Nice one. Did I really say that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
Printable View
Nice one. Did I really say that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
I was referring to the war propaganda, where the government told the US population that Hiroshima was a military base.
The version of history where Japan refused to even speak about surrender, and that we nuked them and it instilled so much fear that they instantly surrendered is also propaganda.
The truth is that Japan has considered surrendering far before we nuked them. They only wanted conditions, which we refused to give. Conditions such as allowing the emperor to remain in place, which we eventually allowed anyway. The fact is, there is a very good chance we could of negotiated an acceptable surrender without nuking them.
Also Russia attacking Japan also played a big part in the surrender and it wasn't all about the nukes. The nukes weren't that impressive to most in Japan, since we were already doing that amount of damage with conventional bombs while fire bombing the country and destroying most of the buildings.
Also you don't seem to understand what carpet bombing is. Carpet bombing was done against civilians on purpose in order to demoralize the enemy. The purpose was to kill civilians as much as it was to destroy infrastructure.
Heresay. There is no real historical evidence to back that claim and the only people who endorse it are the conspiracy types (the crazies.) And why on earth would I be reading WWII propoganda? I read history books. What the hell kind of books are you reading?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
Russia never attacked Japan. It was the propsect of Russia joining the fight that could have scared Japan, but after the war with Germany, Russia alone accounted for almost half the total number of military personel killed in WWII (about 10,000,000 out of 23,000,000.) I doubt they were in any shape to attack Japan.
I'm training to be an officer in the United States Marine Corps, you think I don't know what carpet bombing is?
That is not true at all. Russia declared war on Japan and invaded Japanese controlled land in east Asia. This was at the very end of the war. At that point Japan was pretty much defenseless and Russia easily and quickly took control of Japanese controlled territory.
I am not sure what you are calling a conspiracy, but its well documented, that japan and on multiple occasions offer a cease to the war but were rejected by the US, who was seeking an unconditional surrender.
Russia declared war on Japan, and that was a big concen for the emperor. However, it was the nukes that did the trick. The second atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki on July 9, 1945, and the emperor announced to his military personnel his decision to surrender on July 12. After nearly four years of fighting, it would be really strange that the two events happened so closely together if the emperor's reason for unconditional surrender was fear of more of the same kind of fighting that had been going on since soon after the Pearl Harbor attack in December of 1941. We had attacked 67 of their cities with other types of bombs. I don't think fear of more same old same old bombing from Russia was their huge concern. What made them finally surrender was that they believed we could end practically all life in Japan. They were worried we might wipe out Tokyo and all of their other major cities in a snap. That was much scarier to them than some extra of the old routine coming from Russians.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
They had unreasonable terms. We didn't just want to end the war and stop the current Japanese conquest. We wanted to transform the Japanese government so we could feel safe that they would stop being a problem in the world. They had practically taken over Asia and bombed us for standing up to them over it. We knew it was time for a revolution in the Japanese government. Our plan worked. We rewrote their constitution. Look at Japan now. Instead of screwing up the world severely, they are an extremely inventive boost to the world economy. It would not have happened like that if we had accepted their proposed conditional surrender. Instead, we very well might have gone to war with a worthless Japan again, possibly multiple times.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
Universal, you've never seemed to udnerstand two things, firstly that history is written by the victors, and secondly that the propoganda machine in the USA is insaley powerful. You seem to beleive everything you are told in the mainstream as historically accurate. You are not running around liberating nations for their good, and you certainly didn't bomb Japan because they were a military threat at that point in time, the war was effectively over. Two of the greatest war crimes in the history of humanity were more of a message that were inteded to establish the way the world was going to be run after the Second World War.
I believe I already made that clear when I said that we had bombed factories on the mainland.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caprisun
They were not spread only into the Pacific. Universal Mind made that part clear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caprisun
Less time than you think. Japan was desperate when they made their strikeQuote:
Originally Posted by Caprisun
at Pearl Harbor. They had a fraction of the industrial power we did and no
current means of maintaining it without our supply of oil to them.
Unless you can provide decent reasoning for this, I am going to have to disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caprisun
You can kill more civilians in a minute with a very large bomb than mayQuote:
Originally Posted by Caprisun
be killed over a month in crossfire. The logic is too straightforward to miss. If
you disagree, please, provide an example.
