Page 9 of 20 FirstFirst ...
7
8
9
10
11
19
... LastLast
  1. #161
    Herald of the Titans
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Northwest USA
    Posts
    2,708
    Quote Originally Posted by Cattaclysmic View Post
    harming civilians to scare the country... sounds... familiar...
    that's how you win wars.. take away your enemy's desire to fight..

    if they think they have a chance to win.. or believe the cost is worth it.. they will fight to last man.. did you not see 300?!?!?!?! (battle of thermopylae)
    the most beautiful post I have ever read.. thank you Dr-1337 http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...1#post22624432

  2. #162
    Quote Originally Posted by Kathranis View Post
    Markos: Japan refused unconditional surrender.

    There was no way their military leaders could be allowed to remain in power with no reforms. They were as bad as the nazis, if not worse. And their conditions for surrender would be to keep their military and the territories they'd captured.
    Even so. If i surrender to you and I offer something in return does that give you the right to kill 300K+ of my people during six months and 200K in just few days? No. The war was over there was no need to kill 200K people in that manner. There is no excuse of doing that.

    Every military leader is doing what he/she thinks is best for his country.That said you have entire history of man ( leaders ) killing innocent in the name of God knows what. So you have Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Roman Empire, Span killing Aztecs and Mayans, then US killing tribes on "their" soil, then Australians killing Aboriginals... In what way is Japan different?

    Im just saying there was no need to use nuclear weapons to kill innocent people since the war was over. Lets talk about peace and not kill innocent to prove something. So using nuclear weapon was unnecessary. IF it was the beggining of the war then perhaps yes ( saving 50million lives or more considering that every one of then could have been a father/mother and never had a chance you could easily get to a number of 100mill ) nut then again not on a civilian targets.
    Last edited by markos82; 2011-11-28 at 02:51 AM.

  3. #163
    I think its just because they wanted to kill so many civilians. Obviously there were so many other targets to choose including military bases or just plain uninhabited soil over japan.

  4. #164
    Quote Originally Posted by markos82 View Post
    In a urban combat you simply cant introduce large number of ppl and you dont fight to liberate/conquer miles, you fight for meters at a time. Also Japan didn't had enough soldiers to wage war against fully rested and equipped soldiers with backup from sea and air. Those would have been a short fight considering Japan has been bombarded during last six months every single day.

    That is a slogan for every country, i dont understand whats wrong with that? Will you protect people you love/care about if someone invaded your country? JApan leaders ( emperor ) wanted to sign peace so....

    Not in this was. There was no need to invade Japan since they lost the war so sending 1mill of soldiers would be a waste of resources and time. How many soldiers/planes/ships/tanks have been used in a battle for Normandy probably one of the most important battles during WW2?
    Japan had been invading territories for years before the Germans ever invaded Poland, they killed millions during this time.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_War

    Midway was just important as Normandy. The battle of Midway basically unlocked the Pacific war, much like Normandy did for the European war. Up to this point, the Japanese dominated the Pacific.

  5. #165
    Both cities were chosen because they were practically untouched by the war, military units were not stationed there, nothing was being built there, just a normal city. The US told Japan that we had the power, they knew we had the bomb so we showed them what the bomb could do to a normal city, we wanted to show the real destruction it can cause. Im not saying the decision was VERY immoral, we couldve easily bombed hundreds of thousands of troops (still immoral to me) but at the time, the US or the rest of the world for that matter had no idea the destruction it would cause.

  6. #166
    Quote Originally Posted by Gsara View Post
    Japan had been invading territories for years before the Germans ever invaded Poland, they killed millions during this time.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_War

    Midway was just important as Normandy. The battle of Midway basically unlocked the Pacific war, much like Normandy did for the European war. Up to this point, the Japanese dominated the Pacific.
    Spain invaded Peru, and other countries centuries before, US did the same 100+ years before Japan when thier soldiers killed thousands of Indians, why compare those things?

    Battle for Midway was 3+ years before nuking Japan ( if i remember right ) and form 1944-1945 Japan lost about 1mill civilians in bomb raids.

  7. #167
    Quote Originally Posted by markos82 View Post
    Even so. If i surrender to you and I offer something in return does that give you the right to kill 300K+ of my people during six months and 200K in just few days? No. The war was over there was no need to kill 200K people in that manner. There is no excuse of doing that.

    Every military leader is doing what he/she thinks is best for his country.That said you have entire history of man ( leaders ) killing innocent in the name of God knows what. So you have Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Roman Empire, Span killing Aztecs and Mayans, then US killing tribes on "their" soil, then Australians killing Aboriginals... In what way is Japan different?

