Hiroshima: 57 years

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Aug. 06 2002,23:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">yes, the citizens were not DIRECTLY involed in atrocities, but they were also not stopping them. with your logic, no German who lives now, should be associated with Holocaust, and should not be demonized even if he/she lived in that period.<span id='postcolor'>

The germans that live now and were not involved in the holocaust should not be associated with it. That is correct.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">study about JPN's atrocities during 1900-1950. then see how they act with regards to their past deeds. then think why many Asian countries and US have little respect when it comes to this subject.

Denoir, you are unknowingly helping an Imperial rapist.(by looking only one way)<span id='postcolor'>

I never said that I approved of the Japanese atrocities. Two wrongs don't make one right. I was talking about one specific incident, one attack and it is really hard to find anywhere in history where so many civilians have been killed in such a short time. In Hiroshima 140 000 people were killed within seconds.

Just because others have comitted atrocities doesn't mean that it is ok that you do it too as long as it is on a smaller scale.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">something tells me i didn't get through you correctly or you are using a bad logic. Germans were presecutors. the Asians I mentioned were VICTIMS, persecutors were JPNese. The exploitation of colonial citizens by JPN is as bad as Holocaust, if not worse. JPN systematically exploited their colonial resources. They even had guts to take many colonists women to their brothel and make them their sex-slaves, and abandon them when they were retreating.<span id='postcolor'>

I think you will find nearly every Army throughout history can be accused of similar things. The US army in WWII in Europee had very strict rules against rape, but I am sure that the soldiers had no problems using brothels. And if you want examples of US misconduct, just look at Vietnam. Perhaps Americans didnt directly press women into prostitution, but the economics of the situation likely sent many many women into prostitution to make money from the soldiers. How many half asian/half american children are there in Vietnam? A fair number I would wager. And I suspect a lot of them have never met their american parent.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Denoir, you are unknowingly helping an Imperial rapist.(by looking only one way)<span id='postcolor'>

That's a rather insulting statement. Denoir's position is that the use of nuclear weapons on civilian population centers was a horrible crime against humanity. And for the most part I agree with him (More Nagasaki than Hiroshima as I have previously stated) Where Denoir and I disagree I think is that I believe that war is a horrible thing, and sometimes things are done that no sane man would do...in the name of expediency. And while we have the lucury of hindsight, I dont think any of us truly understand the pressures that Truman was under. But..again..the use of nuclear devices on civilians was a horrific crime.

Now..at the risk of making this even more flammable..

Consider the fact that the only nation to utilize a Weapon of Mass Destruction is charging a man involved in the terrorist attacks of 9/11 with 'conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction' Does anyone else find that demeaning to the memories and intent behind the use of the Atomic Bombs? It truly makes me rather angry. Mr Moussaoui deserves to be put away for the remainder of his life, but he certainly did not conspire to use a weapon of mass destruction.

[ralphwiggum 6]

but if JPN did not attack US, I doubt US would have used A-Bomb on JPN...

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Aug. 06 2002,23:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">something tells me i didn't get through you correctly or you are using a bad logic. Germans were presecutors. the Asians I mentioned were VICTIMS, persecutors were JPNese. The exploitation of colonial citizens by JPN is as bad as Holocaust, if not worse. JPN systematically exploited their colonial resources. They even had guts to take many colonists women to their brothel and make them their sex-slaves, and abandon them when they were retreating.<span id='postcolor'>

I think you will find nearly every Army throughout history can be accused of similar things.  The US army in WWII in Europee had very strict rules against rape, but I am sure that the soldiers had no problems using brothels.  And if you want examples of US misconduct, just look at Vietnam. Perhaps Americans didnt directly press women into prostitution, but the economics of the situation likely sent many many women into prostitution to make money from the soldiers.  How many half asian/half american children are there in Vietnam?  A fair number I would wager.  And I suspect a lot of them have never met their american parent.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Denoir, you are unknowingly helping an Imperial rapist.(by looking only one way)<span id='postcolor'>

That's a rather insulting statement.  Denoir's position is that the use of nuclear weapons on civilian population centers was a horrible crime against humanity.  And for the most part I agree with him (More Nagasaki than Hiroshima as I have previously stated)  Where Denoir and I disagree I think is that I believe that war is a horrible thing, and sometimes things are done that no sane man would do...in the name of expediency.  And while we have the lucury of hindsight, I dont think any of us truly understand the pressures that Truman was under.  But..again..the use of nuclear devices on civilians was a horrific crime.

