Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: hazed- on January 07, 2003, 07:12:24 PM
-
After recently hearing a player in AH say that the dropping of the atomic bomb on japan was wrong and that we should have finnished the war by conventional means I took the time to gather some facts which might change their minds.
The player was hammy and it seemed to me he could not be aware of what it meant to continue the war on Japan by conventional means.There are a thousand reasons why it was a justified action and obviously there are many moral reasons why it was and wasnt right.Here are someinteresting facts which I think he should be aware of.
In preperation for the defence of mainland japan the japanese people were told they would receive no mercy from the Americans and were indoctrinated into thinking that they were to be exterminated.The Japanese Army still had over 2.3 million troops, 4 million navy/seamen and aviators and they built a mailitia from the general populace which amounted to a staggering 28 million!
There was 1000's of kamakazi type weapons including piloted rocket bombs, speed boats, aircraft even manned torpedos!
The Allies planned to invade the southern most island first in 1945 followed the following year by an assault on tokyo bay
The estimated casualties on the allied side alone exceeded 1 million troops and airforce personel.
On the capture of the islands leading to Japan the resistance was more and more fanatical and even though some thousands of japanese soldies did start to surrender the vast majority fought until they were killed.
American casualties were severe.
When the atomic bomb was developed the Allies gave the Japanese a chance to surrender and it was unconditional.
According to historians the Japanese government refused.
Many civilian Japanese at the time wanted peace but the Army who were in control refused to accept it.
The first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and the allies again called for surrender.
After 3 days of waiting nothing was heard from the Japanese and so the Allies dropped the 2nd bomb.
Even after this astounding weapon was used the Army generals STILL wanted to fight on!.The Civilian government officials pleaded with the generals to cease hostilitiies and finally they agreed to inform the emperor and to let him decide the fate of their nation.After seeing what his people were suffering the Emperor agreed it was time to end the war.
Even though he was considered a god-like figure he still took the unprecidented step of broadcasting by radio to the whole Japanese population that Japan had surrendered because he feared a military coup.
Now for someone like Hammy to go onto ch 1 and start accusing the Americans of being wrong to use the bomb and to claim that a conventional end to the war would have been more acceptable astounded me.I can only think he really hasnt read his history properly or that he really understands the self sacrifice a conventional end to the war would have demanded.
Anyhow, I thought id post this small amount of information in the hope he reads it and decides to look further into the real history behind the use of the bombs.I too find the after affects and the horror of the damage hard to bear but i DO understand why it was done.I have no ill feeling towards the Japanese people as a whole but I do have a severe dislike of their methods of war and their treatent of prisoners.
I do understand however that they were living in a totally different society to the rest of the world and I understand why they thought the way they did.It doesnt make it acceptable but it is understandable.
After reading a lot of history books I have formed the opinion that the dropping of the bombs were a necessary but terrible action.I hope Hammy might learn to also one day.
-
Damn Hazed, you put a good amount of research into that.
Good post!
-SW
-
Let's build a time machine and transport Hammy back in time to the US Navy as a sailor who would be required to participate in the assault on the Japanese mainland. Ask him if he thinks it might be a cool idea to not use the A-Bomb and instead just go in conventionally. Ask his comrads what they think would be the right choice.
Something that stands out to me is that the Atomic bombs ended the fanatic Japanese attitude towards surrender and ended the war.
-
nice one hazed.
Was there/or would have been any consideration to use it on German targets if things had taken a turn in the wrong direction?
I know Germany had hard water production in Norway. If they had developed the bomb before the allies and things got conventionally desperate, is it safe to assume Germany would have attempted used it in a last ditch effort?
-
"Having found the bomb we have used it. We have used it against those who attacked us without warning at Pearl Harbor, against those who have starved and beaten and executed American prisoners of war, against those who have abandoned all pretense of obeying international laws of warfare. We have used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans. We shall continue to use it until we completely destroy Japan's power to make war. Only a Japanese surrender will stop us."
Harry Truman
33rd President of the United States
-
Dropping the bombs actually saved many more Japanese than were killed.
The resistance to invasion would have been fanatical. The civilian population were all armed and had been ordered to fight to the death. We all saw what happened at Saipan and Iwo Jima when Japanese civilians threw themselves over cliffs rather than surrender. This would have also occurred on a massive scale if marines landed on the Home Islands.
Dropping the bombs also saved the lives of all of the soldiers and sailors that would have potentailly been casulaties until the eventual surrender of the Japanese through "conventional" means. This would have included an invasion of Japan itself.
I saw a movie about Truman which highlighted the decision he had to make to drop the bombs. He was quoted in the film as saying "If we don't drop the bomb how could I ever look into the eyes of an American mother whose son was killed by the enemy, knowing I could have prevented it." If it were me, I'd have thought about it the same way and made the same decision. The only one he could have made IMHO.
-
Originally posted by Curval
Dropping the bombs actually saved many more Japanese than were killed.
The resistance to invasion would have been fanatical. The civilian population were all armed and had been ordered to fight to the death. We all saw what happened at Saipan and Iwo Jima when Japanese civilians threw themselves over cliffs rather than surrender. This would have also occurred on a massive scale if marines landed on the Home Islands.
Dropping the bombs also saved the lives of all of the soldiers and sailors that would have potentailly been casulaties until the eventual surrender of the Japanese through "conventional" means. This would have included an invasion of Japan itself.
I saw a movie about Truman which highlighted the decision he had to make to drop the bombs. He was quoted in the film as saying "If we don't drop the bomb how could I ever look into the eyes of an American mother whose son was killed by the enemy, knowing I could have prevented it." If it were me, I'd have thought about it the same way and made the same decision. The only one he could have made IMHO.
Hey....I actually agree with Curval :)
What's this BB coming to?
-
sry , im not understand
US push japs to war, and kill thousend 's of civilians to save them?
according to this, same scenario in iraque?:D :D :D
-
Japan brought the US into the war...
-SW
-
This has nothing to do with iraq.
-
There were plans by Germany to build a ultra long range aircraft similar to the flying wing you guys(US) built in the 50's. The plans were discovered and i'd assume had a lot to do with your development of that aircraft.
The idea was for Hitler to be able to bomb New York! If he had the Atom bomb you'd better beleive he would have used it!
There was also plans to try to produce a missile that could be launched from a submarine but proved too technically difficult.
Also a plan was submitted by a famous LW bomber pilot who was to use a converted LW aircraft that could just reach the US but not return.His idea was to bomb the US and then bail out over the ocean and be picked up by a Uboat.
The situation with germany was very different but who knows? perhaps the allies would have considered using the Abomb on Germany.I suspect though that even Hitler would have considered surrender faced with the prospect of it being dropped on Berlin but luckily we never had to find out.Japan as i mentioned was a totally different type of society at the time.Very much more controlled and indoctrinated even than the German populace.Its a scarey thought to wonder what would have happened isnt it.
Truman I think was a good man and must have wrestled with his conscience over his decision.I think for people to try to imply that he took this decision any lighter than any human being would have is totally wrong. It must have been hard to live with.I still feel however he did the right thing based on what information I have learned about the circumstances he faced.
Iraq is a whole other story, and im not about to get into that! :)
-
I can to some extend understand the use of the first bomb on Hiroshima (But wasnt there a better target available? Military installations in Hiroshima were minor). 2nd one, no. The Japanese generals were swaying and a longer wait could probably have led to a surrender.
Question is, how much did the Russian invasion in Manchuari affect the decision to force the issue and bomb Nagasaki?
I highly recommend visiting the memorial peace museum in Hiroshima.
Daff
-
Don't start 'nuthin', won't be 'nuthin'.
-
The idea was to scare the crap out of the CIVILIAN population. This was a terror weapon just like it was suppose to be. It was never designed to take out Military Targets. It would be overkill to use one on a base. Kill enought of the ppl who support an Army and that Army will think twice. So, the first bomb did not kill enought and the second was needed. I would have dropped it and not thought twice about doing it.
HC
-
Hazed im sure german would use A-bomb against everyone who stand on his way.
Imho 1 bomb was enough, secound needless cywilian casulties. For politcal effect only.
only that words scary me
Originally posted by Curval
Dropping the bombs actually saved many more Japanese than were killed.
Us troops was very close to enter japan, no wonder they are defend to death. Possibly US do same things if japs enter north america, sucrifice yourself to defend homeland.
Originally posted by Curval
"The resistance to invasion would have been fanatical. "
Every country do same things if not have place to step back and regoup to counterattack.
Japs dont have place to escape and come back.
I supose , u do sam things if german would win war in europe. And axis start invade america
Are u not?
Originally posted by Curval
I saw a movie about Truman which highlighted the decision he had to make to drop the bombs. He was quoted in the film as saying "If we don't drop the bomb how could I ever look into the eyes of an American mother whose son was killed by the enemy, knowing I could have prevented it." If it were me, I'd have thought about it the same way and made the same decision. The only one he could have made IMHO.
For many ppls situation with iraq looks similar like with japan in 40's
Make country desperated, show as evil, push them to attack us, win war and liberate.
On whole world we dont have saint countries and his govermants accros history.
many years ago in shool /in comunistic times/ we have "civil defense" lessions. In book was write about wars.
Book show 2 kines of war "fair" and "not fair"
"fair" when somone invade other country, and u defend yourself
"not fair" when one country attack other, who not invade them on any field
donno how u name war against iraq
dont think im pro iraq, or anti american,
But i really dont see reason to use a-bomb against civil people, same not see reason to war with iraq. And scenario of both looks similar for me
ramzey
-
There were plans by Germany to build a ultra long range aircraft similar to the flying wing you guys(US) built in the 50's. The plans were discovered and i'd assume had a lot to do with your development of that aircraft.
Nope, the Northrop flying wing bombers (including B-2) all trace their lineage back to the Northrop N1M of 1940.
-
Curval:
"Dropping the bombs actually saved many more Japanese than were killed."
Thank you Curval for bringing this up.. it is the most overlooked fact regarding dropping the A-bombs.
-
Here's a nice site on Northrop flying wings:
http://www.invisible-defenders.org/programs/b2/beginning.htm
-
apparently 1 bomb was NOT enough. if the second wasn't required then they would have surendered after the first.
-
Originally posted by ramzey
For many ppls situation with iraq looks similar like with japan in 40's
Make country desperated, show as evil, push them to attack us, win war and liberate.
ramzey
Ok, I'm confused.
How is Iraq similar to Japan in the 1940's?
Japan suffered in the world-wide recession after 1929, just like every other nation.
In 1931, her army invaded and occupied the whole of Manchuria.
On July 7th, 1937, Japanese troops clashed in maneuvers with Chinese troops at the Marco Polo Bridge, ten miles west of Peking. Three weeks later, the Japanese invaded in large numbers.
So exactly how did the rest of the world.. or the US.. make Japan desperate?
For pity's sake; Japan invaded and conquered Manchria in 1931! The prosecuted and undeclared war against China from 1937 on!
No one made the desperate; they were agressors.
No one made them "look evil"; they managed that all by themselves, particulary after "the rape of Nanking".
No one pushed them to attack anyone either. They managed to formulate and prosecute their attacks without any real pressure from the outside. Manchuria and China by themselves show that.
So, I'm confused.
-
Yes it reminds me of Poland's behavior, pushing the Germans into war in 1939. :rolleyes:
-
ramzey:
You statements are idiotic.
GRUNHERZ
-
I will add some points about the thinking of the Japanese people of the Americans during the war (especialy near the end). My mother (born in '33) and grandmother (born around 1910) were living in Tokyo at the time. They really thought that the Americans were devils (my mom laughs as she tells it as they all expected the Americans to actually have tiny horns growing out of their heads). The Japanese citizenry was given a long bamboo pikes to fight to the death of those "devil" American invaders. They were hardly "enthusiastic" about fighting to their sure death against such devils. The average Japanese citizen was very fearful of dying just as those citizens from America, Germany, England, etc. We can propagandize about how the Japanese non-military citizens would cause about a million US military casualties, but I find it exagerated. Would there be more or less casualties if both bombs weren't dropped? I don't know. Wish I did. The fact is both bombs were dropped and Japan gave its unconditional surrender. Warfare has a way of bringing out the barbarity in people. That's just the way it is.
Both my grandmother and mother are still alive. If anyone has any specific questions for me to ask, I'll be happy to forward them. At least you'll get some answers from those that actually lived through the war rather than from a text book.
-
Hazed - aren't you forgetting the Delta bombers of the RAF - the glorious Avro Vulcan et al? It wasn't just the US that had flying wing planes in the 50s.
The atomic bomb drops were as defensible as the Dresden bombings. Both were done in the hope that the will to fight of both nations would be broken, and hence save Allied lives. I don't have a problem with either, morally.
Iraq has no parallels with WW2. We know Hitler was a nutjob with a program to develop nuclear weapons.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
ramzey:
You statements are idiotic.
GRUNHERZ
damm u right!!!!!
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
I will add some points about the thinking of the Japanese people of the Americans during the war (especialy near the end). My mother (born in '33) and grandmother (born around 1910) were living in Tokyo at the time. They really thought that the Americans were devils (my mom laughs as she tells it as they all expected the Americans to actually have tiny horns growing out of their heads). The Japanese citizenry was given a long bamboo pikes to fight to the death of those "devil" American invaders. They were hardly "enthusiastic" about fighting to their sure death against such devils. The average Japanese citizen was very fearful of dying just as those citizens from America, Germany, England, etc. We can propagandize about how the Japanese non-military citizens would cause about a million US military casualties, but I find it exagerated. Would there be more or less casualties if both bombs weren't dropped? I don't know. Wish I did. The fact is both bombs were dropped and Japan gave its unconditional surrender. Warfare has a way of bringing out the barbarity in people. That's just the way it is.
Both my grandmother and mother are still alive. If anyone has any specific questions for me to ask, I'll be happy to forward them. At least you'll get some answers from those that actually lived through the war rather than from a text book.
A million casulaties inflicted by civilians sounds inflated to me too. I believe the two bombs caused about 30-40 thousand casualties each (very rough figures)...lets call it an even 100,000 with radiation casulaties added to the figure.
Wouldn't you agree that more than 100,000 Japanese civilians and military personel would have died in an invasion of Japan?
I said that dropping the bombs saved more Japanese...I did not distinguish between civilian or military casulaties.
SaburoS, would your parents have actually fought with those bamboo spears, or would they have surrendered? I'm not being judgemental, I'm just curious. Would they have committed suicide rather than be taken prisoner? Again, no judgement, just curious. As mentioned civilian Japanese on Saipan and at Iwo Jima jumped from cliff rather than surrender to the American "devils". Wouldn't this have also happened in Japan itself? I would say yes, but I would like to hear what your parents say about that. It is possible to me that the more sopisticated civilians in the major population centres would not do so, but what about the rural population?
It was estimated that the US would have suffered approximately 300,000 casulaties in the invasion of Japan. Just think about how the survivors would have been feeling about the people that caused those casulaties? I think "trigger happy" would be a gross understatement. This is not to say that they would have committed wholesale slaughter of civilians...just that they would have reacted with swift and extreme violence against any resistance once they landed, even if it were a bunch of civilians waving bamboo spears.
-
Originally posted by Daff
I can to some extend understand the use of the first bomb on Hiroshima (But wasnt there a better target available? Military installations in Hiroshima were minor). 2nd one, no. The Japanese generals were swaying and a longer wait could probably have led to a surrender.
Question is, how much did the Russian invasion in Manchuari affect the decision to force the issue and bomb Nagasaki?
I highly recommend visiting the memorial peace museum in Hiroshima.
Daff
The Russian invasion of Manchuria may have been a factor, but even more of a factor was convincing the Japanese that the US had more than one bomb.
-
The amount of damage caused by each atomic bomb was staggering. Considering it was only one bomb. The mass bombing raids were capable of inflicting as much damage as a nuclear weapon.
The japanese didn't even give in because of the damage from the two bombs. They gave in because the US bluffed, implying that there were many more ready to go.
A few hundred thousand casualties on one side vs a few million casualties on both is an easy decision. A horrible situation, but an easy decision to make.
-
Originally posted by Jack55
"Having found the bomb we have used it. We have used it against those who attacked us without warning at Pearl Harbor, against those who have starved and beaten and executed American prisoners of war, against those who have abandoned all pretense of obeying international laws of warfare. We have used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans. We shall continue to use it until we completely destroy Japan's power to make war. Only a Japanese surrender will stop us."
Harry Truman
33rd President of the United States
Gents, you can stir the pot as you like, but Mr. Truman already declared WHY!
All the other considerations are'nt history, just different propaganda agendas.
P.S.
Dont forget the blockade that US raise against Japan before the war.
P.P.S.
If you are so naive to believe that the incoming war against IRAQ it's a war "against evil", "it's us or them", "they will nuke us" ....
... well, I pity you. ;)
-
Approx 200.000 people died from the effects of the bomb in Hiroshima, with 140.000 dead at the end of 1945. 70.000 were outright killed in Nagasaki, with another 70.000 injured, many who later died from radiation poisoning.
Survivors from both cities suffered from after effect many years after. (Which was also somewhat compounded by the Japanese goverment refusing to acknowledge that some of these symptoms existed) http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp/peacesite/English/Stage1/1-5/1-5-6E.html
"just that they would have reacted with swift and extreme violence against any resistance once they landed, even if it were a bunch of civilians waving bamboo spears."
Yeah..the propaganda was very effective on both sides, eh?
Daff
-
The U.S. was already taking out Japanese cities by use of incendiary bombing. This caused huge fire storms that killed civilians by the tens of thousands. The controversy over the A-bomb seems to be that we could do the same thing with a single bomb instead of five thousand or so. We were going to destroy their cities anyway.
The Russian's did not declare war on Japan until after the first A-bomb dropped. They saw the power and knew we would win the war. If they had participated in the invasion of Japan they would have demanded control of half of Japan, such as happened in Europe. There might have been another Iron Curtain in Japan. The Japanese surrender after the second bomb kept the Russians from gaining a large footprint in Japan. The four island's they did occupy, the Kurile Islands was still in their control long after Japan became a economic power and is still in their control 57 years later. Japan and Russia never signed a peace treaty because of these island's
-
Daff: "(But wasnt there a better target available? Military installations in Hiroshima were minor)"
Daff, from what I've read over the years, it seems consistent that in Hiroshima, that over 80% of the "households" had small businesses that manufactured some sort of parts for weapons of war. This was common in the Japanese culture of manufacturing at the time. Also consider the major port of Hiroshima (Wasn't the Yamoto stationed there for awhile?)
-
Stats (http://www.danshistory.com/ww2/atombomb.shtml)
Here are the actual figures.
My estimates were low...very low. But I still stick by what I said.
-
was thinking about something along these lines the other night while watching the "Hunters of the Sky" tape which dealth with the war in the Pacific and the Kamakizes.
I was thinking of the comparison of those suicide pilots to the terrorists, how they both are willing to die for their cause and how one fights that mindset.
It took two atomic bombs in 1945 for Japan to see the light ... was wondering how many nuclear bombs would it take for the mid east radicals to get the point...
-
Rip, I've never heard the household number before..most people were though 'drafted' to work in the factories, but by the time of the bombing, there was virtually no production of any kind in Hiroshima, due to lack of resources. The port and shipyards were empty for the same reasons and there was only a skeleton garrison left.
Curval, yups..the site I got the Nagasaki numbers from most have mixed them up with the Hiroshima ones.
Were was the proposed invasion going to take place?..Southern Kyushu?...wouldnt it have made more sense to target military installations there?.
Daff
-
Daff, I found this:
When the Committee convened to select cities for atomic attack in May, it included only those cities which not only were still largely intact but which were also "likely to be unattacked by next August"--and, further, "which the Air Forces would be willing to reserve for our use unless unforeseen circumstances arise." At the June 1, 1945 meeting of the Interim Committee:
Mr. Byrnes recommended, and the Committee agreed, that the Secretary of War should be advised that, while recognizing that the final selection of the target was essentially a military decision, the present view of the Committee was that the bomb should be used against Japan as soon as possible; that it be used on a war plant surrounded by workers' homes; and that it be used without prior warning.
The Target Committee also recommended on May 31, 1945, "that we should seek to make a profound psychological impression on as many of the inhabitants as possible." The goal was essentially to show that the bomb could destroy a whole city.
It did state that the major industrial areas on the fringe of the city were relatively untouched.
-
Nice post hazed. If I am allowed, i'll interject soem RealPolitik also.
While it seems like a deed done to save human lives - both japanese and American - one must also take note of the political situation.
The Soviet Union is taking larger and larger parts of Asia. Their hold is getting better and they're running over the enemy and will soon be able to launch strikes against Japan. Or at the very least get a better political postion well knowing the a situation that'll develop between the former allies USA and the Soviet Union.
So the USA wished to end it quickly before the Soviet Union gained even more influence. The atomic bomb was the tool to do it.
I'll find some references if I have the time later. This is just a very very loose description, something I remember hearing about back in 7th grade. Need to read up on it but I am quite positive this was something that the Americans thought about.
-
Hi,
StSanta, you find sources for your posting in Churchill's "The 2nd World War", and I guess there aren't many people who had more insight in the overall politics than he had.
The USA and GB wanted to end the war, FAST, to avoid more influence of the CCCP. That's what churchill wrote.
-
Originally posted by Naso
P.S.
Dont forget the blockade that US raise against Japan before the war.
Let's talk about this "blockade" and where it fits in the timeline.
Shalll we start with 1931 and the invasion/conquest of Manchuria, or start with the Japanese war against China in 1937.
OK. What "blockade" are you talking about.
-
Why not complain about Bomber Harris and his firebombing of Dresden..for starters.
HC
-
Or the firebombing of Tokyo and other Japanese cities.
To me there are only a few stance on this topic that make any sense to me:
1) The Atomic attacks were justified, as was the area bombing of Dresden, Hamburg, Berlin etc.
2) The Atomic attacks were unjustified, as was the area bombing of Dresden, Hamburg, Berlin etc.
The two views that make no sense to me, and are often heard are:
1) The Atomic attacks were justified but the bombing of German cities was not
or
2) The atomic attacks weren't justified but the bombing of German cities were.
I guess what I'm trying to stay is that a dead civilian is a dead civilian, regardless of nationality and regardless of which side of the fence you sit. You can't really argue one deserved to die over another.
-
One bomb two bombs... whatever... fact is... it all worked out for the best. Even poland goading germany into war worked out in the end. Although I still harbor some resentment against poland for starting the war.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Even poland goading germany into war worked out in the end. Although I still harbor some resentment against poland for starting the war.
lazs
~~Swim swim swim~~~sniff, sniff~ Swim away fast, swim away fast!~~
-
There are but few moments in the lives of men where what anyone of them thinks matters worth a damn. This aint one of em.
-
Originally posted by ET
The Russian's did not declare war on Japan until after the first A-bomb dropped. They saw the power and knew we would win the war. If they had participated in the invasion of Japan they would have demanded control of half of Japan, such as happened in Europe. There might have been another Iron Curtain in Japan. The Japanese surrender after the second bomb kept the Russians from gaining a large footprint in Japan. The four island's they did occupy, the Kurile Islands was still in their control long after Japan became a economic power and is still in their control 57 years later. Japan and Russia never signed a peace treaty because of these island's
I should add this to my signature template:
USSR declared war on Japan because of agreements with other allies made in Tehran and Yalta. Stalin promiced to attack Japan "no later then 3 months since war in Europe ends".So August 8th was a quite predictable date.
I think that Soviet forces were capable of capturing at least Hokkaido without any problems. It's must be very interesting to read any documents and plans for Manchurian operation that were coordinated with allies. I never have heard anything about such coordinated plans, but they must exist. I have never read about Soviet plans of invading territory of modern Japan. BTW, USSR did invade Japan. I mean Southern Sakhalin.
IIRC Japan even offered to give Hokkaido to USSR for political assistance in ending war with US. They made attempts ask Stalin for help, but it was already too late, the Manchurian army group was transported from Europe and ready for attack...
-
Originally posted by ramzey
sry , im not understand
US push japs to war, and kill thousend 's of civilians to save them?
according to this, same scenario in iraque?:D :D :D
Yeah just like we encouraged Hitler to invade Poland... All of WW2 is america's fault too.. Because of our outstanding economic policies of the period "sarcasm" we drove the world to the worst war of the century... WE often plan ways to send our fathers and brothers to war to die like we plan picnics with the family on sunday"More Sarasm" Next we are planing the invasion of poland so be ready for us!! "Extreme Sarcasm"
In fact America is the Thousand year Reich" "Real bad sarcasm"
I really need to stick to decafe! LOL
-
Ramzey, Rape of Nanking. Need I say anymore of US sanctions against Japan in the early 30's? Read the book.
-
Originally posted by Oedipus
The embargo's having been enacted on to pressure the Japanese from further ravaging of China and Manchuria.
Exactly. The US action was a REACTION to Japanese aggression ALREADY IN PROGRESS.
In short, if the Japanese had chosen trade rather than military conquest, there would have been no problem.
Of course, had the US done nothing, that would have been wrong too...... but if we had taken military action against Japan in '37, that would have been wrong too. :D (Not to mention the fact that we essentially HAD no military in '37.)
-
"IMO the war with Japan came about predominately from the feudalistic Japanese warrior code"
Nope..Bushido contains no such thing. It was later in the war twisted around as a propaganda tool by the Japanese.
The basic concepts of Bushido is: Mercy, Righteousness, Etiquette, Intelligence, Trust and Loyalty. What the Japanese did was pretty much against all the principles of Bushido.
From the Japanese generals (twisted) point of view, they weren't doing anything that the West hadnt done 50-100 years earlier.
The blockade was highly justified, although in hindsight (which is always easy), the US probably should have been better prepared for the Japanese response.
Daff
-
Hindsight is always 20/20.... even if you could build a time machine and go back to 1945, it would still take 2 nuclear bombs for the Japanese to surrender.
-SW
-
Here endeth the war...
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Let's build a time machine and transport Hammy back in time to the US Navy as a sailor who would be required to participate in the assault on the Japanese mainland. Ask him if he thinks it might be a cool idea to not use the A-Bomb and instead just go in conventionally. Ask his comrads what they think would be the right choice.
Throwing this in a bit late, but my neighbor retired as a major in the USMC. He flew Corsairs (among other things) in WWII. His squadron was one of the many that was going to be flying air cover during the first wave of the invasion in Operation Olympic. I can't remember the number, but the estimated casualties for the pilots was on the order of 80 to 100 percent.
Needless to say, he had a pretty strong opinion about the use of the a-bomb in Japan.
-
Originally posted by Naso
P.P.S.
If you are so naive to believe that the incoming war against IRAQ it's a war "against evil", "it's us or them", "they will nuke us" ....
... well, I pity you. ;)
Naivety is a beautiful thing.
....Bet you wouldn't bother with soap on a roap in a prison shower either would you.
-
If the invasion of Japan only cost 10,000 allied lives, do you think the mothers and fathers, sons and daughters of those who died would have appreciated sparing the lives of those in an agressor country when we had spent so much money developing a weapon that would end the war with no US casualities? My grandfather, on the command communications ship USS Ancon, could easily have been one of those, after having come under fire (heavy fire at times) for five invasions from Torch to Okinawa, with Normandy in between.
And don't overlook the rampant starvation that was starting to sweep Japan at the time, and continued to kill months after the war ended. Sakai talks about it in his book, and there is even a statue to an American naval base commander who opened the garbage dump to the local population. A longer war would have resulted in death and suffering for the Japanses people far beyond the two bombings, for many reasons.
The war ended, the American soldiers and sailors (and those from the other allied nations) got to return to being civilians after haveing been fored to fight in a war brough on by others, and the world moved on.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Curval
Dropping the bombs actually saved many more Japanese than were killed.
The resistance to invasion would have been fanatical....
not only that, but there would have been massivve starvation in japan in winter 45-46, as the chinese rice supplies were cut off...as it was, there was quite a bit of starvation in japan in '46
-
Originally posted by Curval
Wouldn't you agree that more than 100,000 Japanese civilians and military personel would have died in an invasion of Japan?
I said that dropping the bombs saved more Japanese...I did not distinguish between civilian or military casulaties.
SaburoS, would your parents have actually fought with those bamboo spears, or would they have surrendered? I'm not being judgemental, I'm just curious. Would they have committed suicide rather than be taken prisoner? Again, no judgement, just curious. As mentioned civilian Japanese on Saipan and at Iwo Jima jumped from cliff rather than surrender to the American "devils". Wouldn't this have also happened in Japan itself? I would say yes, but I would like to hear what your parents say about that. It is possible to me that the more sopisticated civilians in the major population centres would not do so, but what about the rural population?
It was estimated that the US would have suffered approximately 300,000 casulaties in the invasion of Japan. Just think about how the survivors would have been feeling about the people that caused those casulaties? I think "trigger happy" would be a gross understatement. This is not to say that they would have committed wholesale slaughter of civilians...just that they would have reacted with swift and extreme violence against any resistance once they landed, even if it were a bunch of civilians waving bamboo spears.
Not disagreeing with you Curval. We'll never know. Both bombs were dropped and Japan gave her unconditional surrender. I do feel that only one bomb was all that would be necessary however as the communications in war torn Japan was not in good shape. I do feel the second bomb was a message to our new 'enemy', the USSR to 'show' that we have some bombs and will use it.
