What do you think of Hiroshima Bombings II?

[Seranthor]

Lets see there. There was advanced information that we KNEW they already wanted to surrender and only wanted insurance that they could keep their emperor which is something we weren't willing to do until AFTER we nuked them says alot. Since the victors always write the history what about their side do we not know? I do know one thing that has always been true. There are always 2 sides to every story and depending on who you ask you are only going to get as much truth as that side is willing to give because there are always things that they don't want you to know because it undermines their position. How much do we really know about what happened except what has been accepted as the truth in history books? Why does it seem that the truth changes when you read a history book from another country? I'm sorry I do not simply trust what America wants to publish regarding the truth of history because there are too many things left unanswered. So yes I question it and I question history from other sources as well. I am not so willing just blindly accept things because that is what we are expected to do as little corporate slaves.

Sir, with all due respect, I want to be a millionaire, but... I'm not. I want to be the Red Sox starting firstbaseman on opening day, but... I'm not... just because someone WANTS to do something... and DOESN'T then it didn't happen.... PM Suzuki responded to Potsdam with silence for 11 days... Hiroshima was bombed... still nothing from the Japanese government... 3 days later (2 full damn weeks after Potsdam) the next nuke was used. even THEN.. there was no surrender... it took Hirohito himself to order the damn surrender and it wasn't done until 15 August... NINE days after the first nuke... I'm sorry that the timeline itself is a problem for you... but THOSE ARE THE FACTS... not hypotheticals... FACTS.

You on the other hand are grasping at anecdotal information and completely ignoring FACT. You are entitled to your OPINION... you are NOT entitled to claim your opinions are FACT.

[Deleted]

We saved more lives doing so than we would have if he had not. I think at the end of the day, I could say I'd do it again.

[yetgdhfgh]

It couldve been avoided i suspect

The Japanese wanted to surrender before the bomb was dropped but only if the emperor was given immunity to prosecution for war crimes but the Americans said unconditional surrender only

With the Russians bearing down on them and the chance they could invade japan the Americans relented and said yes the emperor will be immune from prosecution but only if he renounces his divinity and becomes a constitutional monach like what Britain has they accepted and the rest is history

Could that have happened had the bombs not been dropped who knows

[Seranthor]

It couldve been avoided i suspect

The Japanese wanted to surrender before the bomb was dropped but only if the emperor was given immunity to prosecution for war crimes but the Americans said unconditional surrender only

With the Russians bearing down on them and the chance they could invade japan the Americans relented and said yes the emperor will be immune from prosecution but only if he renounces his divinity and becomes a constitutional monach like what Britain has they accepted and the rest is history

Could that have happened had the bombs not been dropped who knows

I would encourage you to find yourself a copy of the Potsdam Declaration and read what it says...

1. We-the President of the United States, the President of the National Government of the Republic of China, and the Prime Minister of Great Britain, representing the hundreds of millions of our countrymen, have conferred and agree that Japan shall be given an opportunity to end this war.

2. The prodigious land, sea and air forces of the United States, the British Empire and of China, many times reinforced by their armies and air fleets from the west, are poised to strike the final blows upon Japan. This military power is sustained and inspired by the determination of all the Allied Nations to prosecute the war against Japan until she ceases to resist.

3. The result of the futile and senseless German resistance to the might of the aroused free peoples of the world stands forth in awful clarity as an example to the people of Japan. The might that now converges on Japan is immeasurably greater than that which, when applied to the resisting Nazis, necessarily laid waste to the lands, the industry and the method of life of the whole German people. The full application of our military power, backed by our resolve, will mean the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the Japanese homeland.

4. The time has come for Japan to decide whether she will continue to be controlled by those self-willed militaristic advisers whose unintelligent calculations have brought the Empire of Japan to the threshold of annihilation, or whether she will follow the path of reason.

5. Following are our terms. We will not deviate from them. There are no alternatives. We shall brook no delay.

6. There must be eliminated for all time the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest, for we insist that a new order of peace, security and justice will be impossible until irresponsible militarism is driven from the world.

7. Until such a new order is established and until there is convincing proof that Japan's war-making power is destroyed, points in Japanese territory to be designated by the Allies shall be occupied to secure the achievement of the basic objectives we are here setting forth.

8. The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine.

9. The Japanese military forces, after being completely disarmed, shall be permitted to return to their homes with the opportunity to lead peaceful and productive lives.

10. We do not intend that the Japanese shall be enslaved as a race or destroyed as a nation, but stern justice shall be meted out to all war criminals, including those who have visited cruelties upon our prisoners. The Japanese Government shall remove all obstacles to the revival and strengthening of democratic tendencies among the Japanese people. Freedom of speech, of religion, and of thought, as well as respect for the fundamental human rights shall be established.

11. Japan shall be permitted to maintain such industries as will sustain her economy and permit the exaction of just reparations in kind, but not those which would enable her to re-arm for war. To this end, access to, as distinguished from control of, raw materials shall be permitted. Eventual Japanese participation in world trade relations shall be permitted.

