Japan Marks 68th Anniversary Of Hiroshima Bombing

[Purveyor]

Some 50,000 people stood for a minute of silence in Hiroshima’s peace park near the epicenter of the early morning blast on Aug. 6, 1945, that killed up to 140,000 people. The bombing of Nagasaki three days later killed tens of thousands more, prompting Japan’s surrender to the World War II Allies.

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, among many dignitaries attending the event, said that as the sole country to face nuclear attack, Japan has the duty to seek to wipe out nuclear weapons.

The anniversary comes as Japan is torn over restarting nuclear power plants shut down since the massive earthquake and tsunami in 2011 damaged reactors at a plant in Fukushima, causing meltdowns. More than 100,000 people remain displaced because of radioactivity near the plant. Abe favors restarting plants under new safety guidelines, while many Japanese oppose such restarts.

There are over 200,000 “hibakusha,” victims from the atomic bombings, with an average age of nearly 79. Many gathered in Hiroshima to burn incense, bowing in prayer.

In a “peace declaration” speech, Hiroshima’s mayor, Kazumi Matsui, described the pain of those who survived, only to be shunned as contaminated by the radiation.

MORE...

http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/japan-marks-68th-anniversary-of-hiroshima-bombing/article4994832.ece?homepage=true

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

1. That we nuked a defeated nation, TWICE, that was looking to negotiate terms of surrender

will be to our eternal shame, and a large reason why we are so fearful today... because if we can do that... and we are the 'good' guys... just imagine the HORROR 'out there'.

Hiroshima, the 2nd most horrid word in the American lexicon, succeeded only by, NAGASAKI.

[Heather MC]

2. "Good Guys" yeah right

We were terrorists, but it's ok when we do it we are America, but if any one even thinks of doing that to us. we will invade whatever country the dart lands on, oust it's leaders, send the entire country into turmoil, take all their resources.

Then after we have completely fucked them over we will arm one rebel side with guns and money and call it nation building.

Yep "The Good Guys"

[Spider Jerusalem]

20. There were no terms to negotiate.

Unconditional surrender was the only thing that was acceptable. The Japanese were not prepared to surrender unconditionally until after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. An invasion of the Japanese home islands was projected to have a minimum of a quarter-million Allied casualties, and Japanese casualties numbering in the millions.

And you want horror? Nanking. Bataan. Unit 731. Comfort women. The Burma railway. The Allies, unlike the Japanese, weren't engaging in mass rape, mass slaughter, forced labour, torture and execution of prisoners, and forced medical experiments.

[quinnox]

22. you might want to read post #5 down below

It contradicts your opinions on this pretty thoroughly.

[Spider Jerusalem]

24. No, it actually doesn't

my "opinions" are not opinions but facts. As late as 9 August 1945, the day of the bombing of Nagasaki, the Japanese Supreme Council were not prepared to surrender unconditionally.

In the middle of the meeting, shortly after 11:00, news arrived that Nagasaki, on the west coast of Kyūshū, had been hit by a second atomic bomb (called "Fat Man" by the United States). By the time the meeting ended, the Big Six had split 3–3. Suzuki, Tōgō, and Admiral Yonai favored Tōgō's one additional condition to Potsdam, while Generals Anami, Umezu, and Admiral Toyoda insisted on three further terms that modified Potsdam: that Japan handle their own disarmament, that Japan deal with any Japanese war criminals, and that there be no occupation of Japan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#August_8.E2.80.939:_Soviet_invasion_and_Nagasaki

[quinnox]

27. no offense, but I'll take the opinions of those who were there and fought this war

over yours in this matter. If these war heroes and military Generals are all saying they think Japan was ready to surrender, and bombing wasn't necessary, I believe them.

[quinnox]

33. well, then apparently so was Dwight D. Eisenhower, and other World War 2 heroes

Read this --

DWIGHT EISENHOWER

"...in 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my Abelief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."

- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380

In a Newsweek interview, Eisenhower again recalled the meeting with Stimson:

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

- Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63


Dwight David "Ike" Eisenhower (pronounced /ˈaɪzənhaʊər/, EYE-zən-how-ər; October 14, 1890 – March 28, 1969) was the 34th President of the United States from 1953 until 1961. He had previously been a five-star general in the United States Army during World War II and served as Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe.

