Users who Dugg This
Slum Dog Millionaire
4157 Followers
Slum Dog Millionaire
4157 Followers
Muhammad Ihsan
541 Followers
Muhammad Ihsan
541 Followers
Morganna Soffe
34 Followers
Morganna Soffe
34 Followers
Thondar Nambi Satya
1691 Followers
Closed AccountAug 6, 2010
War is hell, and hind-site is always 20/20.
theungodAug 6, 2010
War never changes.
Sorry, had to be quoted.
vendrakeAug 6, 2010
Regurgitated from the comments section because it's worthwhile:
http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/comment/4/2010/08/44caee8f05d498b1fa5c84ba917b9005/original.jpg
mriceeAug 6, 2010
If hindsight were truly 20/20, we wouldn't keep repeating our mistakes.
But rather than admit our faulty vision, we prefer to rewrite history to erase our mistakes, causing us to continuously repeat them over and over.
Hindsight is only 20/20 if you take steps to ensure your new understandings are turned into reality.
ironmindAug 6, 2010
Hindsight has nothing to do with the nature of man. It is in our nature to make war.
mriceeAug 6, 2010
Ok, so I guess that justifies it then... woot! That was easy.
/s
ironmindAug 6, 2010
Observing a fact is not a justification. It'd be just as easy to remove the need to breathe as to remove our desire for violence.
spazattack5000Aug 6, 2010
It's in our nature to want power and control and violence is the most convenient means to that.
muffcakesAug 7, 2010
Violence is a retarded method of getting what you want. We need to cull retards. Violently.
joecool1986Aug 7, 2010
@Mrlcee
It can be our nature without it also justifying it. Many people would agree that it's our nature to be selfish, but that doesn't justify it, it just explains it.
evilgourmetAug 6, 2010
Are you saying 'the' war will be in 2020?
exloserAug 7, 2010
but looking back its still a bit fuzzy.
wearedejavoodooAug 7, 2010
Speak of mutually assured destruction?
lukas1051Aug 7, 2010
Nice story... tell it to Readers Digest!
kar3lessAug 7, 2010
war is hell but it was still a bitch move by the US to use that weapon on such highly civilian populated places. Japan was very much defeated by that time, they basically got used as a live experiment
orville1151Aug 8, 2010
It would have been just effective, in my opinion, to set one off near the coast of Japan and over the ocean.
Followed by a warning that the next one would be over a city.
yokozukaAug 6, 2010
Amazing testimonies, so cold but so vivid and lively at the same time.
Closed AccountAug 6, 2010
This is why I cringe when people say, "Nuke 'em" in seriousness. In college debate a team could win a by proving that the other team's proposition would lead us to "brink" of nuclear war.
"When we were escaping from the edge of the bridge, we found this small girl crying and she asked us to help her mother. Just beside the girl, her mother was trapped by a fallen beam on top of the lower half of her body. Together with neighbors, we tried hard to remove the beam, but it was impossible without any tools.
Finally a fire broke out endangering us. So we had no choice but to leave her. She was conscious and we deeply bowed to her with clasped hands to apologize to her and then we left. "
Nukes will never be eliminated...but I hope they are not used in the future.
grammerpantsAug 6, 2010
They will be. The only real option is to develop a new weapon that makes a "nuke" look like a pop gun. Scary world, but that is human nature for you.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
sucka27Aug 7, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
dromniAug 6, 2010
Many of the horrible effects described are not exclusive of nukes. Heavy bombing with conventional explosives can also collapse buildings, trigger unstoppable city-spanning fires, and kill lots of people in gruesome ways.
Just ask survivors of German cities like Dresden, for instance.
roguebladeAug 6, 2010
More died in Dresden too
d4rthv4derAug 7, 2010
Yep, plus it wasn't just Dresden which got torched. Many, many German and Japanese cities got burnt down from relentless Allied bombings. I'm fairy certain it was the allies trying to dish out a bit of pay back towards the end of the war.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kallAug 7, 2010
So it goes.
stikytAug 7, 2010
Perhaps, but the utterly horrific nature of nuclear weapons make the effects many times worse IMO.
At least with bombing there's a focus on destruction of buildings and spreading fire; it's slow and warnings can allow people to have some form escape. It's not the same with Nukes, which are just an indiscriminate wall of fire, heat, ash, disfigurement and death. They should break an enemies will to fight not kill and maim in the most barbaric and inhuman way possible.
snottlebocketAug 7, 2010
Dresden wasn't just bombed, Dresden was firebombed, which takes a prolonged attack in stages.
Can you imagine doing something that horrible, not in an instant but in stages, each one worsening the situation, inflicting further horror.
jeworldAug 6, 2010
@grammerpants
The perfect line was said in Iron Man. "Peace means having a bigger stick than the other guy."
ymegAug 6, 2010
War hungry people don't look to the past.
feverhostAug 6, 2010
War hungry people are usually out of range. "The Bravery of being out of Range"
relic180Aug 6, 2010
"In college debate a team could win a by proving that the other team's proposition would lead us to "brink" of nuclear war."
That's called a slippery slope fallacy, and to try and take it all the way to "brink of nuclear war" is easily refuted as such, unless the debate is ACTUALLY related to war, or nuclear war.
pinkfish411Aug 6, 2010
Like all "informal" fallacies, slippery slope only applies in certain circumstances. If there is a necessary logical connection between A and B, then arguing against A because it leads to B is not a fallacy.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
relic180Aug 6, 2010
... hence "unless the debate is ACTUALLY related to war, or nuclear war".
99% of any other circumstances will fall under this fallacy. Also, it could still be slippery slope depending on how you got to that conclusion, so even if A leads to B, if you somehow made the connection by going through E, F and G, then you've got holes.
pinkfish411Aug 7, 2010
You don't actually have to be discussing war to be discussing something that might lead to war. Diplomacy and other forms of international relations can be argued to set up a chain of events that's likely to spark war.
cranelakeAug 6, 2010
This is an anniversary that should be remembered a lot more frequently than once ever 65 years!
relic180Aug 6, 2010
It is remembered more than every 65 years, it's remembered every 5 years actually. This is just the first year that the U.S. has sent a delegate to participate in the event, so now it's apparently big news in the states.
portwojcAug 6, 2010
Is is that's why it's an anniversary.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=64th+anniversary+hiroshima
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=63th+anniversary+hiroshima
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=62th+anniversary+hiroshima
essarAug 6, 2010
Although it is indeed the first time a US representative has attended, the anniversary is remembered slightly more often than once every 65 years by Japanese people.
bustaballsAug 6, 2010
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rogers/rogers178.html
bustaballsAug 6, 2010
That article addresses most every point that apologists and history revisionists make. If you actually think those bombs "saved" anyone, you're no better than a holocaust denier. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
staffaAug 6, 2010
I do not deny that your viewpoint has many valid points and that the debate on the necessity of dropping those bombs has considerable evidence against it, however to equate that with holocaust deniers is not only absurd it is disgustingly disrespectful of the very people who fought Germany to end the holocaust who take a contrary opinion.
That is why its a disgusting comparison, now for the absurd.
1. The holocaust is a fact, it actually happened, there are literally tons(as in paper work by the tons) of evidence for it.
2. How far Japan would have gone had the bombs not been dropped is an opinion, there is considerable evidence to suggest that they would have surrendered. There is considerable evidence to suggest that they wouldn't. Had an invasion been necessary, it would have been damn costly.
You can debate the opinion of what Japan would have done tell you are blue in the face, but until you invent a machine that can visit parallel timeliness you will never actually know. Quoting a few top brass that were against it is good evidence, not quoting the many top people who were for it is misleading and dishonest. Comparing it to holocaust deniers is absurd,, there is a difference between deniers of fact and deniers of how things would have played out had things been done differently.
bustaballsAug 6, 2010
There's nothing really debatable about it. It's an absolute historical fact no different from the holocaust. Just like every other mistake America makes, the spewed propaganda was to save face. It's no different from the "if we hadn't invaded Iraq, Saddam would have nuked America and you'd be murdered for not being Muslim and you'd be speaking Arabic and blah blah" people. It's all a part of the "history is written by the winners". Thankfully, we have some great historians that expose this kind of crap. I recommend reading "Lies My Teacher Told Me" for a detailed understand of the "patriotic history" that people are taught in this country.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
orville1151Aug 8, 2010
The military always wants to try out their new toys. We are doing that now in Afghanistan with the drone missiles. Does anyone really believe that we can defeat the Taliban by killing their leaders?
We kill one, and another will step up. What we are really doing is trying to perfect the predator class missiles as well as a lot of other military gear\tactics.
ymegAug 6, 2010
"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan."
~Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.
"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."
~Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.
kalliusAug 6, 2010
As bad as it sounds, the actual use of a nuclear weapon probably reigned in a lot of cavalier feelings about the technology. The horror and devastation witnessed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki likely ensured that a subsequent "real-world" usage would not be repeated.in the near future. Small comfort to the people affected, and we'll never know for certain, but those bombs may have prevented a "let's see what this will do" mentality. Testing in unoccupied areas does not provide the same emotional feedback as in a populated area. I am not for a second condoning what happened, but much like medicine in general benefited from horrific experiments in WWII, so may we have benefited from the tragedy 65 years ago.
sengAug 6, 2010
...And, if we hadn't shown we were willing to use overwhelming force in Japan, would the Germans have surrendered as easily?
