teach the the US populace a morale building lesson.
To teach the US Armed Forces how to fight the next war.

Of course the bomb was dropped to teach a lesson. And it worked.

I don't agree that all of these are moral, but I agree that they make political and military sense.

* Machiavelli wrote; Always fight your wars with constant regard to the peace you wish to live in afterwards.

How clearly this applies to the atomic bombs.

[Crimson Castle]

Quote[/b] (Ser Clegane @ Feb. 15 2004,16:09)]That's what I like about some people who justify a-bombs and firebombings ... resorting to the claim that those who disagree that these actions were the only solution automatically are defending or denying the atrocities that have been comitted by the Japanese or Germans in WWII.
Care to point to the posts were either Brutal or myself did this?
Yes. The fact that you both have chosen not to SERIOUSLY discuss the atrocities committed by Japan - except in a sideline; and the reprecussions if the Americans had not dropped the A-bombs on Japan and forced them to surrender.

Both of you have taken dogmatic positions that dropping the A-bombs was EVIL fullstop.

Its like someone complaining about a policeman shooting a rapist and ignoring the rape victim.

[Ser Clegane]

Quote[/b] (Crimson Castle @ Feb. 16 2004,08:25)]Its like someone complaining about a policeman shooting a rapist and ignoring the rape victim.
Except that in this case not the rapist has been shot but an innocent person who is related to the rapist.

Quite a difference in my books and that is the issue that you deny to recognize...

EDIT: I have the feeling that this thread has reached a stage where the discussion is going in circles. As long as neither side (including myself) is able to add something new to the party I believe it's probably better to refrain from further posting (at least for me) before the quality of the posts deteriorate to "I explained that x posts ago, but you are just too http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-furious3.gif to understand the point"

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[Beirut]

If this is the end, then thank you all for the civilized debate. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-gossip.gif

Good for the brain.

[Crimson Castle]

Quote[/b] (Ser Clegane @ Feb. 16 2004,13:53)]
Quote[/b] (Crimson Castle @ Feb. 16 2004,08:25)]Its like someone complaining about a policeman shooting a rapist and ignoring the rape victim.
Except that in this case not the rapist has been shot but an innocent person who is related to the rapist.

Quite a difference in my books and that is the issue that you deny to recognize...

EDIT: I have the feeling that this thread has reached a stage where the discussion is going in circles. As long as neither side (including myself) is able to add something new to the party I believe it's probably better to refrain from further posting (at least for me) before the quality of the posts deteriorate to "I explained that x posts ago, but you are just too http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-furious3.gif to understand the point"

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
OK, the rapist analogy is not good.

But why do you Hiroshima protestors never seem to grasp the fact that the Japanese were brutally oppressing the peoples of Asia - not to mention prisoners of war?

Why do you keep on harping about the death of Japanese civilians in a single bombing incident but never seem to acknowledge the suffering caused by the Japanese military in China, Korea, and the rest of Asia?

Why do you complain about a bomb dropped on a Japanese city in a military action and totally disregard the mass raping, and wanton murder caused by Japanese military personnel?

[Brutal DLX]

Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Feb. 14 2004,09:57)]Brutal DLX,

To maintain a degree of coherence, at the moment there are three basic elements you have put forward: 1) a moral positioning, 2) an appeal to the ideals of the founders of the U.S., 3) an appeal to Christian precept. These are what I will focus on.
First of all, sorry for not replying earlier, I had other matters to tend to.
Yes, those are some of the main points I put forth, but note that they are only loosely connected and don't stand as one coherent position.



Quote[/b] ]
Quote[/b] ]No, I assume a relativist position regarding the terms good or evil, as they depend on the entity using them. What is evil for me , might be considered to be good for the evildoer. My judgment is given on my moral stance

The 'No' that begins the above positioning does not conform with what follows it. What follows is a standard relativism. A moral relativism, as the above demonstrates, is subject focused, as such, any utterance is emotive. Your views on evil are akin to another's views on vanilla ice cream and therefore, regardless the passion one may feel towards an evil or vanilla, the statement tells us nothing about the world. Moral systems, by their very nature, claim to describe reality and do not allow rival claimants: if one's morality condemns rape, it applies universally. One cannot say that because someone lives on another street, or really wants to, or because everybody is doing it that it then becomes acceptable.

Relativism's subject centeredness disallows any judgements beyond the subject which puts it in direct opposition to the pacifist stance assumed to condemn the bomb. This is the contradiction.

I think you are still misunderstanding my claims, perhaps my wording was confusing. My personal moral system has no relativist position, for me, I can exactly differ what actions are against it and which ones I can back. I did not imply that majority desires or other such factors would change my moral view. What I was saying is that while one's morale system can distinguish and weigh things and actions on an universal level, it doesn't mean that others are using the same moral system. If it were so, we wouldn't have these kinds of discussion. So, while I could not morally agree on an action that someone else did, I can at the same time understand that this action may be in line with someone else's moral system. However, that will not make me reconsider my view on it, as long as I don't find fault within my own system.
Thus, contrary to what you say, moral systems allow other moral systems to exist, however, they often oppose each other in some points or as a whole. So if my morality condems rape and someone else's doesn't, I still condemn rape universally and cannot agree with this other person's morality, yet it still exists.
The terms good and evil are not universally definable, they are both subject and object based, and that's why I don't like to use them as they can create the misconception that there is a universal GOOD and EVIL and I would know about which is which in an absolute manner. If there is, we are in no position to determine what it might be, we are too confined to our subjective views, in which we clearly can assign right and wrong to base our judgment on. So, this is not to say one shouldn't act according to what one's moral code dictates in any specific situation, but one should also keep the above in mind at all times.

In light of this, your last paragraph doesn't make sense. I can condemn the dropping of the bomb by my moral system, dropping bombs anywhere and no matter by whom or for what purpose, if they kill lives or inflict harm to the environment, they are not morally justifiable by me. No relativism there, and thus, no contradiction.


Quote[/b] ]If one accepts an amoral view then clearly no future justification for any action taken would be either required or made. Citizens of the U.S. typically see WWII in moral terms and those who approach the bomb question justify or condemn according to moral appeals. Interestingly, this stands as a contrast to many Japanese (and the Japanese Governement) who do not see WWII along moral lines, but rather as an amoral affair (except perhaps the bomb question).

Indeed, however I was trying to find out whether the "official" moral stance by the goverment as derived from constitutional and religious claims would allow to formulate a moral system that is congruent to mine, and I think it is possible. However, I readily admit that one could interpret these sources differently and arrive at another moral system. So, I would like to ask you what you think the morality system of the majority of the US citizens is? I also would like to add that there is the possibility that your claim isn't true and the majority of citizens like to see the actions and events on an utilitarian level that is somehow detached from the moral right or wrong, and that's where I personally find fault.
On a pure utilitarian level, one can come up with compelling reasons to use the bomb, but when being tied to a greater moral need, then that's something I can't go along with. Thus again, I would like to see how you can connect these two things, just out of curiosity.


Quote[/b] ]Intent always plays a role in moral judgement. The key element to the presented scenario was that the moral man must act. There is no choice: morality demands action against an apparent evil.
Regarding means: being forced to kill a woman's attacker in order to save her virtue would be considered by most individuals (and legal systems) as justifiable.


Of course intent plays a role, but not the only one and this doesn't justify ANY action taken. At least not in my personal view. Morality demands opposition to an apparent wrongdoing, how this opposition is expressed depends on how one's moral system is structured. Yours apparently demands any action to take place, mine demands action that doesn't violate my own moral stance. However one's actions are regarded by institutions and other persons should play no role in one's moral judgement, one has to apply it universally, the only constraint being itself.


Quote[/b] ]This is not what pacifism means. Pacifism is an opposition to violence and killing.

You are right. But I used it in a wider sense of state politics, to try and see whether my stance could be emulated on this level. True pacifism would require an approach a la Ghandi, and I couldn't see how this might be feasible with the US. However, the non agression war policy could be derived from the human rights. Of course, other interpretations are possible also.


Quote[/b] ]There is no Constitutional right forswearing violence. Neither does the catergorical imperative demand pacifism.

True, not directly, here is why I used Christian beliefs. Again, it is just an attempt to see if one could construct a moral stance based on the basic foundations of this nation as I understood it. Applying the imperative to this would result in the need to be non-violent and peaceful in order to stay true to this morality.


Quote[/b] ]Humanism is not an ethical positioning. Humanism does not admit to an obvious purpose. Originally, humanism referred to an intellectual reorientation toward Classical forms and motifs. In Modern parlence, humanism is most typically applied to secularism. Most simply, humanism is a focusing on Man without any other referent and can best be summed up by the words of Protagorus: "Man is the measure of all things". For Plato and others within the Western Traditon this was the seed of amorality.

Well, it's indeed the belief that individual human beings are the fundamental source of all value and have the ability to understand—and perhaps even to control—the natural world by careful application of their own rational faculties. It's a mushy term and I shouldn't have used it, I agree. Perhaps, morality based on understanding and peaceful co-existence would be a better description, although a lenghty one. At the end of the day, it's us humans who define our views on the world by what we perceive.


Quote[/b] ]
Quote[/b] ]True, but in light of what I said above, they must have been clearly thinking about waging defensive wars only, in order to conserve the very same inalienable rights.
Not so, the War of 1812 serves as a counter example.

This example only goes to show that it is possible to find reasons for a war for men who interpret said intentions in another way, or are plainly misguided. Not to start a discussion about this here, as I'm not knowledgable enough nor could it be called staying on topic, but here's what what Daniel Webster offered to the Congress back then:

"Whoever would discover the causes which have produced the present state of things, must look for them, not in the efforts of the opposition, but in the nature of the war in which we are engaged ... Quite too small a portion of public opinion was in favor of war to justify it originally. A much smaller portion is in favor of the mode in which it has been conducted ... Public opinion, strong and united, is not with you in your Canada project ... The acquisition of the country is not an object generally desired by the people ... You are you say, at war for maritime rights, and free trade. But they see you lock up your commerce and abandon the ocean. They see you invade an interior province of the enemy. They see you involve yourselves in a bloody war with native savages; and they ask you if you have, in truth, a maritime controversy with the Western Indians, and are really contending for sailors' rights with the tribes of the Prophet."


Quote[/b] ]Here I take it you are referring to the European Community's ignoring of the slaughter that occured in Bosnia.

No, I was referring to the Monroe doctrine of 1823ish, I believe. Grantedly, a weak argument, but nevertheless it shows non-agression policy to have been an option before.


Quote[/b] ]You are making a mistake. The Biblical passage: "Thou shall not kill" does not mean what you assume. The word, most typically taken to be 'kill' (as found in the King James Translation of the Bible for example) in the Hebrew is retsach which actually means to commit murder, as in homicide. There is no prohibition against state war in the Bible.

Where does Christ renounce state war in the N.T.?


Don't go there. If we only look at the Hebrew or earlier sources of the Bible, we will arrive at a much different picture, including the discarding of monotheism. We must talk about the Bible and Christianity as it has evolved through the centuries, as this is what people based their references on and how it shapes up to be nowadays.
Besides, committing murder, is to kill to achieve a goal, be that material or emotional. In scope, this is almost the same as killing.
There is no prohibition of state war, but it is also not encouraged unless God told so. Certainly, Christ propagated a non violent approach, did he encourage state war? Did he encourage his folllowers to free him by force? Clearly, the bible has to be read also between the lines. You may come to the conclusion that you can do anything that's not explicitly forbidden and then rest your point on this technicality, I come to the conclusion that doing something that directly or indirectly opposes the commandments or the message of Christ will result in you being given an unfavourable judgment at the end of days.


Quote[/b] ]Deity being moral is not under discussion. The question is whether pacifism is the Biblical position. The above recognition that God slays the wicked seems to contradict a pacifist stance.

Well, I think it is. However, it is not do as I do, it is do as I say. God slaying the wicked doesn't mean you are free to do the same. Also, I looked up the quote I gave earlier, please refer to Ezekiel, chapter 33, especially 11th to 13th verses.


Quote[/b] ]You have not demonstrated any moral failure. Hiroshima and Nagasaki still stand as jusfitfied acts.

A quite unexact statement. I have displayed fault I found in this act when applying my personal morality. That these events can be justified by different moral codes or on a purely utilitarian level has never put to doubt by me, yet I cannot justify them or accept such views as my own.

The topic question was 'Can you personally justify the bomb?'. - No, I can't, because my morality supercedes the utilitarian level.

[Crimson Castle]

Quote[/b] (Brutal DLX @ Feb. 18 2004,11:42)][quote=Pindar,Feb. 14 2004,09:57]Brutal DLX,
emulated on this level. True pacifism would require an approach a la Ghandi,
Gandhi you mean? The same Gandhi who advised the Jews facing Hitler in 1938 to resist him non-violently.

"I am convinced that if someone with courage and vision can arise among them to lead them in a nonviolent action, the winter of their despair can in the twinkling of an eye be turned into the summer of hope."

http://www.fourthfreedom.org/php/t-nsc-index.php?hinc=gandhi.hinc

Yeah, that's what they should have done to Hitler? Imagine opposing his Stukas, panzer tanks, and SS troops with flowers and linked arms. Yeah, turn the other cheek What a great strategy

Edit for language.
Edited by Ithaskar Fëarindel

[Pindar]

Brutal DLX,


Quote[/b] ]I think you are still misunderstanding my claims, perhaps my wording was confusing. My personal moral system has no relativist position, for me, I can exactly differ what actions are against it and which ones I can back. I did not imply that majority desires or other such factors would change my moral view. What I was saying is that while one's morale system can distinguish and weigh things and actions on an universal level, it doesn't mean that others are using the same moral system. If it were so, we wouldn't have these kinds of discussion. So, while I could not morally agree on an action that someone else did, I can at the same time understand that this action may be in line with someone else's moral system. However, that will not make me reconsider my view on it, as long as I don't find fault within my own system.
Thus, contrary to what you say, moral systems allow other moral systems to exist, however, they often oppose each other in some points or as a whole. So if my morality condems rape and someone else's doesn't, I still condemn rape universally and cannot agree with this other person's morality, yet it still exists.