And that is just one of these great men who said this, there were others. Apparently, they were not in receipt of your "facts", I mean, opinions.

[quinnox]

38. By the way, here is more reading material for you

You might want to check it out and perhaps you will revise your opinion regarding the bombs being dropped on Japan. Apparently, it was not necessary, but Americans have been taught otherwise. (Probably propagandized is a better way to put it, after all, we were the good guys, and our actions were noble, right?)

Were the Atomic Bombings Necessary?

On August 14, 1945, Japan surrendered and World War II was over. American policy makers have argued that the atomic bombs were the precipitating cause of the surrender. Historical studies of the Japanese decision, however, reveal that what the Japanese were most concerned with was the Soviet Union’s entry into the war. Japan surrendered with the understanding that the emperor system would be retained. The US agreed to do what Truman had been advised to do before the bombings: it signaled to the Japanese that they would be allowed to retain the emperor. This has left historians to speculate that the war could have ended without either the use of the two atomic weapons on Japanese cities or an Allied invasion of Japan.

The US Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that, even without the use of the atomic bombs, without the Soviet Union entering the war and without an Allied invasion of Japan, the war would have ended before December 31, 1945 and, in all likelihood, before November 1, 1945. Prior to the use of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the US was destroying Japanese cities at will with conventional bombs. The Japanese were offering virtually no resistance. The US dropped atomic bombs on a nation that had been largely defeated and some of whose leaders were seeking terms of surrender.

Despite strong evidence that the atomic bombings were not responsible for ending the war with Japan, most Americans, particularly those who lived through World War II, believe that they were. Many World War II era servicemen who were in the Pacific or anticipated being shipped there believed that the bombs saved them from fighting hard battles on the shores of Japan, as had been fought on the islands of Iwo Jima and Okinawa. What they did not take into account was that the Japanese were trying to surrender, that the US had broken the Japanese codes and knew they were trying to surrender, and that, had the US accepted their offer, the war could have ended without the use of the atomic bombs.

Most high ranking Allied military leaders were appalled by the use of the atomic bombs. General Eisenhower, the Supreme Commander of Allied Forces Europe, recognized that Japan was ready to surrender and said, “It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.” General Hap Arnold, commander of the US Army Air Corps pointed out, “Atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse.”

Admiral William Leahy, Truman’s chief of staff, put it this way: “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. In being the first to use it, we adopted an ethical standard common to barbarians of the Dark Ages. Wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.”

More of this scholarly article -- http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/db_article.php?article_id=381

[quinnox]

42. You first, Bub

[Yukari Yakumo]

40. "looking to negotiate terms of surrender"? Bullshit.

Just read this and try to make that claim again.

http://www.theamericanpresident.us/images/truman_bomb.pdf

[Waiting For Everyman]

49. That's a very informative link.

Thanks for posting it.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

51. Here is a more rounded LINK - HIROSHIMA WAS IT NECESSARY?

http://www.doug-long.com/

See also...
"THE DECISION TO USE THE ATOMIC BOMB"
http://www.doug-long.com/debate.htm

[Journeyman]

3. Deaths attributed to leukemia occurred more often at Hiroshima than at Nagasaki. . .

Deaths attributed to leukemia occurred more often at Hiroshima than at Nagasaki. Why?
The United States experimented with uranium on the first city, with plutonium on the next.
Pray for us, if you like. Not that it matters.

[Archae]

4. I'd like to see you revisionists say any of this to a Pacific War veteran.

Japan may have been beaten, on paper.

But they were *NOT* going to give up.

The military caste wanted to continue the war even to the full destruction of Japan.

As is, after the bombs, the Emperor Hirohito recorded his speech ending the war, a group of fanatical Army officers killed their CO, and tried to destroy the recording.
But they couldn't find it.

So they killed themseleves.

I have two uncles who would have been in the invasion force, of Japan.
They expected to die, based on the slaughter they saw on Iwo Jima and Okinawa.

