1 edit
Originally posted by STANGHmmm... I thnk you should look at the events of WWII a little closer.
Apparently not part of the deal. Anyway, what did USA save us from when we face losing so much more within the next couple of generations ... and America "saved us" by killing over 70,000 people in Hiroshima and then killing over 70,000 mor ...[text shortened]... e's other people blowing up bombs that also think it's worth it.
If we had not "saved" Oz.....Germany had a much larger Army. One that could occupy Australia. Japan most likely would have handed Oz over to Hitler. (if not, refer to rape of Nanking below) Imagine for a minute what it would have been like have a Nazi army march across your country in 1942...Yep, anyone not Arayan rounded up and burned alive in ovens. Most able bodied men forced in to their army. Women raped at will. All traces of Australian culture and histroy destroyed. You fail to realize that if Japan had invaded, Australia would have ceased to exist. It would have been New South Germany or Japan.
Still think Japanese invasion wouldn't be that bad? Look up "rape of Nanking" on google. Japanese soldiers raped and murdered 80,000 women and slaughtered another 360,000 civilians...and that was just one city in China. What threat faces your country today that is worse than that?
Ahhh, the nuclear bombing of Japan. Well, read the story above and imagine that happening to the entire world. The U.S. used the bombs as a last-ditch effort to stop the Japanese. If we continued fighting conventionally it would have drawn the war out much longer driving the death toll into the millions. While the bombings were unfortunate and regretable, they prevented the Japanese from killing millions.
Originally posted by bekiekeWhat isn't really common knowledge is that during the firebombing campaign preceding the atom bombs, more people were killed on more than 1 night than were killed at Hiroshima or Nagasaki. That from the mouth of Robert S. McNamara, who as an analyst during WWII, inputted upon how firebombing the major cities of Japan would assist the American war effort. He admits in 'The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara' that Over 100,000 japanese (mostly civilians) were killed in 1 night, and then proceeds to compare the damage done to over 20 Japanese cities with percentages of damage done to comparable American cities. It goes something like... 75% of New York destroyed in 1 night, 90% of LA, 50% of Detroit, 60% of Boston, etc, etc, etc, etc.
of course it wasn't worth it in your eyes; it would have been much better if there had been over 100,000 Americans killed in an invasion of Japan.
There was no necessity to use the atomic weapons whatsoever, seeing as the firebombing was so 'successfull' in destroying human lives and property. One of the main reasons for the use of the atomic weapons was as a live scientific test. Explain to me why they used plutonium in 1 bomb and uranium in another if they weren't experimenting? Although our history books don't say it, Japan were in a hopeless situation prior to the nukes. They had instructed their ambassador in Moscow to work on peace negotiations with the allies in June 1945, 2 months b4 the nukes. The Americans wouldn't accept any peace efforts partially because they had spent so much money on Manhatten Project (kind of ironic), which was the codename for the development of the nukes. It was also a very strong message to Russia, who were due to declare war on Japan 90 days after the end of the European war, August 8th. Thus, the dropping of nukes showed Russia that it could and would be done if you step out of line. This was the first major operation of the cold diplomatic war with Russia.
And so, there would never have been an invasion of Japan. And besides, saving American lives wasn't a primary influence on the decisions. Message on 31 July from Headquarters, u.s. Army Strategic Air Forces, Guam to the War Department:
Reports prisoner of war sources, not verified by photos, give location of Allied prisoner of war camp one mile north of center of city of Nagasaki. Does this influence the choice of this target for initial Centerboard operation? Request immediate reply? Obviously history knows what the reply was.
I've heard other Americans justify the dropping of the bombs by trying to say that the minute the first American soldier touched japanese soil, there was going to be a country wide Hari Kari. So the Americans were thinking of the Japanese when they decided to kill hundreds of thousands of them through bombing? I can just hear it said... 'we've got to kill them to save them from themselves!'
D
Originally posted by RagnorakThat's an intersting fact of the fire bombing and very accurate.
What isn't really common knowledge is that during the firebombing campaign preceding the atom bombs, more people were killed on more than 1 night than were killed at Hiroshima or Nagasaki. That from the mouth of Robert S. McNamara, who as an analyst during WWII, inputted upon how firebombing the major cities of Japan would assist the American war effort. ...[text shortened]... I can just hear it said... 'we've got to kill them to save them from themselves!'
D
America was winning. We had Japan retreating...But they were heavily fortified around the islands of Japan.
The bombs were dropped for one reason: to end the war immediately.
I find it very hard to believe the the Japanense were willing to surrender before the bombs were dropped. During the war, they were revered for their courage, honor, and willingness to fight to the death.
During WWII, over 780,000 died annually (on average) due to the war. If the bombs stopped fighting even three months early it could have saved 195,000 lives.
I wonder if the residents of Nanking felt the bombs were necessary?
Originally posted by Saint NickHey, I know about the atrocities committed by the Japanese against the Chinese. 33 million people is an awful lot of people to kill. We also, all know about atrocities committed by Americans in Vietnam...
That's an intersting fact of the fire bombing and very accurate.
