Ummm.. that's no excuse.

One could justify the extermination of Nazi extermination of Jewish people in the same way.

The thing I find hypocritical about Americans is their two wrongs make a right mentality regarding the dropping of the bombs.

Ronin is it just that they were atomic bombs that makes you think they were so bad?

Over 500,000 Japanese people were killed by conventional bombing during the war. If the atomic bombs were not used and the war was taken to it's conclusion through conventional bombing only is there any reason to think less people would have been killed in the end? The fire bombing of Tokyo killed around 100,000 people alone. If they had of continued that for much longer the death toll would have easily exceeded anything the atomic bombs did and it was just about as horrific.

Plus I really don't find the whole argument that the Japanese were seriously thinking of surrender and it was ignored by the US. Sue for peace? Sure I can accept they tried to do that especially after they realised they were starting to lose. But I doubt they were seriously offering to give up all the lands they had invaded or offering an unconditional surrender. It took the bombs to get that...

atomic bombs
 

Fighting armed or naval forces of your enemy during war time is normal. Extermination of civilians is a disgrace for the army. Plain and simple.

But during WWII that was the norm. Carpet bombing of cities occurred in Europe too. You never hear that much about the terrible crimes of the British and US forces bombing the crap out of German cities and killing 100's of thousands of civilians do you? We rarely hear that much about the 100 thousand or so people in Tokyo who were killed from fire bombing of the city. The Japanese killed millions of civilians in the countries they invaded. Killing civilians was still pretty much a normal part of war back then.

Anyway point is why is the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki any more horrendous? Purely because so much destruction could be done from just one bomb instead of thousands?

I don't disagree with you that it was terrible and thankfully war has changed somewhat since those days in that they at least now attempt to minimise civilian casualties.

Additionally the allies lost 11 times more civilians than the axis powers did.
World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

bombings
 

I know about bombings of Hamburg and Dresden. Some historians also consider carpet bombings of civilians as war crimes.

Much destruction and consequences such as radiation sickness. People are dying years after end of war.

The bad thing about atomic bombing is the consequences that follow up. Generations of people having cancer, birth defects even 50 years after, is what makes the atomic bomb so bad.

Too bad at that time there wasn't any other choice to take, to finish quick such a horrible war. It was necessary at the time, but being considered a good thing, is an exaggeration. They are the worst kind of military weapons ever created by man and they're use isn't a good thing from any angle you look at it. Necessary, maybe, but good, never.

and again did the Americans know about the after effects of that bomb?

surely it is that that has prevented many wars developing-- fear of the bomb and its terrible consequences.

It is also easy to say what should have happened in hind sight.

we are good at that.


I believe that when there was the accident at chernobyl and the effects spread around the land-- to other countries-- Maybe the fall out would also bounce back to the original country that sent the bomb in the first place.


I just pray that no country will be foolish enough to set another bomb off-- which would be much worse than those A bombs on the Japanese countries

As Protheus mentioned.

The after effects are the tragic part.

The firebombing was a disgrace too though as was the English bombing and Russian pillaging and raping of German cities.

Also, towards the end Japan didn't have anything to give up. So while your opinion might be valid regarding the earlier attempts to surrender it is irrelevant towards the end.

Also... if I remember correctly I think all that they really wanted was for the Emperor to maintain his position and not be charged with war crimes. As you are well aware.. that happened anyway.

But we'll never know what they were willing to accept as the allies never even entered into negotiation.

some people seem to forget that England was bombed too or doesn't that matter?

See what you're doing?

You're playing 2 wrongs make a right.

I don't play that game and I refuse to go along with a narrative of history that reads like a Star Wars movie.

bombings
 

It does. Death toll among civilians after V-1 and V-2 hits wasn't so huge by comparison to carpet bombings of Dresden and Hamburg by allied forces.

I must interject here by saying that the future of this thread is not good. I think what needed to be said was said a while ago....

London and many other UK cities were also carpet bombed during what was known as The Blitz. They lost up around 50,000 people from this bombing campaign. The Germans resorted to V-1 & 2's after losing air superiority in the Battle of Britain.