Japanese civilians were training to attack Allied troopers with bamboo spears.
They would have been slaughtered in the hundreds of thousands.

As is, the air campaigns against Tokyo, Yokohama, etc, killed many times what the two A-bombs did.

People were also starving to death, like N Korea, the military got preference in food, medicine, etc.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

5. Pacific War Vet Leaders (Quotes)

~~~DWIGHT EISENHOWER

"...in [July] 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."

- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380

In a Newsweek interview, Eisenhower again recalled the meeting with Stimson:

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

- Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63


~~~ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. LEAHY

(Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman)
"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."

- William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441.

~~~GENERAL DOUGLAS MacARTHUR

MacArthur biographer William Manchester has described MacArthur's reaction to the issuance by the Allies of the Potsdam Proclamation to Japan: "...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary."

William Manchester, American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 512.

Norman Cousins was a consultant to General MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan. Cousins writes of his conversations with MacArthur, "MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed." He continues, "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."

Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71.

~~~GENERAL CARL "TOOEY" SPAATZ

(In charge of Air Force operations in the Pacific)
General Spaatz was the person who received the order for the Air Force to "deliver its first special bomb as soon as weather will permit visual bombing after about 3 August 1945...&quot Leslie Groves, Now It Can Be Told, pg. 308). In a 1964 interview, Spaatz explained:

"The dropping of the atomic bomb was done by a military man under military orders. We're supposed to carry out orders and not question them."

In the same interview, Spaatz referred to the Japanese military's plan to get better peace terms, and he gave an alternative to the atomic bombings:

