Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Raphael on February 01, 2012, 09:52:23 PM
-
just wanted to share...
amazing animation I found randomly over youtube. I truly recomend watching it, it is simply incridible. here is the first part. this guy uploaded in 9 parts and it is dubbed in english. Hope you guys check it out, I loved it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCK4arVflHE
-
original language version
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4SzjwHStp4
-
here is one thing the uploader put on the videos' comments
"if this film urges you to hate an entire nation then know you are planting the same bad seed in your heart that creates wars .humans are weak creatures that can cooperate to live happily this short time on earth. planting joy in somebody's heart is priceless as planting hate. I observed many hatred comments towards USA & Japan, and this is not what i hoped or desired to come out as a result of showing this film. long live to the people of USA & Japan & all earth."
-
Bah! Screw them. A racist, imperialistic nation declares war on a continent full of other countries and then employs the most inhumane tactics to gain an empire of slaves. The crimes of the Japanese Empire in WW2 are so horrific they even made Nazi observers sick. Everything from enslaving entire countries of females for rape camps to rampant torture of POWs, using biological weapons and human subjects for their testing in unit 731, slaughtering entire cities full of civilians just for "fun". Even killing and eating the body parts of American airman.
I just watched a show on Hiroshima and got about 1/2 way thru it until I had to turn it off. The BBC made it look like the Americans just picked out a city for no reason and nuked it just for fun. God knows how many troops we would have lost if we had to invade that Nation full of fanatics.
http://www.vcn.bc.ca/alpha/speech/Harris.htm
http://www.cnd.org/njmassacre/
http://www.battlingbastardsbataan.com/som.htm
To this day, as a nation, they are still in denial.
-
here is one thing the uploader put on the videos' comments
"if this film urges you to hate an entire nation then know you are planting the same bad seed in your heart that creates wars .humans are weak creatures that can cooperate to live happily this short time on earth. planting joy in somebody's heart is priceless as planting hate. I observed many hatred comments towards USA & Japan, and this is not what i hoped or desired to come out as a result of showing this film. long live to the people of USA & Japan & all earth."
Every country, culture, and group has at some point committed acts of unimaginable horror for their its cause. However, the opposite is also true for wonders of technology, trade, charity, and mercy. It's truly a mixed bag, and we shouldn't paint each other as evil.
-Penguin
-
sir did you read what is written up there? It was not also my intent when I posted this here... is just one of the horrible things among other horrible things that ALL the countries did and do. but maybe you didn't watch or read before commenting here :(
-
Who? Me? I should probably quote Rich52 and edit a bit to avoid Rule #14.
-Penguin
-
no no, I mean rich, he has gone out of topic with that post. I swear it was not my intention when I shared this link with the community here. is a beautifull movie. I see people commenting on "1941" and other ww2 themed movies and figured this one i discovered randomly (which I instanly loved) was a good one and decided to share, also liked what the uploader said on what I quoted above.
-
no no, I mean rich, he has gone out of topic with that post. I swear it was not my intention when I shared this link with the community here. is a beautifull movie. I see people commenting on "1941" and other ww2 themed movies and figured this one i discovered randomly (which I instanly loved) was a good one and decided to share, also liked what the uploader said on what I quoted above.
The movie 1941 was a real movie and somewhat poking fun at the time frame. The one you posted is a cartoon... not very well done either. I could not watch it past about 1 minute. Just poor animation.
-
not a big pokemon fan huh? :D
the animation was made in the 80's and with low bugdet (says the internet, so I can not be sure :o )
well animations can be* "real movies" too... there are so many animation movies everywhere and they are real movies :)
-
Revisionist crap. The japanese 100% earned the ending of that war of aggression that they started.
-
:rofl (http://www.tribalwar.com/forums/images/smilies/flag.gif)
-
Revisionist crap. The japanese 100% earned the ending of that war of aggression that they started.
The Japanese people really didn't have much say in going to war, save for overthrowing their despotic, ultramilitarist government and starting over. It's like blaming Germans for WWII- they had no clue what they were getting into when they elected Hitler and the Nazi party, and once in, the Nazi regime's totalitarianism removed their ability to stage a coup d'etat. It's difficult to see history from another person's perspective; in the US, any native-born citizen over 35 could theoretically become president, and almost every citizen over 18 can vote. However, in a country like Japan before WWII, the people had no say in the government, which was run by a nepotistic despot who held absolute power. If Japan, in such a state, goes to war, then its the government that is responsible. If it's the US or any other democracy, then the people do have a say, and the argument that you made could hold true. However, it is illogical to blame the people of Japan for WWII; they couldn't have stopped it no matter how much they protested.
-Penguin
-
The Japanese people really didn't have much say in going to war, save for overthrowing their despotic, ultramilitarist government and starting over. It's like blaming Germans for WWII- they had no clue what they were getting into when they elected Hitler and the Nazi party, and once in, the Nazi regime's totalitarianism removed their ability to stage a coup d'etat. It's difficult to see history from another person's perspective; in the US, any native-born citizen over 35 could theoretically become president, and almost every citizen over 18 can vote. However, in a country like Japan before WWII, the people had no say in the government, which was run by a nepotistic despot who held absolute power. If Japan, in such a state, goes to war, then its the government that is responsible. If it's the US or any other democracy, then the people do have a say, and the argument that you made could hold true. However, it is illogical to blame the people of Japan for WWII; they couldn't have stopped it no matter how much they protested.
-Penguin
They are to blame for everything that happened in that war. First off Hitler was elected by Democratic means. Then the German people, a Democratic God fearing people, kept selling more and more of their souls to that despot and his cronies. Very few protested. A few brave souls tried to kill Hitler, "tho mostly to save Germany and not for Hitlers crimes". The Holocaust and treatment of other races by both Germany and Japan had to be the worst kept secrets of the war.
But no matter how you cut it nothing exuses the revisionist history of Japan and its failure to admit its guilt for WW2. Japan is more a "nation family" then just a "nation" and to this day are in denial as to what their citizens, soldiers, and govt., really did in that war. Germany I think has come to grips with WW2 and as a nation avoids revisionism.
-
If Japan deserved to be nuked then the US deserved 9/11
I'm sure this will make idiots like Rich52 spaz out, but as he seems the type to believe that terrorists only attacked the US because they are jealous of your freedoms, or because Islam dictates it, I won't worry about it ;)
-
Congrats, that's the most ignorant thing I've read in a while. No wonder these threads get locked.
-
I am really shocked and surprised that an American thinks that Japanese civilians deserved to be nuked for the actions of their military, while American civilians did not deserve to be attacked on 9/11 because of the actions of their military
Really surprising
(Note for stupid people - I am not saying Americans deserved to be attacked on 9/11, or that Japan deserved to be nuked. This should be obvious to those of you who can read but I have to spell it out for this forum. Just highlighting the usual hilarious hypocrisy and brainwashing that always comes up in discussion of American foreign policy/wars)
-
I am really shocked and surprised that an American thinks that Japanese civilians deserved to be nuked for the actions of their military, while American civilians did not deserve to be attacked on 9/11 because of the actions of their military
Really surprising
(Note for stupid people - I am not saying Americans deserved to be attacked on 9/11, or that Japan deserved to be nuked. This should be obvious to those of you who can read but I have to spell it out for this forum. Just highlighting the usual hilarious hypocrisy and brainwashing that always comes up in discussion of American foreign policy/wars)
I am confused. We should not have nuked Japan? Invasion or blockade and starve them to death for a few years? I am so confused.
-
:headscratch:
That's wasn't my point at all. I don't disagree with how the conflict with Japan was ended, sometimes you just gotta do what ya gotta do.
Read the previous page for context, and if you still don't get it then I'm afraid I don't have the patience to explain it to you without being an insulting, arrogant a-hole.
-
:headscratch:
That's wasn't my point at all. I don't disagree with how the conflict with Japan was ended, sometimes you just gotta do what ya gotta do.
Read the previous page for context, and if you still don't get it then I'm afraid I don't have the patience to explain it to you without being an insulting, arrogant a-hole.
Got it, did a little thinking about your post after i posted and saw your point.
-
They are to blame for everything that happened in that war. First off Hitler was elected by Democratic means. Then the German people, a Democratic God fearing people, kept selling more and more of their souls to that despot and his cronies. Very few protested. A few brave souls tried to kill Hitler, "tho mostly to save Germany and not for Hitlers crimes". The Holocaust and treatment of other races by both Germany and Japan had to be the worst kept secrets of the war.
But no matter how you cut it nothing exuses the revisionist history of Japan and its failure to admit its guilt for WW2. Japan is more a "nation family" then just a "nation" and to this day are in denial as to what their citizens, soldiers, and govt., really did in that war. Germany I think has come to grips with WW2 and as a nation avoids revisionism.
You're messing up the chronology. Here's how it happened:
1918- the Great War is over. People the world over rejoice.
1918-1919- Paris Peace Conference. The bitter terms of the peace impoverishes Germany and fuels unrest.
1920s- The Weimar republic struggles to maintain itself as its economy collapses under the weight of reparations. Hitler takes the Nazi party from a fringe group to a major power.
1930s- First, Hitler is democratically elected by his political allies (not the German people). Then, he begins his massive reform programs.
