The atomic bombing of Hiroshima was definitely politically harmful and most certainly morally wrong (At the best morally blurred), but whether it was militarily necessary is more debatable. The seconds atomic bombing (The one of Nagasaki) was just cruelty. Yes, the first one might, MIGHT, have been necessary for military purposes, but Japan was completely broken by the first blast, the second just threw away 80,000 lives.
@wizzrobe301 In response to my earlier comment about Hiroshima, feel free to criticize me, I know it may invoke some strong opinions. As all of you were. :)
Finally some common sense from an American. Not some brain washed notion using WMD on civilian population to save soldiers as the only option. They couldn't wait a week for some diplomacy?
The atom bombs were dropped on Japan by they were used against Russia. They showed the USSR that Japan belonged to the USA and that there wasn't anything the Russians could do about it. Control of Japan has been a key strategic outpost from which to badger and hem in both Russia and China.
Truman was right. Period. All other options were unacceptable. Read your history. Fox? What the hell have they got to do with anything? They're a news analysis station. Again, learn your facts.....
Since I read Gar Alperovitz work on this subject I have questioned it. Particularly the "hindsight is 50/50 we didnt know..." Alperhowitz showed a lot of people argued back then (Adm Lehey, Ike, Oppenheimer more) and even stated such in publications over the decades.
In studying Truman & what was going on at the time...I honestly don't believe Truman made the decision lightly. it was a "fucked either way" decision one which people were probably going to die. Glad I didnt have to make the call
Due to the divided Japanese government (military hawks vs civilian doves) in 1945, it's terribly difficult to speak definitively on how they would have responded to other strategies. My best guess is that one bomb would have been necessary to break the political deadlock. The second seems entirely unnecessary, particularly just 3 days after the first.
The atom bomb does have shock value, though. If the US had fire bombed Japan for equal deaths, would we be having this discussion at all?
I support the US having dropped two atomic bombs against Japan in 1945 just before the Japanese surrendered unconditionally. I would concede that the second was overkill but that the first was the right thing to do at the time. This was a case when the US had to be cruel to be kind. The Japanese had been brought up to despise prisoners and captives. They were duty bound to die before surrender or being taken captive. The US forced this to STOP!
@ritchloui The two bombs were unnecessary. The Japanese were going to surrender sooner or later, they were losing manpower, resources etc. Scientists who created the bomb did not want it used, because it was immoral and unnecessary, but because of Generals' egos they wanted to bomb Japan to seem victorious. If they really wanted to stop the war, why bomb places dense with civilians mainly women and children, why not government offices, palaces etc Germany, Italy fell Japan was going to end soon.
@LiberalViewer The fire bombings of WW II kill many more people yet we accept them as a price of war. These fire bombings of Japan would have continued. Thus causing a “boiling frog” syndrome where they would have tolerated much more death before they surrendered. The punctuated emotional impact of these bombs shocked them into accepting defeat. It gave political capital to those with in Japan to who already wanted the war to end.
we bombed Hiroshima because we didn't want them to surrender to the solviet union,for the same reason berlin was split down the middle. killing that many people for any reason,is clearly wrong,it's too late to decide whether we do it now though,the question is whether we do it again. I think in some ways,the weapon needed to be proven,to be an effective deterrant,and it has prevented wars,in my opinion,by it's very existence,really tricky subject
It was right to drop the atom bombs. Firstly; it put an immediate end to Stalin’s plans for invading Europe. Secondly, owing to the barbarity of the Japanese troops throughout 1937-45 and expectation of treatment in kind, the Japanese may never have surrendered. Chekiang Massacres 250,000 civilians slaughtered for ‘harbouring American airmen). The Chinese Dept of Defence estimates 30,000,000 Chinese civilians were slaughtered in cold blood by the Japanese troops. Then Indonesia, Singapore..
@MrRationalgaze Yes, I must say I thought 30 m was rather too huge. In fact my previous figure was 3 million. I think the Japanese acknowledge 600,000.
@ritchloui ironically the figure put on Mao Zedong's murder of his own people through famine is 30 million +. I am sometimes amused by the rhetoric of my own country men when they still lament the Irish potato famine. Yes it was a crime, but it's time to get perspective.
@MrRationalgaze Yes the Irish and their eternal chipped shoulder. Hum, how about the fact that they’ve been prime beneficiaries of the British Empire? They shout the loudest too, almost drowning out every 'other' oppressed group. Well, I for one am a bit fed up with it. Yes, so long as they want to be the fly at the end of the Vatican’s fishing rod they will never respect the people and ideas that represent everything the Vatican itself hates most in the world.
The nuclear arms race would have happened anyway. it's not like the USSR wouldn't have wanted lots of the super weapon of the day. The only big thing about the Hiroshima and Nakasaki raids was the type of weapon used. In terms of casualties and damage done they were middling raids by ww2 standards bearing in mind that most Japanese cities had suffered the loss of about 60% of their buildings by this time. Doing it all at once is no worse than doing it in four raids with 1000 bombers.
This reminds me of the conversation about whether FDR's actions helped end the Depression or whether they lengthened the Depression. Did the bomb save lives or not? Sure it did and at the same time no it didn't.
read operation downfall that was the alternative it would of caused the war to go on for more than 4 extra years killed tens of thousand american troops and millions of Japanese and the baby boom after the war wouldnt have happened so chances are you wouldnt have been born we can look back and say we should have listened to this or should have done that but it happend its over all we can do is try to be better in the future
Whoever throws the first atom bomb has lost the war from a moral viewpoint. The people endorsing and enabling dropping the bomb on Hiroshima it should have been put on trial for war crimes.
@MomoTheBellyDancer Talking of 'moral viewpoint' do you have ANY idea of what the Japanese troops did during their campaign to conquer China? Perhaps before you begin your idiotic stance you should perhaps find out a little more about what had gone on and why the decision was made. The Chinese Dept of Defence estimates 30 MILLION Chinese civilians were slaughtered by invading Japanese Army in orgies of massacre after massacre. Not to mention their behaviour throughout the Pacific.
"do you have ANY idea of what the Japanese troops did during their campaign to conquer China?"
Ah, so your argument is, "if they can be bastards, then so can we!" Now think VERY hard why that is a very unhealthy way of approaching these kinds of issues.
@MomoTheBellyDancer My point is not so much that they were baddies and so therefore should we. It was unfortunately a matter of honour for them; to surrender was totally unacceptable and they regarded ANYONE who surrendered as scum. Their treatment of British, Australian and Indian captives is testament to this. Their own civilians were killing themselves in huge numbers rather than be captured. It was a dreadful thing as the US pushed forward.
You arguments concerning the killing and irradiating thousands of Japanese holds equally well for the massive terror bombing of Japanese and German civilians during the War, which killed far more people than the two atomic bombs. War necessarily encompasses myriad brutish acts of shocking immorality.
As the evidence put forth shows, there is no proof that the bomb did directly, or indirectly, save lives. Don't make bold statements about factual evidence. We weren't pulled into that war. We were breaking all kinds of arms agreements supplying the brits with ammunition.
@MrMystery999 It seems to me that the only way to "prove" that the atomic bombs "saved" lives would be to rerun history, an alternate history in which the bombs were not dropped. In others words, no definitive proof is possible and arguing about what may have happened under hypothetical circumstances is folly.
@MrMystery999 The Japanese attack on the US had NOTHING to do with its allegiance with the British. The Japanese had planned a world takeover (hard to believe but true). Their first objective was to conquer China. They slaughtered 30 million Chinese civilians (they didn't want the people they wanted natural resources). However, the Chinese eventually managed to regroup. So, the Japanese knowing they had to secure the Pacific had to attack Hawaii before they'd achieved their first objective.
I think you are taking away the wrong lessons from the end of the war. The idea of a strategic bombing campaign where civilians are the target has ever worked, including the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. From the Zeppelins in WW1 to the Blitz to the USAAF/RAF campaigns over Germany, they have only served to strengthen the resolve of the enemy populace to fight. It was the USSR entering the war that brought an end to WW2.
The bombs would of saved, if we ended up invading, around 20,000 people thats, Truman lied his ass off by saying over 200,000. The Japanese army was weak, the only reason they didnt surrender right away was because the emperor had to sign off on it and he was stubborn. And Russia even said they would help us with invading Japan but WE wanted to show our power that we were #1 over Russia. Thats why we did it not to save life’s, but to flex our muscle.
The fact that the Japanese had planned a nuclear attack on the United States @ San Fransisco just three days after our bombing of Heroshima just negated everything Liberal Viewer says in his argument.
2. even if they had, they would never use it, they would have to cross all the pacific, and in their current situation and the wekness or their airial forces and less sophistiqued planes that the us ones, the chances of that happen is about 0.1%.
3. War is not a video game, and if you heard that, it was probably with we call propaganda
4. we know the AB was one of the consequences of the cold war who made millions victims, so...
@tatianaf1000 the japanese did have transcontinental missile delivery the bombed alot of farms at the start of the war read about it its kind of humorous it was a balloon and it launched the largest government censorship campaign to make sure no news station talked about it so the japanese thought they had failed and didnt use them again
@thebushcomedian That's stupid. fatman and littlebot were the first two prototypes for a nuclear bomb. Did Japan have a fucking time machine. No didn't think so.
The thing many people over look is that if the US didnt demonstrate their atomic power then the USSR would not have stoped, they were in berlin their armies finally fully organized and ready were poised to take over the rest of europe. Dont forget that up until nazi germany's invasion of russia the USSR fully backed the third reich. but the one thing the soviets didnt have was the bomb and they knew they could not possibly win against a nuke armed force
@ooogmorg I do agree that this is too often over looked. Though, in hind sight I think a peaceful demonstration of the power of aomic bombs would have been far better way to say, "Hey, look what we can do! We better learn to settle our arguments without war fast!" By saying to the USSR, "Hey, we got bombs and will use them," we put them into the defensive and fearful position that kicked off the cold war.
Of course, hind sight is 20/20, but can we all agree that Nagasaki was over the top?
@Muthsera80 Ah, yes, killing civilians always proves we're the good guys, I'm not saying all his facts were right or your facts are right either, I hold my view war proves were so primitive and we happen to be smart enough to exterminate all life on this planet. Morality would've let the war kill both our soldiers. Killing civilians? I'm sorry but it was an act of terror, the US literally terrorized Japan. Nuclear power? Please, wake me when our ape asses evolve.
Was the US the aggressor? Who initiated the terrorizing? It is not equal to start violence with that of using violence to stop others violence. When you are in a total war, and when your opposed by a undemocratic fascist state, using racist and subjugation to control and rule it's own and others population. You are not simply fighting for you, but for your children and grandchildren liberty. You do what is needed to stop the violence as quickly as possible. Time matters.
I'm not entirely sure we didn't need to use them. The Japanese were committing suicide rather than surrendering, they had kamikaze attacks, and they still didn't surrender after the first atomic bomb, it took two. The world would surely be a better place without atomic weapons, but not necessarily atomic power. The question is if we didn't develop it first, who would, and how would that world look now.
"The world would surely be a better place without atomic weapons"
You tell me, would the US and the USSR have fought an open war if nuclear weapons wasn't there?
If they would have, how many lives, how many cities, how many rapes and general desegregation would the human population on Terra have to endure in such a conflict? How would the India, Pakistan and China keep itself from warring? That is such a mindless statement. Spend some time on what that outcome would mean to our world
@Muthsera80 You're right, saying the world would be better off if humans didn't have the power to end it is such a mindless statement! Hopefully you sense the sarcasm. If we ever go to nuclear war, you'll see just how mindless your reply was.
A nuclear war surely would be more horrific. But has it come to pass? Do you know why it as not come to pass yet? Because it means the utter destruction of which your trying to protect and preserve by attacking. So your forced to NOT attack. And which is precisely why we can't allow states and nations who are suicidal to possess them. Or the MAD is rendered irrelevant. This is the doctrine you live under. Be glad that you do. Total war with modern means will not be pretty.