Naw, if the civillians saw a bunch of soldiers coming and then the civillians getting mowed down by arty and small arms, not to mention armor and aircraft cover, they'd surrender wholesale. Then the Japanese would be pleasantly surprised that the American's didn't have horns and weren't devils. The Japanese prisoners would be used to entice those that would be hiding to come out as they were wrong about the Americans. I would think that those Japanese civilian wounded would be treated by American medical corps which would further show the Japanese that the Americans weren't devils.
Can't change history. What's happened has happened. All we can do is not repeat our mistakes but to repeat our successes.
Remember, propaganda works both ways. Americans were taught that all Japanese were fanatics with no value of human life. They were taught how the Americans were devils with no value of human life. Both were wrong.
But that's war.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Naw, if the civillians saw a bunch of soldiers coming and then the civillians getting mowed down by arty and small arms, not to mention armor and aircraft cover, they'd surrender wholesale. Then the Japanese would be pleasantly surprised that the American's didn't have horns and weren't devils. The Japanese prisoners would be used to entice those that would be hiding to come out as they were wrong about the Americans. I would think that those Japanese civilian wounded would be treated by American medical corps which would further show the Japanese that the Americans weren't devils.
Nothing but assumptions... OTOH, the Japanese men who were essentially drafted into the military as Kamikazee pilots were willing to do their job.
The ones who didn't because Japan surrendered were grateful to be alive, but I don't think you actually understand the situation in Japan in 1940-1945... or the Japanese people's resolve.
Only the Emporer's word would lead them to surrender.
-SW
-
So, you guys are saying that use of weapons of terror and mass destruction is ok, if it can save even a few American lives?.
Shouldnt we then, just bomb Saddam right here and now?..Why waste billions of dollars on a military campaign, if you can just drop a few nukes and get it over with?
As before...I can understand the Hiroshima bombing, but not the Nagasaki one..Japan was taking turns contacting Russia to use them as a middle man between US and Japan after Hiroshima.
Daff
-
It saved a few million American lives, and a few million Japanese lives.
Japan was taking turns contacting Russia to use them as a middle man between US and Japan after Hiroshima.
Yeah, the Russians also kept stealing B29s that had to land on their soil... they're a real good middle man.
Present day Iraq and 1945 Japan are two entirely completely seperate issues and circumstances...
-SW
-
So, you guys are saying that use of weapons of terror and mass destruction is ok, if it can save even a few American lives?.
Yes, IF they are the ones that started the war and the weapon helps bring the war to an end. If it is done just to be cruel, then there is no justification. Unless you think the Axis powers were the victims, it's hard to see sacrificing your own sons to end the most violent conflict in human history, that was waged entirely out of self-interest by foreign powers.
I personally don't see any parallels between WW2 and Iraq, BTW. Isn't there plenty to legitimately debate on that issue elsewhere without trying to make a point here?
As to Nagasaki, you can debate its merit, timing wise, but an attack so soon not only limited Soviet expansion but gave the impression of an impending reign of nuclear terror that might not be there otherwise. As has been pointed out, we had no capacity to really launch a massive nuclear campaign and if given sufficient time for the psychological shock value to wear off, the Japanese leadership might just realize that an occasional 20KT nuclear raid is not all that different in the end compared to a major incendiary attack. Whose to say.
Charon
-
Japan was taking turns contacting Russia to use them as a middle man between US and Japan after Hiroshima.
Japan was attempting to arrange a deal for a cease-fire without having to surrender.
Maybe instead of taking turns contacting Russia, they should have been contacting us in regards to their surrender.
-
I watched a documentary on the Bataan Death March a couple of times. Remember that one? Ya know, where they marched the prisoners of war without food and water endlessly, killing them for sport?
Slow down, fall down, or just be an unlucky chosen one and suffer the bayonet in the gut, or have your head chopped off for no reason other than the sadistic amusement of the Japanese soldiers guarding the prisoners.
Anyway, a survivor of the death march, after describing the inhuman brutality, after describing how his friends were killed said "I am not sorry we (the US) dropped two atomic bombs on Japan, I wish we had dropped 10 of the bombs on them".
Yes, dropping the bombs was the right thing to do. That act saved untold numbers in the end, both to the Americans who would have had to attack Japan, and to the civilian population who would have died as a result of that fighting.
Let those who wring their hands about the bombs study history, study the aggression and inhuman brutality the Japanese visited on so many millions. I bet if it were possible to compare numbers, more civilians of other nations and prisoners of war were killed in individual acts of cruelty from the Japanese soldiers than died as a result of the two bombs.
dago
-
SEPT 12TH DIA CELL PHONE INTERCEPT TRANSCRIPT
TEXT: PHONE CALL BY RED ARMY FACTION LEADER JAPAN TO OSAMA BIN LADEN:
'OSAMA.. YOU NOT GET 'HISTORY CHANNEL' IN RAGLAND? 50 YEARS AGO WE LAUNCHED 400 PLANES ON PEAL HARBOR.. DROPPED 2,000 BOMBS, KILLED 2,500 AMERICANS. THEY COME TO JAPAN 3 YEARS LATER, DROPPED TWO diddlyING BOMBS, NOW WE ALL HAVE LITTLE DICKS. YOU HEAR ME, OSAMA??'
World Peace.
or Else.
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Nothing but assumptions... OTOH, the Japanese men who were essentially drafted into the military as Kamikazee pilots were willing to do their job.
The ones who didn't because Japan surrendered were grateful to be alive, but I don't think you actually understand the situation in Japan in 1940-1945... or the Japanese people's resolve.
Only the Emporer's word would lead them to surrender.
-SW
Sure, we all are giving our assumptions, but I am also giving you the mindset of two individuals that happened to live there during that time. My assumptions are based on what they told me. Understand the fire bombings of the major Japanese cities (esp Tokyo) were very demoralizing. My mother saw first hand how an elderly woman (prob in her 70-80's) died in agony because a bit of napalm got stuck on her back. Burned to death. No one could save her.
I'll give you another mind set of a 17 year old Kamikaze pilot (The war ended before he actually went on a Kamikaze mission (thank goodness). He said although he thought it was exciting about joining the Naval Air Service, many of his fellow young cadets didn't have the same enthusiasm. The others would weep at night. The others didn't like being there at all. He couldn't understand how they could be sad, he was excited. He grew up in a very well to do family and he hated the restrictions he was under. He finally felt free. I'll continue this in better detail if you wish.
Let's say that it was another major power that had the Bomb and no one else. Would they have used it on other nations they were at war with? I'd say yes.
If they had heavy bombers, Germany would bomb England and the USSR. Japan would bomb the US. England would bomb Germany. The US would bomb Germany if the US had it earlier.
That's war. War is dirty. War is cruel. That's just the way it is, has been, and will be.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Let's talk about this "blockade" and where it fits in the timeline.
Shalll we start with 1931 and the invasion/conquest of Manchuria, or start with the Japanese war against China in 1937.
OK. What "blockade" are you talking about.
Mr. Toad, I am pointing to the existing tension state between the 2 nations, not expressing judgement on who was right or wrong.
I believe that talking about history it's a non emotional matter, if you put in emotion and/or nationalism, the risk it's to lose the facts.
And the fact is that there was plenty of tension between US and Japan, well before the attack.
So Pearl H. was'nt a foul non unjustified coward attack on a plenty neutral nation.
Was simply a calculated try to put a big blow on the "soon or later" declared enemy, to gain an initial advantage.
History showed that was a huge mistake, and Japan paid plenty for that mistake.
In the same vision the use of the A-bomb was a calculated (like the european bombing campaign) try to break the will of continue the war by the local "public opinion", and history showed this choise had the intended results.
On a final note, about propaganda:
The USA developed during the WW2 the best propaganda machine ever seen in history (even better of the German one), and that machine has been improved and improved, as lot of posters here show plenty. :p
-
My Dad was a ham radio operator in 1941, and learned about the Pearl Harbor attack by Morse Code. My Mom remembers him telling her about it before the radio/newspaper broadcasted it to the public.
He was stationed in Norfolk, VA soon after that, as a member of the Signal Corps (radar repair)...and worked for Ratheon after that. He said the word "radar"was forbidden to mention and top secret. He repaired radar units on carriers, battleships (in Norfolk)and B-25 Mitchells based out of Florida. I remember him telling me the B-25 went on a submarine patrol near Puerto Rico. They scared him sh*tless doing a dive, then would fly along the treetops, cutting green with the props. Said they were crazy.:D
Anyway, he had fairly high confidential clearance (for airplanes), and the news of an atomic bomb was very surprising to him and his military superiors, (though my Dad was not in the Army or Navy, but Signal Corps.) They knew nothing about it either.
After the war (1946), he described a UFO call he and an AF Major investigated. They drove a command car up in the country to a farmer's field, and discovered a weather balloon which had been lost. He personally knew an Air Force officer involved with the Hangar 18 affair, which I believe was the Roswell incident. Told me the guy saw something unexplainable, that they were moving something on a flatbed truck into the hangar at the Ohio base, McArthur Field? Help me out here, y'all. Whichever base hangar 18 was on. And that there were strange goings on around there. Makes you wonder, doesn't it.
My Chemistry teacher in High School was part of the Manhatten Project at Oakridge, TN. She was an old lady by then, and everyone loved her because she was fair, and also crazy....in the crazy science teacher respect. Every year she would entertain the class by dropping a chunk of sodium in a beaker of water, simulating a loud explosion and mushroom cloud. It would practically smoke out a fourth of the school. Everyone loved it.
My Dad said the Japanese were formidible and dangerous enemies. Everyone felt that way, and everyone was worried. The atomic bomb was used to end the war. Many of us posting on this BBS, might not be here now if our fathers had died in the war.
One of my Japanese friends visiting from Japan (who speaks practically no English) came over to my house one time in the past, and as soon as he saw the B-29 models hanging from my ceiling, he became upset...to the point I felt embarassed my friends purposely pointed them out to him. I had to calm him down by getting pissed at my buddies. And they deserved it too. We all then drove to Pensacola and went to the beach, and had a great time.
The war with Japan is over. I think everybody pretty much feels the same way about the atomic bomb. Had to be done.
Les
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
That's war. War is dirty. War is cruel. That's just the way it is, has been, and will be.
SaburoS.
-
Originally posted by Tumor
Naivety is a beautiful thing.
....Bet you wouldn't bother with soap on a roap in a prison shower either would you.
It's this a menace?
"Agree with me or I kill you!!"
Land of freedom.
-
Originally posted by Naso
Mr. Toad, I am pointing to the existing tension state between the 2 nations, not expressing judgement on who was right or wrong.
I believe that talking about history it's a non emotional matter,
Yes, and there's always a time, place or incident where that tension begins. There's a conscious decision to do something that causes the tension.
Unemotionally, Japan is the nation that caused tension in Asia. There is no doubt, no confusion over this. It isn't propaganda either.
So, once again, with respect to the horrors visited upon them......
"If you don't START nothing, won't BE nothing."
They chose the path; they caused their own destruction.
And that is HISTORY, not propaganda.
-
The atomic attacks helped end the war. Dresden did not, and was nothing more that a vengence raid.
That's rubbish. The intent was still the same; to break the fighting spirit of the target people and the soldiers at the front - in the case of Germany, to save Allied lives that would be lost on the road to Berlin.
That is exactly what the atomic attacks were desinged to do. They were just more devastating.
You also overlook the fact that Dresden was a transportation link to the Eastern Front and loads of troops were passing through there.
Tell me, how do you compare the Tokyo and other Jap city firebomb attacks to Dresden?
Atleast 135 000, some estimate up to a quarter of a milion people died in Dresden mostlly refugees from the eastern front. More than in both of the atomic attacks.
That is just plain wrong. Re-read this thread. Daff already posted the figures; 200,000 people died because of Hiroshima alone, and 70,000 were killed at Nagasaki when the bomb detonated. You also overlook the effects of radiation poisoning.
I still believe you can't morally justify the atomic attacks without morally justifying Dresden.
Also, I'd like to point out Toad's phrase. "Don't start nothing, won't be nothing."
-
It probably all seemed so simple and so easy by the end of September in 1939. Just one month to take Poland;what a lark, eh? This war stuff is so easy and so relatively painless.
Funny the things that happen once the dogs of war have been slipped though.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Yes, and there's always a time, place or incident where that tension begins. There's a conscious decision to do something that causes the tension.
Unemotionally, Japan is the nation that caused tension in Asia. There is no doubt, no confusion over this. It isn't propaganda either.
So, once again, with respect to the horrors visited upon them......
"If you don't START nothing, won't BE nothing."
They chose the path; they caused their own destruction.
And that is HISTORY, not propaganda.
Sure, Japan had a imperialistic attitude, and actively occupied land that was in the aim of other imperialistic powers.
No doubt they started the war.
The one that try to eat the all the food on the table it's asking for trouble by the other people sitting at the same table.
It's the vision that the "innocent and neutral" USA were opposing for humanitarian reasons, that disturb me.
There's no frigging nation then and now, that act for "humanitarian reasons", they can let you buy this, and if you are dumb enough you can believe it, but, as you already some time ago agreed, there's always a lot of more cynic and trivial (dont know if correct word) reasons behind.
Japan was not the nation that caused the tension, the tension was already present, since the western powers were "coldwar"-ing (lol a new term) since 19 century around the remnants of the imperial China.
The problem was that Japan was not part of the club and was not invited to the table.
Plus, Japan used a very aggressive way to sit down, and this build up more tension.
The situation was more complex that you seem to believe, and always is.
Pretending that a nation must have the same interests of the USA or if it's in contrast is "STARTING" something it's a little nationalistic, dont you believe?
The Japan was trying to join the club, forcefully, as all the club members already made in the past, but misjudged the importance to not have in common with the club the race and the basic culture.
In short, the concept i am trying to espress in my poor english is that "If you don't START nothing, won't BE nothing." it's a wrong statement, applied to story, in the game of the world history we can go back and back in time, since we can arrive to the first group of neolitic men that decided to stole the resources of the near other tribe.
THEY started it.
The question is "what is the best option we have, for the maximun advantage?" (in a completely cynical way).
Truman choise was the A-bomb.
-
Dresden was involved with the war industry. Small cottage industries were established in houses in residential areas. Dresden was an art community, with many civilians living there. Many of the civilians were, however, involved with war production material, including gyroscopes for the V-2 rocket. Dresden was a military target. Though, this fact has only been revealed within the past 10 years.
I almost got in an argument with my Geography professor about this in class one time. Got tired about hearing it.
Les
:)
-
Originally posted by Naso
The question is "what is the best option we have, for the maximun advantage?" (in a completely cynical way).
Truman choise was the A-bomb.
I'm damn glad the choice was the A-bomb. Had there been an invasion of Japan... who's to say any number of us would be here today. Consider the number of expected casualties. How many folks here today had (have) father's and Grandfathers who my have been one of those casualties?
At the end of the day... it's sad the A-bomb was used but, better them dead than us dead. It's a hard attitude and obviously open for criticism but if the U.S. is attacked, I'd just as soon see thousands of the enemy dead than one single solitary American life.
-
Excuse it away all you like. Rationalize however you like.
The Japanese invaded and conquered Manchuria in 1931 and then they prosecuted an undeclared war against China in 1937.
They "started" it.
Saying "they had no other option" and "other countries made them do it" is pure BS. They CHOSE to compete with arms rather than with trade.
US trade embargoes against Japan came only AFTER the Japanese invasion of China in 1937. The US was trading with them up until that time and was their major supplier of oil and ore I think.
So, acting in our own "best interest" we stopped selling oil and ore to Japan... perhaps our best customer? Why would we do that? What was the catalyst?
The catalyst was Japan's invasion of China. Rather than fight Japan we attempted to use denial of trade as a "peaceful" means to deter their aggression against China.
The world continues to use "economic sanctions" in this manner today and you don't have to look very far to find examples. Today, this tactic is considered better than going to war I believe. (Whether it actually works is another discussion. Suffice it to say it did not work on Japan in the late 1930's.)
It's funny.
On one hand people clamor that the world should have "stopped" Nazi Germany sooner or "stopped" Japanese agression sooner.
But when they had the chance....
March 16th 1935 Hitler violates Treaty of Versailles by introducing military conscription
March 7th 1935 German troops occupy the Rhineland
October 15th 1938 German troops occupy the Sudetenland...
with all of these things against the Treaty of Versailles, with all the "major powers" in the League of Nations (except, of course, the US which after the madness of WWI became decidely isolationist) nothing was "stopped" at all, by either economic sanctions or force of arms. And this is when Germany was militarily still weak. A time when a concerted effort could well have stopped them without the catclysm of World War. Waiting certainly didn't improve the situation, did it?
Same with Japanese attacks against Manchuira and China.
The drift to war was inevitable because folks were able to explain away and otherwise ignore or "justify" these incidents.
-
For every quote you post, I could find others that say the opposite. You'll find the whole spectrum of opinion - crews who said they were proud of what they did. I have the depeest respect for those air-crew who flewthose missions - 44% of them didn't come back.
The question isn't how effective it was - that's a question of hindsight and doesn't come into the morality of it - it's the thinking behind the policy.
How you can justify the vaporisation of hundreds of thousand of people to end a war, but be against the fire-bombing of people for the same purpose is beyond my comprehension.
But that's your call.
How do you view the Tokyo fire-bombings?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Excuse it away all you like. Rationalize however you like.
I am not excusing anything.
Toad, please at least you, grasp it.
I am just stating that the things were ongoing before the Manchuria occupation or other aggressive acts of Japan.
Again, I am not judging the acts themselves, nor I stated "other started it".
It's just a fact that, while the other imperialistic nation (US included) were evolving a new imperialistic style, using "aggressive trade", and developing the corrispondent "war", the embargo, still in use today, Japan was stuck (like Italy) in the old fashion mode, the use of force, not realizing (who knows the future?) the consequensies of such aggressive politic in that zone.
Just that.
They had other options?
I dont know, but I can say the option they choosed was wrong, did not had the intended effects.
-
NANKING MASSACRE
(December 1937)
Known historically as the 'Rape of Nanking'. In 1937 (the real start of World War 11) the Chinese capital had a population of just over one million, including over 100,000 refugees. On December 13th. the city fell to the invading Japanese troops. For the next six weeks the soldiers indulged in an orgy of indiscriminate killing, rape and looting. They shot at everyone on sight, whether out on the streets or peeking out of windows. The streets were soon littered with corpses, on one street a survivor counted 500 bodies. Girls as young as twelve, and women of all ages were raped by gangs of 15 or 20 soldiers who roamed the town in search of women. Over a thousand men were rounded up and marched to the banks of the Yangtze river where they were machine-gunned to death. Thousands of captured Chinese soldiers were simililary murdered. In the following six weeks, the Nanking Red Cross units alone, buried around 43,000 bodies. About 20,000 women and girls had been raped, most were then murdered. Department stores, shops, churches and houses were set on fire while drunken soldiers indulged in wholesale looting and bayoneting of Chinese civilians for sport. It is estimated that around 200,000 Chinese civilians and soldiers were killed in this, the most infamous atrocity committed by the Japanese army. In charge of the troops during this time was General Iwane Matsui. At the Tokyo War Crimes Trial, Matsui was found guilty of a war crime unrelated to Nanking and sentenced to death. He was hanged in 1948. After the war, China tried about 800 persons for war crimes including those responsible for the Nanking and Shanghai massacres. The death penalty was given to 149 defendants.
YELLOW RIVER FLOOD
( 1938 )
During the Sino-Japanese war, as Japanese forces moved west towards the railroad junction of Chengchow, there to meet up with other Japanese units advancing on Hankow, the Chinese Nationalists blew up the flood dykes of the Yellow River. The resulting flood inundated three provinces and forty-four counties. Between four and five thousand villages and eleven towns were flooded. A total of 3,911,354 people were displaced. Altogether 893,303 lives were lost through drowning. The Chinese Nationalists blamed this atrocity on the Japanese.
HONG KONG ATROCITIES
( December 25, 1941 )
The lush island of Hong Kong, thirty-two square miles in area, was formally ceded to Great Britain by the Treaty of Nanking in 1842. Around Christmas, 1941, the peace and tranquillity of this island paradise was shattered when the troops of General Tanaka defeated the gallant soldiers of Britain, Canada, and India, and detachments of various other nationalities. Intoxicated with the spirit of victory, the Japanese troops showed no mercy to their victims. At Eucliff, fifty-three prisoners were shot, bayoneted, some beheaded and their bodies rolled down the cliff. On Christmas morning, around 200 drunken Japanese approached St. Stephen's College, now a sanctuary for ninety-six wounded soldiers. Barring the front door was the head medic, Dr. George Black. 'You can't come in here' he called out, 'this is a hospital'. With deliberate aim, one of the soldiers raised his rifle and shot the doctor through the head. As the drunken mob surged into the hospital ward, the body of Dr Black was repeatedly bayoneted as he lay at the door. In the ward, a massacre of unprecedented ferocity took place. The Japanese ripped the bandages off the wounded patients and plunged their bayonets into the amputated arms and legs before finishing them off with a bullet. In half an hour fifty-six wounded soldiers had been massacred while the nursing staff looked on helplessly. The female nurses were then led away, to a fate one can only imagine. The patients and staff who had survived the slaughter were then forced to carry the bodies and bloodied mattresses to the grounds outside where a huge funeral pyre was prepared and lit from the college desks and cupboards which had been smashed up for firewood. A similar atrocity was enacted at the Jockey Club in Happy Valley and to a lesser extent at various locations throughout the colony. On this day, any misconceptions the world had that Japan was a civilized nation, disappeared into thin air.
THE LAHA AIRFIELD EXECUTIONS
( February 9, 1943 )
Two graves, about five metres apart, were dug in a wooded area near the Laha airstrip on Ambon Island the defence of which had cost 309 Australian lives. The graves were circular in shape, six metres in diameter and three metres deep. Soon after 6pm, a group of Australian and Dutch prisoners of war, their arms tied securely behind them, were brought to the site. The first prisoner was made to kneel at the edge of the grave and the execution, by samurai beheading, was carried out by a Warrant Officer Kakutaro Sasaki. The next four beheadings were the privilege of eager crew-members of a Japanese mine-sweeper sunk a few days previously by an enemy mine in Ambon Bay. This could only be considered as an act of reprisal for the loss of their ship. As dusk descended, and the beheadings continued, battery torches were used to light up the back of the necks of each successive victim. The same macabre drama was being enacted at the other round grave where men of a Dutch mortar unit were being systematically decapitated. On this unforgettable evening, 55 Australian and 30 Dutch soldiers were murdered. Details of this atrocity came to light during the interrogation of civilian interpreter, Suburo Yoshizaki, who was attached to the Kure No.1 Special Navy Landing Party, at that time stationed on Ambon. A few days later, on February 24, in the same wooded area, another bizarre execution ceremony took place. Around the graves stood about 30 naval personnel who had volunteered for this grisly task, many of them carrying swords which they had borrowed. When some of the young prisoners were dragged to the edge of the grave, shouting desperately and begging for their lives, shouts of jubilation came from those marines witnessing the executions. In this mass murder, which ended at 1.30am the following morning, the headless bodies of 227 Allied prisoners filled the two large graves. Witness to this second massacre was Warrant Officer Keigo Kanamoto, Commanding Officer of the Kure No.1 Repair and Construction Unit.
PHILIPPINES MASSACRE
A full account of all massacres of Filipinos by Japanese troops would fill several books. In Manila, 800 men women and children were machine-gunned in the grounds of St.Paul's College. In the town of Calamba, 2,500 were shot or bayoneted. Around 100 were bayoneted and shot inside a church at Ponson and 169 villagers of Matina Pangi were rounded up and shot in cold blood. At the War Crimes Trial in Tokyo, document No 2726 consisted of 14,618 pages of sworn affidavits, each describing separate atrocities committed by the invading Japanese troops. The Tribunal listed 72 large scale massacres and 131,028 murders as a bare minimum.
BANKA MASSACRE
( St. Valentine's Day, Feb. 14, 1942 )
On board the SS Vyner Brooke were 65 Australian Army nurses who, together with other civilian women and children, made up the 300 odd persons being evacuated from Singapore. In the Banka Strait, a narrow strip of water between the islands of Banka and Sumatra, the Vyner Brooke was bombed and sunk by Japanese planes. A few lifeboats managed to reach the mangrove lined shore of Banka Island. On advice from some islanders they were advised to give themselves up to the Japanese as there was no hope of escaping. That night another lifeboat arrived on the shore containing between 30 and 40 British servicemen from another ship sunk earlier. The civilian women, some nurses and children, then set out to walk to the nearest Japanese compound to give themselves up. When the Japanese arrived at the beach the men and women were separated, the men were marched into the jungle, never to be heard of again. The soldiers returned and forced the remaining 22 nurses to wade out into the sea. There, they were machined-gunned to death, leaving only one survivor, Sister Vivian Bulwinkle (1915-2000) who later managed to reach the island's Japanese Naval Headquarters where she was put to work in the hospital. For over three years she kept the secret of the massacre to herself and a few friends. To speak openly about it would have been a certain recipe for execution. Of the 65 nurses from the Vyner Brooke , 12 had drowned, 21 shot in the water at Radji Beach and 32 had gone into prison in Muntok before being shipped to Palembang in southern Sumatra to serve three-and-a-half years of privation and punishment as prisoners of war.
-
THE PARIT SULONG MASSACRE
In January, 1942, a company of Australian and Indian soldiers were captured by the Japanese and interned in a large wooden building at Parit Sulong in Malayasia. Late in the afternoon of January 22, 1942, they were ordered to assemble at the rear of a row of damaged shops nearby. The wounded were carried by those able to walk, the pretext being the promise of medical treatment and food. While waiting at the assembly point, either sitting or lying prone, three machine guns, concealed in the back rooms of the wrecked shops, started their deadly chatter, their concentrated fire chopping flesh and limbs to pieces. A number of prisoners whose bodies showed signs of life, had to be bayoneted. In order to dispose of the bodies, which totalled 161, the row of shops was blown up and the debris bulldozed into a heap on top of which the corpses were placed. Sixty gallons of gasoline was splashed on the bodies and then a flaming torch was thrown on the pile. Just before midnight, the debris of the nine shops had burned into a pile of grey ash two feet high, the 161 bodies totally incinerated. The perpetrator of this foul crime was Lt-Gen.Takuma Nishimura, 62, who later faced trial before an Australian Military Court. Nishimura was previously convicted of massacres in Singapore and sentenced to life imprisonment by a British Military Tribunal on April 2, 1947. After serving four years of his sentence, he was being transferred to Tokyo to serve out the rest of his sentence and while the ship stopped temporarily at Hong Kong he was seized by the Australian military police and taken to Manus Island where his second trial was held. He was found guilty and hanged on June 11, 1951.
TOL PLANTATION ATROCITY
( Feb. 4, 1942 )
On the morning of 22/23 of January, 1942, Japanese forces, estimated at between seventeen and twenty thousand, landed at Rabaul on the island of New Britain. Defended by 1,396 men of the Australian 2/22 Battalion of the 8th Division, AIF, (Lark Force ) The New Guinea Volunteer Rifles and men of the 2/10 Field Ambulance Unit, they were soon forced to retreat in the hope of escaping via Wide Bay about 90 kilometres south of Rabaul. On the 3rd of February, 1942, Japanese troops landed from five barges on the shore of Henry Reid Bay, an indent on Wide Bay and near the Tol and Waitavalo plantations. They immediately set out to round up all Australian soldiers hiding out in the surrounding jungle. The first ten taken prisoner were immediately bayoneted to death. The others, worn out and hungry by their trek from Rabaul, simply surrendered. Their hands were bound together, their identity discs and other personal items taken off them and then marched into the bush on the Tol Plantation in groups of ten or twelve and there shot or bayoneted in a most cruel fashion. At the nearby plantation at Waitavalo thirty-five prisoners were shot from behind by rifle and machine guns. The Japanese didn't have the decency to bury these men, only to throw a few palm fronds over the bodies. Miraculously, six men survived these killings. When the Australian 2/14th Battalion recaptured the area in April, 1945, they discovered a number of areas littered with the bleached bones of 157 Australian soldiers who had escaped from Rabaul. The Japanese unit responsible for the murders was the 3rd Battalion of the 144th Infantry Regiment commanded by Colonel Masao Kusunose who was tracked down on 17 December, 1946. It was discovered that he had committed suicide by starving himself to death during a nine day fast. In Australia, the official Government report on the massacre was not released until 47 years later, in 1988. (Of the 1,396 men of Lark Force, only about 400 returned home)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE CHEKIANG MASSACRES
The Doolittle bombing raid on Tokyo brought a retalliation against the Chinese people that staggers the imagination. On April 18th. 1942, sixteen twin-engined Mitchell B-25 bombers, each carrying one ton of bombs, and led by Lt.Col. Jimmy Doolittle, were launched from the aircraft carrier USS Hornet. Their mission was to bomb the Japanese capital, Tokyo, and then, unable to land back on their carrier, proceed to friendly airfields in China, 1,200 miles across the East China Sea. Some of the planes reached their destination safely but the others ran out of fuel and crashed after their crews had baled out. Sixty four airmen parachuted into the area around Chekiang. Most were given shelter by the Chinese civilians but eight of the Americans were picked up by Japanese patrols and three were shot after a mock trial for 'crimes against humanity'. The Japanese army then conducted a massive search for the others and in the process whole towns and villages that were suspected of harbouring the Americans, were burned to the ground and every man, woman and child brutality murdered. When the Japanese troops moved out of the Chekiang and Kiangsu areas in mid-August, they left behind a scene of devastation and death that is beyond comprehension. Chinese estimates put the death toll at a staggering 250,000. Lt. Col. James Doolittle was later awarded the US Medal Of Honor. (The Chinese Dept. of Defense claims that 1,319,659 Chinese soldiers were killed between 1937 and 1945. It estimates the number of Chinese civilians killed during this period at 35,000,000).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATROCITY ON LUZON
While many atrocities were committed on Luzon, this one stands out for its sheer bloody mindedness. Fourteen Filipino resistance fighters surrendered to the Nippon savages after their ammunition was expended. Tied together neck to neck and with hands tied behind their backs, they were marched three miles to their place of execution. Ordered to sit down, another group of prisoners were brought in and forced to dig fourteen holes two feet wide and four and a half feet deep. When the digging finished the fourteen Filipinos, with their neck ropes removed, were forced to jump into the holes while the other group shoveled the earth back into the hole and stamped it down hard until only the head and neck of the victims were visible above ground. Their repugnant duty finished, the grave diggers were then lined up and shot in cold blood. The attention of the Japanese was now focused on the fourteen heads awaiting decapitation. A few soldiers had gone behind some bushes to defecate and after scraping together their excreta on to banana leaves they returned to the buried victims and kneeling down offered each head a last meal. Unable to move, the helpless men could only shake their head from side to side whereupon the Japanese soldiers stuffed the revolting faeces into their mouths amidst peals of laughter from their comrades. After they had their fun, the serious business of execution commenced as an officer drew his sword and with deft strokes separated the fourteen heads from the bodies. No one was ever punished for this foul deed.
