Tokyo coming to terms with bombing 60 years later

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-tokyo09.html

TOKYO -- For decades, Teruo Kanoh never revealed the terror locked in his heart the night in 1945 when American bombs turned Tokyo into a raging fireball. Then, three years ago, he slowly began releasing his demons in oil and watercolor.

In his vivid, unsparing paintings, U.S. warplanes shower the sky with rivulets of fire, and thousands of corpses -- many of them women and children -- clot Tokyo's main river. In one piece, flaming victims plummet in agony from a burning bridge. snip

The Tokyo firebombing has long been overshadowed by the U.S. atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki which preceded the Japanese surrender that ended World War II the following August. But the burning of the capital, which resulted in more immediate deaths than either of the nuclear bombings, stands as a horrifying landmark in the history of warfare on noncombatants.

More than 300 B-29 ''Superfortress'' bombers dropped nearly a half-million M-69 incendiary cylinders over Tokyo that night and early morning, annihilating some 16 square miles of the city's densely populated east.

more

[Trillo]

1. I'd love to see this art.

Is it viewable anywhere online?

[4_Legs_Good]

4. That's exactly what I was wondering

I'd love to see it!

david

[Art_from_Ark]

40. Not a very good picture, but

here is an article from a Japanese web site that includes a picture of the artist with his 10 paintings

http://www.mainichi-msn.co.jp/today/news/20050228k0000e040024000c.html

And here's a not-so-good picture of his paintings on display

http://www.tokyo-np.co.jp/00/sya/20050305/eve_____sya_____002.shtml

[Trillo]

64. Thanks!

I'm glad he's sharing these images of what he can't ever forget.

[bpilgrim]

65. powerful pictures

thanks for sharing :toast:

peace

[Art_from_Ark]

43. Here are some better pictures

http://www.city.sumida.tokyo.jp/~kyoudobunka/03kusyukaiga.htm

[4_Legs_Good]

60. Wow! Thanks a lot!

[alwynsw]

2. Sad. But that's the way it (fighting wars) was done at the time.

I'll grant that the vast majority of those killed in the incendiary raids were non-combatants. Such carnage is ghastly by our standards today. Unfortunately, that's the way wars were fought at the time.

Buzz bombs on London. Countless cities in China obliterated by the Japanese Air force. Manila shelled and bombed to rubble.

Bataan wouldn't be tolerated by either side today.

It's not really a pot/kettle thing. It's just the way it was.

Gotta remember that FDR approved the raids.

[4_Legs_Good]

5. War makes monsters of us all

but that was "the good war"...

Anyway, let's hope this kinda thing is behind us.

david

[alwynsw]

6. I agree.

Thanks to technology, it's getting better.

The average miss in WW II by aircraft bombs was about 4,000'. In Viet Nam, it was about 400'. By Desert Storm it was down to about 40'.

One innocent civilian's death is one too many. Sadly, it will happen in combat operations.

[bpilgrim]

9. "Thanks to technology, it's getting better." -> myth

how many smart bombs do you think they used in fallujah?

over 100,000 iraqi civilians killed and counting...

peace

[alwynsw]

11. Yup. They're still using post sights on the front of fighter-bombers.

And all the multi man crewed bombers are still using Norden bomb sights.

Smart bombs aren't the only place great improvements have been made in accuracy.

[bpilgrim]

13. i am talking about the toll on civilian populations

all the tech improvements since the dawn of time has only made that toll worse.

peace

[alwynsw]

15. Try again. Check the actual numbers. Then get back to me.

[bpilgrim]

18. we killed almost 3 million people in Vietnam alone

we have already killed over 100,000 iraqi civilians, and counting, in this phase of our aggression against them.

thats just 2 conflicts.

do you realize that our behavior and goals in the ME today is very similar to imperial japan's behavior and goals (GEACPS) in asia during WWII?

what numbers are you talking about?

peace

[alwynsw]

21. Non-combatants killed per pound of bombs dropped.

[bpilgrim]

23. 100,000 Iraqi civilians killed by dumb bombs

is that what you are saying :shrug:

let's see your numbers, please.

peace

[alwynsw]

30. I'll need to look up current numbers, but they're likely classified.

The U.S. dropped 3.5X the tonnage of ordnance in Viet Nam than was dropped in the whole of WW II. Let's see. Total VN casualties (killed) of under 7,000,000 civilian and military compared with upwards of 60,000,000 military and civilians killed in WW II.

I'd say the numbers are getting better.

If you want to look at apples and apples, the raid being discussed here killed over 110,000 civilians - in just one raid. Check out the bomb load on that run compared to all of the tonnage dropped by all means in the current Iraqi fiasco.

[bpilgrim]

34. ah, goin with the gut, eh?

NEWSFLASH: vietnam is a single country not a world war.

the point is we are still killing civilians, smart bombs or no smart bombs AND if another WW breaks out the numbers will drawf WWII. why because TECHNOLOGY.

now, you may get a warm and fuzzy from the high-tech buzzword but HISTORY shows that it has only made us more efficient at killing.

compare WWI to WWII

psst... pass the word

peace

[alwynsw]

38. Gut?

I've given you information you can either confirm or repudiate.

What I see is that I'm trying to converse with someone who refuses to look at fact instead of feelings.

You may have missed the fact that I stated that one civilian casualty is one too many in an earlier post.

I'd odder a reply to NEWSFLASH: vietnam is a single country not a world war. but it's a straw man and you should know it.

now, you may get a warm and fuzzy from the high-tech buzzword but HISTORY shows that it has only made us more efficient at killing.

Yes it does. Thankfully, it also makes us (all warring parties) more efficient at killing combatants and avoiding non-combatants.

I never said or implied that war is a precise thing. I did say that humanity is getting better at sparing civilian lives.

There are no politics, passions, or gut feelings involved. Just plain old hard, researchable facts that you can locate as well as I.

[bpilgrim]

41. yeah, since you can not provide ANY statistics to back up your claims

they are classified, nk.

history SHOWS that WW has become increasingly violent to civilians precisely because of our more advanced technology.

we have killed over 100,000 CIVILIANS in iraq that we know of, hello...

we have DESTROYED a whole city, fallujah, with our technology, hello...

let's just say i'm going with the facts on the ground

I don't know what weapons will be used to fight WWIII, but WWIV will be fought with sticks and stones A. Einstein

psst... pass the word ;->

peace

[alwynsw]

44. Working wit your heart and not your head.

I've given you the starting point. Do your own research, if you're capable, and you will discover that I've only been stating facts - not wishes.

[bpilgrim]

45. the more technology we have the more civilians die, WWI vs WWII

especially in world wars but even against a single country, we've killed 10's of thousands iraqi civilians, millions in vietnam.

so you really think less civilians will die in WWIII?

sorry pal, but that is nonsense.

i'm out, cya.

peace

[alwynsw]

48. Who mentioned WW III?

It certainly wasn't me!

[bpilgrim]

51. i did, to refute your myth that high tech weapons makes civilians safer

:eyes:

peace

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[alwynsw]

57. "WWIII will be WORSE than any prior WW due to high tech -> FACT"

Actually, it's a fairly sound theory because we have no way of knowing if it will happen or if nukes will be used.

Funny. You don't want to do the research, so you stoop to a crass insult. I'm done with this.

[bpilgrim]

59. if you don't think nukes will be used in another WW you are only fooling

YOURSELF.

and now you run away when your claims are challenged... i guess that explains where your 'theories' come from.

peace

[Walt Starr]

143. Yup, anything about any figures for any hypothetical WWIII scenario

are simply conjectures with no facts to back the up.

Your facts have been correct. By comparison, total tonnage of devices detonated in previous conflicts resulted in more civilian deaths per ton than today. Civilians still die, but the rate per ton of explosive is far less than any other time in aviation history.

The World War I vs. World War II comparison is erroneous because aviation was in its infancy during WWI plus it is not comparing civilian death rates sp-ecifically from dropped devices.

[bpilgrim]

144. our technology will allow us to kill many more than before

in any future world war.

maybe i should be clear, i am not talking about just deaths from bombs... i am talking about grand totals of all deaths during world war including starvation.

that technology makes us safer during war is a cruel myth, history has shown that only more civilians are killed.

peace

[Spinoza]

108. We used hardly any

smart bombs in Vietnam. In order to hit any target we had to blanket an entire area. Like WWII. There is no question that the use of smart bombs has substantially reduced civilian casualties. I believe millions of Iraqis would now be dead if we did not have smart bombs.

[bpilgrim]

116. we killed almost 3 million people in Vietnam alone

and our technology was much more advanced then during WWII.

and for world wars just count the dead between the 2.
as technology improved more were killed.

in a guerrilla war smart bombs are useless
and we still have killed over 100,000, and counting, iraqi civilians.

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." -- Albert Einstein

peace

[Spinoza]

107. If we were forced to use only WWII technology

there would be millions of Iraqis dead, not 100,000+. It makes a huge difference.

[bpilgrim]

117. smart bombs as well as conventional bombs are USELESS in a guerrilla war

remember Vietnam

peace

[bpilgrim]

8. you think it will be any different today?

only worse... hiroshima and nagasaki were an example of what is to come if there is another WW.

fallujah == our nanking

peace

[ChemEng]

62. Sorry, I don't buy that bs

When you get a litle more serious, then come back and discuss.

Fallujah does not equal nanking....ask the Chinese

[bpilgrim]

63. the japanese didn't completely destroy the city like we did to Fallujah

but the point is that our current policy in the ME is very similar to the imperial japanese of WWII; GEACPS.

they, too, claimed they were fighting ILLEGAL COMBATANTS and were bringing peace, prosperity and security to the region and raped murdered and tortured their enemies, just like us, today, in the ME.

but i don't know if they tortured CHILDREN in front of their mothers like we are in iraq.

peace

[ChemEng]

66. Please...the Japs only murdered about 100,000 Chinese

Are you suggesting the same thing occurred in Fallujah?

Have you seen the photos of Japanese bayoneting the Chinese, and practicing their head chopping?

We can argue about many things, but the facts about the Japanese occupation in China is not one of them.

[bpilgrim]

69. and we have RAPED, TORTURED and MURDERED, even CHILDREN in front of

their MOTHERS and have killed over 100,000 civilians and counting.

did you see that solider kill that wounded man in the mosque in IRAQ?

ILLEGAL COMBATANTS, hello... looks very similar, to me and we aren't finnished, yet.



Japanese aircraft bombed south Shanghai Station Aug.28,1937.
About 200 people in the waiting room were dead or wounded by the bombing. A crying baby was left alone after the bombing. - Life Oct. 4, 1937

peace

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

91. A "smart" bomb is only as good as the intel that provides the target

Fortunately, we've got great intel!

Oh, wait....

[neverforget]

3. In 5, 4, 3, 2, 1.........let the WW2 history fight begin

It's been what? a month, 2 months since the last one?

[Baclava]

7. Dammit - If we nuked Hanoi...

We coulda won The Nam, too...

[bpilgrim]

10. 3 1/2 times the tonnage of all the bombs dropped in WWII couldn't win VN

Vietnam War = 7,078,032 tons (3-1/2 times WWII tonnage)

but i know there are some who think that nukes are the answer :crazy:

i believe the crazies running things now wont show such restraint.



peace

[Spinoza]

109. Come off it.

The Vietnamese were not braver, more committed, or better fighters than the Japanese. WE had 8 million men in the Pacific fighting Japan instead of .5 million fighting in Vietnam. We bombed nearly every Japanese city to total rubble (with conventional bombs) and then hit em with nukes. The Japanese were among the bravest and most dedicated warriors the world has ever seen. And they crumbled. If we had put even 4 million soldiers against Vietnam (only half of the number used agasinst Japan), bombed their cities to rubble and then hit them with Nukes---they would have crumbled in despair and defeat just like Japan.