Late 1930s- Brutal totalitarianism terrifies the people and makes dissent impossible for all but the mad (those few who tried to kill Hitler).
1940s- The war drags on, and gradually the will to fight wanes.
VE Day and Beyond- The war is over, and a new system of repair, not reparations, begins. The people of Germany and the world then find out, to their horror, what Hitler's government had really done to the Jews.
Your argument is anachronistic; the Germans only wanted to end the brutal reparations and resume their lives. They were also feeling downtrodden, and Hitler's speeches about a betrayal of Germany by Jews and Communists and white supremacy were just the right political move. I'm not justifying the choice, but you have to understand that the German people were duped: the Holocaust was kept a secret and the government had absolute power. Dissent had neither means nor moral highground.
The Japanese had it even worse. They lived under an absolute monarchy that had indoctrinated its subjects for generations, and the ultramilitarist movement quickly took hold as demand for natural resources grew. However, the Japanese people themselves had no peaceful way to resist the war. Japan has offered its apologies for the war and its war crimes on many occaisions throughout the 20th century. Here's a list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_apology_statements_issued_by_Japan Each and every apology has its own citation, so this article wants not for accuracy.
-Penguin
-
I am scared in this discussion guys... the point of films like these are to show how humans can do such horrible things then and now, we have movies about the "holocaust" and such... :( you can see, this movie has (by itself) no propaganda inside, people who watch it are the ones who put their ideologies in their interpretations.
-
hind sight is always 20/20 fellas, remember that. As a student of WWII (yes, I have an actual "minor" in WWII, underneath my majors), this topic will bring out the absolute worst in people I saw it first hand. It will bring out the ignorance, over-generalization, hawks and doves, and those who are not able to take their minds back in time and think outside of their own learned standards. Discussing this topic will also bring people out in droves comparing the standards of today against those of pre-1950. Until people can look at this topic without personal opinion getting in the way of their logical reasoning, they will never be able to arrive at the core discussion of this very deep topic, and it is far deeper than most people can grasp.
Hold fast your tongues and let your voice be slower than your mind. ;)
-
I am really shocked and surprised that an American thinks that Japanese civilians deserved to be nuked for the actions of their military, while American civilians did not deserve to be attacked on 9/11 because of the actions of their military
Really surprising
We nuked them in order to avoid an invasion that would have cost at least 1,000,000 Allied casualties. And God only knows how many Japanese ones. Its that simple! We had warned the Military Govt. of japan they faced total destruction at home and they still refused to give up, even after the firebombing of Tokyo. Which was far worse then either atomic bomb attack.
You're messing up the chronology. Here's how it happened:
1918- the Great War is over. People the world over rejoice.
1918-1919- Paris Peace Conference. The bitter terms of the peace impoverishes Germany and fuels unrest.
Good so far.
1920s- The Weimar republic struggles to maintain itself as its economy collapses under the weight of reparations. Hitler takes the Nazi party from a fringe group to a major power.
More the worldwide depression then reparations. Germany borrowed a ton of $$, mostly from America in the '20s, that it used for rebuilding NOT reparations. But I agree the seeds of WW2 were planted after WW1.
1930s- First, Hitler is democratically elected by his political allies (not the German people). Then, he begins his massive reform programs.
He was elected by PEOPLE! As in VOTERS! And even then by only about 1/3 of those.
Late 1930s- Brutal totalitarianism terrifies the people and makes dissent impossible for all but the mad (those few who tried to kill Hitler).
While Im sure the German citizenry were afraid of their Govt. they didnt really care about the jews or other "undesireables". While they were winning most bought Hitlers world vision lock,stock, and barrel.
1940s- The war drags on, and gradually the will to fight wanes.
Negative. The German military was a superbly disciplined and effective fighting force. Until the very end they never gave up and German citizens, if anything, worked harder for the war effort even after they knew they faced losing the war.
VE Day and Beyond- The war is over, and a new system of repair, not reparations, begins. The people of Germany and the world then find out, to their horror, what Hitler's government had really done to the Jews.
You really think you can annihilate all those millions of people, in a systematic/Industrial campaign, and the citizens didnt know? All the Germans that settled in Poland/occupied territorys, all the soldiers going on leave, the letters home? The huge bureaucracy involved? Hundreds of thousands involved or observing? And you think the German citizens didnt know?
Your argument is anachronistic; the Germans only wanted to end the brutal reparations and resume their lives. They were also feeling downtrodden, and Hitler's speeches about a betrayal of Germany by Jews and Communists and white supremacy were just the right political move. I'm not justifying the choice, but you have to understand that the German people were duped: the Holocaust was kept a secret and the government had absolute power. Dissent had neither means nor moral highground.
They werent "duped' at all. Racism was rampant in Europe at the time. Most of all in Germany. Thats why the Germans got so much support from so many of the countries they invaded. France, the baltics, Hungary, Poland, even the freaking Vatican! BTW Hats off to the brave people of the Netherlands, Norway, Finland, Sweden...ect who protected their Jews. I dont think the Leaders/citizens of those countries had any illusions what "resettlement" meant.
-
Please know and understand the difference between antisemitism and racism. They are 2 very different things. :aok
-
The nukes had very little to do with the end of the war. The Soviet Union declaring war on Japan scared them into submission, and they surrendered unconditionally to the United States NOT the allies. They saw what happened in Eastern Europe and did not want to be a member of the USSR.
-
We nuked them in order to avoid an invasion that would have cost at least 1,000,000 Allied casualties. And God only knows how many Japanese ones. Its that simple! We had warned the Military Govt. of japan they faced total destruction at home and they still refused to give up, even after the firebombing of Tokyo. Which was far worse then either atomic bomb attack.
Sure, I have no issue with this.
Not sure what relevance it has to what I posted though.
-
This is the first thread ever where I have agreed with everything SmokinLoon says :salute
:x happy coombzy
-
hind sight is always 20/20 fellas, remember that. As a student of WWII (yes, I have an actual "minor" in WWII, underneath my majors), this topic will bring out the absolute worst in people I saw it first hand. It will bring out the ignorance, over-generalization, hawks and doves, and those who are not able to take their minds back in time and think outside of their own learned standards. Discussing this topic will also bring people out in droves comparing the standards of today against those of pre-1950. Until people can look at this topic without personal opinion getting in the way of their logical reasoning, they will never be able to arrive at the core discussion of this very deep topic, and it is far deeper than most people can grasp.
Hold fast your tongues and let your voice be slower than your mind. ;)
I am sorry smoking, I should have thougt more before posting the link to these forums, I am sure this goes deep down in the US citizen's mind as much as it goes in Japaneses' maybe skuzzy could lock the thread, it was not the intent, the subject diverted. I really wanted to share the link like when you share a book you just read.
-
Please know and understand the difference between antisemitism and racism. They are 2 very different things. :aok
Not to the Nazis. Who considered Judaism a "race" as did much of Academia at the time. And indeed still do. The Germans even measured skulls and physical characteristics to support their science. Whacky yes. But "they" believed it. The Japanese were just as racist, tho their basis for racial hatred stemmed more from their religious/social ideals then from the so called "science" of the Nazis. To the Japanese their Emperor was the equivalent of Jesus to Christianity and since he was "semi-devine" so were they. They also believed that other races were of less worth because they were "soft", less disciplined, and not as commited to the common good as they were.
These things werent exactly nonexistant in the west either. But at least we didnt invade vast swaths of countries murdering, what they believed to be, lesser races by the millions as if they were insects. Thats why revisionism of WW2 history upsets me so much, most of all when the atomic attacks are discussed. Terrible events yes but in the end they saved millions on both sides. And they were! the main reason the Japanese surrendered. The Soviets had no means to attack, let alone invade, the sacred Japanese homeland so the destruction of one more army in Manchuria had very little impact toward ending the war. By that time everyone in Japans Govt. knew the war was lost. The Military simply didnt want to give up without a fight. The nukes gave the Emperor the reason he needed to intervene and force a surrender. Especially after a secret agreement that the royal family would not be held accountable for war crimes.
I spent four years around "special weapons" and have no illusions about them. I wish there were none left on this earth. Its also my belief they will be used again.
I am sorry smoking, I should have thougt more before posting the link to these forums, I am sure this goes deep down in the US citizen's mind as much as it goes in Japaneses' maybe skuzzy could lock the thread, it was not the intent, the subject diverted. I really wanted to share the link like when you share a book you just read.
Apologies if a respectful, Intellectual conversation followed your posting of a cartoon. If it upsets you so much maybe contact Skuzzy who might lock it.
-
We nuked them in order to avoid an invasion that would have cost at least 1,000,000 Allied casualties. And God only knows how many Japanese ones. Its that simple! We had warned the Military Govt. of japan they faced total destruction at home and they still refused to give up, even after the firebombing of Tokyo. Which was far worse then either atomic bomb attack.
Good so far.
More the worldwide depression then reparations. Germany borrowed a ton of $$, mostly from America in the '20s, that it used for rebuilding NOT reparations. But I agree the seeds of WW2 were planted after WW1.
He was elected by PEOPLE! As in VOTERS! And even then by only about 1/3 of those.