"If we were to go ahead with the plans for a conventional invasion with ground and naval forces, I believe the Japanese thought that they could inflict very heavy casualties on us and possibly as a result get better surrender terms. On the other hand if they knew or were told that no invasion would take place [and] that bombing would continue until the surrender, why I think the surrender would have taken place just about the same time." (Herbert Feis Papers, Box 103, N.B.C. Interviews, Carl Spaatz interview by Len Giovannitti, Library of Congress).


~~~BRIGADIER GENERAL CARTER CLARKE

(The military intelligence officer in charge of preparing intercepted Japanese cables - the MAGIC summaries - for Truman and his advisors)
"...when we didn't need to do it, and we knew we didn't need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn't need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs."

Quoted in Gar Alperovitz, The Decision To Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 359.

more...
http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

[NuclearDem]

6. Their empire was broken, their navy was underwater, and they'd lost the air war

Japan posed virtually no threat to either the US or their neighbors. The wholesale slaughter of civilians to provoke a surrender is tantamount to state terrorism. If Japan had won, the US officials who had been in charge of the bombings would have been charged with war crimes.

[davidpdx]

45. It's not like they still occupied Korea

Oops, so much being no threat.

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/wwii-pac/japansur/js-10t.htm

[quinnox]

7. The USA commited two horrific acts of unimaginable terrorism

There is nothing honorable in using nuclear weapons to vaporize thousands upon thousands of men, women and children.

But of course, that is not how our history books teach it. It is instead, all about USA! USA! USA!

[cliffordu]

9. Pfthhh

hindsight is 20/20.

every fucking time.

I wonder how many of YOU wouldn't be here if daddy or grandpa died taking tokyo with ground troops.

I get so fucking tired of monday morning DU quarterbacks.

Come in here and piss on my stepdad and uncles and ME.

We are all war criminals, ya know, according to the peeps who read books after the fact, or take quotes out of context, or use published regrets as to what should have been done at the time.

I'd rather be who, and how I am rather than be some of the revisionists on this board.

And some nights I don't rest easy at all. But those are my nights and I would wish them on no one. Not even my worst enemy, but it is what it is. Pay your money and take your chances.


I did my time for this opinion, kiddies. And I don't give a fuck whether you respect it or not.

Your mileage may vary.

[quinnox]

10. A bizarre reaction

First of all, fortunately, it is not necessary to have fought in any wars to have an opinion about this. Isn't freedom grand?

Second, my opinion of the immorality of vaporizing men, women and children is not pissing all over your step-dads or relatives. That is very bizarre, that you would take that as insulting your forefathers by me saying I think using nukes on innocent civilians was horrifying and an act of terrorism.

[cliffordu]

13. Seen your stuff here before.

It speaks for itself.


I wish I had lived your precious life.

[quinnox]

17. you are full of incorrect assumptions

if you think I have lived some kind of precious pampered life. Trust me on this one.

[davidpdx]

46. The point you are missing

and I would guess this is purposefully to avoid the real question. If Japan had not surrendered we would have sent troops to invade Japan. That would have meant more men dying. Your grandfather or father may not have lived had we invaded. I can tell you with a large degree of certainty my grandfather most likely would have been sent as he was in the military.

People have this silly notion that they were going to quietly lay down their weapons. It's been documented in books that they were preparing not only men, but also women and children to fight. Now I don't know how you feel about child soldiers, but that's what would have happened. So let's suppose we didn't drop the bomb, invaded and then 68 years later we are talking about the US killing innocent children who would have been forced into war. My guess is you'd make the same argument you are making against the bombing.

The revisionist stuff is just BS. We did what we did to end the war. IMHO the lesson is to never let it happen again.

[Archae]

11. Have you noticed something from just about all the revisionists?

"Japan was beaten, they were going to give up, they did nothing wrong..."

The still-living Korean "comfort women," those who lived in Nanking, the Bataan Death March survivors, etc, may have a few words to say about this.

Don't forget those who survived Pearl Harbor.

[NuclearDem]

18. Oh, knock it off.

Condemning a war crime committed by one nation doesn't equate apologizing for another's.

The Japanese leadership and military had to pay for Nanking and the Death Marches, not the quarter of a million civilians vaporized or slowly killed by radiation sickness.

[cliffordu]

23. Fabulous.

During the rape of Nanking, how many peeps in Japan complained about that?

The first and last casualty of war are civilians. True since the dawn of idiots. That would be us.

We are a creature spurring our own extinction just as fast as we fucking can. All of this other stuff is a distraction, the false morality that's just chanting and noise.


