65 Years Since Hiroshima Nuked

old_aussie

65 Years since little boy was dropped on Hiroshima.

Quickening the end of the war in the Pacific.

90,000 dead within hours, 166,000 dead within months.

Einhard

old_aussie wrote: »

65 Years since little boy was dropped on Hiroshima.

Quickening the end of the war in the Pacific.

90,000 dead within hours, 166,000 dead within months.

Eh, is the tone of your post deliberately jaunty or does it just come across that way?

old_aussie

No,

I just saw "On This Day" on our local TV channel.

Hiroshima seems like it was not so long ago.

wes

I taught the mass murder of civilians was wrong, and the whole quickening the end of the world seems to have been an excuse the Allies used to kill a whole bunch of civilians to show off there new super weapon to the Russians.

karma_

One of a pair of the most despicable unpunished war crimes ever carried out.

ei.sdraob

wes wrote: »

I taught the mass murder of civilians was wrong, and the whole quickening the end of the world seems to have been an excuse the Allies used to kill a whole bunch of civilians to show off there new super weapon to the Russians.

That and the allies were facing the prospect of millions of their soldiers dying if they landed in Japan in a war started by Japan. Also how many would have died and/or lived in misery if the Russians invaded (and then setup an iron curtain ala germany) we would never know?

Allied losses on outlying islands which were nothing more than pieces of rock sticking out water in some cases exceeded Japanese casualties, who were fighting to death on orders of their godly emperor.

I think anyone who judges the allies for dropping those bombs should really consider the context and the time in history involved (allied bombing of Germany killed more people, and then the Nazis killed close to 25 million Russians like cattle) before judging too harshly the actions taken.

It says alot about state brainwashing and control of people when the only action to bring and end to a bloody war is using nuclear weapons.

karma_

ei.sdraob wrote: »

That and the allies were facing the prospect of millions of their soldiers dying if they landed in Japan in a war started by Japan. Also how many would have died and/or lived in misery if the Russians invaded (and then setup an iron curtain ala germany) we would never know?

Allied losses on outlying islands which were nothing more than pieces of rock sticking out water in some cases exceeded Japanese casualties, who were fighting to death on orders of their godly emperor.

I think anyone who judges the allies for dropping those bombs should really consider the context and the time in history involved (allied bombing of Germany killed more people, and then the Nazis killed close to 25 million Russians like cattle) before judging too harshly the actions taken.

It says alot about state brainwashing and control of people when the only action to bring and end to a bloody war is using nuclear weapons.

No matter what heinous act carried out by whomever, there will always be some who seek to justify it.

ei.sdraob

karma_ wrote: »

No matter what heinous act carried out by whomever, there will always be some who seek to justify it.

I am not seeking to justify it for gods sake :mad:

I am reminding people to get of their high horses and consider the context, events and geopolitics of that stage of the war
:rolleyes:

And more importantly the events and actions that lead up to this event

There is nothing worse than people discussing and judging history without painting the complete picture

Fratton Fred

karma_ wrote: »

No matter what heinous act carried out by whomever, there will always be some who seek to justify it.

Like the tens of thousands slaughtered by the Japanese in China?

I'm just grateful that we could never understand the context in which those bombs were dropped.

karma_

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Like the tens of thousands slaughtered by the Japanese in China?

I'm just grateful that we could never understand the context in which those bombs were dropped.

More justification. The Japanese actions in China were some of teh most horrific incidents I have ever read about, I would never attempt to justify anything of the sort. However, what has that got to do with dropping an atomic weapon on a civilian target?

wes

ei.sdraob wrote: »

That and the allies were facing the prospect of millions of their soldiers dying if they landed in Japan in a war started by Japan. Also how many would have died and/or lived in misery if the Russians invaded (and then setup an iron curtain ala germany) we would never know?

Allied losses on outlying islands which were nothing more than pieces of rock sticking out water in some cases exceeded Japanese casualties, who were fighting to death on orders of their godly emperor.