While Im sure the German citizenry were afraid of their Govt. they didnt really care about the jews or other "undesireables". While they were winning most bought Hitlers world vision lock,stock, and barrel.
Negative. The German military was a superbly disciplined and effective fighting force. Until the very end they never gave up and German citizens, if anything, worked harder for the war effort even after they knew they faced losing the war.
You really think you can annihilate all those millions of people, in a systematic/Industrial campaign, and the citizens didnt know? All the Germans that settled in Poland/occupied territorys, all the soldiers going on leave, the letters home? The huge bureaucracy involved? Hundreds of thousands involved or observing? And you think the German citizens didnt know?
They werent "duped' at all. Racism was rampant in Europe at the time. Most of all in Germany. Thats why the Germans got so much support from so many of the countries they invaded. France, the baltics, Hungary, Poland, even the freaking Vatican! BTW Hats off to the brave people of the Netherlands, Norway, Finland, Sweden...ect who protected their Jews. I dont think the Leaders/citizens of those countries had any illusions what "resettlement" meant.
The options were invade (millions of casualties), nuke (tens of thousands of casualties), or blockade (hundreds of casualties). You've created a false dichotomy. The decision to nuke a population center was made before the Trinity test, and when the destructive power of the bomb itself shocked Oppenheimer (head of the Manhattan project) so much that he declared, "I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds". However, it was too late, and the bombings proceeded as scheduled.
Hitler was elected by the members of the Reichstag, not the German people. Here is another well-cited Wikipedia article to set you straight http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_rise_to_power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_rise_to_power) Though the German people elected the Reichstag, they had no control over who those members chose to elect. Also, the Nazi party got around 9-13% of the votes. That's a minority if I've ever seen one.
Anti-semitism was still around, sure. The Nazi party turned into a racial issue, though, because they wanted to kill even more people (slavs, etc.). You're confusing what came before Hitler's rise to power with what came after. The Holocaust itself was rather easy to hide because the death camps were out in the sticks, and the amount of fear circulating Germany was huge. I think you have underestimated the terror that one feels while living under such a regime. Dissenters risked death, or worse. Furthermore, no-one ever told anyone where the Jews, Poles, Russians, etc., were going. The government answered only to itself.
Racism in Academia? I'd rather not get into that.
Be careful using broad personal pronouns like that. It quickly confuses issues. The civilian populations of Germany and Japan did not go on killing sprees. Their militaries did. As I proved above, neither population of civilians could have prevented it or stopped it, respectively. The civilian population of the United States did not treat the German people with respect, the US military did (in the sense that the US military actually did the actions). You mentioned social and cultural traits. Remember that especially in Japan, the government had quite a bit of say in culture. The Japanese people did not just decide to worship the Emperor; they were taught to do so from the day that they were born. However, the culture of Japan and the culture of the US is, and was, different. They went by different (not inferior) social norms. For instance, at least in the 40's, apologizing for wrongdoing, even war crimes, was seen as of the utmost importance. We might think of it as ridiculous, but they probably looked at our business suits the same way for a long time.
The key is to see it from their point of view, too. Ethnocentrism is a dangerous thing.
-Penguin
-
I hardly think that a statement "they deserved to be nuked" is a lead of a smart conversation. it is not at all and coombz was way on target... if you watch the ink the places explored there are of superation and stuff, you follow a lil boy on this survival task, and that is all the movie shows.
anyway, the failure we have here is people blaming an entire people due to the actions of the rich, dominant percentage, did the some soldiers do horrible things, some. did the commandants order terrible things, yep, did the government approve terrible decisions? yes. that is true for all countries in all wars, they ALL have done the same thing. and it is NOT what the point of the movie is.
the movie is focused on what a kid did when put in that scenario, how do deal with losing the family, how to treat others in that situation (see the rich brother situation) and mainly the superation, it showed the bad things also that people do on that situation as you see in the chaos people acting like crazy in order to survive (which is natural) in any way... that is the focus. it is NOT to point out who "deserved" to be killed. those were civilians, poor.
anti americans say the US people deserved the 9/11. do you think they are smart? i bet you don't, neither do I.
-
The options were invade (millions of casualties), nuke (tens of thousands of casualties), or blockade (hundreds of casualties). You've created a false dichotomy. The decision to nuke a population center was made before the Trinity test, and when the destructive power of the bomb itself shocked Oppenheimer (head of the Manhattan project) so much that he declared, "I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds". However, it was too late, and the bombings proceeded as scheduled.
You cant "blockade" a country you had already been blockading after youv already destroyed their navy and commercial shipping. At the time Japan was importing no meaningful foodstuffs or industrial materials. Heck they even had to use their submarines to try and sneak rice into the few island garrisons they had left. They had a population ready to attack with pitchforks and were already only eating what they could grow. A blockade was not an option cause one was already in place.
Though the German people elected the Reichstag, they had no control over who those members chose to elect. Also, the Nazi party got around 9-13% of the votes. That's a minority if I've ever seen one.
Sounds like another Democratic system Ive heard of ;) BTW check your sources, in 1932 they recieved about 33%, 2nd only to Von Hindenburg, and then later in the year almost 38%, "popular vote in a Parlimentary election not reichstag votes". These votes are what gave Hitlers party all those Reichstag seats.The one who actually appointed Hitler chancellor was Von Hindenburg. The President.
I think you have underestimated the terror that one feels while living under such a regime. Dissenters risked death, or worse. Furthermore, no-one ever told anyone where the Jews, Poles, Russians, etc., were going. The government answered only to itself.
LOL, well I lived in Turkey under martial Law, a country that lined up 1 milion Armenians and shot them before WW1. I think your overestimating my underestimating.
Be careful using broad personal pronouns like that. It quickly confuses issues. The civilian populations of Germany and Japan did not go on killing sprees. Their militaries did. As I proved above, neither population of civilians could have prevented it or stopped it, respectively. The civilian population of the United States did not treat the German people with respect, the US military did (in the sense that the US military actually did the actions). You mentioned social and cultural traits. Remember that especially in Japan, the government had quite a bit of say in culture. The Japanese people did not just decide to worship the Emperor; they were taught to do so from the day that they were born. However, the culture of Japan and the culture of the US is, and was, different. They went by different (not inferior) social norms. For instance, at least in the 40's, apologizing for wrongdoing, even war crimes, was seen as of the utmost importance. We might think of it as ridiculous, but they probably looked at our business suits the same way for a long time.
................ :huh
The key is to see it from their point of view, too. Ethnocentrism is a dangerous thing.
The key is to see it from no ones point of view.
-
Raphael, I watched the link(s), and I 100% stand behind my statement. From my point of view, the film portrayed the US as aggressors and incapable of stopping our attacks on their "defenseless" populace.
The japanese did 100% earn the ending of their war of aggression. Regardless of the using of nukes, the continued fire bombing campaigns, or an all out campaign to destroy the food supply, the war needed to be ended with minimal allied casualties, and it was. Case closed. The rest is pure semantics.
-
You cant "blockade" a country you had already been blockading after youv already destroyed their navy and commercial shipping. At the time Japan was importing no meaningful foodstuffs or industrial materials. Heck they even had to use their submarines to try and sneak rice into the few island garrisons they had left. They had a population ready to attack with pitchforks and were already only eating what they could grow. A blockade was not an option cause one was already in place.
Sounds like another Democratic system Ive heard of ;) BTW check your sources, in 1932 they recieved about 33%, 2nd only to Von Hindenburg, and then later in the year almost 38%, "popular vote in a Parlimentary election not reichstag votes". These votes are what gave Hitlers party all those Reichstag seats.The one who actually appointed Hitler chancellor was Von Hindenburg. The President.
LOL, well I lived in Turkey under martial Law, a country that lined up 1 milion Armenians and shot them before WW1. I think your overestimating my underestimating.
................ :huh
The key is to see it from no ones point of view.
There is no such thing as objective history. It's not that all history contains hidden messages, it's that those who write history will inevitably incorporate anachronisms (e.g., it's hard to really wrap your head around slavery if you've never seen it, etc.,). History's very nature is the compression of the trillions of events of the past into an easy-to-read package via essays, books, and magazines. As the compression grows, what may have been a few misplaced words can repaint an entire period. Take this, for example:
At dawn, Tecumseh saw the the soldiers advancing on his position.
If I change that to, say:
At dawn, British forces made their advance on Tecumseh's rebel army.
Though both of these statements convey the same facts, the first makes the reader feel like Tecumseh was just defending himself, while the second makes the British army look like they were just trying to restore order. If Tecumseh gets only 10 sentences (common for most US History books) then readers might get the wrong idea because of one little slip up. Nobody is perfect, and even historians go through the little ups and downs that we do. For instance, a historian might not treat the British too kindly only because the cashier at the Dunkin Donuts where he/she got his/her coffee was rude and British. It wouldn't be purposeful, but this phenomenon, called projection, is part of human psychology and it along with other such phenomena can and will foil any attempt at 'objective' history.