Human cruelty has no bounds, no end. Calling any human a war criminal is like calling someone a human.


You profit from war crimes every fucking day and if you don't understand that, I feel sorry for you.

We are empire.

[NuclearDem]

12. Did you, your stepdad, or your uncles drop the bombs?

Then chill the fuck out, no one here's coming after you.

A ground invasion was never necessary. The air war had been won, their fleet was sunk, and their supplies were dwindling. Neither invasion nor bombing were necessary.

[cliffordu]

19. MORE REVISIONIST HISTORY.

Truman was told it could cost over a million lives to invade.

It is true that he could have set one off in a bay someplace and scared the shit out of everyone, but the generals had just seen what the fuck the japanese were willing to do to NOT surrender.

This second guessing is bullshit and a distraction.

And motherfuckers come after veterans of every stripe on this board all the goddamned time and I'm sick of it.

I'd have dropped the fucking bomb to prevent a million deaths. It's about the math.

[NuclearDem]

21. Do you know anything about the Pacific theater?

Soviet intervention in Manchuria and the complete and utter wreckage of the Japanese military was more than enough to eventually force a surrender without the bombs. The ground invasion wasn't ever going to happen.

Nobody is coming after veterans here. Calm. The. Fuck. Down.

[cliffordu]

26. Where have you been?

Vets get it all the time here.

It's part of the flora and fauna.

[NuclearDem]

28. I guess I must not have noticed it.

I'm sorry if it happens to you, but I just don't notice it.

(This coming from a combat vet. I'm guessing you're one too?)

[cliffordu]

31. Yep. Long line of idiots/volunteers in my lineage.

[4Q2u2]

65. Agree

We are either War mongering criminals or Useful idiots for the MIC and our service is something to be looked down on.

I see they quote a lot of Senior brass about what was necessary and what was not. Very little quotes from the troops who would be doing the fighting and dying.

BTW General Tibbits, the man who dropped "Little Boy" from Wiki:" In 1995, he denounced the 50th anniversary exhibition of the Enola Gay at the Smithsonian Institution, which attempted to present the bombing in context with the destruction it caused, as a "damn big insult,"[9] due to its focus on the Japanese casualties rather than the brutality of the Japanese government and the subsequent necessity of the bombing.[9]"

From the Crew of Enola Gay: http://mentalfloss.com/article/24269/nuclear-quotes-crew-enola-gay

[GreenStormCloud]

53. The Japanese Army was mostly largely intact.

They had lost the use of the troops they had outside Japan, but they still had hundreds of thousands of troops in the home islands. Further, even civilians were being trained to use bamboo spears. You will likely laugh at that, but our troops would have had to kill such "civilians" anyway, or be skewered. Take a look at Siapan and Okinawa where civilians were killing themselves rather that be captured.

They were not ready to surrender.

Hirohito, himself, in his speech of August 15, 1945 says that the atomic bomb was forcing them to surrender. From his speech: "The enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization."

[telclaven]

57. With what navy?

THe notion of Russia invading anything but barely occupied rocks in the ocean is beyond imagination. The United States and Britain had years of experience training and conducting forced landings against hostile beaches, the Russians had NONE. The threat of Russian invasion of the Home Islands is a chimera thrown up by revisionists who would value Japanese lives over American.

[NuclearDem]

61. Japanese civilians didnt have to pay for the crimes of their leaders

They were no more deserving of the firebombings or atomic bombings than the Chinese civilians in Nanking were of the crimes committed in their city.

[telclaven]

62. Both cities were significant military targets

And NO government rules without the consent of the governed. The sad, miserable fact is the Japanese people started a war they couldn't win and didn't have the wit to surrender when the tides turned in 1943. After the destruction of the Japanese navy, they were on the defensive the rest of the war. At any time, they could have ended the war. They didn't. War came to them.

[NuclearDem]

64. Imperial monarchies rule without the consent of the governed

Because that's how imperial monarchies work.

[branford]

68. Not exactly.

Many monarchies are supported by the people they govern. Do you have any historical evidence that any significant numbers of Japanese opposed their entry in the war or the government's conduct during the war?

In fact, even today most Japanese are not taught and do not acknowledge any of their faults and conduct during the war. Ask Chinese or Koreans about their opinions about Japanese war memorials and commemorations. Most strikingly, compare this to modern Germany, where guilt and the specter of the Third Reich hovers constantly and visibly over the national psyche, governance and lawmaking, tolerance for right-wing activity and formal education.

I lost much of my family in the Holocaust. I bare no malice toward today's Germany and am impressed with their modern and progressive culture. Although I certainly bare no ill will toward any individual Japanese, their culture, lack of progressive values and selective formal education in history, leave much to be desired.

[NuclearDem]

69. In a lot of ways, we're culturally similar

