Call for questions
Submit and vote up questions you'd like to see answered by Kevin & Jay at the next Digg Townhall on 11/18.
Nanking, the pictures they didn’t want us to see.
prion.bchs.uh.edu — This post is in response to , Hiroshima the pictures they didn ’t want us to see. http://digg.com/world_news/Hiroshima_the_pictures_they_didn_t_want_us_to_see. - Kakkun, It’s deceitful for you to portray Japan as a victim when it was doing such evil things. Please fellow-diggers; please get this to the front page to counteract his propaganda.
HarryBauzonia- 2260 diggs
- digg it
- HarryBauzonia, on 10/12/2007, -18/+41The direct link to the pictures doesn't work.
http://prion.bchs.uh.edu/~zzhang/1/Nanking_Massacre/gallery1.html
Just click on the "Gallery" link on the main page to see them.
WARNING: They're quite upsetting.- kinesis8, on 10/12/2007, -9/+134Thanks for posting this. Most people are already familiar with the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, but far too few know about the Rape of Nanking.
Leave the propaganda assumption out of this. This needs to get to the front page simply because it happened yet few recognize it ever occuring. - saladtossser, on 10/12/2007, -4/+26http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre
- kinesis8, on 10/12/2007, -12/+47Kernelkurtz,
Welcome to my blocklist. - hipnerd, on 10/12/2007, -28/+157This shouldn't be a pissing contest over who suffered more. Both were tragedies. We can acknowledge that there was enormous suffering and loss of human life in Nagasaki and Hiroshima without needing to immediately point out bad things the Japanese army had done to rationalize it away.
- mateo60, on 10/12/2007, -23/+177I HATE it when people say things like "please get this to the front page to counteract his propaganda." in their descriptions.
Propaganda? Are we still at war with Japan or something? Those pictures are were something most Americans had never seen, but everyone should see them. Not because anyone is trying to be an "america hater" or something, but to show a nuclear bombs aftermath in a form besides the cool looking mushroom cloud, to show that real and innocent people are affected by them. It was NOT propaganda.
Nanking pictures are important for everyone to see as well. We all need to remember that war really sucks, for lots and lots of people. That's easy to forget here in the US. - saikhan, on 10/12/2007, -19/+180"It’s deceitful for you to portray Japan as a victim when it was doing such evil things. Please fellow-diggers; please get this to the front page to counteract his propaganda."
First of all, the pictures of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bomb aftermath isn't propaganda, it's ***** historical fact. Secondly, there is nothing deceitful about exposing events that occurred in history graphically, as the previous submission’s pictures show.
I would just like to let you know that there were victims on both sides. Both those of Chinese and Japanese citizenship were affected by wars that they could not control and actions of their governments that they should not have suffered for. War is bad, killing is bad, regardless of who does so.
I dugg this story not to counteract “propaganda”, but to make sure everyone knows what happens when we fight. - radu79, on 10/12/2007, -51/+14Ok, so they raped Chinese civilains and we bombed 2 of their cities killing ~100K civilians too. So that makes it OK, right?
- merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -26/+52@saikhan
A-***** men.
@HarryBauzonia
Read John Hersey's "Hiroshima". Thousands of innocent people were killed within hours; thousands more left to die slowly from radiation poisoning over the following decades. The people killed in Hiroshima were no more guilty of the Rape of Nanking than you or I are for Abu Ghraib.
An eye for an eye leaves both men blind.- SlapTard, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Neh. Just squinting.
- knomevol, on 10/12/2007, -7/+70i really think the point of the hiroshima story was not to show the japanese as victims, but rather to show the atrocity of nuclear warfare.
- yanked, on 10/12/2007, -9/+34I also thought the purpose of the Hiroshima post was to show how horrible it was. What does this other horror have to do with that?
Seriously. What is the logical connection?
And who was portraying "Japan" as a victim? I thought the previous post was portraying the killed civilians--especially the women and children--in Hiroshima and Nagaski as victims. Weren't they? Are we supposed to feel less sympathy for them because of atrocities the Japanese army committed? - keyrat, on 10/12/2007, -6/+22It's not about who killed who. It's not about any nationality. It's about killing 200,000 civilians for leverage.
- raindogmx, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14I doubt there was even a small percentage of people related to the Nanking massacre between the victims of Hiroshima. These are human tragedies. No nation to blame, only humanity.
- sparks2, on 10/12/2007, -7/+18"Propaganda" ?
If US did something some people consider shameful... telling us about it is not "propaganda", it's "History" - KJSatz, on 10/12/2007, -7/+26"An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind."
-- Mahatma Gandhi - Junn168, on 10/12/2007, -63/+3***** you China. You deserved every atrocity that the Japanese committed on your people. Our men sacrificed their lives to help you defeat Japan and what do you do to thank us. You allowed the commies to come to power. Well they ruined your country and set your development back for half a century. We never should have helped you.
- BlackAdderIII, on 10/12/2007, -12/+33"""***** you China. You deserved every atrocity that the Japanese committed on your people. Our men sacrificed their lives to help you defeat Japan and what do you do to thank us. You allowed the commies to come to power. Well they ruined your country and set your development back for half a century. We never should have helped you."""
It makes me feel a bit queasy to imagine you breathe the same air as the rest of us. Switch off your computer, please. - LastVisibleDog, on 10/12/2007, -11/+13@hipnerd: "This shouldn't be a pissing contest over who suffered more. Both were tragedies. We can acknowledge that there was enormous suffering and loss of human life in Nagasaki and Hiroshima without needing to immediately point out bad things the Japanese army had done to rationalize it away."
You miss the point completely - the point is the Japanese HAD to be stopped, and they were. War is hell. Japan started the hell, dished out the hell, and ultimately suffered the hell.
If you want to wish for something - wish the Japanese had not started the war in the first place. - LastVisibleDog, on 10/12/2007, -9/+10@yanked: "I also thought the purpose of the Hiroshima post was to show how horrible it was. What does this other horror have to do with that? Seriously. What is the logical connection?"
Are you serious - are you really that uninsightful? Hiroshima stopped the Japanese war machine - Nanking was one of the products of the Japanese war machine. If you can't find the logical connection - you are not looking.
- LastVisibleDog, on 10/12/2007, -6/+20@smellchicken: "Evil + Evil = Evil."
Some of you people really need to study history before you pass judgment - it is obvious some of you just want to attack the USA at all costs.
Between 300,000 and 600,000 German civilians were killed by bombing raids form Anglo-American forces in the process of defeating Nazi Germany - that is many more people than were kill by the A-bombs in Japan therefore those actions too must be considered Evil (using your logic) - therefore defeating Nazi Germany was also Evil based on your logic. All-out war is hell. World War II was all-out war. Some of you seem to think Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the only examples of great loss - you are not even close. - EatingPie, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9Two movies I HIGHLY recommend, as art can help us remember and learn:
Grave of Fireflies - This movie is a tragedy because I had no idea firebombings had occurred in Japan. Even more of a tragedy because even the Japanese people have forgotten. Ebert considers this one of his 5 best war movies ever made.
Empire of the Sun - A typical Spielberg ending made this movie one of the greatest tragedies I've ever seen. Why? (Mild Spoiler Warning) Because I had read the book, an autobiographical account (with some fiction), where the *real* ending was that Jim's reunion with his parents is inconsequential. Spieberg's "happy" ending served to emphasize and magnify the *true* suffering Jim experienced.
World War II was horrible for every side involved. If we take anything away from the two recent posts, it's that even in war your most dire enemy is still human, and nothing emphasizes this more than the capacity for cruelty and suffering on all sides.
-Pie - Emanji, on 10/12/2007, -9/+8Yes because the woman and children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have something to do with the Rape of Nanking. So you think that the rape of Nanking is a coward act since theyre killing the innocent, but it's justified for us to killed innocent woman and children in Hiroshima? So 70,000 japanese women and children deserved to die because of the rape of Nanking? If that's what you're saying then you're the bigest scumbag on digg. This ***** mentality is the same ***** that is on the mind of the 9/11 terrorist. They don't want to face us in battle so they took it out on 3000 of our innocent citizen. Thats the same ***** reason we droped the A-bomb on Japan, because we dont want to face them in an invasion. But whatever, all i'm saying is have some ***** respect for human life, weather its Nanking or Hiroshima, theyre all innocent people and didnt deserve any of it.
- twinklyJesus, on 10/12/2007, -7/+17To all those posting about this being a comparison to justify the atomic bombs:
Its not. It is to point out how idiotic you are for ignoring the fact that more people died as a result of the Samurai sword than all the bombs, bullets and artillery used in the Pacific Theater.
This is to point out that more people were killed in the rape of Nanking than died at Nagasaki and Hiroshima. This is to point out that the people who were killed by the Japanese in Nanking were civilians, women and children. Many of these were hung from poles and had their flesh flayed off while they were alive, and had to watch the japanese feed it to their dogs.
No one is saying it justifies the use of the atomic bombs. It points out that the japanese were percieved at the time (which is critical as to why) to be vicious, cruel, monsters, who were not about to surrender, nor were they going to take pity on anyone they came across.
The people of Nanking, were not military targets, they were just not considered to be as human as the Japanese. They were competition for food and other resources needed by the Imperial Japanese. They were reviled by the Japanese and slaughtered like dogs.
More than 300,000 died at Nanking alone. That is at least 50,000 more than were killed in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which were vital military locations for the Japanese. Hiroshima was a training location for the Japanese army, and air force, as well as a major naval base. The fleet that left to attack Pearl Harbor, left from Hiroshima. The factories at Nagasaki, just like the factories at Dresden or the refineries at Ploesti, were the target.
More people died and more buildings were destroyed in one fire-bombing raid on Tokyo than died in both A-bomb drops.