The Reichstag election gave the Nazi party (not Hitler) ~30% of the votes, however, it wasn't like that until the Great Depression. For a long time, it hovered, as I said, around ~15%. The German people may or may not have been antisemitic, but hatred was downplayed in Nazi election rhetoric. The reparations were very much a burden, and when the Great Depression came they became unbearable due to inflation and a general economic collapse. These reparations were useful to Hitler because he could stir nationalism by saying that he wouldn't repay them, and instead revive Germany's flagging economy. On that note, his greatest support was from the lower middle class, teachers, public servants, clerks; those who had lost the most in the inflation of the Great depression. If you read the very end of the Wikipedia article on the Nazi Party, you'll see this:
...support for the Nazis had fallen to 33.1%, suggesting that the Nazi surge had passed its peak – possibly because the worst of the Depression had passed, possibly because some middle-class voters had supported Hitler in July as a protest, but had now drawn back from the prospect of actually putting him into power.
One can clearly see that Hitler and the Nazi party were not supported due to racial hatred or nationalist aims of the German people, but rather that they wanted to protest the non-functionality of their political system and get their economy moving again. In fact, Hitler's harsh rhetoric may have put voters off as the worst of the Depression passed, making the potential damage of putting his dangerous ideas into practice worse than letting the economy stay where it was. Think of it this way, if you're starving, you'll do just about anything for anyone who promises to feed you. However, if you find food, you'll start to pay more attention to their other qualities. The same was true for the German people of the 1930s.
When did you live in Turkey? What was going on? Why was martial law in place?
Do you really think that the average Gen and Senjo were going to do something like that? That's like saying that citizens of the US are all really good at football because in the fall they all wear colorful jerseys, train their kids to play, and imitate football players. On the contrary, most of the US is in no shape to be playing football. If you look at the Japanese training films, you see that most of the people with pitchforks, etc., were schoolchildren, who really didn't have any choice in whether they wanted to do the training routine or not. If push had really come to shove, then the the vast majority of the civilian population would have just shut their doors and hid in bunkers. Perhaps a few determined ones would go out to the beaches, but the road system just wouldn't be able to handle it. You'd have to move millions in a matter of hours. Let's do the math.
The horizon is about 2 nautical miles when viewed from the beach. If we combine the speeds of landing craft and fleet, we get a speed of around 7 knots. You'd have 2/7ths of an hour, or about 8-9 minutes to get all the people to the correct beach at the correct time. Needless to say, bombing nearby cities would certainly pin the civilians down enough to keep them in their shelters. As for actually conquering the island itself, take Tokyo and the whole thing comes crashing down like a house of cards. The emperor was the lynchpin of the whole operation, capture or kill him and there would be nothing left. That's not to say that anything here would be easy, but millions of casualties is a gross overestimate. It's like doing a third of the Holocaust in a few days. That's tough even if you really get cracking with firebombing and 40s era nukes.
The blockade could have been very well sustained, and don't underestimate the effectiveness of the OSS regarding assassinations. The allies came within a hair's breadth of killing Hitler. Furthermore, if Japan can't do anything to anyone anymore, then for all intents and purposes, the war is over. What difference does it make if they never officially 'gave up,'? The same is true in Korea, and I don't see any large scale military operations going on there (barring the occasional chest thumping).
Raphael, I watched the link(s), and I 100% stand behind my statement. From my point of view, the film portrayed the US as aggressors and incapable of stopping our attacks on their "defenseless" populace.
The japanese did 100% earn the ending of their war of aggression. Regardless of the using of nukes, the continued fire bombing campaigns, or an all out campaign to destroy the food supply, the war needed to be ended with minimal allied casualties, and it was. Case closed. The rest is pure semantics.
So you're saying that in a country with a non-representative government the people are responsible for their government's actions to the point that heavily populated non-essential areas can be nuked if their government messes up? If so, then in that sense war is "no holds barred," and we should view events such as 9/11 and Hiroshima as part of the bargain. The intent of the aggressors in both cases was exactly the same: Reduce the enemies morale by killing civilians and destroying property to the point that they surrender. If not, then we should apologize for the nukes and be rightly ticked off by 9/11. Obviously, the second case is true, and that brings me to my next point. In dealing the deathblow of a war, the idea is to reduce casualties on both sides in order to prevent hard feelings later on.
-Penguin
-
So you're saying that in a country with a non-representative government the people are responsible for their government's actions to the point that heavily populated non-essential areas can be nuked if their government messes up? If so, then in that sense war is "no holds barred," and we should view events such as 9/11 and Hiroshima as part of the bargain. The intent of the aggressors in both cases was exactly the same: Reduce the enemies morale by killing civilians and destroying property to the point that they surrender. If not, then we should apologize for the nukes and be rightly ticked off by 9/11. Obviously, the second case is true, and that brings me to my next point. In dealing the deathblow of a war, the idea is to reduce casualties on both sides in order to prevent hard feelings later on.
-Penguin
Everything we do has consequences whether we want it or not. This discussion will quickly delve into political areas to explain why I feel the way I do. These are topics which are no longer allowed, so, to keep this short and within the rules, I will stick with consequences.
The japanese, regardless of whether they voted or not, followed their leader / military. Those people made poor choices which affected the entirety of the nation when they killed others from another nation to expand their own ambitions. Those choices along with many more made through the end of the war made it very clear to the allied war machine that they could accept nothing but unconditional surrender of the japanese to end the war. The choices the japanese made to continue the war after they had clearly lost and to adopt a policy of fighting to the last person even using civilians as weapons or even willing participants in attacks had consequences. Those choices came back to haunt the japanese as the allies realized that the only way to prevent the slaughter on hundreds of thousands of allied soldiers and millions of japanese (think fight to the last person) was to continue a fire bombing campaign to hopefully convince the japanese that the war was over. The end whether continued fire bombing or nukes saved countless lives.
The japanese earned that end when they attacked the allies and attempted to continue the fight to the last person. They earned those consequences.
As for comparing the attack of 9/11 to Hiroshima, I would say that you are comparing very different acts. The very fact that the latter is an act that was part of a declared war between nation states and that the former was an attack by terrorists on defenseless civilians makes them different. Did the US make choices to earn those consequences? No, but defending that answer becomes a political discussion that is not allowed here.
-
As for comparing the attack of 9/11 to Hiroshima, I would say that you are comparing very different acts. The very fact that the latter is an act that was part of a declared war between nation states and that the former was an attack by terrorists on defenseless civilians makes them different. Did the US make choices to earn those consequences? No, but defending that answer becomes a political discussion that is not allowed here.
You could look at it a different way, and consider that Japanese civilians had no choice or voice in the people who were ruling them or the policies they enacted
While the US governments with their disgusting foreign policy (Cold War [hilarious], Vietnam, Middle East) were voted in democratically by American citizens
just playing devils advocate really :devil
-
You could look at it a different way, and consider that Japanese civilians had no choice or voice in the people who were ruling them or the policies they enacted
While the US governments with their disgusting foreign policy (Cold War [hilarious], Vietnam, Middle East) were voted in democratically by American citizens
just playing devils advocate really :devil
If you keep delving into politics, the thread will get closed.
The two acts are not the same. That is very clear no matter how much revisionist nonsense you want to add to this.
-
Everything we do has consequences whether we want it or not. This discussion will quickly delve into political areas to explain why I feel the way I do. These are topics which are no longer allowed, so, to keep this short and within the rules, I will stick with consequences.
The japanese, regardless of whether they voted or not, followed their leader / military. Those people made poor choices which affected the entirety of the nation when they killed others from another nation to expand their own ambitions. Those choices along with many more made through the end of the war made it very clear to the allied war machine that they could accept nothing but unconditional surrender of the japanese to end the war. The choices the japanese made to continue the war after they had clearly lost and to adopt a policy of fighting to the last person even using civilians as weapons or even willing participants in attacks had consequences. Those choices came back to haunt the japanese as the allies realized that the only way to prevent the slaughter on hundreds of thousands of allied soldiers and millions of japanese (think fight to the last person) was to continue a fire bombing campaign to hopefully convince the japanese that the war was over. The end whether continued fire bombing or nukes saved countless lives.
The japanese earned that end when they attacked the allies and attempted to continue the fight to the last person. They earned those consequences.
As for comparing the attack of 9/11 to Hiroshima, I would say that you are comparing very different acts. The very fact that the latter is an act that was part of a declared war between nation states and that the former was an attack by terrorists on defenseless civilians makes them different. Did the US make choices to earn those consequences? No, but defending that answer becomes a political discussion that is not allowed here.
I've yet to see you cite a single source. How are you so sure? The one piece of evidence that we've seen on that subject of Japanese morale indicates that by the time of Hiroshima it was waning.
Ok, so 9/11 wasn't absurd enough. Fine. Let's make it really simple.
Imagine Bob is at his house, and Alice comes in the door holding a double-barreled shotgun and blows Bob's head clean off. The next day, Alice goes to court and her defense is: He could have stopped me! Can't you see? It's not like Bob was asking to be prematurely decapitated, why should he have to constantly be on the lookout for whackos with guns? The same applies to the Japanese people. Are you really suggesting that the Japanese deserved to be nuked because their tyrannical government that wouldn't let them voice their opinions did bad things? Can you, with a straight face, say that the thousands of babies, children, and elderly people who lived in Hiroshima deserved to die horrible, slow, excruciating deaths because they were too weak to stage a coup against an enormously powerful tyrannical government to live up to the expectations of American armchair revolutionaries?