It is only relevant because you accused me of making a lazy analysis beforeQuote:
Originally Posted by Caprisun
bothering to ask why I had made it. A nuke would have been financially
beneficial in place of having to mobilize thousands of troops and vehicles. It
was an easy option with respect to the amount of time and planning that
would have to go into a conventional ground/air assault of the region.
Terrorism is easier to accomplish than defeating a standing enemy military. If
you can scare them into surrender, all the better.
Do you have evidence of a similar case actually occurring? Otherwise, this statement amounts to no more than a personal attack.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caprisun
May I refer you to my previous statement about a large bomb that kills moreQuote:
Originally Posted by Caprisun
people in less time? Again, unless you can provide evidence of past civilian
death tolls and compare them to the number that died as a result of our
nuclear weapons, your statement holds no ground.
You mean industrial. And that was not the only reason. The point of usingQuote:
Originally Posted by Caprisun
the nuke was not to slow down industry, it was to obtain an unconditional
surrender. That said, the U.S. military wanted a target that would be
affected on such a scale as to create significant psychological impact on the
Japanese people. It was desirable that as much of the city be destroyed as
possible.
There's a difference between knowing civilians will die and purposelyQuote:
Originally Posted by Caprisun
choosing a civilian target for the impact it will have on the minds of the
nation's people.
No. It was speculated that the damage at Hiroshima, for example, would beQuote:
Originally Posted by Caprisun
magnified thanks to the surrounding mountains to contain the blast. About
half of the casualties came in the days after the bombing due to radiation
sickness, burns and trauma. It could not be calculated accurately.
No, you're right, all we did was drop the most destructive military weapon on them at the time. Not so bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caprisun
I'm not going to outright disagree here, but I would like to know where I canQuote:
Originally Posted by Caprisun
find this information. The statistics of casualties in WWII (including
population density and city size) has suddenly piqued my interest. Share, please.
Imran, I did not simply watch a clip on Fox News and come here repeating what they said. I have studied this stuff from a lot of sources because I think it is the most interesting stuff that ever happened in human history and because both of my grandfathers fought the Japanese in the war. Along with conversations with my mother's father, who was actually there, I have studied encyclopedias, history textbooks, credible web sites, respected documentaries, and other sources. I don't exactly get my information from Al Jazeera or MoveOn.org, but my sources appear to be more credible than anything else. What sources do you suggest?Quote:
Originally Posted by imran_p
No matter what conspiracy theories you believe concerning why we liberate nations, the fact is that we do. If you don't believe we stand for democracy (You have only used drastic measures we took during the Cold War to argue otherwise.), then please tell me why we allowed Western Europe, which was ours to control after WWII, to be democratic and independent. The Soviet Union took over Eastern Europe. We did not take over Western Europe. Why do you think that is?
If you don't agree with my assessment of what the nukings did, which I explained in my last post, I would be interested in knowing why. Also, please tell me what is wrong with planning ahead. Tell my why not planning ahead would be anything short of insane. Were we out of line for doing what it took to permanently end Japanese imperialism? Would the righteous move have been to ignore the future and just throw Japan right back out there with the same government so they could go out into the world and engage in another nightmare for the world?
They had already lost the war and they knew it. Their cities were all destroyed from bombing already, and suddenly the US starts dropping nukes, and the next day Russia declares war and invades, and people are about to riot in the street, so of course they surrender. Everything was going against them.
My point however, was that they already knew they lost. A surrender could of been negotiated. However we knew we were going to win, and so we wanted a total win, so we pushed for that.
If the goal was solely to save as many lives as possible then it was even easier. They would have readily agreed to any treaty that would have allowed them to save face. However, that was never the goal.
They demanded that they keep their current government. We could not allow that, for the reasons I stated.
I also want to mention that we dropped leaflets before the second bombing and after it to warn civilians to get out of the cities and to petition the emperor to end the war. The leaflets expressed our desire to help create a peaceful Japan.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/truman/..._leaflets.html
[QUOTE=Invader;1224274]QUOTE]
"They were not spread only into the Pacific. Universal Mind made that part clear."
South and East Asia but not to the extent as at the beginning of the war.
"Less time than you think. Japan was desperate when they made their strike
at Pearl Harbor. They had a fraction of the industrial power we did and no
current means of maintaining it without our supply of oil to them."
Japan had a lot of momentum after Pearl Harbor. The war could have just as easily gone the other way.