The winners of a war coming with an excuse for there own atrocities, and writing the history to suit themselves.....

ei.sdraob wrote: »

I think anyone who judges the allies for dropping those bombs should really consider the context and the time in history involved (allied bombing of Germany killed more people, and then the Nazis killed close to 25 million Russians like cattle) before judging too harshly the actions taken.

Sorry, but the whole, the other guy did stuff that was far worse is really no excuse. I think everyone is well aware of what the other side did, and they were rightly punished for there crimes.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

It says alot about state brainwashing and control of people when the only action to bring and end to a bloody war is using nuclear weapons.

Just because the guys who used that weapon saying it was needed, does not make it true.

I am well aware of the context of the time, and I am also well aware that the victors have a habit of white washing there own crimes.

derfderf

karma_ wrote: »

No matter what heinous act carried out by whomever, there will always be some who seek to justify it.

If u were US president at the time would u risks the lives of hundreds of thousands of your own soldiers (many of whom were just normal civilians drafted because of the war) to save the lives of the citizens of an enemy country that actually started the war?

karma_

derfderf wrote: »

If u were US president at the time would u risks the lives of hundreds of thousands of your own soldiers to save the lives of the citizens of an enemy country that actually started the war?

I hate the tired old argument about a land invasion of Japan if teh bombs were never dropped, this is nonsense, the war was already won and a land invasion would not have been necessary.

Lets also see who else thought teh dropping of teh bombs were unnecessary;

Dwight Eisenhower

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."


Admiral Leahy

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."


Herbert Hoover

"...the Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945...up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped; ...if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs."


Douglas MacArthur

"When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."


Albert Einstein

"Prof. Albert Einstein... said that he was sure that President Roosevelt would have forbidden the atomic bombing of Hiroshima had he been alive and that it was probably carried out to end the Pacific war before Russia could participate."

JonathanAnon

karma_ wrote: »

One of a pair of the most despicable unpunished war crimes ever carried out.

I think it's important to remember that it was the Japanese initiated hostilities against the US, through the bombing of Pearl Harbour. After this, the American goal was to defeat the Japanese in a war they didnt want, with as few casualties as possible...

The militarists in Japan had many opportunities to surrender. The war was effectively over when they lost the Philipinnes and the Marianas, but they continued to fight on. If the people in Japan want somebody to blame they need to blame the militarist in their own country who drove the war in China and the Pacific. Without them, there would have been no dropping of the bombs.

In the long run dropping the two atomic bombs saved an estimated million lives on both sides that would have been lost if the home islands had been invaded..

karma_

JonathanAnon wrote: »

I think it's important to remember that it was the Japanese initiated hostilities against the US, through the bombing of Pearl Harbour. After this, the American goal was to defeat the Japanese in a war they didnt want, with as few casualties as possible...

The militarists in Japan had many opportunities to surrender. The war was effectively over when they lost the Philipinnes and the Marianas, but they continued to fight on. If the people in Japan want somebody to blame they need to blame the militarist in their own country who drove the war in China and the Pacific. Without them, there would have been no dropping of the bombs.

In the long run dropping the two atomic bombs saved an estimated million lives on both sides that would have been lost if the home islands had been invaded..

Did you even look at my last post?

cyrusdvirus

karma_ wrote: »

Did you even look at my last post?

Have you even looked at anyone elses?

Operation Downfall (Olympic and Coronet) would have cost a huge amount of lives, Allied, Japanese, servicemen & civilian alike.

It could quite possibly have resulted in the extinction of the japanese way of life. Yes dropping the bomb was a horrific act, but in the context of the time, it was the best of a number of bad options

derfderf

The japanese were ordered to surrender unconditionally or their country would be left in ruin. They refused. After hiroshima they offered their own terms and it was refused. They were in no position to make demands to a country they bombed that wasn't even in the war at the time.

