August 6, 1945.

[ForumModeregulator]

There will always be atrocities committed by both sides in war, nobody would logically deny that. But you're talking about a gigantic mountain as opposed to a molehill in the case of Japan's vs U.S. atrocities.

The bombs ****** 2 to 3 hundred thousand while saving 2 to 3 million that would have perished as part of a land offensive. Choosing the course of action that will produce the least loss of life doesn't qualify as savagery.

My point is that your perception of the "Japanese Savages" should not be held under 100% accuracy. There were some bad ass evil people, but THAT doesnt mean the entire population of Japan was crazy, and ready to die. Thats preposterous to hold them to that prejudiced propagandized bullshit. This sort of attitude of "take no prisoners" held by the US, was created to make sure that the US had an equally effective attitude against the enemy to ensure that they would be able to **** them.

The axis war crimes were as equally a ******** as the war crimes committed by the allied powers to me. The amount of deaths does not weigh in on judging this, it is the acts themselves that do. How many lives have to be lost before you would call it "savagery"?

 

[ForumModeregulator]

There's nothing wrong with my critical reading skills and I was trying to address this very question in my response. I am trying to explain that the primary reason was to bring a quick end to a war that the other side started, without further loss of life to Americans, and without completely wiping out the Japanese culture. The reasons you give above were only part of the reasoning. They were an important and valid part of the reasoning, but not the primary reason.

What difference does a quarter of a million make, if that many were going to die anyway? It may have been a different quarter million, but the civilian populace was going to get axed regardless of strategy. Would losing ten to fifty thousand Americans along with them make you feel better?

Firstly, I think it highly pretentious and ignorant to nonchalantly brush off a quarter of a million people's lives the way you just did in your statement.

AND AGAIN critical reading skills need to be polished I think...READ POST #53...please.

I acknowledge the fact that some think it was a military decision. BUT I am also disagreeing with it. It wasn't the loss of American lives that was at stake, it was the loss of power on a global scale.

 

[Mayhem]

Actually, I went back and read post #1. You started this thread with questions, yet you seem to already have all the answers. So, one must ask, why did you start this thread? Don't bother answering, I'm going to bed. This was a colossal waste of everyones time.

 

[ForumModeregulator]

Actually, I went back and read post #1. You started this thread with questions, yet you seem to already have all the answers. So, one must ask, why did you start this thread? Don't bother answering, I'm going to bed. This was a colossal waste of everyones time.

Typical response to getting pwned...

anyways critical reading skills...if you properly understood my questions, then you would know that I never mentioned anything about knowing the answers. I asked, what opinions were shared. You felt like sharing, I disagreed and told you how I FELT and what I know. I am allowed to do that. It just pisses me off when (Like I assume it pissed you off) when I get the lame ass criticism such as "you need to study history)...Because I DONT. I can formulate educated opinions and ideas without being a scholar of history. The Japanese were NOT suicidal because they hated Americans so much (from what I have read) but were rather more afraid of what their OWN government and military would do to them if they returned alive. I can not blame the Japanese for defending their country to the death, for that is the mindframe anybody must have in order to protect their homeland from invasion. They were prepared to die preserving their way of life, and that goes for anybody fighting a war (I assume). I DONT HAVE TO AGREE WITH YOU. Period. So please stop whining about me not listening to other people's arguments, because it is quite hypocritica of you to do sol. I acknowledge arguments, and present clearly stated (although not always accurate I admit) rebuttals. Thats what forums and discussion are about. DUhhh...so boo hoo if you dont like being told that I dont agree with you...but of course I am going to express it.

So sorry, for being a bit of an ass, but you kind of deserved it for being an ass to begin with. Let us be done with being assholes for now...

 

[pool_hustler]

(invasion and millions of deaths is bullshit fed to the public).

How is this bullshit?
As plasma already pointed out, look at the withering losses suffered attacking/defending Japan's island possessions: Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Saipan, etc.
What possible rationale do you have for thinking an invasion of the homeland wouldn't have been at least as bad, and almost certainly much worse considering it would have been THE last stand, on a much broader scale, and that millions of civilians (many of whom would have committed suicide rather than be captured) would have been involved?

My point is that your perception of the "Japanese Savages" should not be held under 100% accuracy. There were some bad ass evil people, but THAT doesnt mean the entire population of Japan was crazy, and ready to die.