Now..at the risk of making this even more flammable..

Consider the fact that the only nation to utilize a Weapon of Mass Destruction is charging a man involved in the terrorist attacks of 9/11 with 'conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction'   Does anyone else find that demeaning to the memories and intent behind the use of the Atomic Bombs?  It truly makes me rather angry.  Mr Moussaoui deserves to be put away for the remainder of his life, but he certainly did not conspire to use a weapon of mass destruction.<span id='postcolor'>

flame time!!

the 'prostitutes' were as young as 14, nd were taken against their will or tricked into it under JPN gov't. they are more known as 'Comfort women'...probably some UN related articles might have more info.

i think when I said 'looking another way' i meant that he should look into causal reasons. there is reason why JPN got into this war, and we should look into that.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Aug. 06 2002,23:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">but if JPN did not attack US, I doubt US would have used A-Bomb on JPN... <span id='postcolor'>

Japan didnt have a lot of choice. The United States pretty much cut off their supply of oil and other strategic resources. War was pretty much inevitable. If Japan hadnt attacked the US, I suspect that upon entry into WW II a little later, the US would have moved on Japan, to secure the pacific..and Japan was part of the Axis as well.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Aug. 06 2002,23:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">flame time!!

the 'prostitutes' were as young as 14, nd were taken against their will or tricked into it under JPN gov't. they are more known as 'Comfort women'...probably some UN related articles might have more info.

i think when I said 'looking another way' i meant that he should look into causal reasons. there is reason why JPN got into this war, and we should look into that.<span id='postcolor'>

I am sure you'll find there has been prostitution in pretty much every conflict..and I'm sure governments are involved as well.

Here is a paper that, while showing you have a point about the Japanese use of 'Comfort Women', also shows that the American government has condoned similar activities.

Dont point a finger at another nation if you cant be sure that the same finger cannot be pointed at your nation.

On the original topic, I suppose the attitudes of many people are a prime example of the victors writing the histories.

[edc 0]

Do you know how many people on all sides and civilians would have died if we had invaded Japan? Millions probably would have. We would have had to fight for every block just like they had to in Russia and I think the Russians lost somewhere about 7.5 million people. It saved millions of lives-how is that a horrible crime.

[red oct 2]

so i like thought flame topics were supposed to be closed, and yet this is still open.

[Duke_of_Ray 0]

I get this odd feeling that this thread will be closed. Not becuase of me though! The U.S. did what they had to do to save American lives. If the U.S. had invaded Japan, there would have been tons of allied soldiers killed, and since Japan made the first agression at Pearl Harbor, they just got what they asked for, not what they deserved, what they asked for. The U.S. goverment should have shjown the Japanese the power of the bomb before dropping it on their cities, but the goverment should always protect U.S. citizens first, and the then comes the rest of the world.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Red Oct @ Aug. 07 2002,00:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">so i like thought flame topics were supposed to be closed, and yet this is still open.<span id='postcolor'>

Actually, the flaming has been low key, and off set by the fact that there is reasonable discusion going on.

And DoR... go read some history. The US precipitated Japan's aggression by cutting of her access to oil and other strategic materiel. Whether or not you subscribe to the view that FDR knew Pearl Harbour would be attacked, it was an attack on a military base.. not on the civilian population.