Closed AccountAug 7, 2010
The bombs were dropped to push for an earlier surrender (by some 2 weeks), because the soviets were annexing manchuria.
stikytAug 7, 2010
@Kallius
I doubt it, we've been lamenting powerful military technology and it's devastating effects since WWI, but no one can change the nature of war in that the first to disarm is the first to loose. Thus we still have nuclear weapons and we're still thinking of new ways to wipe ourselves off the face of the earth.
toxicshokAug 6, 2010
They wanted to keep their system of government and emperor. That is completely unacceptable. We wanted unconditional surrender and they wanted a conditional surrender.
essarAug 6, 2010
Of course, the deaths of 150,000-200,000 civilians is vastly more acceptable than than a conditional surrender.
staticthunderAug 6, 2010
Its not your job to make nice nice with the guys that have killed 40,000+ of your contry's young men. Its your job to end the war and make it impossible for them to ever be a threat to you again. And if that means killing 200,000 civilians, because they don't seem to understand that you weren't kidding when you said 'step down as Emperor and do everything we tell you to', you do it, or you are a traitor to your country and should resign the office of Commander In Chief.
Your responsibility isn't to the civilians of the country you are at war with, its to the future lives of the civilians in YOUR country.
secrityAug 6, 2010
The Japanese military made the decision that the deaths of 150,000-200,000 civilians is vastly more acceptable than than an unconditional surrender.
bustaballsAug 6, 2010
The only condition was keeping their emperor. Ironically, even after their surrender, America still allowed the emperor to keep his seat (that he kept until the late 80s upon his death) which begs the question, "Why didn't we accept the conditional surrender in the first place?" That would have prevented the death of hundreds of thousands. That's just a single example (out of many) of how unnecessary those bombs were.
staticthunderAug 6, 2010
Because from then on, everyone would know that America had no stomach for war. Thats why. Because when you demand someone surrender, you don't let them negotiate better terms or pretty soon everybody thinks they can get a better deal and knows you don't have any balls, bustaballs.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
essarAug 7, 2010
You don't have to lecture me on the reality of war. Frankly, I don't give a s**t if the decision was the greatest act of military genius in the history of god-damn everything. You could prevent any enemy you ever went to war with from being able to attack you if you nuked them to oblivion. There's reasons we don't do that though.
Maybe I'm just hippy, liberal scum because I believe in human beings as individuals as opposed to hive collectives. Or because I think that patriotism and nationalism are some of the most foolish notions grounded in our basest of instincts, and their most fervent adherents are often demonstrably very stupid. Lives of people are not 'worth less' just because they live far away.
With every individual that is prevented from an opportunity at life, we lose the possibility of a great scientist, humanitarian or just all round cool dude. But hey, who f**king cares, right? They're foreign!
War is abhorrent enough when civilian casualties are avoided.
staticthunderAug 7, 2010
"You don't have to lecture me on the reality of war. "
Apparently I do. You don't seem to get it. You think the Presdient, the COC, should risk LOSING so that you can appease your moral conscience and feel good about his decision. You don't GET TO FEEL GOOD about this. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
staticthunderAug 7, 2010
I'm really glad none of you idiots digging me down are President. Oh yeah, accept a conditional surrender that leaves Hussein still in charge of Iraq, or the Taliban in charge of Afghanistan. Forget that the wars are wrong in the first place, but having committed thousands of lives to them, just get a lot of people killed and never actually defeat your enemies and prevent future wars for the same reasons the first one was fought.
You're lucky it only took two nuclear weapons after the hundred fire bombings that killed and ruined more lives, but THOSE, THOSE were OKAY.
kyanAug 7, 2010
@Static -- I'm not voting you down, just so you know. And even though i don't really agree with you, i do see where you are coming from.
But, nevertheless, I feel a need to point out that 'decimate' is probably not the right choice of words here. I think destruction in those cities was more than 10 per cent. Just sayin'!
Closed AccountAug 7, 2010
If the emperor was really that such a problem for the US (which it wasn't because they have let him reign), they could have accepted the peace-deal and kill the emperor afterwards in something like a plane crash.
drekorAug 6, 2010
This is the cost of war, which is why it should always be a last resort. Yes, the nuclear bombs were bad, but so were the incendiaries dropped on Dresden, so was the mustard gas in the trenches, so were the fields at Gettysburg, so was every war ever fought. To pretend otherwise, and blame a weapon for these tragedies, is to turn a blind eye to the realities of history.
goweigusAug 6, 2010
yes yes yes!
there were much worse attacks on civilians in WWII
no side was innocent
Things would have been SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much worse if the US hadn't had the nukes and everyone was forced to fight a land war in Japan (especially with how incredibly dedicated they were)
radix2Aug 7, 2010
[Your last paragraph]: This is by no means certain. Sure, it was the public rationale for using the nuke, but Japan was broken by that time.
fuzzwongAug 7, 2010
as a offensive tactical and strategic military power, yes they were. but the majority of the remaining military infrastructure of millions of soldiers and conscripts were ready to die rather than surrender. Only the emporer's will, an averted military coop, and the fact that the people were more devoted to their emporer than their pride ended the war quickly. Japan at the time was in fact heavily mobilizing(infantry and suicide planes mostly since there was a lack of oil) to fight off an invasion in the areas that the US was planning to land in.
joot2112Aug 7, 2010
If Japan were broken, they could have surrendered earlier. They even refused to surrender after Hiroshima ... thus Nagasaki.
habkbAug 6, 2010
I'll get buried for calling it a war crime, but I will anyway.
drekorAug 6, 2010
War crimes are something the winners of wars invented to punish the losers without losing a sense of moral superiority. Completely obfuscating the reality, which is that all wars are crimes.
habkbAug 6, 2010
That's bleak and cynical. Sometimes true, but not really the full story. To me at least it means more than that.
pathouston22Aug 6, 2010
All sides committed war crimes. War itself is a crime against humanity. It doesn't make the winner right and the loser wrong.
toxicshokAug 6, 2010
that could very well be true, however there was a certain evil to what the japanese and germans did that was never fully replicated by america. We may have locked innocent people up in camps, but we didn't march them to death.
drekorAug 6, 2010
You're right toxicshok, but we did firebomb and nuke their cities which were full of civilians. I'm not saying it was the wrong choice, but there are no winners here.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pathouston22Aug 6, 2010
@DreKor
Civilians make war possible. Who do you think built our tanks, airplanes, ships, bombs, etc?
drekorAug 6, 2010
I totally agree with you. If a country is going to fight a war, they have to be prepared to win it. And winning wars means utterly destroying the opponent to the point where they can't or won't continue fighting.
cyberdactylAug 6, 2010
Just finished "Tears in the Darkness: The Story of the Bataan Death March and Its Aftermath" by Michael Norman, 2009.
The Pearl Harbor attack, and then the horrific brutality four months later in the Philippines, was indeed war crimes committed by Japan LONG before the US started fire bombing of Japanese cities, and eventually what you see in this article with the nukes and was described in detail by Robert S. McNamara in the documentary, "The Fog of War".
Both countries are guilty of war crimes.
The difference is, the Japanese broke all rules of war off the git-go. So while the war was horrific, I believe the military elite in Japan realized they seriously f**ked up and released the brutal wrath and revenge of the US.
However, we, in the US, had little to no guilt, any by God should never apologize to the Japanese.
habkbAug 6, 2010
So they did war crimes first, so we can so whatever we want....
gnixon70Aug 6, 2010
always thought the term war crimes was a bit of an oxymoron myself determined by the winners as been suggested in this thread.
theworldisflatAug 6, 2010
Sorry, but it was not a war crime. Unnecessary action? Yes. A crime? No. That's like the modern day equivalent of calling everything "terrorism"
wastelanderAug 6, 2010
No, just war.
Though it could be argued that war itself is a crime.
golgothaAug 6, 2010
Mess with the bull and you'll get the horns.
Japan, what did you learn?
pakerAug 6, 2010
Research some history people:
Leaflets dropped on cities in Japan warning civilians about the atomic bomb, dropped c. August 6, 1945
TO THE JAPANESE PEOPLE:
America asks that you take immediate heed of what we say on this leaflet.
We are in possession of the most destructive explosive ever devised by man. A single one of our newly developed atomic bombs is actually the equivalent in explosive power to what 2000 of our giant B-29s can carry on a single mission. This awful fact is one for you to ponder and we solemnly assure you it is grimly accurate.
We have just begun to use this weapon against your homeland. If you still have any doubt, make inquiry as to what happened to Hiroshima when just one atomic bomb fell on that city.
Before using this bomb to destroy every resource of the military by which they are prolonging this useless war, we ask that you now petition the Emperor to end the war. Our president has outlined for you the thirteen consequences of an honorable surrender. We urge that you accept these consequences and begin the work of building a new, better and peace-loving Japan.
You should take steps now to cease military resistance. Otherwise, we shall resolutely employ this bomb and all our other superior weapons to promptly and forcefully end the war.
EVACUATE YOUR CITIES.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
ATTENTION JAPANESE PEOPLE. EVACUATE YOUR CITIES.
Because your military leaders have rejected the thirteen part surrender declaration, two momentous events have occurred in the last few days.
The Soviet Union, because of this rejection on the part of the military has notified your Ambassador Sato that it has declared war on your nation. Thus, all powerful countries of the world are now at war with you.
Also, because of your leaders' refusal to accept the surrender declaration that would enable Japan to honorably end this useless war, we have employed our atomic bomb.
A single one of our newly developed atomic bombs is actually the equivalent in explosive power to what 2000 of our giant B-29s could have carried on a single mission. Radio Tokyo has told you that with the first use of this weapon of total destruction, Hiroshima was virtually destroyed.
Before we use this bomb again and again to destroy every resource of the military by which they are prolonging this useless war, petition the emperor now to end the war. Our president has outlined for you the thirteen consequences of an honorable surrender. We urge that you accept these consequences and begin the work of building a new, better, and peace-loving Japan.
Act at once or we shall resolutely employ this bomb and all our other superior weapons to promptly and forcefully end the war.
EVACUATE YOUR CITIES.
hetmanAug 6, 2010
That is what happens when you allow the military to basically control your country. If it was not for the emprorer the war would have gone on longer. The military planned to kidnap the emperor and contunie the war. Luckily they were unable too.
splicernycAug 6, 2010
The problem is that Hirohito rubber-stamped everything the military was doing up until Nagasaki was bombed. After that he ordered the surrender on American terms. So much death could have been avoided had he stood up sooner.
toxicshokAug 6, 2010
and the military nearly attempted a coup when he started talking about surrender. They believed their "spirit" could overcome the bomb. Spirit is to the japanese what the wunderwaffe were to the nazis. An irrational hope.
terminal157Aug 6, 2010
The military deserves a great deal of the blame, but Hirohito was not as innocent as popular opinion might have you believe. It was politically convenient to everyone that the Emperor's part be downplayed during the rebuilding period.
smacksawAug 7, 2010
@Splicernyc
He was symbolic.
Tojo is the one who controlled what was going on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isoroku_Yamamoto
The fact he died was a huge blunder. Red Lasswell was a family friend of ours - he broke the code that led to Operation Vengeance and he was more circumspect after the fact. I'm thankful to have a different interpretation of what happened, but everything I have read and been told, Hirohito was powerless to Tojo.
habkbAug 6, 2010
So what? A nuke was dropped on a civilian target. They knew it wasn't evacuated. They still did it.
superkendallAug 6, 2010
There were no truly civilian targets in Japan at that time. Every aspect of the country was devoted to the war.
Closed AccountAug 6, 2010
Most people on this site are Americans. Don't even bother.
habkbAug 6, 2010
I know it's unpopular in the US. But someone out there must realize nuking cities is wrong. Jon Stewart got it right, but was made to eat his words...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
cheezinternAug 6, 2010
habkb, killing a single person is wrong; what's your point? War is hell.
Closed AccountAug 7, 2010
they had a choice. they ignored it.
ieatskunkAug 10, 2010
Nuking cities in general is wrong, but in this case it was necessary.
pakerAug 6, 2010
Should we have forgotten the unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor??
habkbAug 6, 2010
Revenge against a civilian target?
pakerAug 6, 2010
They had warning, the people on Pearl Harbor, civilian and military, had none.
Closed AccountAug 6, 2010
lol "warning". Those leaflets were often seen as propaganda. I highly doubt the US army actually believed people would evacuate en masse because of them.
relic180Aug 6, 2010
Did you miss the "reply" button?
wiseguy1020Aug 6, 2010
@Wrangler76
I bet they thought after they dropped the first bomb they might get the hint.
frostyb007Aug 6, 2010
I'm see you fall under the "two wrongs make a right" fan club
Closed AccountAug 6, 2010
@Wiseguy: Please look up the time that elapsed between the two bombings. Do you think it was reasonable to drop 2 atomic bombs within that timeframe?
pandabearshenyuAug 6, 2010
Pearl Harbor was provoked by the president. He wanted to enter the war but his country was in a recession and no one wanted to join. So, America being Japan's only supplier of oil, decided to completely halt all oil exports to them a few months before the attack on pearl harbor. He had warning that an attack on PH was imminent, which is why he moved all the carriers at that base out on exercise.
Before you label this as a conspiracy theory, people in the know at the time had spoken about it in many books and memoirs, and Japan wouldn't attack their only supplier of oil, since that is the one resource that supports their mechanized army.
So was the attack on pearl harbor unprovoked? No, not by a long shot.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
canadia86Aug 6, 2010
"Unprovoked"
lolwat
bustaballsAug 7, 2010
First of all, those leaflets were dropped AFTER the bombings.
Second, Pearl Harbor was FAR FAR FAR from unprovoked.
"Japan attacked the United States first.
If you mean that the Japanese bombed the military base of Pearl Harbor, before the US bombed the Japanese, then this is a difficult question to answer (see #1 below). If you mean that Japan committed acts of war against the United States first, then the answer is a definitive, "No!" The United States committed at least two acts of war under international law against Japan before December 7, 1941. They were:
1.
US military pilots – 40 from the Army Air Corps and 60 from the US Navy and Marine Corps – in a clandestine operation organized by and funded by the Whitehouse – flying bombing missions against Japanese forces in the famed Flying Tigers as early as 1937. These people did “volunteer” to fly for the Flying Tigers but they were paid employees of the US government. US pilots flying bombing missions for the Chinese was an act of war under international law by America against Japan. Even with the weak argument that these professional military men were “volunteers” (when they were actually sent by the US government), under international law, a nation is responsible for the actions of its nationals. To claim otherwise is hypocritical and completely irresponsible.
2.
US initiated oil embargo against Japan. This is unquestionably an act of war under international law. The US was also totally hypocritical on this point as they forced the British and the Dutch to uphold the embargo, yet secretly allowed Japan oil from the United States as a way to spy on Japanese shipping. See: Day of Deceit by Robert Stinnett.
Counting the above two, then President Roosevelt had a total of eight plans to incite hostilities with the Japanese. The rest, as they say "is history." There are a great many excellent books and articles on what really happened in World War II. The serious student (and professor) would do themselves and their country good to seek out the truth. Things are not as black and white as US public schooling and US history books would lead us to believe. The true causes of the Pacific War were the clash of the US empire in Asia and the Japanese empire.
There is really nothing that is new to the informed student of history in this article, except for one thing: The idea that the Japanese were fanatics that would fight to the death for their emperor. This is unquestionably a complete and total fabrication. The Japanese people that I spoke to, the people who still clearly remember the war, state uncategorically that this idea is false. The average Japanese – like the average person anywhere in the world – at any time in history – would act in a way that is common to human nature: To fight to the death to protect their families and homes. Only a few brainwashed fanatics in the military would have made a claim such as dying for the emperor. Even more to the point, the Japanese I interviewed were surprised to hear that this nonsense is being taught to American children in school. Where this fabrication initially came from is a good question. I would submit to you that this is also a post-war fabrication by apologists for the atomic bombing war crimes of the United States.
Of course the imperial Japanese Army committed atrocities in Asia. Those are unforgivable. That being said, though, committing atrocities is what all imperial forces do – and have always done. World War II Japanese atrocities were no different than what US imperial forces are doing in the Middle East today. Modern Americans should keep this in mind whenever they attempt to demonize the enemy for American imperialist gains – or to excuse US war crimes."Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
speedsteamboatAug 7, 2010
@bustaballs: So what are you, some sort of apologist for imperial Japan? What the hell is that?
First off, your "FDR PROVOKED JAPAN!" conspiracies are well known and debunked.
The Flying Tigers did not fly a single mission until 12 DAYS AFTER the attack on Pearl Harbor, not "as early as 1937" as you claim, so unless the Japanese military had acquired time travel it's hard to imagine how they could possibly have provoked an attack.
Secondly, the characterization of sanctions and embargoes as "acts of war" is a truly tortured bit of logic. A sovereign nation has NO obligation to offer trade to any other nation, and in fact has a fundamental right to determine who they wish to trade with and on what terms. Describing such action as provocation is as illogical as arguing that street vendors refusal to meet the price you request justifies assaulting him.
As for the fanatical fighting nature of the Japanese military at the time, the casualty numbers and countless testimonials by WWII veterans speak for themselves, and the kamikaze phenomenon is well documented.
You call yourself a student of history, but you are not even a student of sound logic let alone provable fact.
It is true that these leaflets were dropped after the FIRST bomb was dropped, though I can assure you that dropping leaflets on Japanese cities, as well as broadcasting allied controlled radio signals, were not a new innovation at that point. Also, the Japanese were offered a chance to surrender along with an earnest warning regarding our newly developed weapons capability. They ignored the Potsdam Declaration even after Hiroshima and the military attempted a cout in order to prevent the Emperor's surrender even after Nagasaki.
