Well my grandpa was on Okinawa as a Corpsman. I’m glad we dropped the bombs, otherwise I’d probably not be around.
Anyone realize that IF we didn’t drop the bomb, Russia was part of the planned invasion, and we would have had a divided Japan AND Germany. If they had the northern part of Japan, who knows how the Cold War would have played out? Ports that didn’t freeze over were not a Russian strength, and this alone, keeping Russia out of Japan, was reason enough to drop the bomb.
[quote]Therizza wrote:
Well my grandpa was on Okinawa as a Corpsman. I’m glad we dropped the bombs, otherwise I’d probably not be around.
Anyone realize that IF we didn’t drop the bomb, Russia was part of the planned invasion, and we would have had a divided Japan AND Germany. If they had the northern part of Japan, who knows how the Cold War would have played out? Ports that didn’t freeze over were not a Russian strength, and this alone, keeping Russia out of Japan, was reason enough to drop the bomb.[/quote]
Yep, people just don’t know this stuff and wish years later we just gave them puppies and kitties and flowers.
The anniversary of the dropping of the atomic bomb comes around again. It engenders all sorts of reactions across the political spectrum, most of which manage to miss the historical mark. The job of history is to let us understand how people made the decisions they did so we can understand complex situations better. The standard modern approach is to simply enunciate a political position and take no prisoners from that point on.
Here are some major points to think about. First of all, the Japanese Minister of Defence, decided that the reason Japan was doing poorly in the later stages of the war was because her soldiers had to fight with machines, He held that an Allied landing on Japan would let the samurai tradition shine and make it far too costly to pursue, leaving Japan in a very strong position if not giving it a de facto victory.
Japanese behavior in the war showed that the Imperial Army routinely practiced spectacular atrocities. The Rape of Nanking was but one (google it) and after the war it was found that over 300+ chemical attacks were carried out against civilians and often against occupied cities simply to determine the effects. Nobody whose parents lived through that will be a defender of Japanese activities. One small example is that Koreans who lived at that time are all fluent in Japanese since Korean was illegal and nearly every historical monument in Korea has the date it was blown to bits by the Imperial Army. One of the sorest points in modern Japanese international relations is her almost complete inability to publicly admit this.
Remember too that the Emperor was considered divine – a fact that is simply lost on those of us who never saw it. Villages committed mass suicide rather than accept the proclamation from the Emperor refuting this. My Japanese friends relate how girls and boys as young as 14 were in training to attack with sharpened sticks. This was to be the line of defense. I would also point out (remember that I have done a traditional Japanese martial art for decades) that the older Japanese I knew (including one fine gent who survived Nagasaki) who lived through the war felt that the bombing saved countless lives.
Now as to the major point about genocidal Americans trying to unleash the flames of Perdition on the Japanese. Massive aerial bombings were done by all sides. It is inexplicable that no mention is made of the devastating German raids on Russian, Polish, English, etc. cities. You think the Allies bombed Stalingrad? The bombing of Rotterdam is infamous. Same with Japanese bombings of Chinese, Korean and Filipino cities.
The Americans had no idea what the atomic bomb would do, aside from cause a very large explosion and fire. Everything we know about radiation and fallout came from decades long studies done on the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki after the war. The most telling are the plans for November of 1945. The invasion of Kyushu would have started with a massive nuclear bombardment followed almost immediately by an amphibious landing much larger than D-Day. Had it happened the most likely effect would have been to annihilate our own army in the process. We likely would have removed ourselves from the conflict.
Paul Fussell wrote an interesting piece called “Thank God for the atomic bomb.” Since he fought in the war his perspective is quite unusual in this day. I suggest you read it if you can find it.
And as always, I might just be full of shit…
– jj
[quote]Chushin wrote:
PB Andy wrote:
And you say, “enemy citizens”. What makes these citizens “enemies”?
Um, the fact that just about everyone in Hiroshima at the time – including school kids – was “mobilized” as part of the Japanese war effort?