[edc 0]

We were considering showing the power of it to the Japs but we decided that if for some reason it didn't go off it would kinda energize the Japanese.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Red Oct @ Aug. 07 2002,00:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">so i like thought flame topics were supposed to be closed, and yet this is still open.<span id='postcolor'>

There has been very little flaming, but if you feel that you can't hold it in, I'll be more then happy to relieve you of your posting rights. Just say the word

[red oct 2]

well i did do some research and heres the reasons why japan attacked Pearl Harbor:

At dawn on Sunday, December 7, 1941, naval aviation forces of the Empire of Japan attacked the United States Pacific Fleet center at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii and other military targets. The goal of this attack was to sufficiently cripple the US Fleet so that Japan could then attack and capture the Phillipines and Indo-China and so secure access to the raw materials needed to maintain its position as a global military and economic power. This would enable Japan to further extend the empire to include Australia, New Zealand, and India (the ultimate boundaries planned for the so-called "Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere"). The prevailing belief within the Japanese military and political establishment was that eventually, with the then expected German defeat of Great Britain and Soviet Russia, the United States' non-involvement in the European war, and Japan's control of the Pacific, that the world power structure would stabilize into three major spheres of influence:

1.) The Empire of Japan controlling East, Southeast, and South Asia and the entire Pacific Ocean.

2.) The combined powers of Germany and Italy controlling Great Britain, all of Europe, Western and central Asia, the Middle East, and Africa.

3.) The United States, controlling North and South America.

Admiral Yamamoto

Imperial Admiral Yamamoto, who conceived, designed and promoted the Pearl harbor attack, cautioned against a war with the United States. Having twice held naval attache positions within the Japanese embassy in the U. S. Capitol, he knew well the industrial strength, material wealth and temperament of the United States. Overruled by his superiors, he dedicated his efforts as Commander in Chief of the Imperial Combined Fleet to a successful attack. Upon completion of the attack he is quoted as saying "We have awakened a sleeping giant and have instilled in him a terrible resolve".

Pacific Fleet Crippled

Airfields, port facilities, and warships were attacked and severely damaged. Of the nine Pacific Fleet battleships at Pearl that day, Utah and Arizona were completely destroyed and the Oklahoma was salvaged but considered obsolete and designated for scrap. All other battleships were returned to service.*

Battleship Arizona Destroyed

(Click the picture to see a larger image)

The Arizona was struck by a converted sixteen inch armor penetrating naval shell that was dropped from a high level horizontal bomber. The bomb penetrated between the number one and two turrets, proceeded aft and downward through several decks, and exploded in one of the Arizona's aircraft catapult gunpowder magazines. The resulting fire ignited the main gun magazines where great quantities of gunpowder were stored. The explosion blew out all forward transverse bulkheads and caused the ship to sink to the harbor bottom in a few minutes. The explosion and sinking resulted in the death of over 1100 crew members.*

A Tomb and Memorial

(Click the picture to see a larger image)

The Arizona has been preserved as a tomb for most of the crew and as a memorial to the events of this day. The observation structure in the picture spans the ship's hulk, with Ford island in the background. The memorial is accessed by boats from the naval base at Pearl Harbor. Within the memorial, the first object seen is the ship's bell. In the middle, viewing ports overlook the Arizona. At the far end, a marble wall is inset with bronze letters naming the deceased crew members.

Japanese Goals

The expected result of the attack was to cripple the U. S. Pacific Fleet for a period of up to eighteen months, preventing aggressive action against imperial forces, with the fleet to later be drawn out into a final battle and destroyed. This goal eluded the Japanese as U. S. forces were acting aggressively in the South Pacific within 60 days and the fleet was fully effective within a year. There was never the kind of massive fleet battle that the Japanese hoped for.

A Matter of Chance

The attack was almost a complete tactical success. By a matter of chance, of the three of the Pacific Fleet carriers that would normally be at Pearl that morning, two were at sea on exercises and one was on the U. S. west coast undergoing maintenance. Not knowing the location of these ships that could attack his strike force would cause the tactical commander (Admiral Nagumo) to withdraw before a planned third strike, sparing the Pacific Fleet submarine force, important maintenance facilities and critical fuel supplies. The survival of the repair shops would enable rapid restoration of the fighting capability of the fleet. The carriers would enable the first blow to be struck against the Japanese homeland in the Doolittle raid, would prove to be decisive in the Battle of the Coral Sea, where the Japanese forces were turned back in their thrust toward Australia, and would prove essential to U. S. success in the Battle of Midway Island, where naval aviation forces from U.S. carriers sank four Imperial carriers.

