64 Years ago, Yesterday... (Warning some graphic material)

What a load of revisionist, pansy-assed crap.

There were more killed in the 81 days of fighting on Okinawa than both atomic bombs killed.

Add 'em up. Japanese Army killed, Japanese civilians killed, and Americans killed.

And somehow, this God-awful slugging it out for another year or two with the slaughter to be a few million is preferable to two flashes, and it's over with?

Those civilians in Nagasaki and Hiroshima were going to die anyway. Plus another twenty for each one of them.

I recall an old Japanese soldier stating he would be dead if not for the bombs. He said he and millions of his countrymen would be dead. He said those bombs SAVED millions of Japanese.

For those of you who are unhappy with the actions of the US, tough ****. Choke on it.

You rather seen millions killed instead.

-SNIP-

Mod Edit -

1b.) Profanity: You will not use profanity in our forums, and will neither post with language or content that is obscene

Terms and Conditions

[edit on Sat, 08 Aug 2009 01:08:11 -0500 by MemoryShock]

reply to post by Oatmeal

What of the hundreds of thousands of Chinese and Korean women and children? Are they not innocent too?

Exactly. Everything needs to be considered here. Look at a map of where the Japanese were at the height of WW2. Think of all the raping and butchering of women and children that was going on all over the Pacific. What about all the people defending their own homelands from the Japanese.

They were everywhere in the Pacific. Look at how they mucked up Korea and Vietnam. Maybe there would be no Peoples Republic of China now, either. Maybe Russia would be a little smaller. Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah.... On and on and on...

Compared to the ferocity of the Japanese war machine, Germany was a kitten. The Japanese were fighting by entirely different rules. They would rather die fighting than surrender.

I am only concerned with honoring the memory of the 106,000 U.S. service men and women who died in this Pacific Theater engagement and the 248,000 who were badly wounded there.

Interesting that I am suppose to feel bad for an enemy who's primary mission was to utterly destroy me, my brother, my sister, my parents, and my neighbors.

The sad truth is (as brought up by previous posters) that the Japanese were the aggressors of this war and followed through with scorching contempt to completely destroy it's so-called inferior race enemies with a dedication and single mindedness rivaled only by the nazis.

Let us not forget the 1000s of dutch, british, australian, chinese, korean, malayasian, and filipino who were captured and placed in Japanese concentration camps all over asia.

To the OP of this thread I respectfully suggest you read, "The Yamato Dynasty" by Sterling Seagrave which details Japan's political motivations in WW2 so eloquently.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." -- George Santyana

Originally posted by MADCZAR

If you beleive what you were taught in school about history ur definately going down the wrong path. Anglo history has been changed to make Anglos look dominate over other cultures. English scholars created a Indo European culture so they didnt have to admit are language comes from sanskrit. History should constantly be revised when flaws are found in acepted knowledge.

And spelling should constantly be revised to suit the whim of the moment, I take it?

Claiming a single origin for the English language is, rather like the spelling and grammar in your post, a prime example of haste over good scholarship. Then again, it fits the implied theme of your post (which seems to be that any 'pro-Anglo' account of history is obviously false) too well not to use it. Beyond providing a nice supporting pole for your straw man, it contributes nothing to the current discussion.

That said, I'll go out on a limb and agree that, when 'common knowledge' is found to be in error, it should be corrected. On the other hand, 'correcting' it just because it doesn't fit with a given point of view is the most dangerous sort of poison. How was it explained to Winston Smith, again? "Those who control the past, control the future." Revision for the sake of accuracy is a necessary part of scholarship. Revision for the sake of agenda is the death knell of rational thought and reasoned discussion.