Why did so many civilian residents of Okinawa commit suicide?

Upon hearing that American "demons" would ******* and **** their prisoners, many Okinawans committed suicide to face their death honorably rather than suffer at the hands of the enemy. ******* jumped holding their ******** to save them both from severe cruelty.

There is a story of a schoolteacher who took her class out to the cliffs on June 19, 1945. They were dressed in uniform and sang their anthem before jumping off the cliffs. A monument is now dedicated to them at this site at Humeyuri-no-to.

Do you actually contend this wouldn't have been replicated on a massive scale on the home island of Japan?
Seriously?

In fact official internal military interviews, diaries and other private as well as public materials, literally every top U.S. military leader involved subsequently stated that the use of the bomb was not dictated by military necessity.

Link please?

In fact the leader of Japan's peace party was thankful for the bombs, as he believed them to be the only inducement that would have broken the stranglehold the suicidal war hawks held over the government. I can find that quote for you if you'd like.

The axis war crimes were as equally a ******** as the war crimes committed by the allied powers to me. The amount of deaths does not weigh in on judging this, it is the acts themselves that do. How many lives have to be lost before you would call it "savagery"?

OK I think I'm done here. Feel free to wallow in your ....what is it, guilt? There's no reasoning with someone who equates the ****'s systematic ****** of millions and the Japanese ****** of OVER 10 million (not to mention all manner of barbarism including horrific human science experiments and millions of cases of ****) to a smattering of allied generated atrocities, one of which (the fire bombing of cities) was practiced by all belligerents in a total war and the other of which (the A bombs) was so atrocious it all but certainly ended up saving a million or more lives

 

[ForumModeregulator]

I really think that the propaganda created during the time was truly used to enhance morale and create hatred for the Japanese. All of the Japanese "suicides" were based off of anecdotal evidence. Suicide was prevalent only because the people were ****** in to it, fearing their own government and military's reaction to failure. It is clearly known, that many surviving civilians of Okinawa stated that many were ****** into suicide.

Here is a quote from the Suicide Order Controversy of the Battle of Okinawa article, "It is an undeniable fact that the 'multiple suicides' would not have occurred without the involvement of the Japanese military and any deletion of or revision to (the descriptions) is a denial and distortion of the many testimonies by those people who survived the incidents."

Later in the article, "At a court hearing on November 9, 2007, Ōe testified: "Mass suicides were ****** on Okinawa islanders under Japan's hierarchical social structure that ran through the state of Japan, the Japanese armed ****** and local garrisons."[43] On March 28, 2008, the Osaka Prefecture Court ruled in favor of Ōe stating, "It can be said the military was deeply involved in the mass suicides." The court recognized the military's involvement in the mass suicides and ******-suicides, citing the testimony about the distribution of grenades for suicide by soldiers and the fact that mass suicides were not recorded on islands where the military was not stationed.[44]

Premium Link Upgrade


So again, anecdotal evidence along with propaganda. Period.

Another great article explaining what I am saying about propaganda...

Premium Link Upgrade

Premium Image Content

Upgrade to Premium to view all images in this thread

Upgrade to Premium

As far as your evidence of this hypothesized mass casualty war that would have gone on. I just have to say that it is quite apparent how the government fails miserably at predicting things. This is no exception in my mind. Since its hypothetical, nobody can really know if I or you are correct, so theres not point in me arguing this. However dually important is the consensus that Japan was already willing to and very close to surrendering regardless of the atomic bombings. There was never going to be such an invasion, and I think the big fish knew that.

As far as the link of quotes you request here they are. you should definitely read them because they are very surprising to hear, and provide great insight to my above explanation.

Premium Link Upgrade

 

[ForumModeregulator]

"There's no reasoning with someone who equates the ****'s systematic ****** of millions and the Japanese ****** of OVER 10 million (not to mention all manner of barbarism including horrific human science experiments and millions of cases of ****)"...

The saying the victors of war get to write history ... or something like that...