12. The occupying forces of the Allies shall be withdrawn from Japan as soon as these objectives have been accomplished and there has been established in accordance with the freely expressed will of the Japanese people a peacefully inclined and responsible government.

13. We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction.

As you will note if you actually take the time to READ the document, the unconditional surrender that was asked for was of the ARMED FORCES. and if you bother to actually re-read it you will find that it is the ONLY mention of 'unconditional surrender'

Now... the above was issued on 26 July... ELEVEN DAYS before the first nuke was used. THOSE ARE THE FACTS, and they remain incontrovertible. If you have something that says that Japan surrendered, actually surrendered, before the first nuke was dropped then lets see it...

[Zallex]

How the fuck could you disagree with the bombing??? Yeah its terrible that so many civilians had to die in it, but far more people would have died due to a mainland invasion if these bombs hadnt been dropped.

[manipulation]

USA is the only superpower in history that's ever had to try to avoid being offensive while going to war. Makes it hard to like everyone else. You are allowed to cry foul because the USA allows it. People forget that. What would the world be like if NK was 41% of the earth's military instead of the USA? We'd all be hungrier than hell and rodman and the little dictator would be hanging out 24/7.

USA did what it needed to do. Hindsight is always 20/20. Nuclear warfare is pure hell and someone was gonna drop one until we all had something in history to look back on. It's bad, I hope it never happens again but like with everything else, USA has to do all the dirty work so you guys can line up to complain about how mean we are.

Carry on.

[apepi]

I think it happened, and we can not change that, but we should think about the future how we will treat nukes, I think since then we have been very responsible with them(I think everyone has(besides nk.....).

[Thrive]

Those 2 words lead me to believe that your argument is a joke.

I also highlited 'war crimes' because I think its funny (you know because America has gotten away with countless of war crimes after WWII)

No hard feelings to the US, I just wanted to point out that their hands are covered with blood aswell.

The body count for US TROOPS ALONE would have been over double than the bomb killed had the US invaded the mainland. This isn't including Japanese citizens willing to die and the countless soldiers preparing to fight. Claim what you want, but it was more humane than firebombing them into oblivion or invading.
As for War Crimes I'm inclined to believe those don't exist. Winning wipes away your crimes and losing creates them out of nothing. it sucks but it is what it is.
On topic, I think its going to happen pretty soon. North Korea's getting crazier and more desperate and I hope we can figure a way to stop it, though what action to take I'm not sure

[yetgdhfgh]

I would encourage you to find yourself a copy of the Potsdam Declaration and read what it says...



As you will note if you actually take the time to READ the document, the unconditional surrender that was asked for was of the ARMED FORCES. and if you bother to actually re-read it you will find that it is the ONLY mention of 'unconditional surrender'

Now... the above was issued on 26 July... ELEVEN DAYS before the first nuke was used. THOSE ARE THE FACTS, and they remain incontrovertible. If you have something that says that Japan surrendered, actually surrendered, before the first nuke was dropped then lets see it...

I must admit i never read all of that document but nowhere does it say the emperor is immune from prosecution

Infact it doesnt mention the emperor at all it just says 'There must be eliminated for all time the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest, for we insist that a new order of peace, security and justice will be impossible until irresponsible militarism is driven from the world.

The emperor couldve ended the war anytime he liked he actually wanted to but he couldve ended up at the bottom of a rope only when his well being was sucured was did he finnally intervene and surrendered

[rnbwtrout]

1. nazi and japanese war crimes were pure evil and unnecessary to the efforts of the war. i'm not a fan of the atomic bombings, but at least they were aligned with military strategy, more-so than any excuse the nazi's or japanese could give for their warcrimes.

2. if america truly didn't give a duck, they would have dropped the nuke on japan's biggest cities: tokyo and osaka. they dropped them on relatively frontier cities.

[JoaoPinga]

Why do parents beat their children? Because it's good for them, right? I mean, they need to be educated. And it works, sorta.
But we know violence it's probably not the best way to educate someone. In the end, parents beat their children just because they don't know how to educate them properly. Or because they are lazy and just want a fast solution.

So, just because it may have worked (I'm not saying it did), it doesn't mean it was the best possible solution. It's just a fast, cheap one.
I see people here saying they would do it again without blinking an eye. Mass murder should not be taken so lightly.

[Hanto]

As much as I love Japan, back then the bombings were pretty much needed to force Japan into submission. It saved the most lives on our part, and subduing the enemy with minimal loss of life is the ultimate goal in any battle/war.

As for NK, they can't really do anything to SK (in terms of nuclear arms) without possibly screwing themselves over with the fallout. If that kid is so hungry to shed blood that he'll bleed himself, we can do it cleaner and easier I'm sure.

[Exp]

Those 2 words lead me to believe that your argument is a joke.

I also highlited 'war crimes' because I think its funny (you know because America has gotten away with countless of war crimes after WWII)

No hard feelings to the US, I just wanted to point out that their hands are covered with blood aswell.

