Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-17-2011, 07:20 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,478 posts, read 59,613,550 times
Reputation: 24858

Advertisements

Please remember in the propoganda driven ethos of the time killing Japanese was nothing more than pest control. We weren't bombing humans so how many were killed was irrelevant.

IMHO we used atomic weapons to threaten Stalin so he would stay out of "our" Europe after the War.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-17-2011, 07:24 AM
 
13,631 posts, read 20,702,790 times
Reputation: 7630
Quote:
Originally Posted by DiogenesofJackson View Post
Emphasis added.

Your post, especially the highlighted portion, is nothing more than a reiteration of American propaganda from 1945! This was Truman's selling point. This was Truman's justification for using a nuclear device on human beings. Of course Truman wasn't going to tell Americans that he was using the bombs to gain leverage in geopolitics--that sounds too egregious. And...I know you disagree with this here...but politicians lie. That's when you know their lips are moving, or vice versa.

I see your deal here. You are an uncritical and lazy thinker who, when faced with contradictory evidence, hurls insults at those who are just pointing out more insightful interpretations. These more insightful interpretations try to analyze the propaganda and simplify it. Translation: you are a poor historian because well-trained, academic historians don't accept propaganda at face value.

The reason Truman ordered the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was to show up the Soviets--to show up the rest of the world--to demonstrate American power so nobody would F with us--so the U.S. could dominate the post-war world. That's a no-brainer and about 99% of all academic historians agree with the aforementioned interpretation.

You should read Preponderance of Power by Leffler, but then again, that'd conflict with your poor reasoning and you couldn't have that, now could you?
LOL! I was not anywhere close to being alive in 1945. How the hell could I have been seduced by propaganda? That makes you sound a bit thick.

99% of academics? How did you cook that one up? Hurl insults? Seems you do a pretty good job of that.


Run along now laddy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-17-2011, 08:17 AM
 
77,920 posts, read 60,091,609 times
Reputation: 49290
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW View Post
Please remember in the propoganda driven ethos of the time killing Japanese was nothing more than pest control. We weren't bombing humans so how many were killed was irrelevant.

IMHO we used atomic weapons to threaten Stalin so he would stay out of "our" Europe after the War.
We didn't show a lot of restraint vs. the Germans either....and after Japan surrendered did we set up concentration camps and kill 10million Japanese in a brutal occupation? (See what Russia did in the Manchuko region after August 1945...millions of Japanese....)

I think the decision to use the nukes was done for MANY reasons including the one you stated. It sure doesn't help matters for the Japanese "oh they just bombed us for racist fun" theory that:

1) They tried to negotiate a peace via the Russians (HA HA HA not a chance before Stalin got his land back. He stalled them while moving troops in to kick butt.)

2) The Japanese didn't surrender until after BOTH bombs were dropped and even then had to put down a coup and waited a number of days after the 2nd bomb not knowing if a 3rd was imminent on Tokyo etc.

3) Many historians cite that Japan was prompted to surrender as much by the devastation of their manchurian forces and Russian entrance to the war as by the nukes. After all, the nukes didn't do much more than the firebombing of Tokyo.

Basically, anyone trying to push a 1-dimensional theory regarding the wars end is likely wrong....many pushing some sort of agenda.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-17-2011, 09:40 AM
 
Location: Michigan
12,711 posts, read 13,445,247 times
Reputation: 4185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boompa View Post
No we and our Allies had agreed that no one would accept anything but an unconditional surrender.
Yes, that's exactly what we've spent all this time talking about. It's exactly what I'm damning. Haven't I made that clear enough?

Quote:
If you want to rewrite history to make the allies the bad guys feel welcome but remember the millions of Chinese who died at the hands of your Japanese VICTIMS
Didn't you leave the "good guys"/"bad guys" concept behind at some point? No? Dude, it's time. But even if you want to retain the mental complexity of a middle schooler who watches too much G.I. Joe, didn't your mother ever tell you that two wrongs don't make a right?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-17-2011, 10:00 AM
 