[bpilgrim]

118. gotta link?

For the Pacific: theater as a whole, the total of Army forces deployed a year after Pearl Harbor (about 346,000) was about equal to the total Army forces deployed in the United Kingdom and North Africa (about 347,000) . The Pacific build-up exceeded by about 150,000 the total number projected for the area by the end of 1942 in the original Bolero planning. Nine of the 17 divisions overseas and 19 of the 66 air combat groups overseas were ire the Pacific.

source...
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/wwii/Sp1941-42/chapter16.htm

but anyways... who said ANYTHING about Vietnamese troops being "braver, more committed, or better fighters than the Japanese" :shrug:

the points i am making is
1. that the nukes were NOT necessary and immoral
2. that is we didn't accept their 1 condition it would have been just like Vietnam - or worse - and Iraq.

you can NOT bomb a people into submission.

even the Japanese didn't surrender after the 2nd nuke... until their 1 condition was met.

which time has borne out to be a wise decision.

peace

[bpilgrim]

12. DVD: "Graveyard of the Fireflies" (must see anime of wwII firebombing)

Artwork 'Grave of the Fireflies' Copyright US Manga Corp All Rights Reserved

We learn about World War II from our textbooks in school, but how much do we really know about the war from the point of view of those who were our enemies? Japan has released several projects dealing with the war to end all wars from their point of view. The manga series Adolf discussed the war from Japan’s side of things dealing with the alliance between Japan and Germany and the soldiers who fought it. That series will be reviewed here in the future, but I never thought any telling of the war could top that series until I saw Graveyard of the Fireflies. You better bring a tissue.

more...
http://www.ybfree.com/19GRAVE1.html


amazon reviews...
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00006HAWP/ref=ase_bandwapopulcultu/104-3543517-4397533

peace

[uppityperson]

17. Saddest movie I've seen

I recommend it to everyone.

[psychopomp]

28. It is shown on TV every year

at the same time as the annual memorials to the end of the war.

[bpilgrim]

39. not in the USA, unfortunately

we desperately need to see the other side of the story.

peace

[VirginiaDem]

73. So do the Japanese of course

the Japanese national government is in charge of education and year after year high school history textbooks attempting to slip something in about Manchuria and the like are vetoed. Year after year the prime minister goes to the shrine in Tokyo (I forget the name) to honor, in effect, war criminals despite international protests. My experience with modern Japanese is that they are vaguely aware of the real history and are opposed to these kinds of inflammatory nationalistic gestures but there is little anyone can do about it.

[bpilgrim]

81. the japanese have lived through the horrors of war

the prime minister visiting the Yasukuni shrine is a recent development brought about, IMHO, by the new world order the neoCONs have ushered in.

the public school i worked in didn't even have a pledge to the flag though i hear that is changing, too.

nationalism isn't just a Japanese problem though and i am EXTREMELY worried about it here.

we are behaving just like imperial japan during WWII and we know NOTHING of the true horrors of war.

we have even encouraged them to break article 9 of their constitution by sending it's forces abroad for the first time in 6 decades :scared:

peace

[VirginiaDem]

95. No--the neocons are NOT responsible for Japanese

visits to Yasukuni. They are entirely separate and they have been going on for quite awhile. You're right about nationalism, I think. Most Japanese aren't that nationalistic--it's a core group of politically powerful people that no politician wants to offend. My point is that the Japanese have not come to terms with their side of the responsibility coin of WWII. The Japanese have already changed some laws, in my understanding, to loosen the restrictions of Article 9. They do this in part because our gov't would like them to but also in part because a significant portion of powerful Japanese want them to.

And a great big fat "hell no" to the assertion that "we are behaving just like imperial Japan during World War II." This is utter nonsense and the kind of "moral equivalency" that gives our side a bad name. Are there interesting parallels? Yeah, that's worth discussing but to equate the two gives me shivers.

Finally, the Germans have lived through the horrors of war but they aren't so blinded against their own history as to make pilgrimmages to the resting places of Nazi war criminals.

[bpilgrim]

101. they have been going on since the neoCONs came to power

the Japanese gov leaders don't make moves like changing art. 9 of the constitution without our go ahead.

as far as 'the great big fat "hell no"' to my assertion that we are behaving very similar to the imperial Japanese of WWII see post #69.

anyways, my point in this thread is that they know the horrors of war much better than we.

peace

[VirginiaDem]

102. They've been going on since 1951...

they became especially controversial in the 1980s. Your post #69 is unconvincing. There is a significant substantive and moral difference between Manchuria '38 and Korea early 20th century and, say, Afghanistan 2001 and Iraq 2003.

I agree with your point about the horrors of war.

[bpilgrim]

115. thats false, only one of Mr. Koizumi's predecessors actually visited the

shrine officially as prime minister.

things are changing rapidly and it is in concert with the neoCONs rise to power... someone gave them the green light, this is no coincidence, IMHO.

my post #69 is fact. and there is NO moral difference.

ILLEGAL WAR is ILLEGAL WAR.
rape, torture and MURDER, even children in front of their mothers is immoral.

peace

(sorry for the delay... was at work)

[VirginiaDem]

122. no problems on the delay... I'm pretty sure you're wrong on

the yasukuni facts according to this link:http://www.fpcj.jp/e/shiryo/jb/0133.html

the shrine was visited by the Showa emperor in the fifties, by Miki in 1975 (unofficially), by Reagan's buddy Nakasone in the 80s, by Hashimoto in the 90s and now, frequently, by Koizumi. I will say, though, that Koizumi is visiting very frequently, which could be seen as evidence for your theory. Unless you've got some counter evidence, though, you've got to admit that we didn't start this fire.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on the morality. One of the advantages of not being right-wingers is that we allow ourselves to see differences in degree. For me, some illegal wars are more illegal than others and some immoral actions in war are more immoral than others. Was there no moral difference between Hitler in World War II and, say, Peru in the wars they started against Ecuador? Both laws were illegal, presumably, by your definition and therefore equally immoral.