Having to own up for one's past national atrocities is extremely difficult. Both Japanese and American cultures are fairly nationalistic, and admitting wrong tends to be a social taboo, especially among elected leaders. You're right about Germany, they worked hard to correct their cultural understanding of their role in the war, and they deserve a lot of credit for that. Both the Japanese and Americans need to learn from their example.

I don't doubt the Japanese people at large supported the imperial expansion and probably felt the military's treatment of the Koreans, Chinese, and other nationalities under the empire's control was justified. There was (and to some extent, still is) a lot of bad blood between Japan and the other nations of East Asia borne from centuries of war among them. My point, however, is that no matter how supportive of the war and the atrocities committed by the leadership, the Japanese civilian population didn't bear the burden of paying for those crimes with their lives, especially not through the firebombings or atomic bombings.

I know hindsight is 20/20, and as a history major, I have to look at these things in historical context and as the players saw them, but that still doesn't make me feel any less repulsed by the acts.

[branford]

70. Fair comment.

I see by your reference to the fire-bombings and historical hindsight, that you also read and appreciated my other comment in this thread. Thank you.

I definitely agree about certain similarities concerning nationalism in both American and Japanese culture. Nevertheless, Japan usually takes this to another level. Japan is a much less diverse country without the American aptitude for constantly challenging authority and speaking freely. Even in the nationalist United States, our conduct in the war is often discussed, debated and criticized, and even the Smithsonian exhibit of the Enola Gay was both rife with controversy and includes substantial reference to the suffering of the Japanese. I was educated in the suburbs of New York. Critiques of American imperialism, exceptionalism and historical wrongdoing was a way of life. In Japan, you will find very little, if any, similar self-reflection. Memorials about WWII, and the atomic bombings in particular, generally paint Japan as the unequivocal innocent victim. The imperialism, comfort women, treatment of prisoners of war, etc. never happened and is not discussed. There is a reason why still in the 21st century that Chinese and Korean officials are so critical of Japanese war commemorations. It's not that they occur, it's because of what they intentionally omit.

I, too, was a history major many, many eons ago, and today am a practicing attorney. Reviewing and learning from history is always important. However, it is never simple and context must always enter into the discussion. For instance, our Founding Fathers were all wealthy slaveholders, yet they established one of the longest existing modern democracies. History, like the people it chronicles, is complicated.

[davidpdx]

47. You know there jack

There maybe people on here who had relatives on the mission. Just something you might want to think about.

[telclaven]

56. Wow

Just...wow.

And you wonder why

[Taverner]

8. Fuck war, fuck death, fuck bombs

War has never solved any problem

Even WWII

Aggression only brings more aggression upon itself

[branford]

59. The members of my family liberated from the concentration camps would beg to differ. n/t

[quadrature]

25. the whole world was starving, exhaused, and going bankrupt

a prompt end to the war
avoided terrible human suffering

[NuclearDem]

29. Do an image search for the victims of Nagasaki and Hiroshima

And tell me that avoided terrible human suffering.

[Niceguy1]

36. Japan should have thought

About that before THEY started a vicious war. Their atrocities are dar worse and brutsl than anything that the allies did. Secind guessing what was done so long ago is disrespectful to those who had to make those hard decisions

[NuclearDem]

58. None of which justifies atrocities committed in return

Refusing to question the decisions by the military leadership during the war does far more a disservice. We can't go forward committing horrific acts based on historical precedence.

[Journeyman]

34. More important to the ending of the War was what occurred in Manchuria three days later. . .

when the Soviet Union declared war on Japan. More than anything, the fear of a two-front war, especially when it involved the Red Army, forced the Japanese hand and determined the end of Japanese resistance.

[quinnox]

35. wow, very good point

Russia was really integral to the allies victory in World War 2 it seems.

[telclaven]

60. Let me repeate this - With what navy?

The notion of Russia invading anything but barely occupied rocks in the ocean is beyond imagination. The United States and Britain had years of experience training and conducting forced landings against hostile beaches, the Russians had NONE. The threat of Russian invasion of the Home Islands is a chimera thrown up by revisionists who would value Japanese lives over American.

[Journeyman]

72. Do tell, what body of water did the Soviets need to breach to invade landlocked Manchuria? . . .

What tides would they need to wait for to press on into the Korean Peninsula? What ships would the Soviet Union need to launch its invasion of the Chinese land mass, and more importantly, why? And why ever would the Soviets need a navy to roll back Japanese forces in Burma, Thailand, Vietnam and Malaya?