Or maybe it’s the Japanese women (I’ve met some of their grandkids and other relatives) who were training with naginata to fight off the Allied “invasion?”
No, I know! It was the “citizens” working in Hiroshima’s very own poison gas manufacturing factory.
“Weenie,” indeed.[/quote]
Oh OK, so I guess if they are forced to do all of these things by their own government, then I guess we can consider them the “bad guys” too and feel no remorse about bombing them.
[quote]aussie486 wrote:
PB Andy wrote:
What makes these citizens “enemies”? It is that kind of attitude which explains why so much of the world dislikes America, and it is that attitude in Americans that just pisses me off.
There is a large part of the world that really likes and appreciates America and the Americian attitude.
[/quote]
I realize we are well-liked by many people all over the world too, however whenever I travel to Europe (all over) this hasn’t been the case. When it comes to politics a lot of Europeans I talk to generally have a bias towards Americans, and rightfully so.
OK so fighting in WW2 against the Japanese, you’d probably hate the fuckers, makes sense. So I guess that justifies killing their entire race… yeap, makes sense. We should have done that to the Germans too back in the day.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
PB Andy wrote:
Chushin wrote:
PB Andy wrote:
And you say, “enemy citizens”. What makes these citizens “enemies”?
Um, the fact that just about everyone in Hiroshima at the time – including school kids – was “mobilized” as part of the Japanese war effort?
Or maybe it’s the Japanese women (I’ve met some of their grandkids and other relatives) who were training with naginata to fight off the Allied “invasion?”
No, I know! It was the “citizens” working in Hiroshima’s very own poison gas manufacturing factory.
“Weenie,” indeed.
Oh OK, so I guess if they are forced to do all of these things by their own government, then I guess we can consider them the “bad guys” too and feel no remorse about bombing them.
Nah, I’m sure you’re right. If they reluctantly contribute to the deaths of Allied soldiers (and lots of innocents: the gas was used on Chinese civilians) then they are much less of a real threat.
By that astounding logic, no American draftees should have been killed either. How inhumane of those Japanese!
Sheesh.
Oh, and BTW, where the HELL did you get the idea that most Japanese had to be FORCED to do these things?
EDIT: I see you’re in the Army. I assume you’d be willing to sacrifice your own life and some those of your friends to avoid the deaths of any “enemy citizens?”
Also, who said anything about “no remorse?” We are talking about what was necessary here. Not whether it makes us “sad.”[/quote]
To your first point, all I am saying is that you can’t just slap on the label of “enemy” to all Japanese citizens back then.
To your second point, it’s simply my belief. I have no facts to back it up (ruh roh). Of course there were sympathizers, but I find it hard to believe that most of the citizens willingly did what they did. Actually, I guess this stems from the stories my Gramps has told me from his days in the Pacific (contrary to what Aussie said).
Third, was in the Army. Don’t patronize me saying something like that. I’d do anything to save my buddies in combat, and to keep them safe, no argument there. That is all I’m going to say because there is simply no comparison to the civilians in some place like Iraq now and Japan back then.
jj-dude, insightful post, thank you!
If anyone asks me “Then what would you have done PB Andy?”, here’s my answer: I have no idea. I wasn’t alive back then, and I wasn’t President.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Makavali wrote:
This. How so many people of my generation miss this astounds me.
I second your lament, even as I am not entirely sure what your generation is (I assume current young people).
There is a disappointing disconnect in appreciating the “terrible arithmetic” of war among younger folk.
[/quote]
I’m 22, most of the people my age are PC-nancy boys who think war is an avoidable evil.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Makavali wrote:
This. How so many people of my generation miss this astounds me.
I second your lament, even as I am not entirely sure what your generation is (I assume current young people).
There is a disappointing disconnect in appreciating the “terrible arithmetic” of war among younger folk.
I’m 22, most of the people my age are PC-nancy boys who think war is an avoidable evil.[/quote]
I won’t argue with you there.