This, I'm sure, is more for scope and perspective. It's easy to look at a photo of a victim at one single point in time. However, none of those victims deserved to die that way anymore than anyone else did in any of those other places. The military leaders of Japan, who literally took over in 1937, brought this on the people of Japan through the actions they took against many more innocent people than those who died in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Additionally, quite the contrary to the claims of cruelty by the US, the Japanese were treated with extreme respect and kindness by order of General MacArthur after the surrender and during the reconstruction of Japan, by the US. Had this truly been revenge, you only need to look at what happened during the reconstruction after the Civil War to see what would've happened.
As I've said before, too many people with 1% knowledge and 99% opinion affected by misplaced compassion, have been commenting here. If you don't know enough about BOTH SIDES of an issue, you shouldn't criticize either. - Saiing, on 10/12/2007, -12/+6"Between 300,000 and 600,000 German civilians were killed by bombing raids form Anglo-American forces in the process of defeating Nazi Germany - that is many more people than were kill by the A-bombs in Japan therefore those actions too must be considered Evil (using your logic) - therefore defeating Nazi Germany was also Evil based on your logic."
@lastvisibledog
You complete and utter *****. You throw around words like "logic" as if you even have a clue what they mean. Anytime you use the word "therefore" to make your own point, it's YOUR LOGIC - how dare you suggest that this is what another poster was suggesting when clearly this is a mile wide of the mark.
Stupid people piss me off. But guys like you are just scum. You push your own ideology and your own twisted personal views and then try to claim that this ***** comes from someone else's mouth. - groosh, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3First off, both events were horrible and you cannot compare them.
I am however, a little tired of hearing about the Nanjing massacre. Yes it was horrible. Yes the Japanese who did it are horrible.
My problem stems from the fact that the the Chinese government uses Nanjing as a nationalistic tool to get their people angry and keep them looking anywhere but at the Chinese government.
When are we going to see sites put up about the massacres committed by the Chinese government? It is estimated that Mao is responsible for over 80 million deaths. Which translates to several hundred Nanjing massacres.
80 MILLION.
So while Nanjing was reprehensible and an utter tragedy, I can't stomache another site put up by a random Chinese person until they start taking accountability for things other than what their government tells them to complain about. - whichDan, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4At least there was a trial for Nan-king - none yet for Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
- rtfx, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4The Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks are almost certainly prominent because of their being nuclear bombings.
I just finished watching "Grave of the Fireflies" which is a human-interest treatment of the late war to early post-war period in Japan. The backdrop of the story comes from fact: by that time, almost everyone in the country was short of food - and to survive meant that pride took a beating; the protagonist loses his family, would not give up his pride, and eventually starves to death. This is not really a spoiler: the movie starts at his death and then portrays the remainder as a flashback.
Nobody talks about the hard times that Japan, and most countries involved in the fighting, had immediately following the war. We focus on the big bangs - the nuclear bombs, the major battles, the "turning points." And a few key figures, mostly in the European theater.
But I think that the post-war period did as much to affect global culture as the war itself. When you've just seen your country bombed to bits, you've lost a fourth of the people you knew, and you now have the opportunity to start over, you're going to try to make the most of it. - catmistake, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2I can see how something this aweful could be forgotten by the end of the War. As cold as it sounds, its in the math. A billion Chinese lost 350,000. But 15 million Jews lost 6 million. A news cycle is terrible thing.
And genocide (or "ethnic cleansing") still exists. We're all veterans of a ***** up world. - returnofmalv, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2Sigh. So somehow the women and children deserved this because Japan adult men were committing attrocities against the Chinese?
- benjaminrayburn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9I think it's legitimate to bring up Nanking when "Pictures they didn't want us to see" of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are displayed. It provides perspective and context. Many people know very little about the war in the Pacific... There was Pear Harbor, and then some ship battles, and then the A-Bomb and now I drive a Lexus which I like.
If an American is shown a picture of the aftermath of the fire bombing of Dresden they will be horrified, but will have a solid context to evaluate it in. Everyone is well aware of the holocaust and other atrocities committed by Nazi Germany, but very few are aware of the horrors committed by the Japanese. - Habemus, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10>"So somehow the women and children deserved this because Japan adult men were committing attrocities against the Chinese?"
No, they deserved to live. That's what the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki gave the majority of the rest of the country. A commenter just above you commented on "Grave of the Fireflies" and the starvation death of the two children depicted in it. Here's what you are ignorant of. Following the devastating aerial bombing of military infrastructure, industrial concentrations, and shipping ports in Japanese cities as depicted in the film, the next target set selected for destruction was the nation's rail transport network. A Japanese historian estimated that 10 million Japanese people would have starved to death in the winter of 1945-46 had the rail transport network been destroyed as planned. As is, with it not destroyed, the average ration in Tokyo went down to 800 calories per person before the surrender. Once the surrender was signed the US in 1945 shipped 700,000 tons of food over and was able to distribute it throughout the country using that undestroyed railway system and stop the starvation. In 1946 we sent over 800,000 tons more.
You choose. 10 million dead with no atomic bombings or 175,000 dead from two atom bombs. - goodoldharris, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1hipnerd:
Nicely put. It's surprising how many people don't understand the simple idea that 2 wrongs don't make a right. The crimes at Nanking were horrid, but they don't justify the US's dropping nuclear bombs on Japanese civilians in the least. - Philter137, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Kakkun's text is neither propoganda nor an act of deceit. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were undeniably horrific acts of wholesale slaughter. I agree with you that Japanese invaders levelled tremedous suffering on the Chinese, but DO NOT dismiss the murder of thousands of Japanese civilians as propoganda.
- chenyu768, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3@blackad
history fact jack ass,
1st of listen to any political scientist of the time and they would of told you that if America had not backed the Chang kai Sheik nationalist government, which was corrupt and hated by the people and backed mao instead, stalin would of never had China and therefore circumventing Korea and Vietnam. Even the general that was sent to train the nationalist government stated in his reports and his book that he told the US numerous times that backing Mao would be the right move and that the Nationalist was both corupt and hopeless. I mean what does it say for a government when an army of peasants can defeat its well armed western backed army?
And dont be so rude to a country that makes all your *****, dont make us stop the supplies or else you wouldnt be able to shop at your favorite store Wal-mart, you ***** backwards, buck toothed, redneck, inbred, sling blade looking, trailer trash. - fanzhango, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5For me, movies like 'graves of firefly' is just propaganda to paint the Japanese as victim instead of the aggressor in WWII. Sure the movie's a terrific tear jerker and make you feel sorry about what happen to the kids. But let's no forget that Japan started that war. Japan sew the seed of all their suffering when they invaded China. No where in the movie did they mention anything about WWII, the father was just simply serving with in navy. If the audiences should feel anger about what happen to those kids, they should point the finger at Japanese government.
- twinklyJesus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8@catmistake:
I see you slept through history and math. There weren't a billion Chinese then. The 350,000 was JUST Nanking. There are approx. 6 to 10 million civilian deaths attributed to the Japanese in China between 1937 and 1945. These people were killed because they were NOT Japanese. They were Asians, but, considered "a lower life form" than the Japanese. They were fit only for use as slave labor, sex toys, sport (as in killing for), and in many cases food for starving troops. The Imperial Japanese did not provide supply lines for their troops. They were expected to forage for food. When the resources were gone, many resorted to various forms of cannibalism to feed their guard dogs and even their own troops. On ChiChi Jima, they killed captured bomber pilots, specifically to serve their livers at sake parties for the Japanese officers. This was not isolated, and occurred across the Pacific Theater with the Japanese troops. On Iwo Jima, American prisoners who were captured were tortured and had their skin flayed off as an act of revenge and a show of supremacy.
These were viciously cruel, sadistic people at that time. Highly motivated by a perceived racial and religious superiority, they were far and away more horrible than the Germans or Allies every imagined being. 68% of the POWs captured by the Japanese, died or were executed by the Japanese. Conversely, less than 20% of Allied POWs died at the hands of the Germans and Italians. POW casualties among those held by the Allies were even less than those of the German military.
You can do some research, ask a historian, read some historical documentation, OR, you can stay on the "America bad...everyone else good!" bandwagon, repeating ***** without understanding what ACTUALLY occurred, then, go ahead. But you're an idiot if you do! - BlackAdderIII, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"""You complete and utter *****. You throw around words like "logic" as if you even have a clue what they mean. Anytime you use the word "therefore" to make your own point, it's YOUR LOGIC - how dare you suggest that this is what another poster was suggesting when clearly this is a mile wide of the mark."""
Not only is "therefore" perfectly sound in the guy's sentence considering the fact that the defeat of the Axis powers hinged entirely on inflicting (and absorbing, for that matter) huge numbers of miltary and civilian casualties, but there are too many people around here who are bleating the message that because they personally feel apalled at this one event, that negates the actual facts of the day.
"Oh, I couldn't stomach the idea, so what I would do is just stand by and let millions die if acting would kill hundreds of thousands of people."
To the people espousing that - your high moral sensibilities would have prohibited you from triumphing over the Axis powers in Europe in the time frame it was done in, if ever at all.
The Russians, Americans, British, Australians and all of heir allies had to do some drastic things, to kill large swathes of people - not to win a beard-stroking argument on a website, but to abate the tide of genocide that some people decided to embark on for their own gain. Remember, people were living in a world where millions and millions of lives were being taken, against a backdrop of war where the hiroshima-size events were too numerous for anyone to count at the time, and the option of using horrifically lethal bombing, combined with sacrificing MILLIONS of soldiers - most of them conscripts - to end that war existed.
The fact is that those people were, with heavy hearts and a grave understanding of what they were doing*, faced with a choice between different evils, each of which would pretty much end with mass murder, and all they could do at each turn was try to minimize the number of deaths that would ensue.
Faced with a choice between bombing the living ***** out of the Japanese or Germans or allowing millions more to die because you wouldn't(no doubt with a clear conscience), if you would have chosen to put your fingers in your ears, hum "la la la" and pick the second option because you couldn't stomach taking personal responsibility for such atrocities, that's not a reason for you to feel morally superior to the allied leaders of the time, it's an indictment of your personal gutlessness and cowardice.