THE TRUK MASSACRE
( February.1944 )
During the American attack on the island of Truk in the Carolines, around 100 women, (most of them 'Comfort Women', those girls forced into prostitution by the Japanese Army) took shelter in a dugout behind the Naval base where they worked. With defeat staring them in the face, the Japanese, fearing that the 'comfort women' would be an encumbrance and an embarrassment, should they fall into American hands, decided to dispose of them. During a lull between arias, three ensigns were sent to the dugout. Armed with machine guns, they approached to find a few women emerging from the pitch-dark interior. They were immediately shot on the spot. Entering the dugout with guns blazing, they fired randomly in the darkness. When the screams of the women had died down and only the moans of the wounded could be heard, the ensigns flicked on their torches to find around seventy bodies, drenched in blood, lying on the floor.
-
DEATH ON TANOURA BEACH
American airmen shot down during bombing raids on Rabaul, New Britain, were incarcerated in a house, a former tailors shop in Chinatown and now the headquarters of the 6th Field Kempetai under the command of the Japanese Navy. On March 2nd, 1944, the house was demolished in a bombing raid. Fortunately all the prisoners had been transferred to a shelter across the road, prior to the raid. While in the shelter, another seventeen prisoners were brought in bringing the total of sixty-two. (these prisoners were from the 5th, 13th Airforce and the 1st and 2nd Wing Marine Air Corps) Next day the sixty-two men were trucked out to a tunnel like cave at Tanoura, a few miles from Rabaul. Packed together in the narrow cave like sardines, they were allowed two buckets of water each day, but only after the guards had washed their dishes in it. Two days later, twenty names were called out to proceed to waiting lorries. Later, more names were called and the lorries departed. The prisoners were under the command of Warrant Officer Zenichi Wakabayashi. According to evidence given by him at the Rabaul War Crimes Trials the prisoners were told they were being transferred to a camp on Watom Island, a few miles off shore. Assembled in a shelter on Tanoura Beach waiting for sea transport, the prisoners were subjected to a rain of bombs from eight US bombers flying high overhead. A direct hit on the shelter caused the deaths of most of the prisoners, five were seriously wounded and died a short time later. That evening, all thirty-one bodies, or parts of bodies, were cremated in a huge funeral pyre on the beach. Some of the ashes were gathered together and eventually handed over to members of the Australian Army at the end of hostilities. At the War Crimes Trial questions were asked as to why the bodies were cremated when other Allied deaths usually resulted in burial in mass graves. Why was the camp commander on Watom Island, Colonel Kahachi Ogata, never informed that prisoners were about to be transferred from the mainland? Could it be that the thirty one prisoners were deliberately massacred to ease the crowded conditions in the tunnel camp, and to hide their crime, the Japanese had the bodies burned? There is no real evidence to either of these incidents. Were the prisoners massacred or did they really fall victim to 'Friendly Fire'? In 1948, Wakabayashi was again interrogated but maintains he is telling the truth.
Cont.
MURDER ON WAKE ISLAND
(Jan. 12, 1943)
The Japanese invasion of Wake Island, a small atoll some 2,000 miles west of Hawaii (area 6.5 sq kms) cost them dearly, 11 naval craft, 29 planes and around 5,700 men killed. The stubborn defence of the island by the tiny garrison of 388 US Marines and 1,200 civilians workers lasted for fourteen heroic days. On December 23, 1941, Major James P.S. Devereux of the 1st. Defence Battalion, US Marine Corps, and Commander Winfield Cunningham of the Naval Air Station, realizing that the odds were hopelessly stacked against them, called for a cease fire, raised the white flag and surrendered the island. The loss of Wake Island left the US with no base between Hawaii and the Philippines. In January, 1942, the US Marines, numbering 1,187, were herded into the cargo holds of the 17,163 ton Japanese luxury liner Nitta Maru, for transportation to Yokohama and then to Shanghai. Those left behind included the civilians and the wounded Marines. A year passed and on the night of January 12, 1943, the Japanese accused the civilians of being in secret radio communication with US naval forces. The 98 American civilians still on Wake were marched to the beach and there lined up with their backs to the ocean and brutally murdered by machine guns. After the war, the Japanese commander on Wake, Rear Admiral Shigematsu Sakaibara, and eleven of his officers, were sentenced to death by a US Naval Court at Kwajalein.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KOKOPO AND BALLALAE MASSACRES
In November, 1942, six hundred British POWs were marched from their prison at Changi to the docks at Singapore to board a 6,500 ton cargo ship. On the 5th Nov. the ship entered Simpson Harbour at Rabaul, New Britain. The POWs were transferred to Kokopo to start building a new airstrip. Three weeks later, 517 of the prisoners were shipped to a camp on Ballalae Island in the Solomons, there to start work on another airstrip for the Japanese. One prisoner died enroute. The 82 men left behind at Kokopo were very badly treated by their captors. Kicked, beaten, punched, thrashed and clubbed on a daily basis they were soon in a terrible state. Gravely ill with dysentery, malaria and berri-berri, they soon succumbed to death and by the end of February, 1945, only 57 were still alive. By April, only 21 of the original 82 were alive. Some had developed diphtheria apple which, because of a vitamin deficiency, causes the testicles to swell to the size of pineapples. Eventually the 21 sick prisoners were transferred to the Watom Island camp where they were made to dig tunnels to be used by the Japanese as air-raid shelters. Soon two more died and on September 6, 1945, when 89,291 Japanese military and civilian men and women surrendered to the Allies, the 18 survivors were freed and boarded the destroyer HMAS Vendetta for a hospital on Lae, then to Australia and then home. The surrender of Japanese forces in Rabaul and surrounding islands was formally signed on board the British aircraft carrier HMS Glory anchored off Rabaul. Meanwhile, on Ballalae Island, the prisoners suffered the same horrendous conditions as those at Kokopo. Sadly, not a single one of the 516 prisoners survived the war. In 1943, after the island was captured by the 3rd New Zealand Division, natives revealed that hundreds of POWs were killed during an Allied bombing raid and when the airstrip was completed at the end of March, 43, the remaining prisoners were lined up and executed by bayonet and sword. In December, 1945, an Australian War Graves unit exhumed 436 bodies from one mass grave and re-interred the remains in the Port Moresby War Cemetery. (For full details of this and other massacres see Peter Stone's "Hostages to Freedom")
A total of 188 War Crimes Trials were held at Rabaul after the war. The courts sentenced 93 Japanese war criminals to death, 78 were hanged and 15 were shot by firing squad.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE 'AKIKAZE' EXECUTIONS
(March 18, 1943) The Mitsubishi built destroyer Akikaze (Lt.Cdr.Sabe Tsurukichi) was ordered to sail to Wewak in New Guinea to remove some German residents who were suspected of using radio transmitters to report ship movements to the Americans. Forty civilians were rounded up most of them German clergymen plus a few nuns with two children. About thirty more civilians were picked up when the ship stopped at Manus Island before proceeding to Rabaul. En-route, Captain Tsurukichi received a radio message from the 8th Fleet Headquarters to dispose of all neutrals on board. On the aft deck a wooden scaffold was erected and a sheet hung across the deck to shield the executions from the rest of the prisoners. One by one the victims were led from their cabins, interrogated and blindfolded and taken to the rear of the ship. There, they were hung on the scaffold by the wrists from a rope and pulley and as their feet cleared the deck they were shot by a four man rifle party. Their bodies were then thrown overboard. The two children were taken from the arms of the nuns and thrown into the water. The men were killed first then the women, the whole procedure lasting three hours. At around 10 o'clock in the evening the Akikaze berthed at Rabaul.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE PORT BLAIR MASSACRES
March 23, 1942, Japanese forces occupied the British controlled Andaman Islands. They met no resistance from the local population but within hours the 'Sons of Heaven' started an orgy of looting, raping and murder. Unbelievable orgies were perpetrated in the towns and villages with women and young girls forcibly raped and young boys sodomized. In Port, eight high-ranking Indian officials were tortured then buried up to their chests in pits they were forced to dig. Their chests, heads and eyes were then prodded with bayonets after which the pit was sprayed with bullets until the helpless victims were all dead. The Director of Health and President of the Indian Independence League, Diwan Singh, was arrested and nearly 2,000 of his Peace Committee associates incarcerated in the local jail and subjected to the water treatment, electric shocks and other unspeakable forms of torture for eighty two days. Those left alive were then taken out to the country and shot and buried. After the massacre the Japanese resorted to a reign of terror, women were abducted and taken to the officers club to be raped by the officer elite. A shipload of Korean girls was brought in to participate in this 'sport'. During the three and a half years of Japanese occupation, out of the 40,000 population of Port Blair around 30,000 were brutally murdered. The small islands of the Andamans were left a scene of utter devastation. This was Japan's way of helping India get her freedom from the British.
-
MASSACRE ON ANDAMAN
( August 14, 1945 )
Situated midway between the Bay of Bengal and the Indian Ocean, lie the tranquil Andaman Islands. As the food shortage became acute during the last month of the war, the Japanese occupiers decided to exterminate all those who were no longer useful or employable. All were deprived of their personal possessions and household goods before being embarked on three boats. About two kilometres from the shore of the uninhabited Havelock Island they were forced to jump into the sea and swim to the beach. Most of them, around a hundred, drowned on the way and those who made it were abandoned to die of starvation. The next day, 800 Indian civilians were rounded up and transported to another uninhabited island, Tarmugli. Transferred to the island in small boats, they wandered aimlessly on the beach waiting for further orders. Soon, a detachment of 19 Japanese troops arrived and what followed was one of the most hineous crimes in the annals of the Pacific war. It took the detachment just over an hour to slaughter all but two of the 800 victims by shooting and bayoneting. Next day, August 15, 1945, the day of the Japanese surrender, a burial detail of troops arrived to remove all traces of the massacre. Within twenty-four hours all 798 bodies were collected and burned in funeral pyres until only fragmented bones and ashes remained. The ashes were then buried in deep pits dug on the beach. In a gross miscarriage of justice, the Japanese officer responsible was sentenced to only two years in prison by a British Military Court.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MASSACRE ON PALAWAN
( Dec. 14, 1944 )
One hundred and fifty American prisoners of war, were incarcerated in a POW enclosure situated on top of the cliffs overlooking the Bay of Puerto Princesa on the island of Palawan in the Philippines. While working on the construction of an airfield they were made to dig three trenches 150ft long and 4ft 6ins deep within the camp. They were told that the trenches were air-raid shelters and practice drills were carried out. The shelters were small and cramped, the prisoners sitting bunched up with their knees under their chins. When an American convoy was sighted heading for Mindoro an air-raid alarm was sounded. The Japanese guards, thinking the island was about to be invaded, herded the prisoners into the covered trenches and then proceeded to pour buckets of petrol into the entrances followed by a lighted torch to ignite the gasoline. As the prisoners stormed the exists, their cloths on fire, they were mown down by light machine-gun fire or bayoneted, shot or clubbed. Dozens managed to get through the barbed wire fence and tumble down the fifty foot high cliff to the water's edge only to be shot at by a Japanese manned landing barge which was patrolling the shore. Only five survived by swimming across the bay and reaching the safety of a Filipino guerrilla camp. One prisoner, who tried to swim the bay, was re-captured and brought back to the beach. There, he suffered the agony of having petrol poured on his foot and set alight. His screams delighted the guards who then deliberately set fire to his other foot while at the same time prodding and stabbing his body with bayonets until he collapsed. His body was then doused with petrol and cremated. His remains, and the bodies of the other dead on the beach, were then buried in the sand. US Forces captured Puerto Princesa on the 28th of February, 1945, and weeks later discovered 79 skeletons within the enclosure. They were given a proper burial by the men of 601 Quartermaster Company of the US Army. In all, 145 Americans had died.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE PIG BASKET ATROCITY
When the Allies capitulated to the Japanese in East Java in 1942, around two hundred Allied soldiers took to the hills around Malang and formed themselves into groups of resistance fighters. Eventually they were rounded up by the Kempetai. The captured soldiers were squeezed into three feet long bamboo pig baskets and transported in open lorries, under a broiling 38 degree sun, to a rail siding and then transferred in open railway goods wagons to the coast. Half dead from thirst and cramp, the captives were carried on board waiting boats which then sailed out to the shark infested waters off the coast of Surabaya. There, the unfortunate prisoners, still enclosed in their bamboo cages, were thrown overboard to the waiting man-eaters. The commander in chief of Japanese forces in Java, General Imamura, was later acquitted of this atrocity in a Netherlands court for lack of evidence. A subsequent Australian Military Court found General Imamura responsible and handed down a sentence of ten years imprisonment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE KALAGON MASSACRE
British paratroopers, operating with the Burmese guerrillas, were the object of a search and destroy mission by the 3rd. Battalion, 215 Regiment of the Japanese 33rd. Division, in June 1945. Believing that the paratroopers were operating with the help of the local inhabitants, the 3rd.Battalion, accompanied by a detachment of the Kempei Tai, surrounded the village of Kalagon near Tenasserim. By 4pm all the inhabitants were rounded up, the men confined in the local mosque, the women and children locked up in adjoining buildings. That evening, eight of the younger women were taken out by the Kempei Tai and brought to their headquarters for the pleasure of their own officers. The next morning, a conference was held and orders given to destroy the village and all the inhabitants to be killed. The massacre began that same morning, the villagers being taken out in batches of five to ten, blindfolded and then bayoneted or shot. Their bodies were then thrown down a number of deep wells around the village and as the wells filled up the bodies were pounded down with bamboo poles to make more space for the next batch of victims. In this way the 3rd. Battalion disposed of around 600 bodies. Two victims who miraculously escaped, were to give evidence at the trial of the battalion commander and thirteen others before a British Military Court held in Burma after the war.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOA KULU MASSACRE
( July 30, 1945 )
After surrendering to overwhelming numbers of Japanese troops, around one hundred members of the Netherlands East Indies Army were disarmed and for a while permitted restricted freedom in the town of Samarinda , in Borneo, where most of the soldiers lived with their families. Early on the morning of July 30, all prisoners, including their families, were rounded up and taken before a Japanese officer who summarily sentenced them all to death. No reason was given as they were bundled into lorries and taken to Loa Kulu just outside the town. There they had their hands tied behind their backs and as the men and children watched, the women were systematically cut to pieces with swords and bayonets until they all died. The screaming children were then seized and hurled alive down a 600 foot deep mine shaft. The men captives, forced to kneel and witness the butchery of their wives and children, and suffering the most indescribable mental torture, were then lined up for execution by beheading. When the grisly ritual was over, the bloodied corpses and severed heads of the 144 men were then thrown down the mine shaft on top of their murdered wives and children. The horror of Loa Kulu was discovered by Australian troops who had earlier started a search for the missing Dutch soldiers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RETALIATION IN INDONESIA
(1945/46) After the Pacific war ended, Holland made a major effort to regain her lost territories, in the Netherland East Indies (Indonesia). When the Dutch Colonial Army took over the area they found around 2,000 Japanese soldiers still on the island. They had stayed behind to help Indonesia gain her independence in case Japan lost the war. In the first nine days of the reoccupation the Dutch soldiers brutally murdered 236 Japanese soldiers in retaliation for the treatment they (the Dutch) had received in Japanese prisoner-of-war camps. Hundreds who were not killed were interned in slave labour camps in Timor and Java where they tried to recreate the same atmosphere as in the Japanese POW camps. There the Japanese soldiers were tortured and beaten to death when they could no longer work. In a short time the death toll had risen to over 1,000. Those prisoners who survived the retaliation were set free to find their own way back to Japan. Holland and Japan have since exchanged apologies for each other's cruel behavior towards the prisoners in their care.
-
THE CHERIBON ATROCITY
(July, 1945)
In the port of Cheribon in northern Java, a Japanese submarine took on board ninety civilian prisoners. All were European and included women and children. As dusk fell on that day in late July, the submarine set sail. It travelled on the surface, the ninety prisoners standing outside on deck. From the top of the conning tower two machine guns, aimed fore and aft, could be plainly seen. Fearing the worst, many of the women started crying but were helpless to do anything. Clinging to each other for stability in the gently rolling sea, the ninety captives waited and prayed. After about an hour the submarine suddenly slowed and dived without warning. The machine guns were never used. Swept off the deck as the ship slid beneath the sea the prisoners faced their worst nightmare. Schools of sharks attacked the screaming mass of humanity as men women and children were torn to pieces in a feeding frenzy. There was only one survivor who, minus an arm and right foot to the sharks, stayed alive long enough to be picked up by three Javanese fishermen. After relating his story he lost consciousness through loss of blood and died from his injuries a short time later. His body was then committed back to the sea, the three fishermen fully aware of their fate should they return to port with the body of an European who was supposed to disappear. After the war this atrocity was reported to the authorities but as all naval files and records of ship movements had been destroyed by the Japanese, the identity of the submarine and its crew was never established.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE AIKAWA ATROCITY
(August 2, 1945)
A few miles west of Honshu lies the Island of Sado, Japans fifth largest. On Sado, during WW11, the Japanese built the POW Camp109, at Aikawa. In the camp were a mixture of British, Australian, Dutch and American servicemen who had been transported to the island for slave labour in the Aikawa Ore Mine. On the morning of the 2nd. of August, an order from the Camp Commandant was given to have all prisoners herded into the deepest part of the mine some 400 feet underground. Unknown to the unsuspecting prisoners, demolition charges had been placed the previous night at depths of 200 and 300 feet. After the guards had hurriedly departed, the mine was blown up at exactly 9.10am, the toiling prisoners left to their fate. As soon as the dust and smoke had settled, every available guard set about dismantling the narrow-gauge railway and depositing the parts inside the entrance to the mine. The guard detail then set off a large demolition charge which caused an avalanche of rock and earth to completely cover the mine entrance. During the next few days, the whole camp complex was demolished and all signs of previous occupancy removed. The 387 Allied prisoners entombed in the mine were never seen again. Lieutenant Yoshiro Tsuda later admitted during interrogation, that because of an Imperial Army Extermination Order, that provided for the swift extermination of all POWs should the islands of Japan be threatened by invasion, he had no misgivings whatsoever about the murder of such a large number of prisoners. He was just following superior orders, he said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE HOSPITAL MASSACRES
Directly in the path of the invading Japanese hordes lay the Princess Alexandria Hospital in Singapore. Guarded by a detachment of Ghurka troops they were ordered by a Japanese officer to lay down their arms. The Ghurka NCO replied that this was not a military target but a civilian hospital. Angered by their refusal to disarm, the Japanese officer ordered his men to seize and kill two dozen of the Ghurka guards. This order was promptly carried out and the Nippon soldiers then entered the hospital. The wholesale slaughter which followed defies description, sick and dying patients being butchered in their beds. Some were just shot, others clubbed and bayoneted and not a few were beheaded by the sword. A number of the victims were survivors from the Prince of Wales and Repulse. The scene of carnage resembled an abattoir, disemboweled patients sprawled everywhere. Doctors and medical orderlies were then killed as were the nurses who were first raped in a most brutal fashion. A similar atrocity occurred in Manila when the Headquarters of the Filipino Red Cross in General Luna street was captured. Some seventy civilians, sick patients and a number of children were put to death in the same brutal and sadistic way. In Burma, on the afternoon of February 7, 1944 an Advance Field Hospital was overrun by the Japanese who first wiped out the protective guard of West Yorkshires then killed every doctor and medical orderly they could find. The sick and wounded were massacred where they lay after their personal possessions were stolen. In all, thirty-one patients, nine orderlies and four doctors were brutally put to death.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GENOCIDE IN SINGAPORE
Collectively known as the 'Chinese Massacres', this peaceful city was subjected to acts of savagery, in many cases beyond anything the Nazis had dished out. The soldiers of Nippon had but one thing on their minds in Singapore, to exterminate the entire Chinese population of this great city. Reliable estimates put the final number killed at between nine and twelve thousand. After interrogation by the Kempetai they were obliged to hand over all their personal possessions, rings, watches, jewellery, money etc. before being forced on to captured British lorries and driven to the Tanjong Pagar Wharf where they were beheaded. The slaughter continued for twelve successive days as boats from Singapore Harbour brought even more Chinese civilians to the execution site. In the Geylang district, thousands of Chinese were herded into the grounds of the Teluk Kurau English School. Altogether, 3,600 persons were then interrogated by the Kempetai . In groups of two hundred, they were taken by truck to the crest of a hill off Siglap Road and there they were killed by shooting, beheading or bayoneting. All but one of the Teluk Kurau School victims, perished. In another massacre, seven hundred Chinese were taken to an area just east of Changi and murdered in the most disgusting manner. Their headless bodies were then thrown into already dug mass graves. The victims heads were piled up on the back of a waiting lorry and carted away. Next morning, the sight that greeted the Singaporean was something that they will never forget. Everywhere, mounted on the tips of long bamboo stakes, were the severed heads of the murdered Chinese. After the war, a British Military Court sentenced the commanding general of Japanese troops in Singapore, Lt.Gen.Takuma Nishimura, to life imprisonment, but at a later trial for other crimes, an Australian Military Court handed down a death sentence. He was hanged on June 11, 1951.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE HANKOW REPRISAL
Every criminal act known to man was inflicted on Chinese civilians by the soldiers of Nippon during their occupation of Manchuria. Indiscriminate killings, beheadings, bayoneting of live victims and the vicious raping of tens of thousands of women and young girls, were the order of the day. Living with this constant terror and barbarity the civilian population could offer but little opposition. However, on August 19, 1945, four days after the surrender, a civilian group managed to capture twenty six Japanese soldiers and executed them near the town of Hankow in north-east China. Four of them were beheaded, four were tied to posts and shot through the back of the head, another four had their arms and legs broken and then crudely amputated, four more were found minus hands and feet and had their genitals stuffed into their mouths. The remaining ten had their eyes gouged out and then bayoneted to death. In this act of reprisal, the past methods of killing by the "Sons of Heaven" had been copied to the letter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAN FERNANDO CEMETERY
( 1944 )
On the 23rd of December, fifteen American prisoners of war, who were too sick to work, were taken from their prison cells and driven to the outskirts of San Fernando, Pampanga, in the Philippines. There, in a small cemetery, a hole fifteen square feet was dug. Guards from the truck then took up positions around the hole. One by one , the POWs were brought to the edge of the hole and ordered to kneel. They were then bayoneted and decapitated. After the war, the guard commander, Lt. Junsabura Toshino, was sentenced to death and hanged.
-
SANDAKAN DEATH MARCH
( 1945 )
Sandakan, the prison compound in British North Borneo holding 2,434 Australian and British POWs. Captured when Singapore fell, they were transported in a decrepit tramp steamer, the Yubi Maru, to Sandakan to help build a military airstrip for the Japanese. When their labour was no longer required, they were confined to the prison compound where they slowly died from starvation, disease and brutalities. As the Allies approached the islands, over 1,000 prisoners, still alive, were force marched in groups of 50 to another camp in the jungle at Ranau, about 120 miles away. The 291 prisoners, including 288 stretcher cases, who were too sick to march, and left behind at Sandakan, were massacred soon after, many dying after undergoing diabolical torture. In June, 1945, of the 455 prisoners that left Sandakan for Ranau on the first march, only 140 reached Ranau alive, the remainder had died or were shot during the march. Prisoners were shot out of hand, their bodies littering the route. On the second inhumane death march, 536 POWs left Sandakan but only 189 were still alive when they reached their destination, 142 of these were Australians. The third march consisted of 75 prisoners, mostly British, all of whom died. During their short stay at Ranau, six Australians managed to escape, the rest were either shot or died from exhaustion, or illnesses such as malaria, beriberi, and dysentery. Of the six escapees, three died later and only three from the original 2,434 were alive to bear witness at the War Crimes Trials which followed at Rabaul and Tokyo in 1946 in which fourteen Japanese officers, convicted of war crimes in Borneo, were executed. Captain Hoshijima, the Sandakan prison commandant was found guilty and hanged at Rabaul on April 6, 1946. Altogether, 1,381 Australian prisoners-of-war died at Sandakan in the most heinous atrocity of the Japanese against Australian troops in the entire Pacific war. Of the British prisoners, 641 had died. The 4,000 imported Javanese slave labourers who worked on the airstrip, less than half a dozen were alive at wars end yet their fate is hardly mentioned in history books. Only 25 Australians escaped from Japanese prison camps to come home again to their homeland. These escapes were from Borneo and Ambon. Around the same number escaped but were recaptured and executed. The number of deaths during the Sandakan marches were four times greater than the Americans who died during the Bataan marches.
Today, the Sandakan War Memorial Park, with its two Australian memorials, is beautifully laid out on the former site of the notorious prison camp.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OPERATION KINGFISHER
The code name for the rescue operation planned to liberate the Australian and British prisoners of war confined at Sandakan. In the planning stage for months under the direction of Australian General Sir Thomas Blamey and the Special Reconnaissance Department (SRD) the operation was bungled from the start owing to ineptitude, incompetence, petty jealouses and lack of decision making. The egosticistical US General Douglas MacArthur (not very popular in Australia) nevertheless gave it his unqualified support, but history has wrongly blamed MacArthur who became the scapegoat for Kingfisher's failure. Blamey stated that aircraft and ships were not available for the rescue operation, that MacArthur needed them for 'other purposes' (no doubt, the proposed invasion of Japan). After thirty years the Kingfisher files were released for public access. They show that the RAAF had a pool of around 40 C-47s in hand and that only 30 were needed for the paratroop assault for which 800 paratroops had trained in the Atherton Tablelands in Queensland (although they were never told for what purpose). After months of planning, the rescue operation never took place and so 2,428 Australian and British POWs...died.
When the war ended, 14,526 Australian POWs were liberated from Japanese prison camps.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE BATAAN DEATH MARCH
( April 1942 )
On April 9, 1942, US Major General Edward P. King, commander of the Bataan Garrison on Luzon, formally surrendered his troops to the Japanese invaders commanded by General Homma. After four hard months of combat, the troops were now exhausted, low on ammunition, low on food (most of their meat ration coming from horses, mules, carabao and water buffalo) and many suffering from malaria, dysentery and other diseases. The American and Filipino defenders of Bataan were now in no condition to continue the struggle. It was near the town of Mariveles in the southern tip of the Bataan Peninsula that the infamous Bataan Death March began on April 10, 1942. Each morning, in groups of several hundred, the prisoners were herded on to the main road that led north to Camp O'Donnell their first prison camp. Hungry and thirsty, sick and tired, it was every man for himself, few helped one another. If anyone fell behind he was shot, bayoneted or beheaded and their bodies left in full view of the following column. Between Mariveles and Cabcaben the column of prisoners was shelled by their own guns on Corregidor. A few days and 100 kilometres further on, the first column arrived at San Fernando where they were forced into railroad boxcars. Packed like sardines, suffocating in the summer heat, and those suffering from dysentery defecating on each other, many died 'standing up'. Four hours later they detrained at Capas and were forced to march the remaining ten kilometres to Camp O'Donnell. Around 9,300 Americans survived the Death March, between 600 and 650 died or were killed on the way. The Filipino prisoners, numbering around 45,000 arrived at the camp after completing the March, about five thousand had lost their lives during the March. The first forty days at Camp O'Donnell saw the deaths of around 1,500 more Americans and by the end of July at least another 20,000 Filipinos died. On June 6, 1942, the Filipino prisoners were granted complete amnesty and released. The extremely high death rate, the highest of any POW camp anywhere, compelled the Japanese to move most of the prisoners to another camp at Cabanatuan , north of O'Donnell. It was at Cabanatuan that the Death March survivors met up with their fellow countrymen captured on Corregidor and who fortunately did not participate in the March but had suffered the humiliation of being marched through the main streets of Manila in front of thousands of Filipinos who had been ordered out to watch the procession. After the fighting on Corregidor, some American POWs were forced to do a most distasteful duty. Divided into work parties they were ordered to cut the right hand off every Japanese soldier found dead. Some bodies had been lying in the hot sun for days. The dead bodies were then burned and the hands cremated, the ashes placed in small urns to be returned to their families in Japan.