"Unless you can provide decent reasoning for this, I am going to have to disagree."
It should go without saying. Look at Iraq. Major military operations ended 6 years ago but soldiers are still dying. If the war is not over people will die, it adds up more than you might think. The rate of death was much higher in the Pacific than it is in Iraq. Japan may have been fighting a losing battle, and they were, but they would still fight with everything they had. All the more reason to end it.
"You can kill more civilians in a minute with a very large bomb than may
be killed over a month in crossfire. The logic is too straightforward to miss. If
you disagree, please, provide an example."
You're missing the point. Sure an atomic bomb kills an enormous amount of people in an instant, but the rate of death during an invasion would be astronomically high. It would be a matter of a weeks before the invasion matched the atomic bomb. But the invasion keeps going and going and going, before you know it the casualty rate reaches 1 million. I didn't just make that number up, it was actually estimated that over a million people could die if we chose to invade. Thats 10 times the amount of people killed by an atomic bomb. All you have to do is read about the battles in the Pacific and you'll realize that all signs point to a long, bloody, brutal engagement. It has been estimated that an invasion of Japan could have been the bloodiest conflict in recorded history. There's no such thing as a sure thing, but why risk a catastrophe like that.
"It is only relevant because you accused me of making a lazy analysis before
bothering to ask why I had made it. A nuke would have been financially
beneficial in place of having to mobilize thousands of troops and vehicles. It
was an easy option with respect to the amount of time and planning that
would have to go into a conventional ground/air assault of the region.
Terrorism is easier to accomplish than defeating a standing enemy military. If
you can scare them into surrender, all the better."
Financial matters is a reason (not the reason,) laziness is not. You couldn't have put much thought into it if you concluded that it was lazy to drop the atomic bomb.
If dropping an atomic bomb is terrorism, what doesn't constitute terrorism? Almost every military in WWII could be considered terrorists by your terms.
You act like it was cowardly to drop the bomb. Should we have spent millions of dollars and risked millions of lives so we can systematically slaughter their people and prove that we aren't cowards and we aren't lazy? Maybe the easier option was the better option.
"Do you have evidence of a similar case actually occurring? Otherwise, this statement amounts to no more than a personal attack."
Of what? Somebody getting fired? Of course not, it was a personal attack.
"May I refer you to my previous statement about a large bomb that kills more
people in less time? Again, unless you can provide evidence of past civilian
death tolls and compare them to the number that died as a result of our
nuclear weapons, your statement holds no ground."
Just look at how the Japanese fought in the Pacific, they don't care if they die. Just the existence of banzai attacks and kamakazi pilots should be enough to warrant the atomic bomb. You need to get over the emotional response to a nuclear attack and look at the big picture. Sometimes bad things have to be done for the greater good of humanity.
"You mean industrial. And that was not the only reason. The point of using
the nuke was not to slow down industry, it was to obtain an unconditional
surrender. That said, the U.S. military wanted a target that would be
affected on such a scale as to create significant psychological impact on the
Japanese people. It was desirable that as much of the city be destroyed as
possible."
Industrial=economic. The point was to cripple Japanese industry and to show force. It was meant to prevent the Japanese from doing something foolish. The fear is a good thing.
"There's a difference between knowing civilians will die and purposely
choosing a civilian target for the impact it will have on the minds of the
nation's people."
There was no target that was not a civilian target. No matter where you go there are civilians within range. 73,000,000 people in a country about the size of california. They chose economic centers. I will submit that they wanted to scare the Japanese people, but they didn't want to kill the most amount of people possible. There were better targets if that was the goal.
"No. It was speculated that the damage at Hiroshima, for example, would be
magnified thanks to the surrounding mountains to contain the blast. About
half of the casualties came in the days after the bombing due to radiation
sickness, burns and trauma. It could not be calculated accurately."
Effects of radiation was largely unknown but the blast damage could be accurately estimated.
"No, you're right, all we did was drop the most destructive military weapon on them at the time. Not so bad."
It's beside the point. There is a big difference between making a habit of targeting individuals on the ground and collateral damage from a bomb.
"I'm not going to outright disagree here, but I would like to know where I can
find this information. The statistics of casualties in WWII (including
population density and city size) has suddenly piqued my interest. Share, please."
Wikipedia has a list of casualties during WWII. There were more civilians killed than military personnel, this is largely due to carpet bombing in Germany and fire bombing in Japan.