If you're set to argue that continuation of World War II in Japan wouldn't have killed more than 150,000 people, well you're obviously taking great pains to avoid looking into the facts of the matter, because you could make a more convincing case for the existence of Narnia in Chiswick.
The only thing standing between you people and understanding what was happening in the world at that time is a bit of research. Pull yourselves together and do it, instead of standing on the shoulders of the people who really faced these hard choices and basing your whinging on hysterical rubbish, a complete ignorance of what happened during WWII, and a staggering lack of historical perspective. It would be a more constructive use of your time and everybody else's.
*according to quotes from the world leaders at the time.
- kinesis8, on 10/12/2007, -9/+134Thanks for posting this. Most people are already familiar with the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, but far too few know about the Rape of Nanking.
- meteorash, on 10/12/2007, -96/+18Showing one story as an excuse for another is lame. This incident dwarfs quite easily in comparison to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Merely speaking in numbers the bombings were outrageously attrocious, let alone consider the moral and ethical concerns of using nuclear weapons as a means of destroying millions of human lives.
- sonofdy, on 10/12/2007, -20/+74Yeah 300,000 plus dead and 20,000 plus raped is "nothing" Shame on you your heartless bastard.
- Jagdhund, on 10/12/2007, -11/+26Those weren't millions, fool. Remember, these were 'smaller' towns in the 1940's. I remember the numbers were somthing along the lines of 100,000 dying in the blast initially. On the numbers scale, the events were similar.
But that is not the point. The point is that, during war, every side commits atrocities. Please tell me a true total war in which war crimes have not been committed by even one faction. War is horrid, we know this. - meteorash, on 10/12/2007, -42/+12*****! You don't get the point. Do u? Besides, I don't remember saying killing 300,000 plus is "nothing". The poster has portrayed this incident as though it is an excuse for justifying the bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In fact there can be no excuse for committing either of these horrific crimes.
- OsiVert, on 10/12/2007, -9/+27Comparing one horrible thing to another horrible thing is pointless.
- merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -9/+21"Comparing one horrible thing to another horrible thing is pointless."
Similarly, claiming that the Japanese doing a horrible thing makes it okay for the US to do another horrible thing to them is foolish.
There are many arguments for the bombing of Hiroshima. The Rape of Nanking really isn't a valid one. - acrimony, on 10/12/2007, -14/+5@sonofdy
He didn't say Nanking was "nothing", not even close, so don't use that in quotes like you did in your reply to make it seem like he did.
Everyone knows that nuclear weapons potential for destruction is greater than any other weapon. Including rape. That's why it's different. The use of it on a city clearly causes much more death and suffering to humans than Nanking, in terms of number dead, and most likely in terms of lasting negative effects.
In as much as evil things can be compared, the dropping of the bomb was much more evil. - annonimality, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10@ acrimony
"The use of it on a city clearly causes much more death and suffering to humans than Nanking, in terms of number dead" - actually the death toll in Nanking is estimated to be between 150,000 and 300,000, while the death toll in Hiroshima and Nagisaki combined is estimated to be around 135,000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroshima
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagasaki
Both events were terrible, but you really need to get your facts straight. - chenyu768, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5***** you Kernelkurtz, i'd strap you to a tree and set your legs on fire if you ever called me a chink.
ok i don't know why when i reply to a story at the bottom of the page it gets bumped up here, but this comment is towards the idiot at the bottom refering to chinese as chinks. - yanked, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4@annonimality
If you are going to emphasize the facts, you should get yours straight. The links you cite say that around 140,000 were killed at Hiroshima and around 73,000 killed at Nagasaki, for a total of around 213,000. Perhaps you were only counting those directly incinerated, rather than including all those who died from radiation poisoning and burns in the subsequent weeks? - BabyWookie, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6Quote from Wikipedia:
"On August 6, 1945 the nuclear weapon Little Boy was dropped on Hiroshima by the crew of the Enola Gay, directly killing an estimated 80,000 people and completely destroying approximately 68% of the city's buildings. In the following months, an estimated 60,000 more people died from injuries or radiation poisoning. Since 1945, several thousand more hibakusha have died of illnesses caused by the bomb."
140,000+ in Hiroshima ALONE. How does that make for 135,000 combined? - GiggleStick, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10Hiroshima & Nagasaki were necessary. Even after both of those, Japan nearly did not surrender. Many more Japanese would have died had the war been fought conventionally till the end. War is ugly, but it will always be necessary. All your altruism will do nothing to stop evil people from destroying you. And that will leave only the Evil left.
- LastVisibleDog, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9@meteorash: "Showing one story as an excuse for another is lame. This incident dwarfs quite easily in comparison to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Merely speaking in numbers the bombings were outrageously attrocious, let alone consider the moral and ethical concerns of using nuclear weapons as a means of destroying millions of human lives."
Base on your ignorance of the subject at hand, it is amazing you would want to flaunt your ignorance by commenting. More civilians were killed by the Japanese in Nanking then in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Somewhere around 200,000 were ultimately killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not millions. 300,000 innocent Chinese were systematically killed (many were also raped) by the Japanese. In one fire bomb raid on Tokyo (February 23–24,1945), 100,000 were killed - that is more that were initially killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki (80,000). Between 300,000 - 600,000 civilians were killed in bombing raids on Nazi Germany. The numbers killed by the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not extraordinary in the context of World War II - the fact it only took two bombs was extraordinary. Japan had to be stopped - war is hell: Japan started the hell, dished out the hell, and ultimately was defeated by the hell.
Nuclear weapons should never be used again but sugar-coated propaganda serves no constructive purpose.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes
http://prion.bchs.uh.edu/~zzhang/1/Nanking_Massacre/history.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanjing_Massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo_in_World_War_II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II
- karmazZ, on 10/12/2007, -38/+10ofc there were atrocities committed by the Japanese (and I'm sure by all participants during WW2) this however can never excuse the extermination of 2 civilian cities. And why were the perpetrators of the infamous unit731 granted immunity and taken to the US?
- sonofdy, on 10/12/2007, -21/+53They were both military cities. Try reading some real history. More were killed in nanking than in nagaski. In fact more were killed in the fire bombing of tokyo. But hey, why let simple facts get in the way of blaming america first.
- jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -15/+14"...can never excuse the extermination of 2 civilian cities."
Agreed and the punishment continues to this day with much higher rates of cancer and other radiation related diseases.
The rest of you are tea-totaling for claiming eye-for-eye idealism. Both were wrong...war is for fools and very short sighted. - jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5"The overwhelming majority of deaths (approx. 214,000) in both cities was civilians."
Hear a lot about execution of "military age men" in Iraq these days. (not to change the subject) - merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -10/+9"They were both military cities"
The only definition of "military city" that would fit 1940s Hiroshima would make *every* city in Japan a "military city". The Japanese were preparing for total war.
There were military facilities in the area, but the vast majority of the 140,000 who died within a few months of the blast were civilians. It'd be absurd to argue that there were anywhere near 140,000 soldiers stationed there at the time of the blast -- therefore, by definition, the rest of the casualties *must* have been civilian. - LastVisibleDog, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10@LeoStewart: "The overwhelming majority of deaths (approx. 214,000) in both cities was civilians."
All of the 300,000 killed by the Japanese in Nanking (alone) were civilians.
The Japanese killed 3.9 million people in China - most were civilians
The Japanese MURDERED a total of somewhere around 6,000,000 civilians and prisoners of war (some estimates are as high as 10 million)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes
Pretending the A-bombs were the worst atrocities of World War II is an exercise in the denial of the facts. - groosh, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2Mao and the Chinese government MURDERED, STARVED, TORTURED, etc 80 MILLION people.
The 50,000-300,000 killed in Nanjing almost seems insignificant in comparison. - d3c0yn4m3l355, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@kamaraz
[quote]And why were the perpetrators of the infamous unit731 granted immunity and taken to the US?[/quote]
I don't get why you get digged down, you mention a military united that got no trial at all in which you are right. This did happen, though many military units from Germany and Japan were granted this and taken to the US for their research. One of the mayor reasons why the US managed to shoot a rocket first into space is because of research done by the Germans and having those Germans on their side, same goes for the weapons even nowadays being used. CHemical/Biological weapons now a days got a lot of their research done by Japanse, for that they are granted. For sure in any other country (except Russia at that time) they would get a bullet for sure those horrible bastards of Unit731 but I guess some things just don't go that way
- brickguy, on 10/12/2007, -25/+14War is lame. Never is it for the people, it is always for the greed.
- sonofdy, on 10/12/2007, -21/+10Not true.
- Jagdhund, on 10/12/2007, -17/+12War is a terrible thing, a conflict over limited resources on this planet. It has always been, and shall always be that way. You say it is not for the people, but for greed? You are only half right. It is for the greed of all the people of a nation.
In these instances I tend to care more about my country and my uniquely mixed culture before anyone else. I believe strongly in America, and am willing to be 'greedy' to defend it. No different from anyone else in the world. - orientis, on 10/12/2007, -20/+14Jagdhund Yes, very different from the rest of the world. Not everyone is so blindly jingoistic and dangerously nationalistic as the US.
Patriotism is pointless and dangerous. - mattmoto, on 10/12/2007, -12/+28"Patriotism is pointless and dangerous."
-sigh- Patriotism is not pointless and dangerous.
There is nothing wrong with a little Patriotism. It inspires people to work together and put their differences aside. Theres nothing wrong with being proud of a Nation that you help build everyday, and guarantees you protection in return.
On the other hand, intense unwavering Patriotism is indeed harmful. Than again, too much of anything is a bad thing. - orientis, on 10/12/2007, -20/+15Nations are fleeting moments, soon to be swallowed by the gaping maw of time. If you place value in such abstract and unnecessary concepts your view of the future is obscured. Humans have value. Place names and nations do not. The level of pride in your country must be matched by a level of shame for its misdeeds, this is rarely the case.