The striking memorial, built on the site of the Cabanatuan Prisoner of War Camp on Luzon, includes a Wall of Honour on which are inscribed the names of around 3,000 Americans, mostly survivors of the Death March, who died at Cabanatuan.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOKYO PRISON ATROCITY
Towards the end of the Pacific War, the execution of captured Allied aircrews became almost automatic. Courts-martial were dispensed with on orders from the Military Police Headquarters. In the Tokai Military District, twenty-seven airmen were executed by firing squad, but often, less humane methods were used. In the Japanese Army Prison in Tokyo all the buildings were built of wood and into this prison were crammed 464 Japanese soldiers serving sentences. Also confined in the prison were 62 American airmen who earlier were shot down and captured. During the night of May 25, 1945, Tokyo was heavily bombed by the US Air Force and the prison was hit by incendiaries. In the conflagration which followed, all the 62 airmen were burned to death. A significant factor in this incident was that none of the Japanese prisoners or any of the prison guards suffered a similar fate. The failure of the Japanese to release the 62 flyers could only have been deliberate.
-
KYUSHU UNIVERSITY ATROCITY
After a bombing mission over southern Japan on May 5, 1945, the crew of a B-29 bomber had to bale out after being rammed by a Japanese suicide plane. The B-29 crashed near the town of Takete. After landing, the crew were taken into custody and transported to Kyushu University in Fukuoka about one hundred miles north of Nagasaki. In the university's anatomy department they were subjected to the most horrible medical experiments imaginable. One prisoner was shot in the stomach so that Japanese surgeons could get practice at removing bullets. Amputations on legs and arms were practiced while the victims were still alive. One was injected with sea water in an experiment to find out if sea water could be substituted for saline solution. One badly wounded American, thinking he was going to be treated for his wound, was anaesthetized and woke up to find that one of his lungs had been removed. He died shortly after. Others had part of the liver removed to see if they could still live. Only one airman, the pilot of the B-29, Captain Marvin Watkins, was taken to Tokyo for interrogation but survived the war. The other eight all died at Fukuoka. After the war, twenty three doctors and hospital staff were arrested, tried and found guilty on various charges by the Allied War Crimes Trials held at Yokohama. Five were sentenced to death, the others to terms of imprisonment. When the Korean war started in June, 1950, General Douglas MacArthur reduced most of the sentences. The death sentences were never carried out. All were released by 1958. This was the only instance where Americans were used in bizarre medical experiments in WW11, except perhaps at Mukden.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MASSACRE ON THE HIGH SEAS
On quite a number of instances, massacres have taken place at sea. In the Atlantic, on March 13, 1944, the Greek registered freighter SS Peleus was torpedoed and sunk by the U-852 (KL Heinz-Wilhelm Eck) Survivors on the life rafts were machine-gunned while other submarine crew members threw hand grenades into the rafts. Thirty two of the survivors were killed, only three were alive when rescued. Eck and three of his crew were sentenced to death by the War Crimes Court in Hamburg and on November 30, 1945, were shot. On the merchant ship Daisy Moller, 53 of her crew were machine-gunned to death by the crew of the Japanese submarine RO-110 on March 18, 1944, after the submarine had rammed the lifeboats. Only 16 crew members survived. The Nancy Moller, en route from Durban to Colombo, sunk by the I-165 on March 18, 1944. Thirty two of the crew were killed by pistol and machine-gun fire. The SS Ascot sank on February 29, 1944, after being torpedoed by a Japanese submarine in the Indian Ocean. Survivors were machine-gunned on the rafts and in the water. Of the 52 crew who had abandoned ship, only eight survived. The American Liberty ship Jean Nicolet, was torpedoed on July 2, 1944, while en route from Fremantle to Colombo. Her complement of 100 were taken on board the foredeck of the Japanese submarine I-8 and one by one led to the stern of the vessel where they had to run a gauntlet of Japanese sailors who beat them with clubs, iron bars and bayonets before being kicked or pushed into the sea. While squatting on the forward deck waiting their turn, the remaining survivors were washed overboard when the submarine submerged. Of the 100 passengers and crew of the Jean Nicolet only 23 survived to tell the tale. Similar atrocities were perpetrated on the survivors of the tanker British Chivalry (Feb.22, 1944) sunk by the I-37. Survivors in two lifeboats were machine-gunned, killing 20 crewmembers. The Dutch ship Tjisalak (March 26, 1944) torpedoed by the I-8. A total of 98 crew and passengers (including some British subjects) were massacred by sword and spanners used as clubs. The MV Sutley (Feb.26, 1944) and the SS John A Johnson (Oct.29, 1944) both of whose survivors were fired upon while clinging to rafts. The SS Mellore, a British ship en route from Australia to Bombay with general cargo, torpedoed by the I-8 on June 29, 1944. Of the 209 passengers and crew, 79 were killed. During an operation in the Indian Ocean, ships of the Japanese South-West Area Fleet sunk the British motor vessel Behar on 18th March, 1944. Seventy-two of her survivors, including twenty-seven Europeans and forty-five Indians, were taken on board the Japanese cruiser Tone whose captain had received orders to 'dispose of all prisoners'. The prisoners were hit in the stomach with rifle butts or kicked in the testicles and as they lay squirming on the deck, were then beheaded. The American freighter David H. Atwater, sunk by the U-552 (Kptlt. Erich Topp) off the coast of Virginia on April 2, 1942, the crew were machined-gunned as they took to the lifeboats. Only three of the 27 crew survived the massacre. The crew of the German destroyer Erich Giese , sunk during the Battle for Narvik, swimming desperately in the water, were fired upon by British destroyers trying to prevent them reaching shore and joining up with German troops already there.
Savage deeds were committed by all armies and navies during World War 11 but only when committed by Germans or Japanese were they classed as war crimes by the Allies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE MANCHURIAN SLAUGHTER
On August 8, 1945, the USSR declared war on Japan. Having extracted their terrible revenge on Germany, they were now fired by a desire to punish Japan, the second instigator of World War 11. Aided by the Mongolian Peoples Republic Army, they attacked the Japanese Kwantung Army in northern Manchuria. The fighting was ferocious and vengeful, the Nippon soldiers attacking in hordes, arms linked, into a withering fire of machine gun bullets. Many, armed with explosives, threw themselves under the tanks of the advancing Red Army at the same time shouting their Emperors name. The few soldiers who were captured showed no hesitation in committing hara-kiri by exploding hidden grenades and at the same time killing many of their captors. The Soviet and Mongolian soldiers unfortunate enough to be captured by the Japanese, faced a swift and terrible death. Their bodies were mutilated, eyes gouged out and genitals removed before decapitation. The Red Army suffered 8219 killed and over 22,000 wounded. The Kwantung Army lost 7483 killed and around 70,000 wounded. When the northern Kwantung Army laid down its arms and surrendered, Stalin took his revenge. The 640,000 prisoners, including 148 generals, were transported to Siberia and there put to work on forced labour projects. Some 62,000 of these prisoners died while in captivity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PINGFAN
( 1945 )
When Russia invaded Manchuria in 1945, the Japanese Government ordered that Pingfan (the Japanese experimental Biological and Germ Warfare Centre in occupied Manchuria) be destroyed. This complex was established by General Shiro Ichii and an Imperial prince and cousin of Emperor Hirohito. The documentation authorizing the building of this establishment, which occupied an area of six square kilometres, carried the Imperial Seal of the Emperor. Prisoners in the holding cells were first killed and all Chinese and Manchurian slave labourers who were forced to work in the complex were then machined-gunned to death. About 600 were killed this way, the bodies of the victims cremated in three large ovens the same way as those used in the Nazi death camps, and their ashes then dumped into the nearby Sungari River. The whole Pingfan complex was then blown up before the Russians arrived. Pingfan had 4,500 flea breeding machines which produced 100 million infected fleas every few days. These fleas, infected with plague, typhoid, cholera and anthrax organisms, were to be dropped on the invasion troops in a last ditch effort to win the war. Most of these plague-infected fleas was purposely released before the complex was destroyed. Northeastern China immediately became a disaster area and at least 30,000 people died over the next three years from plague and other diseases.
-
MUKDEN
About 350 miles from Pingfan (the Germ Warfare Complex in Manchuria) was the prisoner of war camp at Mukden where 1,485 American, British and Australian POWs were sent in November, 1942. The American prisoners arrived in terrible shape via the hell-ship Totori Maru and suffering from all sorts of diseases contacted during their imprisonment at Camp O'Donnell and Cabanatuan. In August, 1942, around 1,500 men from Cabanatuan boarded the Totori Maru and sailed for Pusan in Korea. From Pusan they boarded a train destined for Mukden , Manchuria. There were two camps at Mukden, one at Hoten and the other at Hsien, the later holding the higher ranking Allied prisoners who were to be used as hostages in the event of an Allied invasion of Japan. The prisoners at Hoten were put to work producing parts for Japanese aircraft and tanks at the MKK factory. The deaths incurred here were due to neglect, disease, hunger, Japanese brutality and accidental bombing by US aircraft (which resulted in the killing of over 100 prisoners.) By November, 1943, a total of 84 British, 16 Australians and 1,174 US servicemen had perished. It is estimated that around 60,000 prisoners, including Chinese and Manchurian slave labourers, lost their lives at Pingfan and Mukden . Experimental Units 731 and 100 of the Germ Warfare Complex were situated at Pingfan . It was here that Chinese and Manchurian nationals were experimented upon. It is not known exactly how many Allied POWs were subjected to these experiments but their numbers were relatively small. The terrible experiences suffered by prisoners at Pingfan and Mukden , has been, for over forty years, one of the best kept secrets of the Second World War.
With the exception of one or two, none of the Japanese scientists and doctors at Mukden or Pingfan were ever brought to trial, owing to a deal done with the USA, through General Douglas MacArthur, in which it offered immunity from war crimes in exchange for scientific data acquired at Mukden and Pingfan to give the US some germ warfare advantage over the communist Soviet Union. After repeated requests by war crime investigators for authority to arrest General Ishii and the Imperial Prince Takamatus (Emperor Hirohito's brother) the requests were denied by MacArthur. After the war these men, about thirty five of them, held top positions in Japanese medical and scientific institutions. General Ishii died of throat cancer in 1959.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Netherlands East Indies, now Indonesia, 26,233 Dutch nationals perished between 1942 and 1945 during the Japanese occupation.
The combined figure of British and American prisoners of war who died while in Japanese captivity, totaled 24,969.
Over 22,000 Australians were prisoners of the Japanese. Of these, 8,296 died while in captivity. Of the Australians who ended up in German POW camps, 265 died in captivity.
By the year 2001, Germany will have paid out 102 billion D.Marks in restitution and compensation to the victims of the Nazi regime. Germany has faced up to its legal and moral obligations. Not so Japan. Denying its wholesale massacres and thieving by its moronic hordes, the Japanese Government officials hide behind their bland smiles and polite bows and think 'Japan Number One, other countries Number Ten'. No other nation in the world imposes such a distorted view of history on its schoolchildren. For over fifty years, Japan has denied its abuses of Human Rights and refuses to pay any compensation to its victims, especially the survivors of its 250,000 sex slave program.(At this moment a few survivors are fighting for compensation in the Japanese courts). Until Japan faces up to its responsibilities, civilized nations everywhere must regard it with some suspicion.
However, a citizens group in the Japanese city of Kyoto, have erected a 'Monument of Apology and Friendship' in the city square of Calbayog, on the island of Samar in the Philippines. The city was occupied by the 16th Division of the Imperial Japanese Army during the war. The monument bears the inscription 'The citizens of Kyoto apologize for the invasion by the Army of the Emperor and pledge their friendship'. It is believed that this is the first time the Japanese have apologized for their actions during World War 11.
The first written apology (to South Korea) was presented by the Japanese Prime Minister, Keizo Obuchi, on October 9, 1998, to South Korean President Kim Dae-jung.
-
[size=24]Any more questions on WHY the bombs were used?[/size]
-
Dont start nuthin Wont be nuthin is really a Lame argument.
Toad, I can respect your Well thought out posts and Historical research as well as any...but that is not One of them.
Everyone can speculate all they want but as history..it is irrevokable. The Facts remain that There are some countries that Have used WMD more often than any other.
Care to Name It?
Which Country Has N- Weapons at the Ready at All times...even with the Cold War Over.
Embargos were used yes, they were used to try to bring things to a peacefull conclusion. Sadly it Didint work.
Iraq is suffering Embargos because they are being told to unarm...time will tell if they did. Certainly cant do much at the moment.
India and Pakistan were suffering sanctions because of their Criminally irresponsable developement of Nuclear Weapons..They are right now..NOW... threatening each other with Nukes. But Lo....Behold...NO sanctions.
They have suddenly become a partner against terrorism with the US, Friends..hugs and Kisses and all that. Yet they are scarier than hell and will probably wipe themselves off the face of the earth.
This is what I find reprehensable in the politicians that feed us the BS they do.
There are many here that view any thoughts, or questions against this crap as Unpatriotic.
Dont start nuthin wont be nuthin?... Why did the Colonial powers seperate and divide those countries apart in the first place?
Seems the colonial powers started that mess.
How about the Colonial interference with China and Japan, the Rampant abuse of Japanese workers in America and Canada.
The further back you go, the blame can end up on someone elses doorstep.
The Best thing any of us could do is just realize, You cant take any politicians word at face value. You Are Being lied to...and that does apply to WWII and the use of the A-Bombs...Otherwise why would there be so many sealed archives?
Enough..I have the Flu, I'm Drugged, and I'm ramblin.
-
Sorry, Naso.
They did have other options. They deliberately chose militarism and war long before Manchuria; in fact, most historians place it in the late 1800's beginning with the Meiji restoration.
They pulled out of the League of Nations. They were a militaristic nation, they chose war; they were the aggressors.
-
Well, Ping... I just have a hard time understanding how world wars start if everyone keeps their own troops within their own borders at all times. However those borders may be drawn.
Like if German troops had not crossed the border into Poland or Japanese troops had not gone to Manchuria, China or even say... Hawaii.
-
hehe I'll let you into a secret, Gscholz - I chose my handle in the mistaken knowledge that Dowding flew missions in the Battle of Britain. Unfortunately, I'd confused him with Keith Park. :D
It's kind of stuck, and I can't be arsed to change it.
Anyway, I see what you're saying now - but I think you misunderstand me too. I wasn't saying the Dresden raids were effective - that's not what I was arguing. They were ineffective as you point out. But the idea behind them was a continuation of the area bombing of other German cities - we only know they were pretty useless, with the benefit of hindsight.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
[size=24]Any more questions on WHY the bombs were used?[/size]
[size=24]So you think was revenge?
And drop that megaphone!![/size]
:D
-
If it wasn't revenge as the motive...[size=24]it should have been![/size] I lost 4 uncles to the hands of the Japanese..
-
Originally posted by Toad
Sorry, Naso.
They did have other options. They deliberately chose militarism and war long before Manchuria; in fact, most historians place it in the late 1800's beginning with the Meiji restoration.
They pulled out of the League of Nations. They were a militaristic nation, they chose war; they were the aggressors.
Do you missed this one?
It's just a fact that, while the other imperialistic nation (US included) were evolving a new imperialistic style, using "aggressive trade", and developing the corrispondent "war", the embargo, still in use today, Japan was stuck (like Italy) in the old fashion mode, the use of force, not realizing (who knows the future?) the consequensies of such aggressive politic in that zone.
Just that.
They had other options?
I dont know, but I can say the option they choosed was wrong, did not had the intended effects.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
If it wasn't revenge as the motive...it should have been! I lost 4 uncles to the hands of the Japanese..
And I lost 2 granfhater's brothers and an uncle (5 years old, strafed by a P51) by hands of Americans.
Do you believe or suggest I have to hate you?
Well, I not hate you.
-
Disclaimer: I am no way saying that the US started the war against Japan.
Toad you and I both know how they get started. National leaders don't stay inside their boundries.
As citizens, are we supposed to blindly go about and do as our National leaders tell us? Or to use our Rights as free moral agents to become conscientious oblectors?
If More in Germany had of done that than Hitler would have not had the armies to use.
Japanese civilians were the victims of the A-Bomb...not the military Hierarchy. Japan should have stayed put in the nationlal boundries, But it wasn't the military that was forced to pay, it was wives mothers sons and daughters.
This also extends to our right as citizens of our respective countries to condemn the use of WMD and their inclusion in the arsenal.
I keep hearing how Saddam is a nut case and he cant have them, But nowhere do I recall him having used them against The Coalition forces or against Israeli soil. India and Pakistan are currently threatening their use against each other...Where is the moral outrage from bush and the military leaders?
It is this hypocrisy that is hurting the US and its citizens. No matter how you try to reconcile it it was the US that used these weapons..continues to stock them and allows its "FRIENDS" to play with them.
I have American relatives, wonderfull people in Montana, So I know that deep down we are all alike, but the National leaders and their policies shape other countries views of who and what you are.
I realize my thoughts are a little disjointed but I use the flu as an excuse.
-
Naso, I don't hate the Japanese, but I DO understand why we fought them. Obviously you do not. I pity you.
-
Tad condescending dont you think Rip?
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Naso, I don't hate the Japanese, but I DO understand why we fought them. Obviously you do not. I pity you.
WE fought them??
YOU fought that war???
ARE YOU STILL STUCK IN THOSE TIMES??
It's 2003 mister, wake up, it's time to understand the things with cold blood, and stop the emotional crap.
Maybe I can understand more than you imagine, but without really listening what I said, you will never know.
I bet your ideal place it's the Balkan area, they can stir facts for centuries to play with the hate.
-
Originally posted by Naso
It's 2003 mister, wake up, it's time to understand the things with cold blood, and stop the emotional crap.
Oh, I'm "over it" as you speak, but lest we forget history, we're doomed to repeat it.
Don't forget the SS, Naso.
VIA RASELLA
(Rome. March 23, 1944)
The 11th Company of the German 3rd Battalion of the S.S. Polizei Regiment 'Bozen', consisting of 156 men, were on their regular daily march through the streets of Rome to the Macao Barracks, when they became the target of the Italian underground movement. On March 23 ( the 25th anniversary of the day Mussolini formed his Fascist Party) the police company were climbing the narrow Via Rasella when a bomb, placed in a road sweepers cart, exploded. Twenty six SS policemen were killed instantly and sixty others wounded, two more died later. Some civilians were also killed. The German Commandant of Rome, General Kurt Malzer, drunk and shrieking for revenge, ordered the arrest of all who lived on the street. Some 200 civilians were rounded up and turned over temporarily to the Italian authorities. Hitler, on hearing of the bombing, immediately ordered that 30 Italians were to be shot for every policeman killed. This number was later reduced to 10. Within twenty four hours, 335 people were loaded onto lorries and driven to a network of caves on the Via Ardeatina discovered by the Germans earlier and where the disbanded Italian army had hidden barrels of petrol and some vehicles. At 3.30pm the executions started, each victim ordered to kneel and was then shot in the back of the head. By 8pm it was all over. In 1947, SS Obersturmbannführer Herbert Kappler, who was in charge of the executions, was arrested and faced court in Rome. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. In 1972, Kappler was allowed to marry his German nurse, Anneliese Wenger and in 1976, with her help, he escaped from the prison hospital. Seven months later, at her home in Soltau in northern Germany, Herbert Kappler died of cancer of the stomach. SS General Malzer was sentenced to life, later reduced to 21 years, but died in prison on March 24, 1952. The instigator of this attack on the 11th Company was Marxist medical student Rosario Bentivegna, helped by partisan member Carla Capponi whom he later married. Dr. Bentivegna was later decorated with the Golden Medal of the Italian Resistance and his wife Carla became a member of the Italian Parliament.
Today, the Ardeatina Caves is a Memorial. Nearby is the Mausoleum containing the stone sarcophagi of the 335 victims.
SANT' ANNA MASSACRE
(August 12, 1944)
Just north of Pisa, between the towns of Lucca and Currara, lay the small village of S.Anna di Stazzema. On August 4, British troops had freed the city of Florence (Firenze) and the German armies were now retreating northwards through the mountainous region of Tuscany, ideal terrain for partisan activity. Many of the German troops were killed in ambushes and skirmishes with the Italian underground movement. On August 12, the 6th Panzergrenadieren 'Reichsführer-SS' Division reached the outskirts of Sant' Anna, their orders to shoot on sight all partisans found in the area. Believing that the inhabitants of the Sant'Anna were all partisans or partisan sympathizers, the SS started knocking on doors and shouting 'Heraus! Heraus!' ('out of here!'). Gathered together on the village square, the men, women and children, were then shot in cold blood. In all, 560 people were massacred including 110 children. The houses in the village were then burned to the ground, the church organ was riddled with machine-gun bullets and the christening font completely destroyed by a grenade. Many of the corpses were doused with petrol and then set alight before the SS unit departed.
ATROCITY AT BARDINE SAN TERENZO
(August 20, 1944) In the area around the village of Bardine San Terenzo, the SS 16 Reichsführer Division was deployed to counteract partisan activity against German troops. Seventeen German soldiers had been ambushed and their truck set on fire. All seventeen were killed. A search of various villages was undertaken where the SS looted and burned a number of houses. Fifty-three villagers were taken to the burned out truck and tied to the chassis of the vehicle and to field posts nearby. Next day a local priest, Padre Lino Piane, discovered the fifty-three bodies. All had been shot. Most of the victims were from the village of Mezzana Castello, those from Bardine were taken to Valla and there, shot. There were 107 persons in all. Only five were men, the rest, women and children. In the four days that the search continued, a total of 369 hostages were brutally massacred and 454 houses destroyed by fire. In overall charge of the SS troops in this incident was Major Walter Reder, the one-armed SS officer responsible for the massacres on the Monte Sole.
SLAUGHTER ON MONTE SOLE
(Sept.29 to Oct.1st, 1944)
About twenty kilometres south of Bologna is the massif of Monte Sole, part of the Apennine range. Around this area are dozens of small villages and towns, Marzabotto, Sperticano, Cerpiano, San Martino, Creda and Casaglia to name but a few. When Italy surrendered to the Allies on Sept. 8, 1943, Fascist and German troops continued their harassment of these poor mountain people. Forming themselves into small partisan groups, augmented by deserters from the Italian and German armies (ex Russian POWs) their strength grew to around 1,200 men. Calling themselves the Stella Rossa (Red Star) they confined their activities to sniping, derailing freight trains and the occasional ambush. In their efforts to subdue the Stella Rossa, the German SS often raided small villages and shot hostages. This only increased the determination of the partisans to commit more attacks on the enemy and for the Germans to shoot more hostages. As the British and Americans fought their way north, the SS formed up for a mass attack on Monte Sole. At dawn on Friday, 29th Sept. 1944, the SS attacked. At Creda, the SS surrounded a barn where a group of partisans were hiding. All the men, women and children of Creda, were assembled in the barn and after their valuables and money was confiscated they were machine-gunned, grenades and incendiary bombs were thrown in and the group, about ninety, were left to burn. This scene was repeated at every tiny village and farmlet as the SS units continued their march. Soon, hundreds of fires could be seen on and around Monte Sole, each one a funeral pyre. During the three days of the rastrellamento (Sept.29 to Oct 1st) a total of around 1,830 men, women and children, were brutally murdered by the SS and 420 houses burned. When the SS murder squads moved on, the killing continued as relatives of the victims, searching for the bodies of their loved ones, stepped on the deadly mines laid by the SS. Their commander, one-armed SS Major Walter Reder, an Austrian national, was later arrested by the Americans in Salzburg and handed over to the British who in turn passed him over to the Italians. In 1951, in an Italian military court in Bologna, Walter Reder was sentenced to strict life imprisonment in the military prison at Gaeta. He was released in 1985 and died six years later in 1991.
THE BOVES ATROCITY
(Sept 17th, 1944)
A few kilometres north of Cuneo in Italy, lies the town of Boves. After September 8th, 1943, it became an active center of the Italian underground because of the stationing of many stragglers from the now disbanded Regio Esercito (Royal Italian Army). These partisans were led by Bartolomeo Giuliano, Ezio Aceto and Ignazio Vian. After repeated requests to surrender, the partisans refused in spite of leaflets being dropped by the SS. On the 17th of September the German commander, SS Major Joachim Peiper, ordered two gun crews to shell the town. The partisans again refused to surrender. Two German soldiers were then sent forward (as decoys) to be captured by the partisans. Hoping they would be killed, it would give Peiper the pretext for a slaughter. The parish priest, Father Giuseppe Bernardi and the industrialist, Alessandro Vassallo, were ordered to meet with the partisans and to persuade them to release the two soldiers. The priest asked Peiper 'Will you spare the town?'. Peiper gave his word and the two prisoners were released. But the blood-thirsty SS then proceeded to burn all the houses in the town after which Father Bernardi and Vassallo were put into a car to do an inspection of the devastated town. 'They must admire the spectacle' said Peiper. After the inspection, Father Bernardi and his companion, Vassallo, were sprinkled with petrol and set alight. Both were burned to death. Forty-three other inhabitants of Boves were killed that day and 350 houses destroyed. Next day, a column of armoured vehicles went up the road that led to the partisan base. A lucky shot from their only 75 mm gun destroyed the leading armoured car. After an intense fire-fight the SS retreated with heavy losses. One of the partisan leaders, Ignazio Vian, was later captured by the SS and hanged in Turin. On the wall of his cell he had written in his own blood the words "Better Die Rather Than Betray".
(SS Major Peiper was later brought to trial. See 'The Malmedy Massacre' in the Belgian section below)
-
You are all very interested in the decision to nuke Japan.
You all share some interesting misconseptions as to why the decision was made and the back ground for the situation at the time it was made.
Please all of you go to a library and take out the book
Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire
By Richard B Frank.
I am reading it right now as fate would have it. I highy recomend it.
We will all have a much better grounds to discuss the topic after we have done our research.
I also recomend very highly his book on Guadacanal.
-
THE BRETTO ATROCITY
(March 23, 1945)
The power station at Bretto, near Udine, in Northern Italy, was guarded by a unit of the Italian Carabinieri consisting if twelve men commanded by Sergeant Dino Perpignano. While returning to his barracks, Sgt. Perpignano was captured by a gang of Italian Communist partisans under the orders of the 1X Yugoslav Corps. At this time the Yugoslav partisans were being supplied by air-drop by the British who had transferred their support from the Cetniks (who were fighting for the restoration of the monarchy) to Tito's Communists because they were killing more Germans than the Cetniks. Threatened with torture, Sgt. Perpignano was forced to reveal the unit's password, thus allowing the partisan gang to enter the barracks and overpower the Carabinieri, some of whom were already asleep. After having ransacked the barracks, the partisans herded their prisoners into an upstairs room and after a while were given food which contained a mixture of caustic soda and black salt. As they started feeling sick they realized they had been poisoned. In severe pain, crying and begging for their lives, they were forced marched to a alpine refuge in the mountains, there to face a terrible death. The Carabineri were then stripped, tied up and brutally murdered by pickaxes and kicks to the body. Some had their genitalia amputated and stuck in their mouths, eyes were gouged out. One had a photo of his five sons stuck into his heart. The corpses were eventually found and interred in a medieval tower at Tarviso. The remains of the twelve Carabinieri, Sgt. Perpignano, Pasquale Ruggiero, Lino Bertogli, Domenico Del Vecchio, Antonio Ferro, Adelmino Zilio, Fernando Ferretti, Ridolfo Calzi, Pietro Tognazzo, Michele Castallano, Primo Amenici and Attilio Franzon, lie forgotten by their countrymen and by history, under the merciful care of some nuns, living in a nearby convent.
-
Originally posted by Naso
Japan was stuck (like Italy) in the old fashion mode, the use of force, not realizing (who knows the future?) the consequensies of such aggressive politic in that zone.
[/B]
Nonetheless, the choice for war was of their own volition. Their failure to adapt to the modern international economy still doesn't justify war.
The original point still stands. Japan started the war with overt, armed, aggression........ and a huge number of atrocities as Ripsnort pointed out.
Had they not started the war, there would have been no use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Pretty simple: no war, no atomic bombing.
Originally posted by Naso
They had other options?
I dont know, but I can say the option they choosed was wrong, did not had the intended effects.
Sure, you know. They could have kept their troops at home. But they CHOSE not to; they chose conquest.
I'm certain that the jubilation of the late '30's had turned to dismay at the failure to achieve the "intended effects" and at the horror of the "unintended effects" they suffered in 1945.
I'm sorry for your family's loss in the war.
-
Again, morality it's relative, it change in every society, and in time.
Judging a fact in a moral or emotional way it's not History.
The declaration of a war was introduced only late in human modern history, and Japan was stuck in the old fashion but using modern weapons.
In Historical coolblood and cynic way:
a) Pearl Harbor was a mistake, the Japan govenment had the clues to understand that in the economical long run the war cannot be won, for the resources and human power US had and have, they made the bet and lost, and lost the hard way.
b) The A bomb was the right choise, it ended the war, quick and without ulterior US losses (or minimal), they made the bet, some doubt will for sure arise in Trummie mind, since the failure of the "terror bombings", but anyway, there was even the emotional push to have the ok even in the future, again, they bet, and won.
Stop.
In an emotional and/or moral way:
a) it depends from the side and moral "laws" of the judge.
b) it depends from the side and moral "laws" of the judge.