Ronin's point of two wrongs don't make a right is completely valid. There is rarely clearly defined right and wrong in war but what is completely clear is that it was Germany and Japan that were the aggressors. They were the ones who left their home countries completely unprovoked and decided to invade many other countries which ultimately led to the deaths of 10's of millions of people. So I believe ultimately they have themselves to blame for what occured. Dropping something like an atomic bomb is an horrendous act but in context of the multitudes of horrendous acts that had already been committed during that war I don't see the dropping of the bombs as any worse. I still believe that if not used then the war would have continued much longer and the death toll ultimately would have ended much higher.

Even that is spin.

It's not like Japan and Germany were unprompted. Both countries were forced into economic hardship following WW1 that made going to war an option in a time where empire expansion was the norm.

Japan at the time saw itself doing what the Europeans were and had been doing for centuries and actually feared being colonized in the same way much of East Asia had. Since the Meiji period Japan sought to emulate the West via rapid industrialization. The annexation of Korea and Hokkaido was a strategic move to stop Russian and European expansion into East Asia. If Japan hadn't done that then Hokkaido now would be part of Russia and Korea would likely have been yet another European colony.

The confidence gained by Japan during the Russo-Japanese war when the Japanese defeated Russia made the West take notice.

In a time when white superiority was considered a scientific fact, Japan was dismissed by League of Nations when it proposed a bill which recognised the equality of races.

For Germany it was a bit different but the completely unfair treaty of Versailles humiliated and severely crippled Germany for WW1 was a huge factor in the resentment that lead to the rise of the Nazi party.

Bottom line.. I don't think Japan and Germany started World War 2, they just fired the first shots.

Does that mean I blame the West for it? Of course not. This is not a story of blame but a story of conflicting interests and power and not about good versus evil or whatever.

I believe this narrative is not only more objective but more can be learned from such a perspective.

I don't believe they were seeking avenues to surrender from 1943 at all. They may well have sought avenues to seek a cessation of hostilities between themselves and the US (because they were losing) but I don't believe it had anything to do with surrender.

Maybe at first.. but from about 1944 onwards and definitely towards the end they were seeking to negotiate surrender.

The problem was that the allies wanted an unconditional one and refused to even enter into talks despite US intelligence reports which recommended them.

After what the Japanese had done in Asia I believe they lost any right to expect anything other than unconditional surrender. They held out too long and paid the price. I blame the Japanese leadership of the time far more than I blame the US for the bombs being used. They had their chances but wanted to hold onto power.

Ah yes... back to the 2 wrongs make a right mentality.

How do you know all this?

I've read various books on the issue.

I posted this link earlier in the thread if you want to read it. It sums it up pretty well

John Pilger: The lessons that should be learnt from Hiroshima | Comment is free | The Guardian

Oh maybe if you were involved at the time you might think differently.

anyway whats the point. It happened-- can't change it now.

I keep saying we should always remember it as a warning about the horrors of using Nuclear bombs.


for goodness sake why can't we all get on. its crazy going on and on about the rights and wrongs.

Has this conversation changed to a fantasy war? Ps Please tell me MM-- apart from the bombing of Pearl Harbour before 9/11 had the citizens in AMERICA been bombed as other countries had?

I don't think you are understanding me, and I don't understand the point of the question.

9/11
 

As 3M can not understand your simple question : no, they had not been bombed between Pearl Harbour and 9/11. The US has an unique geographic place and no country has a chance to bomb the USA in case of a limited local war (not in case of a possible global thermonuclear conflict).

The point is: Had the Americans citizens known what it was like to be bombed as happened elsewhere.


Pearl Harbour was an easy target-- but were towns cities etc ever actually bombed? America woke up when the twin towers were attacked. that has led to invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush was too eager to kill the terrorists. Brought UK into it against advice from the UN. we were told a pack of lies re WMD's. Many Brits did Not wish to go to war in Iraq or Afghanistan.

surely the question was: why was there an attack on twin towers? Obviously the attackers were not too happy with American Politics So many innocent lives were lost that day and SINCE------- with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Maybe this should go on another thread.