See the new Thread- Hiroshima, Those evil Americans!!!

reply to post by TrustMeImaSalesman


Not another "Bash the Evil Americans" Thread!

reply to post by IntastellaBurst


WOW, no offence, I am a 50 year old man and I never heard that we bombed that after the treaty. Holy cow! Can I ask where I can find more info on this? I am, I am, beside in shock, I would like to learn more.

reply to post by silo13


It's a shame that so many people had to die such a pointless death.
It's never right to kill innocent civilians, in my opinion.
I guess these things can be perceived as 'right' - when you're on the right side of the bomb that is...

reply to post by beenhereb4

WOW, no offence, I am a 50 year old man and I never heard that we bombed that after the treaty. Holy cow! Can I ask where I can find more info on this? I am, I am, beside in shock, I would like to learn more.

It is not true! Just a revisionist way of looking at historical fact. Read previous posts.

reply to post by TruthParadox

It's a shame that so many people had to die such a pointless death. It's never right to kill innocent civilians, in my opinion. I guess these things can be perceived as 'right' - when you're on the right side of the bomb that is...

It is a shame that so many had to die. People die in war. But, when Nazis and Japanese Imperialists start a war, there is only one thing to do, defend your country. Defend free peoples, defend helpless women and children who are being raped, tortured and worked to death. The only honorable thing to do.

Originally posted by carnival_of_souls2047
I am only concerned with honoring the memory of the 106,000 U.S. service men and women who died in this Pacific Theater engagement and the 248,000 who were badly wounded there.

Interesting that I am suppose to feel bad for an enemy who's primary mission was to utterly destroy me, my brother, my sister, my parents, and my neighbors.

You're not supposed to feel bad... But you should at least feel some level of sympathy for those who never asked to be in anyone's crosshairs.
Just because people lived in Japan doesn't mean they wanted to 'utterly destroy' you or anyone else or that they agreed with what their leaders were doing...
What about the children that were killed - were they trying to destroy you or your family? Did they have an evil agenda?

Originally posted by Oatmeal
It is a shame that so many had to die. People die in war. But, when Nazis and Japanese Imperialists start a war, there is only one thing to do, defend your country. Defend free peoples, defend helpless women and children who are being raped, tortured and worked to death. The only honorable thing to do.

Even if it was technically the best choice in the end (and who really knows one way or the other), I wouldn't call it honorable to kill innocent civilians.
At best a necessary evil...
At worst an unnecessary evil...

When the bomb finally Dropped, 'the Japs' had been thoroughly demonized for years (Dooper will remember them from his childhood):

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/60a835d26791.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2cc8300c7f00.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a7edcdbafcc2.gif[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/dd43f537af73.png[/atsimg]


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ead004f2bde8.jpg[/atsimg]


[edit on 7-8-2009 by Exuberant1]

Originally posted by TruthParadox
reply to post by silo13

 

It's a shame that so many people had to die such a pointless death.
It's never right to kill innocent civilians, in my opinion.
I guess these things can be perceived as 'right' - when you're on the right side of the bomb that is...

It's never 'right' to kill civilians...unfortunately, given the industrial nature of 20th Century warfare, and the annoying habit of civilians to live near industrial centers, transport hubs, ports, and other military targets, it is sometimes necessary. That's a key distinction. Once a full-out war starts between two industrial nations, most conventional ideas of 'right' and 'wrong' go out the window, replaced by the simplest and most Darwinian morality of all, namely, "Anything that allows my country to win is, by definition, right". To our credit ("Our" in this case being humanity in general), we have artificially limited ourselves from using some of the more outrageous forms of canned disaster (See also the Geneva Conventions, the Hague Conventions, and the Geneva Protocol). Artificial limitations aside, though, the Darwinian standard is the only one that applies in a full-out war.

Do you really think, had the neutrons been on the other isotope, that the Japanese Army (given the existence of both the atomic bomb and a suitable delivery vehicle) would've hesitated more than 30 seconds in using such a device against the U.S.? Perhaps you think that Unit 516 was just a Japanese Army medical unit? If you answered 'yes' to either of those, you need to take a closer look at history. The Japanese were preparing, testing, and stockpiling chemical and biological agents that, had they been employed, would have killed at least as many people as the atomic bombs. You'll probably respond with the tired old polemic that "Two wrongs don't make a right"...and I'll remind you once again that 'right' and 'wrong' are not the same in wartime.