@sol3a1 Considering that those two bombings single handedly started an arms race between the soviet union and united states which almost killed us all multiple times, i'd say the bombings were a bad idea. You wouldn't be saying what you're saying if it were the other way around and the japanese had dropped the bomb on New York or Boston. The radiation from those bombs are still there and, once again, we murdered civilians, not soldiers. Thats the difference between Pearl Harbor and this.
@Tuse01: Well, there are three points here: Nobody else would've built one, nobody else would have made one so no arms race, that I'm completely provincial and that I don't want things to happen to my country and radiation is still there
1: nobody else would've make the bomb - completely disagree see "Uncle Joe Stalin"
2: the arms race would have still commenced once the "genie's out"
3: maybe but fortunately my country didn't go into China, Korea, etc. Had we might have "earned it too"
@Tuse01: 4: Radiation and the lingering effects were not well if understood at all. There are many who suffered life long issues from conventional attacks as well, firebombing of Hamburg anyone?
5:? Difference between Pearl Harbor and Hiroshima/Nagasaki is while the US was near a war footing, we didn't sneak attack the Japanese without a declaration of war and the bombs came far later after much bloodshed
Points 1 and 2 would happen in any case by someone
@Tuse01: Point 3 "BUT" while the US are wringing our hands over it (as we should) had the Japanese of WW2 had the bomb we'd be radioactive slag
4: If you don't know, you don't know
5: Being "cold-cocked" doesn't make me feel very good about the person hitting either. Knocking teeth out in the middle of a fight is one thing, knocking teeth out with a pipe from shadows is something else
So what to do? Accept it, think about it and really get into what realistically would happen if we didn't
@sol3a1 Well I could get into my thoughts on the US reaction to the Soviet Union which dates back to the 1910s but that's getting a little too much into personal opinion on whether socialism is really bad. You say "my country" like it isn't my country as well. I'm an American and I'm trying to point out the only thing we really did wrong in WWII. Were we right to go to war with Japan? Absolutely. Were we right to slaughter thousands of civilians? No.
@sol3a1 Sneak attack or not, the Japanese attacked a military base that never believed it could ever be attacked the way it did. It was a failing on our part to group most of our pacific fleet in one specific area. It was only luck that our aircraft carriers were gone that morning or they would have been annihilated too. Did the Japanese attack the nearby city of Honolulu and level it? Nope. They hit a military target which is fair game, declared war or not, and left.
@Tuse01 "Sneak attack or not, the Japanese attacked a military base that never believed it could ever be attacked the way it did. It was a failing on our part to group most of our pacific fleet in one specific area" true but Hamburg and Dresden were leveled with firebombs and were filled with civilians too
"War is hell" and going to war should never be taken likely but when there, play to win.
"Did the Japanese attack the nearby city of Honolulu..." which is more due to logistics IMO
@sol3a1 If we didn't bomb Japan we would have still won, the Soviet Union had invaded Manchuria and Japan was in full retreat. Had we actually cooperated with the Soviet Union here, we may have avoided the Iron Curtain all together. Instead Truman dropped the bomb with two motives in mind. One, ending WWII and two, trying to strong arm Stalin in to making some more diplomatic concessions. This failed because Stalin developed atomic weapons a few years later and thus began the cold war.
@Tuse01 "If we didn't bomb Japan we would have still won" I've never disputed that. What I have said and keep on saying is - How many more would have died :
1: non-combatants with IJA troops in their country still fighting on?
2: starvation in Japan?
3: Japanese in an invasion?
4: allied troops from kamikaze and home guard while invading?
5: before the consensus is the that bombing was a better idea?
What I'm saying is other methods kill many more including civies who have IJA troops
In WW2, the Japanese were a sadistic, disillusioned people; in the island battles near Japan, they fought with abandoned fervor, willing to kill as many as possible to keep the US out. Say what you want about how the Japanese may have surrendered, but at Potsdam, Japan was given an out and they refused. After the bombings, Hirohito said "the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage". I'm not saying the bombs were justified but the Japanese were in it for the long haul.
@Tuse01 "Socialism good or bad" Socialism has good points but a lot of negative points, as does Capitalism. Communism just don't work
"You say "my country" like it isn't my country as well. I'm an American and I'm trying to point out the only thing we really did wrong in WWII" I saw that but no offense was intended, I just "took ownership"
"Were we right to go to war with Japan? Absolutely. Were we right to slaughter thousands of civilians? No" which is war. How many civies died on Okinawa?
I disagree only because of one flaw: the human factor. If the US didn't use the atomic bomb, someone would've. The Japan bombing was just something to show to the world just what an atomic bomb is. Before the bombing nobody knew exactly how powerful it was nor if it would work or not.
It was a bloody lesson but at least we now have something to learn from.
Regardless of what everyone thinks though, what's done is done. Learn from it.
While the bombs did kill lots of people and cause mass destruction i think the bombs were necessary. Some japanese knew they were defeated and wanted peace(the diplomats) but there was no way to get the generals and admirals to surrender they and their most loyal troops would fight to the death if the U.S. invaded the way of the samurai was too deeply embedded in the hearts and minds of the Japanese. They couldn't surrender they couldn't lose face. It took the A-bombs to make the see it was over
I accept your contention that the use of the A-bombs sparked a dangerous nuclear arms race. It would have been much more dangerous if the existence of nuclear weapons had remained (publicly) unknown. The USSR knew of the US bomb and would have developed theirs anyway. I suspect the first use of A-bombs would have been Korea, almost surely the USSR would have replied. So the equation becomes 2 A-bombs in Japan vs several A-Bombs and possible H-bombs being used, perhaps not limited to Korea.
If the Atomic bombings were morally wrong then so was the ongoing firebombing of Japanese cities, The U.S didn't need A-Bombs to destroy Japanese cities, they actually had to preserve some cities unbombed to test the effectiveness of the new very much prototype A-bombs. Certainly this suggests a keeness to test the new weapons before the war ended.
There is strong evidence that Americans were planing the bombings from the beginning.Americans left cities intact so they could witness the devastation. Why didn't they bomb Germany? That would have ended the war way quicker. Simply because they had the same fission technology and were capable of creating nuclear weapons. There were elements of racism involved as well. So the only way to stop Japanese were the A-bombs? Or did they bomb Japan to show they were capable of nuclear weapons?
@Alpinex105: "There is strong evidence that Americans were planing the bombings from the beginning.Americans left cities intact so they could witness the devastation" not really. German cities were smashed as they allies were marching into "Der Vaterland"
"There were elements of racism involved as well" are you saying that the allies were racist vs Germans and that is why they went town to town in tanks, strafing aircraft, troops and more to inflict trauma on the German people?
@sol3a1 The nuclear bombs I was referring to. Hiroshima was spared from American cluster bombings... Why? (refer to pervious comment)
Racism made is easier for American soldiers to follow through. The idea of Japanese of being sub human,"others" or evil was a mechanism used to continue through with the massive bombings of Japanese civilians. Why wasn't the media allowed to go into Japan after the bombings? Would it have been more difficult to bomb German with a Nuclear weapon seeing that they
@Alpinex105: I know what you were alluding to on the racism charge, a charge I will not deny from EITHER side in the war. Even the Germans who were Caucasian Europeans through and through believed themselves to be above the others, just as the Brits felt about the Irish, etc
"Racism made is easier for American soldiers to follow through" but there was slaughter on both fronts, Europe and Pacific. US troops learned too many Japanese would rather die and would want to take a "Yank" with them
@sol3a1 But if we look at Hitlers attitude towards the British (even before they declared war) he considered them to be future allies I think it was because they were similar culturally (language in particular). Many Americans were related to Germans.. I would argue it the American German conflict was more a political/economic conflict than based on racism. I mean what were the attitudes towards fascism in America? How were German's characterized? Japanese bombings were political and racially
@Alpinex105: But to lay the racism card at the feet of the US soldier, who treated the Japanese infinitely better than the Japanese treated their captured foes, is in fact a disservice and I will say plain wrong
Did the US soldier hate the Japanese? I'm sure of it. The "sneak attack" at Pearl Harbor, "Bataan Death March" and what was learned in China under Japanese rule (even the Nazis complained about it at the time) played into it. So to say it was all "just" racism would be incorrect
@sol3a1 Seeing they are Caucasian... yes, but that's not the only reason as I point out. A distinction has to be made between armaments. We're talking about weapons with tremendous power and weapons that will affect future populations genetically.
@Alpinex105: "A distinction has to be made between armaments" yes and the strategic and tactical considerations of the theater they're in
Japan was bombed but never invaded until Okinawa. There the death toll was how much with a significant % of Japanese civilians killed themselves and how many US troops died as well?
The allies knew they had to remove Nazi leadership and force them to stand trial. The same decision was made about the Japanese (with major concessions). But they had to get them
@Alpinex105: So the Japanese "peace overtures" were almost nothing of the sort. The Japanese peace overtures let them keep their leadership (and the Showa leaders weren't good people) and most of the captured territory they still had
Even after the 2nd bomb the IJA almost stopped the surrender announcement
As to genetics, as nobody had any idea what DNA was or how it was affected, I doubt if the A Bombs were used as some sort of expirement
@sol3a1 Consider the ratio of combatants of both Japanese militants:American militants:American Civilians:Japanese civilians. Absolutely.. Don't think my arguments legitimize Japanese political and military actions in any way. The surrender happened three days later...They only found out after they had no communication with the bombed cities. They had to fly planes to observe what had happened. Now were they still willing to fight when they didn't know what had happened? WOuld the pop still
@Alpinex105 "Now were they still willing to fight when they didn't know what had happened?" If the Emperor said "fight on", I think they would have
Remember that they thought the "American pigs" would do to them what they did to others
I'm not happy about it but I'll not say it was racism, bloodlust nor "keeping Joe Bear" out of the area. Not dropping the bombs and invading would have been far worse for the Japanese people
You do know Dresden was left untouched until the firebombing, right?
@sol3a1 You think they would have? Japan quickly changed after the bombings. It wasn't possible for them to fight back. People would inevitability lose support as the government would have failed to offer them security. What do you mean subordinate? For racial reasons or reasons for the state? If you could provide me with evidence of the sort I will be happy to agree. From my understanding Hitler had strong feelings for Anglos.
@Alpinex105 "You think they would have?" If ordered to by the Emperor, yes, they would have
"Japan quickly changed after the bombings" please provide your evidence to that
"It wasn't possible for them to fight back" offensively past their home islands, not really but you forget that there wee still many Japanese troops in China and elsewhere in the Pacific and Asia. They could and would continue to fight. Note the Japanese troops found in the 70s who still thought the war was going on
@Alpinex105 "What do you mean subordinate?" that the Germans would have not accepted the Brits as equals but "fully human" (the "Aryans" were superhuman) who'd be great bureaucrats and administrators in the 3rd Reich
"For racial reasons or reasons for the state?" Nazis? Both. Der Vaterland" was all and they were part of it
"From my understanding Hitler had strong feelings for Anglos" oh, I have no doubt the English and for the most part Americans (if possible) would be at the top, under Aryans
@sol3a1 Well the British are Aryans. Also Japan hasn't changed? With the bombs you get totally annihilation (google bombing hiroshima after effects), you have a ruler who commits suicide, little food, shelter, complete closing of industries.
@Alpinex105 "British are Aryans" where did you get that. Hitler was convinced that Germans were arians, the master race, the peck of human genetics. Anyone who was not German, Hitler did not see them as equals. British people are not arians, no one is arian. It is just some washed out 1920-40s genetic theory.