How does that make any sense at all?
If you keep delving into politics, the thread will get closed.
The two acts are not the same. That is very clear no matter how much revisionist nonsense you want to add to this.
Let's compare and contrast Hiroshima and 9/11.
Similarities:
They both involved the indiscriminate slaughter of thousands of civilians.
Both were committed during a period of conflict.
Both targets' militaries were incapable of preventing the attack.
Both served to induce the opposing force to cease and desist.
Differences:
9/11 was committed by terrorists while Hiroshima was nuked by paid employees of the United States
Hiroshima was nuked during a war among nations, while 9/11 was committed during a conflict between (mostly) the US and an international terrorist group.
However, does it really matter if the guy that killed thousands of people wore a uniform? The end result is the same; thousands of people died horribly. That's not revisionism, nor is it nonsense. Killing civilians that do not significantly contribute to the war effort of an adversary is unjustifiable.
-Penguin
EDIT: Flow, grammar, and other fiddly bits.
-
If you keep delving into politics, the thread will get closed.
I agree
The two acts are not the same.
I agree
That is very clear no matter how much revisionist nonsense you want to add to this.
:rofl what revisionist nonsense are you referring to?
-
Penguin,
Stop being obtuse. Your example is in noway relevant to the topic.
As for my feelings, I absolutely have ZERO qualms about the United States actions during WW2 with regards to fire bombing or nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I feel that both types of actions served a purpose that furthered the end result which was the prevention of further loss of life for the allies and near annihilation of the japanese in the end. Japanese morale was in no way a factor of ending the war especially considering the examples set on okinawa and the indisputable fact that the japanese were stockpiling scores of suicide weapons on the home islands for use in repelling and invasion. Further, their actions too date indicate that the defense would have been fanatical and involved the use of women and children as was clearly evident on okinawa. So, again, I will repeat that they earned the ending of the war as a consequence of their actions. Whether their populace stood up (or not) to their leaders is irrelevant to the discussion. The actions of the japanese as a whole earned the ending they received.
As for your attempts to compare 9/11 and Hiroshima or nagasaki, there is simply no relevance between the two events. The only relevance is that they indeed are both attacks, that is where the relevance stops.
-
:rofl what revisionist nonsense are you referring to?
Sorry, but I do not agree with your opinions on the cold war as they are revisionist at best. Call it what you like, just remember that the discussion involves politics which can not exist on this board.
-
Penguin,
Stop being obtuse. Your example is in noway relevant to the topic.
As for my feelings, I absolutely have ZERO qualms about the United States actions during WW2 with regards to fire bombing or nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I feel that both types of actions served a purpose that furthered the end result which was the prevention of further loss of life for the allies and near annihilation of the japanese in the end. Japanese morale was in no way a factor of ending the war especially considering the examples set on okinawa and the indisputable fact that the japanese were stockpiling scores of suicide weapons on the home islands for use in repelling and invasion. Further, their actions too date indicate that the defense would have been fanatical and involved the use of women and children as was clearly evident on okinawa. So, again, I will repeat that they earned the ending of the war as a consequence of their actions. Whether their populace stood up (or not) to their leaders is irrelevant to the discussion. The actions of the japanese as a whole earned the ending they received.
As for your attempts to compare 9/11 and Hiroshima or nagasaki, there is simply no relevance between the two events. The only relevance is that they indeed are both attacks, that is where the relevance stops.
If you wish to say that my comparison is irrelevant, then please refute my logic or point out where my evidence is lacking.
Don't move the goalposts by making this conversation about the war itself. We're talking about Hiroshima.
The suicide weapons were an indication of Japanese desperation, not of high morale or confidence in success.
If you think that the goal of the allies in WWII was to 'annihilate' the Japanese, then you are sorely mistaken. While both countries had aggressive foreign policies before the war (the US's was more damaging to Japan than Japan's was to the US), neither was out to destroy the other. The goal of Pearl harbor was meant to scare the US out of the Pacific region, not kill everyone in the US. The Japanese were very well aware that they could not conquer the US, but hoped to terrify it so much that it would not dare challenge Japanese actions in the Pacific. The US wasn't stupid, and attempted to curb Japan's imperialism by putting an embargo on Japanese oil, which backfired via Pearl Harbor. It's clear that neither side was waging a war of annihilation, so nuking the Japanese only served the interest of ending the war more quickly. My point is that nuking a non-essential city in order to get Japan to sue for peace was overkill, and doing some 'landscaping' on Mount Fuji or just dropping it in the harbor would have been more than enough to convince the Japanese government to surrender.
Remember, living in Japan at the time was like living in North Korea; dissent was frowned upon in a way that could endanger lives, limbs, and careers. That's not to say that there weren't any nationalists, there were probably plenty, but the kind of homogeneously fanatical society that you describe is inconsistent with the facts. Also, one cannot judge the character of a nation's people by the actions of their military, especially if the government of the country in question is tyrannical, as we all know Japan's was.
-Penguin
-
I have not changed anything Penguin, you come up with ridiculous comparisons and expect me to give them air time... sorry this is not the play ground, I will not play that game.
Further, I have never said the US or allied goal was the annihilation of the japanese. Instead, your inability to comprehend the statement that the US sought to avoid allied casualties AND the near annihilation of the japanese has you putting words in my mouth. Going on, you mention morale, separating Hiroshima from the war, and other foolishness. Somewhat surprisingly, you neglect to consider why the allies proceeded in a manner of choosing nuking two cities instead of landing on their home islands? Realize that those decisions came as a result of a war of aggression, fanatical defense to the last person, use of civilians for war efforts both in production and aggression, and mass preparation for suicide type defense on their home islands.
The japanese earned the end of the war. The allies should be thanked for NOT invading and killing millions more in a battle that most likely would have seen an end of the japanese culture.
Lastly, the japanese were in no way like the North Koreans, the japanese were fanatically loyal to their emperor which is why he was not removed, the allies knew his help would be necessary for the rebuilding of Japan. Further discussion of this subject will take us into politics which we are not allowed to discuss.
As for whether the japanese were fanatical, talk to a few people that served in the Pacific. You might actually realize you know nothing but revisionist nonsense at that point.
-
Just to be clear, I would like to know what 'this' is. You may also have been referring to my point about whether it was a good idea to nuke Japan. I have no interest in breaking rule #14, but I don't want to concede points that I don't need to. If I know nothing but 'revisionist nonsense' then it is some good nonsense, because the facts support me.
Now as to whether the Japanese were fanatical, the first thing that we need to do is define who these "Japanese" were. If you refer to the Japanese military, then you may be right because it is possible to indoctrinate via brutalization any idea one chooses. Japanese civilians, however, were not subject to the same degree of misinformation and propaganda because such efforts would be better spent on the military.
With regard to the suicide attacks, it has become apparent that the previous nationalistic portrayal was about as accurate as The A-Team. Mr. Wantanabe, a kamikaze instructor, said that "''It's all a lie that they left filled with braveness and joy, crying, 'Long live the emperor! They were sheep at a slaughterhouse. Everybody was looking down and tottering. Some were unable to stand up and were carried and pushed into the plane by maintenance soldiers.'' This is no surprise because just like those who commit suicide, the kamikaze pilots of Japan quickly regretted their decision once they realized that death was no longer an abstract notion, but a cold, hard fact.
The destruction of Japanese culture? Where are you getting this? Even if the invasion cost as many lives as you predict, who would replace the Japanese? Also remember that there is a strong right-wing militarist movement in Japan right now, and it is in its self-interest to portray kamikaze pilots as such. I'm not trying to comment on the movement itself, but I just want to make it clear that the current portrayal of Japanese suicide pilots in Japan is tending toward one of glory.
My source for Mr. Wantanabe's quote: http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50C11FB3E5A0C728DDDAB0894DE404482&pagewanted=2 (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50C11FB3E5A0C728DDDAB0894DE404482&pagewanted=2)
-Penguin
-
Thanks for the movie link, have it saved in my queue to watch later on
-
Penguin,
Stop being obtuse. Your example is in noway relevant to the topic.
As for my feelings, I absolutely have ZERO qualms about the United States actions during WW2 with regards to fire bombing or nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I feel that both types of actions served a purpose that furthered the end result which was the prevention of further loss of life for the allies and near annihilation of the japanese in the end. Japanese morale was in no way a factor of ending the war especially considering the examples set on okinawa and the indisputable fact that the japanese were stockpiling scores of suicide weapons on the home islands for use in repelling and invasion. Further, their actions too date indicate that the defense would have been fanatical and involved the use of women and children as was clearly evident on okinawa. So, again, I will repeat that they earned the ending of the war as a consequence of their actions. Whether their populace stood up (or not) to their leaders is irrelevant to the discussion. The actions of the japanese as a whole earned the ending they received.
As for your attempts to compare 9/11 and Hiroshima or nagasaki, there is simply no relevance between the two events. The only relevance is that they indeed are both attacks, that is where the relevance stops.