Do you sincerely believe the only forces Japan had active in the Pacific Rim in August 1945 were on its Home Islands, or at sea?

And why -- please tell -- do you believe the Allied campaign would not have benefitted from having land bases, safe harbors, and air fields up and down the East side of the Sea of Japan, around the perimeter of the Yellow Sea, and along the East China Sea, just a short distance from the Japanese shores? All this would have been made immeasurably easier by the efforts of the Red Army.

This was foremost among the fears in the minds of the Japanese High Command on August 9, 1945. And the thought of Stalin ensconced in Asia? What fears do you think that possibility engendered throughout Japan?

And this doesn't even consider the loss of all the natural resources the Japanese would have had to endure with the Soviets occupying all of everything the Imperial Forces had attained throughout mainland Asia since the mid-1930s. Or how Japan would recover from the loss of so many Divisions from its army, troops cut off and destroyed by a Red Army that was in no measure a chimera.

It seems this is only "revisionist history" to those unaware of history . . .

[telclaven]

73. The Asian mainland was already cut off

The Japanese had no expectations of maintaining holdings on the mainland. Whatever happened there was irrelevant to the survival of the Japanese state. There were no resources being supplied. The only remaining threat to Japan came from the US/UK/AU/NZ forces that could actually project forces onto the Japanese islands.

[darkangel218]

37. The thirst for blood that some display on here is sickening..

[cliffordu]

39. Thirst for blood? WTF are you talking about?

[davidpdx]

48. Equally as disgusting as the rape of women in Korea?

Oh wait, that never happened!

[Bonobo]

66. Americans raped in Japan, Korea, Vietnam and they're doing it today as well. nt

[cliffordu]

71. Ah, yes, this train is never late.

How are you old friend, still at it I see.

[davidpdx]

76. And they used them on a large scale as comfort woman?

I'd like a link to that one.

[Bonobo]

78. Yup,they sure did.

[davidpdx]

79. We are no longer in Vietnam, so how could our military be doing that today

and we certainly weren't doing that during WWII. As to what happened in Japan and Korea after WWII prostitution and sex crimes were a problem in both countries. They are less so these days as the military has put restrictions on soldiers.

I still highly doubt that in anyway exceeds the use of comfort women in Japan during the 45 year occupation.

[Bonobo]

80. Don't trip while you're walking back.

Many photos and articles could be posted on the subject.

When they are not raping fellow soldiers, US soldiers also take time out to rape the locals.

ttp://www.examiner.com/article/us-troops-accused-or-raping-afghan-women-chahar-bolak

[davidpdx]

82. We are talking about WWII attrocities

In fact the Japanese did rape Chinese, Korea and other women from other nationalities during the war. Comfort women were used for 45 years by the Japanese. If you'd like to continue writing them an excuse go ahead.

[Bonobo]

83. "We are no longer in Vietnam, so how could our military be doing that today" nt

[Waiting For Everyman]

43. Necessary or not (by today's reckoning), an invasion was going to happen.

I know this because my dad (along with thousands of others) was rerouted to Japan after just arriving in Europe, and was speeding there on a ship when the bomb was dropped. The troops all knew they were being sent there to invade, and they knew the expected loss of life. That was before any of them knew that the bomb existed.

So anybody can question the necessity now, or say there were alternatives, but at the time invading Japan had already definitely been decided. I don't think that at that time, anybody was into deluding themselves, neither commanders nor troops, or doing anything that wasn't necessary.

I think too, it is arrogant to question a time that one didn't live in. The bombs dropped were probably the most horrific thing that has happened in human history. Lives were lost, and lives exist that wouldn't otherwise. I'm one of them, and I'm not hypocrite enough to slam those who made and carried out the terrible choice that made my existence and my family's possible.

[DinahMoeHum]

55. +1

This 20/20 hindsight morality bullshit on this issue pisses me off to the point that I've trashed any and all threads on it today.

[Niceguy1]

67. the annual threads like

This disgust me.

[davidpdx]

84. Well Put

I think too, it is arrogant to question a time that one didn't live in. The bombs dropped were probably the most horrific thing that has happened in human history. Lives were lost, and lives exist that wouldn't otherwise. I'm one of them, and I'm not hypocrite enough to slam those who made and carried out the terrible choice that made my existence and my family's possible.

In hindsight there is nothing that can be done about the choice that was made. How the war ended with Japan affected my family as well. Is it terrible to say that? No, it's the truth.

This is not directed toward you, but others.

I'll leave it at this and say no more. My grandfather would have died had the missions to drop the bombs failed or if we had invaded Japan. This is not hyperbole, it is a fact.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

85. not what the military leaders thought at the time (LINK)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023417433

But they never tell the grunts anything, just to hurry up and wait.