@MegaTom1423 ... The Aryan race is a concept historically influential in Western culture in the period of the late 19th century and early 20th century. It derives from the idea that the original speakers of the Indo-European languages and their descendants up to the present day constitute a distinctive race or subrace of the larger Caucasian race.[1] Belief in the existence of an Aryan race is sometimes referred to as Aryanism. (wikipedia) We're speaking about ideas at the time
@Alpinex105 oops never mind,i just found that the term "Aryan race" refers to what they saw as being a master race of people of northern European descent. So yes British people are included int the master race, my apologies.
@Alpinex105 "Well the British are Aryans" they are? Nordics are Aryans, where'd you get that Anglo Saxons are as well?
"With the bombs you get totally annihilation (google bombing hiroshima after effects)" check out the fire bombing of Dresden and Hamburg to see what conventional weapons can do
"you have a ruler who commits suicide" Hitler checked out a few days before Germany surrendered. Please look up the code of Bushido and the Cherry Blossom and it affected Japanese life and outlook
@sol3a1 were similar than you should be able to understand that we did not need to bomb japan with a nuclear weapon because we didn't need to do it with Germany.
@Alpinex105 "were similar than you should be able to understand that we did not need to bomb japan with a nuclear weapon because we didn't need to do it with Germany" we were already on the ground invading Germany and the Germans didn't practice Bushido
Do you know what the cost in lives would have been if instead the allies invaded?
@Alpinex105 "that we did not need to bomb japan with a nuclear weapon" in the gran scheme of things, no, but I am still of the opinion that invasion and the 10s of millions of Japanese (along with the 1 million or so US causalities) would have been far worse and Japan wouldn't be here today
@sol3a1 Prediction? Well what we had is something far more worse. A global international nuclear conflict. We're talking about multiple nuclear players that were created as a counter balance to the events of the cold war. For sake of argument, yes we have stopped japan, but we made it possible for many other nuclear threats. Also why do we assume military intervention was the only possible solution (not referring to this particular issue).
@Alpinex105 "Prediction? Well what we had is something far more worse" we do? So far we haven't used them and to use them gives up the "game"
We haven't destroyed ourselves so I don't know if we can honestly say this is worse. Who knows what would've happened if Uncle Joe got the bomb first. It was the Nazi-Soviet pact long before the Axis
"For sake of argument, yes we have stopped japan, but we made it possible for many other nuclear threats" we've no idea who'd make a bomb first if we didn't
@Alpinex105: Question for you is what would we be saying if we invaded Japan and Japan ceased to exist from anything we know today?
10s of millions of Japanese dead, a 2000 year culture erased completely. Then someone heard we "might have ended the war" with many less dead and the Japanese not destroyed!
I can hear it how the US was "so racist and out for blood, slaughtering Japanese by the millions to avenge ourselves on them"
With MAD still hanging over our heads as the USSR made the bomb?
@sol3a1 I don't know what I would say. I don't really understand your question.
Are you saying I'm quick to pull out the race card? If were having a serious debate/discussion on this issue I suggest we keep it academic and refrain from "labelling". I thought I was clear in providing you examples of racism used for mechanization. We forget the dangers ( as well as the political, economic and social costs) associated with creating and maintaing nuclear bombs.
@Alpinex105 "Are you saying I'm quick to pull out the race card?" only when applied to the US when in fact it was used everywhere
"I suggest we keep it academic and refrain from "labelling"" you mean as you are trying to do to me at this very moment when you're attempting to put me in a position of being flippant and worse? Sorry, but that it what you are trying to do right now
"I thought I was clear in providing you examples of racism used for mechanization" and I said both sides used it
@Alpinex105 "The question you asked is extremely unrealistic and loaded" not at all. It presents you with ideas that you don't want to consider but need to in order to look at the whole thing
1: What would it take to defeat Japan as we did with Germany?
2: Are you sure we would not have nukes, ICBM, MAD, etc if the US didn't develop to bomb?
3: If the US and allies invaded the home islands of Japan, what do you think the casualties would be?
@sol3a1 Sorry I wasn't able to reply I was sleeping, but it's simple...The war was coming to an end. Germany attacked Russia, America entered the war and the Axis was loosing momentum. After Germany's defeat Japan will quickly follow due to it's inability to combat the Alli
For a more militaristic answer let the war end with Germany
Create a blockade of all goods going into and out of Japan
Control the Sea, control the food, control the imported arms.
@Alpinex105 "Germany attacked Russia" true but it was the Soviet-Nazi pact of non-aggression that allowed them to partition Poland. One was going to screw the other as they were a threat to each other. Germany acted first
"After Germany's defeat Japan will quickly follow due to it's inability to combat the Allies" be specific. This is wistful thinking at best and Pollyannish at worst. Why would they surrender? What do you know about the code of Bushido and how life is as a Cherry Blossom?
@sol3a1 I did. I specifically mentioned ammunition support and military support. What does this have to do with why Germany invaded... We're finding alternatives. Wishful thinking? I think my ideas are based on our pol-scientific understanding of state. You destroy state you destroy Japan ability to respond to foreign threats. This could be done in numerous ways, but we have to look at the costs. Your basis however rests on the idea that the Japanese would continue to fight (culturally).
@Alpinex105 "For a more militaristic answer let the war end with Germany" okay how and do you still have the Nuremberg Trials?
"Create a blockade of all goods going into and out of Japan" which means as soon as they surrender then you grab the Tojo leadership or let them skate for their war crimes? Also, what about the 2 or 3 million Japanese troops that are still fighting in China, SE Asia and other locals? What do you do with them?
@sol3a1 Well a lot of assumptions based what the people felt. Keep in mind society isn't homogenous. Now compare the forces fighting in China and other parts of the war to the Allies that have defeated germany in our theoretical ww2. Could they have been easily combated?
@Alpinex105 "Control the Sea, control the food, control the imported arms" so you let them re-arm themselves if it is home grown?
What about food? They had a terrible harvest in '45 and '46 even after the war ended and couldn't feed themselves. Do you let food continue to flow in while there are still Japanese troops trying their best to kill others to free their Empire? Do you let the kids starve?
Sorry but your answers while laudable in your attempt to prevent deaths I fear will cause more
@sol3a1 How would they? Where are they going to get the metal and other raw resources? Even if they did how long would it take them to rearm themselves?Balance of power? Japanese fish diet? What accounted for the terrible crops? I said control the Food, not to cut it off completely. Didn't you just a few comments ago justify the nuclear bombings? Didn't think of the kids then. That will cause more? I argue not because this bombing is what lead global American intervention during the cold war.
@Alpinex105 "How would they? Where are they going to get the metal and other raw resources?" Japan was resource poor, not non-existant
"Even if they did how long would it take them to rearm themselves?" and the 2 or 3 million Japanese soldiers in Chine, etc? How do you control them?
"Japanese fish diet?" so when the Japanese fishing junks go out to "fish" and they start getting close to allied ships, what do you do? How long do you continue this?
@sol3a1 Exactly if the resources are NON EXISTANT then how would they be able to RE-ARM? The boats will be combated. The IJA also are human. We have to consider how food scarcity will affect them. Would this be a better alternative to the Atom bomb? What will happen to the children if we bomb them?
@Alpinex105 "Please let's stick to the issues and questions instead of sidetracking with irreverent facts" such as?
"Exactly if the resources are NON EXISTANT then how would they be able to RE-ARM?" their resources were not non-existent, just very scarce. The militarists would have continued to push the Japanese people to fight on
"The boats will be combated" and the Kamikazes too? They had planes and would make ethanol to fly them
"The IJA also are human" what do you know what the IJA did?
@sol3a1 With what weapons? You said they were non-existant. If they were very scare then wouldn't it have been an easy victory? The facts such as why the germans invaded russia. And we never engaged with aircrafts did we? (sarcasm). When I'm calling them human from a scientific perspective. was furthering my point on how the food will affect forces. Good old quote mining.. havent had that in a long time.
@Alpinex105 "With what weapons? You said they were non-existant" I never said that, they were scarce but there were still kamikaze aircraft and some were being made from wood and paper. Check out the "Ohka" suicide guided bomb
"If they were very scare then wouldn't it have been an easy victory?" after slaughtering 100s of thousands and many committing suicide attacks, no. Check out the planned defense of the home islands. An invasion would have killed 10s of millions of Japanese and their kids
@sol3a1 How effective would they have been against allie forces? Wood and paper LOL. 10's of millions of Japanese kids? A figure that is completely fictional and 1/6 of everyone that died in WW2. Grasping for straws..
@Alpinex105 "How effective would they have been against allie forces? Wood and paper LOL" which shows me how much you know about the Japanese kamikaze forces. In other words you are speaking from what you want to see, not what was
"10's of millions of Japanese kids? A figure that is completely fictional and 1/6 of everyone that died in WW2. Grasping for straws" Not at all. Look at the Kamikaze corp, the Banzai charges and more. Invading the home islands would have wiped out the Japanese
@Alpinex105 "We have to consider how food scarcity will affect them" we already know, the children died and the militarists fought on. Don't believe me? Fine, but your solution would kill many, many more children who'd bear the brunt of the depravity
"Would this be a better alternative to the Atom bomb?" you do not know anything about the Showa Period Japanese
"What will happen to the children if we bomb them?" They die, but quickly not lingering from starvation
@Alpinex105 "Didn't you just a few comments ago justify the nuclear bombings?" absolutely did. While the bombs were terrible, but kill a kid by fire when their house burns from conventional bombing or other, what's the difference? They burned and they died. It sucks, it stinks
What you're suggesting plays right into the Japanese Militarist hands, "The barbarians can't assault the people of Japan backed by the will of the Emperor"
I'm saying bluntly that your goal while admirable will not work
@sol3a1 Then why do you have such an issue with my food argument? Dual standards? Ok if that was the case how what support will they have after their emperor has not supplied them with necessities? He would lose support. Wikipedia blockade. This is not the first time this Idea was proposed. It's actually somewhat of a standard practise.
@Alpinex105 "Then why do you have such an issue with my food argument? Dual standards?" nope 10000s of children died in the bombs, millions of children will die a death by starvation. If you let food in, you won't defeat the militarists who controlled on Japan
"Ok if that was the case how what support will they have after their emperor has not supplied them with necessities?" and how do we do that? The y lived at their Emperor's will, they will die for him
@sol3a1 It's not the US were talking about. It's russia, USA, UK and common wealth, china ect. Please look at my pervious comment of hunger and the ATOM BOMB. So the allies would tire from wooden planes? LOL
@Alpinex105 "It's not the US were talking about. It's russia" you brought them up with "Germany attacked Russia" actually the Soviet Union
"USA, UK and common wealth, china ect. Please look at my pervious comment of hunger and the ATOM BOMB" I did and I say the hunger from "starving out" the Japanese would have been 100x worse
"So the allies would tire from wooden planes? LOL" Say that to the men on ships that were hit by planes with wood fuselages and bombs in the middle
@Alpinex105: The Japanese militarists know if Japan surrenders, then they go to trial for:
Rape of Nanking
Manchuria
Bataan Death March
30%+ deaths to POWs (Nazi's had 1%)
Slave Labor Camps
Unit 731
Comfort Women
The Imperial leadership will continue to invoke the code of Bushido, and yes, the Japanese were very heterogeneous, one of the most monolithic ethnic groups around. I really don't think you know much about Japan in the Showa period and they would die for their Emperor, note kamikazes
@sol3a1 How would they die for their emperor if they can't physically fight for him? Japan was a state. Again you haven't responded to my arguments of your contradiction. Also we're taking about the costs.. why don't we consider the cold war as a cost? Question: why did the atom bomb destroy the Japanese government? The humanistic approach you're taking is laughable since you perviously were able to justify the deaths of hundreds of thousands. But the children?
@Alpinex105 "How would they die for their emperor if they can't physically fight for him?" if they had to starve, they would so he could eat
"Again you haven't responded to my arguments of your contradiction" oh I have and I'm saying your way kills far many more Japanese and prolongs their suffering and those who still have Japanese troops in their countries
"why don't we consider the cold war as a cost?" and what makes you sure that Uncle Joe wouldn't have built a bomb and we have it anyways?