Allied War crimes were hardly prosecuted or investigated because they won the freaking war. You are right, what **** Germany did was appalling and crazy. In the end you are absolutely right. These countries of the Allied powers did not engage in mass ****** or commit genocide. So yes, numbers really are not comparable, but in my mind the CRIMES themselves (bombing of innocent civilians, ****** of POWS and surrendering members, and pretty much all actions against the geneva convention) are. Also your claim of **** was very rampant against GIs in Japan as well. ****** is ******, period. And while I am not really certain how I 100% feel about this, the two atomic bombings themselvess could have been the biggest war crime of them all for the allied powers...Courts in Tokyo say it best, "the attacks upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki caused such severe and indiscriminate suffering that they did ******* the most basic legal principles governing the conduct of war." Hope this explains it a little better, and provides some light on how I feel.



"In his memoirs President Dwight D. Eisenhower reports the following reaction when Secretary of War Stimson informed him the atomic bomb would be used:


During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."

 

[ForumModeregulator]

@pool hustler...

Ahh...i mistakenly said "axis powers" in post #61, I definitely acknowledge what **** Germany did was terrible. But they are not the ones in discussion here...Its Japan and the US.

 

[CurtJa]

"Can you blame the population for wanting to victoriously defend their nation?"

I had no idea that bombing Pearl Harbor or maintaining occupied territory in the pacific was considered "defending one's nation."

As for those of Russian extract/nationality feigning horror at the bombings, let's consider an important fact: the bombings of Hiroshima Nagasaki were at the very least an act of war; the systematic **** of East Germany by Russia post-war absolutely was not.

 

[vodkazvictim]

"Can you blame the population for wanting to victoriously defend their nation?"

I had no idea that bombing Pearl Harbor or maintaining occupied territory in the pacific was considered "defending one's nation."

As for those of Russian extract/nationality feigning horror at the bombings, let's consider an important fact: the bombings of Hiroshima Nagasaki were at the very least an act of war; the systematic **** of East Germany by Russia post-war absolutely was not.

Systematic **** of east-Germany post war? Proof please. We know the Russkis ***** during the war; revenge for all the Russki devyshek ***** by the Jerrys. But post war? Proof please.

I find it laughable that they say the bombing saved lives because of the defensive potential of Japans civilians;
Obviously it was necessary to nuke the Japanese, how was a squad of american GIs armed with rifles expected to stand up to the fearsome might of a Japanese granny armed with sharpened bamboo. The poor guys would have pissed their pants!
Obviously it was right to drop the bomb

 

[pool_hustler]

I really think that the propaganda created during the time was truly used to enhance morale and create hatred for the Japanese. All of the Japanese "suicides" were based off of anecdotal evidence. Suicide was prevalent only because the people were ****** in to it, fearing their own government and military's reaction to failure. It is clearly known, that many surviving civilians of Okinawa stated that many were ****** into suicide.

Here is a quote from the Suicide Order Controversy of the Battle of Okinawa article, "It is an undeniable fact that the 'multiple suicides' would not have occurred without the involvement of the Japanese military and any deletion of or revision to (the descriptions) is a denial and distortion of the many testimonies by those people who survived the incidents."

Later in the article, "At a court hearing on November 9, 2007, Ōe testified: "Mass suicides were ****** on Okinawa islanders under Japan's hierarchical social structure that ran through the state of Japan, the Japanese armed ****** and local garrisons."[43] On March 28, 2008, the Osaka Prefecture Court ruled in favor of Ōe stating, "It can be said the military was deeply involved in the mass suicides." The court recognized the military's involvement in the mass suicides and ******-suicides, citing the testimony about the distribution of grenades for suicide by soldiers and the fact that mass suicides were not recorded on islands where the military was not stationed.[44]

Premium Link Upgrade

And you think the Japanese military's policy would have been different on the home islands? Come on FM you're a smart guy but you don't appear to be thinking logically here. Not only would it have been the same, it would have been the same on a massive scale.

So again, anecdotal evidence along with propaganda. Period.

Anectodal evidence???
Were the several thousand Japanese kamikaze pilots a figment of our imagination, or were they completely in harmony with Japan's predominant bushido code?
An uncle of mine aboard a United States destroyer died as a result of that "anectodal evidence"

As I recall there's actually film of Okinawans jumping off what became known as the "Suicide Cliffs".
There are also gruesome photos aplenty. Here are just a couple of the remains of some of the cliff jumpers
(bottom photo on page) Premium Link Upgrade
Premium Link Upgrade
....not to mention thousands and thousands of first hand testimonials to these events.


got to go to work but will be back later to read more from your links.