Location: Pa
20,300 posts, read 22,167,491 times
Reputation: 6551
The histoyr of man and his ability to wage war is long. It has evolved.
We spent billions on smart bombs for gulf war II to avoid civilian casualties. I doubt any full scale war ever waged was done with such concerns.
WWII was a war where it became acceptable to target civilian population centers. The allies didn't start the practice but we certainly mastered it.
No one can deny this simple fact. Does this make the allies more evil because we were better at it than the axis powers? No.
However it does eliminate the moral high ground.
We can point out Nanking, the warsaw ghettos, what germany did in the soviet union. The fact remains we did it also perhaps not on the personal level of mass rapes and beheadings but we fire bombed cities.
The unescapable fact is that at the time this was acceptable warfare by all parties. Well not the rapes or beheadings of those who surrendered. Which really denies japan any right to gripe about what they got out the deal.
In fact none of the parties have any moral high ground.
What we need to do is learn from the past so that we never repeat it.
Targeting civilians is wrong and most modern Militaries accept this. The possible exception those in the ME including Israel. Those parties seem to favor civilian targets.
Ask the soldier of today how they would feel about being ordered to fire on unarmed civilians and you might get punched out.
The soldier is the tool of politicians.
I said it before and Ill say it again. hind sight is 20/20. We can say we should have, could have or would have. That in military speak is a blivit.
10 pounds of BS in a 5 pound sac.
Those who have never seen combat rely on books or movies. There is no book or movie that I have seen that comes close to describing what it really feels like. Saving Pvt Ryan was intense as was we were soldiers.
Black Hawk down had moments. But really unless you did it you just dont know.
The Japanese had demonstrated repeatedly that surrender was not an option going to horrible extremes. mass suicides, kamakazi attacks.
We had every reason to believe more of the same was what we faced.
As for offering surrenders with terms the enemy feels are favorable?
Ever been in a street fight? Its not a boxing match with a ref. You dont give your opponent breathing room to regroup. What terms would Hitler have offered us? What terms would the japanese Military have offered us?
We saw first hand how the dealt with officers and enlisted who surrendered. If not executed on the spot they were worked and or staarved to death. This is historical fact.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-17-2011, 10:09 AM
 
Location: A great city, by a Great Lake!
15,896 posts, read 11,945,145 times
Reputation: 7502
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinman01 View Post
The histoyr of man and his ability to wage war is long. It has evolved.
We spent billions on smart bombs for gulf war II to avoid civilian casualties. I doubt any full scale war ever waged was done with such concerns.
WWII was a war where it became acceptable to target civilian population centers. The allies didn't start the practice but we certainly mastered it.
No one can deny this simple fact. Does this make the allies more evil because we were better at it than the axis powers? No.
However it does eliminate the moral high ground.
We can point out Nanking, the warsaw ghettos, what germany did in the soviet union. The fact remains we did it also perhaps not on the personal level of mass rapes and beheadings but we fire bombed cities.
The unescapable fact is that at the time this was acceptable warfare by all parties. Well not the rapes or beheadings of those who surrendered. Which really denies japan any right to gripe about what they got out the deal.
In fact none of the parties have any moral high ground.
What we need to do is learn from the past so that we never repeat it.
Targeting civilians is wrong and most modern Militaries accept this. The possible exception those in the ME including Israel. Those parties seem to favor civilian targets.
Ask the soldier of today how they would feel about being ordered to fire on unarmed civilians and you might get punched out.
The soldier is the tool of politicians.
I said it before and Ill say it again. hind sight is 20/20. We can say we should have, could have or would have. That in military speak is a blivit.
10 pounds of BS in a 5 pound sac.
Those who have never seen combat rely on books or movies. There is no book or movie that I have seen that comes close to describing what it really feels like. Saving Pvt Ryan was intense as was we were soldiers.
Black Hawk down had moments. But really unless you did it you just dont know.
The Japanese had demonstrated repeatedly that surrender was not an option going to horrible extremes. mass suicides, kamakazi attacks.
We had every reason to believe more of the same was what we faced.
As for offering surrenders with terms the enemy feels are favorable?
Ever been in a street fight? Its not a boxing match with a ref. You dont give your opponent breathing room to regroup. What terms would Hitler have offered us? What terms would the japanese Military have offered us?
We saw first hand how the dealt with officers and enlisted who surrendered. If not executed on the spot they were worked and or staarved to death. This is historical fact.

The "street fight" analogy nailed it Tinman! No doubt war sucks, and I truly feel that we should only attack someone if provoked (in which case we were with the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor) and then we hit back... HARD! I can tell you that if I'm assaulted I will use all resources necessary to defend myself, to save myself from bodily harm! Whether that means simply kicking someone in the nuts, or gouging their eyes out with my keys... hey... don't start something without being prepared to finish it, right? While some of policies may have egged the Japanese on into taking the "first swing", the bottom line is they did take the "first swing!" And then it was on like DONKEY KONG!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-17-2011, 10:16 AM
 
Location: Metairie, La.
1,156 posts, read 1,795,097 times
Reputation: 775
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moth View Post
LOL! I was not anywhere close to being alive in 1945. How the hell could I have been seduced by propaganda? That makes you sound a bit thick.

99% of academics? How did you cook that one up? Hurl insults? Seems you do a pretty good job of that.


Run along now laddy.
Your arguments for why the U.S. used atomic weapons against Japan are nothing more than a restatement of the arguments Truman used to justify it to the American people and the world. In short, you are just reiterating Truman's and the U.S. government's propaganda.

You should check out my other post where I gave you a list of books you should consider before arrogantly refuting established historiography on the bomb and WWII.