    Im just saying there was no need to use nuclear weapons to kill innocent people since the war was over. Lets talk about peace and not kill innocent to prove something. So using nuclear weapon was unnecessary. IF it was the beggining of the war then perhaps yes ( saving 50million lives or more considering that every one of then could have been a father/mother and never had a chance you could easily get to a number of 100mill ) nut then again not on a civilian targets.
    The war was not over yet. Churchill was the most influential man in the world at the time, more influential in the US than Roosevelt. And according to him "We would lose a million men [in a land assault on Japan]." Everyone at the time was convinced that it had to be done. After tens of thousands of marines die on pointless rocks, you just want it to be over. Now im not saying that it was OK to do it to these cities, im not saying it was OK at all BUT, the war wasnt close to being over and nobody knew the destruction it would cause.

  8. #168
    Quote Originally Posted by champ3000 View Post
    ignoring the facts is easier
    No one is ignoring them

    Japan refused to surrender under any terms until after the second bomb was dropped.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potsdam_Declaration

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mokusatsu

  9. #169
    Quote Originally Posted by Laconicraven View Post
    I don't agree with the bombing in general even if it was party necessary, but that's another topic. I think those two towns were picked for reasons stated above, they had military capabilities that would make good targets even if the Japanese didn't surrender, and in the process, killing many civilians which would make a big impact.
    Casualties on both sides would've been astronomically high if America had to invade Japan by ground.

    American casualties would've far exceeded combined allied losses in Europe. That was a major decisive factor in dropping nuclear weapons on Japan.

    As for those saying "the war was basically over" it was far from. In Europe it was done with the German and Italian surrenders, but the war in the Pacific was no where near finished.
    Last edited by Dirgon; 2011-11-28 at 03:09 AM.

  10. #170
    Quote Originally Posted by dirgon View Post
    casualties on both sides would've been astronomically high if america had to invade japan by ground.

    American casualties would've far exceeded combined allied losses in europe. That was a major decisive factor in dropping nuclear weapons on japan.
    this is it!

  11. #171
    Quote Originally Posted by Linaver View Post
    Soldiers fighting soldiers is not the same as civillians getting vaporised in a mushroom cloud with no warning or true purpose.
    Both were large cities with some military importance. Neither was irreplacable to the military. There were picked because the casualties would be devastating so they would stand a chance of scaring Japan into surrender.

    USA are assholes for dropping the bomb. They had their reasoning and rationalle that allowed them to carry through with it. It was a gray decision where thousands of families were killed. Nobody in the states thought about that, the whole population cheered it as another military victory. Oh well, history is written by the victors.
    conservative estimates are that if America had proceeded with the invasion instead using the bombs, then we would have lost at least 750 THOUSAND with over 4 million wounded.
    Japanese causalities were estimated to be at least 10 million with countless more wounded.
    and thats without the Soviets getting involved...

    In any case, the fighting would have lasted till 47-48, the Baby boomer generation would have never happened, both of the most powerful economies of the second half of the 20th century would have been ruined, with Japan on the worst end and forever being known as "the nation without fucking cities". Not to mention the USSR was about to go ape on northern Japan, so if they had gotten involved we would have had to split the island with the communists.
    I am sure if you ask any eastern European over 30 what its like to be occupied by russia they will give you a very informative answer...

    An interesting fact: Since the casualty estimates were expected to be so high, the invasion planners ordered 500 thousand purple hearts to be made in preparation. But because it never happened those purple hearts have instead, been awarded to wounded from from every war America has been in since, and theres still about 100k left over.
    Thats right, the USA hasn`t made new purple hearts since 1945.
    Last edited by Defengar; 2011-11-28 at 03:10 AM.

  12. #172
    However, Japan 'started' (which is a wrong word) the Pacific War as an answer to the West colonizing other places. Out of fear of being overtaken by the West, and out of anger for the unequal treaties, Japan decided upon this course and went through a series of rapid, what we'd call modernization: economically, socially as well as military.

    I've actually made a study out of this topic, so I've been reading this topic with great interest. You must be aware that the hows and whys of this topic are still being debated by renowned scholars, so by no means is anything set in stone just because wikipedia says so or because your (especially US, who for obvious reasons may be biased in its teaching of history on this specific matter) historical books said whatever.

    An interesting post I found is someone who said how the Japanese had been brainwashed into thinking every non-Japanese was non human. Interestingly enough, the topic of whether or not Japanese propaganda at that time was in any form or way effective is still a topic of heavy debate, but even more interesting is that nobody in this topic seems to make a reference to the American wartime propaganda, which in my humble opinion was more specific and, for lack of a better word, more effective than the Japanese managed at that time. The Japanese mobilized their people in an entirely different way than the Americans did, and this is actually quite interesting to compare.

    Back on topic however, why or how the bombs were dropped remains a question. Everyone has a different opinion or clarification about it. The retaliation that Japan started the war is far from correct, but saying the US 'started it', is also incorrect. More correct, in my opinion, would be that like most historical events, the Japan-US war resulted as a result of many, many events, including the threat Japan felt from the West at that time. Whether or not the US was aware of Pearl Harbor remains a mystery. Some sources claim the US was aware weeks in advance, other sources say that the US was unable to decipher the letter delivered to them by Japan (which undoubtfully was in Japanese). Nonetheless, it does not change a whole lot to the topic at hand, as reasons of why and how the US-Japan war was started could easily fill several books on its own.