Given the projections of Allied and Japanese casualties for Operations Olympic and Coronet, the Japanese should count their blessings. Had we opted for invasion over nuclear attack, the casualties from Hiroshima and Nagasaki would've been nothing but rounding errors on the butcher's bill.

My opinion, as worthless as it may be.....

It happened 64 years ago, most of us here weren't around then. So why complain about it today? Its not like complaining, debating or arguing is going to erase what happened back then. Worry about tomorrow, learn from yesterday, enjoy today.

reply to post by TruthParadox

Even if it was technically the best choice in the end (and who really knows one way or the other), I wouldn't call it honorable to kill innocent civilians. At best a necessary evil... At worst an unnecessary evil...

It is honorable to save hundreds of thousands of lives by dropping just two bombs. President Truman made the right choice. As stated above, the attack on Okinawa killed more people than the two bombs combined. Many Japanese were grateful to us for dropping the bombs and not invading their country, which was training women and children to defend their homeland. All would have been slaughtered. Dropping the two bombs to save lives on both sides was a very difficult, but honorable decision.

Originally posted by silo13

The two cities were of limited military value. Civilians outnumbered troops in Hiroshima five or six to one.

They were left relatively untouched before the A-Bombs to show the destructive power of the bombs. In that sense they were of ultimate strategic value, as Japan surrendered right after those blasts and seeing what one plane could do to a city. Say what you will, Japan only surrendered AFTER Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

War is a brutal, deadly ordeal. I don't understand why some people think wars can end nicely for both sides......it just doesn't work that way.

Originally posted by TruthParadox

Originally posted by carnival_of_souls2047
I am only concerned with honoring the memory of the 106,000 U.S. service men and women who died in this Pacific Theater engagement and the 248,000 who were badly wounded there.

Interesting that I am suppose to feel bad for an enemy who's primary mission was to utterly destroy me, my brother, my sister, my parents, and my neighbors.

You're not supposed to feel bad... But you should at least feel some level of sympathy for those who never asked to be in anyone's crosshairs.
Just because people lived in Japan doesn't mean they wanted to 'utterly destroy' you or anyone else or that they agreed with what their leaders were doing...
What about the children that were killed - were they trying to destroy you or your family? Did they have an evil agenda?

TruthParadox, it should go without saying that I don't consider children or other innocents to be the enemy and my heart as a human being goes out to those who perished in this massive conflict wether it be man, woman or child.

By the same token, you should feel some level of sympathy for the men, women, and children who were killed, tortured, or maimed due to an unprovoked attack by an enemy that considered us a subhuman race.

When I mentioned the Japanese concentration camps from my earlier post I was speaking from personal knowledge. My brother-in-law, Peter, (who is dutch) was a small boy when he was imprisoned in Indonesia along with his mother and 2 sisters (one of whom was only 6 months old) by the japanese.

Young Peter, his two sisters, and their mother lanquished in that camp for 2 years where they had witnessed horrors you couldn't possibly imagine by their hosts. One horrible day his mother witnessed the hanging of 6 year old boy to serve as a lesson to his mother for some imaginary transgression (she probably tried to steal food for her babies).

They would have died there if Japan was not forced into surrendering in the final days. They spent an entire year in a hospital after those events but they survived.

Needless to say, suffering is not the exclusive province of the japanese civilians in a war of this magnitude. We all suffered.

Originally posted by Jezus

But isn't it ironic that the country going around telling other countries they can't be trusted with nukes is the only country in the history of earth to use one?

two actually...

No not really....

reply to post by dooper

I dare you to go to Nagasaki and Hiroshima and say that... to the ones still affected by radiation to this day... its always 'okay' and 'better' to do something unless you're the victim, right..?
You know Japan was surrendering to the Russians but the US just wouldnt have that. They knew the only way to have Japanese surrender to them was something god-awful