Next time, cite your copy-pasta (though I have a hunch regarding why you didn't).
wiseguy1020Aug 7, 2010
@bustaballs
Not to mention that you didn't mention why we cut off oil to Japan.
It was not because we didn't like them.
Forgot about the Japanese invasion of China in 1931, full-scale war with them by 1937 and invading Indochina in 1940?
muffinmonkAug 7, 2010
Get this weeaboo out of here.
dorftrottelAug 7, 2010
I am a little curious about your time line for the Flying Tigers. You say they were flying sorties in 1937. Now, I am sure you know that the Flying Tigers operated the Curtiss P-40B Warhawk. The first flight for the initial model of the Curtiss P-40 was in 1938. I am wondering how they managed to get the P-40B before the P-40 was even rolling off the assembly line.
I think what has you confused is that Chenault, then retired from active duty, was invited by the Chinese leadership in 1937 to act as a consultant to help them design their airforce from the American mold.
The AVG wasn't formed until after Pearl Harbor.
endersadvocateAug 7, 2010
"World War II Japanese atrocities were no different than what US imperial forces are doing in the Middle East today"
You're joking right????
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_nanking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731
They were worse than the nazis
newsc2Aug 6, 2010
Just a thought -- why didn't the U.S. first demonstrate the atomic bomb on Japanese mines or farms (aka "resources of the military")? Did it have to be on a city with civilians?
habkbAug 6, 2010
Good question. And why Nagasaki? Just for the heck of it?
staticthunderAug 6, 2010
Because clouds obscured the main target.
ejpusaAug 6, 2010
I believe the prevailing mood is that it was to demonstrate to the Russians to lay low. Which seemed to work. For awhile.
hetmanAug 6, 2010
@ejpusa that was the bombing of Dresden. I am sure Ameirca did want to show of the the russians. However the bombs were used to end the war. The thing is the fire bombing of tokyo caused more deaths that Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Also we had already fired bombed over 200 Japanese cities. Also even if we did invade our invasion plan used two atomic bombs to clear the beach so that the marines could invade.
Closed AccountAug 6, 2010
MInes and farms don't have as high of a civilian to military usefulness ratio, staticthunder. I sincerely hope you're not trying to argue there were no other viable targets for the bombs.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
staticthunderAug 6, 2010
If you think you could have done a better job picking targets, why didn't you?
toxicshokAug 6, 2010
I'm sure glad there were no military or industrial targets in Nagasaki or Hiroshima.
frostyb007Aug 6, 2010
How about a better idea.. send a f**king video of it to the Japanese! They did have video cameras back then you know.
staticthunderAug 6, 2010
"How about a better idea.. send a f**king video of it to the Japanese! They did have video cameras back then you know. That would've scared them s**tless"
Jesus H. Christ. Yeah, lets send the Emperor a bucket of popcorn too.
captininsanityAug 6, 2010
There was no "good" solution to the problem. The war was in too deep. The nukes were the last final resort to stop even more killing. Do you know what plan B would have been if they didn't surrender? Bomb a radioactive path to the captiol, land hundreds of thousands of troops in Japan. March to the emperor killing everything in the way. That plan was expected to kill 100,000s of US and Japanese military and millions of civilians.
Also don't forget the nukes actually pale in comparison to the 1,000,000 civilians we burned alive in Tokyo.
automatikAug 6, 2010
the real answer to this question is: BECAUSE THE UNITED STATES ONLY HAD TWO NUKES AT THE TIME look it up, its true.
staticthunderAug 6, 2010
Honestly, they could have thrown darts at a map of the Japanese countryside and people would still be pissed about Truman's decision, still thinking they could have done it differently and ended the war better, forgetting the fact that the war had been ALL ABOUT killing people, men, women, children, horribly for quite some time.
I believe, that if the bomb hadn't been used on the Japanese, TWICE, people would have believed it was an irreproducible event, a fluke, the result of conventional bombing and anti-American propaganda, and it would have been used on someone else later, and they've only gotten larger in the meantime.
newsc2Aug 6, 2010
@automatik: Thank you. Not sure why I was getting downvoted, but I was under the impression they had a small cache of nukes. Bomb one in countryside -- no response, bomb a village -- no response, then bomb cities was what I had in mind.
And StaticThunder -- something like this would never fly in today's world. If we accidentally bomb a farmer's hut in the middle of Afghanistan people are up in arms. My question relates to the killing 100,000 civilians. Stop trying to act like my point is idiotic and we can't even QUESTION why we bombed two cities. Suddenly I'm anti-American because I read an article that's kind of touching?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
staticthunderAug 6, 2010
So what do you think of NOT dropping the weapon capable of ending the war?
staticthunderAug 6, 2010
I'll give you a better answer.
If we wasted the first bomb on a target of no military value - as a demonstration - there was no guarantee the second one would go off. They were different designs and we only had the two for the foreseeable future. . And if the first one didn't go off, our credibility with the Japanese military would be shot and then we'd just have one before our bluff gets called that we actually CAN'T rain death over every Japanese city.
jpopAug 6, 2010
My recollection is 1) We didn't have that many of the weapons. 2) We weren't 100% sure they would explode. Now, what would have happened if we said we'd demonstrate the weapon and it was a dud?
ieatskunkAug 10, 2010
The United States only had two weapons to use. The US told Japan they had the weapon but Japan didn't think it was true, they thought the US was bluffing to force a surrender. Even after the first one they believed the US could not possibly have any more.
relic180Aug 6, 2010
So, because they didn't evacuate, it's their own fault? Were the innocent civilians also suppose to pack up their houses and jobs and schools too? What about their plumbing and sewer systems or electrical grids? Their mass transit and grocery stores too? They should have just packed all that up and moved outside of the city for some undetermined amount of time (Oh, and make sure to pack enough food for X number of days, please) until the bomb had dropped then go back and live normal again...
Also of note, the U.S. actually dropped leaflets on 35 Japanese cities, 33 of which were not bombed.
staticthunderAug 6, 2010
"So, because they didn't evacuate, it's their own fault"
Is it my fault?
relic180Aug 6, 2010
@Static
That's got to be a record on the fewest words read before replying. You actually stopped at the question mark.. impressive.
staticthunderAug 6, 2010
I read your whole quote. Its a bulls**t question and you know it. Anyone who left would have been marked as a coward even if they had the means. It doesn't change the fact they were warned and it doesn't make it their fault.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
relic180Aug 6, 2010
So, you agreeing with me that it's unrealistic to have expected them to evacuate, but you disagree with me because I didn't list YOUR reasons why?? I'm a bit confused.
I can't be sure, but it definitely SOUNDS like you didn't read my post. BTW, that first sentence that you've latched onto about "fault" has a question mark at the end of it for a reason.
staticthunderAug 6, 2010
Yes, its unrealistic to have expected them to evacuate. So what?
relic180Aug 7, 2010
Ok, I'm done with you. Obviously a troll.
speedsteamboatAug 7, 2010
The problem is that you're putting words in the OPs mouth.
He just pasted what the leaflets said. He never blamed anyone for anything.
staticthunderAug 7, 2010
^^^^ BINGO ^^^^
Yeah, I took issue with what you said, relic, I must be a troll. Talk about a persecution complex. Grow up.
sinurgyAug 6, 2010
Commenting for a bookmark!
bustaballsAug 6, 2010
Those leaflets were dropped AFTER the cities were bombed. That's a fact and I hate to have to inform you of this but if you tell someone something is going to happen after the fact, it's not a warning.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
wiseguy1020Aug 7, 2010
After the FIRST one.
speedsteamboatAug 7, 2010
*After the FIRST city was bombed, and after the second as well.
WII was brutal on an unprecedented scale. I see absolutely no benefit in debating whether the United States got "too tough" at the very end. The *world*, from central Asia to Africa to Europe, had been at war for nearly six years, engaged in the absolute bloodiest and most horrific conflict mankind has ever seen. These two bombings were horrible events, but so was virtually everything else that occurred from 1939 to 1945. Ultimately, the casualties of these bombings were but a tiny fraction of the total caused by the war, likely less than 1% of the wars total.
This is not an excuse or an attempt to diminish the outcomes here, but a simply reality check and request that you gain a little bit of perspective. When a person or nation choses to enter the state of warfare, of total war as seen in World Wars I and II, they choose to inflict untold and incomprehensible suffering on those they attack and themselves.
If the Japanese found the realities of warfare unpalatable or abhorrent they aught not have instigated it. If they wished to end the horrors and prevent these tragedies from befalling their cities they aught to have surrendered sooner.