Pandora box.
-
HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF THE 14-15 FEBRUARY 1945 BOMBINGS OF DRESDEN (http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/PopTopics/dresden.htm)
Prepared by:
USAF Historical Division
Research Studies Institute
Air University
There's always another side to the story. Feel free to disagree with this study as I feel free to disagree with many of the points made about Dresden so far. ;)
-
Sorry Naso.
Even under the "old way" a nation that went to war understood that the consequences of losing a war that they themselves started were horrendous.
In fact, under the "old way" all of Japan probably would have been put to the sword. Every one of them.
There's no moral or emotional judgement in knowing what nations started World War 2.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Oh, I'm "over it" as you speak, but lest we forget history, we're doomed to repeat it.
Don't forget the SS, Naso.
I dont forget the SS.
Will be nice, since you have a good copy and paste, to remember the Rodi(?) facts, 1.500 Ita ex-soldiers were killed after the surrender by German SS.
Emotions and moral aside, I think that the "retaliation" (it's correct word?) it's not a good tactic to gain the control of an occupied territory.
You can see something now in Israel-Palestinian sub-conflict.
I know, your mass media system talk only about Israel deaths, but there is a 1-5 or more ratio in retaliation.
To you they say they are all terrorists.
============
Emotional side note: My ex-girlfriend's family it's from Beinette, 5 Km from Boves, his father, age 16 then, was captured by the SS in the field, with his uncle, loaded in a truck, and lined with other people taken on the road.
The MG was already loaded and ready to fire.
They count again (they needed 20 people to kill), there were 21 of them (maybe the officer's descendants live now in Florida), so they randomly took him away from the line.
He was 50 meters, running away, when the SS opened fire, his uncle was killed there.
50 years later (he died in 1999 for cancer) he told me the story, still with tears in the face.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Sorry Naso.
Even under the "old way" a nation that went to war understood that the consequences of losing a war that they themselves started were horrendous.
In fact, under the "old way" all of Japan probably would have been put to the sword. Every one of them.
And you think they did'nt know (or suppose?)
Reread the posts of SaburoS, when he speak about "the american devil".
I am sure they were told of terrible atrocities made by Americans, for sure they were told that no one will have been alive in hands of Americans.
We know it's untrue, but they, then, did'nt know.
Tell me what statement let you think that I am declaring that the axis did'nt start the real war.
I wish to improve my english, please help me.
-
No GScholz, I'm not sorry I chose 'Dowding'. It's just that he was an old man - I'm 24 y/o. I don't have much in common with apart from nationality. He was just a name that hadn't been used before and had something to do with the RAF. :)
Totally unjustifiable, and it shows just how desensitised the allied bomber command had become.
I disagree on the first point.
Interesting point on desensitisation - that happens in war. And when you've fought for nearly 6 years against an enemy which very early on tried to destroy the capital of your country from the air, I'd say you become more de-sensitized.
-
Originally posted by Ping
....But it wasn't the military that was forced to pay, it was wives mothers sons and daughters.
.... But nowhere do I recall him having used them against The Coalition forces or against Israeli soil.
....India and Pakistan are currently threatening their use against each other...Where is the moral outrage from bush and the military leaders?
......It is this hypocrisy that is hurting the US and its citizens. No matter how you try to reconcile it it was the US that used these weapons..continues to stock them and allows its "FRIENDS" to play with them.
Sorry to chop up your post.
The military pays. The civilians also pay. Bascially, the entire population is held accountable for the actions of the politicians they allow to rule them. The US is, IMO, right now being held accountable for our support of Israel's right to exist as mandated by the UN. (Which is a whole new debate and we should start yet another thread rather than hijack this one. I think Israel has vastly overstepped the UN mandate and its time the US acknowledged that and acted accordingly. But that's another thread.) The US is being held accountable for being the primary military arm of the UN as well. While I don't relish the role in the least, we took the responsibility and now we're accountable. We made the choice so that's that.
Iraq did launch Scuds at Israel during the Gulf War. Israel was clearly a non-combatant in that conflict. There is some discussion as to just what was in those warheads.
India and Pakistan. You'll note that the US became immediately involved in defusing that situation and is still working with both countries. You feel that "moral outrage" is the best course for defusing the situation at present?
Yes, we were the first to use them. Seems like to me, that ever since, we've been working harder than anyone to see that they aren't used again. I think that's why we abandoned the isolationism we so eagerly sought after World War I and became the "world's policeman" that so many hate us for becoming. And for which we are paying now.
The theory, technology and means of production of these weapons is well known now. The Manhattan Project is no longer a big secret. There's no way to stop the proliferation...
-
Naso, it all comes down to keeping your troops within your borders.
You can tell us Japan just had an old fashioned way of getting natural resources that the other nations did the same in times past, whatever.
But the bottom line is that wars don't start until the troops leave home.
Which brings us back to "if you don't start nothing, there won't be nothing". It applies to all, eh?
Everybody keep your troops at home and there'll be no trouble anywhere.
And, before you start, I wish ALL the US troops were at home right now. You and I have discussed that before, a long time ago.
"Do unto others."
"Mind your own business."
It's pretty simple really. Makes you wonder how the human race keeps screwing up something so simple.
Test question:
The US, along with primarily South Korea and Japan, is right now embroiled in a nuclear arms proliferation problem with North Korea. North Korea is clearly a dictatorship with a failing economyu and an ongoing famine.
Which country in the entire world supplies the most food aid to North Korea?
At least we try. That may be our epitaph.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Bascially, the entire population is held accountable for the actions of the politicians they allow to rule them.
I don't think that an average American, fed by state and corporate propaganda, is responsible for all acts of agression and mass murder committed by US regime in past 50 years.
GScholz:
Dresden was very different. To deliberately target refugees in the event that the resulting carnage MIGHT slow down German reinforcements is like saying "why don't we kill 135 000 Germans today? ... Who knows, it might help the Russians".
Help the Russians!? That was the last thing they were thinking about.
Dresden had to be in a Soviet ocupation zone. They have done everything to prevent USSR from capturing any German resources.
How about this version? :rolleyes:
-
I don't think that an average American, fed by state and corporate propaganda, is responsible for all acts of agression and mass murder committed by US regime
====
Boroda, you are from Russia correct? It only makes sense as your statement above reflects the type of genuine ignorance I would expect from a Russian (aka victim of socialist repression).
In the United States our politicians are elected by the people.
Our government is of the people, for the people. As such, the people are responsible. Trust me on this one, okay :)
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Boroda, you are right about the US/UK not WANTING to help the USSR in the race for Berlin, however in this particular operation Churchill had promised Stalin help in form of heavy bomber support. Dresden was close to the eastern front.
Soviet General Staff asked for some bombings to break communication lines in Germany, not for burning down whole cities in Soviet occupation zone. Some people (and they are in this discussion) use this as a reason to blame Russians for Dresden slaughter...
-
Originally posted by Yeager
I don't think that an average American, fed by state and corporate propaganda, is responsible for all acts of agression and mass murder committed by US regime
====
Boroda, you are from Russia correct? It only makes sense as your statement above reflects the type of genuine ignorance I would expect from a Russian (aka victim of socialist repression).
In the United States our politicians are elected by the people.
Our government is of the people, for the people. As such, the people are responsible. Trust me on this one, okay :)
First: I am NOT a victim of socialist repression.
Here is a problem with your "democracy": everyone is told that he can "vote" and change something, that is obviously not true, and at the same time he should feel responsibility for the actions of the "democraticaly elected" war criminals.
No government acts "for the people". State is only an instrument of supressing personality. In modern "civilized" countries traditional physical supression is replaced by a more effective moral and mental supression.
-
Boroda, I'm not surprised.
After all, you still don't acceptRussian responsibility for Katyn Forest even after your government ADMITTED doing it.
And that's only ONE.
:D
-
Originally posted by Toad
Naso, it all comes down to keeping your troops within your borders.
You can tell us Japan just had an old fashioned way of getting natural resources that the other nations did the same in times past, whatever.
But the bottom line is that wars don't start until the troops leave home.
Which brings us back to "if you don't start nothing, there won't be nothing". It applies to all, eh?
Everybody keep your troops at home and there'll be no trouble anywhere.
And, before you start, I wish ALL the US troops were at home right now. You and I have discussed that before, a long time ago.
"Do unto others."
"Mind your own business."
It's pretty simple really. Makes you wonder how the human race keeps screwing up something so simple.
Test question:
The US, along with primarily South Korea and Japan, is right now embroiled in a nuclear arms proliferation problem with North Korea. North Korea is clearly a dictatorship with a failing economyu and an ongoing famine.
Which country in the entire world supplies the most food aid to North Korea?
At least we try. That may be our epitaph.
Well, Toad, as you know, in those times, nobody had the troops inside their borders, everyone had colonial occupation forces everywere, BTW, no doubt the aggressive behaviour of Japan was for sure NOT a peace attitude :)
As for the last part of your post.....
Maybe we can open this pandora box in another brand new thread ;)
We can call it "Use my economy, adapt to my culture or.... become.... evil"
LOL, or we can start a thread about globalization :D
HALLIIVUUUUUD!!!!
(translated: Hollywood!)
"1941" , with John Belushi.
-
Good examples rip
-
thing is.... It all worked out for the best. That can't be denied.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Toad
Boroda, I'm not surprised.
After all, you still don't accept Russian responsibility for Katyn Forest even after your government ADMITTED doing it.
And that's only ONE.
:D
Any ideas about my last post? :D
Toad, we, in a "specialized" English-speaking school, studied American political system and taught that it is a real democratic system. We where taught to believe that it is not worse (yes, it's the only way ti say this, really tough for that times) then Soviet system...
About Katyn - I told you many times that I don't know and can't make any conclusions, but prisoners shot from German weapons in 1940 at the place where recreation zone and Young Pioneer camps were, and who wrote letters in 1941 make me think somethig is wrong with "official" (dr. Goebbels's) version.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Commissar Pavel Pavlov, when I read your last two posts I could not help reading them with a Russian accent and picturing Nikita Sergeevich Khrushchev using his shoe as a judge's gavel in the UN :D If you don't mind me asking ... did you grow up under Soviet rule or after its fall?
I have told many times that "commissar" is no more then a joke. I only organize parties and meetings and make glintwein ;)
I was born in 1972, was a memner of Comsomol until it was disbanded in 1989 when I was in college. I grew up in Soviet times. Till I was 15 I believed all Communist ideology, then, till I was maybe 22 I believed in Western "democratic" values, now I just want to be left alone and feel great disappointment with any ideology that I met.
My view on history is my own problem. I am sick of Western propaganda, especially it's view on Soviet Union, that is based on works of dr. Goebbels, so when I see two different views on one event - I choose Soviet one, if it doesn't contradict with common sence.
The Dresden bombing is a very difficult thing to judge about. As someone said - 44% of plane crews didn't come back, and I take my hat off for their sacrifice. It was a mission against our enemy, the enemy of all Allied nations. War is a horrible thing, and such things happen. And IMHO we can't judge the reasons for the actions of our allies. What I told you is a "neo-patriotic" version that is popular now, but was never mentioned by Soviet propaganda.
-
Katyn Forest (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/1791/)
In 1989, with the collapse of Soviet Power, Gorbachev finally admitted that the Soviet NKVD had executed the Poles, and confirmed two other burial sites similar to the site at Katyn. Stalin's order of March 1940 to execute by shooting some 25,700 Poles, including those found at the three sites, was also disclosed with the collapse of Soviet Power. This particular second world war slaughter of Poles is often referred to as the "Katyn Massacre" or the "Katyn Forest Massacre".
Like I said, just about everyone in the world not living in your country.... and probably most of those living in your country... know and accept the truth.
You stand as a monument to the Soviet past.
....... but you are entertaining, I'll give you that.
-
In the USA during WWII, the Battle of the Bulge was of very great concern to the average American. Many felt if we lost that battle, we would lose the war with Germany. U-boats routinely patrolled within a mile of the (Atlantic) Florida beach. The coast was littered with sunken ships, some of them visible...sinking 300 yards off the beach. People were very worried about this situation.
I have a hard time with the Dresden "accusation" being leveled at the United States and Great Britain. I cannot speak for Europeans, because they live there and I don't, and possibly see it differently than I do. However, I will not abide an American citizen using Dresden to put down the US and UK. Typically, imho those (American citizens) who attempt this, are college professors, safe and smug in their ivory tower.
As terrible as the bombing of Dresden was, I have to ask, what purpose is gained by denigrating the valiant bomber crews who went and did it? It is absolutely reprehensible to call airplane bombing "murder." It was war.
Les
-
Grettings Comrade Boroda!
I don't think that an average American, fed by state and corporate propaganda, is responsible for all acts of agression and mass murder committed by US regime in past 50 years.
How quaint. I'm pardoned for my sins in uniform by a commie sypathiser. Thanks, but yer many years too late.. Jane Fonda already did that for us.
I have told many times that "commissar" is no more then a joke. I only organize parties and meetings and make glintwein
LOL! Whotta tool! You mean you enjoy playing the drunken commie buffoon for your russian mafia socialite pinhead pals. ;)
I was born in 1972, was a memner of Comsomol until it was disbanded in 1989 when I was in college. I grew up in Soviet times. Till I was 15 I believed all Communist ideology, then, till I was maybe 22 I believed in Western "democratic" values, now I just want to be left alone and feel great disappointment with any ideology that I met.
I was playing marco polo with the little people in the land of bad things before you were born... and despite that eyeopening experience, I'd already figured out that your amazinhunks were worse than my amazinhunks without any assistance from the ideological REMF's that populated the place. Possibly, since I never had to suffer with your internal grief and torment from hopping over to the other side of the fence ideologicly; my less than sympathetic reaction to your being cast adrift in your own sea of self pity could be considered reasonable.
Or not. ;)
I am sick of Western propaganda, especially it's view on Soviet Union, that is based on works of dr. Goebbels, so when I see two different views on one event - I choose Soviet one, if it doesn't contradict with common sence.
ROFL! I repeat... Whotta TOOL!
I swear, for a guy that bemoans the spin doctors of the west; you sure got a fast hand on that commie propaganda record player. Common sense??? Your commentary; while common for the soviet politeriat, displays a truly grandioise lack of sense.
The Dresden bombing is a very difficult thing to judge about. .
Judge?? "Judge".. WTF? Whats to 'Judge' about Dresden?? It was a war. The city got scrubbed.. much like London in 1940, Cologne, Hamburg, Berlin, Tokyo, Yokohama, Nagasaki and Hiroshima a little later on. Makes not a whit of diffrence what device was used to render them so... it was 'total' war. We won.. the Axis lost.
I'd rather judge your precious Soviet Government.. the one that was in FACT a Regime... the one that murdered millions of ukranians, white russinins, uzbecks, tartars, poles, slavs; etc.. the soviet government that finally collapsed on the economic rubble of it's morally and financialy bankrupt ideology of hate and disinformation. Try this litmus test of ideologly... if the American Government were to collapse tomorrow, how many stories about the slaughter of millions of our own citizens, bulldozed into mass graves will emerge?
Wake up and smell the Samavar, Boroda. Your selfless defense of a bunch of murdering toejamhead commies with bones stashed in their closets ain't gonna win yah any sympathy points here in the west.
BTW.. hows the weather in Moscow this winter?.. we're taking a pounding up here in the Eastern US. It's kinda what I expect Sibera looks like... except for the abundance of teeth, clothes, jobs, food, fuel, electricity and decadent recreational drugs that is...
;)
-
Hang's BACK!
-
BTW.. hows the weather in Moscow this winter?.. we're taking a pounding up here in the Eastern US. It's kinda what I expect Sibera looks like... except for the abundance of teeth, clothes, jobs, food, fuel, electricity and decadent recreational drugs that is...
A bit harsh. My visit to Russia in 1990 as a kid is probably one of the most influencial experiences of my life to date (the others were a lot closer to home ;)). The Russians are a great people and deserve all the help we can give them to become a modern democratic society.
-
So I could spend time with my granfather (25years). The same reason for at least 2-3million grandfathers, etc.
Karaya2
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Our government is of the people, for the people. As such, the people are responsible. Trust me on this one, okay :)
Whew! And I thought it was about special interest groups, lobbiest and big business.
-
thrawn... that's because your.... well.... Canadian.
lazs
-
The Russians are a great people and deserve all the help we can give them to become a modern democratic society.
Last time I checked, we were the largest single contributor in just that endeavor. Boroda, on the other hand, deserves the pencil whippin. ;)
-
Originally posted by Leslie
In the USA during WWII, the Battle of the Bulge was of very great concern to the average American. Many felt if we lost that battle, we would lose the war with Germany. U-boats routinely patrolled within a mile of the (Atlantic) Florida beach. The coast was littered with sunken ships, some of them visible...sinking 300 yards off the beach. People were very worried about this situation.
I have a hard time with the Dresden "accusation" being leveled at the United States and Great Britain. I cannot speak for Europeans, because they live there and I don't, and possibly see it differently than I do. However, I will not abide an American citizen using Dresden to put down the US and UK. Typically, imho those (American citizens) who attempt this, are college professors, safe and smug in their ivory tower.
As terrible as the bombing of Dresden was, I have to ask, what purpose is gained by denigrating the valiant bomber crews who went and did it? It is absolutely reprehensible to call airplane bombing "murder." It was war.
Les
If they had walked through dresden with entreching tools and beaten 50-60 000 people to death would it be clearer to you.
There is morally no difference.
-
this is absurd! Nothin in the course of all human history points to a change in attitude between nations involved in total war.. a nation will use whatever comes to hand to win.. just as you would be expected to do when fighting for your own life. Had the Japanese had the bomb and not us, do you think they would have hesitated a moment to use it? Or Hitler? Or Mussolini? Or Stalin?
Matters not a bit if man uses a stone axe or an a-bomb to destroy the inhabitants of a city.. war is war.
Bomber Harris or Patton or Bull Halsey or Curtis Lemay as well as any number of other generals all held similar beliefs.. the only beliefs possible under the circumstances.. the only good enemy is a dead enemy. Attacking civilians? no such thing as a 'civilian' in their minds.
In total war, 'Total Destruction' of the enemys war-fighting capability precludes deciding that 'civilians' are untouchable.. 'civilians' staff war plants, give succor and medical aid to their soldiers, provide and transport his food, create the infrastructure upon which the soldiers government provides the means for his warfighting ability.
The wife working in the war plant back home is his reason for fighting in the first place. Put the civilian on the target list, you undermine and weaken the enemys ability and will to fight. History has proven these Generals right.
Thats what it means in this world to be involved in a 'total war'. You are likely to be 'totally' anniliated. Which is why no nation on this planet that is in possesion of nuclear weapons has been succesfuly threatened with 'total war' since the end of WWII.
Again.. the flash over hiroshima sent the message..
"World Peace...
..or ELSE."
Judge the Generals that ordered Dresden, Hamburg, Cologne, Berlin or London destroyed 'Murderers'? Not unless you can hang the same monicker on Rosie The Riveter.. she didn't build B-17's and B-29's for the St Pats day parade, pal. Every freakin one of 'em knew what was going into those planes and what they'd be used for. When VE and VJ day rolled around the crying in the streets was not for german or japanese civilians.
-
Its interesting to imagine the RAF having nukes in 1943.
How many german cities would they have had to nuke befor the germans packed it in.
I dont know. But I am certain Bomber Harris would have nuked as many as it took.
-
It's interesting but change any of the major things in our history (Dresden, Holocaust, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Bataan Death March, etc.) and those of us conceived after the war probably wouldn't be here (that unique one and only sperm and one egg that makes us happens only once and during that exact time). Like it or not, what happens in history molds our future. All we can hope is to learn from our past and not repeat our mistakes.
-
Toad..nice replies:
The US is trying to diffuse the situation between India and Pakistan, granted. But the issue still remains.
Its the double standards that Helps cause discord amongst those looking in.
You are right...Israel is another issue for another thread.
If the US government wants to go after any Nation that Harbours terrorists and endanger World Peace, they cant allow their friends the right to do so.
That is My main point. By allowing Double standards, The Muslim World is going to resist, Or, side and fight with its own.
GB's Gov is stating that Iraq has violated or ignored x # of UN resolutions. Well? So has its allies.
I cannot help but think that GB's Gov policies, as regards Iraq, Have nothing to do with WMD. This simply seems to be the desire for a regime change to one friendly to the US.
If the Inspectors find WMD....fine waste the government, and then do the same to the allies that show the same disposition.
-
Just finished "Downfall The fall of the Japanese Empire" By Richard Frank.
Excellent book about this exact topic that all interested parties could at least read for the exaustive study of the Diplomatic and military situation in mid 1945.
-
What about the sons and daughters over in Japan? huh??... We killed innocent lives.... We are not the perfect country everyone thinks we are. We are terroists too. Why did we have to do that.. I mean they should of never did it too us.. but come on shouldnt we be the better person? I maybe a teenager but I know what the hell is going on with this country and we are screwed up. Do you know that we were the first ones to use a nuclear weapon and now we are trying to stop people today. How can we when we did it?. Also we have been thee only ones to use a Nuclear weapon. How does that make us look?.. I think it is sicking. Also we stopped the supplies so Japan couldnt get them thats why they were starved.
bye:confused:
-
(http://www.gilbertv.com/coppermine/albums/09042004/threadresuurection.jpg)
-
Originally posted by singerab88
What about the sons and daughters over in Japan? huh??... We killed innocent lives.... We are not the perfect country everyone thinks we are. We are terroists too. Why did we have to do that.. I mean they should of never did it too us.. but come on shouldnt we be the better person? I maybe a teenager but I know what the hell is going on with this country and we are screwed up. Do you know that we were the first ones to use a nuclear weapon and now we are trying to stop people today. How can we when we did it?. Also we have been thee only ones to use a Nuclear weapon. How does that make us look?.. I think it is sicking. Also we stopped the supplies so Japan couldnt get them thats why they were starved.
bye:confused:
I'm glad someone registered and found this year and a half old thread to post that enlightening response. It all makes sense now. Thank you.
-
The term "chowderhead" first sprang to mind, but then I saw the age reference.
Ah, youth.
-
The damage that was done to Japan with the atomic bombs is miniscule compared to the damage we did to japan with conventional bombs.
Also I find it amusing when I hear of japanese protesting the enola gay exhibit, or decrying the barbarous use of the atomic bombs. One shouldn't forget japan murdered more civilians than any other country including nazi germany. Japan killed 20 million chinese civilians.
They attacked our country, we incinerated their country. I think that set a good precedent. The Japanese navy hasn't fired a shot at anything american in 60 years, I'd say we got our money's worth.
-
Good and bad
I defined these terms
Quite clear no doubt somehow.
Ah but I was so much older then,
I'm younger than that now.
Mr. Dylan.
-
What nation in WWII would have acted the most responsibly with atomic weapons?
Does anyone think that Germany, Japan or Russia would not have used them? Where is the outrage at the German and Japanse massacres?
It's just a good thing for the world that the US was the only country that had them.
-
Originally posted by singerab88
What about the sons and daughters over in Japan? huh??... We killed innocent lives.... We are not the perfect country everyone thinks we are. We are terroists too. Why did we have to do that.. I mean they should of never did it too us.. but come on shouldnt we be the better person? I maybe a teenager but I know what the hell is going on with this country and we are screwed up. Do you know that we were the first ones to use a nuclear weapon and now we are trying to stop people today. How can we when we did it?. Also we have been thee only ones to use a Nuclear weapon. How does that make us look?.. I think it is sicking. Also we stopped the supplies so Japan couldnt get them thats why they were starved.
bye:confused:
My grandpa listened during the night as his captured squad mates screamed during torture on Iwo Jima, the next day they moved forward and found them crucified with their genitals stuffed in thier mouths.
Ask the chinese people how friendly the japanese were in Nanking.. More chinese were butchered in China then the deaths by both bomb drops accomplished.
RapeofNanking (http://www.tribo.org/nanking/)
Take your pre-school understanding of the 1940's back to your liberal 4th grade teacher and tell them to explain both sides of the story before you wave your america is evil banner "princess"
IKON
-
Originally posted by NUKE
It's just a good thing for the world that the US was the only country that had them.
Yeah, because if say the Kiwis had them it would have been armageddon. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by singerab88
What about the sons and daughters over in Japan? huh??... We killed innocent lives.... We are not the perfect country everyone thinks we are. We are terroists too. Why did we have to do that.. I mean they should of never did it too us.. but come on shouldnt we be the better person? I maybe a teenager but I know what the hell is going on with this country and we are screwed up. Do you know that we were the first ones to use a nuclear weapon and now we are trying to stop people today. How can we when we did it?. Also we have been thee only ones to use a Nuclear weapon. How does that make us look?.. I think it is sicking. Also we stopped the supplies so Japan couldnt get them thats why they were starved.
bye:confused:
If the Japanese or Germans had had nuclear weapons first, you probably wouldn't be alive and posting on this American made internet today.
We bombed Japan into hell and gone, as well we should have. Now they make toys for us and everyone is happy.
-
Originally posted by ramzey
Hazed im sure german would use A-bomb against everyone who stand on his way.
Imho 1 bomb was enough, secound needless cywilian casulties. For politcal effect only.
only that words scary me
Us troops was very close to enter japan, no wonder they are defend to death. Possibly US do same things if japs enter north america, sucrifice yourself to defend homeland.
Every country do same things if not have place to step back and regoup to counterattack.
Japs dont have place to escape and come back.
I supose , u do sam things if german would win war in europe. And axis start invade america
Are u not?
For many ppls situation with iraq looks similar like with japan in 40's
Make country desperated, show as evil, push them to attack us, win war and liberate.
On whole world we dont have saint countries and his govermants accros history.
many years ago in shool /in comunistic times/ we have "civil defense" lessions. In book was write about wars.
Book show 2 kines of war "fair" and "not fair"
"fair" when somone invade other country, and u defend yourself
"not fair" when one country attack other, who not invade them on any field
donno how u name war against iraq
dont think im pro iraq, or anti american,
But i really dont see reason to use a-bomb against civil people, same not see reason to war with iraq. And scenario of both looks similar for me
ramzey
So the evil American Empire "forced" Japan to invade
Manchuria in 1936 huh? The US embargoed oil and raw materials
to Japan because the civil government could not control their
military hotheads, but nice try on blaming the US for it.
-
Actions of the United States government definately played a role in motivating the Japanese government to do really stupid things. But the larger question remains, did the actions of the Japanese government motivate the government of the United States to take action that motivated the Japanese government to do really stupid things?
You see where this goes?
Lets play this game....war sucks and people die and things get broken. If your going to fight, then fight to win or dont fight at all.
If everyone obeyed this rule there would be no war. That being said, destroy facist islam with malice and without remorse and the sooner the better....... or just go commit suicide and save everyone the trouble.
As far as Im concerned once facist islam gets the "bomb" then the world is over.
-
I didn't read all these posts but many of them make sense and reflect my feelings on the subject.
I'd like to add, anyone who has sympathy for the Japanese for having these two weapons deployed on their cities to do some research on the rape of nanking.
I'd like to share a story of a discussion that I had the other day that has a lot to do with this. During the normal course of talk on Iraq, the first reports that there were soldiers refusing a combat assignment involving a resupply mission (Hang them, or let the boys who didn't get their fuel/food/ammo on time tape a grenade to them) there was a talk of 'nuke the middle east' made in a very light tone by someone I know. Someone who felt strongly anti-nuclear weapon (I'd un-invent them if I could, don't get me wrong) and mentioned Japan. They spoke of those poor innocent civilians and how only a few radical leaders (I wasn't aware that Japan had a congress, just to give insight to this person's mind) spurred the war on.
This really lit the fire for me. I asked him if he'd heard about the rape of Nanking. "Do you mean Martin Luther King's wife?" OH BOY! I proclaimed to myself. I spoke to him about some of the events that happened there in the late '30s. Chinese men tied to a post and used for bayonet practice. Chinese women tied up and raped, repeatedly. Chinese girls as young as a few years the same. Burying hundreds of people at a time up to their heads in a field, and running them over with trucks. Live target practice. Officers, whom in military circles are by default defined as gentlemen, would see fit to behead a civilian on his knees. One of the most inspirational things I've heard is a survival story told firsthand, of a man on his knees before a Japanese colonel (or equivilant) about to be beheaded. He disgraced the colonel by turning to him and speaking (translated, and to the best of my memory) "I accept my fate, but be prepared to accept yours when the gods have their revenge."
When I told him that there is much more to it than those, he should educate himself on prewar atrocities committed by the Japanese on the Chinese before he spoke of their inherent status of innocent.
My grandmother's brother is entombed in the Arizona. We think he was an ammunition loader for the big guns.
My grandfather on my mother's side was in the 29th Infantry Division as an artillery spotter who landed at Omaha beach. Dog Green sector. If this confuses you, watch the first half hour of Saving Private Ryan and see the little blue and white Yin/Yang symbols on the sleeves of those kids, he was one of them. Wounded twice, sent home on a ship leaving the German port city of Bremen (Dramatized in the movie "Memphis Belle").
Grandfather on the Father's side was in the 28th infantry division. If you have never heard of the Hurtgen Forest, do some reading. Winter '44, just before the Battle of the Bulge, in which he also fought attached to another infantry unit after being wounded in the first days of fighting in the Hurtgen.