@Alpinex105 "Question: why did the atom bomb destroy the Japanese government?" The Emperor knew he was also vulnerable
"The humanistic approach you're taking is laughable since you perviously were able to justify the deaths of hundreds of thousands" laugh all you want your approach will cost millions in a slow death of starvation and others who still have to fight the IJA in China, etc
"But the children?" in WW2 many children died, Japanese, Korean, Chinese, English, more so what's your point?
@sol3a1 Wouldn't the emperor be vulnerable is he didn't have raw materials to create arms, food to supply the people, had super powers that surrounded the sea, very single weapon + solider outnumbered by allie forces, poor economy? I think so.
Slow deaths? Tell that to the survivors of the atom bomb and their kids. I was refering to your point of the children .
@Alpinex105 "Also why do we assume military intervention was the only possible solution (not referring to this particular issue)" oh, it is never the only possible solution but one must take into the nature of the two sides who are negotiating
For France and Spain today the idea of either attacking the other is so laughable as to be absurd at best and ignorant of functioning democracies at worst
I'm not saying that democracies are always good and dictatorships evil, but those are safer bets
@sol3a1 Safer bets? Only in our interests. The idea that democracies are more likely to get along is not really true. Americans love dictatorships, but you could easily search Noam Chomsky's approach to the issue. We shouldn't base relations on same governments types but interests (economic, military ect.)
@Alpinex105 "Safer bets? Only in our interests" if one interests are in democracies, freedom of expression etc, yes I would say those are good things and in all of humanitoes interests
So you're saying dictatorships are better?
"Americans love dictatorships" we do? Wow, news to me. If you mean our government dealt with fascist thugs who let US companies come in as long as the leaders were well paid, I'd say all governments are guilty of that, including Canadians and Europeans
"but we made it possible for many other nuclear threats"
The "bomb" is a consequence of physics... We know the Germans were working on one. We as well know the Japanese planned to take over from the Germans. The "bomb" seems to be a something like a trial milestone for any planetary civilization that eventually arrives at "this" stage of development. Hence I think it really doesnt matter "who", but rather "how" we will handle "it".
@sol3a1 Would the pop still allow their ruler to continue the war? Was the bombings nessiary for victory? What were the future costs? Arms race? Maybe allowing world populations to be vulnerable to attacks (MAD)? They might now have known about the birth defects of radiation, but they were aware of radiation poisoning and it's biological affects.
@Alpinex105 "Would the pop still allow their ruler to continue the war?" yes
"Was the bombings nessiary for victory?" no, physical invasion and starving the Japanese out would've worked as well
"What were the future costs? Arms race?" and who can truly predict the future? One "gesture of peace in our time" can lead others to believe one is weak and ready to be subjugated
"Maybe allowing world populations to be vulnerable to attacks (MAD)?" again who knows what each action will do or play out
@sol3a1 Gester of peace will leave one the to believe one is weak ready to be subjugated? If thats the case America is a weak nation, by your definition. How many agreements peace offering has the Americans given? To North Korea, Israel, India, Pakistan, Russians, France and China. The most powerful states we're appeasing. Why?
@Alpinex105 "Gester of peace will leave one the to believe one is weak ready to be subjugated? If thats the case America is a weak nation, by your definition" I was referring to Hitler and Chamberlain. You're getting way off the mark. Still, one does not know what will happen. Yes peace is always better and N Korea's not a re-arming Germany
Still, Japan:
Had troops in the Pacific and Asian countries
Had shown that the causalities would be horrendous
@Alpinex105 "They almost didn't surrender after the second bomb? Wah? Could those troops effectively take on American, Russian, Canadian ect forces?" which ones?
The ones still "in the field" with ammo could but even then the code of Bushido, to die for one's lord or in this case the Emperor, was still very strong
It didn't matter to the Japanese High Command, JHC, if the people stopped the allies or not just how many allied troops they could kill and get the JHC off from swinging by the neck
@Alpinex105 "lso please read my comments addressed to the other youtuber" I read them and while Europeans were on top, the Aryans, those of some fabled "Nordic" or "Teutonic" background were #1
So while the Brits, French, etc, would be valued as "humans", the Aryans were "superhumans". The "human northern euros" would be above all save the blond Aryans (but blonds of N Euro could be "Aryan" if memory serves)
@Alpinex105 "They might no(t) have known about the birth defects of radiation, but they were aware of radiation poisoning and it's biological affects" just as they were aware of other ways to kill people
The difference in weapons from the beginning of history to now is how long it takes to kill "x" amount of people. I'm just stating that as a fact, not as something to be proud of in any way
I generally agree with almost everything that Liberalviewer says, but not this.
While I wish it never happened, WW2 et al, it is my understanding that an invasion of the Japanese home islands would have ratcheted up the body count of both allied troops and Japanese civilians
As for the bomb used to intimidate Stalin, I agree and I think that was a good thing. Stalin's USSR would have developed one and they would use it
Forgotten the pact between Nazis and USSR and how it emboldened the Nazis
Also you claim that using the bomb lead to a decades long arms race with the Soviet Union. That would be true if we had never developed the bomb in the first place. However once we had the bomb Stalin knew about it through his spies long before we used the bomb. I am sure that Stalin would have stolen the secret of the bomb, as he did, even if we never used it. Once it was developed Stalin would attempt to develop his own.
@77thewaz Well... they weren't the only ones capable of nuclear weapons the germans were to. Americans realized the potential and that created huge problems.
I accept that the bombing was immoral. But to claim that the Japanese where already defeated I can't agree. First of all if the Japanese were already defeated why did it take two bombs. If you blame Truman for the first bomb you should blame Hirohito at least partially for the second. Hirohito did not surrender until after two bombs and Russia entering the war. Even then there was a failed military coup to prevent the surrender. Does not sound like a country ready to surrender to me.
Millions more Japanese could have died if the "imperial hawks" had it their way. They were ready and willing (as evidence seems to suggest) to give the "order" to fight to the "last man". Id as well think defeated people usually dont start digging in (i.e. see the Matsushiro complex). What I as well find quite interesting is the blatant Soviet disregard for those alleged peace overtures. These may well have been just an attempt to buy time...
Your essay fits well with the prevailing take on the Hiroshima bombing in the 70's and 80's. It fails to look at the structure of the Japanese government [military able to block any civilian diplomatic attempt], the lack of support by the military for a negotiate peace, the ULTRA intercepts being forwarded to Washington by MacArthur's army, similliar failed civillian diplomatic attempts during the war and the young officers willingness to use violence to counter the elected government.
It is useless to speak of the necessity of an act which occurred in the past when the occurrences in the past appear to have been inevitable to begin with.
The atomic bombing of Hiroshima was definitely politically harmful and most certainly morally wrong (At the best morally blurred), but whether it was militarily necessary is more debatable. The seconds atomic bombing (The one of Nagasaki) was just cruelty. Yes, the first one might, MIGHT, have been necessary for military purposes, but Japan was completely broken by the first blast, the second just threw away 80,000 lives.
wizzrobe301 1 week ago
@wizzrobe301 In response to my earlier comment about Hiroshima, feel free to criticize me, I know it may invoke some strong opinions. As all of you were. :)
wizzrobe301 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Finally some common sense from an American. Not some brain washed notion using WMD on civilian population to save soldiers as the only option. They couldn't wait a week for some diplomacy?
mx191000 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
mx191000 3 weeks ago
Right!
They fucking started it!
Fourteen88SoCal 3 weeks ago
The atom bombs were dropped on Japan by they were used against Russia. They showed the USSR that Japan belonged to the USA and that there wasn't anything the Russians could do about it. Control of Japan has been a key strategic outpost from which to badger and hem in both Russia and China.
fluffymcdeath 3 weeks ago
Truman was right. Period. All other options were unacceptable. Read your history. Fox? What the hell have they got to do with anything? They're a news analysis station. Again, learn your facts.....
MrSoakitincider 3 weeks ago
Since I read Gar Alperovitz work on this subject I have questioned it. Particularly the "hindsight is 50/50 we didnt know..." Alperhowitz showed a lot of people argued back then (Adm Lehey, Ike, Oppenheimer more) and even stated such in publications over the decades.
In studying Truman & what was going on at the time...I honestly don't believe Truman made the decision lightly. it was a "fucked either way" decision one which people were probably going to die. Glad I didnt have to make the call
hipstermi 3 weeks ago
Due to the divided Japanese government (military hawks vs civilian doves) in 1945, it's terribly difficult to speak definitively on how they would have responded to other strategies. My best guess is that one bomb would have been necessary to break the political deadlock. The second seems entirely unnecessary, particularly just 3 days after the first.
The atom bomb does have shock value, though. If the US had fire bombed Japan for equal deaths, would we be having this discussion at all?
ThreeFangCat 4 weeks ago
I support the US having dropped two atomic bombs against Japan in 1945 just before the Japanese surrendered unconditionally. I would concede that the second was overkill but that the first was the right thing to do at the time. This was a case when the US had to be cruel to be kind. The Japanese had been brought up to despise prisoners and captives. They were duty bound to die before surrender or being taken captive. The US forced this to STOP!
ritchloui 1 month ago
@ritchloui The two bombs were unnecessary. The Japanese were going to surrender sooner or later, they were losing manpower, resources etc. Scientists who created the bomb did not want it used, because it was immoral and unnecessary, but because of Generals' egos they wanted to bomb Japan to seem victorious. If they really wanted to stop the war, why bomb places dense with civilians mainly women and children, why not government offices, palaces etc Germany, Italy fell Japan was going to end soon.
KpopManiacSFL 1 month ago
@LiberalViewer The fire bombings of WW II kill many more people yet we accept them as a price of war. These fire bombings of Japan would have continued. Thus causing a “boiling frog” syndrome where they would have tolerated much more death before they surrendered. The punctuated emotional impact of these bombs shocked them into accepting defeat. It gave political capital to those with in Japan to who already wanted the war to end.
masluxx 1 month ago
I know who we should ask if the atomic bombings of Japan were justified, the people from Hiroshima and Nagasaki who survived it.
Akira625 1 month ago
we bombed Hiroshima because we didn't want them to surrender to the solviet union,for the same reason berlin was split down the middle. killing that many people for any reason,is clearly wrong,it's too late to decide whether we do it now though,the question is whether we do it again. I think in some ways,the weapon needed to be proven,to be an effective deterrant,and it has prevented wars,in my opinion,by it's very existence,really tricky subject
ViralMessiah 1 month ago
It was right to drop the atom bombs. Firstly; it put an immediate end to Stalin’s plans for invading Europe. Secondly, owing to the barbarity of the Japanese troops throughout 1937-45 and expectation of treatment in kind, the Japanese may never have surrendered. Chekiang Massacres 250,000 civilians slaughtered for ‘harbouring American airmen). The Chinese Dept of Defence estimates 30,000,000 Chinese civilians were slaughtered in cold blood by the Japanese troops. Then Indonesia, Singapore..
ritchloui 1 month ago
Comment removed
MrRationalgaze 1 month ago
@ritchloui the actual estimates are 6 to 10 million or 7 to 16 million civilian dead depending on the figures you look at, but never 30 million.
MrRationalgaze 1 month ago
@MrRationalgaze Yes, I must say I thought 30 m was rather too huge. In fact my previous figure was 3 million. I think the Japanese acknowledge 600,000.
ritchloui 1 month ago
@ritchloui ironically the figure put on Mao Zedong's murder of his own people through famine is 30 million +. I am sometimes amused by the rhetoric of my own country men when they still lament the Irish potato famine. Yes it was a crime, but it's time to get perspective.