This is terribly, and it's exactly what war looks like.
bustaballsAug 7, 2010
Wrong. Our military was worried that if we warned the Japanese beforehand, the Japanese would bring American POWs into the blast zone. This was one factor of intentionally not warning the Japanese among many others. Those leaflets were never dropped beforehand. There were no warnings. Ask ANY Japanese. Hell, even the Japanese Wikipedia page explains how that's a myth.
bustaballsAug 7, 2010
"In the introduction to Hiroshima's Shadows, we find that "One of the myths of Hiroshima is that the inhabitants were warned by leaflets that an atomic bomb would be dropped. The leaflets Leonard Nadler and William P. Jones recall seeing in the Hiroshima Museum in 1960 and 1970 were dropped after the bombing. This happened because the President's Interim Committee on the Atomic Bomb decided on May 31 'that we could not give the Japanese any warning'. Furthermore, the decision to drop 'atomic' leaflets on Japanese cities was not made until August 7, the day after the Hiroshima bombing. They were not dropped until August 10, after Nagasaki had been bombed. We can say that the residents of Hiroshima received no advance warning about the use of the atomic bomb. On June 1, 1945, a formal and official decision was taken during a meeting of the so-called Interim Committee not to warn the populations of the specific target cities. James Byrnes and Oppenheimer insisted that the bombs must be used without prior warning.""
staticthunderAug 7, 2010
The leaflets were for psychological warfare.
staticthunderAug 7, 2010
What did I say that was untrue, that you felt you had to digg me down?
motty32Aug 7, 2010
imo nuking major cities was intolerable. i simply cannot imagine being alive at the time
stikytAug 7, 2010
Funny how a complete lie can be dugg up just to save face.
diggimatorAug 7, 2010
Buried.
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0805-24.htm 'The fact is that atomic bomb warning leaflets were dropped on Japanese cities, but only after Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been destroyed.'
http://www.doug-long.com/letter.htm 'In yet another label, the Smithsonian asserts as fact that "Special leaflets were then dropped on Japanese cities three days before a bombing raid to warn civilians to evacuate." The very next sentence refers to the bombing of Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, implying that the civilian inhabitants of Hiroshima were given a warning. In fact, no evidence has ever been uncovered that leaflets warning of atomic attack were dropped on Hiroshima. Indeed, the decision of the Interim Committee was "that we could not give the Japanese any warning."[10]'
Nagasaki was not even the intended target until the day of the bombing, due to poor weather conditions over Kokura.
thealliedhackerAug 7, 2010
lmao how many drones dugg up this comment even though:
1) It's a lie that they were dropped before the bombs.
2) It's completely irrelevant, even if it were true. What were they supposed to do, evacuate the entire country? No specific city was mentioned. If the US didn't want to kill so many people, they wouldn't ask to evacuate cities, they would bomb somewhere less inhabited.
3) The actual purpose was to cause fear and panic under the belief that the US had more bombs.
pathouston22Aug 6, 2010
Wharrblegarble
Fire bombings killed far more people and did far more damage than either nukes.
theworldisflatAug 6, 2010
Combined destruction over time with conventional weapons != single point-in-time losses via nukes.
All the firebombings in the world cannot come near the energy released of a modern nuclear warhead. Sensational or not, the first usage of the weapons were a single-point destruction that had never been witnessed before.
pathouston22Aug 6, 2010
1 night of firebombing killed more people in Tokyo than Nagasaki did, and possibly more than Hiroshima.
Closed AccountAug 6, 2010
The effects of nuclear weapons lasts far longer than those of firebombings.
geeknurseAug 6, 2010
I'm pretty sure the people that were killed from the firebombings were dead just as long.
Closed AccountAug 6, 2010
*WHOOSH*
Closed AccountAug 6, 2010
And boom goes the dynamite.
theworldisflatAug 6, 2010
Nuclear weapons represented the ultimate tipping point for man.. We had achieved, through our own design, the means in which to completey f**k ourselves into oblivion. MAD became the sologan for the cold war. To this day, we still bitch about others having them when we've got enough to incenerate the planet a few times over. The power held is awesome, and it's simply amazing that no one has let one of these off their leash in the last 65 years in an act of aggression... given all whom currently posess them.
I view nuclear weapons as a potential fuel source rather than a weapon... now it's just a matter of changing the viewpoints of those who lack a scientific background and/or are those who send others sons & daughters off to war.
doctechnicalAug 6, 2010
"...when we've got enough to incenerate the planet a few times over."
Citation required.
hsgmAug 6, 2010
And 8 years before that there was The Rape of Nanking.
I'd say the Japanese deserved it.
texasshivAug 6, 2010
Wow
Closed AccountAug 6, 2010
Yeah, I suppose those civilians were the ones responsible for the Nanjing Massacre. You're a freaking moron.
seandoofAug 6, 2010
Using your logic, lots of American civilians should suffer for the atrocities committed by the U.S. military against civilians of various other countries with which we were at war (namely Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan). Should we all just go ahead and form a line behind you to receive what you claim we deserve?
staticthunderAug 6, 2010
Were the rapists in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
There's your answer about who 'deserved' it. The whole thing was sad. American Imperialism is sad, Japanese imperialism is sad, people who think they 'deserved' it are sad. It happened. It could have been avoided. Thats sad.
automatikAug 6, 2010
you should study the history around this much more thoroughly. while it is indeed sad, your initial question about the rapists is based on incomplete knowledge. surely there *were* soldiers from nagasaki and hiroshima participating in the rape of nanking, that is not the point. these cities were not chosen as targets for revenge's sake.
automatikAug 6, 2010
static i read your post out of context. nevermind what i said.
adml_shakeAug 6, 2010
That depends on how you look at it. In that era of Japan, every citizen more or less would have been an enemy combatant as soon as we set foot on their shores. They believed that their emperor was a god, and to die for him was a honor no other deed could top. So you tell me whats worse, dropping these 2 bombs, or landing troops and having our troops and those civilians slaughter each other for a few moths or a year as we fight to take Tokyo.
staticthunderAug 6, 2010
You don't KNOW that, because we DIDN'T set foot on their shores like that.
mykonos08Aug 6, 2010
right, we shoulda stuck our pinky toe in water to find out.
oatmealsAug 6, 2010
We do know that. The Japanese have a history of being strong willed and very patriotic. Their fighter pilots would sacrafice themeslves as a final kamakaze attack on a US warship just for the honor of surving their emperor.
We don't take the loss of life and suffering on the Japanese end lighly - it's a lesser of all evils. Could there have been a better alternative than the nuke? Probably. Will we ever know? No.
How many lives were spared because US didin't need to enter a conventional war with Japan? How many more lives were spared because leaders learned to never take nukes lighly (eg. Cold War)?
staticthunderAug 6, 2010
"The Japanese have a history of being strong willed and very patriotic. Their fighter pilots would sacrafice themeslves as a final kamakaze attack on a US warship just for the honor of surving their emperor."
Right thus every Japanese man woman and child is a marine killing machine.
We have no idea what would have happened because we have no way of going back in time and trying it out. Everything is navel-gazing conjecture by people who have the good fortune of not having had to make the hard decsions.
adml_shakeAug 6, 2010
Static, read up on it. You don't know what you are talking about.
staticthunderAug 6, 2010
I know that history is written by the victors to make it sound like they were always in the right.
bustaballsAug 7, 2010
"The Japanese were fascists. They were religious fanatics who worshipped the emperor as their God and were prepared to fight to the death.
These sentences are completely false. One must understand a bit of Japanese history – and have a bit of common sense – just to see how really outlandish these notions are. Let’s touch on Japanese history first:
The imperial Japanese family returned to the throne of Japan a mere 70 years before the outbreak of hostilities between Japan and the United States. The utter notion that the Japanese nation was prepared to "die for their emperor" is an out-and-out fantasy. The average Japanese did not feel any more affinity to the emperor than the average American feels for their president; or the British or Spanish for their King. Why would they? Japan’s Hirohito had only been emperor for 15 years by the time war started with the United States. His family had been placed back in power only 70 years before. In fact, according to the Meiji Restoration (the movement that returned the emperor’s family to the throne of Japan), the emperor was nothing more than a figure-head of state. In fact, the emperor himself fancied his position along the lines of modern British monarchy and was unwilling to get involved with the day-to-day affairs of running the country.
The Meiji Restoration was a chain of events that led to a change in Japan’s political and social structure. It occurred from 1866 to 1869, a period of 4 years that transverses both the late Edo and beginning of the Meiji Period. Probably the most important foreign account of the events of 1862–69 is contained in A Diplomat in Japan by Sir Ernest Satow.
The leaders of the Meiji Restoration, as this revolution came to be known, claimed that their actions restored the emperor's powers. This is not in fact true. Power simply moved from the Tokugawa Shogun to a new oligarchy of the daimyo who defeated him.
Emperor Hirohito was the figurehead emperor of Japan. Before him, his father, Emperor Taisho, held that position for a mere 14 years. It is widely rumored that Emperor Taisho had the same ailment that many inbred European monarchs suffered from; namely "being crazy." Now it doesn’t take too much of a leap of imagination to see where the average Japanese Joe – just like Europeans – may have felt some affinity for the emperor, but they certainly were not going to risk their lives for him. So, if this guy was not so revered and respected – as claimed in the west to this day, why then did the Japanese fly Kamikaze planes and fight so hard in Saipan, and Okinawa, etc.? More on the obvious answer to this in a moment.