One may recognize that other moral systems exist, but insofar as any rival moral judgements vary from your own they are catergorized as immoral, not simply an alternative. For example: if one's morality recognizes rape as an evil act one cannot then say contrary moralities that have no problem with rape are justified positions. They would be seen as immoral.


Quote[/b] ]The terms good and evil are not universally definable, they are both subject and object based, and that's why I don't like to use them as they can create the misconception that there is a universal GOOD and EVIL and I would know about which is which in an absolute manner. If there is, we are in no position to determine what it might be, we are too confined to our subjective views, in which we clearly can assign right and wrong to base our judgment on.

This is relativism. Refusing to apply a catergorical to a moral charge guts it of having any force. If I say. "rape is wrong,...to me" what's the point? Emotivism and morality are mutually exclusive concepts.

There are only two possible standards whereby a moral appeal can be made: deontological and utilitarian. Utility appeals can justify any act if it serves the greater good. Deontic appeals, by definition, must be catergorical. To deny universal applicability undercuts the necessary 'ought' that demands satisfaction. Your proclaimed 'pacifism' is deontic in its structuring.



Quote[/b] ]this is not to say one shouldn't act according to what one's moral code dictates in any specific situation, but one should also keep the above in mind at all times.


Why? if one's morality condemns pedophilia I don't need to know that a pedophile has a different view. His act, regardless of personal sentiment or feeling, condemns him.


Quote[/b] ]I can condemn the dropping of the bomb by my moral system, dropping bombs anywhere and no matter by whom or for what purpose, if they kill lives or inflict harm to the environment, they are not morally justifiable by me. No relativism there, and thus, no contradiction.


Is the dropping of the bomb evil? If it is, you have contradicted yourself. If is is not, then the judgement carries the same force as: I like vanilla.


Quote[/b] ]So, I would like to ask you what you think the morality system of the majority of the US citizens is?

Most U.S. citizens consider themselves to be Christian and follow a Christian ethic.


Quote[/b] ]I also would like to add that there is the possibility that your claim isn't true and the majority of citizens like to see the actions and events on an utilitarian level that is somehow detached from the moral right or wrong, and that's where I personally find fault.


I already wrote that war theory is usually couched in terms of utility. Catholics do appeal to St. Augustine's "just war theory' on occasion however.


Quote[/b] ]I would like to see how you can connect these two things, just out of curiosity.


I assme you mean the overarching Christian ethic of Americans and utility arguments regadring the bomb. My guess is that the common answer would be that the act of dropping the bomb ultimately saved lives and reduced suffering. Thus it was justified.


Quote[/b] ]You are right. But I used it in a wider sense of state politics, to try and see whether my stance could be emulated on this level. True pacifism would require an approach a la Ghandi, and I couldn't see how this might be feasible with the US. However, the non agression war policy could be derived from the human rights. Of course, other interpretations are possible also.


I think you are aware of the practical outcomes of a Ghandiesque approach to any malicious evil.




Quote[/b] ]True, not directly, here is why I used Christian beliefs. Again, it is just an attempt to see if one could construct a moral stance based on the basic foundations of this nation as I understood it. Applying the imperative to this would result in the need to be non-violent and peaceful in order to stay true to this morality.


By "this morality" do you mean pacifism?


Quote[/b] ]Perhaps, morality based on understanding and peaceful co-existence would be a better description, although a lenghty one. At the end of the day, it's us humans who define our views on the world by what we perceive.


Understanding and peaceful co-existence are lovley terms, but if your neighbor continues to beat his wife, the moral man cannot just turm the volume of his TV up.


Quote[/b] ]This example only goes to show that it is possible to find reasons for a war for men who interpret said intentions in another way, or are plainly misguided. Not to start a discussion about this here, as I'm not knowledgable enough nor could it be called staying on topic, but here's what what Daniel Webster offered to the Congress back then:

"Whoever would discover the causes which have produced the present state of things, must look for them, not in the efforts of the opposition, but in the nature of the war in which we are engaged ... Quite too small a portion of public opinion was in favor of war to justify it originally. A much smaller portion is in favor of the mode in which it has been conducted ... Public opinion, strong and united, is not with you in your Canada project ... The acquisition of the country is not an object generally desired by the people ... You are you say, at war for maritime rights, and free trade. But they see you lock up your commerce and abandon the ocean. They see you invade an interior province of the enemy. They see you involve yourselves in a bloody war with native savages; and they ask you if you have, in truth, a maritime controversy with the Western Indians, and are really contending for sailors' rights with the tribes of the Prophet."



Good Quote However, it simply shows that the declared intent and the subsequent action were seen by Mr. Webster to be at variance. The right to wage war was not called into question.


Quote[/b] ]No, I was referring to the Monroe doctrine of 1823ish, I believe. Grantedly, a weak argument, but nevertheless it shows non-agression policy to have been an option before.



The Monroe Dcotrine was not a non-agression policy. It was a declared intent, to Europe, that the U.S. would forcibly challenge any attempt at further colonization of the New World.


Quote[/b] ]Don't go there. If we only look at the Hebrew or earlier sources of the Bible, we will arrive at a much different picture, including the discarding of monotheism. We must talk about the Bible and Christianity as it has evolved through the centuries, as this is what people based their references on and how it shapes up to be nowadays.


Pre-Bilblical or Biblical notions of Deity are not our present concern. The way you referrenced "Thou shall not Kill" as a jusfication for pacifism is. Moreover, a historical analysis of Christianity's development will not give you the pacifism you seek either, as Christianity was not pacifistic.


Quote[/b] ]Besides, committing murder, is to kill to achieve a goal, be that material or emotional. In scope, this is almost the same as killing.


Not so, there is a critical difference between personal homicide to acheave some private end and killing as a soldier under arms for the state.


Quote[/b] ]There is no prohibition of state war, but it is also not encouraged unless God told so. Certainly, Christ propagated a non violent approach, did he encourage state war? Did he encourage his folllowers to free him by force? Clearly, the bible has to be read also between the lines. You may come to the conclusion that you can do anything that's not explicitly forbidden and then rest your point on this technicality,

Does Christ anywhere comdemn the wars of the Kings of the Old Testament? Does Christ anywhere condemn those in the service of Rome? Why is it that the few Roman soldiers, i.e. the Centurian, Christ has dealings with are percieved favorablity. Why is it that the first gentile convert to the new faith was a Roman solier? Why is it that service in the Imperial army was not forbidden? If Jesus is the Christ, as He claimed, then he IS the very God of the Old Testament, and as such, is the very source for many of the violent actions of the Old Testament. This of course, applies to the violence prior to the Mosaic Law as well afterwards. Christ's lack of condemnation regarding, perhaps the greatest action men can engage in, (war) does not appear to be a simple technical omission.


Quote[/b] ]Well, I think it is. However, it is not do as I do, it is do as I say. God slaying the wicked doesn't mean you are free to do the same. Also, I looked up the quote I gave earlier, please refer to Ezekiel, chapter 33, especially 11th to 13th verses.


Your Ezekiel reference appears to show Deity takes no pleasure in slaying the wicked, but does so according to the dictates of justice. Further, given that the revelatory record shows multiple instances of Deity ordering the death of people by the hands of men (i.e. the total slaughter of the people of Cannan by the hosts of a conquering Israel, man ,woman child) would suggest that justified killing is not restricted to fire and brimstone from heaven only.



Quote[/b] ]A quite unexact statement. I have displayed fault I found in this act when applying my personal morality. That these events can be justified by different moral codes or on a purely utilitarian level has never put to doubt by me, yet I cannot justify them or accept such views as my own.

The topic question was 'Can you personally justify the bomb?'. - No, I can't, because my morality supercedes the utilitarian level.

I don't think "personally" appears in the topic question.

[The Sword of Cao Cao]

Quote[/b] (Isopostolos @ Feb. 05 2004,09:18)]Anyway, I voted that the bombing wasn't necessary at all. I mean, Japan was virtually harmless
oh yeah m8. virtually harmless. tell that to Nanking.

[Crimson Castle]

Quote[/b] (The Sword of Cao Cao @ Feb. 19 2004,01:41)]
Quote[/b] (Isopostolos @ Feb. 05 2004,09:18)]Anyway, I voted that the bombing wasn't necessary at all. I mean, Japan was virtually harmless
oh yeah m8. virtually harmless. tell that to Nanking.
Yeah, the people who say that Japan was "harmless" in (July) 1945 have absolutely no clue of Pacific War history.

Japan still had many Army divisions in China which were brutally murdering, torturing, and raping innocent Chinese civilians. Not to mention the prisoners-of-war, the sex slaves (so-called "comfort women"), and civilians in Malaya, Burma, French Indo-china etc..

But I guess to the A-bomb Hiroshima protestors - non-Japanese civilian don't matter. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif

[squippy]

So, the rationale fir using the bomb is the killing of Asian civilians... clearly, to prevent the killing of Asian civilians, WE HAVE TO KILL THOUSANDS OF ASIAN CIVILIANS

Apologists know no shame.

Edit: the reason Strangelove was such a brilliant movie was precisely becuase it exposed this absurd patriotic lunacy and doublethink.

[squippy]

[QUOTE=Quote ] But why do you Hiroshima protestors never seem to grasp the fact that the Japanese were brutally oppressing the peoples of Asia - not to mention prisoners of war?

Well, their FAILUIRE to understand it is just something that YOU are projecting onto them.

Why do bomb advocates never seem to grasp the fact that soemone elses evil does not justify your evil, and that burning small children on the mothers breast and little old ladies with sticks and delivery boys on bicycles to ash and shadow is not a Good Thing?

It's a false and primitive patriotic dichotomy to cast all your opponets as incomprehending or unsympathetic to the victims or sympathetic to the enemy. War is hell HOW DOES MAKING IT MORE HELLISH HELP?

[Loki]

A little off topic but relevant to our discussion here....

Some of you others here in the USA may have heard this radio article on NPR (national public radio), regarding the emergence of China as a super power and how it's growth economically, militarily, and politically is affecting its relations with its Asian neighbors.

One of the biggest parts of the segment had to do with the Japan / China relationship and how Japans refusal to admit to the crimes of WWII let alone pay any restitution, has negatively impacted the relationship and possibility of growth and co-operation.

[squippy]

Quote[/b] (Loki @ Feb. 19 2004,09:04)]
Oh, all that is definitely true.

However, NPR being largely right-leaning, I bet they spent no time discussing how Americas spy-plane flights over China and then its petulant demand to get its ball back a few years ago also impeded attempts at cooperation. After all, the conflict between the USA and Japan occurred precisely becuase both are Pacific powers.

[Pindar]

Quote[/b] ]One of the biggest parts of the segment had to do with the Japan / China relationship and how Japans refusal to admit to the crimes of WWII let alone pay any restitution, has negatively impacted the relationship and possibility of growth and co-operation.

This is certainly true. What is also interesting is how China sends almost annual trade delegations to Japan seeking foreign aid grants. Inveriably, the Chinese delegation mentions the 'rape of Nanking' when Japan doesn't immediately give over the money wanted. The years I was there, I noticed the casualty figures the Chinese would quote rose by over a 150,000.

[Pindar]

Quote[/b] ]So, the rationale fir using the bomb is the killing of Asian civilians... clearly, to prevent the killing of Asian civilians, WE HAVE TO KILL THOUSANDS OF ASIAN CIVILIANS


Death is an inevitable aspect of war. Separating civilian from viable targets has never been as simple as it sounds, particularly in the age of total war (excuse the pun). What one needs to consider is if 200,000+ civilian deaths is preferable to 20,000,000+ civilian deaths that would have occured from an invasion.

[Pindar]

Quote[/b] ]I bet they spent no time discussing how Americas spy-plane flights over China

This is not correct. When the Chinese plane collided with the U.S. plane they were over international waters (as they had been throughout the flight).

[Brutal DLX]

Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Feb. 19 2004,01:22)]
Pindar, once again we are starting to go in circles.
Just a final try to make myself understood.


Quote[/b] ]One may recognize that other moral systems exist, but insofar as any rival moral judgements vary from your own they are catergorized as immoral, not simply an alternative. For example: if one's morality recognizes rape as an evil act one cannot then say contrary moralities that have no problem with rape are justified positions. They would be seen as immoral.

I certainly didn't claim that. I would cede that these different moralities would be classified as immoral, and couldn't be justified by one's OWN morality. However, I don't see any problem in recognising the simple fact that other (immoral) systems are very likely to have arguments to jusitfy their position(s), however, those arguments would not be valid in one's own moral code. They are in fact, an alternative, but not for a person secure in their own moral beliefs.


Quote[/b] ]This is relativism. Refusing to apply a catergorical to a moral charge guts it of having any force. If I say. "rape is wrong,...to me" what's the point? Emotivism and morality are mutually exclusive concepts.

There are only two possible standards whereby a moral appeal can be made: deontological and utilitarian. Utility appeals can justify any act if it serves the greater good. Deontic appeals, by definition, must be catergorical. To deny universal applicability undercuts the necessary 'ought' that demands satisfaction. Your proclaimed 'pacifism' is deontic in its structuring.

Of course it is relativism, however, you didn't notice that I said I can apply those terms within my moral system (which applies universally), and in it, they are not relative terms but clearly assigned, but I rather choose to say this is in accord or in disaccord to my morality, rather than using good and evil, which is not the same as right and wrong, mind you.

If I were to say, "rape is wrong, for me" it means to say I personally regard it as wrong, no matter who does it. Thus, it applies universally. If I were to say "rape is wrong", it would be a claim I cannot prove other than using arguments based on subjective judgment, which is insufficient if you want to show it to be an universal truth.