MrRationalgaze 1 month ago
@MrRationalgaze Yes the Irish and their eternal chipped shoulder. Hum, how about the fact that they’ve been prime beneficiaries of the British Empire? They shout the loudest too, almost drowning out every 'other' oppressed group. Well, I for one am a bit fed up with it. Yes, so long as they want to be the fly at the end of the Vatican’s fishing rod they will never respect the people and ideas that represent everything the Vatican itself hates most in the world.
ritchloui 1 month ago
The nuclear arms race would have happened anyway. it's not like the USSR wouldn't have wanted lots of the super weapon of the day. The only big thing about the Hiroshima and Nakasaki raids was the type of weapon used. In terms of casualties and damage done they were middling raids by ww2 standards bearing in mind that most Japanese cities had suffered the loss of about 60% of their buildings by this time. Doing it all at once is no worse than doing it in four raids with 1000 bombers.
ketsan 1 month ago
This reminds me of the conversation about whether FDR's actions helped end the Depression or whether they lengthened the Depression. Did the bomb save lives or not? Sure it did and at the same time no it didn't.
1n354a 1 month ago
read operation downfall that was the alternative it would of caused the war to go on for more than 4 extra years killed tens of thousand american troops and millions of Japanese and the baby boom after the war wouldnt have happened so chances are you wouldnt have been born we can look back and say we should have listened to this or should have done that but it happend its over all we can do is try to be better in the future
frootofaloom 1 month ago
@frootofaloom would have.
MrRationalgaze 1 month ago
@frootofaloom punctuation.
MrRationalgaze 1 month ago
@MrRationalgaze don't.care.
frootofaloom 1 month ago
Whoever throws the first atom bomb has lost the war from a moral viewpoint. The people endorsing and enabling dropping the bomb on Hiroshima it should have been put on trial for war crimes.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 month ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Talking of 'moral viewpoint' do you have ANY idea of what the Japanese troops did during their campaign to conquer China? Perhaps before you begin your idiotic stance you should perhaps find out a little more about what had gone on and why the decision was made. The Chinese Dept of Defence estimates 30 MILLION Chinese civilians were slaughtered by invading Japanese Army in orgies of massacre after massacre. Not to mention their behaviour throughout the Pacific.
ritchloui 1 month ago
@ritchloui
"do you have ANY idea of what the Japanese troops did during their campaign to conquer China?"
Ah, so your argument is, "if they can be bastards, then so can we!" Now think VERY hard why that is a very unhealthy way of approaching these kinds of issues.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 month ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer My point is not so much that they were baddies and so therefore should we. It was unfortunately a matter of honour for them; to surrender was totally unacceptable and they regarded ANYONE who surrendered as scum. Their treatment of British, Australian and Indian captives is testament to this. Their own civilians were killing themselves in huge numbers rather than be captured. It was a dreadful thing as the US pushed forward.
ritchloui 1 month ago
@ritchloui
And this justifies throwing atom bombs on two thriving cities with civilians ... how exactly? I didn't quite get that.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ritchloui
And this justifies throwing atom bombs on two thriving cities with civilians ... how exactly? I didn't quite get that.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 month ago
You arguments concerning the killing and irradiating thousands of Japanese holds equally well for the massive terror bombing of Japanese and German civilians during the War, which killed far more people than the two atomic bombs. War necessarily encompasses myriad brutish acts of shocking immorality.
WildwoodClaire1 1 month ago
Reverend Wright is clearly a massively ignorant man. But then, so is Bill O'Reilly.
WildwoodClaire1 1 month ago 9
Comment removed
MrMystery999 1 month ago
As the evidence put forth shows, there is no proof that the bomb did directly, or indirectly, save lives. Don't make bold statements about factual evidence. We weren't pulled into that war. We were breaking all kinds of arms agreements supplying the brits with ammunition.
MrMystery999 1 month ago
@MrMystery999 It seems to me that the only way to "prove" that the atomic bombs "saved" lives would be to rerun history, an alternate history in which the bombs were not dropped. In others words, no definitive proof is possible and arguing about what may have happened under hypothetical circumstances is folly.
WildwoodClaire1 1 month ago
@MrMystery999 The Japanese attack on the US had NOTHING to do with its allegiance with the British. The Japanese had planned a world takeover (hard to believe but true). Their first objective was to conquer China. They slaughtered 30 million Chinese civilians (they didn't want the people they wanted natural resources). However, the Chinese eventually managed to regroup. So, the Japanese knowing they had to secure the Pacific had to attack Hawaii before they'd achieved their first objective.
ritchloui 1 month ago
That bomb saved allied lives.
smiffy992 1 month ago
@smiffy992 And japanese lives.
NorthForkFisherman 1 month ago
I think you are taking away the wrong lessons from the end of the war. The idea of a strategic bombing campaign where civilians are the target has ever worked, including the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. From the Zeppelins in WW1 to the Blitz to the USAAF/RAF campaigns over Germany, they have only served to strengthen the resolve of the enemy populace to fight. It was the USSR entering the war that brought an end to WW2.
paco62483 1 month ago
The bombs would of saved, if we ended up invading, around 20,000 people thats, Truman lied his ass off by saying over 200,000. The Japanese army was weak, the only reason they didnt surrender right away was because the emperor had to sign off on it and he was stubborn. And Russia even said they would help us with invading Japan but WE wanted to show our power that we were #1 over Russia. Thats why we did it not to save life’s, but to flex our muscle.
JwallRockCity7007 1 month ago
The fact that the Japanese had planned a nuclear attack on the United States @ San Fransisco just three days after our bombing of Heroshima just negated everything Liberal Viewer says in his argument.
thebushcomedian 1 month ago
@thebushcomedian Ah yes! The old "well they were doing it to" defence. It worked in the school yard so it's sure to work in geopolitics.
Answer the last two questions on this video and get back to us.
ptango101 1 month ago
@thebushcomedian
Wrong
1. They are very far from having the AB
2. even if they had, they would never use it, they would have to cross all the pacific, and in their current situation and the wekness or their airial forces and less sophistiqued planes that the us ones, the chances of that happen is about 0.1%.
3. War is not a video game, and if you heard that, it was probably with we call propaganda
4. we know the AB was one of the consequences of the cold war who made millions victims, so...
tatianaf1000 1 month ago
@tatianaf1000 the japanese did have transcontinental missile delivery the bombed alot of farms at the start of the war read about it its kind of humorous it was a balloon and it launched the largest government censorship campaign to make sure no news station talked about it so the japanese thought they had failed and didnt use them again
frootofaloom 1 month ago
@thebushcomedian That's stupid. fatman and littlebot were the first two prototypes for a nuclear bomb. Did Japan have a fucking time machine. No didn't think so.
MrMystery999 1 month ago
Dont fuck with America or they will kill your children. That's what Jesus would do!
kakashi76767 2 months ago
why the japannese love their emperor ,i really cant understand...
HESIXIA 2 months ago
@HESIXIA why north kora loves kim jun ill idk dose that really cahnge anything?
DrChrispocalypse 1 month ago
Oreilly is still a piece of sh*t and a total tool though!
dlandon2000 2 months ago 6
I have heard including the option to keep their emperor was seen as a sign of weakness and made surrender LESS likely.
In any event why, if they were ready to surrender did they vote NOT to surrender after the first bomb?!?
Or after we told them of the demonstration bomb?
dlandon2000 2 months ago
The thing many people over look is that if the US didnt demonstrate their atomic power then the USSR would not have stoped, they were in berlin their armies finally fully organized and ready were poised to take over the rest of europe. Dont forget that up until nazi germany's invasion of russia the USSR fully backed the third reich. but the one thing the soviets didnt have was the bomb and they knew they could not possibly win against a nuke armed force
ooogmorg 2 months ago
@ooogmorg I do agree that this is too often over looked. Though, in hind sight I think a peaceful demonstration of the power of aomic bombs would have been far better way to say, "Hey, look what we can do! We better learn to settle our arguments without war fast!" By saying to the USSR, "Hey, we got bombs and will use them," we put them into the defensive and fearful position that kicked off the cold war.
Of course, hind sight is 20/20, but can we all agree that Nagasaki was over the top?
LeadBeIIy 2 months ago
I need so many commentboxes to explain why this video is inaccurate I won't bother. I will instead only contain myself to say this.
1. Japan never relented.
2. It didn't surrender when USSR join the war.
3. It was hugely aggressive and would have been again if it was not completely defeated.
4, It took TWO bombs. Always remember that. If your claims had any validity. That one claim alone make all your arguments irrelevant.
Japan was never about to surrender.
Muthsera80 2 months ago
@Muthsera80 Ah, yes, killing civilians always proves we're the good guys, I'm not saying all his facts were right or your facts are right either, I hold my view war proves were so primitive and we happen to be smart enough to exterminate all life on this planet. Morality would've let the war kill both our soldiers. Killing civilians? I'm sorry but it was an act of terror, the US literally terrorized Japan. Nuclear power? Please, wake me when our ape asses evolve.
krouwtheknockingcrow 2 months ago
@krouwtheknockingcrow
Was the US the aggressor? Who initiated the terrorizing? It is not equal to start violence with that of using violence to stop others violence. When you are in a total war, and when your opposed by a undemocratic fascist state, using racist and subjugation to control and rule it's own and others population. You are not simply fighting for you, but for your children and grandchildren liberty. You do what is needed to stop the violence as quickly as possible. Time matters.
Muthsera80 1 month ago
I'm not entirely sure we didn't need to use them. The Japanese were committing suicide rather than surrendering, they had kamikaze attacks, and they still didn't surrender after the first atomic bomb, it took two. The world would surely be a better place without atomic weapons, but not necessarily atomic power. The question is if we didn't develop it first, who would, and how would that world look now.
kronosx7 2 months ago
@kronosx7
"The world would surely be a better place without atomic weapons"
You tell me, would the US and the USSR have fought an open war if nuclear weapons wasn't there?
If they would have, how many lives, how many cities, how many rapes and general desegregation would the human population on Terra have to endure in such a conflict? How would the India, Pakistan and China keep itself from warring? That is such a mindless statement. Spend some time on what that outcome would mean to our world
Muthsera80 2 months ago
@Muthsera80 You're right, saying the world would be better off if humans didn't have the power to end it is such a mindless statement! Hopefully you sense the sarcasm. If we ever go to nuclear war, you'll see just how mindless your reply was.
kronosx7 2 months ago
@Muthsera80 Tell me which is worse. A convectional war between two countries or the destruction of the entire planet?
goodyoj 1 month ago
@goodyoj
A nuclear war surely would be more horrific. But has it come to pass? Do you know why it as not come to pass yet? Because it means the utter destruction of which your trying to protect and preserve by attacking. So your forced to NOT attack. And which is precisely why we can't allow states and nations who are suicidal to possess them. Or the MAD is rendered irrelevant. This is the doctrine you live under. Be glad that you do. Total war with modern means will not be pretty.
Muthsera80 3 weeks ago
That the Japanese would have surrendered is really not in dispute with or without the bombs, what's not known is how long and bad could it have been?
Real issues, How many more:
1: non-combatants would have died with IJA troops in their country still fighting on?
2: in Japan would have died from starvation?
3: Japanese would have died in an invasion?
4: allied troops would've died from kamikaze and home guard while invading?
5: deaths would it take for you to say the bombing was a better idea?
sol3a1 2 months ago
@sol3a1 Considering that those two bombings single handedly started an arms race between the soviet union and united states which almost killed us all multiple times, i'd say the bombings were a bad idea. You wouldn't be saying what you're saying if it were the other way around and the japanese had dropped the bomb on New York or Boston. The radiation from those bombs are still there and, once again, we murdered civilians, not soldiers. Thats the difference between Pearl Harbor and this.