But first, another point that has been lost on most people from the west in these last 60 years: The idea that the emperor is divine is a strictly Shinto religious belief. Japan was, and still is, a predominately Buddhist country. Buddhist’s do not believe man can be a God. As Albert Einstein wrote:
"Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion of the future: it transcends a personal God, avoids dogma and theology; it covers both the natural and spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity."
"
toxicshokAug 6, 2010
Sometimes two wrongs do make a right.
pandabearshenyuAug 6, 2010
A Chinese person living at the time would've been happy about this because it exacts revenge and brings about a quicker end to the war. But do the civilians deserve it? No, either does the 20 million people the Japanese murdered in China. War is war, whether people deserve it or not, they die.
builderbAug 6, 2010
Unfortunately the people vaporized by the atom bombs were not the same people who perpetrated the Rape of Nanking, more or less. So I don't think it's so easy to say "they deserved it" with a broad sweeping generalization, just as it would be too simplistic to say "the Germans deserved it" when clearly it isn't so simple. Many civilians, children, innocent people died in these bombings. The sad thing is, many of the truly evil monsters escaped punishment altogether. Members of Unit 731 - a medical/bio-weapon research group that committed unspeakable acts on people in the name of research - were granted immunity by the US gov because General MacArthur wanted their bio-weapons research data. These were people that dissected other living human beings awake and without anesthesia, and the US government set them free without punishment.
War - life - is not as fair and just and easily summarized as people like to think it is.
automatikAug 6, 2010
well at least you've studied the subject. if you know about Unit 731, you know that japanese bio-weapons were being prepared to attack the western US. virtually no one knows this, most especially self-righteous, hindsight critics.
nostradumassAug 6, 2010
To use your logic, every American is responsible for our indiscriminate use of napalm, Agent Orange and conventional bombs in Vietnam. We committed unspeakable atrocities to their people ( My Lai, among many others) , tortured, maimed and brutalized thousands of innocent civilians and we lost the war.
pandabearshenyuAug 6, 2010
Your unwillingness to care and do something about governments that you elected means yes, you are responsible. It's the people's right and responsibility in America to maintain their democracy, but you don't give a s**t, do you?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
staticthunderAug 6, 2010
Does my government always listen to me?
The same argument means everyone in the WTC deserved 9-11. Taliban-style logic.
pandabearshenyuAug 7, 2010
Yes, and the same taliban logic says every innocent person in Afghanistan and Iraq deserved it for the actions of some Al Qaeda extremists.
automatikAug 6, 2010
it's sad when people don't know history. japan was an extremely merciless empire, especially regarding defeated enemies. atomic bombs were the only thing that could jar that proud, warrior culture to surrender.
fact: schoolgirls with sharpened sticks on the beaches vs. american GI's were actually part of their plan to resist the inevitable invasion. seriously, look it up....
riolio11Aug 7, 2010
I feel like digging you up, hsgm, just so everyone else can see what you just said...
riolio11Aug 7, 2010
...because of how shocking it is, not because I agree.
Damn, digg..
stikytAug 7, 2010
So if civilians in a totalitarian state who are taught obedience from birth are responsible for the actions of their Government and Military then where exactly is the retribution towards the US whose civilians have full democratic privileges and whose wartime ambitions over the last 40 years have resulted in many times the civilian deaths of the Nanking Massacre.
bestenemyAug 6, 2010
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
- Albert Einstein
feverhostAug 6, 2010
.... woah... that is a great quote.
toxicshokAug 6, 2010
"That and chemical gases and biological weapons, and ya know probably some tanks and s**t as well."
-- Albert Einstein.
treshnellAug 6, 2010
I think the point went this way <-- and you went that way -->.
juliusthecatAug 7, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
kibblesnbittsAug 6, 2010
Everybody should read this article.
Closed AccountAug 6, 2010
Everybody needs to read a history book as well.
eh123Aug 6, 2010
I was worth it.
panteradactylAug 6, 2010
Why does gizmodo always shoot the story down 2 pages so I have to scroll down? Is it this awful IE6 I have to use at work?
prolikewhoaAug 6, 2010
Scrolling is better than loading a new page.
And for IE6, something needs to be done at your work. That browser is s**t. You must see lots of broken sites.
panteradactylAug 6, 2010
The worst part? I work for the 2nd biggest retailer in the United States IT department.
frobozz0Aug 6, 2010
You need to either quit your job or petition for an immediate upgrade to IE 8 or a viable alternate browser such as Chrome, Firefox, Safari, or Opera.
Joking aside– seriously, get them the to upgrade that s**t. That's an embarrassment to your company.
mrsurfboardAug 6, 2010
A bomb is a bomb. You are just as dead either way. Japan brought the war upon themselves and they paid the price for their emperor's arrogance.
feverhostAug 6, 2010
... I don't see how the U.S gets out of the war with Japan unless they dropped the bomb. It didn't seem like the Japanese were in any hurry to give up, and i'm not sure if the U.S would be capable of staying in the war more than a few more years.
adml_shakeAug 6, 2010
It was his advisers that were more to blame than anyone. They are they ones who kept feeding him the whole indestructible/favored by the gods line. They were also the ones who when planning out attacks and statagies for engaging US forces always tipped the balance in their favor and grossly over estimated their own forces and underestimated ours. Hence why after our fleet was rebuilt we kept sticking it to them.
caramba421Aug 6, 2010
The Japanese war machine was already completely decimated by that point, and the Soviet invasion was to be the final nail in the coffin.
joejitsuAug 6, 2010
Good thing we dropped the bomb and they surrounded just to us. Had the Soviets invaded parts of Japan would resemble North Korea.
volatile36Aug 7, 2010
@joejitsu
I think that's actually a really interesting point. Look at Eastern Europe or Central Asia. The places are f**ked after 50 years of Soviet puppet rule. I think Japan should really consider itself lucky that they surrendered when they did to the U.S. because otherwise they would not have had any of the post-war prosperity Western Europe had. Not to mention the fact that the U.S. regretted (whether it was necessary or not) having to use the atomic bomb, whereas an occupying force like the Soviet military would have no compunctions about it.
tgc1Aug 7, 2010
No, Japans leadership brought the war on their entire country. The innocents who fell victim to this should not be ignored. Children at school have nothing to do with the stupidity with which their leaders conduct themselves.
mrsurfboardAug 8, 2010
People die in war. That's why it is something to be avoided.
Closed AccountAug 8, 2010
You're saying innocent civilians paid the price for something their military government authorized and they had no control over.
Well, yeah, I guess you're right. That's sadly exactly the way war has gone since WWII and will continue to go in the future.
It's sad day when that happens to us in North America.
cooldude777Aug 6, 2010
Death is horrible, but suffering is worse. Let's not forget the atrocities committed throughout the Pacific by the Japanese who started the war. From a humanitarian point of view it is horrible these people had to suffer, but it is also horrible that the Japanese military inflicted suffering on other peoples simply to expand their empire.
stuffradioAug 6, 2010
Eye for an eye.
bermudianguyAug 7, 2010
Makes the whole world blind.
inactiveuserAug 7, 2010
Koreans are happy they left, most people don't know what the Japanese did over there.
wiseguy1020Aug 7, 2010
Not to mention the Chinese, Vietnamese, Filipinos, and Indonesians.
pabstyloudmouthAug 6, 2010
War? War never changes....
tsk05Aug 6, 2010
Not to worry, most of us have this in our future IMO. Of course, I could just be paranoid..
tsk05Aug 6, 2010
Look at this picture, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atomic_cloud_over_Hiroshima.jpg , in the few seconds previous to that picture being taken, 60,000 people died (that's immediate deaths). Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
oatmealsAug 6, 2010
My sympathies to the innocent that were harmed from the horrible, but just nuclear attack. This is just one side of the coin - see the Nanjing Massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre) where 20,000-80,000 Chinese women were raped by the Japanese occupation.
The Japanese are patriotic and strong willed people. So strong that their fighter pilots would use their plane as a final means of sacrafice to attack US warships. Consider how many more casulties would there have been on all sides if the Americans had to fight a conventional war with them.
necrozimAug 7, 2010
Ive had this debate with my missus many times.
I feel that, horrifying as it was to resort to nuclear weapons, it was the lesser of two evils against her thoughts of they should never have been used because we never know how long it would have taken for Japan to surrender, and the deaths may not have been anywhere near as severe.
I personally think that the Japanese are so dedicated to their cause they would probably never have surrendered and the death toll would have been sabstantial for all nations. She thinks that if the might of all armies simultatiously attacked Japan, they would have surrendered... but we will never know eh?