I still cannot fathom why you are using star wars as an example on this subject.

thank you termogard.

thankyou Ronin, I had seen this before. Not sure that one mans opinion will influence me really but thank you.

lol.. one mans opinion.

Check the facts. Check out other historians.

Not to mention this "one man" is one of the most respected investigative journalists to have ever lived.

Just because politicians in the US outnumber the people that are calling for the truth to be admitted doesn't mean that they're right.

invasions
 

America woke up, yes. An average Joe suddenly realized that american cities also can be attacked by enemy.
As for Bush Jr.... that is just not that simple, as 3M used to say.
GWB started a war under false pretexts and turned Iraq into bloody mess.

Imagine, that you are a SANE leader of some country with a decent military capabilities. Your intelligence informs you about a location of a terrorist's camp. You gives an order and your special forces make an operation with a surgeon's accuracy. Terrorists are wiped out without harm for civilians. No need to invade a whole country (except a case when you wish to seize and steal their oil, of course).;)
Many Brits did Not wish to go to war in Iraq or Afghanistan, you said.
But Antony Bliar played a role of lap dog very well.

You are absolutely correct about BLAIR. He definitely was Bush's puppy dog. absolutely disgusting. many of us marched against invading IRAQ-- He totally ignored us.

So wanting to be bed fellow with BUSH. I do agree with the above also.

Unfortunately John Pilger article is based on a flawed conclussion of the United States Strategic Bombing Survey of 1946' .

"Even without the atomic bombing attacks," concluded the United States Strategic Bombing Survey of 1946, "air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion."

This startling conclusion was directly traceable to the truncated targeting work performed by a backstabbing bureacrat - Paul Nitze in early summer 1945'.
Unlike with the European work, where the USSBS staff conducted deep and searching interrogations, the abrupt end to the Pacific war caught the survey team with an open-ended theory and no data to prove it. Even so, Nitze and the report authors ended up putting the theory into the Pacific war summary.

Paul Nitze, who directed the USSBS, injected this passage at the last minute in response to a bureaucratic slight with the the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Again and again this same Nitze plan was also rejected by Nitze’s close friend James Forrestal, Secretary of the Navy, and future Secretary of Defense. Nitze also used back channels in his failed attempt to promote his plan - He’d gone so far as to take the same plan to James F. Byrnes, who would become President Truman’s Secretary of State.

When Nitze pasted 'his theory' into the Pacific war report, it sparked a controversy that has lasted for generations. Thirty years later, Nitze sat for an important oral history in which he allowed, “It seems to me that Mr. Truman made the only possible decision.” By then, though, Nitze was too late. The Pacific war survey, with its hedging about atomic attacks, had already given critics the leverage they needed.

There's a book out I find interesting. It also makes sense when you put the pieces together. The US didn't attack Iraq for oil, anymore than it's attacking Afganistan because of jihadi's. In fact we don't care if we eventually "loose" and are "driven out in humliation". We are only thier to destablize the whole region, thus preventing a united arabian nation. As long as muslims fight each other the US wins.

This book suggests that every action the US has taken in the last 100 years has be designed to ensure global dominance via the sea. It's why we bought Alaska and anexed Hawiai. The US has the most powerful navy in the world with the ability to project power anywhere they wish. No one can utilize the sealanes for trade if the US decides against it. The US uses diplomacy or military might to prevent any area becomeing strong enough to build a navy capable of challanging the US.

I'll have to post the name of the Book later cause I loaned it out to someone and can't recall it off hand. The author though, is what they call a "futurist". He thinks the American centruy hasn't even started yet.

Well we'll never know as the US acted hastily. The fact is that as well this report, members of the US high command and many of the members of the manhattan project were against the bombing at that stage.

They knew what the effects would be and even went as far as to cover up the effects of the fallout.

