60 Years Ago This Week
 

Truman ended the war by bombing civilians. Our truly righteous anger over the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor changed us from a pacific introverted society to one willing to do anything our executive branch masters deem necessary. This anniversary, coming as it does in the midst of more executive over-reach, should have been a time of national soul-searching but we're beyond that sort of thing today.

The Japanese slaughtered 15 million Chinese citizens in their war which preceded Pearl Harbor by one generation.

Unlike today the US was not necessarily more powerful than Japan and it was not certain that a similar fate would not be in store for us.

Now then, you were saying??

60 years ago, America TOLD Japan we had the bomb and begged them for 5 days to surrender or we'd use it. Then after we dropped the bomb in Hiroshima, we contacted Tojo and Hirohito and begged them to surrender again or we'd drop another one. Once again, they refused to put the lives of their people above their own stubbornness, and thousands upon thousands died.

In the end, far less people died by dropping those 2 bombs than would have ever died with a full-scale invasion of Japan.

60 years ago, America did the right thing by ending a war with less casualties than it would with any other option, and gave these people warning (something they didn't give us), and a way out (something they also didn't give us). At the same time we ended this war, we sent a message around the world that we aren't to be fucked with.

As much as I detest America being involved in wars and know we had no reason to be in most of them (including WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq twice, etc.) the men on the Enola Gay did the right thing by dropping those bombs, and actually saved lives.

overall, fewer people died. more importantly, NONE of OUR people died in an invasion to end a war we didn't start.

It's a shame there weren't bigger targets......or bigger bombs. :grouphug:

You guys make my point perfectly. I was saying we no longer even consider the possibility that we could have done the wrong thing dropping atomic weapons on civilians. I'm not minimizing what the Japanese were. I'm talking about what we have become. We talk about invading the Japanese home islands like it had to be done even though we had cut off their troops from supply and had destroyed their naval and air power along with their industrial capacity to replace them. Truman was apparently afraid not to use the bombs wanting to scare our commie "allies", making ours the only government in history to nuke people. I was also thinking about how we at least attacked the enemy after Pearl Harbor but after 911 we didn't even have to make a connection. We've hardened our hearts to the suffering we cause others while wrapping it in sanctimony. I'm whining about the abuse of Executive power and our uncanny ability to look the other way because our motives are never questionable.


http://www.atomicarchive.com/Photos/...mages/NG02.jpg

I'm also being a troll but its just that the anniversary passes without even a passing thought.

The notion of only weakening your enemies for a while, and not totally defeating them, is an entirely new one to history.

We don't really defeat enemies these days. But that may not be to the enemy's benefit. The transformation of Japan from a hardcore religious state to a peaceful polite culture only interested in trade only happened because their defeat was so total. The 3M killed after our departure from Vietnam was not really the best outcome either. Looks like eastern Europe was a good idea under Clinton so who's to say.

Never did consider the possibility, ever. There were no civilians in Japan. Every damn one of them was part of the national war effort and armed. They were all trained and prepared to fight to the death to protect Japan and the emperor.
Little did they know the Emperor was a prisoner in his own house but that's another matter.

I was thinking about that. Japan might have limped along with a petty tyranny like Iraq had for a long long time. The Japanese people did make the best of it when we gave them the opportunity. I won't minimize that. It may not be knowable whether the Japanese would have capitulated to us without the bombs to avoid a Russian invasion. There are countless ifs and buts.

I watched Tora Tora Tora a couple weeks ago btw. The most striking thing was how Western the Navy and its trappings were portrayed. I don't think the people in general were Westernized at all but many of their most powerful leaders were looking West. I think Macarthur probably took advantage of that. I'm not sure there is a group in Iraq of any consequence who would lead the people in that direction. I'm rambling so I'll just stop.

Actually, we didn't "drop the bomb on civilians" either. We dropped them on military installations near those cities, and civilians lived nearby. All of the people of Japan would have used their dying breath to save their god...Hirohito.