Tuse01 2 months ago
@Tuse01: Well, there are three points here: Nobody else would've built one, nobody else would have made one so no arms race, that I'm completely provincial and that I don't want things to happen to my country and radiation is still there
1: nobody else would've make the bomb - completely disagree see "Uncle Joe Stalin"
2: the arms race would have still commenced once the "genie's out"
3: maybe but fortunately my country didn't go into China, Korea, etc. Had we might have "earned it too"
sol3a1 2 months ago
@Tuse01: 4: Radiation and the lingering effects were not well if understood at all. There are many who suffered life long issues from conventional attacks as well, firebombing of Hamburg anyone?
5:? Difference between Pearl Harbor and Hiroshima/Nagasaki is while the US was near a war footing, we didn't sneak attack the Japanese without a declaration of war and the bombs came far later after much bloodshed
Points 1 and 2 would happen in any case by someone
Point 3 may have some merit BUT
sol3a1 2 months ago
@Tuse01: Point 3 "BUT" while the US are wringing our hands over it (as we should) had the Japanese of WW2 had the bomb we'd be radioactive slag
4: If you don't know, you don't know
5: Being "cold-cocked" doesn't make me feel very good about the person hitting either. Knocking teeth out in the middle of a fight is one thing, knocking teeth out with a pipe from shadows is something else
So what to do? Accept it, think about it and really get into what realistically would happen if we didn't
sol3a1 2 months ago
@sol3a1 Well I could get into my thoughts on the US reaction to the Soviet Union which dates back to the 1910s but that's getting a little too much into personal opinion on whether socialism is really bad. You say "my country" like it isn't my country as well. I'm an American and I'm trying to point out the only thing we really did wrong in WWII. Were we right to go to war with Japan? Absolutely. Were we right to slaughter thousands of civilians? No.
Tuse01 2 months ago
@sol3a1 Sneak attack or not, the Japanese attacked a military base that never believed it could ever be attacked the way it did. It was a failing on our part to group most of our pacific fleet in one specific area. It was only luck that our aircraft carriers were gone that morning or they would have been annihilated too. Did the Japanese attack the nearby city of Honolulu and level it? Nope. They hit a military target which is fair game, declared war or not, and left.
Tuse01 2 months ago
@Tuse01 "Sneak attack or not, the Japanese attacked a military base that never believed it could ever be attacked the way it did. It was a failing on our part to group most of our pacific fleet in one specific area" true but Hamburg and Dresden were leveled with firebombs and were filled with civilians too
"War is hell" and going to war should never be taken likely but when there, play to win.
"Did the Japanese attack the nearby city of Honolulu..." which is more due to logistics IMO
sol3a1 2 months ago
@sol3a1 If we didn't bomb Japan we would have still won, the Soviet Union had invaded Manchuria and Japan was in full retreat. Had we actually cooperated with the Soviet Union here, we may have avoided the Iron Curtain all together. Instead Truman dropped the bomb with two motives in mind. One, ending WWII and two, trying to strong arm Stalin in to making some more diplomatic concessions. This failed because Stalin developed atomic weapons a few years later and thus began the cold war.
Tuse01 2 months ago
@Tuse01 "If we didn't bomb Japan we would have still won" I've never disputed that. What I have said and keep on saying is - How many more would have died :
1: non-combatants with IJA troops in their country still fighting on?
2: starvation in Japan?
3: Japanese in an invasion?
4: allied troops from kamikaze and home guard while invading?
5: before the consensus is the that bombing was a better idea?
What I'm saying is other methods kill many more including civies who have IJA troops
sol3a1 2 months ago
In WW2, the Japanese were a sadistic, disillusioned people; in the island battles near Japan, they fought with abandoned fervor, willing to kill as many as possible to keep the US out. Say what you want about how the Japanese may have surrendered, but at Potsdam, Japan was given an out and they refused. After the bombings, Hirohito said "the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage". I'm not saying the bombs were justified but the Japanese were in it for the long haul.
kjhgfdsxcv 2 months ago
@Tuse01 "Socialism good or bad" Socialism has good points but a lot of negative points, as does Capitalism. Communism just don't work
"You say "my country" like it isn't my country as well. I'm an American and I'm trying to point out the only thing we really did wrong in WWII" I saw that but no offense was intended, I just "took ownership"
"Were we right to go to war with Japan? Absolutely. Were we right to slaughter thousands of civilians? No" which is war. How many civies died on Okinawa?
sol3a1 2 months ago
I disagree only because of one flaw: the human factor. If the US didn't use the atomic bomb, someone would've. The Japan bombing was just something to show to the world just what an atomic bomb is. Before the bombing nobody knew exactly how powerful it was nor if it would work or not.
It was a bloody lesson but at least we now have something to learn from.
Regardless of what everyone thinks though, what's done is done. Learn from it.
Tiosh 2 months ago
@Tiosh I can´t remember who it was that suggested that USA should carpet-bomb Russia after their first test explosion of a nuclear device.
Fortunately the president of the time was wise enough to say that the nuclear bomb wasn´t a toll to be used unless absolutely necessary.
And while nobody can change the past we can indeed do what you say learn from it.
Nuclear bombs is something that should never be allowed to be unleashed again the after effects are just to horrid for any justification.
Erikjust 2 months ago
While the bombs did kill lots of people and cause mass destruction i think the bombs were necessary. Some japanese knew they were defeated and wanted peace(the diplomats) but there was no way to get the generals and admirals to surrender they and their most loyal troops would fight to the death if the U.S. invaded the way of the samurai was too deeply embedded in the hearts and minds of the Japanese. They couldn't surrender they couldn't lose face. It took the A-bombs to make the see it was over
russiaISWEAKUSARULE 2 months ago
I accept your contention that the use of the A-bombs sparked a dangerous nuclear arms race. It would have been much more dangerous if the existence of nuclear weapons had remained (publicly) unknown. The USSR knew of the US bomb and would have developed theirs anyway. I suspect the first use of A-bombs would have been Korea, almost surely the USSR would have replied. So the equation becomes 2 A-bombs in Japan vs several A-Bombs and possible H-bombs being used, perhaps not limited to Korea.
CommandLineCowboy 2 months ago
If the Atomic bombings were morally wrong then so was the ongoing firebombing of Japanese cities, The U.S didn't need A-Bombs to destroy Japanese cities, they actually had to preserve some cities unbombed to test the effectiveness of the new very much prototype A-bombs. Certainly this suggests a keeness to test the new weapons before the war ended.
CommandLineCowboy 2 months ago
There is strong evidence that Americans were planing the bombings from the beginning.Americans left cities intact so they could witness the devastation. Why didn't they bomb Germany? That would have ended the war way quicker. Simply because they had the same fission technology and were capable of creating nuclear weapons. There were elements of racism involved as well. So the only way to stop Japanese were the A-bombs? Or did they bomb Japan to show they were capable of nuclear weapons?
Alpinex105 2 months ago
@Alpinex105: "There is strong evidence that Americans were planing the bombings from the beginning.Americans left cities intact so they could witness the devastation" not really. German cities were smashed as they allies were marching into "Der Vaterland"
"There were elements of racism involved as well" are you saying that the allies were racist vs Germans and that is why they went town to town in tanks, strafing aircraft, troops and more to inflict trauma on the German people?
Cuts both ways
sol3a1 2 months ago
@sol3a1 The nuclear bombs I was referring to. Hiroshima was spared from American cluster bombings... Why? (refer to pervious comment)
Racism made is easier for American soldiers to follow through. The idea of Japanese of being sub human,"others" or evil was a mechanism used to continue through with the massive bombings of Japanese civilians. Why wasn't the media allowed to go into Japan after the bombings? Would it have been more difficult to bomb German with a Nuclear weapon seeing that they
Alpinex105 2 months ago
@Alpinex105: I know what you were alluding to on the racism charge, a charge I will not deny from EITHER side in the war. Even the Germans who were Caucasian Europeans through and through believed themselves to be above the others, just as the Brits felt about the Irish, etc
"Racism made is easier for American soldiers to follow through" but there was slaughter on both fronts, Europe and Pacific. US troops learned too many Japanese would rather die and would want to take a "Yank" with them
sol3a1 2 months ago
@sol3a1 But if we look at Hitlers attitude towards the British (even before they declared war) he considered them to be future allies I think it was because they were similar culturally (language in particular). Many Americans were related to Germans.. I would argue it the American German conflict was more a political/economic conflict than based on racism. I mean what were the attitudes towards fascism in America? How were German's characterized? Japanese bombings were political and racially
Alpinex105 2 months ago
@sol3a1 motivated.
Alpinex105 2 months ago
@Alpinex105: But to lay the racism card at the feet of the US soldier, who treated the Japanese infinitely better than the Japanese treated their captured foes, is in fact a disservice and I will say plain wrong
Did the US soldier hate the Japanese? I'm sure of it. The "sneak attack" at Pearl Harbor, "Bataan Death March" and what was learned in China under Japanese rule (even the Nazis complained about it at the time) played into it. So to say it was all "just" racism would be incorrect
sol3a1 2 months ago
@sol3a1 Seeing they are Caucasian... yes, but that's not the only reason as I point out. A distinction has to be made between armaments. We're talking about weapons with tremendous power and weapons that will affect future populations genetically.
Alpinex105 2 months ago
@Alpinex105: "A distinction has to be made between armaments" yes and the strategic and tactical considerations of the theater they're in
Japan was bombed but never invaded until Okinawa. There the death toll was how much with a significant % of Japanese civilians killed themselves and how many US troops died as well?
The allies knew they had to remove Nazi leadership and force them to stand trial. The same decision was made about the Japanese (with major concessions). But they had to get them
sol3a1 2 months ago
@Alpinex105: So the Japanese "peace overtures" were almost nothing of the sort. The Japanese peace overtures let them keep their leadership (and the Showa leaders weren't good people) and most of the captured territory they still had
Even after the 2nd bomb the IJA almost stopped the surrender announcement
As to genetics, as nobody had any idea what DNA was or how it was affected, I doubt if the A Bombs were used as some sort of expirement
sol3a1 2 months ago
@sol3a1 Consider the ratio of combatants of both Japanese militants:American militants:American Civilians:Japanese civilians. Absolutely.. Don't think my arguments legitimize Japanese political and military actions in any way. The surrender happened three days later...They only found out after they had no communication with the bombed cities. They had to fly planes to observe what had happened. Now were they still willing to fight when they didn't know what had happened? WOuld the pop still
Alpinex105 2 months ago
@Alpinex105 "Now were they still willing to fight when they didn't know what had happened?" If the Emperor said "fight on", I think they would have
Remember that they thought the "American pigs" would do to them what they did to others
I'm not happy about it but I'll not say it was racism, bloodlust nor "keeping Joe Bear" out of the area. Not dropping the bombs and invading would have been far worse for the Japanese people
You do know Dresden was left untouched until the firebombing, right?
sol3a1 2 months ago
@sol3a1 You think they would have? Japan quickly changed after the bombings. It wasn't possible for them to fight back. People would inevitability lose support as the government would have failed to offer them security. What do you mean subordinate? For racial reasons or reasons for the state? If you could provide me with evidence of the sort I will be happy to agree. From my understanding Hitler had strong feelings for Anglos.
Alpinex105 2 months ago
@Alpinex105 "You think they would have?" If ordered to by the Emperor, yes, they would have
"Japan quickly changed after the bombings" please provide your evidence to that
"It wasn't possible for them to fight back" offensively past their home islands, not really but you forget that there wee still many Japanese troops in China and elsewhere in the Pacific and Asia. They could and would continue to fight. Note the Japanese troops found in the 70s who still thought the war was going on
sol3a1 2 months ago
@Alpinex105 "What do you mean subordinate?" that the Germans would have not accepted the Brits as equals but "fully human" (the "Aryans" were superhuman) who'd be great bureaucrats and administrators in the 3rd Reich
"For racial reasons or reasons for the state?" Nazis? Both. Der Vaterland" was all and they were part of it
"From my understanding Hitler had strong feelings for Anglos" oh, I have no doubt the English and for the most part Americans (if possible) would be at the top, under Aryans
sol3a1 2 months ago
@sol3a1 Well the British are Aryans. Also Japan hasn't changed? With the bombs you get totally annihilation (google bombing hiroshima after effects), you have a ruler who commits suicide, little food, shelter, complete closing of industries.