The report sourced The UNITED STATES STRATEGIC BOMBING SURVEY 1946' does not support your statement or the John Pilger article in the Guardian.
The USSBS of 1946' conclussion used by John Pilger in the Guardian article you sourced was a product of a disgruntled bureacrat Paul Nitze who pasted his 'theory' unchecked into the conclussion of the USSBS of 1946'.

The same Paul Nitze of the USSBS of 1946' in a l8tr oral history about the atomic bomb was quoted - “It seems to me that Mr. Truman made the only possible decision.”
This later admission not only undercuts his conclussion in the USSBS of 1946' it also undercuts John Pilgers article who used it's conclussion as a source in the Guardian.

The US did not act hastily unless you believe the 'flawed' USSBS of 1946' with the pasted Paul Nitze conclussion which was a theory that went unchecked.

Lots of high ranking officials on both sides made mistakes and bad decisions. The Japanese also had officials that ignored reality.

In Aug 1945' For the most part, Suzuki's military-dominated cabinet favored continuing the war. For the Japanese, surrender was unthinkable—Japan had never been invaded or lost a war in its history.

Japanese minister resigns for saying WW2 atomic bombs 'justified'Last updated at 14:20 03 July 2007



Read more: Japanese minister resigns for saying WW2 atomic bombs 'justified' | Mail Online

It could have been flawed. My point was that the bombs were dropped so there is no way to really know. Also.. peace was never pursued by the US.

That still leaves the fact that the US knew what the effects of the bomb would be. The manhattan project scientists who were against the usage of it and the fact that the US tried to cover up the effects of the fallout.

So I believe Pilger is still correct in his claim that it was a crime against humanity.

Also.. I don't know what that link is supposed to prove.

I don't think either of these statements are fully provable, much less true.

Was Japan pursuing peace in 1945?

The latter is definitely true.

The former.. well inot provable perhaps. Japan definitely reached out though.

The USSBS of 1946' was flawed not could have been flawed?

What part of Paul Nitzes 'pasted' theory into the conclussion of the USSBS of 1946' is'nt flawed, dude?

Paul Nitze was the head of the USSBS of 1946' he failed along with the rest of the authors of the survey to investigate or check his 'pasted' conclussion.

..., only three scholars who questioned the accuracy of Nitze’s conclusion, Robert J.C. Butow, William L. O’Neill, and Barton Bernstein, but none had access to or digested the voluminous USSBS files now open in the National Archives.

Gian Gentile, working under Bernstein at Stanford, did a thorough and critical study of the survey, and in his How Effective is Strategic Bombing? published by NYU Press in 2000, Gentile demolishes the Nitze contention. His bottom line: the Pacific Survey reports “If read as a collective whole . . . implicitly suggest that the atomic bomb was the sufficient cause that transformed the realization of defeat into surrender, thus contradicting the early surrender counterfactual.” To Gentile’s disgust, the wholly false claim became gospel truth.

Preeminent Japanese scholar of Japan’s decision to surrender, Sadao Asada. When he finally mastered the flood of documents released toward the end of the twentieth century, he published his conclusions in the Pacific Historical Review, November 1998: “The Shock of the Atomic Bomb and Japan’s Decision to Surrender – A Reconsideration.”

Asada shoots down definitively two of the anti-Truman lobby’s favorite claims: that Soviet entry, not the bomb, triggered the surrender, and that the surrender would have come as early as June if the United States had guaranteed the continuation of the emperor. The Soviet invasion, says Asada, “gave them an indirect shock, whereas the use of the atomic bomb on their homeland gave them the direct threat of the atomic extinction of the Japanese people.” As for guaranteeing the emperor, Asada notes that this was not the sole sticking point, that the Japanese military demanded also no occupation, no war crimes trials, and no forcible disarmament. Asada is clear that only after the Nagasaki bomb, proving that the atom was not a one-shot weapon, did the emperor prevail over Minister of War Anami and secure agreement to surrender. Asada’s stature in the scholarly world is sufficient to bury these two erroneous claims