 

[Mayhem]

Typical response to getting pwned...

anyways critical reading skills...if you properly understood my questions, then you would know that I never mentioned anything about knowing the answers. I asked, what opinions were shared. You felt like sharing, I disagreed and told you how I FELT and what I know. I am allowed to do that. It just pisses me off when (Like I assume it pissed you off) when I get the lame ass criticism such as "you need to study history)...Because I DONT. I can formulate educated opinions and ideas without being a scholar of history. The Japanese were NOT suicidal because they hated Americans so much (from what I have read) but were rather more afraid of what their OWN government and military would do to them if they returned alive. I can not blame the Japanese for defending their country to the death, for that is the mindframe anybody must have in order to protect their homeland from invasion. They were prepared to die preserving their way of life, and that goes for anybody fighting a war (I assume). I DONT HAVE TO AGREE WITH YOU. Period. So please stop whining about me not listening to other people's arguments, because it is quite hypocritica of you to do sol. I acknowledge arguments, and present clearly stated (although not always accurate I admit) rebuttals. Thats what forums and discussion are about. DUhhh...so boo hoo if you dont like being told that I dont agree with you...but of course I am going to express it.

So sorry, for being a bit of an ass, but you kind of deserved it for being an ass to begin with. Let us be done with being assholes for now...

First of all, I wasn't criticizing you in any way. I was suggesting that you read the history of the Pacific Campaign. If you choose to get offended by this, make sure you keep it your problem, don't make it mine.

As far as:

I can formulate educated opinions and ideas without being a scholar of history

no you can't. Let's be very clear on this. You cannot, in any way, shape or form, make an "educated opinion" based on your own ignorance. How much more contradictory can you get? If you refuse to educate yourself on the actual events, then you remain uneducated. It's really quite simple.

And, to address another point you made above, you did not **** me off in the least. And I don't see where I was "being an ass" at all. I was responding to the topic, as is everyone else on this thread. If you are going to respond to other peoples posts by (your own admission) getting pissed and calling people names, then don't start threads.

 

[PlasmaTwa2]

CBC recently came out with a six-part series called Love, **** & Propaganda. It's all about propaganda in World War II and tries to shead light on how civilians in these countries so blindly followed what their governments told them. It's really good, especially when it comes to showing what Japan was like during those times. The Japanese believed that the Emperor was a God and that they were destined to win the war. The idea of even thinking about surrendering was foreign to them. Thankfully Hirohito knew what was best for his people.

 

[Ulysses31]

I still think it's quite sad that mankind had resorted to using a weapon that wiped out 100,000s of men, women and ******** in a blink of an eye and caused immense suffering to the survivors and their ********. Maybe the Japanese were savages at the time but that doesn't mean you resort to their level, maybe more people would have died in a land invasion but it would have been soldiers fighting soldiers (not the populus of a residential city). The use of nuclear weapons was a line I personally don't think should have been crossed as you somehow lose some of your humanity in doing so, and you can never get it back. I also notice these 'events' are barely spoken about and even when US politicians talk about the threat that 'rogue' states would possess if they had neclear weapons you would think they would mention the effects of the bombs dropped on Japan as to further illustrate their point about how devastating these weapons are, but they never do. This year seems a new beginning.

Premium Link Upgrade

Premium Image Content

Upgrade to Premium to view all images in this thread

Upgrade to Premium

Doves fly over the Peace Memorial Park with a view of the gutted A-bomb dome at a ceremony in Hiroshima today, to mark the 65th anniversary of the atomic bombing on the city

Premium Image Content

Upgrade to Premium to view all images in this thread

Upgrade to Premium

A man looks over the expanse of ruins left the explosion of the atomic bomb

 

[PlasmaTwa2]

Maybe the Japanese were savages at the time but that doesn't mean you resort to their level, maybe more people would have died in a land invasion but it would have been soldiers fighting soldiers (not the populus of a residential city).

As we have said several times on this page alone, if the Americans invaded Japan they would have faced a hostile civilian population that would have fought American soldiers with the legs off of tables if it meant they could take an enemy with them.