I am a citizen of Earth. - shtonkalot, on 10/12/2007, -16/+10"Tell me who's the real patriots
The Archie Bunker slobs waving flags?
Or the people with the guts to work
For some real change
Rednecks and bombs don't make us strong
We loot the world, yet we can't even feed ourselves
Our real test of strength is caring
Not the toys of war we sell the world
Just carry on, thankful to be farmed like worms
Old glory for a blanket
As you suck on your thumbs
Real freedom scares you
'Cos it means responsibility
So you chicken out and threaten me
Saying, "Love it or leave it"
I'll get beat up if I criticize it
You say you'll fight to the death
To save your useless flag"
Song lyrics from Dead Kennedys 1990 song 'stars and stripes of corruption' - mattmoto, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6@Orientis
This is true, however, you forget how important a structured society is to the survival of mankind.
As much as I would love a world without borders, where men only pledge alliance to the good of all mankind, such a thing is impossible. In order to survive, mankind must band together in an organized society. As of now, a world-wide society is nigh impossible. Be in lack of one-language, different cultures, etc. mankind will not be able to become "one-world" anytime in the future. For this reason, smaller societies are formed, AKA, the nations we see on the maps today.
In order for a successful society, it's citizens must work hard, work together, and have trust. With these traits come a sense of of pride... and with that Patriotism. Nations are much more important than you make them out to be, you honestly think mankind would have advanced as much as we have today without people working hard for their nations?
BTW: While I admit to burying your first comment, I dugg up this last one. You said it so poetically I had too, even if I didn't agree to the message :D - jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -12/+7"War is lame. Never is it for the people, it is always for the greed."
Lemme guess what the nationality of the people who dugg you down were? - kelbear, on 10/12/2007, -14/+4No Orientus, you're a hippie douchebag.
The only people that matter are the people that are relevant to me. The rest do not exist. Reality is composed of perception. If I don't perceive you, I don't care.
The "goodness of my heart" extends first and foremost to the people around me that I care about, they will get my charity and sympathies. It goes me first, family next, friends last, and I don't care about the rest of you. I don't care about the people of Iraq either, spend the iraq war budget on domestic policy. Leave global policing and rescuing to those who have resources to spare, I don't. - orientis, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5@ mattmoto "This is true, however, you forget how important a structured society is to the survival of mankind." Prove it. Forget more ways to skin, there are far more cats.
"As much as I would love a world without borders, where men only pledge alliance to the good of all mankind, such a thing is impossible." Impossible? Don't have much faith in humans, eh?
"In order to survive, mankind must band together in an organized society. As of now, a world-wide society is nigh impossible. Be in lack of one-language, different cultures, etc. mankind will not be able to become "one-world" anytime in the future. For this reason, smaller societies are formed, AKA, the nations we see on the maps today."
We are already one world and always have been. The development of civilisation can be seen as a reaching out to this understanding. Assuming humans are incapable of humanity is a good way to ensure they will remain so.
"In order for a successful society, it's citizens must work hard, work together, and have trust. With these traits come a sense of of pride... and with that Patriotism. Nations are much more important than you make them out to be, you honestly think mankind would have advanced as much as we have today without people working hard for their nations?" I don't think mankind would have advanced as far as we have without a ruling elite and the use of slave labour. Are these things thus inherently positive? As I said, there are far more cats.
"BTW: While I admit to burying your first comment, I dugg up this last one. You said it so poetically I had too, even if I didn't agree to the message :D" Thanks :) I had a bit of a zen moment wherein I said exactly what I meant. I like those. - orientis, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2@kelbear I find that reality does indeed reflect our perception. Your world is a cold one, I'm glad I am not part of it.
- kelbear, on 10/12/2007, -11/+2200 dollar donation can save a poor black baby in africa with a cleft palate operation to make him/her look normal instead of a hideous freak. They can expect ostracism, and death.
Two-hundred dollars.
And you're talking down to me from a computer. A computer that most assuredly costs more than 200 dollars. Heck, even vaccinations for the babies against lethal diseases are 1 or 2 bucks. Tell me you don't have 200 dollars to donate to Doctors without Borders.
http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/donate/
Believe me, you are a part of my world. People are selfish and that includes you, you're just fooling yourself. You want to think you're better, but you're not. And please, if you really are, I would love it if you would donate right now. Please prove me wrong on this. And that goes for anyone reading this, not just orientus. They can use the money. - orientis, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4"And you're talking down to me from a computer. A computer that most assuredly costs more than 200 dollars. Heck, even vaccinations for the babies against lethal diseases are 1 or 2 bucks. Tell me you don't have 200 dollars to donate to Doctors without Borders."
I don't have 200 dollars to donate to anyone, not even my landlord, as I'm currently unemployed. I'm not talking down to you either and don't know how you got that impression. Perhaps transferral? (now THAT was condescending)
"Believe me, you are a part of my world. People are selfish and that includes you, you're just fooling yourself. You want to think you're better, but you're not. And please, if you really are, I would love it if you would donate right now. Please prove me wrong on this. And that goes for anyone reading this, not just orientus. They can use the money."
I didn't say anything about charity as a measure of self-worth and I don't know why you're bringing it up. If you really want to know, I donate to Save the Children when I have a regular paycheck, but as I said it isn't relevant. You bring up a good point when you say reality is how you perceive it. You perceive the world as a selfish place and act accordingly. I do not and my world is better for that. Your perception does not create reality but it does define it. You are responsible for your definitions and thus your world. You can continue to live in that tiny place or you can come out and meet the rest of us. - canti32, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5@kelbear
First you say that anyone that you don't know or "percieve" doesn't exist to you. Then you go off on this little rant about donating to charities which help children all the way in Africa. From this I can derive only two possibilities.
A. You know every single child in Africa
B. You are a troll.
Seeing as there are a lot of children in Africa, many of whom live in small, remote villages, I must conclude that logically, you are a troll. - sztuka, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4If not for American's patriotism and nationalism you would most likely be living under Nazi or Soviet rule you imbicile. You fail to realize or grasp that if all of the US's wars had been handled like the peaceniks preferred million's upon million's of innocent people would be killed and imprisoned and nations as we know it would have been swallowed upon and/or crushed by ruthless ideologies. It is nice and comforting to wrap yourself in a warm blanket of peace but that peace lasts only as long as everyone of your neighbors feels likewise. That however has never been the case in the history of the world. If you live vowing never to go to war you will be wiped out.
- disposition0010, on 10/12/2007, -1/+38They are both horrible stories. I don't agree with your whole "propaganda" thing, since the article was basically just stating history; as does your's. Thanks for submitting the story.
- jetsetgo, on 10/12/2007, -9/+54Propaganda?
Are we warring with Japan and I don't know it?
It's not propaganda, dumbass, it's a historical record of the affects of nuclear bombs. It's important for people to know.- lacronicus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8while it is not propaganda in the traditional sense, it is meant to create a strong bias against the use of the atomic bomb. ita has succeded. we do not know what would have happened to japan if we had not used the bomb, but everything we knew, told us that we would be worse off for it. we know that the japanese are a very militaristc race, and that at the time all were extremely loyal to their emperor. they all would likely have fought to the death to defend him. the only terms they would agree to were to have him live and stay in power, something the allies would not stand for. so they did what was necessary to get japan to agree with their terms. otherwise a complete invasion would likely have been necessary, which would have ended in the deaths of all those civilians who stood against the allies. and it would have ended with many of the allies being killed as well. not to mention the fact that russia would have been the ones to incade, and they took the invasion of their homeland by the japanese very seroiusly. in all honesty, we, to an extent, did japan a favor by making them surrender. if they had not, it may hav been the end of japan as we know it. which is worse? that was for those in power to decide. and they did in the best way they saw.
- thumperings, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3I think the point most of the top posts were making, but were far to polite about it, was,that the person who wrote the title of this posting is a complete ***** idiot. Dugg Only to show what a ass you are. Thanks
- ShadySpace, on 10/12/2007, -8/+22No group of people or country throughout history is free of blood on their hands. Example: The Spanish wiped out the Aztecs in a horrible, brutal fashion yet the reason they did was because they were assisted by tribes that the Aztecs themselves had tortured and destroyed. No one is innocent, we all end up ***** over one another at some point. The description of this story is terribly simplistic: The Japanese WERE victims.... at one point, just as they were perpetrators at another.
- babelspeare, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Japanese were VICTIMS? of Whom? In the last 2000 years, China was regularly invaded by Mongols and other Nomads including Tibetans, its population decimated, cities burned down, priceless architecture destroyed. Korea was invaded by China (it also tried to invade China occasionally) a few times, but really really hated the Japanese who tried to colonize them twice (1600s and 1800-1900s). Historically Japan had it easy thanks to its geography. Only Mongols were crazy enough to go for the grapebunch of islands, when Kamikaze (Divine wind) took care of the invading fleet, every Chinese heart was on Japan's side of war.
Unfortunately, once Mongols disappeared from horizon, everytime Japan showed up on its neighbor's shores, it would be as aggressor, first as brutal pirates, then brutal colonizer/invaders.
Now if you mean that Japanese being victim of nuclear bomb. OK they are. But if anyone deserves it, they did. Their behavior in Nanking was no isolated incidant. If you look at witness accounts in Philipines (by philiphinos and American POWs) and Korean accounts, you see the same disturbing thing: brutal killing, brutal rape+killing, brutal torture+rape+killing, brutal baby killing, and other associated good behaviors in small and large scale. One may be tempted to call it all the fault of government, but with such a compliant population that openly carried out these atrocities with enthusiasm, glee and barely a whimper of protest, it's only human to suspect that the population is not lily-white blameless.
To say anyone deserves nuking is a nasty thing to say, who are we to judge? In an ideal world with perfect justice, the dead will resurrect and point fingers, the guilty soldiers, commanders, politicians will be unerringly prosecuted and punished. The war criminals will number in 10,000s if not 100,000s, we don't have to kill any innocent people.