Great Uncle (Called him Grandpa anyway) also on mother's side was Headquarters company, 506th PIR, 101AB Div. Combat jumps during Overlord and Market Garden. Wounded twice in Normandy. A friend of his from Camp Toccoa wrote in his book Parachute Infantry (David Kenyon Webster, you may recognize the name from Band of Brothers...same man) that in order to make a country not want war, you must show the true face of war to the citizens of that country. Meaning, if the battle is in a far off field, the citizens do not feel the effects. If stray artillery shells level your house in a flash and bang, you will be less inclined to want to see the face of war ever again and do you all you can to see to it.
Great Uncle finished the war flying F4U Corsairs after joining the service in '38 and working as a mechanic. Flew with VMF-223, I had the honor of flying in his same flight during an Air Warrior scenario, which was a real neat experience for me. Two probable air-to-air victories. 4 planes destroyed on the ground. Bailed out and rescued by a Navy PBY just inside our lines after losing nearly half his remaining fuel after being shot up.
I don't think I'd get a different answer from any of these men, none of whom are alive now, that that of dropping the atomic bomb was the right decision and during war, its you or the other guy. You do all you can to make sure it's the other guy. Patton said something to that effect I believe. Anyway, during war the rules get thrown out the window because the only thing everyone can agree on is they want it to end.
As I mentioned, we should have dropped the bombs. We did drop the bombs. F*** anyone who says otherwise because they are a bleeding heart tree hugger who is attempting to make up for an insufficent fallice by waving their pretty rainbow flag in the name of what they think is righteous.
-
how can someone excuse the use of an atomic bomb against civilians?
and why 2 Citys ??? its a sad human tragedy.
****** wars.
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
how can someone excuse the use of an atomic bomb against civilians?
and why 2 Citys ??? its a sad human tragedy.
****** wars.
Agreed. Instead of 200,000 dying rather quickly in the nuke attacks any true humaniatarian would have preffered an invasion of Japan where millions of JAPANESE military and civilan men, women, and children would instead have been:
Shot to death
Bayonaeted to death
Throats slit in vicious hand to hand fighting
Suffocated to death in basements due to continued conventinal bombing
Slowly burned to death in bomb raids
Crushed by tank tracks
Crushed by destroyed buildings
Blown up by tank guns
Shredded by shrapnel
Decapitated by shrapnel
Killled by artillery
Disfigured by artilerry
Burned to death by flamethrower
Burned to death by flamethrower while hidning in cave
Blown up by mines
Throw selves off cliff to avoid moster americans
Blow selves up with hand grenades
starved to death
Strafed by aircraft
Died from uncontrolled wound infections
Etc etc etc...
And I havent even covered the many neat and creative ways American and allied soldiers would have died in the invasion. All this in their hundreds of thousands...
So millions of dead Japanese, hundreds of thousands of dead Allies all killed together in a glourious 1000 times bigger version of Iwo Jima and Okinawa that the invasion of the main Japanese islands was to be!!! Of course thats better than two nukes that ended the war immediately...
What monsters the USA was in wanting to end the war quickly when such great fun could still be had on top of the 50,000,000 who allready died during the years long war... To think, millions more could have been killed the good old fasioned way, but the USA chose to step in, show off its fancy new weapons like some cowboy and stop the fun of WW2 after only killing 200,000 more people.... TskTsk...
The monsters!!! Stopping the bloody invasion of Japan proper was the greatest warcrime ever commited!!!
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I find it rather distastefull that after all the crying over 9/11's 2800 dead, some Americans still feel that the mass murder of 135 000 - 250 000 people at Dresden was "nessesary" and a "good thing".
GS,
I lost 3 friends on 9/11 - so I mean this in the most respectful way: go **** yrself.
Don't ever compare to something you have no experience with personally.
Wolf
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
how can someone excuse the use of an atomic bomb against civilians?
and why 2 Citys ??? its a sad human tragedy.
****** wars.
Both of your question have been answered in this thread. Why didn't you read the thread before replying here?
-
Originally posted by Suave
The damage that was done to Japan with the atomic bombs is miniscule compared to the damage we did to japan with conventional bombs.
.
Exactly...
I read this book, forget the name, but it was written by LeMay, back in the 80's. March of 1944, 100,000 Japanese civilians were killed in fire bombings, more than died in the Hiroshima atomic bombing. Total fire bombings of Japanese cities estimiate killed are at about 170,000. This is miniscule if you compare the Chinese deaths under Japan control. The Japanese in China were employing a burnt earth policy to control the huge areas their forces could not patrol, causing hunger death and other enormous sufferings to many millions of people. Some estimates are 20 million or more dead from the aforementioned.
-
Actually, we killed 100,000 bombing tokyo in one night. We basically did a "dresden" on all of their cities. There is a documentary which is an interview with MacNamara in which he talks about the firebombing of japanese cities. It's called "Fog of War".
-
the longer it takes to subdue the mad dog countries like japan and germany of the 40's the more people that die in the manners that grun has described... plus... in the case of at least germany there is systematic torture, slave labor and genocide on a grand scale. I am sorry but a people that support that mad regime must be stopped. the sooner it happens the better for everyone.
We could continue to fire bomb japan and then invade... causeing a million or so extra grisly deaths and prolong the suffering and misery of most of the world for another year or two but..
forutunately we had the atomic bomb and the worlds suffering was cut short.
lazs
-
atrocities arent reason nuke was used and shouldnt be. thats second grade playground thinking. dont think for a second i wouldnt love to carve up the carvers when it comes to atrocities but thats separate from using a nuke. civilians in japan were screwed no matter what. allies wait they starve. allies go in and invade they either charge to their death or kill themselves after allies win just like civilians did on okinawa. not from warrior sepukku but because japs convinced their civilians that allies were going to rape torture then kill them. jap culture at time made it so all to many civvies believed this. pretty amazing if you think about it. sadaam couldnt accomplish that with his people. if you look at how loyal japanese people were to emperor and how much they believe in him very impressive. nukes being used was way least civvies would be killed. i dont think for a second thats why the cic used them. he used them because he wasnt willing to lose the number of allied lives he was told would be lost if japan was invaded like all the other islands. got to tell you i dont know if i could make same call. someone tells me that its guranteed im burning up a hundred thousand women and kids i dont know if i could do it. but nobody here especially the highschool kid has the same information before them the cic did. no one was or has led a nation in time of war. and no one has had the weight put on their shoulders the cic did. no other national leader in history even. not one has ever been given option of totally destroy a city or lose "a million" of your and your allies men. anyone that says they know what theyd do and it would be same call is lying to themselves. and you cant ignore jap leaders. they knew there was no way to win. they were willing to sacrifice the lives of the people they meant to protect to maintain some sick sense of what they errantly thought was "honor". "our civilians will fight to the death while i sit in my office with my sword and day after day look at maps that show i have no cohesive units left to command". how brave. an accountant who somehow thinks that somewhere along the way he "just became" a samurai.
-
ramzey im reading a couple of books on world war two right now. america was not only country who embargo against japan. english, dutch, and several others joined in also. and it was done in response to japan not abiding by naval treaty japan signed and also japans activities in china.
-
Originally posted by Suave
Both of your question have been answered in this thread.
sorry what answere?
its simply my believe, using WMD against civilians cant be the right thing! no matter what country.
what answere do you need more Suave?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Agreed. Instead of 200,000 dying rather quickly in the nuke attacks any true humaniatarian would have preffered an invasion of Japan where millions of JAPANESE military and civilan men, women, and children would instead have been:
Shot to death
Bayonaeted to death
Throats slit in vicious hand to hand fighting
Suffocated to death in basements due to continued conventinal bombing
Slowly burned to death in bomb raids
Crushed by tank tracks
Crushed by destroyed buildings
Blown up by tank guns
Shredded by shrapnel
Decapitated by shrapnel
Killled by artillery
Disfigured by artilerry
Burned to death by flamethrower
Burned to death by flamethrower while hidning in cave
Blown up by mines
Throw selves off cliff to avoid moster americans
Blow selves up with hand grenades
starved to death
Strafed by aircraft
Died from uncontrolled wound infections
Etc etc etc...
And I havent even covered the many neat and creative ways American and allied soldiers would have died in the invasion. All this in their hundreds of thousands...
So millions of dead Japanese, hundreds of thousands of dead Allies all killed together in a glourious 1000 times bigger version of Iwo Jima and Okinawa that the invasion of the main Japanese islands was to be!!! Of course thats better than two nukes that ended the war immediately...
What monsters the USA was in wanting to end the war quickly when such great fun could still be had on top of the 50,000,000 who allready died during the years long war... To think, millions more could have been killed the good old fasioned way, but the USA chose to step in, show off its fancy new weapons like some cowboy and stop the fun of WW2 after only killing 200,000 more people.... TskTsk...
The monsters!!! Stopping the bloody invasion of Japan proper was the greatest warcrime ever commited!!!
for a second i thought i saw Grunherz posting Ghandi pictures on this forum
not long ago...
...err must be a different one.
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
sorry what answere?
its simply my believe, using WMD against civilians cant be the right thing! no matter what country.
what answere do you need more Suave?
Here's my analogy on your opinion.
Based on your country location I could say go F*** yourself you Nazi Bas***d. It wouldn't mean I was correct in my hypothetical assumption in referring to you as a Nazi. Simply put, its how wrong you are about your thinking.
Get out of your plastic bubble, put down your rainbow coalition flag, let go of the tree and take the flower out of your butt.
If you'd like to bicker about how paying the price of two cities saved the country and try your hot air revisionist beliefs that are based on...I don't know what. Then lets talk genocide. Are you proud of the many millions of Jews, Gypsies and 'Unwanteds' that Deutschland forced from their homes, into ghettos, onto trains, into camps and into the showers before they made it to the gas furnace?
You'll need more than a 70mph fastball to play in the big leagues here, sport. I just took you yard.
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
sorry what answere?
its simply my believe, using WMD against civilians cant be the right thing! no matter what country.
what answere do you need more Suave?
I'd prefer to nuke 100,000 Germans, Japanese, or Iraqi's than lose 1 American soldier.
-
Golfer, this is not a game i just telled my believe,
but you call me a Nazi, no problem i forgive you.
Martlet your believe is a dead end.
why should 1 life count more then 100000 ?
-
You can't grace me with forgiveness for something I didn't do. Hypothetical assumption was the phrased I used. I've been to Germany and haven't met any Nazis. So come off your horse of many colors.
Now I'm really calling you a ********.
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
Golfer, this is not a game i just telled my believe,
but you call me a Nazi, no problem i forgive you.
Martlet your believe is a dead end.
why should 1 life count more then 100000 ?
Because it's an American life. 1 American life is worth more to me than 100,000 German lives.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Because it's an American life. 1 American life is worth more to me than 100,000 German lives.
Amen to that. And Ghost feels the same way for Germany, if not he's either a liar or lacks any semblance of loyalty.
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
for a second i thought i saw Grunherz posting Ghandi pictures on this forum
not long ago...
...err must be a different one.
Whay ghosth? Have you no answer but that? You asked how the nuke attacks were justified, and I answerd by giving you an idea of the alternative - what the invasion of Japan would hav e been like..
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
sorry what answere?
its simply my believe, using WMD against civilians cant be the right thing! no matter what country.
So in your opinion its better that several million Japanese be killed and wounded with traditional weapons in an invasion of Japan rather than 200,000 in the two attacks?
Becqause this is exactly what yiou are saying when yiu oppose the nuke attacks - attacks which stopped the war and made an invasion uneccesary..
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Because it's an American life. 1 American life is worth more to me than 100,000 German lives.
i cannot believe you think that.
-
Originally posted by Golfer
Amen to that. And Ghost feels the same way for Germany, if not he's either a liar or lacks any semblance of loyalty.
loyalty has nothing to do with what you guys are talking about.
-
Originally posted by anonymous
i cannot believe you think that.
Believe it. I would rather have nuked every city in Germany until they surrendered than lost 1 American life in WWII.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
So in your opinion its better that several million Japanese be killed and wounded with traditional weapons in an invasion of Japan rather than 200,000 in the two attacks?
No Grunherz,
the atomic bomb was ready anyway,
Its about the target(s) what where choosed to show the power of destruction.
We cant change the past, i just hope our generation learns something from that past time.
this discussion ends for me right here ->.
R
Gh0stFT
-
Nuke said ( a while back )
If the Japanese or Germans had had nuclear weapons first, you probably wouldn't be alive and posting on this American made internet today.
I may be wrong but I think some british boffin invented the concept of an internet here in cambridge. You guys just made it work better! lol :confused:
-
The plan to invade Japan was shelved on the afternoon of August 6, 1945. Starting on August 9th the plan changed to one of atomic bombardment, one city at a time, until either Japan surrendered unconditionally or ceased to exist as a civilization.
The Japanese played it smart. They surrendered unconditionally.
-
Was there not ONE condition to the surender? That the Emperor would not be prescuted for war crimes?
-
Originally posted by Tinpot
I may be wrong but I think some british boffin invented the concept of an internet here in cambridge. You guys just made it work better! lol :confused: [/B]
Not quite. The internet was created by DARPA in the late 1960's in the US. Tim Berners Lee created the world wide web (which is something that lives on top of the internet, but is not the internet itself) while working at CERN in Switzerland. Is that what you're talking about?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Not quite. The internet was created by DARPA in the late 1960's in the US. Tim Berners Lee created the world wide web (which is something that lives on top of the internet, but is not the internet itself) while working at CERN in Switzerland. Is that what you're talking about?
I remember telnet, newsgroups, Pine Mail servers... before the http://WWW.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Believe it. I would rather have nuked every city in Germany until they surrendered than lost 1 American life in WWII.
sorry i dont. if you were the man and it was your call to nuke every city in germany rather than commit us forces to combat i dont believe youd go for the nukes. if you really believe that all i can say is youre evil and if theres a hell below theres a seat waiting for you.
-
Originally posted by anonymous
sorry i dont. if you were the man and it was your call to nuke every city in germany rather than commit us forces to combat i dont believe youd go for the nukes. if you really believe that all i can say is youre evil and if theres a hell below theres a seat waiting for you.
If I were POTUS I'd have nuked the entire country before I'd commit troops to combat. If you'd kill troops you're sworn to protect when you had other options you're a fraud.
Thanks for your religious judgement though, God.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Thanks for your religious judgement though, God.
anytime, nationalistic sociopath. also ive been in combat more than once and i dont recall the boys *****ing that the cic failed in his oath to protect us. probably because such a promise never existed. as far as warfare and the military go id say your living in lala land.
-
All wars end Martlet.
The nation-state that you nuke today would have been be your ally tommorow, thats the lesson of history. You utterly destroy nations you are at war with at your peril. The reasons should be obvious enough.
Wars are fought to decide political and economic issues that were not able to be decided peacefully, they are not intended (at least not on the modern world) to completely destroy your enemy, their land, and all their people. If that was the case, the USN would have fired enough Tridents to make Iraq a flat, glass plateau, but they didn't do that. Ask why. There is a reason that despite the proliferation of nuclear weapons since 1945 nobody has used them, because in the end, they go against the long term aims of the user.
-
Originally posted by anonymous
as far as warfare and the military go id say your living in lala land.
I'd say you talk a lot of crap without knowing the background of the person you're talking to.
i dont recall the boys *****ing that the cic failed in his oath to protect us.
That's because the "boys" don't cry like you do. They do their job.
-
Originally posted by Squire
All wars end Martlet.
The nation-state that you nuke today would have been be your ally tommorow, thats the lesson of history. You utterly destroy nations you are at war with at your peril. The reasons should be obvious enough.
Wars are fought to decide political and economic issues that were not able to be decided peacefully, they are not intended (at least not on the modern world) to completely destroy your enemy, their land, and all their people. If that was the case, the USN would have fired enough Tridents to make Iraq a flat, glass plateau, but they didn't do that. Ask why. There is a reason that despite the proliferation of nuclear weapons since 1945 nobody has used them, because in the end, they go against the long term aims of the user.
The end result doesn't have to be complete destruction. That's up to them. Unconditional surrender is acceptable.
-
"I'd say you talk a lot of crap without knowing the background of the person you're talking to."
Martlet, have you ever been in the military and/or combat?
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
"I'd say you talk a lot of crap without knowing the background of the person you're talking to."
Martlet, have you ever been in the military and/or combat?
Yes, on both counts. I just don't think you need to crow about it every chance you get. I have doubts about those who do.
-
Thank you for your prompt response.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
That's because the "boys" don't cry like you do. They do their job.
how is pointing out that youre morally deficient crying? "they do their job"? id say you dont have any idea what it means to be a warrior. "id nuke every city before i lost one soldier!" yeah those sure are the words of a cool, level headed professional. you mentioned crying id say the overly emotional one is you. enlighten me with regards to your "life" tough guy. explain what possible background could make nuking civvies the first option a defensible policy.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Yes, on both counts. I just don't think you need to crow about it every chance you get. I have doubts about those who do.
well if you want to nuke every city in germany before the first shot on the ground is fired it sounds like you were awfully skeered by your experiences. i guess we differ if i were told "the ops a no go were going to nuke the city instead to make sure we get them all" id be a little uncomfortable regarding the sanity of the guys making the call.
-
Originally posted by anonymous
how is pointing out that youre morally deficient crying? "they do their job"? id say you dont have any idea what it means to be a warrior. "id nuke every city before i lost one soldier!" yeah those sure are the words of a cool, level headed professional. you mentioned crying id say the overly emotional one is you. enlighten me with regards to your "life" tough guy. explain what possible background could make nuking civvies the first option a defensible policy.
This is like talking to my niece.
"tough guy" heheh :aok :aok :aok
Those are the words of a person who values the lives of his men and doesn't toss them into the meat grinder when there are other options. I never said nuking cities would be the first one, either. Obviously reading isn't your strong suit.
My responsibility, first and foremost, is to the US of A. Period. Not Iraq. Not Germany. USA. If the USA is threatened, I'd take steps to remove that threat with absolute minimal loss of American life. If that required using nukes, I'd use them. Today, you don't have to use nukes. We have plenty of weapons at our disposal.
Losing troops in Fallujah? Not on my watch. MOAB.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
This is like talking to my niece.
"tough guy" heheh :aok :aok :aok
Those are the words of a person who values the lives of his men and doesn't toss them into the meat grinder when there are other options. I never said nuking cities would be the first one, either. Obviously reading isn't your strong suit.
My responsibility, first and foremost, is to the US of A. Period. Not Iraq. Not Germany. USA. If the USA is threatened, I'd take steps to remove that threat with absolute minimal loss of American life. If that required using nukes, I'd use them. Today, you don't have to use nukes. We have plenty of weapons at our disposal.
Losing troops in Fallujah? Not on my watch. MOAB.
i guess theres no seeing eye to eye on this one with you. if someone told me that instead of hunting insurgents in a city we were going to pop the moab id say "what?" and i dont think id be the only one. you say reading isny my strong suit i think youre spinning things to hide your sociopathy. "1 American life is worth more to me than 100,000 German lives" is pretty hard to misinterpret. swap the nationalities around a little and youll find you share views with a group that world considers to be evil.
having said all that, the skeered comment was out of line. i apologize. i think youre at least a little crazy but anger could have caused it as easily as fear.
-
Both the US and Japanese committed terrible acts,,,,,,,read the book "FLYBOYS"
Bingo
-
Discussing the issue of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is not unlike the issue of history books prepared for consumption by the youth of a nation - there is always a great divide between truth and myth. All nations and governments twist the truth intentionally and unintentionally.
This will be a long winded but informative historical reality check. It is worth a few minutes reading time. My intent is not to be provocative, but rather to provoke thought.
--------
Contrary to opinion today, many military leaders of the time -- including six out of seven five-star officers -- criticized the use of the atomic bomb.
Take, for example, Admiral William Leahy, White House chief of staff and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the war. Leahy wrote in his 1950 memoirs that "the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender." Moreover, Leahy continued, "in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."
President Dwight Eisenhower, the Allied commander in Europe during World War II, recalled in 1963, as he did on several other occasions, that he had opposed using the atomic bomb on Japan during a July 1945 meeting with Secretary of War Henry Stimson: "I told him I was against it on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon."
Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, the tough and outspoken commander of the U.S. Third Fleet, which participated in the American offensive against the Japanese home islands in the final months of the war, publicly stated in 1946 that "the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment." The Japanese, he noted, had "put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before" the bomb was used.
General Douglas MacArthur, Commander of US Army forces in the Pacific, stated on numerous occasions before his death that the atomic bomb was completely unnecessary from a military point of view: "My staff was unanimous in believing that Japan was on the point of collapse and surrender."
General Curtis LeMay, who had pioneered precision bombing of Germany and Japan (and who later headed the Strategic Air Command and served as Air Force chief of staff), put it most succinctly: "The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war."
Henry H. ("Hap") Arnold, commanding General of the Army air forces, declared in his 1949 memoirs: "It always appeared to us, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse." This was confirmed by former Japanese prime minister Fumimaro Konoye, who said: "Fundamentally, the thing that brought about the determination to make peace was the prolonged bombing by the B-29s."
Admiral Ernest King, US Chief of Naval Operations, said that "the effective naval blockade would, in the course of time, have starved the Japanese into submission through lack of oil, rice, medicines, and other essential materials."
Lacking the knowledge of these and other leaders, the simplistic and less-knowledgeable tend to support the bomb's use with phrases such as this:
"The United States decision to drop the atom bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved over one million American lives which would have been sacrificed by an invasion of Japan."
Which remains to this day a total fiction.
Not only the figure of "one million", which was gratuituously added in the cover story published later to enhance the much lower figures actually predicted by the War Department had the United States been forced to invade Japan, but even the lower, more accurate estimates, represented a complete fallacy.
"There would have been no casualties in a land invasion of Japan because there would not have been any land invasion of Japan. By mid-May 1945 it was clear to all who wished to see: Japan was on the brink of surrendering."
[The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, by Gar Alperovitz. New York: Alfred Knopf Books, 1995]
"There's no excuse for Pearl Harbor, but it is among the least of the brutalities the Japanese committed. There is the rape of Nanking, the bombing of Shanghai, the brutality against prisoners, the Korean "comfort women," the notorious Unit-731 that did vivisection on prisoners to teach medical students-outrageous things the Japanese have to come to terms with. They have a long way to go. They have come close to expressing sorrow, but not regret.
Pearl Harbor was an unjustified surprise attack, but it was a military target. I think the latest figure is 2,500 people killed. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both civilian targets predominantly-that's why they were targeted. Hiroshima was selected because it was a significant, unblemished, mainly civilian target, available for the psychological effect of terror bombing. That's very explicit in the documents; it's not controversial. That's what they were doing. And ultimately some 300,000 civilians were killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Both Pearl Harbor and the atomic bombings were wrong. They are, however, very different questions. The most important thing about Hiroshima was that it was unnecessary, it was at a time when the Japanese were trying to find a way out of the war, and we knew that."
- Noted historian Gar Alperovitz
Japan was a beaten nation by June 1945. Almost nothing was left of the once mighty Imperial Navy, and Japan's air force had been all but totally destroyed. Against only token opposition, American war planes ranged at will over the country, and US bombers rained down devastation on her cities, steadily reducing them to rubble.
What was left of Japan's factories and workshops struggled fitfully to turn out weapons and other goods from inadequate raw materials. (Oil supplies had not been available since April.) By July about a quarter of all the houses in Japan had been destroyed, and her transportation system was near collapse. Food had become so scarce that most Japanese were subsisting on a sub-starvation diet.
On the night of March 9, 1945, 300 American bombers struck Tokyo, killing 100,000 people. A million residents were left homeless.
On May 23, eleven weeks later, came the greatest air raid of the Pacific War, when 520 B-29 bombers unleashed 4,500 tons of incendiary bombs on the heart of the already battered Japanese capital. Generating gale-force winds, the exploding incendiaries obliterated Tokyo's commercial center and railway yards, and consumed the Ginza entertainment district. Two days later, on May 25, a second strike of 502 "Superfortress" planes roared low over Tokyo, raining down some 4,000 tons of explosives. Together these two B-29 raids destroyed 56 square miles of the Japanese capital.
The two atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were icing on the cake, and did not do as much damage as the firebombings of Japanese cities. The B-29 firebombing campaign had brought the destruction of over 3 million homes, leaving 15 million people homeless, and killing about a million people. Read that part again... over a million civilians were killed. It was ruthless targeting of civilians.
Hirohito realized that the Allies would completely destroy Japan and kill every Japanese to achieve "unconditional surrender" and that persuaded him to the decision to end the war. The atomic bomb is indeed a fearsome weapon, but it was not the cause of Japan's surrender, even though the myth persists even to this day.
In mid-April, 1945 the US Joint Intelligence Committee reported that Japanese leaders were looking for a way to modify the surrender terms to end the war. The State Department was convinced the Emperor was actively seeking a way to stop the fighting.
In April and May 1945, Japan made three attempts through neutral Sweden and Portugal to bring the war to a peaceful end. On April 7, acting Foreign Minister Mamoru Shigemitsu met with Swedish ambassador Widon Bagge in Tokyo, asking him "to ascertain what peace terms the United States and Britain had in mind." But he emphasized that unconditional surrender was unacceptable, and that "the Emperor must not be touched." Bagge relayed the message to the United States, but Secretary of State Stettinius told the US Ambassador in Sweden to "show no interest or take any initiative in pursuit of the matter." Similar Japanese peace signals through Portugal, on May 7, and again through Sweden, on the 10th, proved similarly fruitless.
to be continued...
-
A Secret Memorandum
It was only after the war that the American public learned about Japan's efforts to bring the conflict to an end. Chicago Tribune reporter Walter Trohan, for example, was obliged by wartime censorship to withhold for seven months one of the most important stories of the war.
In an article that finally appeared August 19, 1945, on the front pages of the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald, Trohan revealed that on January 20, 1945, two days prior to his departure for the Yalta meeting with Stalin and Churchill, President Roosevelt received a 40-page memorandum from General Douglas MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from high-level Japanese officials.
This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 -- that is, complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor. Specifically, the terms of these peace overtures included:
-Complete surrender of all Japanese forces and arms, at home, on island possessions, and in occupied countries.
-Occupation of Japan and its possessions by Allied troops under American direction.
-Japanese relinquishment of all territory seized during the war, as well as Manchuria, Korea and Taiwan.
-Regulation of Japanese industry to halt production of any weapons and other tools of war.
-Release of all prisoners of war and internees.
-Surrender of designated war criminals.
On June 22, 1945 the Emperor called a meeting of the Supreme War Council, which included the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, and the leading military figures. "We have heard enough of this determination of yours to fight to the last soldiers," said Emperor Hirohito. "We wish that you, leaders of Japan, will strive now to study the ways and the means to conclude the war. In doing so, try not to be bound by the decisions you have made in the past."
On July 17, another intercepted Japanese message revealed that although Japan's leaders felt that the unconditional surrender formula involved an unacceptable dishonor, they were convinced that "the demands of the times" made Soviet mediation to terminate the war absolutely essential. Further diplomatic messages indicated that the only condition asked by the Japanese was preservation of "our form of government." The only "difficult point," a July 25 message disclosed, "is the ... formality of unconditional surrender."
Summarizing the messages between Togo and Sato (Japanese Ambassador to the Soviet Union), US naval intelligence said that Japan's leaders, "though still balking at the term unconditional surrender," recognized that the war was lost, and had reached the point where they have "no objection to the restoration of peace on the basis of the [1941] Atlantic Charter." These messages, said Assistant Secretary of the Navy Lewis Strauss, "indeed stipulated only that the integrity of the Japanese Royal Family be preserved."
Navy Secretary James Forrestal termed the intercepted messages "real evidence of a Japanese desire to get out of the war." "With the interception of these messages," notes historian Alperovitz (p. 177), "there could no longer be any real doubt as to the Japanese intentions; the maneuvers were overt and explicit and, most of all, official acts. Koichi Kido, Japan's Lord Privy Seal and a close advisor to the Emperor, later affirmed: "Our decision to seek a way out of this war, was made in early June before any atomic bomb had been dropped and Russia had not entered the war. It was already our decision."
In spite of this, on July 26 the leaders of the United States and Britain issued the Potsdam declaration, which included this grim ultimatum: "We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces and to provide proper and adequate assurance of good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction."
Commenting on this draconian either-or proclamation, British historian J.F.C. Fuller wrote: "Not a word was said about the Emperor, because it would be unacceptable to the propaganda-fed American masses." (A Military History of the Western World [1987], p. 675.)
America's leaders understood Japan's desperate position: the Japanese were willing to end the war on any terms, as long as the Emperor was not molested. If the US leadership had not insisted on unconditional surrender -- that is, if they had made clear a willingness to permit the Emperor to remain in place -- the Japanese very likely would have surrendered immediately, thus saving many thousands of lives.
The sad irony is that, as it actually turned out, the American leaders decided anyway to retain the Emperor as a symbol of authority and continuity. They realized, correctly, that Hirohito was useful as a figurehead prop for their own occupation authority in postwar Japan.
Some additional statements on the atomic bombings:
JOSEPH GREW
(Under Sec. of State)
"...in the light of available evidence I myself and others felt that if such a categorical statement about the [retention of the] dynasty had been issued in May, 1945, the surrender-minded elements in the [Japanese] Government might well have been afforded by such a statement a valid reason and the necessary strength to come to an early clearcut decision."
JOHN McCLOY
(Assistant Sec. of War)
"I believe we missed the opportunity of effecting a Japanese surrender, completely satisfactory to us, without the necessity of dropping the bombs."