And this is flat out BS to coverup a massive war crime by trying to silence discussion on the topic...
"I think too, it is arrogant to question a time that one didn't live in."

:shakes-head:

Visit the above link, and learn more about what the leaders thought at that time.

[AsahinaKimi]

50. ...

Mina no tame no inori

[The Link]

52. I am glad we had leaders that made the right decision then.

[DinahMoeHum]

54. The race to acquire the atomic bomb was so ruthless. . .

. . .and World War 2 was such the closest thing to total war, that whoever acquired this weapon was going to use it.

US, Britain, Germany, Russia, etc.

Anyone of them would have used it.

[branford]

63. Many also don't seem to mind the massive fire-bombings of cities in Europe or Asia.

The bombings of cities and civilian targets by all sides during the war were brutal, particularly the fire-bombings over cities like Dresden and all over Japan. These bombing resulted in a far greater number of deaths, injuries and ruined lives than Hiroshima and Nagaski combined. The atomic bombs were not magical. We developed a superior weapon, and ultimately utilized it in a manner consistent with the conduct of all sides during the war, for the express purpose of very quickly ending the war and saving American and allied lives.

By today's standards, these bombing would be considered war crimes. However, it is far easy to look back with our comfortable lives and evolved military norms and forget the brutality of WWII - the millions of lives lost, the widespread brutality of the Axis, including genocidal policies of Hitler and the Japanese, the treatment of our POWs in Asia and the lives and treasure that would have been lost in any conventional campaign to defeat the Japanese. Th threat of Stalin and his capture of additional territory, and the treatment of those who would fall under his dictatorship, was also a valid military and political consideration.

By God, I hope no future president ever has to consider the factors and repercussions that confronted Truman.

[roamer65]

75. ...and the firebombing yet to come for Japan.

Plans were for an extremely intensive aerial bombardment in the run-up to the invasion of Kyushu and Honshu.

[Bucky]

74. There should be a requirement to read "Racing the Enemy" by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa

before participating in any such discussion. It's an amazing book that really clears out the cobwebs and makes revisionists on all sides blush in shame. An amazing and informative book.

(reposted from the Lounge)

Apparently lots, if not all of the book is available free on line (link below). If you read this book, you will no longer sound uninformed about the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

http://books.google.com/books?id=iPju1MrqgU4C&pg=PA7&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false

[ConcernedCanuk]

77. Managed to read the whole thread, but I maintain my opinion of dropping them bombs.

.
.
.

" The USA committed two horrific acts of unimaginable terrorism"

That is from one of the previous poster's submission that I totally agree with.

Soldiers should fight soldiers.

Period.

CC

[branford]

81. That may be true in the abstract, but that certainly wasn't WWII.

How many allied soldiers, or Chinese or Korean civilians, or Japanese civilians in the event of invasion or blockade, are an acceptable loss to maintain the purity our your position? Who among your friends, neighbors, colleagues and other members of DU (not to mention innumerable Chinese and Koreans) would you agree should never have existed to keep your conscience clear?

I have no doubt you mean well and would mourn the loss of all life, yet there was no option where only soldiers would fight soldiers and no (or even few) civilians would be harmed. WWII wasn't a game and Truman was not facing an academic exercise in classroom. It's too easy and simplistic to look back in hindsight with 21st century norms and rules to a conflict in 1945 that had already cost tens of millions of lives, mostly civilians, and sit in judgment. There simply were no good choices, only varying shades of terrible.

I'm also perplexed by the sole focus on the atomic weapons. Our firebombings alone over Tokyo took far more innocent lives that the bombs over Hiroshima and Nagaski combined. This was also the norm for the war, and a conventional invasion of Japan would likely have cost more lives, both Allied and Japanese, that killed by the bombs. These actions were commonplace, no different than the bombings of London, Coventry or Dresden. Its there any meaningful difference with killing 100,000 people with 2 bombs or 2,000. Dead is still dead. Also, do not forget that in 1945 we did not have laser guided, precision weapons and comparable technology. Radar was even considered a new technology in WWII.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

86. War crime were committed by all sides

And I think most are appalled by all the targeting of civilians on a massive scale, but to feign to be "perplexed" when this is the anniversary of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which has had a lasting and profound effect on the world that continues to this very day, is truly inconceivable, unless you are very ignorant of that history, and it's aftermath.

for those who want to learn more about the decision to nuke a defeated nation, looking to surrender, TWICE, i invite you to check out the links in this OP...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023417433