Sadly this is not an ideal world. Especially those days, it was a positively nasty world. Americans calculated the damage of Nuking-ending-the-war vs not Nuking-risking-a-million-US-casualties, and made a tactical decision. It was a difficult decision, subsequent events seemed to confirm its efficacy, we may never know what would happen if the other path is taken. There are grave consequences, including guilt.
But American should know that the rest of Asia cheered and were grateful. If not perfect justice, we perceived a primitive justice. The brutes that asked for total war got total war. They killed our young and innocent, then had their young and innocent taken away from them. The timing is importantly, they first did this and this, then they got this and this. The nasty war ended, the sooner the better.
- babelspeare, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Japanese were VICTIMS? of Whom? In the last 2000 years, China was regularly invaded by Mongols and other Nomads including Tibetans, its population decimated, cities burned down, priceless architecture destroyed. Korea was invaded by China (it also tried to invade China occasionally) a few times, but really really hated the Japanese who tried to colonize them twice (1600s and 1800-1900s). Historically Japan had it easy thanks to its geography. Only Mongols were crazy enough to go for the grapebunch of islands, when Kamikaze (Divine wind) took care of the invading fleet, every Chinese heart was on Japan's side of war.
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+50The thing which makes the Nanking massacre relevant today is that a significant portion of the Japanese society, the ultranationalists, _denies it was a massacre at all_.
It's not about who's worst. It's about trying to keep it from happening again. One way of doing that is exposing liars who deny the Holocaust, the Killing Fields... or the Rape of Nanking.- chenyu768, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7right on
- jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Agreed...though because it has been on here so much...remember the people who were desicrating the Hiroshima memorial in Japan? Wasn't just kids either. Denial of "bad history" is stupid. Funny how our buddy Turkey told Israel to remove the Armenian holocaust (prototype for the Nazis) from their Holocaust museum if they were to allow the US to land planes there. Israel complied. All deniers should be exposed in the light of truth where they die.
- zemble, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9This point is vitally important to the whole argument -- but with one update. The Nanking massacre is deliberately taught to Japanese kids as being something other than it is. It is the institutionalized ignorance. There is no real connection with the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombs except that they were used during the same war and that, as in numerous other places around the world, large numbers of people died. What is different is that Japan has deliberately and systematically attempted to bury what happened in Nanking -- where soldiers competed to kill more people than each other and their kill rankings were published in newspapers back home -- in the sure knowledge that it will be forgotten. Not only are most young Japanese totally ignorant of what happened, but many young Asians are also unaware of what happened in the war. If the West tried to deny what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, then the two incidents would have similar arguments applied.
- SultanTravi, on 10/12/2007, -14/+12Well, I Dugg it.
It's so true. People act like America was in the wrong, when all we wanted was to put an end to a war we didn't ask for. In the end, we got an amazing amout of shock value out of a relatively low number of casualties, especially compared to what the other guys did. In order to stop the fanatic Japanese, we had to shock them into surrendering.
Nanking was truly evil. Much worse than anything we did, and much less called for. But people will be anti-American anyway, simply because it's the "cool" thing to do these days.- eexlebots, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Repeating the same point home for like the millionth time it seems:
The previous story Re: Hiroshima was accounting for history, plain and simple. It showed the effects of atomic warfare, much of which was in fact been covered up so as to not cause outrage.Just like Nanking. They were both awful and there is no moral accounting here.
- eexlebots, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Repeating the same point home for like the millionth time it seems:
- cocoamix, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5This movie will hopefull open a few eyes:
http://tinyurl.com/23ln3k - AnotherCanadian, on 10/12/2007, -31/+22burried, you dumb *****. the people in hiroshima WERE victims. japan doing horrible things does not make hiroshima any less horrible
- nestafett, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16I agree they both were victims, thats no reason to bury this though, people should know
- kinesis8, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11@ AnotherCanadian
You're right, the civilians in Hiroshima were victims. What's sad is that you just overlooked the massacre of the civilians in Nanking. - Wind8reaker, on 10/12/2007, -9/+13Why do the people who just don't get it find they must resort to name calling? The fact that people had to die in Hiroshima and Nagasaki to get the Japanese government to surrender without us having to perform a full on invasion was horrible. Not the fact that we resorted to dropping the bombs.
The fact of the matter is that if we would have had to invade Japan to force them to surrender we would have lost many more of our military personnel than was lost in those two cities combined, not to mention how many more Japanese civilians and soldiers would have died too.
So before you complain about horrors and about the U.S.'s "atrocities", please stop and think about the alternatives first . . . (I haven't even touched on the fact that Japan is the one who launched a completely unprovoked and unannounced attack on the U.S. and the consequences of those actions). - neuroticus, on 10/12/2007, -10/+8@nestafett
There IS a reason to bury this, actually. The title is very inaccurate.
"It’s deceitful for you to portray Japan as a victim when it was doing such evil things. " - yanked, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4I agree. The info on Nanking is interesting, but as employed by the poster, this is an anti-Japanese screed. The clear implication is that we should be less sympathetic to the deaths of civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki because the Japanese army committed these atrocities. The entire content of the poster's blurb is saying that we shouldn't see these people as victims (though he seems to blur the victims and the "Japanese" as a whole), and that there is some sort of conspiracy to downplay the horrors committed by the Japanese army. I'm in favor of historical knowledge, but as employed by this poster, the clear intention here is to increase anti-Japanese sentiment and to minimize sympathy for the victims of the atomic bombs.
- bozack, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5i didn't really find the hiroshima story to be "propaganda" or "deceitful". Japan was a victim on that day, as was nanking and pearl harbour when they suffered their own respective atrocities.
dugg down for inaccurate title. too bad cause i hadn't read about nanking in any detail before. i'm glad i have now. - Habemus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3>"The clear implication is that we should be less sympathetic to the deaths of civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki because the Japanese army committed these atrocities.
But the actions of the SS in shovelling Jews into ovens is exactly the reason people are less sympathetic to the deaths of German civilians in Dresden and Hamburg.
The actions of the Serbian soldiers in ethnically cleansing Croatia, Krajina, and Bosnia was exactly the reason YOU were less sympathetic to the deaths of civilians in Belgrade when President Clinton ordered the massive air attack on that city.
- theodenking, on 10/12/2007, -21/+21Criticism of the US != Propaganda.
Regardless of what the Japanese did in WWII, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were horrific, unforgivable attacks on innocent people.- matts0344, on 10/12/2007, -13/+14Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unforgivable?
Japan should have surrendered. And no, don't even start with the ***** about them already surrendering. - matu4251, on 10/12/2007, -6/+15The Hiroshima bombing is what put an end to WWII. Tragic but it was necessary too.
- flink405, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14If they had the chance and military might the Japanese of WW II would have come to the United States and slaughtered as many as possible just like they did in Nan King.
- saleem, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11@theodenking
nuclear warfare is a disgusting attack on civilians, not militaries, i agree.
japan was not going to surrender, though. a million (not an exaggeration) US servicemen would have died in the slow trudge across the islands of the Pacific. That reflects real estimates that were done-- there was a decision-making process that happened, thats what people miss. US only chose to drop the bombs b/c they were a better option than Plan B (march forward, shoot, try not to die) - kirakun, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7"The Hiroshima bombing is what put an end to WWII. Tragic but it was necessary too."
Necessary? I didn't know that Japan was *winning* the war until the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombing.
However, I do agree that the bombing had saved many lives of the American soldiers. And as selfish as it may sound, it's better that the enemy dies rather than our own childen. - patosan, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15As much as people hate to admit it, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were as much about saving lives as ending the war quickly. Casualty estimates for both sides regarding a land invasion of Japan were in the millions, not hundreds of thousands. Many of these casualties would have undoubtedly been civilians due to the horrors of war and Japan was beginning to arm it's citizenry for a last stand.
Here's an interesting read about the planned Japanese land invasion:
http://www.waszak.com/japanww2.htm
"Had Olympic come about, the Japanese civilian population, inflamed by a national slogan - "One Hundred Million Will Die for the Emperor and Nation" - were prepared to fight to the death. Twenty Eight Million Japanese had become a part of the National Volunteer Combat Force. They were armed with ancient rifles, lunge mines, satchel charges, Molotov cocktails and one-shot black powder mortars. Others were armed with swords, long bows, axes and bamboo spears. The civilian units were to be used in nighttime attacks, hit and run maneuvers, delaying actions and massive suicide charges at the weaker American positions."
As horrendous as the aftermath was, using nuclear weapons in WWII undoubtedly saved millions of Japanese and American lives. - jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -12/+8"The Hiroshima bombing is what put an end to WWII. Tragic but it was necessary too."
The the holocaust had been successful and had, in effect ended the war...would you say the same? - jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5"a million (not an exaggeration) US servicemen would have died"
Yes, I've only found one country that sites that. - mathena, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6The point is: Japan never accepted to surrender to the Allies before the atomic bomb, and Allies would still fight with them in Asia-Pacific Area with out the Atomic Bomb. Basically, atomic bomb ended the war and we finally got peace. If not, more soldiers, both from Japan and US, China and Russia, would continue to lost their life in the war. (Have you ever heard about Kamikaze? they would continue to do this if the war continued at that moment.) Even after the World War II, there were still some Japanese Soldiers camped in the small islands in the Pacific Ocean, Japanese guys were brave and did not want to surrender. The only way to end the war quickly was the Atomic Bomb, and I've heard that the pilots chose Hiroshima and Nagasaki instead of Tokyo. They were also hero In terms of mercy. (Well, I know that they made a lot of people dead, but they just obey the command.)
