U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-09-2020, 02:13 PM
 
14,071 posts, read 20,308,255 times
Reputation: 23682

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliffie View Post
I think the Japanese, who knew very well that they were close to losing the war anyway, question the use of nuclear weapons. Killing 2 million people (after all was said and done) did nothing but make the emperor capitulate a few weeks or months sooner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by das8929 View Post
The nukes were unnecessary in terms of making Japan surrender. We needed to demonstrate to the Soviets the power we had, and we also wanted to see just how destructive these bombs could be.The Japanese were going to surrender anyway since the Soviets were steamrolling through Manchuria and were intent on landing in Hokkaido. The bombs were a good way of telling them to back off.

We can label this under my previously stated "ignorance" category. Ignorance of history and context.

There is absolutely no indication that Japan was ready to surrender, and plenty of evidence they were in it for the long haul.

Instead of arguing the same old tired topics that have been discussed ad nauseam and thoroughly dismissed, I am once again referencing "NJGoats Guide to the Atomic Boming", he covers both topics (Japan ready to surrender and the even more silly "show for the Soviets") in some detail:
https://www.city-data.com/forum/hist...-bombings.html
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-09-2020, 02:36 PM
 
Location: New Mexico
4,479 posts, read 2,051,336 times
Reputation: 4368
Default War is hell

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliffie View Post
I think the Japanese, who knew very well that they were close to losing the war anyway, question the use of nuclear weapons. Killing 2 million people (after all was said and done) did nothing but make the emperor capitulate a few weeks or months sooner.
The Imperial Japanese Army & Navy were excellent troops, @ the beginning of WWII (for the US). They had been in training in Korea, Manchuria & China since the early 1930s, they had plenty of practice. Unfortunately, unlike the IJ operations in China during the Boxer Rebellion - when the IJ troops were models of military virtue & restraint - the war party that had captured the IJ government wanted to use terror against civilians (& everybody, really - third parties, foreigners, anybody). The IJ Army overran Korean & Chinese positions, & ran amok - with the tacit consent of their officers.

Much the same thing happened in the Philippines & throughout the Pacific, wherever the IJA conquered - & initially, they conquered everywhere. They slaughtered POWs, civilians, foreigners - all with the same abandon. For whatever reason, they abandoned any right to call for mercy, & abandoned the Hague Conventions on treatment of POWs & civilians, & violated Japan's own code of military conduct (IJ didn't sign all the Geneva conventions, just one on treatment of sick & wounded).

The war party in IJ knew that they had lost the war - but they figured that if they could inflict enough casualties on the US & allied troops, that they could still demand terms. The war party was perfectly willing to sacrifice every last man, woman & child in IJ, if it meant that the Emperor would survive, & military government. They may not have thought that through, really; but it didn't matter in their view of things.

Therefore, we needed to end the PTO war quickly - to save our POWs in forced labor camps throughout the theater, & any allied POWs & civilians as well. The IJ government nor military deserved the slightest consideration from us. They are quite fortunate that the numbers worked out to IJ's advantage as well - if that's not gilding the lily too much. From the theater POV, it didn't matter to us what was in IJ's favor - we were going to end the war, with a minimum of US & allied casualties, come hell or high water. We had our own form of hell on call.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2020, 04:00 PM
 
5,091 posts, read 4,251,372 times
Reputation: 12571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliffie View Post
I think the Japanese, who knew very well that they were close to losing the war anyway, question the use of nuclear weapons. Killing 2 million people (after all was said and done) did nothing but make the emperor capitulate a few weeks or months sooner.
You mean, 200,000. Plus thousands more dying later of cancer.

Actually, more people died in the firebombing of Tokyo.

I'm with the person who said, the Japanese started it, so they can't complain about the morality of certain U.S. military actions.

Conservative estimates of Chinese deaths at the hands of the Japanese between 1895 and 1945: 50 million. Some historians believe it was closer to 100 million. This includes direct military attacks and the vast population displacements and famine that resulted from multiple invasions and the crippling financial and economic conditions the Japanese imposed.

I'm not saying two wrongs make a right. But clearly, in the context of the times, hitting Japan very hard was seen as the only way to tame this seemingly insane country. My mother, who was a young woman at the time, tells me the American people generally were sick of the war, very angry at Japan, and worried about the massive casualties that an invasion of the main islands would cost both sides. The nuclear bombings came as a relief.

It's only much later that revisionist historians published their smug assertions that the bombs were "an experiment", "unnecessary", etc. Well, sure, it was an experiment, you could argue it was unnecessary, maybe even the entire war was unnecessary because they probably wouldn't have even attacked us if we hadn't sided with the KMT in China and cut off oil and other supplies to the Japanese. We could have just stayed out of Europe as well. I'm not totally convinced we should have gone in. But water under the bridge.