Alpinex105 2 months ago
@Alpinex105 "British are Aryans" where did you get that. Hitler was convinced that Germans were arians, the master race, the peck of human genetics. Anyone who was not German, Hitler did not see them as equals. British people are not arians, no one is arian. It is just some washed out 1920-40s genetic theory.
MegaTom1423 2 months ago
@MegaTom1423 ... The Aryan race is a concept historically influential in Western culture in the period of the late 19th century and early 20th century. It derives from the idea that the original speakers of the Indo-European languages and their descendants up to the present day constitute a distinctive race or subrace of the larger Caucasian race.[1] Belief in the existence of an Aryan race is sometimes referred to as Aryanism. (wikipedia) We're speaking about ideas at the time
Alpinex105 2 months ago
@MegaTom1423 Based on Hitler concepts of the Ayran race.. The english would be ayran. Hitler supporters in America think the same thing.. why?
Alpinex105 2 months ago
@Alpinex105 oops never mind,i just found that the term "Aryan race" refers to what they saw as being a master race of people of northern European descent. So yes British people are included int the master race, my apologies.
MegaTom1423 2 months ago
@Alpinex105 "Well the British are Aryans" they are? Nordics are Aryans, where'd you get that Anglo Saxons are as well?
"With the bombs you get totally annihilation (google bombing hiroshima after effects)" check out the fire bombing of Dresden and Hamburg to see what conventional weapons can do
"you have a ruler who commits suicide" Hitler checked out a few days before Germany surrendered. Please look up the code of Bushido and the Cherry Blossom and it affected Japanese life and outlook
sol3a1 2 months ago
@sol3a1 were similar than you should be able to understand that we did not need to bomb japan with a nuclear weapon because we didn't need to do it with Germany.
Alpinex105 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Alpinex105 "were similar than you should be able to understand that we did not need to bomb japan with a nuclear weapon because we didn't need to do it with Germany" we were already on the ground invading Germany and the Germans didn't practice Bushido
Do you know what the cost in lives would have been if instead the allies invaded?
sol3a1 2 months ago
@Alpinex105 "that we did not need to bomb japan with a nuclear weapon" in the gran scheme of things, no, but I am still of the opinion that invasion and the 10s of millions of Japanese (along with the 1 million or so US causalities) would have been far worse and Japan wouldn't be here today
the hate would run far deeper and more visceral
sol3a1 2 months ago
@sol3a1 Prediction? Well what we had is something far more worse. A global international nuclear conflict. We're talking about multiple nuclear players that were created as a counter balance to the events of the cold war. For sake of argument, yes we have stopped japan, but we made it possible for many other nuclear threats. Also why do we assume military intervention was the only possible solution (not referring to this particular issue).
Alpinex105 2 months ago
@Alpinex105 "Prediction? Well what we had is something far more worse" we do? So far we haven't used them and to use them gives up the "game"
We haven't destroyed ourselves so I don't know if we can honestly say this is worse. Who knows what would've happened if Uncle Joe got the bomb first. It was the Nazi-Soviet pact long before the Axis
"For sake of argument, yes we have stopped japan, but we made it possible for many other nuclear threats" we've no idea who'd make a bomb first if we didn't
sol3a1 2 months ago
@Alpinex105: Question for you is what would we be saying if we invaded Japan and Japan ceased to exist from anything we know today?
10s of millions of Japanese dead, a 2000 year culture erased completely. Then someone heard we "might have ended the war" with many less dead and the Japanese not destroyed!
I can hear it how the US was "so racist and out for blood, slaughtering Japanese by the millions to avenge ourselves on them"
With MAD still hanging over our heads as the USSR made the bomb?
sol3a1 2 months ago
@sol3a1 I don't know what I would say. I don't really understand your question.
Are you saying I'm quick to pull out the race card? If were having a serious debate/discussion on this issue I suggest we keep it academic and refrain from "labelling". I thought I was clear in providing you examples of racism used for mechanization. We forget the dangers ( as well as the political, economic and social costs) associated with creating and maintaing nuclear bombs.
Alpinex105 2 months ago
@Alpinex105 "Are you saying I'm quick to pull out the race card?" only when applied to the US when in fact it was used everywhere
"I suggest we keep it academic and refrain from "labelling"" you mean as you are trying to do to me at this very moment when you're attempting to put me in a position of being flippant and worse? Sorry, but that it what you are trying to do right now
"I thought I was clear in providing you examples of racism used for mechanization" and I said both sides used it
sol3a1 2 months ago
@sol3a1 The question you asked is extremely unrealistic and loaded. I suggest you revise it for a more detailed response.
Alpinex105 2 months ago
@Alpinex105 "The question you asked is extremely unrealistic and loaded" not at all. It presents you with ideas that you don't want to consider but need to in order to look at the whole thing
1: What would it take to defeat Japan as we did with Germany?
2: Are you sure we would not have nukes, ICBM, MAD, etc if the US didn't develop to bomb?
3: If the US and allies invaded the home islands of Japan, what do you think the casualties would be?
4: What do you know about the Showa Period?
sol3a1 2 months ago
@Alpinex105: Let's take one thing at a time then. You said we didn't need to use the nukes on Germany to defeat them which is true
Okay, so what do you do to get Japan to surrender as Germany did?
sol3a1 2 months ago
@sol3a1 Sorry I wasn't able to reply I was sleeping, but it's simple...The war was coming to an end. Germany attacked Russia, America entered the war and the Axis was loosing momentum. After Germany's defeat Japan will quickly follow due to it's inability to combat the Alli
For a more militaristic answer let the war end with Germany
Create a blockade of all goods going into and out of Japan
Control the Sea, control the food, control the imported arms.
Alpinex105 2 months ago
@Alpinex105 "Germany attacked Russia" true but it was the Soviet-Nazi pact of non-aggression that allowed them to partition Poland. One was going to screw the other as they were a threat to each other. Germany acted first
"After Germany's defeat Japan will quickly follow due to it's inability to combat the Allies" be specific. This is wistful thinking at best and Pollyannish at worst. Why would they surrender? What do you know about the code of Bushido and how life is as a Cherry Blossom?
sol3a1 2 months ago
@sol3a1 I did. I specifically mentioned ammunition support and military support. What does this have to do with why Germany invaded... We're finding alternatives. Wishful thinking? I think my ideas are based on our pol-scientific understanding of state. You destroy state you destroy Japan ability to respond to foreign threats. This could be done in numerous ways, but we have to look at the costs. Your basis however rests on the idea that the Japanese would continue to fight (culturally).
Alpinex105 2 months ago
@sol3a1 Please let's stick to the issues and questions instead of sidetracking with irreverent facts.
Alpinex105 2 months ago
@Alpinex105 "For a more militaristic answer let the war end with Germany" okay how and do you still have the Nuremberg Trials?
"Create a blockade of all goods going into and out of Japan" which means as soon as they surrender then you grab the Tojo leadership or let them skate for their war crimes? Also, what about the 2 or 3 million Japanese troops that are still fighting in China, SE Asia and other locals? What do you do with them?
sol3a1 2 months ago
@sol3a1 Well a lot of assumptions based what the people felt. Keep in mind society isn't homogenous. Now compare the forces fighting in China and other parts of the war to the Allies that have defeated germany in our theoretical ww2. Could they have been easily combated?
Alpinex105 2 months ago
@Alpinex105 "Control the Sea, control the food, control the imported arms" so you let them re-arm themselves if it is home grown?
What about food? They had a terrible harvest in '45 and '46 even after the war ended and couldn't feed themselves. Do you let food continue to flow in while there are still Japanese troops trying their best to kill others to free their Empire? Do you let the kids starve?
Sorry but your answers while laudable in your attempt to prevent deaths I fear will cause more
sol3a1 2 months ago
@sol3a1 How would they? Where are they going to get the metal and other raw resources? Even if they did how long would it take them to rearm themselves?Balance of power? Japanese fish diet? What accounted for the terrible crops? I said control the Food, not to cut it off completely. Didn't you just a few comments ago justify the nuclear bombings? Didn't think of the kids then. That will cause more? I argue not because this bombing is what lead global American intervention during the cold war.
Alpinex105 2 months ago
@Alpinex105 "How would they? Where are they going to get the metal and other raw resources?" Japan was resource poor, not non-existant
"Even if they did how long would it take them to rearm themselves?" and the 2 or 3 million Japanese soldiers in Chine, etc? How do you control them?
"Japanese fish diet?" so when the Japanese fishing junks go out to "fish" and they start getting close to allied ships, what do you do? How long do you continue this?
Kids will still starve and the IJA won't care
sol3a1 2 months ago
@sol3a1 Exactly if the resources are NON EXISTANT then how would they be able to RE-ARM? The boats will be combated. The IJA also are human. We have to consider how food scarcity will affect them. Would this be a better alternative to the Atom bomb? What will happen to the children if we bomb them?
Alpinex105 2 months ago
@Alpinex105 "Please let's stick to the issues and questions instead of sidetracking with irreverent facts" such as?
"Exactly if the resources are NON EXISTANT then how would they be able to RE-ARM?" their resources were not non-existent, just very scarce. The militarists would have continued to push the Japanese people to fight on
"The boats will be combated" and the Kamikazes too? They had planes and would make ethanol to fly them
"The IJA also are human" what do you know what the IJA did?
sol3a1 2 months ago
@sol3a1 With what weapons? You said they were non-existant. If they were very scare then wouldn't it have been an easy victory? The facts such as why the germans invaded russia. And we never engaged with aircrafts did we? (sarcasm). When I'm calling them human from a scientific perspective. was furthering my point on how the food will affect forces. Good old quote mining.. havent had that in a long time.
Alpinex105 2 months ago
@Alpinex105 "With what weapons? You said they were non-existant" I never said that, they were scarce but there were still kamikaze aircraft and some were being made from wood and paper. Check out the "Ohka" suicide guided bomb
"If they were very scare then wouldn't it have been an easy victory?" after slaughtering 100s of thousands and many committing suicide attacks, no. Check out the planned defense of the home islands. An invasion would have killed 10s of millions of Japanese and their kids
sol3a1 2 months ago
@sol3a1 How effective would they have been against allie forces? Wood and paper LOL. 10's of millions of Japanese kids? A figure that is completely fictional and 1/6 of everyone that died in WW2. Grasping for straws..
Alpinex105 2 months ago
@Alpinex105 "How effective would they have been against allie forces? Wood and paper LOL" which shows me how much you know about the Japanese kamikaze forces. In other words you are speaking from what you want to see, not what was
"10's of millions of Japanese kids? A figure that is completely fictional and 1/6 of everyone that died in WW2. Grasping for straws" Not at all. Look at the Kamikaze corp, the Banzai charges and more. Invading the home islands would have wiped out the Japanese
sol3a1 2 months ago
@Alpinex105 "We have to consider how food scarcity will affect them" we already know, the children died and the militarists fought on. Don't believe me? Fine, but your solution would kill many, many more children who'd bear the brunt of the depravity
"Would this be a better alternative to the Atom bomb?" you do not know anything about the Showa Period Japanese
"What will happen to the children if we bomb them?" They die, but quickly not lingering from starvation
sol3a1 2 months ago
@sol3a1 And they also die from birth defeats/ mutilation/ disease/ hunger/ lack of nourishment ect ect.
Alpinex105 2 months ago
@sol3a1 WHY DID JAPAN SURRENDER AFTER THE SECOND A BOMB?