Beep111Aug 6, 2010
This s**t pisses me off, because the firestorm bombings took far, far more lives than the Atomic bombs. Do some historical research, and you will realize that the A-bombs were one of the "best" (ie most goals accomplish per loss of life) atrocities to happen in WW2. The Atom Bombs saved millions of lives on BOTH sides. WW2 had many atrocities that accomplished nothing but the indiscriminate taking of life. The Atomic bombs fulfilled their purpose and ended the bloodiest war humanity has ever seen.
excolaturAug 7, 2010
Yep, the napalm fire bombings killed about 1 million people while the two atomic bombs killed about 200k.
miffelplixAug 6, 2010
It's a good thing we won--else our leaders would have been hanged for crimes against humanity.
unkoboyAug 7, 2010
idk why people are digging you down, this is a true statement...
Closed AccountAug 6, 2010
"War is delightful to those who have not yet experienced it." -Erasmus
enantiodromiaAug 7, 2010
"I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity."
-General Dwight D. Eisenhower
pharmaphoxAug 6, 2010
It's fairly easy to look back and say the bomb ended the war. If only the threat had been there earlier been able to spare lives in Europe.
Today I think their greatest strength is in deterrence. Let's hope they are never used again.
Closed AccountAug 6, 2010
And the fighting STOPPED....and the conflict/war ENDED.
Unlike conflicts/wars of today that drag on endlessly because we don't have the stomach to end it.
If there are no clear winners and losers, then you can rest assured, the conflict will continue.
enantiodromiaAug 7, 2010
The difference is, the "wars" we invent today, conveniently don't have clear enemies nor obvious end game scenarios.
We don't declare war on countries anymore, and until we invent a bomb that can selectively only kill our enemies while leaving our local allies untouched, we will continue to have these long stupid drawn out wars on intangible ideas.
mrwooAug 7, 2010
The wars today need to be continuous as the war itself is what is generating business, our governments are going to keep these wars going for as long as possible to ensure maximum profit. Today each soldiers equipment, all the tech in the field, all the vehicles and weapons, everything is manufactured privately. These wars are great business.
chrizzly89Aug 6, 2010
As much as Japan as a country and military deserved getting the bombs dropped on them, there is no way in hell I will ever feel this justified the death of so many children, women and civilians.
Yes, there would have been more people killed if the war wasnt ended so promptly.
The Japanese military was just a bunch of morons who rather saw their people and themselves dying due to absolutely retarded views of honor than ending a war they could NEVER win and therefore saving their families and people.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
skews13Aug 6, 2010
Truman had a hell of a decision to make. I'm glad i didn't have to make it. My uncle was a mailman for the U.S Navy in the Phillipines, and became a POW right before McAuthor returned to liberate the island. If just half of what he told me is true, i have no sympathy for the Japanese that died during those bombings. If they had not been deployed, then the war would have continued for another 4 years, with far more casualties for both sides, and if we would have had to take the islands in that manner, then we would have probably never given them back to the Japanese people. Those bombs are the only reason their is a Japan today. They should be grateful considering their actions, that we didn't take those islands one at a time with allied forces. Every witness in that post wouldn't have been alive to give those accounts if that would have happened. Let this be a lesson to all that have aspirations of world dominance. Nuclear weapons are a great deterence to prevent that from happening which is why they will never be abolished.
milkmageAug 6, 2010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroshima_%28book%29
the light was so intense kimono patterns were burned into the skin
mriceeAug 6, 2010
and thus XEROX was invented.
joshsirjoshulesAug 7, 2010
This is a hell of a book. It's what made me want to become a journalist.
Beep111Aug 6, 2010
Also, payback for years and years of brutal Japanese occupation. They either indiscriminately killed civilians, or forced them on death marches. They even loaded a transport ship up with American citizens and torpedoed it. No sympathy at all. If you want people to respect your citizens' life, you have to show you care in turn. The Japanese were callous, and thus received exactly what they had dished out: death.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
staticthunderAug 6, 2010
War is not about payback. You don't get revenge by killing civilians. You don't correct atrocities by committing them.
The Japanese you call callous had absolutely no power over the Emperor and the Military. They were lucky if they got a bowl of rice each day.
Beep111Aug 7, 2010
War is not supposed to be about payback, but most times it is. Payback for a political wronging, or even a physical one.
Look I'm not saying that every Japanese person is to blame. Most were innocent and most were forcibly pressed into service. But if your government f**ks up, it's the citizens that are going to take the brunt of the punishment.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
staticthunderAug 7, 2010
No s**t, Beep111. Now quit trying to justify it.
dekuscrubAug 6, 2010
Japanese culture is very big on pride and honor. It was considered dishonorable to surrender. Don’t believe me?
Well, after the U.S. leveled Hiroshima they STILL wouldn’t give up. It took a 2nd bomb to do the job.
There were also reports of civilians who committed suicide when facing capture by the allied forces.
Know this about our enemy, I don’t think we had any other option but to use the A-bomb. They would not have given up otherwise.
ratskiAug 7, 2010
How would you know since the second bomb was only dropped only two days later?
wiseguy1020Aug 7, 2010
How long should we have waited while American, Australian , British, and Dutch casualties continued to roll in?
You think the rest of the war was just gonna be put on hold while the Japanese made up their minds?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
adrnshw6Aug 6, 2010
The amount of lives lost, both American and Japanese, would have been far greater if the United States had not used nuclear weapons and had instead used conventional weapons during an invasion.
joshsirjoshulesAug 7, 2010
Better that than the paranoia of the entire planet being annihilated by a couple of jackasses who've gotten their hands on loose nukes.
jpopAug 7, 2010
Which wasn't a concern at the time.
joshsirjoshulesAug 7, 2010
This is true. That and the establishment of Israel...they really didn't think too much about this.
skinturtleAug 6, 2010
Well...as terrible as it was....they were idiots to pick a fight with the US.
jpopAug 6, 2010
They were making a calculated gamble. They knew that if it became an extended war, they would lose in the end because the US would outproduce them.
They felt that if they could take out our fleet and did enough damage to the US, it would lose it's will and sue for peace (much like what's happened ever since).
Unfortunately for them, and fortunately for us, they didn't get our entire fleet at Hawaii...
dsanonlineAug 7, 2010
We kind of forced them into a corner by restricting their supply of oil. Their entire country was going to collapse. When you look at history, WE provoked them. They did what they did out of DESPERATION. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
wiseguy1020Aug 7, 2010
And WHY did we stop the oil?
hint: Look in China.
gerbil20Aug 7, 2010
Why? USA cannot possibly win a war of attrition. To win, the enemy has only to sit tight until the war becomes sufficiently unpopular at home to cause a regime change.
US only was on the winning side of WWII because Russians did all the dying and it has not won a single war since.
In WWII Russian combat losses amounted to 20mln souls and they won fair and square. In Iraq and Afghanistan US combat losses are under 5000 and the war is "unwinnable" and we need to hightail he hell out.
Ability to win wars is not determined by hi tech weaponry. Lost and won wars are determined by ability to absorb combat losses.
skinturtleAug 7, 2010
I'm starting to believe wars are not won anymore....just fought.
wiseguy1020Aug 7, 2010
"US only was on the winning side of WWII because Russians did all the dying"
Maybe if you guys had not made a deal, Barbarossa would not have been a surprise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact
gerbil20Aug 7, 2010
@wg1020
What's pact between Germans and Russians has got to do with the subject of discussion? Stay on topic, please.
The fact remains: soviet combat losses in the world war II were estimated at 10-20 millions, US combat losses - 292,131.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Losses_by_alliance
If you think that in the modern red-state-blue-state USA even a rockstar-popular president can absorb even 1% of soviet WWII combat losses and remain in the office, you are delusional. Hence, my statement stands: USA has high-tech hardware capable of winning battles. It lacks determination to sacrifice enough win wars. Its goal is not victory, but rather a status quo. I can name many battles that USA has won after World War II. Can you name me a single war it has won? Viet Nam? Afghanistan? First Iraqi compaign? Second Iraqui compaign? Anything? C'mon, don't go all ad-hominem on me, prove me wrong!
Which brings me back to my original statement - Japan had a real shot at defeating USA by attrition. Another couple of years and another couple of hundreds of thousands of lost GIs, and USA would have signed a peace treaty.
@skinturtle
If that was the case, Israel would have disappeared "from the pages of history" a long time ago.
wiseguy1020Aug 9, 2010
@gerbil20
You brought up the Russians, not me.
The Russians probably killed as many of their own as the Germans did any way.
Looks like we are doing much better in Afghanistan than you did, dictators and all.
Closed AccountAug 8, 2010
Get a brain morans?
Go USA?
D:
kwanijmlAug 6, 2010
While in hindsight it is easier to see that we were not totally blameless for going to war with Japan in the first place. . . .there are myriad theories of why Japan attacked us in the first place, and certainly plenty of theories as to our ulterior motives for dropping the A-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I certainly don't take the position of condoning the U.S.'s general imperialistic nature. All this taken into account and acknowledging the horror that war is: It blows my mind that so many arm-chair historians love to hype the use of the A-bombs as being somehow worse than other atrocities committed on both sides, and that the U.S. is somehow this disproportionately cruel monster for having deployed these weapons, vs. a ground invasion or more fire-bombings or what have you. We need to quit allowing emotions to rule our sense of judgment with these sorts of things and look at the facts. There's nothing supernatural about nuclear bombs people. . . we could have (and did) easily use conventional weapons to cause more death and mayhem. . . and at lower cost than producing a nuclear weapon. I don't know enough to say whether Japan would have surrendered or not without the use of the A-bomb, but one thing is for sure- we would have had to kill more of them with conventional weapons and send more of our own troops to their death, had we not used them. . . . I believe strongly that the psychological shock that only could be produced by using such a concentrated weapon was necessary to end the war at that point in time. A commentator, Aces_Over_Kings, on the Article page itself said it very eloquently:
"Criticizing past decisions and decrying the atrocity of ending the war in this manner is so easy from the comfort of our ergonomic desk chairs and recliners.