By the way, do you live in Japan? I was in the Tokyo area for nearly five years a while back. I miss the place.

[bpilgrim]

125. i am talking about OFFICIAL visits

The visit by any Japanese prime minister to Yasukuni at any time has always been extremely controversial. So controversial, in fact, that only one of Mr. Koizumi's predecessors actually visited the shrine officially as prime minister on August 15th. Yasuhiro Nakasone went in 1985, the 40th anniversary of Japan's surrender. The outcry both at home and abroad was so strong that no prime minister has done it since.

source...
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/east/08/13/Debrief.MacKinnon.otsc/

GEACPS is the moral equivalent to our current ME policies.

also, we are RAPING, TORTURING and MURDERING, even CHILDREN in front of their own mothers fer Christ's sake. the only thing worse would be to have a gov 'final solution' policy, which the japanese didn't have.

anyways, i think i made my point and so i agree that we will have to agree to disagree on that point.

in the military i was fortunate enough to visit japan 5 times (yokosuka & sasebo) and i lived there for 5 years after i got out (kobe)

i miss it, too and was especially nostalgic after seeing the japanese film 'shall we dance'

kiotsukete :hi:

peace

[oneighty]

14. I stood by that river

hand in hand with a young Japanese girl as she related the story to me.

Long long ago.

180

[solinvictus]

16. Well, they shouldn't have attacked Pearl Harbor..

it's that damned simple. It's like Isoroku Yamamoto said, they woke a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve.

[NNN0LHI]

19. The women and children who burned up in Tokyo didn't attack Pearl Harbor

That was pretty dammed simple to figure out too.

Don

[Hosnon]

26. Well it was country v. country - call me an asshole but when at war,

I want the guy that does what must be done - and the morality of citizens is a big part of war (Vietnam)

[bpilgrim]

29. sounds like you want UBL

if you were a taliban, of course

peace

[Hosnon]

32. Yea if i were taliban I'd want UBL - I want the best equipped during war

[bpilgrim]

35. at least your honest

most - i hope - don't support terrorism i.e. killing civilians.

peace

[Hosnon]

71. Well the distinction has to be made between two countries at war

officially and a situation such as with UBL where he is just attacking us. If two countries go to war then I would default to believing that anything goes. You can't complain if you're dead. Call it a bad outlook but it is the truth and if my country goes into this type of war, I want it to win (Assuming my country was not the original aggressor).

What we are in with UBL is different. He does not represent a government that is at war with the United States. This situation is also not a kill or be killed (loser gets taken over) conflict. Attacking civilians to further a political cause does not seem justified to me.

Given the choice between killing civilians that facilitates ending a war that is causing massive casualties and attempting to conduct some sort of civilized war where one side will probably not play by the rules, I say end the war.

World War II is such an example. As with everything, there is no bright-line test to use to determine how a conflict should be handled. UBL's attacks on us, however, seem to lie on the opposite end of the spectrum from WWII.

[bpilgrim]

77. "I say end the war"

exactly what all our military leaders in theater at that time suggested...
http://www.doug-long.com/ga1.htm

there is no defense for what we did to hiroshima and nagasaki.

read the history and stop repeating 6 decades old propaganda.

peace

[Hosnon]

78. When did I defend the atomic bombs? At another post I imply

they were unnecessary.

I simply hold that killing civilians during war can be necessary.

[bpilgrim]

79. "killing civilians during war can be necessary"

sounds like something UBL would say.

peace

[Hosnon]

80. Maybe so - but that sounds like something the guys over at

the conservative message board would say to me. Just because X likes an idea and X is bad does not make the idea bad.

The only maxim I hold without exception is that no maxim should be held without exception. It is unwise to claim that there are no circumstances where killing civilians may be necessary.

[bpilgrim]

82. sorry, but there are certain principles i will not violate

but thats just me.

peace

[NNN0LHI]

33. bin Laden declared war on the USA

Using your logic he was just doing what had to be done when the twin towers were knocked down killing almost 3000 non-combatants. I do not buy that logic.

Don

[Hosnon]

72. Bin Laden is not a country - yes the distinction may be fading but

it still exists. Traditional state v. state wars are different from what we are seeing now.

With Bin Laden, he does not want to take over our country as did the Axis powers.

The situations are different and therefore the logic for one will not necessarily fit for the other.

[Hosnon]

74. Edit post: 'Morality' should be 'Morale' eom

[Dogmudgeon]

20. And here I though they had just been dressing suggestively

Ya just can't trust them damn Jerries, can ya?

--p!

[bpilgrim]

22. sounds like something UBL would say

they attacked a military base after we cut off their oil.

that doesn't justify indiscriminately killing innocent civilians.

but whats even WORSE is that we NUKED a defeated, trying to surrender nation's cities filled with Innocent men, woman and children, young and old, TWICE against the advice of ALL military leaders in theater at that time.

* In his memoirs Admiral William D. Leahy, the President's Chief of Staff--and the top official who presided over meetings of both the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Combined U.S.-U.K. Chiefs of Staff--minced few words:

(T)he 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. . . .

(I)n being the first to use it, we . . . 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. (THE DECISION, p. 3.)

more...
http://www.doug-long.com/ga1.htm

Hiroshima is the 2nd most horrid word in the American lexicon succeeded only by NAGASAKI - Kurt Vonnegut

think it's patriotic

peace

[Igel]

25. And why did we cut off raw materials to the Japanese? n/t

[bpilgrim]

27. because they were moving in on our and our allies turf

however, that doesn't have anything to do with the indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians mentioned in the above post.

peace

[Igel]

98. If by "moving in on our and our allies turf"

you also mean the death and destruction they wrought in China, you're right.