It is not pacifism as one would find it defined in a text book, I admit, but for lack of other words at that time you asked, I accepted that stance to begin with. Actually, my stance is both deontological and well as consequential, the favoured consequence being non-violation of one's own moral concepts above all, thus, not all means are justified. But at the same time, the intrinsic moral features, or categories, as you would have it, are clearly defined from the outset. War isn't justifiable for me as well as usage of any means that kill people, because killing people is wrong. I didn't deny universal applicability, however I recognise the fact that other people ARE, in fact, not applying it, yet I do. What consequences this has in how I view these people is not the subject of this discussion.


Quote[/b] ]Why? if one's morality condemns pedophilia I don't need to know that a pedophile has a different view. His act, regardless of personal sentiment or feeling, condemns him.

Because it is beneficial to see things from another side, it would help you to understand and gives you more arguments if reasoning with this person. You don't need to know it to condemn, but you could need it if you were trying to make him understand what wrong he did. It may not be part of your morals to try to spread them, but if you are truly convinced of their univesal truth, you would have to act to prevent immorality. Trying to change a man's view rather than only punishing him seems to be a more sensible choice, at least to me.


Quote[/b] ]Is the dropping of the bomb evil? If it is, you have contradicted yourself. If is is not, then the judgement carries the same force as: I like vanilla.

The actual process is evil, the intention may have been good, but it lead to evil. I see no contradiction, because I can apply these terms, I just don't like to use them, for reasons stated often enough. I would say dropping the bomb is morally wrong.


Quote[/b] ]I assme you mean the overarching Christian ethic of Americans and utility arguments regadring the bomb. My guess is that the common answer would be that the act of dropping the bomb ultimately saved lives and reduced suffering. Thus it was justified.

I think so, too. However, you know that I have a different view on Christian ethics, thus I cannot come to the same judgement.


Quote[/b] ]I think you are aware of the practical outcomes of a Ghandiesque approach to any malicious evil.

Tautology aside, I am well aware of it, the practical outcome may be acceptable to someone with that approach, so that remark doesn't lead anywhere.


Quote[/b] ]By "this morality" do you mean pacifism?

More or less, not exactly. I have not given it a name yet.
It allows for war as a final option when having to defend your land and your beliefs. Emphasis being on final and defense.


Quote[/b] ]Understanding and peaceful co-existence are lovley terms, but if your neighbor continues to beat his wife, the moral man cannot just turm the volume of his TV up.

Note that ignorance is not included as one of those lovely terms. A moral man cannot just go over and beat up the other guy, however, he can try to talk or call the police among numerous other possibilities.


Quote[/b] ]Good Quote However, it simply shows that the declared intent and the subsequent action were seen by Mr. Webster to be at variance. The right to wage war was not called into question.

True, but it went to show that wars can be waged for the wrong reasons and that positions of power can be abused in any state. The declared intent (free trade, maritime rights) would be defensive in nature, and I didn't argue against the right to wage defensive wars being derivable from the constitution. As it turned out, with the way the war evolved, it lost the backing of a large proportion of the citizens, and that's what Mr. Webster pointed out too. In this, I take the majority of the people to represent the laws and morals of a country, which might be wrong.


Quote[/b] ]The Monroe Dcotrine was not a non-agression policy. It was a declared intent, to Europe, that the U.S. would forcibly challenge any attempt at further colonization of the New World.

The Monroe Doctrine, expressed in 1823, proclaimed the Americas should be free from future European colonization and free from European interference in sovereign countries' affairs. It further stated United States's intention to stay neutral in European wars and wars between European powers and their colonies but to consider any new colonies or interference with independent countries in the Americas as hostile acts toward the United States. It was issued by President James Monroe during his seventh annual address to Congress.
It would appear to me to discourage any interferences between countries that could lead to war, thus, it furthers non-aggression.


Quote[/b] ]Pre-Bilblical or Biblical notions of Deity are not our present concern. The way you referrenced "Thou shall not Kill" as a jusfication for pacifism is. Moreover, a historical analysis of Christianity's development will not give you the pacifism you seek either, as Christianity was not pacifistic.

They are, if you choose to use these sources in trying to present counter evidence to my views.
By historical analysis of Christianity I mean the way its doctrine has evolved and how its institutions came into being, not what persons of the Christian faith have done in past centuries. This subsequently means that it is my opinion that Christians of that time didn't act true to the Christian beliefs more often than not.
Thou shalt not kill clearly tends to encourage non-violent behaviour.


Quote[/b] ]Not so, there is a critical difference between personal homicide to acheave some private end and killing as a soldier under arms for the state.

Yes, and that would be the transfer of moral guilt from the soldier to the governmental/military institution, under the premise that the soldier has already found this to be acceptable under his own morality when he joined the military.
The intent of ending any lives unaccidently is morally questionable/condemnable to me. Or are you saying abstract institutions formed by men should be immune to moral reasoning? That would come in quite handy indeed.


Quote[/b] ]Does Christ anywhere comdemn the wars of the Kings of the Old Testament? Does Christ anywhere condemn those in the service of Rome? Why is it that the few Roman soldiers, i.e. the Centurian, Christ has dealings with are percieved favorablity. Why is it that the first gentile convert to the new faith was a Roman solier? Why is it that service in the Imperial army was not forbidden? If Jesus is the Christ, as He claimed, then he IS the very God of the Old Testament, and as such, is the very source for many of the violent actions of the Old Testament. This of course, applies to the violence prior to the Mosaic Law as well afterwards. Christ's lack of condemnation regarding, perhaps the greatest action men can engage in, (war) does not appear to be a simple technical omission.

We are straying too far here. Discussion about relations of the holy trinity can be lead ad absurdum, and this is all in the eye of the beholder. Another point of why I said we have to look at how the Christian belief evolved through the centuries and what meanings scholars might have brought into it that have become dogma since. First and foremost Jesus Christ claimed to be the son of God.
While he might lack explicit condemnation of war, we don't find encouragement either. Why shouldn't treat Christ persons favourably if he has the belief that past sins can be forgiven by, for instance, converting and (possibly hoping) that his teachings will inspire the soldier to change his lifestyle? Again, if all were living by his teachings it would prevent wars rather than start them.
Regarding the Old Testament, again, has God encouraged men to take violent action by their own judgment or without his consent? I think not. It would appear violent action can only be decreed and justified by deity, not by man.



Quote[/b] ]Your Ezekiel reference appears to show Deity takes no pleasure in slaying the wicked, but does so according to the dictates of justice. Further, given that the revelatory record shows multiple instances of Deity ordering the death of people by the hands of men (i.e. the total slaughter of the people of Cannan by the hosts of a conquering Israel, man ,woman child) would suggest that justified killing is not restricted to fire and brimstone from heaven only.

See above.


Quote[/b] ]I don't think "personally" appears in the topic question.

True, but "you" does appear which favours a direct, non-passive adressing. Given that the person who asked is most probably not a native speaker will emphasise the seeking of personal opinion even more.
If the question were passive, then I have answered this also.

[Crimson Castle]

Quote[/b] (squippy @ Feb. 19 2004,13:53)]

[QUOTE=Quote ] But why do you Hiroshima protestors never seem to grasp the fact that the Japanese were brutally oppressing the peoples of Asia - not to mention prisoners of war?

Well, their FAILUIRE to understand it is just something that YOU are projecting onto them.

Why do bomb advocates never seem to grasp the fact that soemone elses evil does not justify your evil, and that burning small children on the mothers breast and little old ladies with sticks and delivery boys on bicycles to ash and shadow is not a Good Thing?

It's a false and primitive patriotic dichotomy to cast all your opponets as incomprehending or unsympathetic to the victims or sympathetic to the enemy. War is hell HOW DOES MAKING IT MORE HELLISH HELP?
It is YOU who don't understand the problem. What do you not understand? Let me explain it to you step by step

1. Japan is trying to take over the whole of Asia through force of arms. Their troops resort to genoicide, murder, rape to achieve their goals.

2. The US tells them to stop. Japan does not. The US gets fed up and stops selling them oil.

3. Japan retaliates and attacks the US and European forces in Asia - supposedly to liberate them from the yoke of European colonialism. Instead the Japanese replace it with a something much worse. Go and read the history books and educate yourself.

4. The US defeats much of Japan forces by 1944 but the Japanese refuse to surrender and keep on fighting - esp. in the China mainlan - millions of Asian die in the process - oh boo hoo says you.

5. The US drops the A-bombs and force Japan to surrender.

Consider the alternatives - the US could keep on fighting and millions of people - yes and including the poor Japanese civilians - will die through starvation, disease etc.. Now wtf is your problem with that?

How many people died in the bombing of Hiroshima? Compare that with how many people in Japan do you think would have died if the USN had carried on with its blockade whilst the stupid Japanese leaders twiddled with their thumbs?

Let me ask you - was your country occupied by Japan during WW2? My country was. The Japanese soldiers raped many of our young women and forced many of them into slave prostitution. One of my grandfather's friends was caught with a radio in his house. The Japanese accused him of being a spy. They bayonated his children before his eyes. Then they forced him to watch while they took turns raping his wife. They died in the end from torture in one of the Japanese prisons.

The Japanese soldiers would go around the houses and villages at night looking for girls to rape.

When the war ended - such atrocities stopped.

Now I don't hate the Japanese but how the heck do you intend them to surrender - QUICKLY - and stop their stupid war?

[Ithaskar Fëarindel]

Hold your breath guys.

Brutal obviously believes all war is wrong. Personally I respect that idea, if we all believed that then I'm sure we'd get a long better.

That's not to say that the A-Bomb's haven't had good effects on history. Beirut clearly explained them.

And there are those who say that innocents were killed needlessly (Japanese, or Asians...)

Either way... this argument is dependant upon ideals; a persons ethics. They differ for everyone, can't do anything about that.

Lucky for me, I really DO take a passive view. I spare myself the right to make a decision on a lot of subjects here, that way I don't give any bias (hopefully.) I can see the different sides of this argument and I can see it isn't getting far.

My advice would be to leave this topic alone, because there's no right answer, and you are only causing rifts between yourselves.

[Beirut]

Well thank you. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-toff.gif

[Pindar]

Quote[/b] ]My advice would be to leave this topic alone,

So, I assume this means not to contiune this thread. If that is indeed the desire of the powers that be, I won't respond to Brutal DLX's last post save to say that of the three identifed points of discussion (the moral positioning of his oppossition, an appeal to the ideals of the Founders of the U.S. system and Christian precedent): two of these were quite close to closure. It appeared to me, that only the proffered theoretical moral positioning of Brutal's posts was still in question.

[Ithaskar Fëarindel]

Actually Pindar, I'm not saying discontinue... that's up to you.

I'm saying that IMO it isn't worth continuing, because all I can see are firm arguments that won't budge, none of which are wrong.

[Loki]

To say that arguments that are diametrically opposed are both correct, seems a bit odd to me but given your position as a moderator and the necessity for some appearance of neutrality I guess I understand.

How about this for flexible. I am totally open minded on this topic. To be fair, I actually started on the other side of the fence (against the use of the Abomb). Not at the beginning of this thread but rather at the beginning of the my study of this topic.

If any of the detractors could simply lay out a scenario (based on cited and documented facts) in which the war could have ended sooner with less loss of life (on all sides of the conflict), I will be happy to change my stance and announce it to the world.

Should be pretty easy, right?

[squippy]

Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Feb. 19 2004,11:33)]

Quote[/b] ] Death is an inevitable aspect of war. Separating civilian from viable targets has never been as simple as it sounds, particularly in the age of total war (excuse the pun).

Well I agree; but I was not advancing the specious claim that nuking major city's can be construed as saving civilian lives.


Quote[/b] ] What one needs to consider is if 200,000+ civilian deaths is preferable to 20,000,000+ civilian deaths that would have occured from an invasion.

Except those numbers are purely speculative,m and there are discussions around whether or not the USA refused a Japanese offer to surrender prior to the bombings. I would like to point out that the bomb could have been demonstrated - and would have been awsome enough - over the sea or a relativekly low-population area, rather than right on top of two major, paper-and-wood cities.

[squippy]

Quote[/b] (Crimson Castle @ Feb. 21 2004,10:16)]

Quote[/b] ] 1. Japan is trying to take over the whole of Asia through force of arms. Their troops resort to genoicide, murder, rape to achieve their goals.[quote]

War is hell. Japan was on the back foot by the time the bomb was dropped, had been puched back nearly to the home islands.

Much of the remainder snipped; thank you I don't need a history lesson, my relatives fought in this war themselves.

[quote] 4. The US defeats much of Japan forces by 1944 but the Japanese refuse to surrender and keep on fighting - esp. in the China mainlan - millions of Asian die in the process - oh boo hoo says you.

Not boo hoo says me, boo hoo says you - becuase your solution to the deaths of so many civilians is to KILL YET MORE CIVILIANS.


Quote[/b] ] How many people died in the bombing of Hiroshima? Compare that with how many people in Japan do you think would have died if the USN had carried on with its blockade whilst the stupid Japanese leaders twiddled with their thumbs?

Hiroshima: 135,000 casualties of which 69,000 dead.
Nagasaki: 64,000 casualties of which 39,000 dead


Quote[/b] ] Let me ask you - was your country occupied by Japan during WW2?

A primitive emotional appeal. Did you eat eggs for breakfast today? If not, how can you tell me whether or not eggs are good breakfast food? Feh.


Quote[/b] ] Now I don't hate the Japanese but how the heck do you intend them to surrender - QUICKLY - and stop their stupid war?

... and so burning people to ash and shadow is OK, after all

The problem with your argument is that your empathy for the citims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki appears nil. So, I'm not sure why you should expect me to sympathise with the plight of those who suffered from Japanese atrocities if you think US atrocities are just cool. I say you should take a consistent position - either both are horrific, or its just plain old primitive us versus them, in which their suffering is valueless.

[Crimson Castle]

Quote[/b] (squippy @ Feb. 19 2004,13:53)]Well, their FAILUIRE to understand it is just something
Hello, please learn how to spell before you go mouthing off.


failure [Show phonetics]
noun [C or U]
when someone or something does not succeed:
The meeting was a complete/total failure.
I'm a bit of a failure at making (= I cannot make) cakes.
I feel such a failure (= so unsuccessful).
Their attempt to climb the Eiger ended in failure.
The whole project was doomed to failure right from the start (= It could never have succeeded).
See also failure at fail (NOT DO), fail (STOP).