RALPH BARD
(Under Sec. of the Navy)
"In my opinion, the Japanese war was really won before we ever used the atom bomb."
LEWIS STRAUSS
(Special Assistant to the Sec. of the Navy)
"It seemed to me that such a weapon was not necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion, that once used it would find its way into the armaments of the world...".
PAUL NITZE
(Vice Chairman, U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey)
In 1950 Paul Nitze would recommend a massive military buildup, and in the 1980s he was an arms control negotiator in the Reagan administration. In July of 1945 he was assigned the task of writing a strategy for the air attack on Japan. Nitze later wrote:
"While I was working on the new plan of air attack... concluded that even without the atomic bomb, Japan was likely to surrender in a matter of months. My own view was that Japan would capitulate by November 1945."
ELLIS ZACHARIAS
(Deputy Director of the Office of Naval Intelligence)
"Just when the Japanese were ready to capitulate, we went ahead and introduced to the world the most devastating weapon it had ever seen and, in effect, gave the go-ahead to Russia to swarm over Eastern Asia. Washington decided that Japan had been given its chance and now it was time to use the A-bomb. I submit that it was the wrong decision. It was wrong on strategic grounds. And it was wrong on humanitarian grounds."
GENERAL CARL "TOOEY" SPAATZ
(In charge of Air Force operations in the Pacific)
General Spaatz was the person who received the order for the Air Force to "deliver its first special bomb as soon as weather will permit visual bombing after about 3 August 1945.
"The dropping of the atomic bomb was done by a military man under military orders. We're supposed to carry out orders and not question them."
"On the other hand if they knew or were told that no invasion would take place [and] that [conventional] bombing would continue until the surrender, why I think the surrender would have taken place just about the same time."
BRIGADIER GENERAL CARTER CLARKE
(The military intelligence officer in charge of preparing intercepted Japanese cables - the MAGIC summaries - for Truman and his advisors)
"...when we didn't need to do it, and we knew we didn't need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn't need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs."
-
Originally posted by Bingo
Both the US and Japanese committed terrible acts,,,,,,,read the book "FLYBOYS"
Bingo
So the question remains, who started it? The Japanese were in Manchuria as early as 1931...this eventually lead to an oil embargo on Japan.
Peace ensued through superior firepower, which always seems to be the case in war.
-
Rip, please, dont start the cut & paste again!!
Mercy!
;)
-
and rolex... where do we find this one and only true account of what REALLY happened?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Naso
Rip, please, dont start the cut & paste again!!
Mercy!
;)
I understand that some fear facts and data. ;)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
I understand that some fear facts and data. ;)
Expecially when it comes by http://www.itstrue.iswear.fox.gov
:D
Anyway, I unconditionally surrender!
Chit! I am becoming french!
;)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
So the question remains, who started it? The Japanese were in Manchuria as early as 1931...this eventually lead to an oil embargo on Japan.
Peace ensued through superior firepower, which always seems to be the case in war.
The United States pushed the issue, you can be sure of that. The Japanese started it through a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor without warning and without a declaration of war.
Les
-
Originally posted by Bingo
Both the US and Japanese committed terrible acts,,,,,,,read the book "FLYBOYS"
Bingo
I have. It's an excellent book.
-
Originally posted by Naso
Expecially when it comes by http://www.itstrue.iswear.fox.gov
:D
Anyway, I unconditionally surrender!
Chit! I am becoming french!
;)
FWIW, I've quoted probably less than 5 Fox news articles, and when I have, those articles are usually AP newswire or Reuters NS article linked through Fox. But don't let that mask your pre-judgement of the authenticity of such news articles. ;)
Italian is another word for "French Pastry with sausage inside". :)
-
Not going to read whole thread...
It was the only option...It probably saved millions of lives(in an invasion scenario) and halted any expansion plans of Stalin in Europe(for a few years anyways).
-
I can appreciate your lack of motivation to read the entire thread, but not reading is perpetuating the myth you just posted.
The executive summary is that 6 of the 7 five-star U.S. officers at the time have said that no invasion of the mainland would have taken place and the bombs were not necessary to end the war. Japan was already suing for peace and was ready to capitulate.
The Japanese government had made the decision to surrender and the U.S. was fully aware of that, but chose to kill another 300,000 people on a political agenda of displaying the bomb in an attempt to thwart Soviet control over eastern Europe and before the planned Soviet declaration of war against Japan.
It didn't work. The Soviets declared war anyway and maintained their control of eastern Europe. However, 300,000 civilians were murdered in the political experiment of power.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Italian is another word for "French Pastry with sausage inside". :)
OUCH !
REFEREE !!!!
This one was under the belt !!!
You're evil !!
:)
-
Rolex
People may take you post with less of a grain of salt if you posted links or references on your sources.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
The Japanese government had made the decision to surrender
Yeah..Right.
They go 4 years of hand to hand combat,Bonzai,Kamikaze(etc) attacks...Fighting to the last brave man(or killing one self with his own sword)...and you say they were preparing for surrender?
Bollocks..
Maybe if Yamamoto was promoted to Commander in Chief(and wasn't assasinated by P-38's).. and had the Emperor's ear(which he did not) and a who lot of other what ifs(like the removal of all high ranking army/navy commanders..)
-
Roger that, GtoRA2. It's a compilation without academic treatment.
To be honest, I have no illusions that anyone here is going to read it (or anything for that matter) and say, "Maybe I should rethink this."
Don't get me wrong, there are some clever and knowledgeable people here about a variety of topics, but most are unreceptive to anything other than strident, superficial, teenage, verbal jousting using language designed to elicit an emotional response.
When you have people like Ripsnort, who's position is that he would wipe out the entire middle east with a massive nuclear strike if he had the power to do so, there is little chance of adult discussion and not much hope of opening his mind to other solutions.
People do not want their myths shattered. Myths are comfortable and reassuring. Without looking back, I think it was anonymous who made, what I think, is a good point about nationalism earlier in the thread. All cultures have their nationalistic myths and politicans exploit the weakness of the average voter to readily accept myths of superiority.
Here is a good example:
"If Japanese hadn't fought the white people, we would still be slaves of the white people. It would be colonization. We changed that."
At first reading, this must seem like a provocative stance from some radical, right-wing group in Japan. Amazingly, the speaker was Tokyo Gov Shintaro Ishihara, insisting that Japan need not apologize for its wartime invasion of neighboring Asian countries, arguing that Japan did Asia a favor by delivering it from Western imperialism.
Even more amazing is that this quote is rather benign in comparison to other statements and positions by the governor.
And he was re-elected.
Not only was he re-elected, he won in one of the largest landslides since Saddam Hussein won re-election. Ishihara beat 19 candidates to garner over 70% of the vote and continues to maintain this remarkably high approval rating. What politician wouldn't love to have a 70% approval rating?
Myths and nationalism are easy tools at the disposal of politicians.
-
SirLoin: Five-star officers at the time disagreed with your opinion, not me.
-
Rolex
I think your post was interesting and thought provoking, but without the whole statesment from each of those men, things can be out of context.
Not saying they are, just that without the whole coversation or speach sometimes things can be misleading.
I have read some of it before but never with references as to were I can find a full acount.
-
Funny how the Japanese were offering extensive surrender terms in January 1945..
Guess nobody told that to the troops on Iwo Jima or Okinawa - by far the war's bloodiest and most brutal battles, all during a time when Japan was as badly beaten as any point in the last movements of the war...
All reasonable people can endulge in hopeful what ifs borne out of 20-20 hindsight but the truth is that as of August 1945 Japan had not surrendered, operation Olympic was on course for an invasion of Kyushu in late 1945 and America and her new President were eager to see an end to the war, now. We saw to that end with our new weapons.
What might have been if Roosevelt lived? What if he kept Truman more in the decision making and information loop.. What migh have been if America's policy makers had a more nuanced understanding of Japanese culture wrt to the emperors postion? What if Japan had a more pragmatic rather than culturtally based prorities of the surrender negotiations.. What might have been if Hirohito had more real power over the military and bureocrats? Yes some opprtunities might have been missed by both sides. But in end its a mere what if.. What if.. What if... And those scenarious can go on forever and can be discssed by intellectuals forever...
Hell yes I wish the bombs were not used, I wish Japan gave up. But in the real time situation the decision was made to use them and the war did end very quickly.
BTW Rolex can you give full sourcesm, with full context and definitive dates for all your quoted comments?
-
Here is one well-documented and researched book if you are interested in the topic:
The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, by Gar Alperovitz.
And just to be fair, here is my summation of a typical government-approved Japanese history textbook:
Chapter 6: The Unfortunate Inconvenient Misunderstanding in the Pacific
After the evil US military fired on innocent Japanese midget submarines sight-seeing at Pearl Harbor and waged an air-war of terror against Japanese military forces conducting Civic Action projects in China, the oppressive evil Americans attacked Okinawa, killing the entire population of Okinawan civilians and, for no apparent reason, then dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killing more than one trillion Japanese civilians.
The Americans then militarily occupied Japan under a reign of terror that continues to this day.
-
Thats why I love the Japanese... (man do we need a shaking head emoticon)
-
The Atomic bomb...why we used it..
We got tired of fighting the Second World War...
-
WTG Otto
-
I think Truman did the right thing for both the US and Japan,,,,,,however Truman will be second guessed forever.
The US is not "lilly White" in all its actions then or now .....
but I firmly believe we "TRY" to what is best......hindsight is always
easy to use when discussing history but not available in contempory events.
Bingo
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Because it's an American life. 1 American life is worth more to me than 100,000 German lives.
The same kind of american life you need a gun to defend your family against??
How I hate this childish over-simplistic black/white attitude... Try to show some coherence in your credos.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Because it's an American life. 1 American life is worth more to me than 100,000 German lives.
That is racist crap.
I do agree with Truman's use of the Atomic Bombs based on logic.
Spock: "The need of the many outweight the need of the few."
The end result is far less lives were lost. It certainly was not pretty, but it was the best decision the president could take. Invasion would have resulted in millions of casualties and almost complete destruction for Japan.
-
deseleys... very few Americans "need" a gun to protect their family but we like to have the freedom to make the choice ourselves.... Plus.. the very fact that so many chose to have firearms in this country makes it easier to protect our families even if we don't own one... most burglars (all but the real whackos) are afraid to attack and/or rob a home with the people in it.
Americans own guns for a variety of reasons.. target shooting, defense, recreation, history and collecting and as a guard against tyranny fropm within or without. We have allways felt that this was an essential freedm... second only to free speach.
the 2nd amendment is for when all the others fail.
lazs
-
Lazs, you know that I somewhat agree with you. I just used this comparison to show how Martlet's statement is illogic and flawed.
-
It is simply astounding how my comment about myths is bearing fruit so quickly. See how powerful a myth can be? One after another, the myth of a million deaths in an invasion comes rolling out.
The U.S. military leaders from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs to all but one of the 5-star Officers (who's job was to plan an invasion of the mainland for 1946) are on record saying that no invasion would have occured and the bombing had no effect on the outcome.
Japan was already asking to surrender before the Soviets declared war in August. The bombs were dropped just days before the Soviet planned declaration of war and planned invasion of Hokkaido - the northernmost island.
The emperor had already told the political and military leaders to stop the 'fight to the last man' nonsense, and he told the population the same - they must accept the hardships of occupation.
And they did. Many officers committed suicide, but there was no rebellion or insurrection against the occupation.
If the population was going to fight to the last man, they would have started on September 2nd in Tokyo harbor.
I had the remarkable experience about 10 years ago of spending time with a man who was on the deck of the U.S. Missouri as a young naval officer. A Japanese naval officer who acted as translator for the naval representative during the surrender ceremony.
He and others who I have spoken to who lived and survived through those times echo the sentiments of Harry Truman when he said that he pitied the naivete of the man who believed what he read in the newspapers as being the true reasons for decisions made by those in government.
The decisions to go to, and execute a war have always come from men who feel a superiority of ideology and an understanding of the naivete of people. They are able to tap into and stir the base human instinct of ethnocentrism.
We are better, we are stronger, our cause is more righteous, our beliefs are right, theirs are wrong, good against evil, our religion is the only true one, our God is better than their god, we as a 'people' are superior than 'them.'
Hitler, Napoleon, Mussolini, Tojo, Britain over the heathen Africans and Indians, the Dutch over their heathens, the French over their heathens, the Spanish over their heathens, the new Americans over the native American and Vietnamese heathens - the list goes on and on.
And most of the people will fall for it, die for it, kill for it, and never truly know 'why.'
I've beat the topic to death with this thread and I didn't even start it. I've said enough and wasted enough pixels in futlility. The myth will continue long after we are all dead and gone.
-
well rolex... you could add one more sentace to your wall of words.... the source.
lazs
-
If you want to kill two birds with one stone, you could find many sources and walls of words at your local library. ;)
-
so... you are either going by memory or are ashamed of your source?
lazs
-
Originally posted by deSelys
The same kind of american life you need a gun to defend your family against??
How I hate this childish over-simplistic black/white attitude... Try to show some coherence in your credos.
You think American soldiers are on par with criminals? Heh. talk about your childish overly-simplistic black and white attitudes. All you posted was a adolescent foot stomping. No rhyme or reason to your weeping.
Originally posted by AVRO1
That is racist crap.
.
Racist? You're quick to toss out the racism card. Perhaps you don't understand the definition.
Here's a card I'll toss you in return: Idiocy.
Shouldn't you be preparing for this years Burger King Carols? The holiday season is right around the corner! 64 more shopping days!
-
Martlet,
Are your soldiers grown in vat? Or do you recruit them among the population? In the case of the latter, how do you exclude with 100% certainty the possible (or never been caught) criminals?
Can you prove me that the no US soldier ever murdered an US citizen?
Besides, you said 'american lives'. You haven't specified 'soldiers'.
Go ahead, nazi. Surprise me.
-
Originally posted by deSelys
Martlet,
Are your soldiers grown in vat? Or do you recruit them among the population? In the case of the latter, how do you exclude with 100% certainty the possible (or never been caught) criminals?
Can you prove me that the no US soldier ever murdered an US citizen?
Besides, you said 'american lives'. You haven't specified 'soldiers'.
Go ahead, nazi. Surprise me.
You're arguing a losing point that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic or the intent of my statement.
Keep stomping your feet and crying. If I had been POTUS in 1945, I'd have nuked your ***. In fact, if I were POTUS tomorrow I'd nuke it as payback.
Glow in the dark knockwurst. MMMMMMMM.
-
yes, but you aren't POTUS, so all is left to your pitiable narrow nazi mind is angrily typing on a keyboard to express your ultra nationalistic stinking ideas....thus I feel pretty safe.
But I'll call you DOOFUS if you like.
-
Besides, you obviously surrendered to my 'losing point'. By your standards, you must have french ancestry.
-
Originally posted by deSelys
yes, but you aren't POTUS, so all is left to your pitiable narrow nazi mind is angrily typing on a keyboard to express your ultra nationalistic stinking ideas....thus I feel pretty safe.
But I'll call you DOOFUS if you like.
You should feel safe. After we kicked you guys back across the border we put an army there to protect you.
You're very safe.
You live under the very protection that we provide. You exist at our leisure.
-
yep... funny how these myths start.... Our generals and admirals felt the japs would be on their knees in the island hopping... all we had to do was bombard the crap out of the island and the troops would just walk onto the beach and round up what was left of the defenders...
guess the generals and admirals can be wrong once in a while...
The closer we got to japan the more intense the defense.
course... I have never seen a general that was ready to quit the war they were in unless they were losing badly and most of the time.... not even then. Invasion would have been their choice instead of a decisive bomb.
There were no American atrocities that ever came close to the atrocities commited by the japanesse against other peoples and U.S. and British troops.
It must be mere coincidence that all the fire bombing of japanesse cities caused no offer of unconditional surrender but within days of dropping the atomic bombs the offer was there eh?
The people of the U.S. would accept nothing short of unconditional surrender... We could be generous after that.
Sheesh... everyone knows the japs weren't..... suicidal or anything.
lazs
-
Gee Martlet...the guy is calling you a nazi, did you win an argument or something?
-
This thread is fun, what with martlet and lazs teasing the foriegners and all, but the reality of the thing is this....
.... why couldn't we have waited until the bearcat saw some combat service? I mean sure it would be perked, but at least we would have the damn thing.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Gee Martlet...the guy is calling you a nazi, did you win an argument or something?
Of course. Didn't you see him frothing at the mouth?
-
The bearcat? BAH! the TIGERCAT man! That was the machine!
-
furious... there actually were 300 bearcats on carriers before the war ended.... they were developed as as an anti suicide bomber plane (musta been the idea of some unelightened wacko admiral who thought there actually was a suicide threat).
If just one suicide bomber would made it to or we coulda held off the atomic bomb for a couple of weeks.... we would have the Bearcat in AH!
lazs
-
My point exactly. Just a few measley weeks for the benifit of future ww2 airplane video game enthusiasts.
Is that asking too much?
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Of course. Didn't you see him frothing at the mouth?
:rofl :rofl Martlet, the only thing you've ever won is my contempt.
You should keep your lunatic's ramblings to your next KKK meeting....
-
Originally posted by deSelys
:rofl :rofl Martlet, the only thing you've ever won is my contempt.
You should keep your lunatic's ramblings to your next KKK meeting....
You exist at our leisure.
Remember that.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Racist? You're quick to toss out the racism card. Perhaps you don't understand the definition.
Here's a card I'll toss you in return: Idiocy.
Racism: The belief that each race has certain qualities or abilities, giving rise to the belief that certain races are better then others.
You believe an American life is worth more then 100 000 German lives. By the above definition that is racism (anti-germanism).
If all races are equal then 1 american life = 1 german life.
I for one do not think my people are better then anyone else's.
Our politicians lie just as much as French or American ones.
Sorry to inform you that they are no burger kings were I live. :p
-
Originally posted by AVRO1
Racism: The belief that each race has certain qualities or abilities, giving rise to the belief that certain races are better then others.
You believe an American life is worth more then 100 000 German lives. By the above definition that is racism (anti-germanism).
If all races are equal then 1 american life = 1 german life.
I for one do not think my people are better then anyone else's.
Our politicians lie just as much as French or American ones.
Sorry to inform you that they are no burger kings were I live. :p
American is not a race. That point obviously escaped you.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
You exist at our leisure.
Remember that.
:rofl :rofl :lol :rofl :rofl
-
Originally posted by Martlet
American is not a race. That point obviously escaped you.
No it did not, I simply applied the word in a larger sense then you.
Toward nations. Next time I'll use biggotry.
Besides, someone could easily claim that human are just one race.
We come from the same ancestors after all.
Which would invalidate the word completly.
-
I believe the word your looking for is nationalist, which is no better than racist.
-
Martlet what you are saying is nonsense and idiocy at best and insanity at worst..
You obviously havent thought it through at all...
You know I have been following these comments over the past few days andI just didnt know how to express my shock...
Please tell us that this was only BS..
-
Originally posted by AVRO1
No it did not, I simply applied the word in a larger sense then you.
Toward nations. Next time I'll use biggotry.
Besides, someone could easily claim that human are just one race.
We come from the same ancestors after all.
Which would invalidate the word completly.
So you lied and overstated your case simply to make what you considered a bigger insult?
How cute. I should have noticed you were from Quebec before I even started discussing this with you. It would have explained a lot.
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Martlet what you are saying is nonsense and idiocy at best and insanity at worst..
You obviously havent thought it through at all...
You know I have been following these comments over the past few days andI just didnt know how to express my shock...
Please tell us that this was only BS..
Crying about idiocy, nonsense, and insanity without giving an indication as to what makes it nonsense is just talking to hear yourself talk.
Pony up.
-
Not too good at debating, uh, Martlet?
In this you're like your beloved Pres...
-
Originally posted by deSelys
Not too good at debating, uh, Martlet?
In this you're like your beloved Pres...
Debating?
HAHAHAHAHAH! :aok :aok :aok
All you've done is offer up insults.
I've explained my position, all you've been able to do is cry about it. You haven't offered up a single reason to show that it's wrong. If you want to debate, you have to SAY something.
You exist at our leisure.
-
Go follow a reading class...
-
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org
====
Cry 'havoc,' and let slip the dogs of war.
-
Originally posted by deSelys
Go follow a reading class...
Excellent rebuttal. It's also right in line with my statement.
You have nothing to say besides insults.
You don't even have a platform, let alone insightful commentary to back it up.
You exist at our leisure.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
So you lied and overstated your case simply to make what you considered a bigger insult?
How cute. I should have noticed you were from Quebec before I even started discussing this with you. It would have explained a lot.
Nice of you to showcase your biggotry for all to see.
Bigger insult? Nope Nationalism was the term I was looking for.
They are both equally bad, because they are the same to me. Considering one group better then the other. You knew exactly what I meant and called semantics to avoid the issue.
If you want to continue playing semantics, then might I suggest you play with your dictionnary. :rolleyes:
-
Nationalism can be bad, but it is not inherintly evil.
Putting the people of you nation first is not a bad thing.
Taking it to extremes is.
-
Whats the discussion about again? nuclear weapons? hiroshima? nationalism versus racism? bigotry (the one "g" variety)?
I would like to talk about using nuclear weapons to end the greatest human conflict in history and how that use has prevented the start of an even greater conflict to date.
I would also like to discuss the islamo-facist world view theory and what can/must be done to prevent them from obtaining and using a WTD (Weapon of Total Destruction) against the united states, the united kingdom, russia or a western european democracy and what should be done in the aftermath of such an attack.
Need to start thinking about these things and developing an environment of sound judgement that may be useful in preventing the premature end of civilization.
-
Originally posted by AVRO1
Nice of you to showcase your biggotry for all to see.
Bigger insult? Nope Nationalism was the term I was looking for.
They are both equally bad, because they are the same to me. Considering one group better then the other. You knew exactly what I meant and called semantics to avoid the issue.
If you want to continue playing semantics, then might I suggest you play with your dictionnary. :rolleyes:
Considering one group better than the other?
We aren't talking about randomly nuking cities for fun. We are talking about self-preservation during a war.
You don't even have a point. You're just stomping your feet and calling names.
You exist at our leisure.
-
Interesting to note that all the famous generals, politicians and strategists that are quoted here as saying "Japan was ready to surrender anyway. We didn't need to drop the bomb, we just needed to ask them nicely." are all guys that would NOT have been in the invasion force hitting the beaches.
-
yep toad... not to mention that it was a promise made to the people that only the unconditional surrender of the japanesse people would do. oddly.... we didn't get that until a few days after the second atomic bomb and it came right from their big cheeze.... first time the guy had ever bothered to speak to the peasants.
then generals had a lot at stake... they needed to justify the war going on and them winnining it.... the old fasioned way.
lazs
-
My last post to Martlet:
You never answered the questions I raised against your ultra-nationalistic (and only shared by a handful of your fellow citizens) statement. You refused the debate but played the semantic game instead and showed a very thin skin by feeling insulted so easily.
It is weak.
People like you are an insult to what the american democracy stands for. You're no better than the nazis who were feeling so superior than the rest of the world.
About this thread:
I don't condemn the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki nor the conventional ones of Dresden, Tokyo, etc but this is nothing to rejoice. Germany and Japan began the civilian bombings in Spain, China and UK, the Allies used the same tactics later. Nobody can say how many more soldiers would have been killed and how many civilians would have been spared by not using those tactics.
Conventional bombings of Dresden achieved nothing IMO. To the contrary, the Blitz of London seemed to strengthen the nation's resolve to keep up the fight. OTOH, the demonstration of nuclear power, unseen before, was a decisive factor to the japanes surrender.
-
Originally posted by deSelys
My last post to Martlet:
You never answered the questions I raised against your ultra-nationalistic (and only shared by a handful of your fellow citizens) statement. You refused the debate but played the semantic game instead and showed a very thin skin by feeling insulted so easily.
It is weak.
People like you are an insult to what the american democracy stands for. You're no better than the nazis who were feeling so superior than the rest of the world.
About this thread:
I don't condemn the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki nor the conventional ones of Dresden, Tokyo, etc but this is nothing to rejoice. Germany and Japan began the civilian bombings in Spain, China and UK, the Allies used the same tactics later. Nobody can say how many more soldiers would have been killed and how many civilians would have been spared by not using those tactics.
Conventional bombings of Dresden achieved nothing IMO. To the contrary, the Blitz of London seemed to strengthen the nation's resolve to keep up the fight. OTOH, the demonstration of nuclear power, unseen before, was a decisive factor to the japanes surrender.
You never asked anything. You insulted and cried. Of course that is your last post to me. You can only make a fool of yourself for so long before even YOU realize you have no point.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
We aren't talking about randomly nuking cities for fun. We are talking about self-preservation during a war.
Of course you would rather your ennemy die then your own people. Why the hell did you feel the need to mention something has obvious as that? :confused:
If the nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki did indeed reduce the casualties of the war then yes their use was a good idea.
But if they were used when Japan was already willing to surrender then that was a horrible decision. Killing over a hundred thousand people just to show the world you got a new "shiny" weapon is disgusting to say the least. I don't know what happenned there though, since I was -34 years old then.
As for the bombing of Dresden, it was one of the worst decision taken by the Allies during the war. The civillians who died there were not collateral damage, they were the target. Disgusting is the only word I have to describe that attack and other similar attacks by any country involved in the war.
-
Originally posted by AVRO1
Of course you would rather your ennemy die then your own people. Why the hell did you feel the need to mention something has obvious as that? :confused:
If the nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki did indeed reduce the casualties of the war then yes their use was a good idea.
But if they were used when Japan was already willing to surrender then that was a horrible decision. Killing over a hundred thousand people just to show the world you got a new "shiny" weapon is disgusting to say the least. I don't know what happenned there though, since I was -34 years old then.
As for the bombing of Dresden, it was one of the worst decision taken by the Allies during the war. The civillians who died there were not collateral damage, they were the target. Disgusting is the only word I have to describe that attack and other similar attacks by any country involved in the war.
If the end result is less American lives are lost, I'm all for it. Japan hadn't surrendered. They didn't surrender after the first bomb. They were building their OWN bomb
Anything other than the facts is pure speculation.
-
My dad was going on 16 years of age in august 1945 ( 16 year olds were being prepped for death back in his day). He was so damned thrilled that the Japanese were bombed into submission with the atom bomb that he cried openly at the time. It may well have been non-essential technically, after 60 years of study, and even then its "exrtemely" debatable but from his perspective it was the best damned thing to happen in the world.
If it was good enough for my old man then, its good enough for me today. Im sticking with it.
He still thinks it was the best damned choice to make in the world. Japan had caused this country so much pain, suffering and destruction, he was there and lived through it all. He had no sympathy then and still has no sympathy today, 59 years later. Im sticking with my dad on this one. Japan asked for it and got it, in spades Just like Hitlers Berlin got what it deserved from theRed Army, total destruction (but at the cost of 400,000 reds). Simple as that, but Uncle Sam did it far more efficiently, thank you Mr. Atom.
-
Chuck is right and i dunno how some one can come to any other conclusion.
-
There are some interesting arguments Rolex. Grossly overstated and based on the views of a single revisionist historian, but worth looking into and considering. After all, mythology can become history and revisionist history is not a bad thing if done accurately and honestly (and not just to serve a personal bias). IMO the arguments have some degree of truth, but they also overlook the big picture where the Soviet Union was only one consideration among many with the bomb.
The Japanese government had made the decision to surrender and the U.S. was fully aware of that, but chose to kill another 300,000 people on a political agenda of displaying the bomb in an attempt to thwart Soviet control over eastern Europe and before the planned Soviet declaration of war against Japan.
The Japanese government made no formal peace overtures. Individuals, largely unofficially, tested the waters on several occasions. The best that can be said is that with enough time and effort, a settlement similar to the one finally reached might have been reached -- maybe not -- without the bomb. The civilian leadership might have been on board with the idea of ending the war, even in a relatively unconditional manner (with the Monarchy intact), but the militarists certainly weren’t on board. And there was a distinct split. They had no military justification to continue the war, no hope of winning beyond the miracle, but then, there were still Japanese soldiers refusing to surrender as late as the 1960s. The militarists still believed in the war ending with an American defeat on the beaches. In fact, they might have been able to achieve that goal had an invasion been launched. The showdown between the civilians and the military might or might not have won out in favor of ending the war if Hirohito had developed a stronger will, sooner. Too bad we’ll never know for sure.
Some counter quotes from this source: http://www.afa.org/media/enolagay/07-02.asp
Japan was dead on its feet in every way but one: The Japanese still had the means -- and the determination -- to make the invading Allied forces pay a terrible price for the final victory. Since the summer of 1944, the armed forces had been drawing units back to Japan in anticipation of a final stand there.
The Japanese were prepared to absorb massive casualties. According to Gen. Korechika Anami, the War Minister, the military could commit 2.3 million troops. Commanders were authorized to call up four million civil servants to augment the troops. The Japanese Cabinet extended the draft to cover most civilians (men from ages fifteen to sixty and women from seventeen to forty-five).
The defending force would have upwards of 10,000 aircraft, most of them kamikaze. Suicide boats and human torpedoes would defend the beaches. The Japanese Army planned to attack the Allied landing force with a three-to-one advantage in manpower. If that failed, the militia and the people of Japan were expected to carry on the fight. Civilians were being taught to strap explosives to their bodies and throw themselves under advancing tanks. Construction battalions had fortified the shorelines of Kyushu and Honshu with tunnels, bunkers, and barbed wire.