- bozack, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5@matu
the war would have ended had the bombs been dropped elsewhere.
go to the peace museum in hiroshima and tell me that the states were justified in dropping the bomb on a populated area.
i've been there. i read the letter from einstein himself imploring the US to choose another (less populated) target. i read the letters from the generals arguing that the bomb needed to be dropped on hiroshima so they could test their weapon in a heavily populated and developed area.
digg me down. - mathena, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22Frankly speaking, both are tragedies. But things happened in Nanjing is not a regular part of war and Japanese Army simply kill people for fun. However, Allies just want to end the war.
I am a Chinese and my hometown is near Nanjing, my father and my grandfather told me about this and I've visited the memorial of Nanjing Massacre, it is a nightmare. Now we want peace. However, Japan never say sorry to us OFFICIALLY. (To the opposite, US guys feel guilty for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, German feel guilty for Jews), but less Japanese guys feel guilty for Nanjing Massacre(and they even modify the textbook to deny this, how can the new generation of both counties communicate if they just deny their history?), that's why we Chinese people do not like Japan very much. (And as you know, that's the main reason why we do not want Japan to become the member of United Nations Security Council very much)
//Sorry for my poor English. - patosan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9@jayecliche - Yes, I've only found one country that sites that.
And who else would be responsible for internal U.S. casualty estimates? You make it sound like this estimate is out of line. In the Battle of Okinawa alone, there were approximately 250,000 casualties on both sides (this is more than both atomic bombs). Don't you think the death toll from an invasion of the Japanese homeland would have been *far* greater? The greater evil would have been to allow the war to drag on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Okinawa
(see the aftermath section)
The figure of one million deaths on the American side was considered quite conservative. In light of the casualties suffered throughout the war in the Pacific, this figure is quite reasonable. Do you have figures to dispute that analysis? If you look at Wikipedia, you'll see a similarly high casualty percentages for other, smaller battles fought in the Pacific. - TheSushiBoy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Why isn't it in the textbooks? I used to teach in a Japanese high school. Five pages of the textbook were dedicated to WWII. Three to the Meiji enlightenment. One to exports of cars in the 60's. Ask yourself if the US would throw in a few pages in our textbooks talking about the government policy of genocide of the Plains Indians, or Columbus and his torture and religious warfare on native populations? England about the real reasons for the Boer War, or the Zulu War, or the Sepoy Uprising?
Cause it ain't popular, kids. - Berkana, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@TheSushiBoy:
American textbooks do record the things we did to the natives. The Trail of Tears, our crimes against the Cherokees, and all the others, etc. are recorded and taught. Certainly not as graphically recorded as WWII, since photography wasn't popular yet, but none the less, the US does not officially censor or deny from on high that we did these things to the natives. I'd expect Japan to be at least as enlightened at this point of history, but alas, it isn't so; like the Turks (not that the Turks are alone in this; they are just a flagrant modern example), they can see no wrong in their own ancestors, and those who have the courage to take a stand for contrition are attacked by their own as traitors.
- matts0344, on 10/12/2007, -13/+14Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unforgivable?
- mattmoto, on 10/12/2007, -7/+21WOW! Whats with this "which is worse" debate? Both events were horrible, why do we gave to debate which is worse? Why can't we all agree these were BOTH horrible tragedies, and hope they never occur again?
- SultanTravi, on 10/12/2007, -12/+8It's because in the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it was a necessary evil. This was not necessary, just evil.
- jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -13/+9"It's because in the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it was a necessary evil. This was not necessary, just evil."
How? Japan was about to surrender and the presidents advisors told him this (though it went against the "never surrender" propaganda). The US knew full well of it's actions effects. They tested it and knew what it would do. Many of the bombers killed themselves from guilt. Japanese children are STILL being punished with higher rates of disease. Yeah...pretty necessary. - patosan, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10@jaycliche
What you are saying is completely illogical and quite a bit of propaganda itself.
So, a country which is just about to surrender, the land of the Samurai, the land of "One Hundred Million Will Die for the Emperor and Nation" is told that the Allies have a terrible new weapon and they should surrender.
The Japanese refused to surrender.
One of their major cities is utterly destroyed.
The Allies demand a surrender under the threat that another atomic bomb will be released.
The Japanese refuse again.
That is quite a bit of backbone for a country on the verge of surrender, don't you think? How do you account for this glaring inconsistency in your logic? - patosan, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14@jaycliche
What you are saying is completely illogical and quite a bit of propaganda itself.
So, a country which is just about to surrender, the land of the Samurai, the land of kamikaze, the land of "One Hundred Million Will Die for the Emperor and Nation" was ready to surrender?
The United States tells the Japanese that they have a terrible weapon that will utterly destroy Japan, and that they should unconditionally surrender immediately.
The Japanese government refuse to surrender.
The United States drops their first nuclear bomb.
The United States again demands the unconditional surrender of Japan.
Japan again refuses.
That's an awful lot of backbone for a regime on the verge of surrender. How do you resolve this fact with your assertion that Japan was about to surrender?
Please digg down my previous comment... Darn edit button. :-)
- grooviekenn, on 10/12/2007, -19/+4... bury ...
- AugustWest333, on 10/12/2007, -16/+2The difference between Nanking and Hiroshima
The effects of Hiroshima are still prevelant today, America was is NO WAY the victim.- nestafett, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3just curious, who said america was the victim in either of these?
- jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6"just curious, who said america was the victim in either of these?"
People have said that this is why it was ok to nuke Hiroshima...although America wasn't raped like Nanking.
- imdaShiy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+49i'm from nanjing. the thing that most chinese hate is the fact that the japanese people deny that any of this ever happened, and try to erase these events from their history books. at least america acknowledge they dropped the two atomic bombs instead of lying.
- jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -15/+5"thing that most chinese hate is the fact that the japanese people deny that any of this ever happened...at least america acknowledge they dropped the two atomic bombs instead of lying."
Hard one to hide and it served as a threat to the world that put the US in the role of world power. Besides the US has historically denied all sorts of horrible things it's done to it's conquered and citizens. These are things that happen in warfare. - chenyu768, on 10/12/2007, -0/+27My mother took me there when i was young to visit the tombs where they buried people alive, pictures of families with their heads placed in front of doors. Those images still haunts me today. My mother never taught me to hate the Japaness but always to remeber, and never let this happen again. And now Japan wants to have a military force again thats capable of doing other things besides defending themselves, and that is just unacceptable. Not only does the government not show any remorse, they dont even acknolwedged what happened. Not nankin, not harbin, nothing. (harbin i believe is even more gruesome, cant remeber the exact name of the factory but it was like 168 or something, i grew up in harbin, and heard a lot of stories about it)
Notice i blamed the Japanese government and not the people, i am now a american citizen and have had the oppertunity to meet a lot of people here and some of them Japanese, and it confirms my conclusion, people arent bad, arabs, christians, jews, japs, chineses, white black, they're all just people, its the people taht are in charge, fueled with greed and self glorification that causes suffering on the world. - klui, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Note there are some Japanese who do recognize and feel bad about what happened in Nanking. They are also part of a group who oppose the Japanese government from becoming a military nation again due to their current ruling party's stance on nationalism. The Japanese government, however, has not officially apologized to the Chinese government for what they have done in Nanking. And according to this article, the Japanese government continues to keep avoiding the issue. Saving face is really important for the Japanese. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4453055.stm
- gaoshan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12My mother-in-law was a young girl living outside of Nanjing when this happened. She and her family had to flee the Japanese and hide in the countryside. The things she saw happen and the things she saw that the Japanese had done to Chinese so disturbed her that to this day the sight of a Japanese flag causes her hands to begin trembling uncontrollably.
The REAL crime, in this day and age, is that many Japanese deny that anything bad happened (or that "in war, bad things happen" as if their actions were nothing more than localized anomalies rather than the racist, violent policy that they actually were). Not just in Nanjing but all over Asia. They claim that Japan was "liberating" Asia from western influence! They even deny the evil of things like Unit 731 ( think, mass human experimentation, vivisection, etc... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731 ). Hell, I had a Japanese student who was shocked to hear that I "believed in" the Nanjing massacre (he, like so many Japanese, claims it never happened and the pictures are all fake and my mother-in-law must be mistaken). Be aware that Nanjing was just one of many, many incidences of extreme Japanese brutality. Many older Chinese I know regret that the U.S. didn't have 100 atomic bombs to drop and I've heard these elderly people express the view that Japanese are simply defective human beings... more like brute animals than people (sad, but they think this based on their own experiences with Japanese back in WWII).
- jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -15/+5"thing that most chinese hate is the fact that the japanese people deny that any of this ever happened...at least america acknowledge they dropped the two atomic bombs instead of lying."
- bernie724, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20A professor of political science at the University of Hawaii, states that between 1937 and 1945, the Japanese military "murdered near 3,000,000 to over 10,000,000 people, most probably 6,000,000 Chinese, Indonesians, Koreans, Filipinos, and Indochinese, among others, including Western prisoners of war. This democide (http://www.answers.com/topic/democide?method=26&initiator=answertip:more) was due to a morally bankrupt political and military strategy, military expediency and custom, and national culture."
- jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -13/+10Really don't think the Japanese civilians (not soldiers on a whole) really have much to do with what happened in Nanking. Similar atrocities were well documented and committed during the Vietnam war by the Americans. War causes stupid, heartless, and mean actions and that is why it should be condemned on a whole instead of trying to blame one tribe or another. All these actions were horrific and to downplay nuking civilians with foundation of what would happen is also crazy. Besides we didn't support the Chinese who were fighting the Japanese more...instead we supported the one fighting the one fighting the Japanese (Chang Kai-Shek) much more then the "totally evil" Mao.
People need to quit trying to recreate a global Yugoslavic mentality of "push me-shove you".- ShadySpace, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12Look, Vietnam was a ***** atrocity but comparing ANYTHING that was done during it to the Rape of Nanking is idiotic as *****.
- jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -14/+7"Look, Vietnam was a ***** atrocity but comparing ANYTHING that was done during it to the Rape of Nanking is idiotic as *****."