The real pity is that we went to war with them at all. America committed an act of war against Japan fully knowing their honor would force them to attack us. America cut off Japan's oil supply, steel supply, and others they were getting from the Netherlands and were using to murder Chinese people. While I don't think what Japan was doing was right, it was also none of our business. We had no legitimate reason to stick our noses into it. America knew that Japan was allied with Germany and wanted a legitimate reason to get into the war because, like WWI, England and France were, begging for our help. America even had enough advance notice to have avoided the Pearl Harbor attack but instead, moved out all of the expensive carriers, and new ships, and allowed the older ships to be attacked and Americans to die.

This is a fact and if you read the de-classified OPERATINO RAINBOW 5 documents, you'll know it was a ploy to force Japan into attacking us.

Did they have tiny rifles for the infants and toddlers?

I hadn't read this thread, but this morning I was reflecting on the difference between 'evil' and 'enemy'.

Consider what happens when people visit countries like Vietnam. Some of the people who we meet there are directly responsible for the deaths of American soldiers. If they were evil then, nothing has changed and they should be killed. However, the reality is that they were merely enemies, the war is over, and killing them would be immoral and illegal.

We acknowledge that targeting civilians is wrong. In WWII we dropped a devastating bomb without warning on a city. We destroyed the second city only 3 days later.

A lot of discussion went into the use of the Atomic Bomb

In the end we decided that conventional means were too difficult and the bomb would have an important pschological effect if the first public use was against a live target. Technically, the target was military, but the choice was made to specifically destroy as much of the city as possible. The decision may also have been political and intended for the Russians.

If you can picture a group of Islamic terrorists debating the detonation of a 'dirty bomb' in a US city, you can appreciate the conclusions reached. Expediency will always win over morality.

Between blast and radiation, we probably killed about 300,000 people. Estimates are that an invasion of Japan would have resulted in 1 million deaths. Of course, other factors, such as Japan accepting a conditional surrender instead of the unconditional surrender we demanded, make the equation less clear.

Don't ask me what is right and wrong in situations like this. War is never a good place to determine right and wrong. I will say that if we had been on the receiving end of either of those two bombs, we would have used the word 'terrorist' freely. Of course, that's just politics.


From here

Honest question, Bruce. Where did you get this tidbit of information? I can understand that boys above a certain age and old men were prepared to fight, but the women and small children? The traditional role of a Japanese woman was not to be a new age liberated girl with a pistol on each hip. Are you telling us that Japan managed this massive cultural transfomation in just the few years it was involved in WWII? I am astonished! I'd love to read more about this.

Radar, I wouldn't try having it both ways like this: every single war you've cited, and more besides, were wars fought with nondemocracies, autarchies, dictatorships. Such things are our business, particularly if we want a good world. Is not dictatorship the most easily found and most prevalent evil on the Earth's face? I want a good world, and I'm willing to hang slavemakers to get it. Will you join me?

Marichiko, Japanese social organization has more in common with military organization than civilian-type mores even today. It's been this way since at least the Tokugawas, and seems to have sprung from the Age of Battles between rival power blocs that ended when the Tokugawas came out on top. I think that was after the battle of Sekigahara. Japanese society was very tightly organized and is so today -- every village had its headman, and there were designated persons in charge of every ten, every fifty, every hundred, and they were called according to how many people they were in charge of: han cho is the "captain of a hundred/village headman" and the English honcho is directly derived from this.

Most of the Japanese notion of social virtues are distinctly military -- the Japanese esteem the team player and protest at the eccentric in ways we don't. They are a very disciplined and orderly people in consequence.

Japanese society is so tightly conformist that they establish local festivals for the entire town to have fun together and blow off major steam, and boy do they. They holler, they carry on, they get lit on beer and sake out in the streets, which they don't do on ordinary days, and whiz into the roadside rain gutters (the best kind is very deep and roofed over with perforated concrete lids about a foot long by eight inches wide) -- as discreetly as they may. I like Sapporo and am not so keen on Ki-rin, which is considerably hoppier.

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. The form of government another country has is none of our business. How they treat their people is none of our business. It's not the job of America to create a "good world" or to "hang slavemakers". No, I will not join you. In fact I'll fight against you, and anyone else who would try to use the U.S. military to do anything other than defend U.S. soil and ships from a direct attack. That includes using it to enforce UN sanctions, perform "humanitarian aid" missions, to settle foreign disputes, to train the military of other nations, to overthrow the leadership of non-democracies, to coerce other nations into adopting policies the U.S. wants, etc.