The Turning Point

Midway proved to be the critical turning point in the course of the war in the Pacific. Its loss would have put Hawaii at great risk of invasion and occupation. In Japan's defeat at Midway it was the loss of her experienced pilots, more than the ships and aircraft, which would prove to be a fatal blow to Japan's ability to defend and extend the territory that it had gained.

U. S. Asleep

The Japanese success at Pearl Harbor with trivial losses to themselves can be blamed on the inability of the U. S. political, diplomatic, and military establishments to recognize the capabilities of Japan and the weaknesses in U. S. defense planning as well as a long string of small coincidences and failures that would in any analysis appear to be extremely unlikely to occur in concert. These are well documented in the texts available on this subject.

America Reacts

This sneak attack against Hawaii brought an immediate reaction of unprecedented unity from the American people. Families from every class sent their sons and daughters to war, women joined the industrial work force, and no one was untouched by the effort to bring all of U. S. resources to bear upon the war effort. The U. S. war plans strategy had been "Europe first", but the Japanese attack caused a far greater effort to be directed early on to the pacific than would otherwise have been expected and fueled the will of the U. S. to completely defeat Japan regardless of the cost.

A Catastrophic Error

The attack against Hawaii was in fact the worst possible thing that Japan could have done, given its goal of hegemony in the western Pacific. The war plans of the U. S. had written off the defensiblity of the Phillipines and had projected, baring any direct attack against the Philippines or U. S. possessions, a strictly defensive posture against Japan, with the principle effort being directed to the protection of the western hemisphere (particularly the Caribbean and South America) against Germany and a strictly defensive posture in the Pacific to protect Alaska, Hawaii, and the Panama Canal. The short term goal of the Japanese was to obtain the oil supplies, rubber, and and other strategic materials from the East Indian possessions of the Netherlands, Great Britain, and France. Given the isolationest temperament of the U. S. Congress at the time, it is questionable, even doubtful, that that the United States would have responded directly to the seizure those foreign possessions.

The Roots of War

The roots of the Japanese attack lie deep within cultural and institutional factors within Japan and the U. S. and in the longer term U. S. - Japanese relationship, beginning with the forced opening of Japan for mercantilist purposes by Commodore Perry, and longstanding racist attitudes on the part of both parties. Some modern historical revisionists have attempted to show that an oppressive and bullying U. S. forced Japan into a corner, where it had no choice but to fight. From the Japanese military viewpoint this is correct, since the U. S. had embargoed certain strategic goods (such as oil and scrap metal), and within a few years, Japan would have used up its reserves and been unable to strike. However, this embargo was a response to Japan's cruel and brutal war to seize China for the Empire. Japan later entered into the the Tripartite Agreement, where Japan, Germany, and Italy were bound to mutual support in fighting wars (forming the "Axis" powers). There were a number of political factions within Japan that saw the error in the Tripartate Agreement, believing that it could ultimately lead to a war that it could possibly loose. One reason that these forces were ineffective in stopping this movement toward war is that constitutionally (as a parliamentary democracy), representatives of the Japanese military held seats in any cabinet, and by vacating these seats could bring down any government that it disagreed with. The final result of this was that General Tojo became Prime Minister. The military was thus not under strict civilian political control, but rather the opposite, with the civilian government subject to military dictates. Despite a veneer of democratic institutions, the social structures at the time were essentially feudal, and remnants of these structures can still be found within Japan.

The Effect of the Tripartate Agreement

The Tripartate agreement would actually prove most disasterous for Germany. On December 11, 1941, at the request of Japan, Germany declared war on the United States of America. The German military had developed plans to engage the U. S., but only after sufficient development of its high seas navy, the perfection of long range aircraft and missiles, the expected defeat of the Soviet Union, and (presumably) a successful restaging of the Battle of Britain. The forcing of events by Japan caused Germany to enter the war with insufficient preparation (in other than submarine forces) at a time when a great proportion of available resources were being commited to war against the Soviet Union. The availability of bases in England to the U. S. for long range strategic bombing and for the invasion of Europe would be key to the ultimate defeat of Germany.