"Japanese garrison suffered over 13,000 casualties. The number of prisoners taken by the U. S . forces was less than 300. Most were captured near the end of the campaign, when they started running out of food and water. Twenty six Japanese soldiers held out in the caves in Peleliu until 1947 and finally surrendered after a Japanese Admiral from Japan convinced them the war was over."
http://www.visit-palau.com/60thanniv/history.html
This is the proof of the fanaticism of the Japanese in WWII. Take 13,000/300 ratio and put that towards an entire population of a country and you get an idea as to what the war COULD have come to.
-
Sorry, but I do not agree with your opinions on the cold war as they are revisionist at best.
from what I've posted you know nothing of my opinions of the cold war, other than that it was hilariously stupid.
That's not revisionist, that's inarguable :)
-
:headscratch:
wheres that popcorn eating smiley
-
from what I've posted you know nothing of my opinions of the cold war, other than that it was hilariously stupid.
That's not revisionist, that's inarguable :)
Considering that you involve the word hilarious, I will agree that you are stupid and not worth my time. <insert a smiley thing of your choice here>
-
"If Satan ever laughs, it must be at hypocrites; they are the greatest dupes he has." - Charles Colton
-
"Japanese garrison suffered over 13,000 casualties. The number of prisoners taken by the U. S . forces was less than 300. Most were captured near the end of the campaign, when they started running out of food and water. Twenty six Japanese soldiers held out in the caves in Peleliu until 1947 and finally surrendered after a Japanese Admiral from Japan convinced them the war was over."
http://www.visit-palau.com/60thanniv/history.html
This is the proof of the fanaticism of the Japanese in WWII. Take 13,000/300 ratio and put that towards an entire population of a country and you get an idea as to what the war COULD have come to.
How exactly can you overlay the actions of a military onto a civilian population? There's a reason that basic training exists- to change civilians into soldiers. There wouldn't be enough time or instructors to train entire populations like that. Also, the Emperor would have surrendered if the casualties got that steep; the casualties from Hiroshima and Nagasaki were clearly sufficient.
-Penguin
-
How exactly can you overlay the actions of a military onto a civilian population? There's a reason that basic training exists- to change civilians into soldiers. There wouldn't be enough time or instructors to train entire populations like that. Also, the Emperor would have surrendered if the casualties got that steep; the casualties from Hiroshima and Nagasaki were clearly sufficient.
-Penguin
I put that in there as a mere example and its not like the civilians would be completely out of it. Have you ever seen videos of the civilians on Saipan jumping off cliffs to their doom? The Japanese were at the least fanatical with the way they fought and made it clear that if they couldn't win, they'd make every inch lost count for it in lives.
And what makes you say that the Emperor would have surrendered if the nukes were not used? That would probably be at a much greater toll of life on both sides. The cold hard truth is, war is hell and people die. Civilians, soldiers, men, women, children, everybody. Yes, the nuclear bomb killed thousands of Japanese women, children, and unarmed men, but the Japanese were doing it almost 10 years before in China. The bomb was used for good reason and what most people can't grasp is the idea that if it hadn't been used, the Japanese people probably wouldn't be in existence now because of their never surrender attitude.
-
Again, you're taking a subset of the population that jumped off in one island. It's like looking at the Reagan era and extrapolating that the US has always pursued a supply-side economy (it hasn't, look at the New Deal and modern stimulus). I never said that civilians would be completely out of it, but the scale of civilian participation would be negligible compared to the numbers of dead due to the nukes. As I have said before, the Emperor would have surrendered if the nukes had not been used because the nukes themselves weren't the cause of his surrender. He surrendered because it became clear to him that the destructive potential of the United States had increased to such an extent that resistance was futile. He would have likely come to the same conclusion if the bombs had been dropped, like I said, on Mount Fuji or another recognizable landmark that had plenty of witnesses around to confirm that it was, in fact, a nuke that had done it. Furthermore, Japan hadn't been invaded in centuries, and the psychological blow of foreign boots on Japanese soil would have been devastating. Though the nukes were successful, they were not the best solution by far; in order, the best solutions would be: Nuke Mount Fuji, nuke right near Hiroshima, invade and take Tokyo via blitzkrieg, blockade until they sue for peace, nuke Hiroshima.
The fact that the enemy killed lots of civilians and no longer posed a threat to your civilians does not entitle you to kill lots of their civilians. The idea was to end the war cleanly, not make it worse.
-Penguin
-
Again, you're taking a subset of the population that jumped off in one island. It's like looking at the Reagan era and extrapolating that the US has always pursued a supply-side economy (it hasn't, look at the New Deal and modern stimulus). I never said that civilians would be completely out of it, but the scale of civilian participation would be negligible compared to the numbers of dead due to the nukes. As I have said before, the Emperor would have surrendered if the nukes had not been used because the nukes themselves weren't the cause of his surrender. He surrendered because it became clear to him that the destructive potential of the United States had increased to such an extent that resistance was futile. He would have likely come to the same conclusion if the bombs had been dropped, like I said, on Mount Fuji or another recognizable landmark that had plenty of witnesses around to confirm that it was, in fact, a nuke that had done it. Furthermore, Japan hadn't been invaded in centuries, and the psychological blow of foreign boots on Japanese soil would have been devastating. Though the nukes were successful, they were not the best solution by far; in order, the best solutions would be: Nuke Mount Fuji, nuke right near Hiroshima, invade and take Tokyo via blitzkrieg, blockade until they sue for peace, nuke Hiroshima.
The fact that the enemy killed lots of civilians and no longer posed a threat to your civilians does not entitle you to kill lots of their civilians. The idea was to end the war cleanly, not make it worse.
-Penguin
You are so wrong about that. If we had been forced into an invasion of Japan there would have been nobody left on the Japanese side. And how can you compare MY legitimate comparison about Japanese soldiers and CIVILIANS and their fanaticism to Ronald Reagan? Thats just dumb. But you are entitled to believe whatever will make you sleep at night. But if you take a cold hard look at the reality of how fanatical and crazy the Japanese were about surrender, you'd have maybe thought differently. I'm done here. Good day to you sir. :salute
-
I did not compare them to Ronald Reagan. If they were like Ronald Reagan, who knows what would have happened. I was trying to make it clear that you had extrapolated too much from too little data. You have not cited a single source in any of your arguments. I took a cold, hard look at it, and the Japanese were pretty much like the Americans. Many were more zealous than average, but they were certainly not fanatical overall, and my sources prove it. The Japanese would not have fought to the last because they were certainly willing to surrender to the nukes, so we know that that is beyond their breaking point. How far beyond is what this debate was all about.
However, seeing as you withdraw with nothing but a personal shot, then I win! :ahand
-Penguin
-
I did not compare them to Ronald Reagan. If they were like Ronald Reagan, who knows what would have happened. I was trying to make it clear that you had extrapolated too much from too little data. You have not cited a single source in any of your arguments. I took a cold, hard look at it, and the Japanese were pretty much like the Americans. Many were more zealous than average, but they were certainly not fanatical overall, and my sources prove it. The Japanese would not have fought to the last because they were certainly willing to surrender to the nukes, so we know that that is beyond their breaking point. How far beyond is what this debate was all about.
However, seeing as you withdraw with nothing but a personal shot, then I win! :ahand
-Penguin
Not even a personal shot. You're clueless :lol I don't need to cite a source of something that you and I know that happened. I gave you cold hard data of how the Japanese resistance was stiff whenever they were being attacked by Americans. Would there have been some changes now that it was on the home front? I think so. I think it would have been MUCH more costly than the atomic bombs. I can present you with concrete evidence on just how hard the Japanese would fight to stop the American advance, but you will only call that information irrelevant due to the fact that it isn't on the Japanese mainland and then bring out some moot comparison about something completely off topic.
-
Again, the personal shot.
Anyway, with regard to sources, go ahead, make my day. If you really have evidence, then go ahead and put it up. You can't make baseless claims on your own authority. I never said that the evidence was irrelevant; I said that there wasn't enough of it. I also never said that the evidence had to be from the mainland, it only had to be relevant to the period (e.g., 1941 was a very different time in comparison to 1945).
All I hear is: "You're clueless, I'm right and don't need to prove it, I think this that and the other thing". Let's get some evidence!
-Penguin
-
If Japan deserved to be nuked then the US deserved 9/11
If given the choice of dropping an atomic bomb or invading a country and suffering an estimated million plus casualties on your side on the first day of the invasion, all I can say is "BOMBS AWAY!".
Dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki probably ended up saving more lives than were lost, in fact, more Japanese were killed in the Tokyo fire bombings than in either atomic bombings.
ack-ack
-
Not even a personal shot. You're clueless :lol I don't need to cite a source of something that you and I know that happened. I gave you cold hard data of how the Japanese resistance was stiff whenever they were being attacked by Americans. Would there have been some changes now that it was on the home front? I think so. I think it would have been MUCH more costly than the atomic bombs. I can present you with concrete evidence on just how hard the Japanese would fight to stop the American advance, but you will only call that information irrelevant due to the fact that it isn't on the Japanese mainland and then bring out some moot comparison about something completely off topic.
An invasion would have cost many lives (possibly fight to the last), but what if the bomb was dropped somewhere off shore so they could observe the superior technology they were against. If the japanese saw this and knew the next one was gonna land on them, would they have surrendered?