I'm not justifying killing civilians. But the restriction in materials were, at least in part, sanctions to punish an imperialist power for killing civilians, and to help prevent further aggression.

[bpilgrim]

120. i do

and please don't misunderstand me for i am in no way defending their brutal and EVIL aggression and i am eternally grateful to all the allies who sacrificed and fought to stop fascism.

however i will not try to paint the Japanese as inhuman monsters who attacked us for no reason. they are human beings who were carrying out empire building, and they were astute students of the west... our hands were not entirely clean either is my point.

what pains me to the very depths of my soul is to see my beloved country now behaving very similar to the imperial Japanese of WWII :cry:

peace

[solinvictus]

55. Because of Manchuria/Manchuko...

We'd advised Japan to back off of China and they didn't listen.

[VirginiaDem]

75. So you're for preemptive war to protect resources that are

only necessary because the demi-god leader wants to be a regional hegemon for, among other reasons, the sake of hardcore racism. The Koreans and Chinese will be happy to know that you ethically approve of the Japanese reasoning behind their foreign policy of the early 20th century.

[Igel]

99. I think you answered a post other than the one you

intended.

I suspect bpilgrim (if I remember his name a-right) wouldn't like that particular formulation of his views, but might not have a sufficient reply to prove your formulation wrong.

[VirginiaDem]

104. No, I was answering yours. My bad--I'm rereading your posts

and see that I have wrongly misread and misinterpreted your posts. My apologies. I shall henceforth take greater care when posting late night on the third glass of red wine :-)

[alwynsw]

31. fairly recent discoveries

show that using the nuclear weapons likely did save lives overall - both U.S. and Japanese.

Are you forgetting the propaganda that cost nearly 250,000 Japanese civilian lives across the islands because they chose suicide rather than face capture by Americans who would "rape the women, then kill and eat the children?"

[bpilgrim]

36. BULLSHIT

if we had accepted their 1 condition to surrender earlier i.e. spring of 45 how many would have been save possibly no IWO JIMA certainly no OKINAWA, not to mention Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

* Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet, in a public address at the Washington Monument two months after the bombings stated:

The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war. . . .The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan. . . . (THE DECISION, p. 329; see additionally THE NEW YORK TIMES, October 6, 1945.)

more...
http://www.doug-long.com/ga1.htm

bone-up

peace

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bpilgrim]

46. i posted LINKS to actual quotes from our military leaders at the time

not 1, not just 2 but over a dozen and you have the nerve to talk to me about FACTS :eyes:

for anyone interested in the latest on the abomb debate from actual scholars who are actively studying this please start here...
http://www.doug-long.com/debate.htm

psst... pass the word

peace

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[alwynsw]

58. What cop out?

You want to argue, do your homework. Give me something credible to work with and I'll either verify or disprove it.

Thus far you've only given me opinions and incomplete recollections from participants rather than researchers.

[bpilgrim]

61. we have a tradition on DU to back up your opinions with links

you refused. thats what i am talking about.

you want to read the recent research by a scholar vs the men who were there executing the war then start here...

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

peace

[Skeptic_All]

68. The previous decision to sue for "unconditional surrender" of the

Axis powers tied the hands of any possible negotiations between the United States and the Japanese Imperial government. If memory serves me correct, a Japanese delegation, through the Soviet embassy had made a surrender offer on the condition that Japan be entitled to retain her emperor (Hirohito). The United States blanched at this offer, insisting as it had since Casablanca, that only unconditional surrender would be considered.

The Japanese military leadership did not do it's people any favors however by simultaneously releasing propaganda newsreels depicting the rural farmers training with pitchforks to ward off any possible land assault by the Allied powers. This made a great impression on the leadership in Washington, forcing many to believe that an invasion of the Japanese mainland would be prohibitive in regards to US casualties.

After four years of war in Africa, Europe, and the SW Pacific, American's were tired and numb from the hundreds of thousands of lives already lost. The very idea of losing the numbers of men that military planners were estimating (invasion of the Japanese home islands - Operation Downfall) was more than the leadership in Washington was willing to consider, hence the decision to use atomic weapons to close out hostilities.

[bpilgrim]

70. however we accepted thier 1 condition in the end...

and the chrysanthemum throne remains the longest unbroken imperial throne to this very day.

* In his memoirs Eisenhower reported the following reaction when Secretary of War Stimson informed him the atomic bomb would be used:

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. . . .

more...
http://www.doug-long.com/ga1.htm

there is no excuse to indiscriminately kill civilians, imho.

peace

[TankLV]

83. And even more recent discoveries reveal that Japan & Germany were

close to nuking the US.

Even as their European war campaign was failing & in it's last days, the Germans had sent their nuke bomb & jet technology to Japan where they were critically close to developing the means & meathod to deliver a nuke to the west coast. This is now a fact.

Those who tear at their rags and wrender their clothes because of the "awful US" in using the bomb first forget that the Japanese and Germans were working on just the same thing.

I thank God every day that we were the first to successfully use it and prevent them from doing it to us.

No regrets ever.

[bpilgrim]

84. we NUKED a defeated ready to surrender nations cities of civilians

TWICE against ALL our military leaders advice at the time.

* In his memoirs Admiral William D. Leahy, the President's Chief of Staff--and the top official who presided over meetings of both the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Combined U.S.-U.K. Chiefs of Staff--minced few words:

(T)he 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. . . .

(I)n being the first to use it, we . . . 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. (THE DECISION, p. 3.)

more...
http://www.doug-long.com/ga1.htm

knowing those facts your god must be satan :puke:

peace

[TankLV]

86. To assume we were the bad guys and Japan & Germany were poor victums

is patently absurd.

I'm sick of people trying to make revisionist history.