The U. S. Victory

As foreseen by Admiral Yamamoto, it was the industrial strength of the United States and the will of her people that was the foundation of the U. S. victory. Japan simply could not replace lost material in the way the U. S. could. In a number of battles, the U. S. did not do well against the Japanese, yet most of these these tactical losses would result in strategic victories for the U. S.

The use of nuclear weapons brought the war to a quick termination at a time when the defeat of Japan was assured, but expected to be at further great cost to both Japan and the Allies. That the projected costs were high was based upon the experience in taking Okinawa. The Samurai culture within the Japanese military (the "Spirit of Bushido"), dictated that dying for the Emperor was a high honor, opposed to the disgrace of any surrender. Surrender may have appeared much more horrible to the Japanese establishment than it proved to be, as they likely expected to be treated as they had treated those they had conquered. Ultimately, the decision to surrender was made by Emperor Hirohito, contrary to the wishes of the Japanese Army, and then only after the offer by the U.S that the institution of the Emperor would remain in place. It is unclear if an earlier offer of this condition would have made unnecessary the use of nuclear weapons - that is one of the great questions of history.

Our Local Memorium

In the San Francisco Bay area, the events of this day are memorialized by the illumination of a prewar aircraft beacon atop Mount Diablo. This light was decomissioned on that day as a defensive measure and was obsolete as a navigation aid by the end of the war. It was refurbished in 1962 and is now turned on for only one evening a year. On the evening of December 7th, a few remaining military survivors of the attack will gather with family and friends to memorialize their fallen shipmates and comrades by playing "Taps" and lighting the beacon, which may be seen from many places in the bay area. The public is welcome at these events and are advised to enter the park before 40 P.M.

- Leonard G. Barton

Additional Material

*Supporting information for this was drawn from "http://www.wpi.edu/~elmer/navy/arizona.html" (no longer available) and other sources.

A biography of Isoroku Yamamoto can be found in "The Reluctant Admiral" by Hiroyuki Agawa, translated by John Bester, published by Kodansha International Ltd, Copyright 1979. This book explains much of the political structure and events within Japan that lead to the war, with many details unfamiliar to most Americans.

A high level view of the war from the Japanese side is within the diaries of Yamamoto's Chief of Staff, Admiral Matome Ugaki. Here will be found evidence of the intentions of the imperial military establishment to seize Hawaii and to operate in the Indian Ocean. Translated by Masataka Chihaya, this edition contains extensive clarifying notes from the U. S. editors derived from the U. S. military histories. University of Pittsburgh Press, Copyright 1991.

United States war planning and strategy in this period can be found in "Strategy & Command: The first Two Years" by Louis Morten, published by the Office of the Chief of Military History, Department of the Army, 1962.

source

[Duke_of_Ray 0]

I have read some history, I just forgot about it. If I remeber right the U.S. did this becuase iof Japans actions in China. So I still support the saving of American lives.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Aug. 06 2002,23:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Here is a paper that, while showing you have a point about the Japanese use of 'Comfort Women', also shows that the American government has condoned similar activities.

Dont point a finger at another nation if you cant be sure that the same finger cannot be pointed at your nation.<span id='postcolor'>

if it weren't for broken links...but I think that paper still needs to have other evidence other than a few excerpts from a few sources.

for instance, the JPN gov't did have institutionalized order to recruit women, by any means neccessary. at least in Korea, underage females were forced or tricked into it.

but did US do the same? I doubt so.

US's decision to give ID cards and hospital care could be a sign of intitutionalized prostitution, but not support of. My argument would be that US gov't knew GIs would do it no matter what, then why not make it safer? so that's why they would have to make sure that those women were 'safe' and that's why they had to issue some institutional tools.

and funnier thing is that the author has no idea of socio-status of Korea. in Korea, although officially abloished in 19th century, there were persistent status-quo. kisaengs were never allowed to move anywhere in social status, and you were born into the class, never to get out. and they were looked upon. so the writer of that paper obviously does not think about the possibility that those prostitutes were already socially put down, and had no other choice.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

On the original topic, I suppose the attitudes of many people are a prime example of the victors writing the histories.<span id='postcolor'>

and victors were seldom aggressors...