America was winning. We had Japan retreating...But they were heavily fortified around the islands of Japan.
The bombs were dropped for one reason: to end the war immediately.
I find it very hard to believe the the Japanense were willing to surrender before the bombs were dropped. Durin ...[text shortened]... saved 195,000 lives.
I wonder if the residents of Nanking felt the bombs were necessary?
1. Experimenting with new forms of dirty bombs on civilian targets, these dirty bombs were loaded with plastic spikes, which got imbedded in people, wouldn't show up on x-ray and so caused a slow and extremely painful death for thousands of people.
2. Using agent orange to defoliate thousands of acres of virgin jungle near Danang. This even though it's use was banned in u.s.a. due to scientific evidence of birth defects, and cancer causing side effects. Children are still to this day being born with birth defects.
3. Bombed the dikes of North Vietnam so that the Vietnamese couldn't control the water, and so they couldn't grow rice, their staple food. I'm not sure if you know this, but bombing dikes and dams is actually a war crime. The 'heroes' of the movie dambusters were no better than the any other war criminal. Don't get me started on war crimes... how can a German uboat commander charged with war crimes call Allied submarine commanders as defendants. If an Allied commander did it, then it can't be a war crime. Uboard commander innocent. Its a joke.
4. Countless villages of unarmed innocent (as innocent as you can be when you're being pressurised by both sides to help them) peasants were slaughtered by marines.
5. A massive clandestine bombing campaign of the Ho Chi Minh trail in CAMBODIA leading to about 200,000 Khmer deaths directly, and over two million by creating circumstances which were ideal for the Khmer Rouge to go from a tiny peasant movement to gain power.
6.
7.
8.
The list goes on and on. My point is, does that mean that nuclear bombs should be dropped on New York and Detroit?
As for Japan not being willing to surrender...
Here's a link to a declassified memorandum by Ralph A. Bard, Undersecretary of the Navy, to Secretary of War Stimson, June 27, 1945 http://www.dannen.com/decision/bardmemo.html
There was one thing standing in the way of the Japanese surrendering. America wanted unconditional surrender, the Japanese wanted 1 condition...that the emperor, a holy figure to the Japanese remain in place.
The American's had broken Japanese codes b4 the war, and so intercepted a message from Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo to his ambassador in Moscow on July 13th: 'Unconditional surrender is the only obstacle to peace'. This was obviously relayed to the president, but he wouldn't even bend that tiny bit. He was a holy figure ffs, not a president or king or prime minister.
D
1 edit
Originally posted by STANGYou are so naive! If it weren't for the US of A, you'd be Aussinese, speaking Japanese and feeding your Koi...where did you go to school? University of Tokyo? 🙄 😲
Apparently not part of the deal. Anyway, what did USA save us from when we face losing so much more within the next couple of generations ... and America "saved us" by killing over 70,000 people in Hiroshima and then killing over 70,000 mor ...[text shortened]... e's other people blowing up bombs that also think it's worth it.
1 edit
Originally posted by RagnorakGreat website! I read the whole thing. But, it supported my claims exactly. It said nothing about the Japanese will willing to surrender. Only that they should be given the opportunity to surrender. Like you said. Many more people died in Tokyo and they would not surrender. In fact, the only reason they did surrender is because they thought we had more bombs. Not becuase they lost two cities. Did you read these letters? :
Hey, I know about the atrocities committed by the Japanese against the Chinese. 33 million people is an awful lot of people to kill. We also, all know about atrocities committed by Americans in Vietnam...
1. Experimenting with new forms ...[text shortened]... holy figure ffs, not a president or king or prime minister.
D
"the Japanese nation should be given the opportunity to consider the consequences of further refusal to surrender"
"if Japan still refused to surrender our nation might then, in certain circumstances, find itself forced to resort to the use of atomic bombs. Such a step, however, ought not to be made at any time without seriously considering the moral responsibilities which are involved"
"the opportunity of saving American lives by immediate military use"
"we see no acceptable alternative to direct military use"
Again, seriuos consideration was given prior to the use of the bomb. and it was finally used as a last resort to save lives. Which it did.
A few things to consider about the U.S. attacking Japan:
1. They attacked us first, then we retaliated.
2. They targeted civilians first, then we retaliated.
3. Now matter how evil you think you think the U.S. is, How wrong you think the U.S. was, Japan did things that were 5 times worse.
4. There is a very good chance your parents (or grandparents) would have been disemboweled, raped, and beheaded if it were not for the U.S.
But I'm sure you will continue to complain about the U.S. interfering in other countries affairs. It's your freedom to due so. The lives of 400,000 US soldiers ensured that for you.
Using Vietnam to justify the invalidity of using the A-bomb is ridiculous. Are you trying to say that the U.S. did something wrong in 1945 because of something they did in 1969? The issue of debate was WWII. Vietnam was a completely different war for a different reason and is a issue.
2 edits
Originally posted by chancremechanic
You are so naive! If it weren't for the US of A, you'd be Aussinese, speaking Japanese and feeding your Koi...where did you go to school? University of Tokyo? 🙄 😲
This following is absolutely Off Topic and I don't mean to make light of a dark time in our World's history but it reminds me of a little article I recently came across in terms of occupation and culture...