    In popular historic study and teachings (such as schoolbook history), a heavy emphasis is laid on atomic bombings. However, other bombings, such as correctly noted by some people in this thread like the fire bombings of Tokyo are overlooked. Some people here mention that Japan was already looking for ways to end this war. In the scholarly research I did I could find no conclusive evidence of that, but what to me remains sure is that after the first bombing, Japan was granted way too little time to reconsider, and there are indications that already at that point, Japan was ready to surrender. The second bomb, therefore, to me, could be nothing else than just a test to clarify its effects as observed by the first bomb, which in the name of science or whatever justification at that time would have been deemed necessary.

    I hope to have shed some light on the matter. As a student of Japanese modern history, please bear in mind that the way in which we remember and clarify history is never fact, but always subject to different opinions and approaches. The only thing that is sure in history, is the outcome.
    Last edited by Cirque; 2011-11-28 at 03:14 AM. Reason: Grammar etc. It is 4 AM, apologies for chaos.

  13. #173
    Quote Originally Posted by Dirgon View Post
    Casualties on both sides would've been astronomically high if America had to invade Japan by ground.

    American casualties would've far exceeded combined allied losses in Europe. That was a major decisive factor in dropping nuclear weapons on Japan.
    So you are saying America would have lost 18mill+ soldiers if they invaded by land? Yeah right...

  14. #174
    Quote Originally Posted by markos82 View Post
    So you are saying America would have lost 18mill+ soldiers if they invaded by land? Yeah right...
    According to churchill, the most influential/loved man in the world at that time, we wouldve lost over a million men taking a rock..

  15. #175
    Quote Originally Posted by markos82 View Post
    So you are saying America would have lost 18mill+ soldiers if they invaded by land? Yeah right...
    American army loses were projected to triple with the invasion of japan by ground.

  16. #176
    Quote Originally Posted by Defengar View Post
    American army loses were projected to triple with the invasion of japan by ground.
    USA lost about 450K soldiers in WW2 multiply that by 3 how many you get? 18mill? Not even close. Japan lost that many civilians in a 2 years of US bombings... I really dont understand how can some1 be in favor of using nuclear weapons, dont really understand it. Despite what radiation can do ( after 1986 Chernobyl accident and now Japan nuclear disaster people are still pro using nuclear weapon )....
    Last edited by markos82; 2011-11-28 at 03:20 AM.

  17. #177
    Quote Originally Posted by markos82 View Post
    Spain invaded Peru, and other countries centuries before, US did the same 100+ years before Japan when thier soldiers killed thousands of Indians, why compare those things?

    Battle for Midway was 3+ years before nuking Japan ( if i remember right ) and form 1944-1945 Japan lost about 1mill civilians in bomb raids.
    I mention those things because long before WW2 in Europe was even thought of, the US and Japan were already in conflict and that is what led to the whole war in the Pacific lol. Japan was already invading our territories before ww2 ever started. That is why they attacked Pearl Harbor, so we couldn't intercede.

    I also said Midway was the turning point for the Pacific war.

    The reason I say all this, is because it seems some people think we just went over and horribly murdered the easy going innocent Japanese. We had them blockaded and militarily finished in 1945, yet they still had kamikaze pilots hitting our ships and bases and refused to surrender, even after the blockades and fire bombings.

  18. #178
    Quote Originally Posted by markos82 View Post
    USA lost about 450K soldiers in WW2 multiply that by 3 how many you get? 18mill? Not even close.
    ?

    I never said that we would lose 18 million...

    however, US and Japanese loses combined might have reached 18 million (they were expected to lose at least 10 million)

  19. #179
    Quote Originally Posted by Gsara View Post
    No one is ignoring them

    Japan refused to surrender under any terms until after the second bomb was dropped.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potsdam_Declaration

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mokusatsu
    Um, no. Not even close. Again: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html
    The japanese made MANY MANY attemts to negotiate a peaceful surrender. As many as 8 months before the bombs were dropped they offered a surrender deal NEARLY IDENTICAL to the one eventually signed officially in Septemeber after the Bombs.

    The Allies simply refused to accept ANY surrender unless it was 100% unconditional. Which essentially prolonged the war by 8+ months and needlessly resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians.

  20. #180
    Quote Originally Posted by markos82 View Post
    USA lost about 450K soldiers in WW2 multiply that by 3 how many you get? 18mill? Not even close.
    "Nearly 500,000 Purple Heart medals were manufactured in anticipation of the casualties resulting from the invasion of Japan. To the present date, all the American military casualties of the 60 years following the end of World War II, including the Korean and Vietnam Wars, have not exceeded that number. In 2003, there were still 120,000 of these Purple Heart medals in stock."

    Maybe that will give you an idea...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •