American in Hiroshima...

[MMM]

Originally Posted by Enkidu22

You have to remember that history is written by the victors and they often like to justify their decisions.

And then rewritten by Revisionists after the fact over and over again.

Do the math.

[Kaicui]

lmao u dumb turds. u do realize that japanese makes up a good percentage of residents in hawaii even to this day

[Enkidu22]

Originally Posted by MMM

And then rewritten by Revisionists after the fact over and over again.

Do the math.

And many (if not most) of those revisionists call american politics mass murderers for bombing civilian targets and burning cities to the ground just to scare japanese and german citizens. Seriously german and japanese commanders were trialed and sentenced for things like shooting few civilians, even thou many were ordered and often forced to do so, but american politics were (and still are) praised for their actions.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by Enkidu22

And many (if not most) of those revisionists call american politics mass murderers for bombing civilian targets and burning cities to the ground just to scare japanese and german citizens. Seriously german and japanese commanders were trialed and sentenced for things like shooting few civilians, even thou many were ordered and often forced to do so, but american politics were (and still are) praised for their actions.

If you really want to bring it up, both the German and Japanese militaries were engaged in torture and killing of prisoners and, as you said, civilians. The Japanese governement has apologized more than once for the many atrocities the Japanse military was a part of. It wasn't just "shooting a few civilians" (which is still wrong, and you do get to go to trial for it.) I do not think Americans are "praised" for fire-bombing Tokyo and the unfortunate loss of innocent life.

[Enkidu22]

I know it all too well. I'm from Poland, around 6 milions of polish citizens were killed during WW II and it's not like I'm justifying japanese and german actions. In fact some people from my family were killed by soviets (yes soviets not germans).
The thing is: if japanese or german army killed 100 000 civilians in a bombardment or whatever it's called crime against humanity, but if americans or brits did it's called "lesser evil" or "unavoidable losses".
And I'm talking about the fact that many innocent Axis officers were sentenced for war crimes they didn't commited (or were forced to commit them) just becouse they were fighting for the "bad" side while soldiers and politics from allied nations were also responsible for many crimes and nothing happened to them.

[noodle]

Originally Posted by MMM

I am not going to say I justify or don't justify, I am saying this was the choice that President Truman had to make. I think you and Tenchu have this fantasy idea that there were all these choices that could have been made, or that he relished in the slaughter of thousands and thousands of people. It's easy to say "There is always another way..." Well, what is it, then? What way do you have that could have saved more lives? Why couldn't hundreds of advisors, generals, and leaders from all over the world not find it?

The fact is that Truman dropped the bomb to save lives. Many have tried to rewrite history to imply otherwise, but that is the truth.

Keep in mind that Japanese saw the emperor as a god. They were fanatically nationalistic, and had already engaged in suicide attacks on American ships. The civilians had already begun training, and followed the samurai code of the greatest honor was to die in battle. This included women and children. Innocent or not, they were all going to fight, and were happy to die for thier country.

What can't be denied is that the bombings did end the war earlier than if they hadn't occurred. The massive loss of life was smaller than the firebombings that occurered in Tokyo and other parts of Japan, and it can't be denied that the loss of American AND Japanese life would have been greater than 100,000 (Hiroshima and Nagasaki deaths combined) if America had launched a ground assualt. The only other viable option to end the war.

I'm sorry to say this, but i truly believe you are justifying the actions of Truman. You as an american, "seem" rather biast when it comes to this matter, where as for me, i believe both America and Japan done some discusting things, but I can't and will not accept that TWO A bombs was for the "greater good"!
As for another way, well let me think, off the top of my head (took me less than a min to think off) i can think of an easy one!!! How about he tries to invade by land, AND then if the predictions seem to be accurate (that millions of lives would be taken), THEN use the bombs! Saying there were no other choices is not correct.
Which generals, leaders etc are you talking about? I've never seen anything from any country that justifies this "act of barbarism" as Roosevelt put it!

The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, set up by the war Department in 1944 to study the results of aerial attacks in the war, interviewed hundreds/thousands (I can't remember) of Japanese civilians and military leaders after Japan surrendered, and reported just after the war: based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

Also, reading previous posts, i've noticed some of the figures are WAY out... for example, you said 100,000 for hiroshima and nagasaki... Actaully it was more like 200,000.
Also, you said, predictions were for 5million losses... Truman said the figure he got was for around HALF a million, and the government said a million according to secretary of state Byrnes.


AND, i do deny that the bombings ended the war sooner...Even if the men women and children were being trained to fight till death for a "god", that doesn't mean that they would have done it... and according to many japanese officials, they would have surrenderd soon anyway like i wrote above, but another point i forgot is that they would have surrendered to either Russia or USA. but they would have chosen USA as it was "less evil" as was quoted from some reports!!


with all this said... I am not saying America were the only criminals in this war... the japanese done some horrific things too... I'll leave it at that...