Damn right we had to nuke them TWICE.

Because even after the first one, they STILL REFUSED TO SURRENDER!

That proves we were justified in using it.

Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the rest of the cities choosen were the home of military installations and research facilities. The Japanese were extremely good at hiding behind their women's dresses and children.

And their treatment of allied prisoners was inexcusable and had NO comparison on the part of the allies.

Sometimes personal prejudices get in the way of facts.

You don't believe that they were desperately trying to do the same or worse to us and we just beat them to it?

If you don't, then you are desulsional.

[MisterP]

88. why, then I guess this grandson of a vet who nearly missed Iwo Jima

and another vet who was captured at Stalingrad is delusional and EVIL EVIL EVIL!

[TankLV]

133. If you say so.

[bpilgrim]

93. they were not NECESSARY

that isn't an assumption that is going by the historical record AND from the military leaders in theater at that time.

looks like YOUR 'personal prejudices' are getting in the way of facts.

* In his memoirs Admiral William D. Leahy, the President's Chief of Staff--and the top official who presided over meetings of both the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Combined U.S.-U.K. Chiefs of Staff--minced few words:

(T)he 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. . . .

(I)n being the first to use it, we . . . 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. (THE DECISION, p. 3.)

much more...
http://www.doug-long.com/ga1.htm

peace

[TankLV]

132. google it and look it up.

I am just as surprised at this news as anybody.

But it doesn't make what I said less true.

[TankLV]

135. That is simply not true. That is just one person's OPINION.

The facts dictate another conclusion.

"Puke" is right.

Japan and Germany were really big innocent victums of the bad USA.

RIGHT.

PUKE BIG TIME!

[bpilgrim]

145. BS: Every Military Leader in theater at that time disagree

Read the quotes here...
http://www.doug-long.com/ga1.htm

peace

[NickB79]

90. From what I've read

Germany was in no way close to developing an atomic bomb. With the path they were following to enrich uranium via heavy water neutrino capture, it would have taken 20 yrs to acquire enough material to build just one bomb. I doubt the US was ever in any real danger of being nuked.

[TankLV]

92. From what I've read, they were DAYS away.

Had a crude jet that was already functioning - built by Germans - that the US eventually captured and used in the development of our first prototype.

Days away!

The main point of my posts is that don't for a moment think that they weren't working towards that same goal.

And I thank God that they didn't succeed.

Or we'd all be speaking German/Japanese.

[bpilgrim]

94. that is nonsense

the japanese were suing for peace.

http://www.doug-long.com

peace

[TankLV]

131. Nope - google the subject.

Germany had already developed the jet.

They had transferred their technology to Japan.

The Germans and Japanese were the first to successfully split the atom even before our Manhattan project got underway.

Hardly bullshit.

Your position is debatable at best - but you peddle it as gosple.

That I call bullshit.

You don't think that the Germans and Japanese were endeavoring to drop a nuke on the US? You really deny this? You think that the bad ol' US was the ONLY one that dared think such things? Do you really?

[NickB79]

139. I was talking about atomic bombs

I fully realize the Germans had successfully developed jet aircraft before the end of WWII, and it's not a stretch to assume Japan was in on the development.

I'm assuming where you read they were days away from building a nuclear bomb was in the new book by Rainer Karlsch, where he details experiments with dirty bombs on concentration-camp inmates as guinea pigs? A dirty bomb is far, far away from a functioning nuclear warhead; you can make virtually any bomb into a dirty bomb by adding unenriched uranium.

The entire German nuclear program was botched from the start by inaccurate calculations by Heisenberg, the head of the German nuclear weapons program.

"Heisenberg did not understand bomb physics, and had vastly overestimated how much U-235 was needed. At Farm Hall Heisenberg had calculated that the amount of fissionable material necessary for a bomb was somewhere in the range of several metric tons."

They also never achieved critical mass in an experimental reactor due to their mistaken calculations:

"The famous "B8"-experiment was carried out at the end of March and the beginning of April 1945. The reactor didn't become critical. Further calculations showed that a functioning nuclear reactor would have had to be about 1.5 times the size of this reactor. However, expanding the reactor was no longer possible in April 1945 due to the lack of both heavy water and additional quantities of uranium blocks."

Like I said in my original post, they decided to use heavy-water moderation to enrich uranium. The US used graphite. Their mistakes about graphite's ability made it almost impossible for them to build a nuke with the resources on hand.

"In 1941, one of the leading German scientists at the University of Heidelberg, Walther Böthe, a highly regarded German physicist, greatly underestimated the diffusion path length of slow neutrons in graphite, apparently because graphite of inadequate purity was used in the German studies. Consequently, the German scientists selected heavy water as the moderator, rather than graphite, which was used in the U.S. program. These results were based upon mistaken calculations and gave Fermi an advantage. Heavy water was also chosen because Heisenberg's early experiments with paraffin as a moderator failed to produce any chain reaction."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/germany/nuke.htm

[bpilgrim]

155. thanks for sharing

very informative :toast:

peace

[Bridget Burke]

106. Very interesting. Do you have a link...

To the "recent discoveries."

Curtis E LeMay designed the incendiary bombing of Japan. He thought the A-bomb was unnecessary--that they were ready to surrender.

He was not generally considered a peacful fellow...

[NNN0LHI]

110. Besides those German and Japanese nukes we were about to be bombed with

...Italy was preparing to use a death ray disguised as a huge pepperoni on us. No shit. I seen it all in a movie once. Got to watch them sneaky Italians I tell you.

Don

[TankLV]

134. Don't believe me. Google it.

I am just as surprised as anybody.

But your snide comments don't make anything that I've said less true.

Nice try.

[NickB79]

140. I did, and provided a link in a previous post

That contradicts your claim. Can you provide a link to support your claim that they were days away from a working nuclear bomb, and not simply a dirty bomb?