I think you need a history lesson. His arguement was spot on, yours is mediocre at best. The invasion of Japan would have cost 5x the amount of lives ended in the Horoshima and Nagasaki bombs and aftermath combined.

Back on topic of the thread, North Korea doesn't stand a chance in all out war with South Korea, and I seriously doubt it will come to that simply because even Kim Jung Un knows that he doesn't stand a chance. South Korea has the 8th best military in the world (http://www.globalfirepower.com), miles above North Korea. They have nukes, patriot missiles, and a very advanced navy and air force. North Korea can't even launch a rocket that can make it to Hawaii. Much less defend against rockets/icbm. For this reason, I doubt he will make that kind of move. Also, the U.S. Pacific fleet works very closely with the South Koreans. Any aggression would be met with swift opposition from both sides, and even China (NK's biggest ally) has said they do not agree with aggression from the North Koreans.

[Seranthor]

The emperor couldve ended the war anytime he liked he actually wanted to but he couldve ended up at the bottom of a rope only when his well being was sucured was did he finnally intervene and surrendered

the Allies sought the Japanese surrender as early as Jan 45... I'm inclined to believe that it was in fact the nukes that opened Hirohito's eyes to the imminent destruction of Japan that compelled him to surrender.

[draykorinee]

So Winston Churchill would prefer to nuke any enemy rather than risk troops? What a guy indeed. He'd applaud a nuclear argmageddon.

I don't think we need your imaginative interpretation of the quote. He wanted to save allied lives not applaud nuclear Armageddon don't straw man.

[DarkstarG]

Sir, with all due respect, I want to be a millionaire, but... I'm not. I want to be the Red Sox starting firstbaseman on opening day, but... I'm not... just because someone WANTS to do something... and DOESN'T then it didn't happen.... PM Suzuki responded to Potsdam with silence for 11 days... Hiroshima was bombed... still nothing from the Japanese government... 3 days later (2 full damn weeks after Potsdam) the next nuke was used. even THEN.. there was no surrender... it took Hirohito himself to order the damn surrender and it wasn't done until 15 August... NINE days after the first nuke... I'm sorry that the timeline itself is a problem for you... but THOSE ARE THE FACTS... not hypotheticals... FACTS.

You on the other hand are grasping at anecdotal information and completely ignoring FACT. You are entitled to your OPINION... you are NOT entitled to claim your opinions are FACT.

Ahh so the victor that wrote the history has never had itself a history of lying to its people in order to promote an agenda? I am just questioning the military leaders decision to bomb when they already KNEW they wanted to surrender. I question everything because history is typically 1 sided. Nothing in that book of facts tell's their story from their perspective. Nothing in that book would ever make us look bad because that isn't how history works. I also never presented my opinion as fact, that was all you. I am only questioning history because it should be so that we are not doomed to repeat it.

[inboundpaper]

Justifiable, we still give out purple hearts made for the invasion of Japan, over 60 years later.

[Deleted]

Really though, without the United States, most of Europe would be living in Germany's future.

I'd actually have prefered that. I'm 100% that had Germany won the war, they would write history and they would be seen the good side protecting us all from evil. The only reason the US appear the good guys is that they won, and history is written by the victors. It's that simple really.

There isn't one true evil and one true good. Both are morally grey and both would appear the good guys after victory. I would've prefered a German victory because I just think they're more organized and have more common sense than the US. Also, I despise the 'culture' spread by the US. Yes, spread your decadence all over the world! Let us all suffer like you suffer.

[Seranthor]

Ahh so the victor that wrote the history has never had itself a history of lying to its people in order to promote an agenda? I am just questioning the military leaders decision to bomb when they already KNEW they wanted to surrender. I question everything because history is typically 1 sided. Nothing in that book of facts tell's their story from their perspective. Nothing in that book would ever make us look bad because that isn't how history works. I also never presented my opinion as fact, that was all you. I am only questioning history because it should be so that we are not doomed to repeat it.

History might be written by the victors, however, some facts are incontrovertable regardless who the hell wrote history. What part of the facts have I presented are disputeable? Seriously...

lets handle it step by step...

1. Potsdam Declaration (not a book), (easily findable on the internet) demanded the Japanese surrender... What day was it issued?
2. When was Hiroshima bombed? (easily findable on the internet, and I'm certain that the date cant be altered by who wrote history)
3. Did Japan surrender between the dates of event 1 and event 2? No they didn't, as if they had, event 2 wouldn't have happened.
4. When did Nagasaki get bombed? (also easily locatable on the internet, also a date that cant be altered by who wrote history).
5. Did Japan surrender between the dates of 2 and 4? No they didn't, as if they had, event 4 wouldn't have happened.

I'm not looking at 'perspective'... I'm not going by 'wanted' to... I"m going by hard facts that aren't alterable by who is writing the history...

You want to avoid repeating history? then stop denying the facts of the events in favor of your 'perspective'.

[Wikiy]

What do I think of the atomic bombings? I think they aren't even comparable to the (probably necessary) atrocities that are the strategic casual bombings of Japan and Germany.