[Crimson Castle]

Quote[/b] (squippy @ Feb. 23 2004,13:43)]Not boo hoo says me, boo hoo says you - becuase your solution to the deaths of so many civilians is to KILL YET MORE CIVILIANS.
Why do you not understand that the dropping of the A-bombs ended the war - which Japan started?

What? You want WW2 to continue for a few more years?

You honestly have no idea.... nor it seems how to spell properly.

[squippy]

Quote[/b] ] Why do you not understand that the dropping of the A-bombs ended the war - which Japan started?

Because I dispute the claim as self-serving war propaganda - which was exactly how and when it was circulated. Its a nice THEORY, but I donlt have to accept it as literal truth. After all, Hitler invaded the Sudetanland to stop the terrible persecution of the Sudetan Germans... RIGHT?

[Loki]

Not sure what you're getting at here Squippy old chap.... Are you saying America fabricated the attack on Pearl Harbor on a Holywood back lot, to justify it's imperialist land grab in Asia?

Once again, An emotion filled reply with no facts. Please spell out a way in which the war could have been brought to a close more quickly and with less loss of life on all sides. Please site some facts and sources as others here have done to justify your argument.

[squippy]

Quote[/b] (Loki @ Feb. 23 2004,19:47)]

Quote[/b] ] Not sure what you're getting at here Squippy old chap.... Are you saying America fabricated the attack on Pearl Harbor on a Holywood back lot, to justify it's imperialist land grab in Asia?

??? Whats that got to do with the rationale for the A-bombing?

But I don't have to take the stated rationale as gospel, any more than I am obliged to take the Germans stated rationale as gospel. The Japanese offered a surrender, but a conditional one; the US decided to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki becuase a conditional surrender was not sufficient in their eyes. It was naked power politics with an eye to eventual Pacific dominance, it had nothing to do with how many troops or civilians would be killed in an invasion of the home islands. And thus the bombing is as profound an atrocity as any other; as I often point out, the idea that other states are somehow so untrustworthy they cannot be allowed to have the bomb, and the only state to have used the bomb on human beings IS somehow trustworthy, is absurd.

[Loki]

Yet Another emotional post. Where are your facts and sources. Where exactly did you read that Japan ever offered a "conditional" surrender?

In fact they didn't. They had made some overtures exploring what our response would be "if" they were to offer a surrender with conditions.

The people responsible for doing this were also not the ones in power in the government at the time. The military was still very firmly in control.

The peace feelers were half hearted attempts to end the war on terms favorable to Japan and were opposed by the military, which was completely in control of the country. People have often mistakenly made the implication that the so-called peace party could have easily brushed the Japanese military aside, as though there were a British style parliamentary system in place. In reality those who advocated peace negotiations were in fear for their lives.

There are endless references to the ULTRA intercepts of Japanese military communication, which revealed only an iron willed intention to continue the war at any cost. The prevalent bushido code, which prohibited surrender under any circumstance, is always overlooked by those modern day revisionists looking back in horror and wringing their hands.

American strategy behind using the bomb was to inflict a series of shocks to the Japanese that would convince them that further resistance would be futile. One fact that is always conveniently left out by the revisionists is that the USA dropped "millions" of leaflets on the prospective targets warning civilians of the pending attack and advising them to get out of the city. I wonder if the Japanese had developed the bomb first and had the means to drop it on Washington or San Francisco, if they would have dropped leaflets first warning the civilians in those cities. The first bomb did not elicit a surrender. This is an historical fact that cannot be debated. So how then would a demonstration target have elicited a surrender?

So a second atomic bomb was dropped in order to give the impression that the U.S. had a large quantity of these weapons and would continue to use them until Japan was destroyed. After Hiroshima, the Japanese militarists argued that the U.S. had no more atomic bombs to use against them. The bombing of Nagasaki proved them wrong and along with the Soviet declaration of war provided the shocks needed to bring peace.

[Nelson]

Given the circumstances of the war, nuclear weapons were inevitable sooner or later, if not during the war then in the Cold War aftermath. The theory was in place. The physics had been worked out. The USA could not expect that the Axis powers may not have developed nukes themselves. Or the Soviets for that matter. The race was on. Had the Nazis or Japanese built them, their use was a forgone conclusion. Not because Nazis and Japanese militarists were evil (though they were), but because any power will use the mightiest weapons is has to win a fight for survival.

War is about killing people and destroying property to gain some objective. The aggressor wants to loot, steal or gain prestige, the aggrieved wants to defend and if possible, seek revenge. Soldiers do not arrest the enemy, they try to kill him. There are no rules really, just killing and destroying. Staying one’s hand in an attempt to take some supposed higher moral road to victory that disarms the righteous is foolish in the face of such wholesale barbarity as genocide, death camps and media covered beheading contests. There was never any moral obligation on the part of the Allied powers to be less than severe in the prosecution of the war.

It was never clear after Okinawa that Imperial Japan would not have resisted indefinitely in the face of starvation and blockade. Quite the opposite. The Manchurian Army was still intact. The population of the home islands was preparing for Armageddon. In the meanwhile, a terrifyingly unbelievable weapon was developed that offered the ultimate shock and awe effect. If a side benefit might have been the cowering of Stalinist Russia, so much the better. He was a monster too.

The list of dissenting opinions as posted earlier in this thread by Gallowglass are a credit to the US leaders of the day. They indicate what a gut wrenching decision the bombings were. Essentially, the military went to the president and said “We have this colossal bomb that is far beyond anything else ever imagined. Most of us think it will end the war but using it will have geopolitical repercussions unlike an ordinary city burnout job for which we would not disturb you. Should we use it or not?” No one was dancing a jig. This call was not an easy one for Truman. Most Americans agreed with him then. Most do today.

Little Boy and Fat Man saved many more lives than they took. Yes squippy, Truman was right to instantly incinerate tens of thousands to save hundreds of thousands more. Most Americans desperately wanted to save one in particular. A son, a husband, a brother, a cousin, an uncle or a friend. Lots of people in 1945 already had family or acquaintances mangled or dead from the war. The president owed an accelerated victory to every American lest the number of blue and gold stars grow in windows from Maine to California.

[Loki]

Hear hear

[squippy]

Quote[/b] ] War is about killing people and destroying property to gain some objective.

Please don't give me fatuous lectures on the morality and dangers of war, its wholly unnecessary and patronising. I fully agree with you as to what war is, which is why I find it sickening that people seek to cloak it in faux-morality, to excuse their atrocities. Who ever heard of a victorious army that did not loot and rape, regardless of who was the "aggrieved" and who the "aggressor"? This is just the hypocrisy of Aquinas excusing some wars as 'just'.


Quote[/b] ] Little Boy and Fat Man saved many more lives than they took. Yes squippy, Truman was right to instantly incinerate tens of thousands to save hundreds of thousands more. Most Americans desperately wanted to save one in particular.

Exactly. Non-Americans aren't really human in American eyes. We saw this principle again in Vietnam, when America decide it had to 'destroy the village in order to save it' And we see it today in Iraq, were ten thousand dead civilians are not even newsworthy.

Edit: I wonder how many of the nuclear apocalypse fanboys here have actually seen Strangelove.

[Crimson Castle]

Quote[/b] (squippy @ Feb. 25 2004,10:02)]Who ever heard of a victorious army that did not loot and rape, regardless of who was the "aggrieved" and who the "aggressor"?
LOL So now you're trying to say that the American and British armies were no better than the Nazi and Imperial Japanese armies? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-book2.gif

[Crimson Castle]

Quote[/b] (squippy @ Feb. 24 2004,12:36)]It was naked power politics with an eye to eventual Pacific dominance, it had nothing to do with how many troops or civilians would be killed in an invasion of the home
"naked power politics"? You mean to tell me that the US dropped the A-bombs to dominate the Pacific and to rule over Japan and to turn their women and men into slaves? Tell that to the Japanese. They think they won the war.

[Loki]

I wonder how many Revisionist hand wringers have actually read real history books?

[Loki]

And another thing that chaps my hide is to suggest that the American occupying armies were anything other than magnanimous and gentle.

Were there isolated cases of rape or abuse by individuals? Of course, but as a whole the occupation of Japan by the allies set a new standard for the world.

Read some history, and get enlightened.

[Crimson Castle]

Quote[/b] (Loki @ Feb. 25 2004,13:08)]And another thing that chaps my hide is to suggest that the American occupying armies were anything other than magnanimous and gentle.

Were there isolated cases of rape or abuse by individuals? Of course, but as a whole the occupation of Japan by the allies set a new standard for the world.

Read some history, and get enlightened.
I am afraid that no one is interested very much with the facts nowadays. One of my history lecturer told me pointblank that "There was no such thing as the truth. Everything is a matter of conjecture." Maybe I should have kicked him in the face. Then we could argue for countless hours whether his face hit my foot or vice versa.

[Nelson]

Quote[/b] (squippy @ Feb. 25 2004,06:02)]Non-Americans aren't really human in American eyes.

Yes, and all the rest of the world revels in the brotherhood of man… If you had said that Americans do not value enemies as highly as Americans when America is at war I would agree. What people would not? The Quakers maybe? Americans are not saints nor are they demons. Civilized man attempts to keep the atrocious aspect of his nature in check. When it erupts in some, it is triggered in others. When it erupts in a nation, other nations react in kind. War then becomes a vast atrocity. You are correct in that once it begins, the ensuing ferocity can make the distinction between the aggressor and aggrieved seem trivial in an absolute sense. It is not trivial in a moral sense.

I also wonder if we are we talking about WWII and atomic bombs or the anti-American vision that you apply to recent history? You don’t need to believe that using the bomb was necessary or moral. That call is yours. Famous Americans at the time disagreed with the decision. We've determined as much.

However, you refuse to accept that there were plenty of understandable reasons to employ the bomb. Reasons that mitigate against leveling charges of inhumanity or racism. Truman believed that a siege or an assault or prolonged negotiations would cost more American lives than using the new weapon. His duty was to win the war at the least possible cost TO THE USA. He suspected that fewer Japanese would die too but that was not his primary goal nor need it have been.

My statements about the nature of war were not made to preach or to be patronizing. They were merely a preface to my assertion that enemies are the people that get killed and that a nation can be expected to bring all technical means available to bear, especially when the adversary presents such a beastly aspect as did Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Atomic weapons did not reduce the USA to the same level of barbarity as the Axis powers any more than fire raids or flame throwers did. Using that logic would have had the Allied powers waiting to invent smart guided munitions before prosecuting the war so as to reduce civilian casualties. The norms of warfare had already come to include massive destruction. The 8th Air Force and Bomber Command were WMDs after all.

Your assertion that Americans value others less than themselves you apply across the board into the present. This reveals an attitude that you convey in your explanation for what happened at the end of WWII. Your appreciation of the fact the capitalist USA was left standing astride the world like a Colossus disturbs you. It is nonetheless an error to project moral judgements into the past if you will not appreciate the many dimensions that actual decision makers had to face. The Red Army committed atrocities on the way to Berlin that I can not condone or condemn. I would not pass judgement on men who have witnessed what they saw of Nazi terror. I can abhor communism and Stalin but I can’t fault what the Russians did to end the holocaust they did not begin. Your goal I believe is to bolster a contention that the USA represents an evil supreme imperialist power today and has for a long while. This case could be argued more cogently (though not very persuasively IMO) without questioning the efficacy or morality of Hiroshima or Nagasaki, acts that brought to a close one of the most morally justifiable decisive victories of all time.

And oh, I have seen and enjoyed Doctor Strangelove and I do not count myself a nuclear apocalypse fan boy.

[Loki]

Quote[/b] (squippy @ Feb. 19 2004,09:32)]
Quote[/b] (Loki @ Feb. 19 2004,09:04)]
Oh, all that is definitely true.

However, NPR being largely right-leaning, I bet they spent no time discussing how Americas spy-plane flights over China and then its petulant demand to get its ball back a few years ago also impeded attempts at cooperation. After all, the conflict between the USA and Japan occurred precisely becuase both are Pacific powers.

Hello Squippy

What color is the sky in your world?

NPR is rather right leaning? Are You MAD?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Yeah I noticed that post to and said the same thing as you loki,Guess I hit the wrong button and it never got posted,NPR right leaning.Kinda gives you a perspective of where old squippy is coming from.

[Crimson Castle]

I'm sorry but what is the NPR ?

[Loki]

National Public Radio

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Next we will hear about that other great bastion of conservatism PBS

[Crimson Castle]

Quote[/b] (Gawain of Orkeny @ Feb. 27 2004,01:47)]Next we will hear about that other great bastion of conservatism PBS
LOL, I've also heard of people comparing the Green movement with the Nazis.

[Crash]

Quote[/b] (Crimson Castle @ Feb. 23 2004,11:39)]Why do you not understand that the dropping of the A-bombs ended the war - which Japan started?
I guess this is the crux of the issue isn't it - whether the A-Bombs really did end the war. I agree with Squippy on this - it's just as much a theory as any other opinion, because there's no way to prove that the war would have ended without A-Bombs either.

It's true Japan did not offer a conditional or unconditional surrender directly to the US, but it's also true that they were attempting to send negotiation feelers to the US through the Soviet Union for months before the Hiroshima bombing, but the Soviet Union did not pass on the messages. Why? Because neither the Soviet Union nor the US wanted the war to end too soon

The Soviets were busy moving their crack units to the borders of Manchuria, anxious to declare war and overrun Manchukuo, Korea, and the Kurile Islands before Japan surrendered to the US. They were frantic to occupy some Chinese and Japanese territory before the war was over, to give them some more leverage in the post-war Cold War era.

At the same time, Truman was worried that the Japan would surrender before they were able to drop the A-Bomb in order to demonstrate it's effect to Stalin. So he did not make any effort to encourage and expedite surrender negotiations with Japan. He preferred to ignore their feelers. The fact the A-boms were dropped very soon after the Soviets joined the war against Japan and sent their troops into East Asia was no coincidence.

The Japanese were ready to surrender as soon as the Soviets joined the Allies and invaded Manchukuo. That is what finally convinced the Japanese military that there was not any hope of even a stalemate. The fact that they surrendered a few days after the A-Bombs were dropped was coincidental because it was also a few days after the Soviets attacked. Japan was already preparing to speed up surrender negotiations before Hiroshima was nuked.

This theory is the generally accepted one by professional historians all over the world. The only controversey with them is whether it was justifiable to demonstrated the A-Bomb to the Soviets by dropping it on Japan. Many US historians are of the opinion that yes, it was the correct geopolitical strategy in light of the coming Cold War dynamic. Others, of course, disagree on moral grounds.

[Loki]

Crash,

This is exactly the kind of post I'm talking about in ALL the earlier threads. You are stating an opinion; back it up with some quoted and verifiable sources.

You have not only contradicted yourself in your argument, you have ignored historical accuracy completely.

It's OK to have an opinion, but state it as that. Don't pose as if you'd done any real reading about this particular subject. If you have, then I'll ask you the same thing that I've asked all the other revisionist, and that is to state some facts with quotes from verifiable sources.

Lets take a look at your emotional but fact-less post.

You said,


Quote[/b] ]It's true Japan did not offer a conditional or unconditional surrender directly to the US, but it's also true that they were attempting to send negotiation feelers to the US through the Soviet Union for months before the Hiroshima bombing, but the Soviet Union did not pass on the messages.

And then you go on to say,

Quote[/b] ]
At the same time, Truman was worried that the Japan would surrender before they were able to drop the A-Bomb in order to demonstrate it's effect to Stalin. So he did not make any effort to encourage and expedite surrender negotiations with Japan. He preferred to ignore their feelers.

So which is it Crash? Which statement is correct and which a lie? Did the US get the "feelers" or not? How can Truman Ignore them, if as you say the Soviets have not passed them on?

And when you say,

Quote[/b] ]Truman was worried that the Japan would surrender before they were able to drop the A-Bomb in order to demonstrate it's effect to Stalin.

is this your "opinion" or have you actually read this somewhere. If so, please be kind enough to share with the rest of us the name of the book, the author, the page numbers etc etc. I'm sure everyone else would love this info as well.

Let's go on to the next historical error in your "opinion"

You said,

Quote[/b] ]The fact the A-boms were dropped very soon after the Soviets joined the war against Japan and sent their troops into East Asia was no coincidence.


Interesting, but a lie. Here are the Fact's.

On July 28th, after learning the contents of the Potsdam declaration (which was actually offered on July 26th), the members of the Japanese Supreme War Direction Council (the guys running the country Generals Anami, Umezu and Admiral Toyota) pressured prime minister Suzuki into making a strong public announcement against the declaration. They vowed to fight on to the end. Suzuki broadcasts a message that same day at 3:00pm. He said "I believe that the joint proclamation by the three countries is nothing but a rehash of the Cairo declaration. As for the government, it does not find any important value in it and there is no other recourse but to ignore it entirely, and resolutely fight for the successful conclusion of this war."

Truman had approved orders to drop the bomb after August 3rd, unless the Japanese accepted the Potsdam declaration. The Japanese obviously did not.

On August 6th Hiroshima is bombed (after they had eight days to accept the surrender terms AND the Americans dropped millions of leaflets warning civilians in the possible target cities to get out ahead of time)

Also on August 6th another declaration was issued by the allies, and I quote "It was to spare the Japanese people from utter destruction that the ultimatum of 26th July (Potsdam) was issued. Their leaders promptly rejected that ultimatum. If they do not now accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth."

On August 8th Russian Foreign Minister Molotov tells the Japanese ambassador that the Soviet Union, as of August 9th will consider itself at war with Japan. (Giving the Japanese a day to respond and surrender. They did not)

August 9th The second Atomic bomb is dropped on Nagasaki.

Even after these three devastating blows, and the specter of war on two fronts, the Japanese war council remained deadlocked on weather to accept the terms of the Potsdam declaration. In fact General Anami, (head of the war council) stated unequivocally, "We cannot pretend to claim that victory is certain, but it is far too early to say that the war is lost."

This is an excerpt from an excellent book on the subject, called "The Second World War: Asia and the Pacific" by John H. Bradley, Jack W. Dice, and Thomas E. Griess. ISBN 0-89529-425-7 ppgs 252 thru 259.

Just one more side note from another very informative book. The Japanese General staff in the late part of July 1945 had drawn up it's plans for the defense of the home islands, codenamed "Ketsugo" It consisted of 2 Army groups whose battle core was made up of 2 complete armored divisions 58 infantry divisions and 25 independent infantry brigades (for a complete TO&E please refer to, "Handbook on Japanese Military forces" TM-E30-4080 Oct 1st 1944 ISBN 0-8071-2013-8 chapters 3 section 1-5, and chapter 9 section 1-5 and chapter 10 section 1-9

So Crash and Squippy et al, my offer still stands. Simply outline the method or plan that would have gotten the Japanese to surrender more quickly and with less loss of life on all sides and I will be happy to change my opinion. Provided of course you can have a reasonable conversation and that you bring "facts" to the table that are verifiable, and not "emotions" or "opinions".

[Loki]

In my study of WWII, I have always admired the way that Winston Churchill could turn a phrase. He had the unique ability to take a very complex subject and sum it up in just exactly the right way. I find his thoughts on this subject prescient.

"There are voices that assert that the bomb should never have been used at all. I cannot associate myself with such ideas. Six years of "total war" have convinced most people that had the Germans or the Japanese discovered this new weapon, they would have used it upon us to our complete destruction with utmost alacrity. I am surprised that very worthy people, but people who in most case had no intention of heading to the Japanese front themselves, should adopt the position that, rather than throw this bomb we should have sacrificed a million Americans and a quarter of a million British Lives in the desperate battles and massacres of an invasion of Japan. Future generations will judge these dire decisions, and I believe if they find themselves dwelling in a happier world from which "total war" has been banished, and where freedom reigns, they will not condemn those who struggled for their benefit amid the horrors and the miseries of this gruesome and ferocious epoch."

Sir Winston Churchill, in an address to the House of Commons, August 16th 1945.

Of course Sir Winston could never have foreseen the likes of Squippy and his ilk.

[Lehesu]

War is two nations breaking each other's things. The point is to break enough of the opponent's things/resources that they no longer deem the war profitable. If one is provided with the means by which this can be accomplished, while saving your own things/resources, than such a thing can surely be beneficial. War is not something that is antiseptic or clean. Although conflicts may start out in such a way, the context found in the World Wars, which rapidly degenerated into a Total War in every sense of the word, was not one that was suitable to some nebulous code of chivalry.
To ask soldiers to continue to fight in a hellish quagmire, with no obvious end in sight, can be construed as to be as evil as the outright destruction of civilians. One can say all sorts of noble things about soldiers protecting the innocent and dieing for the innocent, but, in the end, you have a dead person. What is it that makes a dead civilian worth more than a dead soldier? They are both biological beings, composed of the same substance, blessed with the same inherent strengths and weaknesses of all others in their same race. Surely a soldier can fight better, so direct military value is obviously irrelevant. This leaves two things...moral attachments and resource attachments. Perhaps it is that civilians represent the future, whereas soldiers are the tools of the present? This would surely provide a strong resource value. More correctly, it would seem that civilians represent the limitless possiblities inherent in each individual, the things that shape the life of a nation. The soldiers, also a part of the future, are sworn to protect this burgeoning resource.
As such, civilians maintain a large moral and future value, things to be cherished. But what if the very nation formed of such future value spits on it, disowns the future and the limitless possibilities, accepts only one possibility and no other?
When a culture disowns its own future and then seeks to break the future of those that they are opposed to, than war as a restricted system conducted by military resources must be expanded to all resources, in totality. Surrender is, in many respects, a means by which the future is ensured (in most cases and surely in the parameters set up for Japan). It is a sad thing when the value of such a thing has been so forgotten that it takes an atomic bomb to reiterate its importance.


http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-zzz.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-zzz.gif Did I just write that? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-zzz.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-dizzy2.gif

[Crash]

Loki,

Somehow I don't think that you are really interested in my opinion, but maybe some other people are, perhaps? Your opinion is still an opinion, no matter how many sources you can quote.

Actually, Loki, I'm not trying to argue with you or anyone else, I was just stating what I have read in various books, journals, and articles on this subject. It's too easy to pick apart my sloppy sentences since I wasn't trying to write a detailed technically correct dissertation.

Anyway, I do believe that the A-bomb made no difference whatsoever in the timing of the surrender, but may still have had its purpose. As has been stated by many other posters, the A-bomb was functionally no different than carpet bombing as far as the Japanese were concerned at that point in the war since they were powerless to stop either type of attack. Not much was known about the extra radiation casualties caused by atomic weapons, and even that knowledge would probably have not made any difference to the Japanese at the point.

If Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been A-bombed, carpet bombed or not bombed, the Japanese were going to surrender when they were going to surrender because it was the entry of the Soviets into the war that precipitated the final decision to surrender. Since Nagasaki was bombed on August 9th and the Soviets declared war on August 9th, how do we know for sure which event was more important in the minds of the Japanese leadership.

In my mind the questions of whether the US should have used the A-bombs on Japan, and whether or not they actually did cause Japan to surrender are actually two somewhat different issues. Perhaps it was necessary to drop use the A-bombs to warn off Stalin from using his military might to conquer East Asia and Western Europe? Perhaps there was a dual purpose - to warn Stalin and to prod the Japanese into surrender. Perhaps Truman thought that it was necessary to shorten the war, when it actually wasn't in hindsight.

In any case all this speculation is still theory and opinion, since no one can absolutely prove what would have happened had the A-bombs not been used. But it's fun to discuss and argue...

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif

[Loki]

Crash,

Your first statement is downright silly isn't it? If we follow your train of thought about everything being an "opinion" then we can safely say that the USA did not drop any Atomic bombs on Japan right? You can't have your revisionist cake and eat it too. Either you accept all the facts or none of them.

And I have quoted many many sources in this thread, all I ask from you or any of the others are a few, and yet you are not willing or able to produce them. Interesting.

As far as me "too easy to pick apart my sloppy sentences you are wrong here as well. I was not criticizing your grammar or your spelling, just your logic. This has nothing whatsoever to do with "sentence structure" or how "technical" you were being. This has to do with the basic error and contradictory nature of your argument.

To a certain degree you are right about opinions though. What I have found in life is that there are two basic types. The informed and the uninformed. Obviously the informed opinion comes from research and gathering facts. The uninformed usually comes from an emotional place. Both are OK in and of themselves. Where people like you get into to trouble is when you try to pass off the later for the former, and then someone calls you on it.

You also mentioned that you "have read in various books, journals, and articles on this subject."

Thats great since we all love a discussion then please share with us a few of the above mentioned authors titles and chapters etc. Surely that wouldn't be too much trouble would it? Then we could have a real discussion, based on facts and not emotions.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-toff.gif

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Why didn't the japs surrender earlier.Do you think they were more surprised by Russia's declaration of war or the A-Bomb.I'm sure they knew that Russia was going to declare war on them long before the A-Bomb was dropped.There was no coincidence involved.Russia wanted a piece of the action and so declared war when they did before they missed out.

[Longshanks]

I voted that dropping the a-bomb was necessary.

I have yet to see any credible evidence that Japan was willing to surrender prior to the atomic bombings. Even AFTER both atomic bombs had been dropped, and the Soviets had crossed into Manchuria, the Supreme War Council was deadlocked on the surrender issue. Three supported fighting to the bitter end, three favored surrender. There is no doubt about this as we have the full transcipts of the meetings. This was essentially a victory for the hawks as a deadlock meant continuation of the war. It was only the unprecedented intervention by Hirohito that broke the deadlock. Even then there was a coup attempt by the Hawks aimed at killing the Doves, putting Hirohito under "protective custody," destroying the surrender recording and continuing the war. At one point the rebel troops had control of the Imperial Palace and Hirohito. If not for a palace servant sneaking the surrender recording out of the palace there may not have been a surrender. Keep in mind that all this happened AFTER both atomic bombings and the Soviet invasion of Manchuria.

The atomic bombings also saved lives, both American and Japanese. During the invasion of Okinawa one third of the entire civilian population was killed. If Japan had defended Honshu or Kyushu with the same tenacity, could we really expect civilian casualties to be any less? Japanese loss of live in an invasion would have far exceeded the numbers killed in both atomic bombings.

A good article on the subject:

Why the nuclear attack on Japan was right (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/08/05/1060064179100.html)

[Crimson Castle]

From the article...

The Japanese scholarship, by historians such as Sadao Asada of Doshisha University in Kyoto, notes that Japanese wartime leaders who favoured surrender saw their salvation in the atomic bombing. The Japanese military was steadfastly refusing to give up, so the peace faction seized on the bombing as a new argument to force surrender.

"We of the peace party were assisted by the atomic bomb in our endeavour to end the war," Koichi Kido, one of Emperor Hirohito's closest aides, said later.

Wartime records and memoirs show that the emperor and some of his aides wanted to end the war by the summer of 1945. But they were vacillating and couldn't prevail over a military that was determined to keep going even if that meant, as a navy official urged at one meeting -"sacrificing 20 million Japanese lives".

The atomic bombings broke this political stalemate and were thus described by Mitsumasa Yonai, the navy minister at the time, as a "gift from heaven".

Without the atomic bombings, Japan would have continued fighting by inertia. This would have meant more firebombing of Japanese cities and a ground invasion, planned for November 1945, of the main Japanese islands. The fighting over the small, sparsely populated islands of Okinawa had killed 14,000 Americans and 200,000 Japanese, and in the main islands the toll would have run into the millions.

"The atomic bomb was a golden opportunity given by heaven for Japan to end the war," Hisatsune Sakomizu, the chief cabinet secretary in 1945, said later.

Some argue that the US could have demonstrated the bomb on an uninhabited island, or could have encouraged surrender by promising that Japan could keep its emperor. Yes, perhaps, and it should have tried. It could also have waited longer before dropping the second bomb, on Nagasaki.

But, sadly, the record suggests that restraint would not have worked. The Japanese military ferociously resisted surrender even after two atomic bombings on major cities, even after Soviet entry into the war, even when it expected another atomic bomb on Tokyo.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

This thread just goes to show you how far revisionist history has pervaded the general public.Who was it who said if you tell a lie often enough people will start to believe it or something to that effect.Many here have echoed the revisionist theory on the drooping of the A-Bomb.They say they have read articles on it and looked in history books.These books and articles are written by people who have an agenda and would like to rewrite history.But if you go back to what really happened at the time and do some research you will find out it is just a bunch of dribble.This type of thing is not limited to the discussion of the A-Bomb and people are only to willing to believe what they see on TV or read in some book or article written 60 years after the actual events.If you are going to speak of history see if you can find things written at the time you are researching or at least soon there after and you will have a much greater chance to come up with the correct conclusion.Just because it is in a text book doesn't make it right or because your left wing professor gave you an A on your paper.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Oh i thought id just put in the whole title of this movie
Dr Strangelove
or
How I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb.
One of the funniest movies of all time IMHO
Now Fail Safe thats another good look at the subject

[squippy]

Quote[/b] (Gawain of Orkeny @ Feb. 29 2004,14:13)]

Quote[/b] ] These books and articles are written by people who have an agenda and would like to rewrite history.

Indeed. But perversely, apparently the people who dropepd it and rationalised it didn't have an agenda. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif


Quote[/b] ] Just because it is in a text book doesn't make it right or because your left wing professor gave you an A on your paper.

And regurgitating the self-justifications of butchers doesn't make it right just because your right-wing professor gave you an A.

Footnote: the allegation that NPR is mostly 'liberal' despite being dominated by right-wing pundits is one of those curious American mentalities thats very strange to outsiders. But, the USA is also about the only place that claims to be a democracy in which 'liberal' is a dirty word.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Can you name some of these right wing pundits that dominate NPR? I know of few conservatives that will even listen to it.Its like saying fox is dominated by left wing pundits because Alan Combs is on.
You are quick to call Americans butchers,Look at the Japanese there were far more barbaric and you don't seem to consider them butchers.The US was far more ethical than they.

[Crash]

Quote[/b] (Gawain of Orkeny @ Feb. 29 2004,14:13)]This thread just goes to show you how far revisionist history has pervaded the general public.Who was it who said if you tell a lie often enough people will start to believe it or something to that effect.
Actually, the "revisionist" views are held by a tiny minority of the general public. It seems to me that an overwhelming majority of the general public in the US, probably 99.99%, accept the view the a-bombing of Japan was necessary and did bring the war to an end.

It's interesting to see what an extreme, hostile, and adamant response the "revisionist" views have elicited. I would expect such a strong response if I was saying the Hitler was hero and the Jews deserved to be gassed, but not when I am offering some alternate opinions concerning the circumstances of the a-bombing. Am I tapping some hidden vein of guilt concerning the A-Bomb attacks? Am I being perceived as traitorous and unpatriotic for not going along with the conventional guilt-free view of the A-bombing?

The vast weight of historical texts, accounts, and books written since 1945 just keep building on the view promoted at time about the justifications for dropping the A-bombs so it's very easy to find any number of sources to support that view. So, "if you tell a lie often enough people will start to believe it", how do you know which "lies" are the real lies? It's not the revisionist viewpoint that gets repeated over and over again, or else it wouldn't be revisionist. Few people who care about this issue agree with me anyway, so I wouldn't worry about my "revisionist" views infecting the general public.

Loki, I don't know a productive way to respond to the posts you directed at me since they seem somewhat hostile, condenscending, and a little insulting. I don't have time to look up my sources for quotes right now and post them, but maybe I will get around to it someday if you are still genuinely interested. If you really aren't, I won't bother...

Cheers,
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif

[Longshanks]

Quote[/b] ]So, "if you tell a lie often enough people will start to believe it", how do you know which "lies" are the real lies?

We know what was said word for word at the Supreme War Council meetings because there were transcripts. We know that the Japanese Army did not want to surrender even after both atomic bombings, and it was only Hirihito's unprecedented intervention following the bombings that ended the war. We also know what the members of the Supreme War Council who favored surrender thought of the atomic bombings.

The only lie being perpetuated is the one that claims the Japanese were willing to surrender and the a-bombs were unneccesary. I can accept an argument that the a-bombs were immoral, but the argument that Japan was willing to surrender prior to their being used is unsupported by facts.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I was agreeing with you Longshanks its the others its the others who repeat that propaganda that it was unnecessary that I'm talking about.
And Crash the revisionist views I speak on are far more than just about the bomb.From what I read it has invaded our school system with a lot of stuff that is rewritten to be politically correct,I don't have time right now or I would give you a bunch of examples Im sure others here can provide us with some.

[Crash]

Quote[/b] (Gawain of Orkeny @ Mar. 01 2004,13:35)]And Crash the revisionist views I speak on are far more than just about the bomb.From what I read it has invaded our school system with a lot of stuff that is rewritten to be politically correct,I don't have time right now or I would give you a bunch of examples Im sure others here can provide us with some.
Well if you are talking about other "revisionist" views, then what does that have to do with my opinion on this subject? Now is my opinion somehow part of some great "revisionist" conspiracy? Hmmm - where did I grow wrong? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-smile.gif

Yes, if you don't believe that Japan was going to surrender no matter what, then of course you would think the A-Bomb was necessary to end the war. But since the A-Bomb was functionally no different from conventional carpet-bombing, how would the A-bomb have made Japan surrender any sooner than a carpet-bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Given the lack of knowledge of the effects of radiation at the time, using A-bombs would have been considered no more immoral than carpet bombing. But a real live test of the weapons was still necessary, or else no one would ever know if or how it would really have worked. As far as the morality of it, in the context of the time it was about as immoral as carpet bombing. So if you consider carpet bombing immoral, then yes A-bombs are at least as immoral.

The main justification for the dropping of the A-bombs is that the war would not have ended without it, and all the history text books and editorials for the past 60 years have repeatedly hammered this point home, and this has been accepted as gospel by the vast majority of Americans. But no one can prove for sure what would have happened if there had been no A-Bombs or if Hiroshima, Nagasaki and other cities were carpet bombed or not bombed.

How do we know that the decision to surrender was not a combination of events and factors and what part the A-Bomb played in it? Like any really complicated court case or trial, both sides can bring up any number of witnesses or expert testimony to bolster their case, but without a confession and direct eyewitnesses, even the judge and jury's decision is, in the end, still an opinion.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

One plane dropping one bomb and doing the same if not more damage than 100 bombers does not have the same effect on the morale of the people being bombed its just that simple.
As I have said I have lived in Japan and you cannot judge them on what we westerners would do.
They knew the effects of carpet bombing very well and if you read what their military leaders were saying to each other you will see that still had no intention to surrender,But if you think that 30 or 40 b-29s could come over and devastate your country in one attack it may make you think again.

[Crash]

I have been to Japan several times myself, and I have read so much Japanese and US military history, particularly WWII stuff, that I cannot remember what I read where.

The vast majority of the Japanese did not even know that atom bombs were being dropped on Japan before the surrender. Hardly any one of them even knew or could understand what nuclear fission was, let alone how an A-bomb worked. I have been told this by several Japanese people who were living in Japan at the time that it happened.

Even people living in Hiroshima or Nagasaki did not understand that they had been nuked because they were too busy dealing with the immediate matter of casualties and destruction. It really did not make any difference to them whether they had been fire-bombed or A-bombed because either way they were burned and killed. The radiation illnesses did not become widespread knowledge in Japan until many months later.

The Japanese military leadership did not even really understand what A-bombs were, let alone the effects of radiation on people. If anyone of them had an inkling about it, they probably still wouldn't have cared because the A-bombs did not alter the overall strategic situation one iota.

If Hiroshima and Nagasaki and other Japanese cities had been fire-bombed and carpet-bombed even more Japanese could have been killed than by the A-bomb. So how would the A-bombing have expedited the surrender any more than even more destructive fire and carpet bombing?

If carpet-bombing and fire-bombing of civilians was immoral then A-bombing was equally immoral, otherwise it was just another weapon in the strategic conflict between the Soviets and the US.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-book2.gif

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Ok so lets all agree that war is immoral.Or at least strategic bombing.
But you cannot tell me that the Japanese military did not realize that it was just one plane and one bomb that destroyed both those cities.You don't have to understand how the bomb works to understand the implications of such a weapon,Anyone with an iota of intelligence believing that there were more of these bombs would certainly be more inclined to sue for peace.

[squippy]

Quote[/b] (Gawain of Orkeny @ Mar. 01 2004,08:55)]You are quick to call Americans butchers,Look at the Japanese there were far more barbaric and you don't seem to consider them butchers.The US was far more ethical than they.

You are mistaken. I am quite willing and able to call any military butchers; thats what they do. All I am against is America somehow claiming its conscience is clean; thats just the winners writing the history books. We see this above, with the discussion about 'intention to surrende'. Of course they were unwilling to surrender, because the USA was demanding an UNCONDITIONAL surrender, and unwilling to accept a conditional one.

I completely deny that the USA was more ethical than the Japanese; I think such a claim is hopelessly sentimental in the face of the realities of war. It is absolutely farcical to try to claim that nuking a city was in any way shape or form an ethical act. You may claim it was necessary, you may claim it was just revenge, you cannot claim that it was ethical and carried out by high minded moralists.

[Crimson Castle]

Quote[/b] (squippy @ Mar. 01 2004,11:34)]Indeed. But perversely, apparently the people who dropepd it and rationalised it didn't have an agenda. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
Oh please. They did it to stop the stupid war that Japan started.

We are still waiting for you to tell us how you intend to get Japan to surrender.

[Crimson Castle]

[/quote]It's interesting to see what an extreme, hostile, and adamant response the "revisionist" views have elicited. I would expect such a strong response if I was saying the Hitler was hero and the Jews deserved to be gassed, but not when I am offering some alternate opinions concerning the circumstances of the a-bombing. Am I tapping some hidden vein of guilt concerning the A-Bomb attacks? Am I being perceived as traitorous and unpatriotic for not going along with the conventional guilt-free view of the A-bombing?
[/quote]


You are totally forgetting the barbaric war that Japan was inflicting on Asia.

Look, why don't you read up on the behavior of the Japanese army in China, Burma, Malaya, and the Phillipines.

Then tell us whether if you want the war to continue for another six months or more - to allow the fked-up Japanese leaders to make up their mind whether to put out a white flag and say those simple word - "I surrender".

[Crimson Castle]

Quote[/b] (squippy @ Mar. 03 2004,08:46)]I completely deny that the USA was more ethical than the Japanese; I think such a claim is hopelessly sentimental in the face of the realities of war. It is absolutely farcical to try to claim that nuking a city was in any way shape or form an ethical act. You may claim it was necessary, you may claim it was just revenge, you cannot claim that it was ethical and carried out by high minded moralists.
Oh give it up. Are you seriously comparing the Rape of Nanking to Hiroshima?

The US dropped millions of leaflets on Hiroshima - telling them to evacuate the city - days in advance.

When did the Japanese ever do such a thing?

Why don't you do yourself a favor and go and read a few good history books on the Japanese military in China.

Downfall : The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire
by Richard Frank (Author)

[Crimson Castle]

Here's a review of Richard Frank's book "Downfall: The End of the Japanese Empire" by Hans Koning.

Koning is a novelist and essayist. His most recent novel is Pursuit of a Woman on the Hinge of History. He is a contributing editor at TomPaine.com.


It is rare that a single book shakes one's long-held ideas about a crucial political drama, but such was the case for me by reading Downfall, a history of August 1945, the Japanese surrender and the ending of World War II. Its author is Richard B. Frank, whose second book it is. (His first one, Guadalcanal was the story of the American capture of that island from the Japanese in the summer of 1942). Frank's writing style isn't particularly inspired, but the book's impact lies in the vast amount of research he has done, going through four years of Japanese military messages deciphered by American Intelligence (the so-called Magic and Ultra decoding), and such hitherto unpublished material as a private journal kept by Emperor Hirohito during the war. It isn't a case of being won over by his arguments, but by his original presentation of new facts.

Like most leftish writers, I have held it proven that Japan was on the verge of surrendering in early August 1945, and that the primary reason for using the atom bomb was "to show" the Russians, to show them that their victory over the Germans had not bought them security and preeminence in Europe -- that Hiroshima was a diplomatic, not a military, move.

I, too, believed that if a discussion of the morality of Hiroshima was possible (Truman's "It saved a million American boys"), there was no conceivable justification for the second atom bomb, dropped three days later on Nagasaki.

Frank's data question both concepts. They do not make the use of atomic weapons seem less awesome and less awful, but they throw different light on it.

About the "pending surrender of Japan": the material on the cabinet meetings in Tokyo in early August (of the six men then in control of Japan's fate), mention the discussions of a negotiated peace among the civilian members but show how these led nonetheless to the unanimous rejection, and "with contempt," of the Allied ultimatum issued from Potsdam. The civilian members would have had to fear for their lives if they had acted otherwise. A total military take-over, and martial laws were, around the corner. The Emperor stayed silent.

The military plan, Ketsu-Go, for action after an American invasion of the mainland, foresaw the erasing of the line between soldiers and civilians. Massive suicide attacks, not only from the air but also on land, were planned and some six thousand primitive kamikaze planes were waiting on Kyushu, Japan's most southern island. Ketsu-Go was prepared to sacrifice the lives of twenty million Japanese. The military cast had started the war and losing it through surrender would be an unacceptable blemish on their reputations. One great victorious land battle was needed to maintain their honor; thereafter peace could be negotiated. As for Nagasaki, at the cabinet meeting on that same day (August 9), the military reported that the damage was considerably less than in Hiroshima, and that in all likelihood the U.S. had only one or two more atom bombs.