Show me how your historical interpretation is different from the official U.S. government propaganda (which you've stated in other posts--one of which I quoted you and highlighted the part that seemed to be a direct paraphrase from Truman's Aug. 6, 1945 press release) and I'll alter my opinion that you have been duped and that you are a lazy, uncritical thinker.

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/bomb/small/mb10.htm (broken link)

Last edited by DiogenesofJackson; 08-17-2011 at 10:27 AM.. Reason: added a link to Truman's press release and cleaned up some grammar
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-17-2011, 10:22 AM
 
Location: Pa
20,300 posts, read 22,167,491 times
Reputation: 6551
Quote:
Originally Posted by no1brownsfan View Post
The "street fight" analogy nailed it Tinman! No doubt war sucks, and I truly feel that we should only attack someone if provoked (in which case we were with the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor) and then we hit back... HARD! I can tell you that if I'm assaulted I will use all resources necessary to defend myself, to save myself from bodily harm! Whether that means simply kicking someone in the nuts, or gouging their eyes out with my keys... hey... don't start something without being prepared to finish it, right? While some of policies may have egged the Japanese on into taking the "first swing", the bottom line is they did take the "first swing!" And then it was on like DONKEY KONG!
If Im in a firefight with guys shooting 30 year old ak-47's and nothing else and I have mortors rpg's and a couple of TOW's. Yeah Im going to lay waste. I will not risk one of my troops because its not fair I have better weapons.
This idea that we need to consider the enemy' s feelings when we ask for their surrender is strange and unreasonable.
japan wanted to stay armed and retain a % of their conquests as well as no war crimes charges against them. Not reasonable at all.
The street fight analogy is strong because it accurately reflects the mindset of war.
When you engage in limited warfare as we tend to do these days it becomes long and drawn out, no clear winner and a whole lot of chaos ensues. ROE's- Rules of engagement that favor the enemy?
250 marines died in Lebenon as a result.
Good men died in Somalia as a result.
if we go to war it should be because our nation is threatened. If we commit troops it should be because we need to kick butt. Not to stand around and make good targets.
We are not the worlds police force and the UN is a bad joke.
japan entered into a war with us via sneak attack. A very effective attack that was aimed at crippling our ability to defend ourselves in the pacific. It nearly worked.
People want to believe that if we are nicer than the enemy that they will respond in kind. The japanese saw this as weakness. A commander that would surrender was weak and deserved execution. That is the reality that we faced.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-17-2011, 10:32 AM
 
Location: A great city, by a Great Lake!
15,896 posts, read 11,945,145 times
Reputation: 7502
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinman01 View Post
If Im in a firefight with guys shooting 30 year old ak-47's and nothing else and I have mortors rpg's and a couple of TOW's. Yeah Im going to lay waste. I will not risk one of my troops because its not fair I have better weapons.
This idea that we need to consider the enemy' s feelings when we ask for their surrender is strange and unreasonable.
japan wanted to stay armed and retain a % of their conquests as well as no war crimes charges against them. Not reasonable at all.
The street fight analogy is strong because it accurately reflects the mindset of war.
When you engage in limited warfare as we tend to do these days it becomes long and drawn out, no clear winner and a whole lot of chaos ensues. ROE's- Rules of engagement that favor the enemy?
250 marines died in Lebenon as a result.
Good men died in Somalia as a result.
if we go to war it should be because our nation is threatened. If we commit troops it should be because we need to kick butt. Not to stand around and make good targets.
We are not the worlds police force and the UN is a bad joke.
japan entered into a war with us via sneak attack. A very effective attack that was aimed at crippling our ability to defend ourselves in the pacific. It nearly worked.
People want to believe that if we are nicer than the enemy that they will respond in kind. The japanese saw this as weakness. A commander that would surrender was weak and deserved execution. That is the reality that we faced.

I agree. Which is a big reason why I don't like how we've taken on the stance as the "world cop!" We have our own issues to worry about in this country, and we need to focus on getting our own house in order. But I digress back to the "street fight"... you mess with the bull, you're gonna get the horns! If I have to get into it, then I'm damn sure going to make sure that my opponent is NOT the one left standing! Same with war. If you're going to do it, you'd better be damn sure that you're going to commit, and you'd better be damn sure that you finish it!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-17-2011, 10:34 AM
 
Location: Michigan
12,711 posts, read 13,445,247 times
Reputation: 4185
Quote:
Originally Posted by no1brownsfan View Post
The "street fight" analogy nailed it Tinman! No doubt war sucks, and I truly feel that we should only attack someone if provoked (in which case we were with the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor) and then we hit back... HARD! I can tell you that if I'm assaulted I will use all resources necessary to defend myself, to save myself from bodily harm! Whether that means simply kicking someone in the nuts, or gouging their eyes out with my keys... hey... don't start something without being prepared to finish it, right?
How about locking their wife and kids in the house and setting it on fire. Would you do that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:49 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top