 

[Mayhem]

I still think it's quite sad that mankind had resorted to using a weapon that wiped out 100,000s of men, women and ******** in a blink of an eye and caused immense suffering to the survivors and their ********. Maybe the Japanese were savages at the time but that doesn't mean you resort to their level, maybe more people would have died in a land invasion but it would have been soldiers fighting soldiers (not the populus of a residential city). The use of nuclear weapons was a line I personally don't think should have been crossed as you somehow lose some of your humanity in doing so, and you can never get it back. I also notice these 'events' are barely spoken about and even when US politicians talk about the threat that 'rogue' states would possess if they had neclear weapons you would think they would mention the effects of the bombs dropped on Japan as to further illustrate their point about how devastating these weapons are, but they never do. This year seems a new beginning.

On the night of March 9-10, 1945, LeMay's B-29 bombers attacked Tokyo, a city of 6 million people. Nearly 600 bombers dropped 1,665 tons of fire bombs on the Japanese capital, destroying 16 square miles of the city. The resulting firestorm ****** 100,000 people, more than died at Hiroshima or Nagasaki from atomic bombs a few months later. Most of the victims were women, ********, and old men. The B-29 crew members put on oxygen masks to keep from ******** at the smell of burning human flesh.

LeMay's planes continued firebombing Tokyo and more than 60 other Japanese cities in the following months. He thought he could end the war quickly by destroying Japan's economy and crushing the morale of the Japanese people. LeMay argued against using atomic bombs. He believed that his firebombing tactics would ***** Japan to surrender before American ****** were scheduled to invade the homeland.

On August 6, 1945, one B-29 dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, creating a firestorm that wiped out 70 percent of the city and ****** 70,000 Japanese. The atomic bomb ****** on Nagasaki three days later was somewhat less destructive due to the geographical features of the city. After some hesitation, Japan finally surrendered. The decision to use atomic weapons was fairly easy for American political and military leaders, given the hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths already caused by the bombing of cities during the war. The outrage about such ******* at the beginning of the war had been numbed by the horror of "total war" and the desire to quickly bring it all to an end.

Premium Link Upgrade

It's not like conventional bombing was doing them (the Japanese) any favors.

 

[Ulysses31]

As we have said several times on this page alone, if the Americans invaded Japan they would have faced a hostile civilian population that would have fought American soldiers with the legs off of tables if it meant they could take an enemy with them.

That's not fact that's just an assumption. Wars can change course in days and in the many battles before the US reached the Japanese mainland the Japanese may well have sensed defeat and surrendered. Unless anyone here is Emperor Hirohito, no one can proclaim 100% that Japan would have fought to the last, man woman and *****. George Bush proclaimed 'Mission Accomplished' in Iraq back in 2003 yet fighting continued and more American troops died after that than before so in war NOTHING is set in stone.

 

[PlasmaTwa2]

That's not fact that's just an assumption. Wars can change course in days and in the many battles before the US reached the Japanese mainland the Japanese may well have sensed defeat and surrendered. Unless anyone here is Emperor Hirohito, no one can proclaim 100% that Japan would have fought to the last, man woman and *****. George Bush proclaimed 'Mission Accomplished' in Iraq back in 2003 yet fighting continued and more American troops died after that than before so in war NOTHING is set in stone.

But it is also assumption to think that the bombs were a terrible thing to do because it isn't like we have anything in history we can compare it to. Maybe, given the circumstances it was the best thing the States could have done. We don't know for sure. The only thing that is certain is that it was war; you defeat the enemy at all costs. The bomb was the best way to end the war, and if it took the deaths of a quarter of a million Japanese to save the lives of a million Americans (Because even without the civilians involved, the death toll would have been catastrophic), then by all means.

 

[Ulysses31]

Premium Link Upgrade

It's not like conventional bombing was doing them (the Japanese) any favors.

It just sets a dangerous precedent as what would stop the US or Israel using nuclear weapons against Iran saying it will cut down on both Iranian and US/Israeli casualties or India saying they'll nuke Pakistan because invading will cost more lives :dunno:

 

[Mayhem]

It just sets a dangerous precedent as what would stop the US or Israel using nuclear weapons against Iran saying it will cut down on both Iranian and US/Israeli casualties or India saying they'll nuke Pakistan because invading will cost more lives :dunno:

If we had never dropped the bombs, I feel that it is inevitable that someone, at some point would have used a nuclear device on an enemy. No one gives a "demonstration" any credence. A video, as an earlier poster put it, would have accomplished nothing. The world needed to see, first hand, what happens when atomic weapons are used. Then and only then, would we go out of our way to make sure they would never be used again. The people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not die in vain.