You are totally full of ***** and there are a million examples of things that happened that were just as tragic committed by pretty much any group that you can think of. I don't mean to downplay it...but downplaying Hiroshima or what people I've known saw in Vietnam and other places around the world is "idiotic as *****". - br0ck, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@ShadySpace - from wikipedia regarding the Vietnamese war, "The war claimed between 2 and 5.7 million Southeast Asian lives, a large number of whom were civilians". Even if you take the low end and then assume less than 1/5 were civilians you'd get 400,000 which is still way more civilians killed then were killed in Nanking (300,000 according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre ) Of course, a more reasonable guess of the number of civilians killed in Vietnam would be at least a million if not more.. I don't think it's ok for the US to deny the atrocities committed Vietnam while condemning the Japanese for trying to pretend Nanking didn't happen.
- flink405, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@ jaycliche- You assume that the US did all the killing in the Viet Nam war.
I believe the North Vietnamese did their share....and after the U.S. left how many South Vietnamese were purged by the North Vietnamese???
Read what happened at Nan King - that is really twisted, sick stuff they did there.
And even today they deny it happened. - jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3"after the U.S. left how many South Vietnamese were purged by the North Vietnamese???"
Hard to say being that the North Vietnamese sent a large amount of their forces to try to drive out the Kama Rouge in neighboring Cambodia (which they eventually did no thanks to the secret bombing campaigns). Besides, how many "South" Vietnamese were there really? Like 1% at the most? I don't think even close to 5% were ever really on our side---and many who were got their US citizenship (like the Hmong).
- tooasianguys, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16This whole "this tragedy is worse than that tragedy" stuff is nonsense. ALL human beings are capable of terrible things, and everyday people commit atrocities that never get noticed. We should all agree that these horrific things occurred, and that hopefully we can change the status quo so that future acts of any scale don't happen.
Hopefully through the truth and information, people can open their eyes and see what really goes on in wars. - defy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Both tragedies should be acknowledged. There shouldn't be one "counteracting" another, or whatever this guy is trying to say.
Yes there were horrible atrocities commited in Nanking and other areas of China by the Japanese military, but you should not hold a whole "race" accountable for it, along with victims who were of the same ethnicity. Generally, the only issue people have with the Rape of Nanking is that the Japanese government does not acknowledged that it happened, further aggravating victims and others who had to face the rape of nanking, or knew those that were victims. I've never actually heard of people trying to discount the bombing of Hiroshima with the Rape of Nanking.
This isn't Texas Hold'em. No one should be trying to one-up each other with these.
Try not to stereotype.... please? - zenerdiode, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9it sucks that tunnel-visioned meglomaniacs start sh!t and in the end, it's always the civilians that lose. Neither the Nanking pictures nor the Hiroshima pictures are propaganda for or against the US or anybody. It should be a stark reminder to the civilian population to NEVER give up their ability to question the actions of the government. The government may say "We're doing this to protect you from the baddies" and proceed to nuke innocents...but it's your own damn fault for not questioning the government when it does say sh!t like that.
Mission Accomplished my @ss.- JustAnotherBob, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Cookbook to create a Totalitarian Regime:
Step 1:
Begin a campaign to demonize firearms
Step 2:
Implement mandatory registration of all firearms
Step 3:
Banning and confiscation of the firearms through meticulous records kept from the mandatory registration process.
Step 4:
Take away any means of organizing and communicating so that they cannot form groups, or large armies
Step 5:
Make the people vulnerable. If they are homeless or without food, they are subject to mass control and manipulation.
Result:
Total Civilian Disarmament
These simple and easy steps have been followed many infamous Dictators throughout history. Famous examples include:
Adolf Hitler, German 1938
Sultan Hamid, Turkey 1915-1917 "Armenian Genocide: hundreds of thousands to a million Armenians massacred."
Joseph Stalin, Soviet Union, 1929-1953 "60 Million dissidents imprisoned then exterminated"
Fidel Castro. Cuba, 1959 "Population living under a police state ever since."
Pol Pot, Cambodia 1956. "Khmer Rouge: Cambodian Genocide. Established gun control measures, and subsequently from 1957 - 1977 one million Cambodians met their deaths in the countryside with no means of defense."
China. 1935 "Strict gun control laws enacted removing all civilian ability to defend themselves"
Guatemala. 1964 "Between 1964 - 1981, 100,000 defenseless Mayan Indians met their deaths."
Uganda 1970. "Gun control measures established. Predictably, from 1971 - 1979, 300,000 defenseless Christians slaughtered."
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 63+ million.
Enslavement of the peoples begins shortly after the total confiscation and banning of firearms. This enslavement is fought with limited resistance, as was the case in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Red China, Cuba and other totalitarian regimes of the 20th century. - SuitCase874, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7@justanotherbob
Mmm, I'd hate to live in Scandinavia or Canada or Australia, it's clear from such examples that gun control is inextricably linked to totalitarian dictatorships and loss of freedoms. The prevalance of personal firearms in African nations and the Middle East clearly shows that for excellent quality of life you need the true peace of mind a gun can offer.
Please, get rid of your big ***** extension if you have one. It's more likely to hurt someone innocent than fend off the negroes or whatever you're worried about. - BabyWookie, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4How about Iraq? Under Saddam Hussein, there was an AK-47 variant in practically every house. Or maybe you don't think that Saddam was a dictator, since you ommited him from your list? Whoops...
- BabyWookie, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3You NRI nuts crack me up with your BS logic. Do you actually think that when they wrote the Second Amendment, they considered the fact that in 200 years, the firearms would have progressed to a point where one person (armed with an automatic assault rifle) could wield as much firepower as a battalion of Revolutionary War musketeers? Why the ***** would any private citizen need the ability to own automatic assault rifles, sub-machine guns or rocket-propelled grenade launchers? The government's armed forces will always outgun you no matter what. Or, do you want the right to own nuclear arms too?
I own a firearm myself. I have a .40 cal pistol to protect my household and to protect my family from predatory animals and unruly rednecks when I go out to enjoy the great outdoors. I don't need anything more. I am also a great shot at the firing range that I regularly attend. I had to pass a background check and register the firearm. Did I mind that? No. I don't want some crazy nut being able to get their hands on the same weapon. Gun nuts, get over yourselves.
BTW, ***** you for burying the truth by digging down SuitCase874. - JustAnotherBob, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1@BabyWookie
When the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution was envisioned by our forefathers, the "Assault Weapons" of that period were the rifle bore muskets. At the time, any citizen with enough cash to buy one from a skilled craftsman could purchase one. The 2nd amendment as it was drafted in writing as worded by the constitution says "the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." It unequivocally states that this right is of utmost importance to a country and it's citizens because without this FUNDAMENTAL right, the citizens of a country have no bite to enforce all their barking. When our country's founding fathers wrote the 2nd amendment they wrote it to be as clear as possible, and from other writings of the original drafters, we can infer that the original intent of the drafters was that the ordinary citizen be allowed access to weapons that the military can possess. In life, humans NEED only food and shelter. We don't need "automatic assault rifles, sub-machine guns or rocket-propelled grenade launchers", but to own one is a unalienable right granted to every citizen by the US Constitution.
- JustAnotherBob, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Cookbook to create a Totalitarian Regime:
- compucomp2, on 10/12/2007, -14/+24The previous article was propaganda because it's revisionist history. It aims to make Japan seem like the victim in the war. NOTHING COULD BE FARTHER THAN THE TRUTH. Nobody really cares in America what happened to German civilians, at least to the silly sympathy for the "victims" of the atomic bombs. Why? HOLOCAUST. The Holocaust is far more close to the American people. The Americans don't care if 300k Chinese people were murdered/raped and the Chinese capital was looted and burned to the ground.
If you want to see propaganda, you need to see propaganda from both sides. These photos need to be shown to counter the poisonous effects of the previous ones. If you have no sympathy towards our dead, you shouldn't have any sympathy towards the Jap dead either.
Everyone who thinks Japan is a victim, go to Nanjing and visit the museum they set up on one of the killing sites. The stuff inside absolutely horrific and mind-blowing. The ***** Japs DESERVE EVERY BIT OF PAIN THEY GOT. Too bad we couldn't inflict it ourselves and had to have the Americans do it for us.- NoNameHere, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6The leadership of the Japanese deserved to feel that pain. In war, soldier or civilian, pacifist or berserker, it makes no difference. All are victims.
Unless you're a politician. Politicians can (and in most cases, should) go to hell. - saikhan, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3Hmm...
You seem to be unaware that a country is made up of more than one person. Just because the Japanese government wanted to attack Nanking does not mean the Japanese people wanted the same or that they even approved of it. In the end, the Japanese citizenry were victims of war as were the citizens of Nanking. In the end there is no justifying acts of brutality by suggesting a trip to the "Nanking Museum" because a visit to the Hiroshima and Holocaust museums will suggest the same thing: war, above all, is an attack on humanity. - 35263526, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4Japan was effectively a military dictatorship at the time. Get it? The people had zero control over their government; yet, oddly enough, it was civilians who were killed by the Allied nukes. What happened in Nanjing was an atrocity, but to say that the innocent people who merely shared nationality deserved to be punished is sheer idiocy at best, and sickening in lack of respect for human life at worst.
- zachblume, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1Closer? I just thought 6,000,000 > 300,000
I'm not trivializing the 300,000 but I don't think your right in saying that we ignore it because of who it was... - gaoshan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Who do you think committed all of the rapes and murders that happened in Nanjing? The politicians? It was regular Japanese men who did it. Tens of thousands of them. The same men who later went back to Japan and continued their lives as Japanese civilians. Don't try to blame it all on the politicians. Someone had to swing the sword, thrust the bayonet and rape the women. When Japan can own up to what their grandparents and great-grandparents did, perhaps people will be willing to forgive the past.
- BabyWookie, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5No, Japan was not a victim. The children that were burned alive, crushed and poisoned by radiation were the victims, just like you are a despicable, hateful racist. I can't believe some morons are digging you up. You should really let go of your hate. Hate never leads to anything good.