TouchingVirus

karma_ wrote: »

More justification. The Japanese actions in China were some of teh most horrific incidents I have ever read about, I would never attempt to justify anything of the sort. However, what has that got to do with dropping an atomic weapon on a civilian target?

So how is it going over there in black-and-white land?

karma_

gatecrash wrote: »

Have you even looked at anyone elses?

Operation Downfall (Olympic and Coronet) would have cost a huge amount of lives, Allied, Japanese, servicemen & civilian alike.

It could quite possibly have resulted in the extinction of the japanese way of life. Yes dropping the bomb was a horrific act, but in the context of the time, it was the best of a number of bad options

The horror stories just get worse, what started off as a lot of military personnel dying has morphed into the extinction of teh Japanese way of life. Utterly ridiculous.

I'll Take the opinion of Messrs Eisenhower, Leahy, Hoover, MacArthur and Einstein over the opinions of a few posters on Boards I think.

donaghs

The context is very important. If you oppose the dropping of the bomb, you should suggest an alternative course of action? A convential bomber raid on Tokyo actual killed more people than the Hiroshima bomb.

The dropping of the bomb was a terrible act, and set a very bad precedent, but arguably saved far more lives of people in Japanese captivity, and under Japanese rule. As well as the constant Japanese atrocities in China, the Japanese had already begun killing, and planning to kill their Allied prisoners.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palawan#The_Palawan_Massacre

From my reading, Japan at that point had made no serious attempt to surrender. Even after Hiroshima was nuked, what was the Japanese government reaction? Nothing. Within the government it stimulated more discussion on possible negotiated surrender, but no agreement could be reached on surrendering.

It was the Russian suprise attack which arguably forced the Japanese to surrender. They were out of options then. Which leads me to the conclusion that they prepared to sacrifice their people to an Atomic bomb rather than surrender - just as they advised the people of Okinawa (civilians) to commit suicide rather than surrender to the Americans.

karma_

donaghs wrote: »

The context is very important. If you oppose the dropping of the bomb, you should suggest an alternative course of action? A convential bomber raid on Tokyo actual killed more people than the Hiroshima bomb.

The dropping of the bomb was a terrible act, and set a very bad precedent, but arguably saved far more lives of people in Japanese captivity, and under Japanese rule. As well as the constant Japanese atrocities in China, the Japanese had already begun killing, and planning to kill their Allied prisoners.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palawan#The_Palawan_Massacre

From my reading, Japan at that point had made no serious attempt to surrender. Even after Hiroshima was nuked, what was the Japanese government reaction? Nothing. Within the government it stimulated more discussion on possible negotiated surrender, but no agreement could be reached on surrendering.

It was the Russian suprise attack which arguably forced the Japanese to surrender. They were out of options then. Which leads me to the conclusion that they prepared to sacrifice their people to an Atomic bomb rather than surrender - just as they advised the people of Okinawa (civilians) to commit suicide rather than surrender to the Americans.

Context is important for sure, however when you post the opinions of some of the most influential figures from that period and what they thought of teh incident and it gets ignored and teh same tired old line is repeated time after time, you have to wonder if context is really what they mean.

derfderf

karma_ wrote: »

I'll Take the opinion of Messrs Eisenhower, Leahy, Hoover, MacArthur and Einstein over the opinions of a few posters on Boards I think.

You say that almost as if they were the only people in the know at the time whos opinion mattered.

karma_

derfderf wrote: »

You say that almost as if they were the only people in the know at the time whos opinion mattered.

Of course they were not teh only people in the know, but they are some of teh most respected and well known. And their opinion has more validity than most.

derfderf

karma_ wrote: »

Of course they were not teh only people in the know, but they are some of teh most respected and well known. And their opinion has more validity than most.

More validity than those that decided to drop the bombs?

JonathanAnon

karma_ wrote: »

Did you even look at my last post?

Did you even look at the time of my post? I was writing at the same time as you..

The truth is the japanese did NOT surrender til the bombs were dropped... So any argument that "they were just about to surrender" dont make any sense... They were not prepared to give up the Emperor..

karma_

derfderf wrote: »

More validity than those that decided to drop the bombs?