[MMM]

Originally Posted by noodle

I'm sorry to say this, but i truly believe you are justifying the actions of Truman. You as an american, "seem" rather biast when it comes to this matter, where as for me, i believe both America and Japan done some discusting things, but I can't and will not accept that TWO A bombs was for the "greater good"!
As for another way, well let me think, off the top of my head (took me less than a min to think off) i can think of an easy one!!! How about he tries to invade by land, AND then if the predictions seem to be accurate (that millions of lives would be taken), THEN use the bombs! Saying there were no other choices is not correct.
Which generals, leaders etc are you talking about? I've never seen anything from any country that justifies this "act of barbarism" as Roosevelt put it!

The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, set up by the war Department in 1944 to study the results of aerial attacks in the war, interviewed hundreds/thousands (I can't remember) of Japanese civilians and military leaders after Japan surrendered, and reported just after the war: based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

Also, reading previous posts, i've noticed some of the figures are WAY out... for example, you said 100,000 for hiroshima and nagasaki... Actaully it was more like 200,000.
Also, you said, predictions were for 5million losses... Truman said the figure he got was for around HALF a million, and the government said a million according to secretary of state Byrnes.


AND, i do deny that the bombings ended the war sooner...Even if the men women and children were being trained to fight till death for a "god", that doesn't mean that they would have done it... and according to many japanese officials, they would have surrenderd soon anyway like i wrote above, but another point i forgot is that they would have surrendered to either Russia or USA. but they would have chosen USA as it was "less evil" as was quoted from some reports!!


with all this said... I am not saying America were the only criminals in this war... the japanese done some horrific things too... I'll leave it at that...

The number 5,000,000 i pulled out as a theoritcal number, I didn't mean to use that as evidence. I have seen estimates at 500,000 to 4,000,000 Japanese and Americans killed if there was a ground war. This would certainly include Japanese citizens.

I am not saying what Truman did was right or wrong. What I am saying is he made a decision based on the information presented to him with the options he had.

Using your numbers, Noodle. 200,000 killed by using the bomb or 500,000 by not using it. By your number 300,000 lives were saved by using the bomb.

Naturally I wished we lived in a world where America never had dropped the A-bomb on anyone. The world has changed in drastic ways since then...many ways not for the better.

However, although that surely affected Truman's decision, that wasn't the immediate concern. The concern was the ending the war. Leadership in Japan was divided, with some wanting to concede and surrender, but other leaders wanting to engage in a battle (probably in the Phillipines) which would take out the most enemies possible. In post-war interviews it is very easy to say "We were about to surrender, and those savages kept attacking us." but the documentation of the plan to continue fighting is no secret.

Regardsless, I do not beleive my statements are biased because of my nationality.

My simple argument is less people died because of the bombings than not. You have said the US had another option. "There's always another way."

Well, what was it?

[MMM]

Originally Posted by Enkidu22

I know it all too well. I'm from Poland, around 6 milions of polish citizens were killed during WW II and it's not like I'm justifying japanese and german actions. In fact some people from my family were killed by soviets (yes soviets not germans).
The thing is: if japanese or german army killed 100 000 civilians in a bombardment or whatever it's called crime against humanity, but if americans or brits did it's called "lesser evil" or "unavoidable losses".
And I'm talking about the fact that many innocent Axis officers were sentenced for war crimes they didn't commited (or were forced to commit them) just becouse they were fighting for the "bad" side while soldiers and politics from allied nations were also responsible for many crimes and nothing happened to them.

In war tribunals "I was just taking orders" isn't allowed as a defense. When a US soldiers makes the pledge to become a soldier he pledges to follow the Constitution and to follow the orders of his executive leader as long as the orders are legal.

[noodle]

Originally Posted by noodle

As for another way, well let me think, off the top of my head (took me less than a min to think off) i can think of an easy one!!! How about he tries to invade by land, AND then if the predictions seem to be accurate (that millions of lives would be taken), THEN use the bombs! Saying there were no other choices is not correct.

I already answered that question!!!!

There is always another way... Exactly same reason why the US isn't using A-bombs now... they are finding "other ways"

[MMM]

Originally Posted by noodle

I already answered that question!!!!

There is always another way... Exactly same reason why the US isn't using A-bombs now... they are finding "other ways"

Sorry...I must have missed that.

So with the intelligence they had, they could predict a death toll of 500,000 and maybe several times that, with a land invasion.

With the atomic bomb they predicted a death toll of 100,000 to 200,000.

500,000 is a more acceptable loss of life than 200,000?

You will have to explain the logic behind that one.

(Don't give me the civilians and soldiers argument. The civilians were becoming soldiers.)