[MrLaggy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> But..again..the use of nuclear devices on civilians was a horrific crime. <span id='postcolor'>

People keep saying this here, but I've yet to see anyone convincingly explain why "the use of nuclear devices on civilians was a horrific crime", yet the use of conventional bombs or incendiaries is not a horrible crime. In what possible way can killing a hundred thousand people with a nuclear bomb somehow be so much worse than burning them to death with incendiaries?

[MrLaggy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">By a matter of chance, of the three of the Pacific Fleet carriers that would normally be at Pearl that morning, two were at sea on exercises and one was on the U. S. west coast undergoing maintenance.<span id='postcolor'>

"By a matter of chance", if you believe the official history. However, it's pretty well-established that America had broken the Japanese naval code and had advance warning of the attack, therefore it seems likely to me that those carriers were deliberately moved out beforehand... the US government was eager for an excuse to join the war, and the US navy could afford to lose a few battleships, but not carriers.

[MrLaggy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In Sweden saying that bombing those two towns was good is about as acceptable as to say that the holocaust was good.<span id='postcolor'>

That may well be because the Swedish armed forces weren't facing the prospect of huge losses from invading Japan, whereas those from America, Britain, Russia and Commonwealth nations were. It's easy to worry about moral qualms when you're not the ones who have to die as a result.

That said, in this case Sweden can claim some moral superiority, since it refused to join the stupid war in the first place (it was neutral the whole war, right?).

[Duke_of_Ray 0]

If America had shown the Japanese what the bombs could do first, and Japan still did not surrender, then they would be more justified. Calling this a war crime though is going a little far.

[MrLaggy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If America had shown the Japanese what the bombs could do first, and Japan still did not surrender, then they would be more justified.<span id='postcolor'>

Meanwhile, allied soldiers and sailors would have been killed, and ships sunk, by kamikaze attacks; all in the hope that they could come up with a "demonstration" convincing enough to end the war... and using a weapon that was in very limited supply at the time, so that if the demonstration failed they'd have only one more available for the next couple of months, itself an untried plutonium bomb which might not even work. Just imagine the reaction of the peoples of the allied nations if they were told that their governments had chosen _not_ to use those weapons, so their men were dying needlessly?

You can certainly make a good case that the allies prolonged the war unneccesarily by demanding unconditional surrender; I'd agree with that myself, and without that demand the bombs would probably not have been used. But fantasies about magical "demonstrations" convincing the Japanese to surrender ignore the realities of the time... indeed, the Americans tried to come up with a viable plan for such a "demonstration" before dropping the bomb on Hiroshima, and failed.

[Mora2 0]

I´m in page 6 but i can´t resist to ask Denoir why he is so surprised with Yanks that say nuking hiroshima had to be done when i´ve seen him call Ira and Eta terrorists in this forums as "revolutionaries"...

And please don´t respond that Ira and Eta just kill hundreds of ppl and the nuking was thousands and as such is worst...

P.S.And don´t make me search for the fucking thread.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">for instance, the JPN gov't did have institutionalized order to recruit women, by any means neccessary. at least in Korea, underage females were forced or tricked into it.

but did US do the same? I doubt so.

US's decision to give ID cards and hospital care could be a sign of intitutionalized prostitution, but not support of. My argument would be that US gov't knew GIs would do it no matter what, then why not make it safer? so that's why they would have to make sure that those women were 'safe' and that's why they had to issue some institutional tools.