[daleo]

37. I wish Saddam would have attacked something.

Then the current war might be slightly justified.

[harmon3]

141. You don't have to attack something though.

According to bpilgrim the US was at fault for Pearl Harbor so isn't Iraq at fault for the March 2003 invasion by the US?

[bpilgrim]

150. there you go again... putting words in my mouth

i never said such a thing, i simply stated more of the context of that time.

isn't it interesting though how context & propaganda don't often mix, though.

think about it

peace

[Hosnon]

24. Rent "Fog of War" - Documentary with McNamara...I was amazed at

how much of Japan was already burned to the ground long before the two atomic bombs. They were just 'icing' on the cake.

Great movie as well

[bicentennial_baby]

47. That section of the film is chilling

Riveting stuff.

[drdtroit]

89. They (nukes) were a "showcase" for the benefit of the Soviet Union

who were rapidly setting their thoughts on European domination. IMO
We could never let that happen.

[bunkerbuster1]

105. Anyone reading this, who hasn't seen Fog of War

well, you know what to do.

[VirginiaDem]

67. My admittedly very incomplete understanding of the current debate

is that the a-bombs really weren't necessary but that those in charge really did believe they were. I'm not a pacifist but I'm awfully adverse to war and one of the main reasons is that once they get started then shit happens. Awfully bad shit. I think Truman knew on some level what the bombs would do but they couldn't truly grasp like we do today the true devastating nature of what they were about to unleash. We have a visceral, well-earned repulsion to the idea of using nukes as anything other than a very , very last-resort method, which Truman et al couldn't have possibly shared.

[bpilgrim]

76. They tested the bomb before using it, he knew...

and he certainly knew after Hiroshima.

to learn more about the decision to use the abomb start here...
http://www.doug-long.com

very well documented and worthwhile reading.

:hi:

peace

[VirginiaDem]

96. That's not the same thing--my point applies to

the visceral nature of our objection, which is a function of our place in space and time (mostly time). We are opposed to nuclear weapons because we have had the full discussion and have seen the photos and have read the books about the victims and the radiation damage, etc. Truman didn't have any of that, even after Hiroshima. He had an intellectual understanding (there's probably a better term that could be used here) of what the bomb had done to Hiroshima. Morality in hindsight is a quagmire; there were very few world leaders, of any nationality, who would have acted differently than Truman.

I agree with you for the most part on the essential historical/political question, though: the US certainly would have gotten the same surrender terms without the Nagasaki bomb and probably would have gotten it without the Hiroshima bomb.

[bpilgrim]

119. my point is that they KNEW they would destroy the whole city AND

they knew about the radiation.

peace

[VirginiaDem]

123. I just read through the Doug Long site...

very well researched. It was an interesting read.

[bpilgrim]

126. i am glad you took the time to read it and that you found it interesting

i hope you pass the word about the facts contained therein as i fear that our current attitudes about the use of nuclear weapons will be the death of us all.

also, i enjoyed our discussion and appreciate your time and consideration :toast:

peace

[VirginiaDem]

127. ditto n/t

[NNN0LHI]

128. Turned out to be a real good thread you guys

I learned a lot from this thread. Thank you all for your input.

Don

[bpilgrim]

129. thanks NNN0LHI

as always i really appreciate your posts as well which keep us all up-to-date and provide the catalyst for great discussion :toast:

peace

[neverforget]

85. I'm shocked this has turned into re-fighting WW2. Shocked I tell ya.

[bpilgrim]

87. i'm shocked that 6 decades old propaganda is still so prevalent

on DU.

FYI: this isn't "re-fighting WW2" it's a discussion about some of the events of WWII in a thread that is about WWII and it's impact on peoples lives. so you really shouldn't be 'shocked'.

peace

[VirginiaDem]

97. It's not propaganda--there's a legitimate historical debate

here. I think you're right and I think that the general historical consensus is the same but the opposing viewpoint is more than just "propaganda".

[bpilgrim]

100. when you look at the facts...

compared to what i've been hearing here, it's just propaganda.

we dropped it to save lives or they hit us first or they deserved it or it was necessary.

the facts demonstrate that those viewpoints are inaccurate and also propaganda that was deliberately put out at that time.

peace

[VirginiaDem]

103. Since we've been having a back and forth on this, I'll

check out the link you posted above and get back to you.

[harmon3]

111. Question-

Was the US at war when Pearl Harbor was attacked?

[bpilgrim]

121. we were provoking one

not that the Japanese were completely innocent, of course not, but they were reacting in predictable ways to our prodding.

On October 7, 1940, Lieutenant Commander Arthur McCollum of the Office of Naval Intelligence submitted a memo to Navy Captains Walter Anderson and Dudley Knox (whose endorsement is included in the following scans). Captains Anderson and Knox were two of President Roosevelt's most trusted military advisors.

The memo, scanned below, detailed an 8 step plan to provoke Japan into attacking the United States. President Roosevelt, over the course of 1941, implemented all 8 of the recommendations contained in the McCollum memo. Following the eighth provocation, Japan attacked. The public was told that it was a complete surprise, an "intelligence failure", and America entered World War Two.

sources...
http://news.globalfreepress.com/images/pearl_harbor/recommendations/

peace

[harmon3]

130. Provoking one?

Interesting, I do have a couple of questions-
1. The memo is dated October 7th but you stated that these "steps" were implemented over the course of 1941- were all 8 of these steps done in the 2 months between October 7th and December 7th or had preparations begun earlier in 1941?
2. "We were provoking a war". That being said, I assume then it's okay for one country to attack another when not at war, that in some cases it's okay when you have been "prodded".
3. "Not that the Japanese were entirely innocent"- I am wondering what the Japanese were guilty of?

[bpilgrim]

136. yes

1. the memo was October, 7th 1940 - more than a YEAR before PH.

2. all countries have military force as an option to protect VITAL national interest. not uncommon policy.