-
An invasion would have cost many lives (possibly fight to the last), but what if the bomb was dropped somewhere off shore so they could observe the superior technology they were against. If the japanese saw this and knew the next one was gonna land on them, would they have surrendered?
Unlikely. We pounded the hell out of their island fortifications for weeks with every size and type of ordnance we could throw at them and they still refused to surrender.
Would the civilians have fought to the death like mad dogs? Unlikely as well. But you have to remember, we didn't know that at the time.
What we did know, is that the Japanese military would fight to the death, and use everything in their power to kill as many of us as they could.
That in at least one case, the civilian Japanese citizens chose suicide over capture.
Intercepted radio traffic likely increased the belief in this likelyhood as plans were drawn up to suicide into attacking landing craft.
Despite heavy bombing of civilian targets, the Japanese government showed no signs of considering surrender.
The Japanese people have been indoctrinated for generations that death in the service of their Emperor is a worthy goal, from peasant to general.
Under a full scale invasion, the Japanese military would be calling all the shots, not so much the Japanese government, and they would likely be able to keep the civilians from surrendering for a prolonged period of time. And the casualties on both sides as a result of this would be enormous.
Take all this into account, of what we knew at the time, and nuclear weapons are a terrible, but acceptable response to try and end the war.
As far as the Japanese atrocoties that occured in World War 2. Well... I can only hope that we killed as many of the people responsible for them as possible. The civilians... It's a tragedy what happened to them, it really is. But that's war. I can only wish that their government had cared about its people as much as they cared for their Emperor. Because when you become a savage, its the people who supply and support you that truly pay the price.
-
Just to be clear, you're saying that the information at the time pointed to a 'fight to the last'. However, I am still unclear as to whether you, today, believe that would have happened. Furthermore, we had not yet used a nuclear bomb, and no-one has yet replied to my idea of nuclear landscaping (of low-population areas). It would have been worth it to drop the first one on Mount Fuji, and if that didn't work, progress up the line of damage (small town-> city-> Hiroshima). Remember, time was on the side of the Allies, so it was their responsibility not to hurry such a momentous decision. War may be awful, but that's why there are laws in place to protect civilians, POW's, etc.
-Penguin
-
Penguin,
As I have said before, you are being obtuse. You are second guessing the US and allied leadership during their prosecution of the campaign in the Pacific with the benefit of hind sight and it makes you look foolish and naive.
As the cards were played is the best decision and a very generous one that saved millions of japanese and allied lives. The leadership knew this and I 100% support their decisions.
-
Just to be clear, you're saying that the information at the time pointed to a 'fight to the last'. However, I am still unclear as to whether you, today, believe that would have happened. Furthermore, we had not yet used a nuclear bomb, and no-one has yet replied to my idea of nuclear landscaping (of low-population areas). It would have been worth it to drop the first one on Mount Fuji, and if that didn't work, progress up the line of damage (small town-> city-> Hiroshima). Remember, time was on the side of the Allies, so it was their responsibility not to hurry such a momentous decision. War may be awful, but that's why there are laws in place to protect civilians, POW's, etc.
-Penguin
I think the Japanese military would have fought to the very last man. I think they would have taken over the government if they had tried to surrender during an invasion, and they would have cowed the civilians into helping them commit national suicide on our guns.
For the Japanese soldier death was preferrable to dishonor, and surrender was one of the worst ways of dishonoring your name.
We only had 2 nukes at the time, and it was quite some time before we were able to build the next nuclear bomb. The cost of the bombs, plus their limited quantity meant that if the Japanese said "so what?" to our detonating one in view and not on a target, we wouldn't be able to follow up with the threat. We couldn't take that chance.
Remember, it took 2 hitting their cities to make them even think about surrendering.
-
Just to be clear, you're saying that the information at the time pointed to a 'fight to the last'. However, I am still unclear as to whether you, today, believe that would have happened. Furthermore, we had not yet used a nuclear bomb, and no-one has yet replied to my idea of nuclear landscaping (of low-population areas). It would have been worth it to drop the first one on Mount Fuji, and if that didn't work, progress up the line of damage (small town-> city-> Hiroshima). Remember, time was on the side of the Allies, so it was their responsibility not to hurry such a momentous decision. War may be awful, but that's why there are laws in place to protect civilians, POW's, etc.
-Penguin
The first bomb dropped on Hiroshima didn't work to force Japan into surrendering. What makes you think that if we had instead dropped it in Tokyo Bay or on Mount Fuji, it would have had a different outcome?
ack-ack
-
Penguin,
As I have said before, you are being obtuse. You are second guessing the US and allied leadership during their prosecution of the campaign in the Pacific with the benefit of hind sight and it makes you look foolish and naive.
As the cards were played is the best decision and a very generous one that saved millions of japanese and allied lives. The leadership knew this and I 100% support their decisions.
There's nothing wrong with second-guessing one's leaders, especially when they knew that they had incomplete information regarding the destructive power of the bomb and knew that they could wait for the Trinity Test. It's one thing to go around proclaiming to have the utmost military knowledge and skill, it's another to prove that a decision was made hastily. The former requires years of experience, the latter requires some research and insight. Furthermore, why, exactly, should we not examine the past mistakes of our government and military in order to avoid repeating them? Hindsight or no hindsight, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.
I think the Japanese military would have fought to the very last man. I think they would have taken over the government if they had tried to surrender during an invasion, and they would have cowed the civilians into helping them commit national suicide on our guns.
For the Japanese soldier death was preferrable to dishonor, and surrender was one of the worst ways of dishonoring your name.
We only had 2 nukes at the time, and it was quite some time before we were able to build the next nuclear bomb. The cost of the bombs, plus their limited quantity meant that if the Japanese said "so what?" to our detonating one in view and not on a target, we wouldn't be able to follow up with the threat. We couldn't take that chance.
Remember, it took 2 hitting their cities to make them even think about surrendering.
What evidence do you have that the Japanese military would overthrow the very institution from which it drew credibility? In such an event, the code of Bushido (which you refer to) would dictate No Emperor, No Deal. Also, the constant bombing had greatly reduced Japan's infrastructure, which would have been key in transporting that many people. The allied planners were well aware of both of these facts because the Code of Bushido was public knowledge and after-action reports would have shown the damage to Japan's infrastructure. No hindsight advantage there.
Also, please provide some evidence to back up your claim.
NB: Don't use 'I think,' it's assumed, and stating it weakens your points.
The first bomb dropped on Hiroshima didn't work to force Japan into surrendering. What makes you think that if we had instead dropped it in Tokyo Bay or on Mount Fuji, it would have had a different outcome?
ack-ack
While it's true that it took both bombs, the allies had time on their side. Therefore bombing major population centers to save time is unjustifiable. Furthermore, if that didn't work, then the original plan would.
-Penguin
-
While it's true that it took both bombs, the allies had time on their side. Therefore bombing major population centers to save time is unjustifiable. Furthermore, if that didn't work, then the original plan would.
-Penguin
We used the bombs as a show of force to the Russians who we were on cooling relations with after the fall of Berlin, and subsequent statements by people like Churchill and Patton as to the continuing threat of totalitarianism in Eastern Europe.
The Japanese surrendered because the Soviet Union declared war, not because we dropped our bombs. We'd been firebombing the living hell out of them for a year already, and killed more people and destroyed more cities than we did with the Bomb.
Having Soviet Hordes entering Manchuria and supplying arms and assistance to Communist Chinese rebels was a REALLY bad thing, and the last thing Japan wanted was the Soviets getting a piece of the Pie, or China being allowed its revenge for the decade of atrocities that make the Holocaust look like a Disney movie.
The bombs were nothing more than a show of force to our 'Allies'.
-
Though it was important to scare the Russians in order to prevent World War III, going on a nuclear killing spree isn't the way to do it. Nuclear landscaping would provide a far more striking picture.
-Penguin
-
I never said it was a good thing, merely pointed out that the bombs ending the war is one of the biggest pieces of propaganda we've been force fed about WWII. It's up there with Pearl Harbor was a sneak attack, or that the US was a completely innocent bystandard and Pearl Harbor was unprovoked.
History is taught by the winners, but if you do some research, you'll find the information is out there.
-
What evidence do you have that the Japanese military would overthrow the very institution from which it drew credibility? In such an event, the code of Bushido (which you refer to) would dictate No Emperor, No Deal. Also, the constant bombing had greatly reduced Japan's infrastructure, which would have been key in transporting that many people. The allied planners were well aware of both of these facts because the Code of Bushido was public knowledge and after-action reports would have shown the damage to Japan's infrastructure. No hindsight advantage there.
No offense but that paragraph shows that you really don't know your history as well as you think you do. Read about the last days of the Japanese government about how elements from the Ministry of War and the Imperial Japanese Guards moved to detain the Emperor in a coup attempt to prevent the Emporer's broadcast announcing the intent to surrender.
It was called the Kyūjō Incident.
ack-ack
-
There's nothing wrong with second-guessing one's leaders, especially when they knew that they had incomplete information regarding the destructive power of the bomb and knew that they could wait for the Trinity Test. It's one thing to go around proclaiming to have the utmost military knowledge and skill, it's another to prove that a decision was made hastily. The former requires years of experience, the latter requires some research and insight. Furthermore, why, exactly, should we not examine the past mistakes of our government and military in order to avoid repeating them? Hindsight or no hindsight, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.