The tragedy is not just the loss of life back then, on all sides, but the fact that repeated Japanese incursions and finally a full-on invasion destroyed any hope for Sun Yatsen's Republic of China to take hold. Rather than a modern republican democracy, they got a Maoist dictatorship that led to many more millions killed in the 1950s-60s, and even today they are a scary totalitarian country that is showing little sign of ever fulfilling Sun Yatsen's dream of Chinese democracy.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2020, 05:11 PM
 
1,642 posts, read 1,340,410 times
Reputation: 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevar242 View Post
Really ? Why didn't they protect there children ? They were warned about a New super weapon. And like the Others said. We didn't start this They did
I can’t believe that someone is actually disagreeing with the statement that innocent children don’t deserve to die. The children didn’t start it.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2020, 08:11 PM
 
13,878 posts, read 4,114,831 times
Reputation: 8326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Msgenerse View Post
I've read a lot of debate on whether or not dropping the nukes on Japan was really justified. How could they not be?
Because the people who were killed were not soldiers.

Because the people who were killed did not choose to start the war. Or continue the war.

There are a number of moral issues that simply never occur to you. Those issues do, however, occur to others.


Quote:
Why are there people that actually question if dropping the bombs on Japan was justified?
Because things like that MUST BE questioned. Intelligent and humane people can't do things with such horrible consequences (or accept them after the fact) without thinking about right and wrong and all dimensions of consequences.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2020, 08:22 PM
 
Location: Brackenwood
6,436 posts, read 2,578,271 times
Reputation: 13979
By the most conservative estimates Japan was killing roughly 2,500 civilians per day during their various terror campaigns, so I won't exactly weep because the atomic bombings brought a swifter end to that bloodbath.

Furthermore, we needed to make Stalin aware even though we didn't have the will to fight against a continued westward Soviet advance after Germany's surrender, we still had the means to stop it.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2020, 01:32 AM
 
Location: Northern NJ
10,181 posts, read 9,093,143 times
Reputation: 13485
Quote:
Originally Posted by ccc123 View Post
I can’t believe that someone is actually disagreeing with the statement that innocent children don’t deserve to die. The children didn’t start it.
People are responsible for their leaders and the actions of their leaders. Imperial Japan needed to be destroyed, because its people supported the destruction and mayhem perpetrated by their selected leaders. That their kids died? That’s their own fault. By selecting leaders that export their madness, you basically offer up your kids as a sacrifice. That they are innocent doesn’t matter. If your leaders export their insanity, NOBODY IS INNOCENT, AND INDIVIDUAL INNOCENCE BECOMES IRRELEVANT.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2020, 05:54 AM
 
Location: Great Britain
16,883 posts, read 6,210,665 times
Reputation: 10963
The US didn't wnt high casualities related to invading Japan, and deaths from conventional bombing were actually higher tha those from the Atom bombs. I also would imagine that if Japan had the Atom Bomb they would have used it against the US, and the Japanese were the ones who attacked the US in the first place and caused the conflict.

The firebombing of Tokyo known as Operation Meetinghouse, which was conducted on the night of 9–10 March 1945, is regarded as the single most destructive bombing raid in human history, and not the later Atom Bombs which were dropped in August 1945.

Bombing of Tokyo - Wikipedia

I have every sympathy with the civilians who suffered but still understand why the US used the weapons in order to shorten the war and thereby reduce their own casualities, however given the power of such weapons they should never ever be used again, and the world must work together to try and ensure this.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2020, 07:56 AM
 
Location: Northern Virginia
2,906 posts, read 1,112,023 times
Reputation: 6985
The American government, an elected one you certainly have more control over than the average Japanese had over theirs, has done enough crap over the years that you better hope no-one ever holds you personally accountable for all of it.

Personally I think the nuking was wrong on many levels, so were the conventional bombing campaigns vs cities. But heres the thing, in modern war all bets are off. Its a bare knuckle brawl to the death between nations. Thats why war needs to be avoided and we should look more closely at the reasons for wars in order to avoid a repeat. That sounds like a truism, but yet here we are 2020 and so many are still eager to incite war.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2020, 09:27 AM
 
14,071 posts, read 20,308,255 times
Reputation: 23682
Quote:
Originally Posted by hbdwihdh378y9 View Post

Because things like that MUST BE questioned. Intelligent and humane people can't do things with such horrible consequences (or accept them after the fact) without thinking about right and wrong and all dimensions of consequences.
And they have been answered. But now you are getting into more a philosophical debate - why is there war at all? Why does man kill their fellow man? At this point it's like a child asking "mommy why is the sky blue..."

You may want to read the works of C.S. Lewis, who understood that war and death, including to civilians, is evil, but it's not the greatest evil. To do otherwise is somewhat materialistic. Moral judgements are done by facts and reason (to the extent that they can), not opinion and passion. The inability to see this is sometimes a refusal to see this. The acceptance that a terrible weapon is needed to defeat a greater evil.

The topic title should be why do people STILL question...
Rate this post positively 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 > History

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, 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