3. the Japanese were guilty of fighting wars of imperial conquest for foreign resources and violating human rights in occupied countries and captured POWs.

peace

[Spinoza]

137. You are right.

The U.S. is responsible for the attack on Pear Harbor, not Japan. FDR wanted war. He pretened to be upset over the Japanese attack on China and used an oil-embargo against Japan to force Japan to attack the U.S. Japan actually wanted to liberate China from white colonialism. The U.S. also provoked war with Hitler since we sent war-arms to Britain before the U.S. was in the war. Hitler did not want war with the U.S. FDR was a war-mongerer and should have been impeached and removed from the Presidency. No other president incarcerated an entire people. I agree with you that while noone was pure, morally the U.S. was far worse than Japan.

[harmon3]

138. Right?

What plan was Japan using to liberate China from white colonialism? The "reduce their population by 12 million" plan?
Also, by the logic in your post, a country that is attacked can be responsible for that attack? Isn't that(gasp)pre-emptive?

[bpilgrim]

146. i never said that

FYI: i said we were WRONG to NUKE a defeated nation's cities TWICE.

peace

[VirginiaDem]

151. This is Pat Buchanan Republican horseshit. n/t

[harmon3]

153. Pat Buchanan?

What in the blue hell are you talking about?

[VirginiaDem]

156. Spinoza's post #137 is full of talking points

from the original Republican obstructionists--the anti-Roosevelt republicans. The various myths and exaggerations associated with Roosevelt and WWII come from anti-Roosevelt Republican isolationists. Their hatred for him was similar to that of modern day Republicans for the Clintons. Pat Buchanan as the uber-paleoconservative has resurrected all of these talking points in his various attempts to show that the US should not have entered WWII.

[harmon3]

159. Ok, now I'm up to speed.

Thanks.

[harmon3]

142. I now agree

After reading the information you provided, Japan had no choice but to attack a country that they were not at war with, so, now, I also support the US's decision to invade Iraq.

[bpilgrim]

147. the problem you are having is looking for black&white story lines

though we were clearly WRONG to NUKE a defeated, suing for peace, nation's cities, TWICE.

peace

[harmon3]

148. Actually, the problem

is that you are confusing posts-
My post is in regards to your post about Pearl harbor being a justified attack by the Japanese, it has nothing to do with your "fact based" posts about the nukes. By the way, wasn't the Japanese government broadcasting reports to the people, even after August 6th, that they were winning the war? This was the basis they used to arm women and children for when the US/Allies made the mainland invasion.

[bpilgrim]

149. i never said that

you keep putting words in my mouth does make it confusing... good thing we got a paper trail, eh ;->

the japanese dealt in propaganda the same way EVERY nation does... specially at WAR.

BTW: after witnessing the destruction wrought by our bombing you might arm your women and children, too.

peace

[harmon3]

152. No confusion and I didn't put words in your mouth

Regarding the bombing of Pearl Harbor, you said-
"we were provoking one
not that the Japanese were completely innocent, of course not, but they were reacting in predictable ways to our prodding."

"all countries have military force as an option to protect VITAL national interest. not uncommon policy"

You tell me, were the Japanese justified in bombing Pearl harbor?

[bpilgrim]

154. so, again, WHERE did i say they were 'JUSTIFIED' in bombing PH?

i just pointed out the CONTEXT and surrounding facts leading up to PH.

you keep saying they were justified... maybe it's because you would consider any other country, or just us, to react militarily if the shoe was on the other foot, but that would be some serious cognitive dissonance, maybe more than one can bear so you lash out at the messenger :shrug:

please stop putting words in my mouth and take OWNERSHIP of your own thoughts and ideas.

peace

[harmon3]

158. Please re-read my post, carefully this time though-

I was asking if you feel the bombing of PH was justified.

[VirginiaDem]

124. no n/t

[Lydia Leftcoast]

112. I first learned about this when I was living in Tokyo

25 years ago. One of the local TV stations did a documentary on what was then the 38th anniversary of the bombing.

The area that was bombed was NOT the location of any military equipment plants or indeed of any heavy industrial plants at the time. It was the oldest part of the city, and therefore, it consisted mostly of wooden buildings crowded closely together. Once the fires got started, a firestorm was inevitable, and it burned the entire area between two rivers.

The fires destroyed not only buildings and people but a way of life of close-knit neighborhoods and two hundred year-old traditions.

Survivors interviewed for the documentary were resentful of the fact that Hiroshima and Nagasaki got all the attention, while their experience of horror had been forgotten, even within Japan.

Visitors to Japan are often disappointed at how modern the cities are. Well, folks, there's a reason for that. American bombers flattened every city of any size, with the exceptions of Kyoto, Nara, and Kanazawa. (Oh, yes, and the cities that were possible targets for the atom bombs were left untouched so that scientists could separate the effects of the atomic blast from other bomb damage. Hiroshima was crowded with refugees from nearby cities that had been destroyed.) When I saw the list of cities bombed in The Fog of War, I was astonished to see the names of several small cities in the middle of nowhere.

Americans who are still angry about Pearl Harbor may not realize that the U.S. got its revenge for the 2200 killed in that raid many times over.

[Zerex71]

113. They'll be able to reuse this article 60 years from now

when they write about Fallujah.

[zara]

114. the fire bombings of tokyo were a war crime

the intent was to kill civilians. that's who died.
the Japanese did the same in Nanking.
but the victor writes history and establishes justice.
but it was a war crime. no doubt.

[ausiedownunderground]

157. Same story! .America kills The Rest of us!

It is really becoming hard to "protect" Americans abroad. Here in Oz, iv'e just started another degree this year, and i'm really shocked but pleasantly pleased, that American students are getting severely challenged on everything!! by everybody!! No matter what protest's they put up. Your American - You love The "Bush Gang"!!!! even though "deep down" we know your version of Democracy is so flawed, it makes a joke of the whole concept.