As late as August 1945, the Japanese Army thought it could destroy most of the invading force and that there was a fair chance the invasion could be defeated.
World War II would eventually cost the United States more than a million casualties. It consumed the nation's energies and resources to an extent never experienced before or since. When Truman became President in April 1945, US casualties were averaging more than 900 a day. In the Pacific, the toll from each successive battle rose higher.
Note: Not quite the same experience during this time for the small country in the mountains that makes Rolexes.
Hirohito shattered precedent at a meeting of the Supreme War Council June 22, openly stating his criticism of the military: "We have heard enough of this determination of yours to fight to the last soldiers. We wish that you, leaders of Japan, will now strive to study the ways and means to conclude the war. In so doing, try not to be bound by the decisions you have made in the past."
Anami and his faction managed to sidestep the Emperor's rebuke. All concerned -- including the Emperor -- hoped that the Soviet Union could be persuaded to act as an intermediary and help end the war on a more acceptable basis than unconditional surrender.
The Potsdam Proclamation, issued July 26 by the heads of government of the US, UK, and China, warned of "utter devastation of the Japanese homeland" unless Japan surrendered unconditionally. "We shall brook no delay," it said. The same day, the cruiser Indianapolis delivered the U-235 core of the "Little Boy" bomb to Tinian.
On July 28, Prime Minister Suzuki declared the Potsdam Proclamation a "thing of no great value" and said "We will simply mokusatsu it." Literally, mokusatsu means "kill with silence." Suzuki said later the meaning he intended was "no comment." The Allies took the statement as rejection of the Potsdam Proclamation.
The Japanese people weren't on board either. Many actually thought the Emperor's announcement of surrender was an announcement of an allied surrender. Misguided, swayed by unending propaganda and bushido culture (a fairly recent development at that, actually) -- I have yet to read anything that significantly supports the opposite. No demonstrations in the street, pent up frustrations boiling over, etc. You can even find the example of the young wife who kills herself so her kamikaze husband will have an easier mission.
As to the “5 Stars” and other source from Alperovitz, well, lets look at them:
Gar Alperovitz - his work is not without criticism. You seem to have pulled most of your quotes and direction exclusively from his work, a historian with an apparently biased world view who also blames the start of the cold war on the United States (and not the Soviet occupation of not only enemy nations but previously occupied victim countries after the war). Using the bomb against Japan was a cornerstone of that theory. There are plenty of historians who, point by point object to many of his core conclusions. But, Gar is famous as the first significant A-bomb revisionist and has done rather well by it.
Admiral William "Bull" Halsey - We won the war with the pacific feet, not some bomb.
General Curtis LeMay - We won the war with my innovative and driven conventional bombing campaign, not some bomb.
General Douglas MacArthur - I WON THE WAR, who needed a bomb.
President Dwight Eisenhower and Admiral William Leahy - cold war positions, in the face of MAD, on the morality of the nuclear genie. Leah in fact became quite the anti-nuclear activist after the war.
Henry H. ("Hap") Arnold - again, a plug to the Air Corps long running bombing campaigns as practiced in both theaters.
Admiral Ernest King, US Chief of Naval Operations, said that "the effective naval blockade would, in the course of time, have starved the Japanese into submission through lack of oil, rice, medicines, and other essential materials."
Again, with King the navy won the war, not some bomb, but last bit is worth noting. Had this been carried to completion, you would now be criticizing the US for starving to death millions of Japanese civilians. It did almost happen, and it might even have worked after the dead piled high enough. It’s telling that a town in Japan dedicated a monument to an American naval base commander who opened up the facility’s garbage dump to the public and saved many from starvation immediately post war. Saburo Saki talked of relatives who did not make it through those lean years.
As to the life vs. life equation, some people are missing the point - perhaps intentionally. How many criminal lives are worth one victim? If a robber is shooting at you and his wife is handing him bullets while holding her baby, are you justified in shooting at the wife? If killing his wife stops him from shooting out of grief, is it itself justified? In both Japan and Germany you had criminal aggressor governments that operated with massive support of the population, though both the “good years” and the bad. They supported a modern industrial “total” war (not just called that because of civilian targeting, but because of the active civilian role in fighting a modern war) and kept their forces supplied with soldiers, tanks, planes, ships, shells and everything else. WW2 was not some Napoleonic era, limited “professional army” live off the land kind of war.
Frankly, I had a grandfather who served from Operation Torch to Okinawa manning a 5-inch gun on a communications ship at every major invasion. He faced dive-bombers, U-boats and kamikazes. He didn’t start the war, he didn’t want the war, was away from his family for five years because of it and his death in an invasion of Japan would not have been, IMO and that of the rest of his family, worth any number of aggressors and those who actively supported them. Had Truman decided to forgo the bombing and go with the invasion, he would have been grossly negligent.
Charon
-
Rolex you were basing all this on one controversial and biased source from an author with a seriously anti usa agenda????
Good god man, that is the heighth of moral bankruptcy in arguments... No wonder you were squeamish when confronted with the request for sources...
And all that with a smug attitude of superiority and telling us how we are all idiots for not beliveing yiur fringe pet viewpoints...
Unbelivable...
-
Rolex you were basing all this on one controversial and biased source from an author with a seriously anti usa agenda????
To be fair there is a handful of similar-thinking academics that follow this line of reasoning, though must of his examples come straight from Alperovitz (which he did note).
I also don't doubt that the Russian factor played a role. It is quite possible that we would have some sort of of Soviet occupied Japan had an invasion been required, which would not have been appreciated by the Japanese I imagine. But, to concentrate solely on that while ignoring the other realities of WW2 (running cost in lives and $, increasing public impatience to "bring the boys home," military readiness, allied POWs, potential Soviet problems in Europe, etc.) and to assume that surrender was a given stretches the point to a considerable degree.
A lot of people were cited who had their own agendas, just like the british battleship admirals with the "inhuman" submarine, the Air Corp and Navy with Billy Mitchell, the 8th AF with unescorted daylight bombardment, etc. Others were quoted at the height of the cold war when the nuclear genie prompted much retrospective thought. The reality is the war had dragged on for 6 years and there was little patience left among the allies (leaders to people) for dragging it out for another year chatting and maybe having to invade anyway. During which times, the civilian deaths from starvation and disease would likely have dwarfed the bombings.
Easy to be critical in hindsight when it wasn't your grandfathers, fathers and sons waiting for D-day (which was proceeding at it's planned pace before the A-bomb).
Charon
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Rolex
I think your post was interesting and thought provoking, but without the whole statesment from each of those men, things can be out of context.
Not saying they are, just that without the whole coversation or speach sometimes things can be misleading.
I have read some of it before but never with references as to were I can find a full acount.
Here's a nicec quote, and reference:
Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb
was completely unnecessary. ... I thought our country
should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a
weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer
mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was
my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking
some way to surrender with a minimum loss of "face".
The secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude,
almost angrily refuting the reasons I gave for my quick
conclusions
This was General Dwight Eisenhower speaking to the War secretary, Henry Stimson.
Dwight Eisenhower, The White House Years: Mandate for Change,
1953-1956 (Doubleday, NY, 1963), pp.312-3
-
Thanks for your thoughtful post, Charon. I have to run but will post something later.
Until then, please note that I'm not an apologist for Japan's actions. Quite the contrary as you will read.
-
Eisenhower is entitled to his opinion. Clearly there were those who disagreed, including his boss General George C. Marshall, the U.S. Army Chief of Staff. There were those in Japan as well.
On 10 August, after America dropped the only other atomic bomb in its arsenal-but warned of "a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth" - the emperor overruled the Imperial Japanese Army. The Japanese Army still had 2.35 million men under arms inside Japan, not having suffered the massive devastation that had been inflicted on the Japanese Air Force and Navy. In fact, the Japanese sneered at their erstwhile Axis ally for surrendering when only some 2.5 million Russians had fought their way through Berlin. The Germans lacked the "Bushido" tradition, commented the Japanese press. Now, the imperial armed forces pleaded for the chance to "find life in death ... .. If we are prepared to sacrifice 20,000,000 Japanese lives in a special attack [kamikaze] effort, victory shall be ours!"58
Ironically, Hiroshima turned out to be the military's face-saving device, one more powerful than an American abrogation of unconditional surrender. The emperor could now annul the unwritten constitution and capitulate without challenging the valor of the Japanese Army. One member of the peace faction would confidentially tell an American interrogator that the atomic bomb "was a good excuse" for surrender. More typical citizens would still tell American reporters that the United States "would [never] have dared attempt a seaborne invasion." On 15 August, Hirohito made his first and last radio broadcast to his nation: ''The war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage. [Military defeat, per se, was never mentioned.] Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb taking the toll of many innocent lives, Should we continue to fight, it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization."
http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:JIKsofi9Eq4J:www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/Pearlman/pearlman.asp+Nimitz+atomic+bomb&hl=en
Charon
-
Dont mind my hyperbole too much, but I still dont like how Rolex wasnt more forthcomibg with sources especilly considering the perhaps controversail nature of hsi viewpoint... Particulary I wis that he provide more sources, dates and context for the quotes.
-
rolex post is cheaply identical to several other posts seen here on this bsb and elsewhere on the INtardnet over the years. It was manufactured by those intent on tearing down any aspect of american history that might be used to positively project american contributions to humanity overall (VJ/VE-Day as an example, damn us, we cheated and used atomics when nobody outside the scientific loop knew for certain what atomics even were).
The thing is, it (rolex post) -simply provides the minority opinion and presents it as the total opinion by failing to suggest there is any other opinion. a cheap trick if you will.....conveniently leaving out all the factual data and realistic war waging and political influences that supported the atomic bombings at hiroshima and nagasaki.
I believe personally that the atomic bombings were terribly regrettable and all the other non atomic bombings all over the world too. I for one wish the 2nd world war had never happened. I might as well go out on a limb and say I wish the 1st world war had never happened and all them other wars, including the current dozen or so wars........but thats just me.
-
Yes, you are right Charon. General George C. Marshall did not agree with the other senior officers.
The other six 5-star officers (General Douglas MacArthur, General Dwight D. Eisenhower, General Omar N. Bradley, Admiral William D. Leahy, Admiral Ernest J. King, Admiral Chester Nimitz, Admiral William F. "Bull" Halsey. and General Henry Arnold) believed that the bombing was unnecessary.
I may be wrong in my opinion, but I do not consider them to be America-haters, historical revisionists, cowardly or stupid as others (not you) have implied.
I can appreciate your example of the mother/wife passing ammunition. I think most people would try to avoid hitting the child and I would only blame the parents if the child was killed or hurt in that situation.
However, I think the analogy needs some scaling and would put it something like this:
A hundred men and women carrying babies are making ammunition in Elk Grove Village and sending it to shooters holed up in Springfield. Every man, woman and child in Arlington Heights, Schaumberg, Mt. Prospect, Palatine and Hoffman Estates is killed. Elk Grove Village as still standing because it wasn't targeted.
The only 2 military targets near Hiroshoma are/were the naval base, which is across the bay, and the Army facility on the outskirts of the city. The bomb was dropped on the center of the city and not near the military facilities. Hiroshima was virtually untouched during the war because it was militarily insignificant. It was a 'clean' target to measure the blast effect - a city at 8:11 a.m.; gone at 8:12 a.m.
(This is not directed at you personally, Charon. It is only rhetorical) Targeting hundreds of thousands of civilians trying to survive day-to-day through a war their political leaders waged is defended as being acceptable in this case, but was not acceptable in Korea, or Vietnam? If Hiroshima and Nagasaki are acceptable and defendable actions, then it should be perfectly acceptable to destroy Baghdad.
It has been said that all history is interpretation. To say: "The bomb ended the war" is interpretation. Nothing so complex as the world at that time can be distilled to such a simple interpretation, let alone a "fact."
President Truman said that it saved half a million (or a million - pick either number as your fact) American lives. Was that a fact? Unfortunately, no information exists to explain where that estimate came from. No one has ever been able to find a single source for that estimate. Even General Marshall, who was given the task of estimating casualties of any invasion, estimated 31,000.
Most people just don't want to talk about history if it's too complex or goes against their beliefs. Beliefs are not facts. Facts end with an event and interpretaion begins the moment after. I think the 'million lives saved' is an easy myth to buy into.
-
~~~ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. LEAHY
(Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman)
{Previously posted quote}
Source - William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441.
~~~HERBERT HOOVER
"...the Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945...up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped; ...if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs."
- quoted by Barton Bernstein in Philip Nobile, ed., Judgment at the Smithsonian, pg. 142
Hoover biographer Richard Norton Smith has written: "Use of the bomb had besmirched America's reputation, he [Hoover] told friends. It ought to have been described in graphic terms before being flung out into the sky over Japan."
Source - Richard Norton Smith, An Uncommon Man: The Triumph of Herbert Hoover, pg. 349-350.
~~~GENERAL DOUGLAS MacARTHUR
MacArthur biographer William Manchester has described MacArthur's reaction to the issuance by the Allies of the Potsdam Proclamation to Japan: "...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary."
Source - William Manchester, American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 512.
Norman Cousins was a consultant to General MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan. Cousins writes of his conversations with MacArthur, "MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed." He continues, "When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."
Source - Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71.
~~~JOSEPH GREW
(Under Sec. of State)
In a February 12, 1947 letter to Henry Stimson (Sec. of War during WWII), Grew responded to the defense of the atomic bombings Stimson had made in a February 1947 Harpers magazine article:
"...in the light of available evidence I myself and others felt that if such a categorical statement about the [retention of the] dynasty had been issued in May, 1945, the surrender-minded elements in the [Japanese] Government might well have been afforded by such a statement a valid reason and the necessary strength to come to an early clearcut decision.
"If surrender could have been brought about in May, 1945, or even in June or July, before the entrance of Soviet Russia into the [Pacific] war and the use of the atomic bomb, the world would have been the gainer."
Source - Grew quoted in Barton Bernstein, ed.,The Atomic Bomb, pg. 29-32.
~~~JOHN McCLOY
(Assistant Sec. of War)
"I have always felt that if, in our ultimatum to the Japanese government issued from Potsdam [in July 1945], we had referred to the retention of the emperor as a constitutional monarch and had made some reference to the reasonable accessibility of raw materials to the future Japanese government, it would have been accepted. Indeed, I believe that even in the form it was delivered, there was some disposition on the part of the Japanese to give it favorable consideration. When the war was over I arrived at this conclusion after talking with a number of Japanese officials who had been closely associated with the decision of the then Japanese government, to reject the ultimatum, as it was presented. I believe we missed the opportunity of effecting a Japanese surrender, completely satisfactory to us, without the necessity of dropping the bombs."
Source - McCloy quoted in James Reston, Deadline, pg. 500.
~~~RALPH BARD
(Under Sec. of the Navy)
On June 28, 1945, a memorandum written by Bard the previous day was given to Sec. of War Henry Stimson. It stated, in part:
"Following the three-power [July 1945 Potsdam] conference emissaries from this country could contact representatives from Japan somewhere on the China Coast and make representations with regard to Russia's position [they were about to declare war on Japan] and at the same time give them some information regarding the proposed use of atomic power, together with whatever assurances the President might care to make with regard to the [retention of the] Emperor of Japan and the treatment of the Japanese nation following unconditional surrender. It seems quite possible to me that this presents the opportunity which the Japanese are looking for.
"I don't see that we have anything in particular to lose in following such a program." He concluded the memorandum by noting, "The only way to find out is to try it out."
Source - Memorandum on the Use of S-1 Bomb, Manhattan Engineer District Records, Harrison-Bundy files, folder # 77, National Archives (also contained in: Martin Sherwin, A World Destroyed, 1987 edition, pg. 307-308).
Later Bard related, "...it definitely seemed to me that the Japanese were becoming weaker and weaker. They were surrounded by the Navy. They couldn't get any imports and they couldn't export anything. Naturally, as time went on and the war developed in our favor it was quite logical to hope and expect that with the proper kind of a warning the Japanese would then be in a position to make peace, which would have made it unnecessary for us to drop the bomb and have had to bring Russia in...".
Source - quoted in Len Giovannitti and Fred Freed, The Decision To Drop the Bomb, pg. 144-145, 324.
Bard also asserted, "I think that the Japanese were ready for peace, and they already had approached the Russians and, I think, the Swiss. And that suggestion of [giving] a warning [of the atomic bomb] was a face-saving proposition for them, and one that they could have readily accepted." He continued, "In my opinion, the Japanese war was really won before we ever used the atom bomb."
Source - War Was Really Won Before We Used A-Bomb, U.S. News and World Report, 8/15/60, pg. 73-75.
~~~PAUL NITZE
(Vice Chairman, U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey)
In 1950 Nitze would recommend a massive military buildup, and in the 1980s he was an arms control negotiator in the Reagan administration. In July of 1945 he was assigned the task of writing a strategy for the air attack on Japan. Nitze later wrote:
"The plan I devised was essentially this: Japan was already isolated from the standpoint of ocean shipping. The only remaining means of transportation were the rail network and intercoastal shipping, though our submarines and mines were rapidly eliminating the latter as well. A concentrated air attack on the essential lines of transportation, including railroads and (through the use of the earliest accurately targetable glide bombs, then emerging from development) the Kammon tunnels which connected Honshu with Kyushu, would isolate the Japanese home islands from one another and fragment the enemy's base of operations. I believed that interdiction of the lines of transportation would be sufficiently effective so that additional bombing of urban industrial areas would not be necessary.
"While I was working on the new plan of air attack... concluded that even without the atomic bomb, Japan was likely to surrender in a matter of months. My own view was that Japan would capitulate by November 1945."
Source - Paul Nitze, From Hiroshima to Glasnost, pg. 36-37
The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey group, assigned by President Truman to study the air attacks on Japan, produced a report in July of 1946 that was primarily written by Nitze and reflected his reasoning:
"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
Source - quoted in Barton Bernstein, The Atomic Bomb, pg. 52-56.
~~~GENERAL CARL "TOOEY" SPAATZ
(In charge of Air Force operations in the Pacific)
{Previously posted}
Source - Herbert Feis Papers, Box 103, N.B.C. Interviews, Carl Spaatz interview by Len Giovannitti, Library of Congress.
-
Considering that 12,000 died just on Okinawa and 38,000 were wounded I dont think the 31,000 is realistic in any way. Also lets not forget that maybe 250,000 japanese soldiers and civiulans died too.. Compared to the very real invasion of Okinawa and the projected invasions of Kyushu and later Honshu I'm gonna say that the bombs were a comparative blessing for Japan becaue I simply dont give much weight to rumors of surrender feelers. Especially rumors of such when the wars bloodiest battles are going on at Iwo or Okinawa and Japan is not giving up and very real people were dying every day... And frankly alternatives like lengthy embargos to starve the Japanese civilan pouplation (because the army and leadership sure werent gonna go hungry) or soviet occupation of hokkaido or even northern honshu dont sound too great either.
-
There is one point that confuses me about your post, Charon. Do you think that I live in Switzerland? If so, then that would be wrong. My father was a pilot in Europe during the war, his brother (my uncle) was a naval aviator during the war and retired as a Rear-Admiral (Upper Half) and I'm a Vietnam veteran.
(And I did live in the NW suburbs of Chicago many years ago...)
-
Rolex how did you end up in Japan?
-
lazs and Yeager pushed me out of a B-29.
-
he jumped... nobody pushed him.
lazs
-
is it too late to surrender to Japan?
-
Originally posted by Yeager
is it too late to surrender to Japan?
Yeah, but not too late for an apology ;)
-
The other six 5-star officers (General Douglas MacArthur, General Dwight D. Eisenhower, General Omar N. Bradley, Admiral William D. Leahy, Admiral Ernest J. King, Admiral Chester Nimitz, Admiral William F. "Bull" Halsey. and General Henry Arnold) believed that the bombing was unnecessary.
I may be wrong in my opinion, but I do not consider them to be America-haters, historical revisionists, cowardly or stupid as others (not you) have implied.
I can provide a similar list of Admirals and generals who had definite opinions on the immorality and lack of need for the submarine and the airplane. Likewise, a list of military and political leaders who thought the bomb was a great idea. And any number of grunts, sailors and airmen who could give a **** what Hap Arnold had to say. The bomb was a paradigm shift that changed the game for major world wars. It overshadowed the contributions of the conventional forces these men commanded. It was also somehow more immoral to some of these commanders than conventional firebombing (though this was looked on distastefully as well) or starvation. I do believe that Japan would have surrendered after enough people had starved to death, or after a successful invasion. In each case the use of the bomb, and it’s morality as a weapon, would likely pale in comparison to both the civilian and military (in the case of an invasion) losses.
Your additional page of state department officials just serves to confirm that the decision to drop the atomic bombs was controversial. They state their opinions, with the generous use of “might,” “should,” “all probability,” “could have,” etc. Most of their opinions center on, “It would have been great if…” and in some cases contain a Western-thinking analysis of Japan’s dismal military situation that ignores the fact that the Japanese people did not really believe they were loosing the war, and that the militarist faction of the government (the dominate faction of the government since before the war) didn’t care. They believed that with added sacrifice Japan could ultimately win. If there was no militarist faction, and if the civilian faction and the Emperor were the only source of power (or even clearly the dominant source of power) then their arguments would carry more weight. The debate was even far from settled after the Hiroshima bombing:
The Japanese Supreme War Council assembled on August 9 at 11 a.m. at the very moment when the bomb was being dropped on Nagasaki. Unaware of this disaster, the Japanese leaders continued to argue their conflicting points of view. Umezu asserted that the Japanese troops had not yet been defeated, and that the word "capitulation" could not be found in the country's military dictionary.113 The Soviet declaration of war was a greater stunning blow than the disaster reported from Hiroshima. The Council was evenly divided on the question of the terms of surrender. Members were not discussing whether to surrender but whether to insist on one or four conditions. Suzuki, Togo, and Yonai were for acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration, provided the imperial institution or kokutai was retained. Anami, Umezu, and Toyoda insisted on three additional conditions: voluntary withdrawal of Japanese forces overseas under their own commanders; no Allied occupation of Japan; and those responsible for the war to be tried by the Japanese themselves. Togo argued that the four conditions would not be acceptable to the Allied Powers. In the midst of this deadlock, one of the prime minister's aides burst into the room to announce the bombing of Nagasaki. An "impassioned" discussion followed and then the War Council adjourned, still split three against three. The 16 members of the Cabinet met in the afternoon. Again there was no consensus. Nine voted for acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration with a proviso regarding kokutai, four wanted the three additional conditions to be fulfilled, and three were undecided.114
http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:T7A0rEXD9b4J:[url]www.ciaonet.org/olj/sa/sa_aug01zum01.html+leaders+supported+atomic+bombing&hl=en[/url]
Perhaps if the Emperor had pushed for peace sooner, more aggressively and more openly the wishes of Grew or McCloy would have been realized. But the fact remains that Japan did not undertake serious negotiations for peace until after the second atomic bombing. While the peace feelers were likely more substantial than Rudolph Hess’, they were still only driven by the weaker faction within the government and lacked the Emperor’s firm, open and clear support (regardless of his private personal convictions).
The only 2 military targets near Hiroshoma are/were the naval base, which is across the bay, and the Army facility on the outskirts of the city. The bomb was dropped on the center of the city and not near the military facilities. Hiroshima was virtually untouched during the war because it was militarily insignificant. It was a 'clean' target to measure the blast effect - a city at 8:11 a.m.; gone at 8:12 a.m. …
Targeting hundreds of thousands of civilians trying to survive day-to-day through a war their political leaders waged is defended as being acceptable in this case, but was not acceptable in Korea, or Vietnam? If Hiroshima and Nagasaki are acceptable and defendable actions, then it should be perfectly acceptable to destroy Baghdad.
There were only a handful of cities of that size left to be attacked, so it’s not like there were many alternatives. These were Kyoto, Hiroshima, Kokura, and Yokohama and Niigata. They had been spared the conventional firebombing fate of virtually every major Japanese city only because of their status as A-bomb targets. They were to be test cities for the use of the bomb with the aim of destroying the city, vaporizing people, destroying dispersed production and destroying military targets. Not much different from any of the conventional firebombing missions except that these would also serve as examples to the Japanese leadership and as test sites for the study of the bomb effects by the US. Cold perhaps, but then World War II was a total war that had already resulted in death on an enormous scale. As cold as the calculations to conventionally firebomb the other cities out of the war when high altitude strategic bombing failed for various reasons.
The Japanese civilians were not just struggling to survive as unwilling tools of their political leaders. They were actively supporting an industrial war and most were unaware that that Japan was even loosing the war (at least as badly as it was). Japan was an industrial nation that produced the vast majority of its war goods domestically, through a combination of major manufacturing plants and thousands of neighborhood shops. Given the dispersed urban, industrial nature of Japan targeting cities was actually more legitimate (and effective) than the “dehousing” and terror bombing campaigns in Europe.
Korea and Vietnam were not full-scale global wars waged by industrial nations that produced the majority of their own war goods. The strategic targets in these conflicts would have been in the Soviet Union or PRC. But, that would lead to global nuclear war, so MAD won out. To this day any country that would wage total war against a nuclear superpower does so with the knowledge that their entire civilian population (not just military centers) is 30 minutes or less from incineration. That’s a given, a fact of life for any true WWIII. It took the nuclear age for terror bombing to actually live up to its reputation.
The emperor himself places the bomb as the major, specific reason for the surrender. He cannot even acknowledge the dismal state of Japan’s military in the initial paragraph below of his surrender declaration.
But now the war has lasted for nearly four years. Despite the best that has been done by everyone-- the gallant fighting of the military and naval forces, the diligence and assiduity of our servants of the state and the devoted service of our 100 million people--the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage, while the general trends of the world have all turned against her interest.
Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, it would not only result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.
Such being the case, how are we to save the millions of our subjects, or to atone ourselves before the hallowed spirits of our Imperial Ancestors? This is the reason why we have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the joint declaration of the powers.
I personally don't think the bomb ended the war per se. But I don't think its use was unjustified either. It was a weapon developed to perform a conventional aspect of war far more efficiently and it worked as planned. I think it did push up the surrender date by months and pushed the Emperor to make a forceful stand. I also think that the aternative pressures would have been mass starvation or invasion, neither of which would be morally superior (and in the case of invasion, criminal from a presidential leadership standpoint even if it was "just" 31,000 US lives or even 3,100 lives). I don't see a clear will to surrender until after the bombs, though the Russian developments were equally stunning with sevear neagives of their own.
There is one point that confuses me about your post, Charon. Do you think that I live in Switzerland?
Actually I had that on my mind for some reason from a previous post (not just the Rolex mountain thing). I obviously was thinking of someone else and stand corrected. I currently live in Buffalo Gove myself.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Toad
Interesting to note that all the famous generals, politicians and strategists that are quoted here as saying "Japan was ready to surrender anyway. We didn't need to drop the bomb, we just needed to ask them nicely." are all guys that would NOT have been in the invasion force hitting the beaches.
Correctomundo.
I bet after 4-5 years seeing guts and blood all over the place solders were full of energy to fight some more.To them finish the war as soon as posble and go home seemed like pretty good idea.
-
They're lucky we stopped at 2.
-
Must confess that I didn't read throught the whole thread.
Ok, the US nuked Japan.
Facts:
1. Horrible deaths for a lot of civilians
2. Japanese high command decides that the US are capable of no more.
3. Another Nuke
4. Japan surrenders.
Out of time order facts.
a) US had roughly 17 bombs on the ready.
b) Estimated casualties from invading Japan and carrying on the normal invasion way were roughly 5 millions, - 0.5-1 allied, 4+ Japanese.
c) Okinawa had more total casualties than the nukes, so there was a logical base for part b)
Now here comes the creepy part.
There was an idea of demonstrating the bomb to the Japs by nuking an unpopulated target (I think an island was chosen for the job). It was however discarded, and the idea of wiping out a conventional target was favoured.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Out of time order facts.
a) US had roughly 17 bombs on the ready.
Source?
I call b/s on that.
-
Originally posted by Angus
2. Japanese high command decides that the US are capable of no more.
Really? I thought that communications where so ****ed that they didn't really even know what happened until it was too late.
-
The date that a third weapon could have been used against Japan was no later than August 20. (http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sciences/Chemistry/NuclearChemistry/NuclearWeapons/FirstChainReaction/FirstNuclWeapons/AdditionalBombs.htm)
Production estimates given to Sec. Stimson in July 1945 projected a second plutonium bomb would be ready by Aug. 24, that 3 bombs should be available in September, and more each month - reaching 7 or more in December.
Improvements in bomb design being prepared at the end of the war would have permitted one bomb to be produced for every 5 kg of plutonium or 12 kg of uranium in output.
These improvements were apparently taken into account in this estimate. Assuming these bomb improvements were used, the October capacity would have permitted up to 6 bombs a month. Note that with the peak monthly plutonium and HEU production figures (19.4 kg and 69 kg respectively), production of close to 10 bombs a month was possible.
-
I believe Rhode Island is the last state that still celebrates V-J Day. We get the day off. :D
-
Yojo? Are you serious abot hat you said? There r 2 possibilities.
1.You r a Nazi freak who worships Hitler and Tojo. or 2
2. You r a smelly commie who worships Stalin. Don't diss America.
-
IN!
Karaya
-
Why using a shade account to raise a thread from the dead?
-
Hmmm... you've brought nothing new to the discussion.
-
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_150_1073911363.jpg)