Actually the American top brass had already increasing doubts about "Operation Olympic," a landing on the island of Kyushu. The next non-atomic move for which there was complete support from the U.S. army, air force, and navy, was a series of bombing raids with planes and ships to knock out Japan's fragile railroad system of which the main lines ran along both coastlines, east and west. With the Japanese merchant fleet already gone, this would have brought almost immediate famine in the cities. (Japan had no road net for long distance freight. When I drove around there, twenty years later, I still found no asphalted roads outside Tokyo.) Would it then have been more humane to bank on famine as leading to a Japanese surrender?

Frank asks why it would have been more humane to kill Japanese women and children that way, and why Japan's victims were more expendable than the Japanese themselves. He estimates that some one hundred thousand Chinese died each month in the Japanese work camps, and thousands of allied prisoners-of-war and civilian internees. If it is argued that without atom bombs the war would have lasted "only" three months longer, he demonstrates that those three months, plus the ongoing famine, would have killed ten times more people than the two atom bombs. Moreover, without the bombs the Emperor would have had no "alibi" to stop his generals.

Frank, who was born in 1947, two years into the atomic era, may lack understanding of the feelings of horror the bombs created. Worldwide it was immediately realized that these were not "just bombs, only more so." Mankind had created the means to destroy itself. Frank doesn't argue this. But he gives a more precise insight into what was going on in the minds of the actors in that deadly August month, and into the options as they saw them.

[Ser Clegane]

Having followed the discussion from the side line for the past two weeks, I just wanted to drop in again to let you guys know that I consider this discussion to be a great help to broaden my view on this issue.

Though I have been arguing for the anti-bomb-faction in this thread I highly appreciate the arguments and facts brought forward by the "other side".

As the people I know also tend to support the anti-bomb camp, I think the next time the topic comes up I am going to play the "devil's advocate" and use some of the arguments that have been presented here by the "pro-bomb camp" to see what happens. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

IMO it is often very helpful to challenge your own position by seriously starting to argue for the other side and have people who actually share your position try to convive you of "their" point of view.

Thanks

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[Loki]

Ser Clegane,

Careful there Sir As I mentioned in a previous post, I too started in the other camp. When this subject "comes up" as you said, make the same challenge to your friends that I have laid down here. Namely to outline a plausible scenario in which the war could have been ended with less loss of life on all sides and more quickly. Notice I said plausible. Answers like, "We could have just stopped fighting" are nonsense because then more civilians (the ones being occupied by Japan) would have died. Also challenge their sources. A self realization that I came to during my transformation, was that many of the "facts" I thought I "knew" turned out to be totally false once I began earnest and honest research. A great example of this is that most revisionists quote with great authority how the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were "poisoned" by radioactivity due to the bombings. The facts, as I've pointed out in an earlier post are quite the contrary.

Here's a snippet
"One of the most important tasks assigned to the mission which investigated the effects of the bombing was that of determining if the radiation effects were all due to the instantaneous discharges at the time of the explosion, or if people were being harmed in addition from persistent radioactivity. This question was investigated from two points of view. Direct measurements of persistent radioactivity were made at the time of the investigation. From these measurements, calculations were made of the graded radiation dosages, i.e., the total amount of radiation which could have been absorbed by any person. These calculations showed that the highest dosage which would have been received from persistent radioactivity at Hiroshima was between 6 and 25 roentgens of gamma radiation; the highest in the Nagasaki Area was between 30 and 110 roentgens of gamma radiation. The latter figure does not refer to the city itself, but to a localized area in the Nishiyama District. In interpreting these findings it must be understood that to get these dosages, one would have had to remain at the point of highest radioactivity for 6 weeks continuously, from the first hour after the bombing. It is apparent therefore that insofar as could be determined at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the residual radiation alone could not have been detrimental to the health of persons entering and living in the bombed areas after the explosion.

The second approach to this question was to determine if any persons not in the city at the time of the explosion, but coming in immediately afterwards exhibited any symptoms or findings which might have been due to persistence induced radioactivity. By the time of the arrival of the Manhattan Engineer District group, several Japanese studies had been done on such persons. None of the persons examined in any of these studies showed any symptoms which could be attributed to radiation, and their actual blood cell counts were consistently within the normal range. Throughout the period of the Manhattan Engineer District investigation, Japanese doctors and patients were repeatedly requested to bring to them any patients who they thought might be examples of persons harmed from persistent radioactivity. No such subjects were found.

It was concluded therefore as a result of these findings and lack of findings, that although a measurable quantity of induced radioactivity was found, it had not been sufficient to cause any harm to persons living in the two cities after the bombings."

Quoted from, "The Avalon Project" at Yale Law School.
The Lillian Goldman Law Library.

[Crimson Castle]

Quote[/b] (Ser Clegane @ Mar. 03 2004,13:48)]Having followed the discussion from the side line for the past two weeks, I just wanted to drop in again to let you guys know that I consider this discussion to be a great help to broaden my view on this issue.

Though I have been arguing for the anti-bomb-faction in this thread I highly appreciate the arguments and facts brought forward by the "other side".

As the people I know also tend to support the anti-bomb camp, I think the next time the topic comes up I am going to play the "devil's advocate" and use some of the arguments that have been presented here by the "pro-bomb camp" to see what happens. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

IMO it is often very helpful to challenge your own position by seriously starting to argue for the other side and have people who actually share your position try to convive you of "their" point of view.

Thanks

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Change sides? Yeah sure I could do that. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

All I need to do is to ignore the deaths caused by the Japanese military in China, Burma, Malaya, Phillipines to Asian civilians - which number 100,000 per month according to Frank's book Downfall.

Not to mention the death of Allied sailors and soldiers in the Asia fighting against the Japanese military. Yeah, hey bugger them right?

Then lets pretend that Japan is a benovalent peace loving nation which did not start WW2 in Asia and was desperate to surrender. They killed 100,000 Filipino civilians in Manila alone to prove their desire for peace when the Americans landed.

So screw the facts and I can say dropping the A-bombs was totally unnecessary.

[Ser Clegane]

Quote[/b] (Crimson Castle @ Mar. 04 2004,01:18)]
Quote[/b] (Ser Clegane @ Mar. 03 2004,13:48)]Having followed the discussion from the side line for the past two weeks, I just wanted to drop in again to let you guys know that I consider this discussion to be a great help to broaden my view on this issue.

Though I have been arguing for the anti-bomb-faction in this thread I highly appreciate the arguments and facts brought forward by the "other side".

As the people I know also tend to support the anti-bomb camp, I think the next time the topic comes up I am going to play the "devil's advocate" and use some of the arguments that have been presented here by the "pro-bomb camp" to see what happens. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

IMO it is often very helpful to challenge your own position by seriously starting to argue for the other side and have people who actually share your position try to convive you of "their" point of view.

Thanks

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Change sides? Yeah sure I could do that. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

All I need to do is to ignore the deaths caused by the Japanese military in China, Burma, Malaya, Phillipines to Asian civilians - which number 100,000 per month according to Frank's book Downfall.

Not to mention the death of Allied sailors and soldiers in the Asia fighting against the Japanese military. Yeah, hey bugger them right?

Then lets pretend that Japan is a benovalent peace loving nation which did not start WW2 in Asia and was desperate to surrender. They killed 100,000 Filipino civilians in Manila alone to prove their desire for peace when the Americans landed.

So screw the facts and I can say dropping the A-bombs was totally unnecessary.
I am not quite sure what you are trying to tell me, Crimson Castle http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

I am merely stating that the course of the discussion here broadened my perspective and changed my view of the issue from a rather black & white to a more gray perception of the developments in 1945. I am still not completely convinced that dropping two a-bombs on civilian targets within 3 days was the only viable solution, but I concede that the likeliness of a prolonged war with a high number of victims and casualties on many sides might not have made a completely different approach feasible either.

You're response to this is a simple rant...

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Yes Castle I think ser was just saying that by looking at the other side his mind has been opened.I think Castles point though Ser is that he has looked at the other side and still finds it to have no merit.That you can play devils advocate all you want but facts are facts.

[Quessa]

Voted Gah, intented to vote for "Necessary, immoral but necessary. Saving lives is another thing then..."

By the way, here's been some talk about the barbaric behaviour of the Jap military. My personal opinion is that every military-force is and should be considered barbaric. They're tough and they have to be, it's their job after all.
It's just that how tough they are (Japs in Burma were most likely quite scared of the jungles and possible resistance, people have gone crazy to protect themselves after lesser events) and how tough are they allowed to be.

To me it appears that it's always the invading force that is to be considered barbaric and cruel. Let it be the British in the New Land, conquistadors, White men in Africa, Russians in Tschetsenya or Finland amongst many other places, Germans in France and all over, Americans in Afghanistan and Irak, Japs in Burma et cetera et cetera.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Give me an act by American soldiers that rivals the Bataan death march or the rape of Nanking .You cannot even come close to comparing the ethics or allied soldiers with those of Germany or Japan unless you are looking at Russia.

[Quessa]

Hold your horses, I didn't mean to be offensive. This whole "Allies apart from CCCP are all-out angels, Axis on the other hand are all evil, slaughtering and raping bastars" starts to irritate me.
Granted, Japs were bad and Germans were bad. But... there's always the dark side of the life, and that counts in the Allies as well.

Now do you sincerely believe that the Allies didn't execute enemy soldiers and time to time civilians? We're all humans (in the case that the Allies were not made from steel and filled with electronics) and humans do mistakes that cost lives. Uga-uga men killed, the Greeks killed, Romans killed, Vikings killed, Mongols killed, the British killed, Negroes killed, aboriginals killed, American Indians killed and were killed, Japs killed, Germans killed and the Allied killed.

All were humans, and humans kill. If in WW2 I was given a gun and commanded to take a bunch of Ruskie captives to the HQ, I'd probably shoot them if I considered my own life threated. That's life.

[Ser Clegane]

Quote[/b] (Quessa @ Mar. 04 2004,12:13)]To me it appears that it's always the invading force that is to be considered barbaric and cruel. Let it be the British in the New Land, conquistadors, White men in Africa, Russians in Tschetsenya or Finland amongst many other places, Germans in France and all over, Americans in Afghanistan and Irak, Japs in Burma et cetera et cetera.
Hmm ... the allied forces that occupied Germany after WWII behaved quite honorably IMO.

Especially the GI's earned a lot of respect among the population for the very friendly treatment of civilians.

Considering what the German army did to Russia I would even say that the Russian occupation force showed better behaviour than many people might have feared.



Quote[/b] ]
I think Castles point though Ser is that he has looked at the other side and still finds it to have no merit.That you can play devils advocate all you want but facts are facts.


Indeed - facts are facts - fact is that a prolonged war would have cost thousands of lifes on all sides. Fact is also that to prevent this the lifes of > 100,000 civilians have been sacrificed.

I can follow the argumentation of some people that the first bomb was necessary to end the war quickly.
I am however, not at all convinced that it was necessary to drop a second bomb within 3 days.
You will probably argue that Japan did not surrender after the first bomb but it did immediately after the second.
Considering the different opinions within the Japanese leadership, do you believe it is impossible that after the first bomb the japanese leadership might have been convinced to surrender if say had been given some more time?

You will say "It took them only one day to surrender after the second bomb".
Well, seeing that the US government was able and willing to destroy cities on a daily basis, the Japanese have probably accelerated thesurrendering process a bit.
That does not mean that they would not have surrendered shortly after the first bomb.
If that would have been the case the second bomb would have been absolutely unnecessary (or would have been dropped "just to be sure that they know that we mean business").

I think it is very hard to prove whether the Japanese would have surrendered after the first bomb or not, but waiting maybe 10 more days while officially trying to negotiate a surrender with the Japanese might have been more "moral" than eradicating the next city...

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Well war is barbaric if thats what you are saying.A soldiers job is to kill the enemy.It sounded to me that you were saying that the jap military is no worse or more barbaric than any other military.Theres a difference between making mistakes and lining up prisoners of war and executing them or accidentally killing civilians or wiping them out and raping their women by the thousands.

[Crimson Castle]

Quote[/b] (Quessa @ Mar. 04 2004,17:50)]Hold your horses, I didn't mean to be offensive. This whole "Allies apart from CCCP are all-out angels, Axis on the other hand are all evil, slaughtering and raping bastars" starts to irritate me.
Granted, Japs were bad and Germans were bad. But... there's always the dark side of the life, and that counts in the Allies as well.
No one is saying that the Allied forces were angels.

But if you're trying to equate Allied acts with those committed by the Axis - as the same part of the same coin - then bluntly you are showing your complete ignorance of WW2 history.

[Crash]

Forgive me for butting in here, but I haven't seen anyone really "equating" atrocities committed by the Allies with the ones committed by the Axis. It's just being pointed out that the Allies are not guiltless in the area of atrocities and war crimes and questionable ethics in the name of war. The point is that the Allies, presumably fighting against facism in order to preserve a better world, therefore ought not to have copied the morals and ethics of the enemy, but should have strived for a higher standard - which they did, generally speaking.

If the justification for the A-bombing was revenge against the Axis for all the horrible atrocities they committed, I would totally disagree. That would totally fly in the face of the higher moral standards the Allies were supposed represent. Atrocities should not be answered with atrocities unless you want to sink to the level of your enemy.

One of the objectives of the firebombing of German cities in WWII was to demoralize the civilian population, and thus hasten the end of the war. The effect was the exact opposite, the civilians were galvanized into stronger support for their military forces in order to seek revenge against the enemy. This is what happened in the Blitz against London, and what happens whenever terrorists succeed on killing large numbers of Americans, Israelis, Indians, or Russians.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

You all probably know I am ore of the biggest supporters of US policies through the years.This is one thing that has always bothered me.I think the fire bombing of the German cities were some of the greatest war crimes ever committed same for the Japanese cities.Dam I hate to agree with crash http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif However that being said I feel that the Bomb still saved lives and was justified.It is the exception to the rule.Would it have been better to keep fire bombing more cities and causing a greater loss of life on both sides? From all I have read and I have studied ww2 for 45 years they were justified and the US did not to so without great thought and debate.