Making a callous and barbaric decision does not make your opinion valid.

Tootle

karma_ wrote: »

Context is important for sure, however when you post the opinions of some of the most influential figures from that period and what they thought of teh incident and it gets ignored and teh same tired old line is repeated time after time, you have to wonder if context is really what they mean.

That is the opinion of influential people from the west. I've been to horishima and visited the peace museum. There is no condemnation of the Americans from the Japanese themselves. They tell the story factually. The treatment of their own people in Japan at the time was far from ideal. They admit to this. I'm not able to remember the exact details but the reason so many civilians were killed was that the Japanese made the people( men women and children) to rebuild damaged buildings etc caused by the war. Hense so many were outdoors at the time.
The reason for the peace museum in Horishima is to educate people so that this atrocity would never happen again rather than condem anyone.

karma_

JonathanAnon wrote: »

Did you even look at the time of my post? I was writing at the same time as you..

The truth is the japanese did NOT surrender til the bombs were dropped... So any argument that "they were just about to surrender" dont make any sense... They were not prepared to give up the Emperor..

Did they end up giving up the Emperor?

derfderf

karma_ wrote: »

Making a callous and barbaric decision does not make your opinion valid.

Most acts during the war were barbaric. The decision is whether the ends justify the means. You and the people you quoted think they didn't. Others did.

karma_

Tootle wrote: »

That is the opinion of influential people from the west. I've been to horishima and visited the peace museum. There is no condemnation of the Americans from the Japanese themselves. They tell the story factually. The treatment of their own people in Japan at the time was far from ideal. They admit to this. I'm not able to remember the exact details but the reason so many civilians were killed was that the Japanese made the people( men women and children) to rebuild damaged buildings etc caused by the war. Hense so many were outdoors at the time.
The reason for the peace museum in Horishima is to educate people so that this atrocity would never happen again rather than condem anyone.

Only this morning I have read reports of some sections in Japan asking for teh US to apologise for dropping the bomb.

Also how Japan treated her own citizens is really beside the point as It was the US who decided on this course of action and Japan did not decide to drop the bomb on itself.

karma_

derfderf wrote: »

Most acts during the war were barbaric. The decision is whether the ends justify the means. You and the people you quoted think they didn't. Others did.

Maybe you would like to provide some information as to who these others were?

Jeboa Safari

What alternative do you suggest karma? The Japanese army didn't want to surrender, and Japan didn't surrender after the first bomb.

cyrusdvirus

karma_ wrote: »

The horror stories just get worse, what started off as a lot of military personnel dying has morphed into the extinction of teh Japanese way of life. Utterly ridiculous.

I'll Take the opinion of Messrs Eisenhower, Leahy, Hoover, MacArthur and Einstein over the opinions of a few posters on Boards I think.

Read a book called The Last Mission. It's about the crew of a B-29 on a raid on the last night of the war. The same night that the Japanese military were plotting to overthrow the emperor and fight to the last man woman and child.
http://www.amazon.com/Last-Mission-Secret-History-Battle/dp/0767907795

Utterly ridiculous? Maybe with today's 65 years of hindsight it could have been seen as such. In light of the fact that there are cliffs in Saipan named Suicide Cliff and Banzai Cliff where the Japanese citizens living on the islands when the Americans invaded threw themselves into the sea rather than get captured, in light of the fact that the Kamikaze missions were regular occurances, in light of the fact that the servicemen serving under the Japanese flag fought to the last man rather than surrender, you still think it's utterly ridiculous?

Fortunately we'll never know.

derfderf

karma_ wrote: »

Maybe you would like to provide some information as to who these others were?

The people with the authority to order the mission?

karma_

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

What alternative do you suggest karma? The Japanese army didn't want to surrender, and Japan didn't surrender after the first bomb.

I'm sure there were a lot of other options, possibly a blockade of Japan itself.