- BabyWookie, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3You sick *****... You digg up a disgusting, blatant racist like compucomp2 and digg me down for condeming a horrific murder of civillians (mostly children)? Good for you.
- NoNameHere, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6The leadership of the Japanese deserved to feel that pain. In war, soldier or civilian, pacifist or berserker, it makes no difference. All are victims.
- homerj1965, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Mirror?
- chenyu768, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Sidicas
Um dumbass 1st of all i said Reparation for the war, so that must imply that it took place after the War, so how is your point relevant now?
and 2nd, Mao's army did fight the Japs, both the nationalist and the Communist decided to call a truce to fight the Japanese. ever heard of the 81st? obviously not, because you dont know *****. because Mao's army was not well equiped like the nationalist, who were busy not fighting the japanese but more worried about pilfering from the locals and lining their own pockets. anyways, Mao's army was made up of peasants and they fought unonventionaly, ever heard of mao's guerrilla tatics? well who the ***** do you think it was used against. Ran like cowards, is that why whole villages were wiped out by the japanese because the villagers wouldn't give up Mao's army positions, is that why countless raids and acts of sabatoge was being inacted, and why did you think the Japs had to surge their troops in Northern China nearing the end of the War?
I know what some people are gonna say Mao was a tyrant blah blah blah, well you know what he liberated a people, not only that people back then were not just poor but abused by the nationalist and their local gentries, yeah there was some horrible things that was done under mao's rule, my grandpa being one of them, the chinese will admit that and even the party has said it, but the good that he did out weighed the bad.
- chenyu768, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Sidicas
- Uberdork, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18During WWII, the Japanese were just as bad as the Nazis. The Chinese view the Japanese of that era is on par with the Jewish view of Germans.
- chenyu768, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12they still do, because the germans appologized and made it crime to deny it ever happened, and they don't build monuments to hitler or memebers of the SS and the chancelor doesn't go and visit and pray to them every year.
Today many chinese view the japanese governement still as nazis, just that they changed line of work. They never appologized but offered compensation to every family in the form of a televison and radio for every house, Mao told them to ***** themselves. - Sidicas, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7"Mao told them to ***** themselves." - chenyu768
Did he now? Are you sure about that? Because just about all the books say that Mao was too damn busy rallying an army to fight the Chinese nationalists.. Mao didn't fight the Japanese.. He wanted to take over China.. Because he didn't want to lose his army.. He let the Chinese nationlists fight the Japanese alone.. Mao didn't want to lose his army because he knew he'd need it to fight so he could take China over... The only reason Mao gained power was BECAUSE of the Japanese.. If the nationalists didn't go over to fight the Japanese (while Mao ran and hid to build an army so he could rule over China). Mao literally traveled WEST when he heard the Japanese were invading.. He ran like a coward... And since you seem to like Mao so much, you should be happy that the Japanese invaded China.. Because if they didn't, Mao would never have ruled... - redguard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I am shocked you could say such a thing. Maybe 50 years ago that was true, but the main difference between former Nazi Germany and Japan today is that Germany has apologized repeatedly and has made it illegal NOT to teach it in schools. The Japanese government to this day fails to effectively recognize and apologize for it's own atrocities committed. This is the difference. I guarantee you there is a smaller percentage of Jews worldwide who feel Germany has not apologized adequately compaerd to the proportion of Chinese (many who lived during the massacres) who feel like Japan hasn't. This is why you see riots and public uproar when this issue is brought up in China, and not amongst Jewish populations when the Holocaust is discussed.
The website doesn't even begin to address the horrifying medical experiments conducted by the infamous "Unit 731."
"After Imperial Japan surrendered to the Allies in 1945, Douglas MacArthur became the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers, rebuilding Japan during the Allied occupation.
At the end of the war he secretly granted immunity to the physicians of Unit 731 in exchange for providing America with their research on biological warfare. The United States believed that the research data was valuable because the allies had never publicly conducted or condoned such experiments on humans due to moral and political revulsion. The U.S. also did not want other nations, particularly the Soviet Union, to acquire data on biological weapons, not to mention the military benefits of such research."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731
To suggest that the apologies of Germany are equivalent to the laughable "regrets" of Japan is an insult to those who were raped, murdered, and experimented on.
- chenyu768, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12they still do, because the germans appologized and made it crime to deny it ever happened, and they don't build monuments to hitler or memebers of the SS and the chancelor doesn't go and visit and pray to them every year.
- NarmaK, on 10/12/2007, -12/+5Civilians are not responsible for the actions of their government.
Assholes.- flink405, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4So no one should vote, eh?
No one should protest, eh?
Just let the govt. do what it wants. - chenyu768, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8No, but they're not suppose to turn a blind eye either.
What makes america great is not the government, cuz we all know they're a bunch of incompetent fools, but the fact that at least some minority of the american population cares and will stand up and fight against it.
- flink405, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4So no one should vote, eh?
- crackashrimp, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7 When most of the people condemn the one who commanded the Rape of Nanking, Japanese say: No, he is our hero, and should be adored in the Shrine. Or, OK, the image of Japan in the history is too bad, let's deny it.
- fluxingtontheIV, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4actually, there was a lot of controversy here in Japan on the visiting of that shrine. Koizumi did not visit for the war criminals. It is true that 14 war criminals are buried there, but a lot of loyal servicemen are buried there. Don't you think they deserve to be visited? A lot more decent soldiers are buried there (not all of them were involved in the attack of mainland china or in the raping and slaughtering) and I believe they deserve to be remembered as well. Japan is a changed nation
- zemble, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yasukuni Jinja has consistently denied that it is dedicated to war criminals because, and it makes this clear in its literature, those men where termed war criminals by biased and corrupt western courts and were in fact, according to Yasukuni, war heroes. The problem is that Japan's senior politicians/leaders support this stance by visiting the shrine. Mind you, they also do it simply to upset the Chinese too. It is at least partly a way of saying 'Japan is still superior to China'.
- fluxingtontheIV, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0let's be honest, Japan and China have been at each others throats for a while. Did you see the representative from Japan and China at the East Asian Conference a while back? They wouldn't talk to each other even to pass a pen. It was like something from an elementary school yard lol.
That is partly the reason the Japanese did what they did in World War II. Not saying it was warranted at all (just stating their motivation), but just to remind Americans that if they did invade US, the same ***** probably would not have happened. Most likely would have been the same if China had invaded Japan, only reversed. At the time, those specific soldiers were motivated by hatred towards the Chinese. Regardless, that was still inexcusable and I know that now the Japanese are, for the most part (some mild cases of racism, but i have never been witness yet), a reformed people.
- Pix869, on 10/12/2007, -13/+8Propaganda?
*****.
Oh, it's a clever propaganda campaign to get us to feel sorry for BOMBING HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI.
That was a tragic day in world history.
This was too, but how can you even SUGGEST such a thing as "oh well don't feel sorry for them too much because they did this".
THOSE CHILDREN WHO DIED IN THE BOMBINGS DID NOT DO THIS MASSACRE.
YOU are creating propaganda. - LuckyJack, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12To everyone who said that dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki make the US the evil bad guys, I'd like to know what you suggest should have been done? Women and children were being trained to sharpen bamboo into spears and told they were to fight to the death when the invasion of the home islands came.
With such an determination on the part of the Japanese to die for their cause, should the US have asked them pretty-please-with-sugar-on-top to just stop?
No one here is saying that Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't tragedies, but other than the whole Bashing-America-is-the-new-black attitude, what should we have done?- SultanTravi, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8@ Luckyjack
That's true. I read it in a Newsweek article. They interviewed Japanese people who were children or teens at the time, and some of them reported that same training you mentioned, saying they were ready to fight to the end. - zachblume, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3Why'd we have to drop it on a city?
Why not next to a city? - diggonit, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Why did it take 2? Japan refused to surrender after the first. Doesn't seem like dropping it next to a city would have worked. More people died in the fire bombings of Dresden than both nukes combined. I think at the time the thought was both to inflict damage as well as convince.
- SultanTravi, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8@ Luckyjack
- Unavoidable, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7The pictures are powerful - but the way it was posted was all wrong. The point of this shouldn't be to get back at the guy who posted the Hiroshima/Nagasaki photos and witness accounts. You seriously need to get a grip. The point is, wars are terrible, especially when they involve massive innocent civilian casualties - it doesn't matter whose government is wrong when innocent lives are taken. Why is there even debate about who was right? It was more than 50 years ago, and the lesson that should be taken out of all that is that _wars are bad_.
- cocoamix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Another good website (also with graphic images):
http://www.rnrc.org/
My stepmother is a member of this organization, which is co-chaired by a Chinese woman and a Japanese man. - fluxingtontheIV, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5awaiting dugging down
Ok, i think it was an excellent idea to post these pictures and it is important to inform people nowadays about the horrors back then (done by human kind as a whole).
That being said, the reasoning for posting these pictures is downright atrocious. The OP should be ashamed. Posting these picks to get back at Kakkun for trying to inform people on the horrors of a nuclear weapon is just low. These tragedies aren't supposed to be used as fuel in an online squabble. You people have pissed on every thing these people have died for...
Regardless, these pictures are very sad...human beings can be amazingly cruel...- SurrealDream, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Dugg down for use of the word "Dugging".
- Wind8reaker, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5 Why do the people who just don't get it find they must resort to name calling? The fact that people had to die in Hiroshima and Nagasaki to get the Japanese government to surrender without us having to perform a full on invasion was horrible. Not the fact that we resorted to dropping the bombs.
The fact of the matter is that if we would have had to invade Japan to force them to surrender we would have lost many more of our military personnel than was lost in those two cities combined, not to mention how many more Japanese civilians and soldiers would have died too.
So before you complain about horrors and about the U.S.'s "atrocities", please stop and think about the alternatives first . . . (I haven't even touched on the fact that Japan is the one who launched