Alpinex105 2 months ago
@Alpinex105 "Didn't you just a few comments ago justify the nuclear bombings?" absolutely did. While the bombs were terrible, but kill a kid by fire when their house burns from conventional bombing or other, what's the difference? They burned and they died. It sucks, it stinks
What you're suggesting plays right into the Japanese Militarist hands, "The barbarians can't assault the people of Japan backed by the will of the Emperor"
I'm saying bluntly that your goal while admirable will not work
sol3a1 2 months ago
@sol3a1 Then why do you have such an issue with my food argument? Dual standards? Ok if that was the case how what support will they have after their emperor has not supplied them with necessities? He would lose support. Wikipedia blockade. This is not the first time this Idea was proposed. It's actually somewhat of a standard practise.
Alpinex105 2 months ago
@Alpinex105 "Then why do you have such an issue with my food argument? Dual standards?" nope 10000s of children died in the bombs, millions of children will die a death by starvation. If you let food in, you won't defeat the militarists who controlled on Japan
"Ok if that was the case how what support will they have after their emperor has not supplied them with necessities?" and how do we do that? The y lived at their Emperor's will, they will die for him
What do you know about Bushido?
sol3a1 2 months ago
@sol3a1 Google the stats of those that died.. mostly civilian.. and future generations that died.
Alpinex105 2 months ago
@Alpinex105 "Google the stats of those that died.. mostly civilian.. and future generations that died" of which I have no doubt
Many thousands more died of their wounds later from conventional weapons as well, again that sucks
But your plan, IMO, would:
keep the militarists in Japan in power
starve the children
Japan would still have sent out kamikazes to harass and wear down the allies
The Japanese expected the US to tire of war and sue for peace on their terms. I don't think you get that
sol3a1 2 months ago
@sol3a1 It's not the US were talking about. It's russia, USA, UK and common wealth, china ect. Please look at my pervious comment of hunger and the ATOM BOMB. So the allies would tire from wooden planes? LOL
Alpinex105 2 months ago
@Alpinex105 "It's not the US were talking about. It's russia" you brought them up with "Germany attacked Russia" actually the Soviet Union
"USA, UK and common wealth, china ect. Please look at my pervious comment of hunger and the ATOM BOMB" I did and I say the hunger from "starving out" the Japanese would have been 100x worse
"So the allies would tire from wooden planes? LOL" Say that to the men on ships that were hit by planes with wood fuselages and bombs in the middle
Check for yourself
sol3a1 2 months ago
@Alpinex105: Go and study "Operation Downfall" and the Japanese guessed where the allies would land and what plans they had for them
sol3a1 2 months ago
@Alpinex105: The Japanese militarists know if Japan surrenders, then they go to trial for:
Rape of Nanking
Manchuria
Bataan Death March
30%+ deaths to POWs (Nazi's had 1%)
Slave Labor Camps
Unit 731
Comfort Women
The Imperial leadership will continue to invoke the code of Bushido, and yes, the Japanese were very heterogeneous, one of the most monolithic ethnic groups around. I really don't think you know much about Japan in the Showa period and they would die for their Emperor, note kamikazes
sol3a1 2 months ago
@sol3a1 How would they die for their emperor if they can't physically fight for him? Japan was a state. Again you haven't responded to my arguments of your contradiction. Also we're taking about the costs.. why don't we consider the cold war as a cost? Question: why did the atom bomb destroy the Japanese government? The humanistic approach you're taking is laughable since you perviously were able to justify the deaths of hundreds of thousands. But the children?
Alpinex105 2 months ago
@Alpinex105 "How would they die for their emperor if they can't physically fight for him?" if they had to starve, they would so he could eat
"Again you haven't responded to my arguments of your contradiction" oh I have and I'm saying your way kills far many more Japanese and prolongs their suffering and those who still have Japanese troops in their countries
"why don't we consider the cold war as a cost?" and what makes you sure that Uncle Joe wouldn't have built a bomb and we have it anyways?
sol3a1 2 months ago
@Alpinex105 "Question: why did the atom bomb destroy the Japanese government?" The Emperor knew he was also vulnerable
"The humanistic approach you're taking is laughable since you perviously were able to justify the deaths of hundreds of thousands" laugh all you want your approach will cost millions in a slow death of starvation and others who still have to fight the IJA in China, etc
"But the children?" in WW2 many children died, Japanese, Korean, Chinese, English, more so what's your point?
sol3a1 2 months ago
@sol3a1 Wouldn't the emperor be vulnerable is he didn't have raw materials to create arms, food to supply the people, had super powers that surrounded the sea, very single weapon + solider outnumbered by allie forces, poor economy? I think so.
Slow deaths? Tell that to the survivors of the atom bomb and their kids. I was refering to your point of the children .
Alpinex105 2 months ago
@Alpinex105 "Also why do we assume military intervention was the only possible solution (not referring to this particular issue)" oh, it is never the only possible solution but one must take into the nature of the two sides who are negotiating
For France and Spain today the idea of either attacking the other is so laughable as to be absurd at best and ignorant of functioning democracies at worst
I'm not saying that democracies are always good and dictatorships evil, but those are safer bets
sol3a1 2 months ago
@sol3a1 Safer bets? Only in our interests. The idea that democracies are more likely to get along is not really true. Americans love dictatorships, but you could easily search Noam Chomsky's approach to the issue. We shouldn't base relations on same governments types but interests (economic, military ect.)
Alpinex105 2 months ago
@Alpinex105 "Safer bets? Only in our interests" if one interests are in democracies, freedom of expression etc, yes I would say those are good things and in all of humanitoes interests
So you're saying dictatorships are better?
"Americans love dictatorships" we do? Wow, news to me. If you mean our government dealt with fascist thugs who let US companies come in as long as the leaders were well paid, I'd say all governments are guilty of that, including Canadians and Europeans
sol3a1 2 months ago
@Alpinex105 "but you could easily search Noam Chomsky's approach to the issue" I am aware of it
"We shouldn't base relations on same governments types but interests (economic, military ect.)" isn't that then why "Americans love dictatorships"?
Think about it
sol3a1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Alpinex105
"but we made it possible for many other nuclear threats"
The "bomb" is a consequence of physics... We know the Germans were working on one. We as well know the Japanese planned to take over from the Germans. The "bomb" seems to be a something like a trial milestone for any planetary civilization that eventually arrives at "this" stage of development. Hence I think it really doesnt matter "who", but rather "how" we will handle "it".
Wrath0fKhan 2 months ago
@sol3a1 Would the pop still allow their ruler to continue the war? Was the bombings nessiary for victory? What were the future costs? Arms race? Maybe allowing world populations to be vulnerable to attacks (MAD)? They might now have known about the birth defects of radiation, but they were aware of radiation poisoning and it's biological affects.
Alpinex105 2 months ago
@Alpinex105 "Would the pop still allow their ruler to continue the war?" yes
"Was the bombings nessiary for victory?" no, physical invasion and starving the Japanese out would've worked as well
"What were the future costs? Arms race?" and who can truly predict the future? One "gesture of peace in our time" can lead others to believe one is weak and ready to be subjugated
"Maybe allowing world populations to be vulnerable to attacks (MAD)?" again who knows what each action will do or play out
sol3a1 2 months ago
@sol3a1 Gester of peace will leave one the to believe one is weak ready to be subjugated? If thats the case America is a weak nation, by your definition. How many agreements peace offering has the Americans given? To North Korea, Israel, India, Pakistan, Russians, France and China. The most powerful states we're appeasing. Why?
Alpinex105 2 months ago
@Alpinex105 "Gester of peace will leave one the to believe one is weak ready to be subjugated? If thats the case America is a weak nation, by your definition" I was referring to Hitler and Chamberlain. You're getting way off the mark. Still, one does not know what will happen. Yes peace is always better and N Korea's not a re-arming Germany
Still, Japan:
Had troops in the Pacific and Asian countries
Had shown that the causalities would be horrendous
Almost didn't surrender after the 2nd bomb
sol3a1 2 months ago
@sol3a1 They almost didn't surrender after the second bomb? Wah? Could those troops effectively take on American, Russian, Canadian ect forces?
Alpinex105 2 months ago
@Alpinex105 "They almost didn't surrender after the second bomb? Wah? Could those troops effectively take on American, Russian, Canadian ect forces?" which ones?
The ones still "in the field" with ammo could but even then the code of Bushido, to die for one's lord or in this case the Emperor, was still very strong
It didn't matter to the Japanese High Command, JHC, if the people stopped the allies or not just how many allied troops they could kill and get the JHC off from swinging by the neck
sol3a1 2 months ago
@sol3a1 Also please read my comments addressed to the other youtuber.. because I also adressed the comments to you
Alpinex105 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Alpinex105 "lso please read my comments addressed to the other youtuber" I read them and while Europeans were on top, the Aryans, those of some fabled "Nordic" or "Teutonic" background were #1
So while the Brits, French, etc, would be valued as "humans", the Aryans were "superhumans". The "human northern euros" would be above all save the blond Aryans (but blonds of N Euro could be "Aryan" if memory serves)
sol3a1 2 months ago
@Alpinex105 "They might no(t) have known about the birth defects of radiation, but they were aware of radiation poisoning and it's biological affects" just as they were aware of other ways to kill people
The difference in weapons from the beginning of history to now is how long it takes to kill "x" amount of people. I'm just stating that as a fact, not as something to be proud of in any way
sol3a1 2 months ago
I generally agree with almost everything that Liberalviewer says, but not this.
While I wish it never happened, WW2 et al, it is my understanding that an invasion of the Japanese home islands would have ratcheted up the body count of both allied troops and Japanese civilians
As for the bomb used to intimidate Stalin, I agree and I think that was a good thing. Stalin's USSR would have developed one and they would use it
Forgotten the pact between Nazis and USSR and how it emboldened the Nazis
sol3a1 2 months ago
Also you claim that using the bomb lead to a decades long arms race with the Soviet Union. That would be true if we had never developed the bomb in the first place. However once we had the bomb Stalin knew about it through his spies long before we used the bomb. I am sure that Stalin would have stolen the secret of the bomb, as he did, even if we never used it. Once it was developed Stalin would attempt to develop his own.
77thewaz 2 months ago
@77thewaz Well... they weren't the only ones capable of nuclear weapons the germans were to. Americans realized the potential and that created huge problems.
Alpinex105 2 months ago
I accept that the bombing was immoral. But to claim that the Japanese where already defeated I can't agree. First of all if the Japanese were already defeated why did it take two bombs. If you blame Truman for the first bomb you should blame Hirohito at least partially for the second. Hirohito did not surrender until after two bombs and Russia entering the war. Even then there was a failed military coup to prevent the surrender. Does not sound like a country ready to surrender to me.
77thewaz 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@77thewaz
"Does not sound ... surrender to me"
Millions more Japanese could have died if the "imperial hawks" had it their way. They were ready and willing (as evidence seems to suggest) to give the "order" to fight to the "last man". Id as well think defeated people usually dont start digging in (i.e. see the Matsushiro complex). What I as well find quite interesting is the blatant Soviet disregard for those alleged peace overtures. These may well have been just an attempt to buy time...
Wrath0fKhan 2 months ago
Your essay fits well with the prevailing take on the Hiroshima bombing in the 70's and 80's. It fails to look at the structure of the Japanese government [military able to block any civilian diplomatic attempt], the lack of support by the military for a negotiate peace, the ULTRA intercepts being forwarded to Washington by MacArthur's army, similliar failed civillian diplomatic attempts during the war and the young officers willingness to use violence to counter the elected government.
Conway044 2 months ago
It is useless to speak of the necessity of an act which occurred in the past when the occurrences in the past appear to have been inevitable to begin with.
Emanresu56 2 months ago
@Emanresu56 Right, because there's no point in debating history so that we learn from our mistakes. The label of "inevitable" is lazy.
ContradictoryNature 2 months ago