However in reality the war was already over and Japan was preparing to surrender with face. Dropping the bombs had little to do with ending the war, it was sending a nuclear message to the Soviet Union.

As despicable as it would still be to decimate a city, which by the way contained US POW's, to attempt to end a war to do so just to send a message somehow makes it worse.

Liam Byrne

wes wrote: »

I taught the mass murder of civilians was wrong, and the whole quickening the end of the world seems to have been an excuse the Allies used to kill a whole bunch of civilians to show off there new super weapon to the Russians.

Wouldn't have thought there was a need to teach that....it should be pretty intuitive.

derfderf

karma_ wrote: »

I'm sure there were a lot of other options, possibly a blockade of Japan itself.

However in reality the war was already over and Japan was preparing to surrender with face. Dropping the bombs had little to do with ending the war, it was sending a nuclear message to the Soviet Union.

As despicable as it would still be to decimate a city, which by the way contained US POW's, to attempt to end a war to do so just to send a message somehow makes it worse.

But they still didn't surrender after the first bomb? Do you not think if they were planning to surrender before hiroshima they would have forgot about saving face after it?

Jeboa Safari

karma_ wrote: »

I'm sure there were a lot of other options, possibly a blockade of Japan itself.

However in reality the war was already over and Japan was preparing to surrender with face. Dropping the bombs had little to do with ending the war, it was sending a nuclear message to the Soviet Union.

As despicable as it would still be to decimate a city, which by the way contained US POW's, to attempt to end a war to do so just to send a message somehow makes it worse.

If a blockade worded it would have also killed civilians, possibly more through famine, so I don't see how that makes using a nuke unjust.

There was an attempted coup in Japan to stop the surrender, so how long do you think the allies should have waited for Japan to surrender, all the while incurring losses, the bombings sped up the speed of Japans surrender.

And what if Russia decided to invade, would that have been any better?

derfderf

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

And what if Russia decided to invade, would that have been any better?

Look how it worked out for eastern Europe after Stalin deverted there instead of going straight for Berlin.

karma_

Would we accept the use of a nuclear weapon today on a civilian city?

I would like to think and hope that the vast majority of us would not, and if that being the case why do some people need to excuse the same action carried out 65 years ago?

karma_

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

If a blockade worded it would have also killed civilians, possibly more through famine, so I don't see how that makes using a nuke unjust.

There was an attempted coup in Japan to stop the surrender, so how long do you think the allies should have waited for Japan to surrender, all the while incurring losses, the bombings sped up the speed of Japans surrender.

And what if Russia decided to invade, would that have been any better?

I don't disagree that civilians would have died also, but surely it has to be a more palatable option than the one ultimately decided upon twice.

Jumpy

wes wrote: »

I taught the mass murder of civilians was wrong, and the whole quickening the end of the world seems to have been an excuse the Allies used to kill a whole bunch of civilians to show off there new super weapon to the Russians.

Thats a rather scary accidental mistake you made there. But apt.

alboco

wes wrote: »

I taught the mass murder of civilians was wrong, and the whole quickening the end of the world seems to have been an excuse the Allies used to kill a whole bunch of civilians to show off there new super weapon to the Russians.

From the middle of the thirties the japanese Imperial forces were slaughtering civilians. Of course these were only chinese and other ' brown' people so they dont matter.

karma_

alboco wrote: »

From the middle of the thirties the japanese Imperial forces were slaughtering civilians. Of course these were only chinese and other ' brown' people so they dont matter.

Mentioned already on the first page of this thread, and please explain what this has got to do with dropping an atomic bomb on a city?

Does one act justify the other? Or are both reprehensible?

Jeboa Safari

karma_ wrote: »

I don't disagree that civilians would have died also, but surely it has to be a more palatable option than the one ultimately decided upon twice.

How so? It would have caused more suffering I'd say

Laminations

wes wrote: »

Sorry, but the whole, the other guy did stuff that was far worse is really no excuse. I think everyone is well aware of what the other side did, and they were rightly punished for there crimes.