[Crimson Castle]

Quote[/b] (Ser Clegane @ Mar. 04 2004,18:15)]I think it is very hard to prove whether the Japanese would have surrendered after the first bomb or not, but waiting maybe 10 more days while officially trying to negotiate a surrender with the Japanese might have been more "moral" than eradicating the next city...
Perhaps - given more time - the Japanese would have surrendered. The question is how much more time would you have given them?

One week?

One more month?

One more year?

Every day you wait - hundreds of people are being killed or maltreated due to the war.

The unfortunate reality of the situation is that - the Japanese leaders DID NOT want to surrender unless they had won a significant victory to "save face" or had negotiated an armistice which they favored. Now bear in mind the history of such treaties (see WWI) - they don't work well.

War is a terrible thing. The Japanese realized that - but they thought they would be spared. They cheered when their armies and troops killed and conquered other races. They kept quiet when they heard news of the atrocities committed by their troops.

If you ever think that - given more time - the Japanese would have surrendered - spare a thought for the hundreds of thousands of sex slaves being gang raped on a daily basis because the Japanese Army had enslaved them to "comfort" their troops.

Even up to today - Japan refuses to acknowledge its horrific treatment of civilians whose lands it had conquered.

And as for the bombings of Japanese cities - yes it was deplorable. But when the Japanese surrendered - the bombings stopped. However, remember that when other people and nations surrendered to the Japanese - their plight got considerably worse.

Just please study a history book of the treatment of the Chinese, Koreans, Filipinos under Japanese WW2 occupation.

[Crimson Castle]

Quote[/b] (Crash @ Mar. 05 2004,19:03)]If the justification for the A-bombing was revenge against the Axis for all the horrible atrocities they committed, I
No, no, no. FFS, the US dropped the A-bomb to make Japan surrender and stop their STUPID WAR.

Every day that Japan continued their dumb war, hundreds of people were killed, wounded, or raped by Japanese troops.

[Crimson Castle]

Quote[/b] (Gawain of Orkeny @ Mar. 05 2004,19:17)]You all probably know I am ore of the biggest supporters of US policies through the years.This is one thing that has always bothered me.I think the fire bombing of the German cities were some of the greatest war crimes ever committed same for the Japanese cities.Dam I hate to agree with crash http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif However that being said I feel that the Bomb still saved lives and was justified.It is the exception to the rule.Would it have been better to keep fire bombing more cities and causing a greater loss of life on both sides? From all I have read and I have studied ww2 for 45 years they were justified and the US did not to so without great thought and debate.
Do the fire-bombings horrify you? It is horrible. But remember the Germans had brought war onto other nations - their troops were raping and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.

There was nothing stopping the German civilians from evacuating their cities and heading off to non-manufacturing areas which weren't targeted.

Moreover, the cities that the Allied bombers attacked - were defended by enemy fighters. Over 100 thousand bomber crew were killed in action.

When Germany and Japan surrendered- the bombings stopped.

However, the civilians of the towns and cities that the Germans and Japanese military occupied were not so "lucky". They faced unimaginable brutal treatment. They were worked to death, raped, tortured - in the millions.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Man I hate to say this but answering atrocities with more atrocities isn't right.There was no military targets intended in the fire bombing of these cities.The whole idea was demoralize the civilian population,Are you saying if the German fighters didn't defend the cities we wouldn't have attacked them?If they wanted to destroy the manufacturing capability the should bomb the factories not the whole dam city.Besides by this time most Germain manufacturing had gone under ground.These raids did nothing except kill innocent civilians.Sure the Germans and the Japanese would have done the same if they could and did when they were able.But I like to think that we are better than them and as a whole we were.I see little difference between these raids and terrorist bombing except that they were on a much larger scale.

[Quessa]

Quote[/b] (Crimson Castle @ Mar. 06 2004,07:54)]hundreds of people were killed, wounded, or raped by Japanese troops.
I know I'm going a bit off-topic here, but this reminds me of the thing where the Russian propaganda in the film Unknown Soldier tried to force the Finns to surrender by saying things like: "The germans are raping your mothers and sisters while you are here fighting a battle everyone knows you can't win... blaa blaa".

[Longshanks]

Quote[/b] (Quessa @ Mar. 06 2004,16:53)]
Quote[/b] (Crimson Castle @ Mar. 06 2004,07:54)]hundreds of people were killed, wounded, or raped by Japanese troops.
I know I'm going a bit off-topic here, but this reminds me of the thing where the Russian propaganda in the film Unknown Soldier tried to force the Finns to surrender by saying things like: "The germans are raping your mothers and sisters while you are here fighting a battle everyone knows you can't win... blaa blaa".
In the case of the Japanese it's not propaganda. The Japanese were absolutely brutal to the subjugated civilian populace in conquered territories. The Japanese troops often hehaved like savages.

[squippy]

In Somalia, a couple of Canadian 'peacekeepers' were nailed for roasting an 'enemy combatant' over a fire. We, the allegedly civilised nations just recently caused 1.5 million people in Iraq to die, of which nearly half a million were children, and thats BEFORE the war. Is that an example of superior morality? Sure, its all very comfortable and easy to just point to the enemy and scream 'evil evil evil', but its also self serving and stupid.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Wow squippy is there anyone in the world left of you? So it was the civilized nations that caused the death of 500,000 children in Iraq.I suppose Saddam had no part in it he was such a humanitarian.Look at what he did with the oil for food money.You probably think it was the rest of the worlds fault that all the Jews died in the holocaust.Poor Hitler if we had just understood him a little better.
I'm still waiting for your list of all those right wing pundits that dominate NPR by the way.

[Beirut]

Squippy,

The Canadian Peacekeepers did not roast anyone over a fire, but they did torture and beat to death a Somalian who tried to sneak into their camp to steal things. The soldier who was responsible later hanged himself, without success, but suffered severe brain damage and is unfit for trial (or anything else).

The Airborne Regiment was disbanded because of that and my entire country, Canada, was outraged and felt betrayed. For a Canadian Peacekeeper to have acted in such a way was tantamount to treason.

We bare the shame and guilt for his actions and in no way do we hide from what happened.

[Crimson Castle]

Quote[/b] (squippy @ Mar. 10 2004,10:58)]In Somalia, a couple of Canadian 'peacekeepers' were nailed for roasting an 'enemy combatant' over a fire. We, the
Oh wow, a few Canadian troops commit a crime - and thus the whole of the West is no better than the terrorists, Sadam Hussein, the Iran Regime, the PLO whatever? You have a pretty fked up logic there.

What next? Lets argue that the Crusades give the Arabs all the right to start a Jihad against us today?

[squippy]

Quote[/b] ] Oh wow, a few Canadian troops commit a crime - and thus the whole of the West is no better than the terrorists, Sadam Hussein, the Iran Regime, the PLO whatever? You have a pretty fked up logic there.

You missed the point, deliberately I suspect. There is no basis for saying "it cannot happen here". There is no basis for assuming that We are better than Them in some inherent, special way. Either we CHOOSE to obey things like the Geneva Convention, or we do not - that is what makes the difference, not our nationality. So, please don't be giving me any lectures about bad logic.


Quote[/b] ] What next? Lets argue that the Crusades give the Arabs all the right to start a Jihad against us today?

Yes. Or at least, from their perspective, the Crusades never stopped, and references to Crusaders in the context of Western troops continue to this day.

[squippy]

Quote[/b] (Beirut @ Mar. 10 2004,18:18)]

Quote[/b] ]The Canadian Peacekeepers did not roast anyone over a fire, but they did torture and beat to death a Somalian who tried to sneak into their camp to steal things.

You are correct - they were Belgian, my apologies.

And incidentally, the swift and decisive action taken by Canada and Belgium were much appreciated internationally, I feel.

[squippy]

Quote[/b] (Gawain of Orkeny @ Mar. 10 2004,17:10)]

Quote[/b] ] Wow squippy is there anyone in the world left of you?

Only Anarchists


Quote[/b] ] So it was the civilized nations that caused the death of 500,000 children in Iraq.I suppose Saddam had no part in it he was such a humanitarian.Look at what he did with the oil for food money.

I see. So you think it was responsible behaviour to deny ordinary Iraqi's the ability to trade freely on the open market, and instead throw them to the tender mercies of a brutal tyrant? What did you think Saddam would do, suspend his military programmes to feed the hungry? Thats pretty damn naive, and grossly irresponsible. Yes, they died at our hands, becuase without our action, they would have lived.


Quote[/b] ] You probably think it was the rest of the worlds fault that all the Jews died in the holocaust.

In point of fact, I do think the self-righteousness ther Allies assume is hypocritical, as most refused to allow Jews fleeing Nazi perseucation to emigarte to their states. Clearly, Britain and the US didn't care jot about the fate of the Jews, it was just convenient propaganda to cast the whole war on that basis.

[Crimson Castle]

Quote[/b] (squippy @ Mar. 12 2004,12:03)]You missed the point, deliberately I suspect. There is no basis for saying "it cannot happen here". There is no basis for assuming that We are better than Them in some inherent, special way. Either we CHOOSE to obey things like the Geneva Convention, or we do not - that is what makes the difference, not our nationality. So, please don't be giving me any lectures about bad logic.
Oh good grief. And the choice some people or nations make is wrong, yes?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

So you think that Saddam would have done any different with money from any other kind of trade that brought money into Iraq? Free trade under Saddam what are you smoking man? The people would of been just as bad off he just would have had better weapons.
Are you saying we claimed we fought WW2 to stop the holocaust and that was the main reason for it? That the US didn't allow any Jews to emigrate here just before or during the war?
Also we follow the Geneva convention. At least thats the policy of the government you cannot control the actions of every soldier. But if they are found to violate it we punish them.

[squippy]

Quote[/b] (Crimson Castle @ Mar. 12 2004,23:47)][quote=squippy,Mar. 12 2004,12:03]
Oh good grief. And the choice some people or nations make is wrong, yes?
Yes. Exactly, and thus we are just as prone to mistakes as anyone, and all tyhis garbage about a war between the civilised world and the uncivilised is just so much propaganda.

[squippy]

Quote[/b] ] So you think that Saddam would have done any different with money from any other kind of trade that brought money into Iraq?

Irrelevant. Iraq was not a state economy - its not as if everything was bought and sold through the state. Hospitals could buy their own medicines and medical textbooks, before sanctions, people could buy their own food.

And WE took that freedom away from them, and threw them into the arms of that monster. And the US ambassador said it was a price worth paying.

You are again using the device of conflating Saddam with the entire Iraqi population to justify killing civilians. Saddam is NOT the country.


Quote[/b] ] Also we follow the Geneva convention.

No, you do not, becuase Guantanamo Bay is a flagrant and direct violation of the Geneva Convenbtion.

[Loki]

This is really more than I can stand.

Sqippy These last few post reveal your true agenda. One of the earlier contributors nailed you dead on. It was Nelson I believe who said

Quote[/b] ]I also wonder if we are we talking about WWII and atomic bombs or the anti-American vision that you apply to recent history?

You are simply an America hater that is attempting to cast modern motives on historical actions. And worse yet you have taken a thread that for the most part was a respectful historical dialog and tried to drag in current events.

How about you put a sock in it unless you've got some facts regarding the topic this thread is about? What the he77 does Somalia and Iraq have to do with Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

I have challenged you and others before and I'll do it again. Instead of popping in and spewing your bile and invective regarding the "great Satan". Try a dose of some facts. Come back with a reasoned argument on how the war (WWII Pacific theater that is) could have been ended more quickly OR with less loss of life than it was. Try to cite some credible sources, OK? Not some dudes BLOG who heard on another BLOG that this guys said that.....

It's Ravers like you that give liberals like me a bad name http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-balloon.gif

[squippy]

Quote[/b] (Loki @ Mar. 17 2004,20:46)]

Quote[/b] ] Sqippy These last few post reveal your true agenda.

Baloney - this 'agenda' is just an excuse you use to dismiss my position. Its much easier to play the man than the ball, huh?


Quote[/b] ] How about you put a sock in it unless you've got some facts regarding the topic this thread is about? What the he77 does Somalia and Iraq have to do with Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

As I have already discussed at some length, both are representative of American solilipsism that a) arrogates to itself a superior and unjustified morality, and b) considers other people to be less human.


Quote[/b] ] Come back with a reasoned argument on how the war (WWII Pacific theater that is) could have been ended more quickly OR with less loss of life than it was. Try to cite some credible sources, OK? Not some dudes BLOG who heard on another BLOG that this guys said that.....

And as I have already pointed out, those are esactly the sources that YOU are using: the self-rationalising self-reporting of the people who committed these atrocities. That is inadequate.

The war could have ended sooner with less loss of life if the US had accepted Japans offered conditional surrender. Two cities were considered sufficient blackmail to obtain an unconditional surrender.


Quote[/b] ] It's Ravers like you that give liberals like me a bad name

No, its apologists for atrocity like you who give liberals a bad name. After all, if you're reduced to appealing to spurious 'anti-americanism', you are already conceding you have no argument.

[Ithaskar Fëarindel]

End.

I am not going to allow the Monastery to turn into a slag match.

I think this has got a little out of hand. I've closed this topic twice already, now a third time.

Please read why:

It is of my opinion that this topic is bringing up too many bad emotions. The events are evidently not old enough to be "forgotten".

Posting your view is ok, trying to turn someone to your own view is ok, but slagging someone else's view off, or in some way attacking another person is not allowed.

Like I said, I have closed this topic already. Both times I re-opened it, and I got notes of thanks. But, each time, it has ended up in the same position.

People are using their own feelings to accompany their arguments. I don't think that is a bad thing, far from it, but I do believe that it is causing unnecessary "grief" between patrons. I won't allow that.

Yes arguments are allowed, but not when people hit out at others.

This time it stays closed.

PM me, or Tosa, if you wish, but I won't allow this topic to continue here.