-Penguin
You are aware that Trinity took place on the 16th of July, 1945, right?
Since you are obviously so full of yourself yet you are unable to comprehend the very words that I stated, and are again putting words in my mouth, I will say this:
The mention of hind sight was to show you that you have had decades of research, decisions, and theories presented to you to draw opinions on the actions of the leadership at the end of the war in the Pacific. Those same people who made the decisions did NOT have the luxury of time as you say, nor the vast amounts of information you possess. Further, another oft overlooked issue that was not previously mentioned to negate your belief in the allies having "time on their hands" was the issue of American POW's being held by the japanese on the home islands. Those personnel did not have time.
So to sum this up ONE LAST TIME, these facts are presented to support using nukes to force the japanese to surrender unconditionally:
- allied estimates of operation Olympic casualties were staggering (General LeMay estimated over half a million US dead, not casualties, dead. Herbert Hoover estimated between 500k and 1 million US dead. Secretary of War Stinson estimated between 5 - 10 million japanese dead.)
- the estimates of Kamikaze prepared aircraft alone were between 5 and 10 thousand aircraft. This does not include the multitude of other suicide weapons planned.
- japanese defense was expected to be fanatical based upon examples on Okinawa.
- continued bombing of japanese cities was more expensive in lives than the examples picked for nukes of two cities with four aircraft.
The last thing I am going to say to you with regards to the support of the decision to drop nukes is that had the US gone forward with Olympic and faced between 500k and 1 million US DEAD, how many would not be here today in the US? Further, how many japanese would not be here today? The luxury you have of second guessing those decisions is a gift, one that you should be thankful for as it is a strong possibility that many of us on these boards would not be here today had Olympic gone forward.
-
Yes, the bombs were dropped 6-9 July. That's a pretty darn big gap. The planners were well aware that they hadn't seen it go off, and even Oppenheimer himself hadn't seen anything remotely close to Trinity. Even for a man of such genius, no sentient being had ever witnessed a nuclear explosion.
-Penguin
-
Even for a man of such genius, no sentient being had ever witnessed a nuclear explosion.
-Penguin
and he didn't witness a nuclear explosion, he witnessed an atomic explosion. There is a difference.
ack-ack
-
There is no difference between a nuclear bomb and an atomic bomb. The major types of explosive devices that operate by acting upon atomic nuclei are:
Pure Fission- Fat Man, Little Boy, Trinity all fall into this category. Compress the uranium until it reaches critical mass, and... KA-BOOM!
Thermonuclear- Modern ICBM warheads, they use a fission explosion to create a second, but much more powerful, fusion explosion
Neutron- A modified nuclear bomb that focuses on radiation release by using walls of chromium and nickel instead of lead
Dirty Bomb- An inside-out version of a pure fission device, it can be also thought of as a frag grenade with the outer shell being made of radioactive material. This is the 'WMD' that terrorists can most plausibly use because getting weapons-grade uranium or plutonium is no easy feat, but other radioactive materials are significantly more accessible.
Therefore, there is no difference between an atomic bomb and a nuclear bomb because they are both just different names for the same idea. A thermonuclear device on the other hand, (which is what you may have been referring to) is different from an 'atomic' weapon because it incorporates fusion, and I agree that Oppenheimer had not witnessed such an explosion. While that is an interesting point, it isn't relevant to the question of whether the US government had sufficient evidence at the time to make a decision that was sufficiently well-informed to justify the use of nuclear weapons.
You are aware that Trinity took place on the 16th of July, 1945, right?
Since you are obviously so full of yourself yet you are unable to comprehend the very words that I stated, and are again putting words in my mouth, I will say this:
The mention of hind sight was to show you that you have had decades of research, decisions, and theories presented to you to draw opinions on the actions of the leadership at the end of the war in the Pacific. Those same people who made the decisions did NOT have the luxury of time as you say, nor the vast amounts of information you possess. Further, another oft overlooked issue that was not previously mentioned to negate your belief in the allies having "time on their hands" was the issue of American POW's being held by the japanese on the home islands. Those personnel did not have time.
So to sum this up ONE LAST TIME, these facts are presented to support using nukes to force the japanese to surrender unconditionally:
- allied estimates of operation Olympic casualties were staggering (General LeMay estimated over half a million US dead, not casualties, dead. Herbert Hoover estimated between 500k and 1 million US dead. Secretary of War Stinson estimated between 5 - 10 million japanese dead.)
- the estimates of Kamikaze prepared aircraft alone were between 5 and 10 thousand aircraft. This does not include the multitude of other suicide weapons planned.
- japanese defense was expected to be fanatical based upon examples on Okinawa.
- continued bombing of japanese cities was more expensive in lives than the examples picked for nukes of two cities with four aircraft.
The last thing I am going to say to you with regards to the support of the decision to drop nukes is that had the US gone forward with Olympic and faced between 500k and 1 million US DEAD, how many would not be here today in the US? Further, how many japanese would not be here today? The luxury you have of second guessing those decisions is a gift, one that you should be thankful for as it is a strong possibility that many of us on these boards would not be here today had Olympic gone forward.
As for being full of myself, I'll quote the words of my robotics teacher: "It isn't being arrogant if you're right". :P All jests aside, I don't think of myself as 'above' anyone. If you can prove your point, then it's right in my book. However, I still have some bones to pick.
Just because the had allies made an estimate doesn't prove that they had made a good estimate. I can prove it without hindsight, too. If the allied planners felt that they had good reason to believe that the Japanese would fight to the last even in the face of vast military superiority (e.g., Okinawa) then what difference would dropping a nuclear bomb on two cities have made to a foe that was clearly irrational? This presents an interesting paradox. If the Japanese were truly as irrational as you say, then the solution would have been to exterminate them. Obviously that wasn't on the allied agenda (they wanted to use the bombs to end the war), so even if it may have been true, the allied planners certainly didn't think so (which makes the Kyujo incident moot). That leaves the conclusion that Japan would have surrendered to a sufficiently superior military force.
As you have already demonstrated, the firebombing of Tokyo was insufficient to force a surrender; therefore, the shock and awe of a nuclear weapon clearly had some advantages. However, if the firebombing of Tokyo caused more casualties (albeit less quickly, but Japanese high command seeing their capital city burning would have clearly made up for it) than the bomb was predicted to, then it was not the damage part of shock and awe that interested the US. With that in mind, one can reason that isolating the magnitude of the explosion from the deaths of the denizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have caused a negligible loss in shock and awe. That leaves the application of nuclear weapons to low-population areas such as Mount Fuji or other clearly recognizable landmarks that would have sufficient eye-witnesses (to prevent a cover-up) coupled with a very threatening letter, as the best possible way to end the war.
With regard to the POW's, the casualties generated by leaving them in there for the few days necessary would have been negligible compared to the number of casualties generated by nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
-Penguin
-
Penguin, do you realize you are building your "what ifs" completely off a modern day apologist's platform?
What you are failing to comprehend is that everything you are asking was asked by the Truman Administration, the US military command, those scientist working on the entire project, etc, etc.
It was horrible and it was inhumane, but it had to be done for a multitude of reasons. Come up with any reason you (or anyone) may think it should not have been done and you will get 10 reasons in return that would have made your reason a moot point. It isnt about "who won the war writes the history", either.
The topic is very deep, and I mean very deep and it simply can not be learned by just reading a book or two. You need to learn not only the subject matter at the time in which it happened, the mentality of the world when it happened, and you need to understand concepts that are foreign to you and most everyone else in today's world. Until you can put yourself in the shoes of the people who were alive at that time, and learn how to understand WITHOUT misconceived notions of right and wrong, you (or anyone else) wont truly even begin to understand what and why it happened. It goes much deeper that what you can read in a Time-Life '"Collectors Edition" book or a bunch of stats. Trust me.
To everyone, I suggest a couple of books that show a realistic "other" side point of view: "Hiroshima Diary" by Michihiko Hachuya, M.D.; and "Hiroshima-Why America Dropped the Atmoic Bomb", by Ronald Takaki. Both were sources I was assigned in college for one of my WWII classes. Both go far deeper than facts and figures. I have about a 10 or so other sources dealing with the atomic bombs and the invasion of Japan, but those 2 are good warm ups. :)
-
Erm, apologist for what, exactly? In the old sense or the new? :headscratch:
If you could list a few that I could read at my library, that would be great.
-Penguin
-
Why apologise? The A-Bomb drops are good cinema and nothing more. They had very little to do with Japan's surrender. That's something they teach you here, read up on what really happened in the closing months of the war... You're arguement is based around a straw man. It's like trying to understand WWII and saying it started because German's hated Jews, rather than looking into the underlying political and economic causes that came about because of the "end" of WWI.
I'm sorry, but the history channel is great entertainment, but it's "History" in the sense that the "Ministry of Truth" is there to make sure you know what REALLY happened.
-
I'm very well aware of the crushing peace enforced by the allies after WW1, and the inherent underestimation of the damage that it did to German national pride. The Japanese wanted resources and because of its tyrannical miltarist regime, it obtained them in a horrible way, thus leading to WW2 in the Pacific.
-Penguin