Sorry but isn't the bit in bold one of the main reasons for your support of Palestinian violence in the Israel-Palestine conflict?

Its either 'Israel are doing far worse' or 'Israel aren't being punished/sanctioned enough' ergo Palestinians are justified in their use of indiscriminate violence. You totally excuse 'crimes' when it suits you

Einhard

wes wrote: »

I taught the mass murder of civilians was wrong, and the whole quickening the end of the world seems to have been an excuse the Allies used to kill a whole bunch of civilians to show off there new super weapon to the Russians.

Do you really think the Soviets needed an illustration of how powerful the A bomb was? They had their own scientists working on it. They understood its awesome power. They didn't need to see the destruction of the cities, and the massive casualties to understand the bomb's capabilities. The idea that they reacted to Nagasaki with a "Jesus Christ, what the f**k was that?" is, frankly, just slightly less ludicrous than the notion that America killed hundreds of thosands to show off a weapon, the power of which everyone was aware of anyway.

karma_ wrote: »

One of a pair of the most despicable unpunished war crimes ever carried out.

karma_ wrote: »

No matter what heinous act carried out by whomever, there will always be some who seek to justify it.

karma_ wrote: »

More justification. The Japanese actions in China were some of teh most horrific incidents I have ever read about, I would never attempt to justify anything of the sort. However, what has that got to do with dropping an atomic weapon on a civilian target?

Too many people look at historical events as detatched from the actual historical context, and their opinions and judgements all stem from that flawed logic. It's easy to sit here and condemn the deaths of hundreds of thousands in Nagasaki and Hiroshima and the destruction of the two cities, and even understandable if one does not take into account the reasoning behind the strikes, as the above two posters are doing.

The Japanese were absolutely fanatical in defending the homeland. This was a nation which had isolated itself from the world until well into the 19th century. It forebade its citizens to leave on pain of death, Chritsians were executed, and interaction with foreigners severly limited and restricted. This sense of Japanese exceptionalism still remains in Japan even now, where foreigners are distrusted and xenophobia rampant. In the first half of the 20th century, it was far more pronounced. The Japanese believed that foreigners were lesser beings than them. This not merely applied to their neighbours, but to Westerners too. It partially explains the brutality of their expansion in the 30s. In light of this, the maniacal determination to defend the homeland, even to the death, can be put in historical context.

And that defence was absolutely maniacal. Even 60 years later, the willingness of Japanese troops to die for their country is shocking and disturbing. There was no surrender, no matter how hopeless the cause, no matter how insignificant the advantage to the allies might be. The casualty figures for the various battles fought for the Pacific islands bear this out.

Between 1943 and 1944, the two sides fought for control of the Gilbert and marshall islands. During this campaign, 1800 US soldiers lost their lives. 17 000 Japanese were killed. A shocking illustration of the latter's determination to fight to the death no matter how hopeless the cause, is the fact that only 141 Axs soliders were captured.


Iwo Jima is 1200km south of Tokyo. 18 000 Japanese troops sought to defend the island against a US force of 70 000. The odds were overwhelming, yet the Japanese dug in and refused to surrender. Of the original detachment of defenders, a few hundred survived after the island had been taken. Over 18 000 Japanese troops allowed themselves to be sluaghtered in what they would have known was a futile mission to retain the island. 6000 American troops died in wresting control from the Empire.

Churchill called the Battle of Okinawa as "among the most intense and famous in military history" and he could probably be accused of understatement in this. The assault lasted from April unti mid-June. By the end of May, the Japanese position had become absolutely hopeless. Yet, quelle surprise, they fought on to the bitter end. There was to be no surrender, and they were going to take as many American soldiers as possible with them. 117 000 Japanese troops defended the island. 110 000 died. Allied losses were 12 000. Shockingly, civilian casualties amounted to over 100 000, more than died in the initial blast in either Nagasaki or Hiroshima. many of these civilians either willingly commiteed mass suicide towards the end of the battle, or were forced to do so by Japanese troops.