<span id='postcolor'>

So basically you are saying that when the US does it it's making things safe for GI's that would visit the women anyways, but when the Japanese do it, it's evil imperialist rapes? Hypocrite! I though a lot more of you than that Ralph. If you want to make an issue of it, the Japanese were at least honest about it.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">and victors were seldom aggressors...<span id='postcolor'>

If history stops 150 years ago, that statement may make a little sense. But through history, most wars are won by the aggressors.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">People keep saying this here, but I've yet to see anyone convincingly explain why "the use of nuclear devices on civilians was a horrific crime", yet the use of conventional bombs or incendiaries is not a horrible crime. In what possible way can killing a hundred thousand people with a nuclear bomb somehow be so much worse than burning them to death with incendiaries?<span id='postcolor'>

Actually, since you brought it up...

I consider all of the firebombings done to places like Dresden and Tokyo to be equally as much a war crimes as the nuclear detonations. The deliberate targeting of civilian population centers is reprehensible no matter who does it. Soldiers go to the field of battle knowing that doing their duty may lead to their death. Civilians should at least have an expectation that they will not be incinerated in their beds. :angry And you can bet if the Axis had won, all of the pilots and planners of those campaigns would have faced Nuremburg like trials.

[scout 0]

i have to correct couple of mistakes here:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">However, it's pretty well-established that America had broken the Japanese naval code and had advance warning of the attack,<span id='postcolor'>

wrong, at this time they broke only the diplomatic code. they didnt break the Naval code for another half a year.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">therefore it seems likely to me that those carriers were deliberately moved out beforehand... the US government was eager for an excuse to join the war, and the US navy could afford to lose a few battleships, but not carriers.<span id='postcolor'>

wrong.

the US navy, Just as the IJN didnt think at the time that AC's would become major fighting platforms. in War Plan Orange, the carrier force should have been split and take Recon roles, while the Battleship line would engage in "the Decisive Battle"

while in the IJN the common belief was that the AC's are good for atrittion and long-range bombing, but the main battle would be fought with batleships.

as the IJN put the USN battleline out of work the USN had to make do with what it had. which were carriers.

if you'll examine engagement prior Midway you'll see that there was a great deal of indecisiveness in Carrier battles, especially the Coral sea, on both sides.

the Americans got the trick faster and thats what gave them victory.

i'll remind you that only in Midway did the USN consentrate its Carrier force.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Aug. 07 2002,04:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">for instance, the JPN gov't did have institutionalized order to recruit women, by any means neccessary. at least in Korea, underage females were forced or tricked into it.

but did US do the same? I doubt so.

US's decision to give ID cards and hospital care could be a sign of intitutionalized prostitution, but not support of. My argument would be that US gov't knew GIs would do it no matter what, then why not make it safer? so that's why they would have to make sure that those women were 'safe' and that's why they had to issue some institutional tools.

<span id='postcolor'>

So basically you are saying that when the US does it it's making things safe for GI's that would visit the women anyways, but when the Japanese do it, it's evil imperialist rapes?  Hypocrite!    I though a lot more of you than that Ralph.   If you want to make an issue of it, the Japanese were at least honest about it.  <span id='postcolor'>

no, what i try to convey is that JPN decided to go ahead and actively recruit/force ppl, while as US just regulated them, not force/recruit ppl. and JPN never officially acknowledged their government level involvement.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">and victors were seldom aggressors...<span id='postcolor'>

If history stops 150 years ago, that statement may make a little sense. But through history, most wars are won by the aggressors.

<span id='postcolor'>

i said it in the context of last 100yrs.

[Vgamer 0]

I think everyone here is forgetting one important thing, and i hope this hasen't been mentioned before because i haven't read through this whole thread yet. But remember that soldiers and civillians really are the same thing, i'm pretty sure there was a draft during WW2. So many soldiers diddn't choose to fight, but had to. I'm sure most of the drafted soldiers didn't want to fight, same for most civillians. So my point here is invading Japan would have been the same as forcing people (drafted US soldiers) to their death, or killing them.

Also i think maybe some people should lighten up here and not take some things so seirously. Yes using nucelar weapons on ANYONE, civillans or soldiers is very bad and should not be done. But i really truly don't care what happened around 60 years ago, call me a heartless bastard if you want, but it happened for a reason, and if there were a good enough reason for it to not happen, then it probably wouldn't have.