"In Japan, the matrimonial custom had survived feudal revolutions, world wars, industrialization and even the American occupation. Up until the mid-196os, Japanese parents arranged proper marriages for their children through trusted 'intermediaries. The ceremony was then consummated, according to Shinto law, by the bride and groom both drinking rice wine from the same wooden bowl. This simple arrangement had persisted for more than a millennium. There was no tradition for romance, courtship, seduction and prenuptial love in Japan; and no tradition that required the gift of a diamond engagement ring.
Then, in 1967, halfway around the world, a South African diamond company decided to change the Japanese courtship ritual. It retained J. Walter Thompson, the largest advertising agency in the world, to embark on a campaign to popularize diamond engagement rings in Japan. It was not an easy task. Even the quartering of millions of American soldiers in Japan for a decade had not resulted in any substantial Japanese interest in giving diamonds as a token of love.
The advertising agency began its campaign by subtly suggesting that diamonds were a visible sign of modern Western values. It created a series of color advertisements in Japanese magazines showing very beautiful women displaying their diamond rings. The women all had Western facial features and wore European clothes. Moreover, in most of the advertisements, the women were involved in some activity that defied Japanese traditions, such as bicycling, camping, yachting, ocean-swimming and mountain-climbing. In the background, there usually stood a Japanese man, also attired in fashionable European clothes. In addition, almost all of the automobiles, sporting equipment and other artifacts in the picture, were conspicuous foreign imports. The message in these ads was clear: diamonds represent a sharp break with the Oriental past and an entry point into modern life.
The campaign was remarkably successful. Until 1959 the importation of diamonds had not even been permitted by the postwar Japanese government. When the campaign began in 1968, less than 5 percent of Japanese women getting married received a diamond engagement ring. By 1972 the proportion had risen to 27 percent. By 1978, half of all Japanese women who were married wore a diamond on their ring finger. And, by 1981, some 6o percent of Japanese brides wore diamonds. In a mere thirteen years, the fifteen-hundred-year Japanese tradition was radically revised. Diamonds became a staple of the Japanese marriage. And Japan became, after the United States, the second largest market for the sale of diamond engagement rings. It was all part of the diamond invention."
prologue to "The Diamond Invention" by Edward Jay Epstein
"
Originally posted by RBHILLAre the Iraqi people free? Just because, b4 the war, Bush sold the idea of American soldiers being greeted as liberators, with flowers and hugs, doesn't mean its true. As far as I can see on the news, the people are living in a war zone, with curfews, armed men (from a foreign country) enforcing where they can or can't go. They couldn't protest against Saddam, and as far as I can see, they still can't protest-as demonstrated by the fact that 14 protestors were murdered during a peaceful protest.
We set the Iraq people free, that is what matters.
And yes we lost some people and thoughs are the real Heros not the ones that came back.
And Iraq got to play Soccer in the Olympics and almost beat my Italy for the Bronzes. I am Itailian and when for the Iraqies.
So they were allowed play in a football competition. It wasn't Hussein that stopped them from playing pre war. It was sanctions imposed on Iraq. These same sanctions resulted in the infant/young-child mortality rate in Iraq rising from 50 per 1,000 live births in 1990 to 133 per 1,000 in 2001 (meaning that more than 13 percent of Iraqi children die before the age of five). It is the only instance of a sustained increase in mortality in a stable population of more than 2 million in the last 200 years.
I know Saddam was a tyrant. I know he killed a lot of his own people, but Turkey are committing very similar atrocities against the Kurdish people. Are they getting the negative publicity that Saddam got? Are they hell, they're getting billions every year from America, because they are one of America's footholds in the middle east, along with Israel (who btw, are the largest recipient of 'aid' in the world).
D
Originally posted by amethyst deceiverWay off yopic, but interesting read. Reminds me of how Hallmark decided to run around a create holidays.
This following is absolutely Off Topic and I don't mean to make light of a dark time in our World's history but it reminds me of a little article I recently came across in terms of occupation and culture...
"In Japan, the matrimonial custom had survived feudal revolutions, world wars, industrialization and even the American occupation. ...[text shortened]... the diamond invention."
prologue to "The Diamond Invention" by Edward Jay Epstein
"
Originally posted by Saint NickDidn't the British try to remove Australian culture and history?
Women raped at will. All traces of Australian culture and histroy destroyed. You fail to realize that if Japan had invaded, Australia would have ceased to exist. ......
The U.S. used the bombs as a last-ditch effort to stop the Japanese. If we continued fighting conventionally it would have drawn the war out much longer driving the death toll into the ...[text shortened]... bombings were unfortunate and regretable, they prevented the Japanese from killing millions.
Don't Aborigines still get the raw end just because they don't want to conform and accumulate wealth, our God.
Ah, the old prediction line, when will you start killing babies in case they become mass murderers? You are partly correct about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the test value was more important, just as using German scientist was to get us in space before the Russians or to the moon!