These are just some of the horrific statistics for the Pacific Theatre in the War. Just three small islands or chains of islands, strategic lumps of rock hundreds, thousands of miles from the Japanese mainland, and they cost the lives of almost a quarter of a million, half of them civilian. The last two were fought merely weeks before the time the above two posters would have us believe that the Imperial authorities were preparing for an armistice. This is the problem with removing the historical from the history, with stripping away every and all context.

Even after the bombing of the two cities, there was fierce opposition to surrender. Hirohito had to personally intervene and order that terms be sought, and even then there were days of debate over whether Japan should continue to fight. Even after the official surrender, a significant proportion of the military were opposed to Hirohito's decision, and an unsuccessful coup d'etat was launched to prevent it. For months afterward the ending of the war, isoltaed Japanese detatchments in the Pacific refused to surrender, either refusing to believe the order, or believing it to be dishonourable.

All the above is to provide some context for the decision to bomb Nagasaki and Hiroshima. The decision was made in light of the fact that millions had perished in the Allied campaign to regain the Pacific region, and that many millions more would have died had they been forced to invade the mainland, which seemed very likely after the slaughter in Okinawa a few weeks previously.

It is striking incidentally, that the objections to Truman's decision stems not so much from the suffering they inflicted, but from the the use of the A bomb. More than half a million people died in the various firebombings of Tokyo for example, with more casualties in one single night in one instance, than in both Nagasaki and Hiroshima combined. And Tokyo was just one of many cities to be firebombed. And yet who has ever heard about, or protested against, these incidents? Very few, and the reason, in my opinion, is that when people object to the events of August 6th and 9th, they are reacting, in part, to the nuclear era itself, and the threat that it poses. They are abhorred not so much by the massive loss of life, but by the manner in which it was taken. They are thinking not with their heads, but with their hearts. And this, coupled with their refusal to consider the context, leads them, in my opinion, to the wrong conclusion when considering the bombings.

alboco

karma_ wrote: »

Mentioned already on the first page of this thread, and please explain what this has got to do with dropping an atomic bomb on a city?

Does one act justify the other? Or are both reprehensible?

My apologies for posting without reading the thread properly.
Does a lesser evil justify preventing a greater evil ? yes of course. What is the hang up with the fact that it was an atomic bomb ? The reality is that the fire bombings of the german cities like Dresden etc produce far more casualities than the ATOM BOMBS.
japan was like a plague that descended upon Asia and thank God truman ended it.

Tootle

karma_ wrote: »

Only this morning I have read reports of some sections in Japan asking for teh US to apologise for dropping the bomb.

Also how Japan treated her own citizens is really beside the point as It was the US who decided on this course of action and Japan did not decide to drop the bomb on itself.

The response I was giving was to the opinions of "some of the most influential people in the west". I was giving the Japanese point of view from the Horishima Peace museum. Their hope is that this type of atrocity would never happen again. They gave the facts of the build up to the event without blame and told it from both sides. How they treated their own people or others from other countries is very much the point.

enda1

I think it was a great idea to drop the bombs.

I think they saved far more lives than they cost when you consider the Japanese attitude towards the lives of their own citizens, pows and the Chinese.

Also don't people forget that more than 100k (some historians think it could actually have been multiples of this number too) died in Tokyo fire bombing in one night, more than died in Hiroshima in one night. I'd say the death from the nuke was better than being chased by a wall of fire too...

alboco

enda1 wrote: »

I think it was a great idea to drop the bombs.

I think they saved far more lives than they cost when you consider the Japanese attitude towards the lives of their own citizens, pows and the Chinese.

Also don't people forget that more than 100k (some historians think it could actually have been multiples of this number too) died in Tokyo fire bombing in one night, more than died in Hiroshima in one night. I'd say the death from the nuke was better than being chased by a wall of fire too...

Enda, you are being logical which doesnt seem to be appreciated by all posters.