I’m in my twenties and considering the toughest decision most twenty-somethings make today is where to go for lunch, it’s not a big surprise that they reject Harry’s decision while failing to come up with any viable alternatives besides, “I don’t know…but I still want to bitch about it.”
Option #1: Drop the bombs. Estimated death toll: a few hundred thousand. War over. No more bloodshed.
Option #2: Land invasion of Japan. Estimated death toll: a few million, including many women and children, since every Japanese woman and child over 12- or 13- was conscripted and waiting on the beaches with sharp bamboo spears – and more than willing to fight to the death.
Over a hundred thousand died in Tokyo firebombings and it didn’t weaken Japanese resolve in the least.
Harry made the right choice IMO.
What, were there just 100,000 deaths according to my sources. The americans would have easily lost 10,000 soldiers, the japanese at least 25,000 soldiers…and many civilians like the very young or old that can’t or just dont want to leave their homes during war. Any time that you have a more involved war esp with civilians the death toll will be higher. This wouldn’t be some easy maneauver warfare operation like the allied conquest, no we’d have to go from house to house and blast the japanese right to hell and too many civilians would die.
The only thing that matters is that you minimize the casualties, the bombs did this. I could care less whether this option was more coarse than an invasion in some people’s opinion.
My old man was on Okinawa waiting to invade Kyushu. The people who give thumbs down to the bombing should think of similar to that.
I for one would have LOVED to have been the bombadier on the Enola Gay. The sheer joy of bombing our enemies would be indescribable. (Maybe the men who set up their innocent women and children to die like that should have committed sepuku, the bastards.)
I for one love a retaliatory war, if it is necessary. To do the ultimate payback like at Hiroshima or Nagasaki would and should be the dream of every red blooded American.
[quote]beachguy498 wrote:
hatesmiles wrote:
Atomic bombing hundreds of people is “right”? Come on even if it was a nececity it does not make killing innocent people right thing to do.
The huminitarian slant went by the wayside as the war progressed. The 2/13/45 bombing of Dresden is a perfect point. While they did have some war-machine industry there, it hardly justified leveling a whole city. The idea of the allies was to totally break the will of the every-day people, to a point, they had no qualms of taking out a whole neighborhood in collateral damage to get the intended military related target.
A land-invasion of Japan was on the drawing board, the tenacity of the Japanese and their digging in and hunkering down skills were what led up to the atomic bomb being used. The US troop casualty prediction was way too high and the “reach out and touch someone” plan was implemented.
BG
[/quote]
Yep. And the Japanese were batshit crazy. One of my dad’s jobs was to guard a cliff on Okinawa where women would jump off with their children in their arms. The fucking nut leaders had told the populace that American soldiers would torture the children and make the parents watch…kind of like Saddam Hussein did.
[quote]aussie486 wrote:
Speaking to my relatives who served in the Pacific, they wanted to put the entire japanese race to death, as i have said before America has been and is still is a beacon in a sea of darkness.[/quote]
Wouldn’t be the first time Americans put an entire race to death, or the first time one group of people put another group of people to death.
[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
aussie486 wrote:
Speaking to my relatives who served in the Pacific, they wanted to put the entire japanese race to death, as i have said before America has been and is still is a beacon in a sea of darkness.
Wouldn’t be the first time Americans put an entire race to death, or the first time one group of people put another group of people to death. [/quote]
Before being sent to Okinawa, my old man was in Europe. He didn’t talk much about it but did talk once about liberating a death camp guarded by SS. They took no prisoners and shot every one of them like dogs. He hated the Germans with a passion and refused once to even get in a VW; said he wished they’d have used the nukes on the Germans.
[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
Wouldn’t be the first time Americans put an entire race to death, or the first time one group of people put another group of people to death. [/quote]
Americans weren’t trying to put an entire race to death in WWII, nor had Americans ever attempted such a thing a “first time” before.