I wonder how you'd all feel if every twenty-something male you knew and loved, yourselves included, were combat-loaded and waiting for the ramp to drop on the blood-soaked beaches of Iwo Jima. And if you were lucky enough to make it off the beach, you were faced with a suicidally ferocious enemy that refused to surrender even against insurmountable odds.
50,000 casualties for one useless island. And I suppose you'd all go back in time and volunteer to take all of the Japanese islands by force?
What happened was tragic. But the whole war was filled with tragedy and horror of every possible variety. Concentration camps in Europe. Mass bombings of civilian industrial centers. Torture. Executions. Flame throwers. The Bataan death march. V2 rockets terrorizing the citizens of London. The list is endless.
At least this tragedy ended it all."
gerbil20Aug 7, 2010
I wonder how this horrifying experience compares with that of slave labor in a Japanese POW camp or as a test subject in a Japanese "medical research" facility. Japanese had a lot to answer for and even they grudgingly admit that two Atom bombs saved innumerable number of Japanese lives by bringing down the inhumane regime and bringing about unconditional surrender.
ratskiAug 7, 2010
At this point it no longer makes much sense to assign blame. What must be remembered is that any use of a weapon to target civilians is a war crime regardless the justifications used. It is hypocritical to go on about the war crimes committed by other nations and not recognize that our nation has done so too. This isn't an exercise in self hatred or guilt but is intended to provoke some humility.
mishaneahAug 7, 2010
Thank you. The only sane comment in this entire thread so far.
wiseguy1020Aug 7, 2010
I cannot believe there are Japanese that actually expect the U.S. to apologize.
enantiodromiaAug 7, 2010
That really has so much to do with the article you didn't bother to read. Thank you so much for your contribution.
wiseguy1020Aug 7, 2010
Oh I read the article, I am just waiting for Gizmodo's piece in December on how it feels to drown, trapped, in a ship that has just been hit by a surprise torpedo attack on Sunday while you were sleeping.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
fordsvt1Aug 7, 2010
If nuclear weapons hadn't been used on flesh and blood people to end WW2, I wonder whether or not Mutually Assured Destruction would have worked as well as it did during the Cold War. The argument could be made that in order for a threat to be made effective it needs to be carried out at least one time. I don't know if a simple demonstration would have sufficed, and we really didn't witness the horror of radiation and fallout until after we used the weapons, it was all just theory.
I shudder to think what would have happened if the first use of nukes was in the late 50s or 60s instead of 1945. We narrowly avoided exterminating ourselves as it was.
dustblinkAug 7, 2010
The Emperor got what was coming to him and the US Navy kicked their asses off every island across the pacific even after losing a huge portion of the fleet.
Now the greatest navy in the world has rail guns and frickin lasers.
riolio11Aug 7, 2010
I don't want to be another one to say "The bomb was completely and utterly necessary". If a nuclear weapon is ever "necessary" then god help us all.
But the military leader of Japan seriously would. not. stop.
The military didn't give a s**t about its citizens, and an invasion of mainland Japan would have cost so so many more American lives, as well as the lives of the Japanese. We'd already won by the time the bomb was dropped, but the military leadership had nothing to lose in continuing.
It was an incredibly difficult moral problem, and the fact that Truman probably didn't fully understand the bomb as well as Roosevelt had probably went into it, but it seems to me no one wanted to hurt these people - I believe someone posted a brochure dropped from American planes above - but we more needed to show the damn leadership that they needed to stop.
tgc1Aug 7, 2010
Maybe someone can explain to me, because I seem to find no consensus on the matter; why strategic bombing would not have carried out the same ends on strictly military targets?
It seems to me that dropping an atomic weapon on a CITY, where countless innocents occupied the area, is ultimately unjustifiable. That is "collateral damage" that cannot be accounted for. The people of Japan had very little to do, seemingly, with the actions of their misguided leaders. Just the same way in which our leadership here in North America seems hell bent on staying in the Middle East until the end of time.
I just don't seem to be able to grasp or understand how Americas military might at the time could not have accounted for a forceful and deliberate bombing campaign that would have gone on to target every piece of military equipment in Japan and bomb it out of existence. I have no doubt in my mind that the US possessed the knowledge and knew the whereabouts of those locations and how to ingress and egress with minimal retaliation. So again, to lump civilians in with the morons who were running the country seems to completely ignore any sort of humanity or effort to understand their situation at all.
But that's just me.
jpopAug 7, 2010
You seem to think that the Allies had the same targeting capabilities in WWII that exist now. They didn't. Also, this is after 4 years of war with plenty of Japanese atrocities and Iwo Jima, Guadalcanal, and Okinawa showing what to expect. The Allies weren't exactly keen on putting their troops in harm's way just to save some civilians that would be doing their best to kill the troops.
joot2112Aug 7, 2010
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both military targets. The Japanese, and everyone else, build their industries in cities. We don't put our factories in the remote deserts and mountains -- sorry. At the time we also had a policy of bombing civilians to demoralize the enemy. And it worked. If you think Hiroshima is bad, do you think the incendiary bombing of Tokyo was better? The bombs ended the war, and the world was rightly grateful at the time.
Closed AccountAug 8, 2010
Our current precision and targeting technology doesn't even work that well. The mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan should be a good example of that.
It's amazing how far back the idea of technology being able to sanitize war goes and how much it was forced into the minds of the public. Even in World War I civilians were told that the Norden Bombsight would allow our planes to target the enemy exactly. The fact is, civillians have increasingly died in war, and it has become more and more messy with technology in the picture.
docholiday22Aug 7, 2010
The way s**t is going... It's only a matter of time before it happens again and we're all dead. Anyway, check this map to see what would happen in your area if a bomb was dropped: http://www.carloslabs.com/projects/200712B/GroundZero.html
docholiday22Aug 7, 2010
Sorry, I don't think the map is working anymore.
thatsmyaiboAug 7, 2010
As bad as this was, think how many more people would have died in Europe. The bomb basically ended WWII when the world saw the power we possessed. How many more Americans would we have lost at home? Overseas? How many Europeans would have died in concentration camps. Looking back at what was, this was the only way to stop complete devastation throughout the world. We lost over 250,000 people before the bombs were dropped.
grumpyrainAug 7, 2010
Germany had surrendered (7-8 May) several months before these bombs were dropped (6-9 Aug).
clonedAug 7, 2010
I will not say whether or not dropping the bomb was justified. I will only say that I hope it never happens again.
bossadelicAug 7, 2010
The U.S. refused attempts to surrender by the Japanese for months, as they were hellbent on acquiring an "unconditional surrender" which would allow them to completely dominate the government of Japan. The country essentially became a U.S. colony for several decades after the war. The bombs were not meant to simply end the war, as they already had chances to end hostilities if that was their primary aim.
lclemmerAug 7, 2010
-citation needed
ieatskunkAug 10, 2010
Aye, unconditional surrender was the only option. Why wouldn't it be? How much life and money had been spent fighting Japan? The allies were not going to allow Japan to rebuild its military for a future conflict.
And, let's face it, Japan is better off because of it.
3the3dude3Aug 7, 2010
I didn't even bother to read this garbage. Nobody who is living today has any legitimate idea of what it is like to be under a nuclear attack.
kinger23Aug 7, 2010
If you read it you would know that it's a collection of interviews of people who lived through it. Would those living people have a legitimate idea of what it was like? Good work idiot.
wearedejavoodooAug 7, 2010
I try to refrain from anonymous internet name-calling....but Jesus f**king Christ you're a moron.
3the3dude3Aug 9, 2010
If you are alive, you didn't survive... you were outside of the attack.
dmuxAug 7, 2010
pearl harbor fools, paybacks a bitch.
mwrlAug 7, 2010
f**k with the Big Dawg and you will pay. They got what they deserved.
foodlespaneAug 7, 2010
Vietnam.
Iraq.
You're welcome.
mwrlAug 8, 2010
Sorry missed your point. Vietnam was a French war that we got dragged into. Iraq War was a quick victory but we learned that quick wars and low civilian deaths are bad. We now have the best trained and professional military in the world.
foodlespaneAug 10, 2010
"Sorry missed your point. Vietnam was a French war that we got dragged into. Iraq War was a quick victory but we learned that quick wars and low civilian deaths are bad. We now have the best trained and professional military in the world."
Those who don't learn from their past mistakes are doomed to repeat it indeed.
nyuugAug 7, 2010
Incredible piece!