US soldier enshrined at Hiroshima memorial

[dArKeR]

Schoolgirls look at portraits of 9,000 victims of the world's first atomic bomb blast at the Hiroshima National Peace Memorial Hall on Friday. The victims' faces flash across a bank of video screens in a silent presentation seen by 700 visitors a day.
PHOTO: AP

Near where the atomic bomb detonated over Hiroshima, the faces of the victims silently appear and fade on a wall of television monitors in a relentless display of the attack's terrifying human toll.

Amid the thousands of faces, one stands apart: that of Corporal John Long, US Army Air Force.

Long, who died in the blast while being held by the Japanese, last month became the first US serviceman to be enshrined at a memorial here, throwing light on the little-known story of US prisoners of war who perished at Hiroshima.

"It shows how indiscriminate the slaughter was," said Shigeru Aratani, a curator at the Hiroshima National Peace Memorial Hall for the Atomic Bomb Victims. "Enemies and friends, soldiers and civilians, women and children -- they were all killed."

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2004/02/16/2003098965

I can't believe my country dropped nuclear bombs on civilians in cities! What if those people were against the Japanese government. Did the children have to die?

[PartyPooper]

1. Ask the crew members of the Enola Gay what they thought.

But, I believe they're all dead now.

:-(

[IndianaGreen]

3. Many of them are still alive, including Paul Tibbets, the commander

of the 509th Composite Group and pilot of Enola Gay.

Most people of that generation feel that the atomic bomb saved lives by preventing a bloody land invasion of Japan. They will also point out that more people were killed in the firebombing of Tokyo and Dresden than in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

People of the postwar generation tend to look at the nuclear arms race and the Cold War. For example, the plutonium facility at Oak Ridge was built to produce thousands of atomic bombs, thousands! Clearly Oak Ridge was not design exclusively to defeat Japan, but to build a huge atomic arsenal to be used against the Soviets after the war with Japan came to an end.

[CaptAhab]

10. Some U.S. military commanders opposed it

Most people of that generation feel that the atomic bomb saved lives by preventing a bloody land invasion of Japan.

Actually, both Pacific commanders, Admiral Nimitz and General MacArthur, went on record opposing the use of the atomic bomb against Japan. I believe Eisenhower wasn't particularly excited about it, either.

The thing was, U.S. military intelligence already knew the Japanese were out of fuel and munitions, and were practically on the verge of surrender. Nimitz was confident that neither invasion nor atomic bombing was required to produce surrender. He commented that the U.S. Pacific fleet was pounding Japan 'with complete immunity.' When Roosevelt met with MacArthur after the capture of Saipan, MacArthur also emphasized that Japan could be forced to surrender without an invasion of her homeland.

My understanding of the issue is that the military commanders wanted to avoid as many casualties as possible, but Roosevelt's civilian aides were politically motivated to scare the Russians with the new weapon. This was an early reflection of the ideological blindsidedness on both sides of the Iron Curtain.

[ArkDem]

27. Revisionist history

.

[bpilgrim]

68. they believed

the lies they were told that it saved lives.

and many forget that atomic bomb is the bomb that keeps on killing long after its initial explosion.

hiroshia deaths are well over 200k now and most folks don't know that as well.

peace

[mobuto]

4. An interesting tidbit from the article...

An important clue came in 1977 when a professor from Hiroshima University found a Japanese list of 20 American POWs listed as killed in the atomic attack.

Some of those names were later found to belong to prisoners who had been killed elsewhere in grisly experiments that the Japanese military apparently wanted to hide.

Nice.

[Womblestuffer]

6. the japanese were resolute, we were too.

[SquireJons]

9. The real story is not the one people know.

Both the US and Japanese governments had studies that showed Japan could not continue the war past November, 1945, which was the date set for major combat operations for the US. At Yalta, Stalin had promised to enter the Pacific war 3 months after the surrender of Germany, which they did by declaring war on Japan on August 8th, as the US had expected. The US dropped the first atomic bomb on Aug. 6th, then when that did not have the desired effect, they dropped the second one on Aug. 9th, and they only had 2. The use of the bomb had little to do with Japan and everything to do with Russia.

Winston Churchill said on July 23rd, 1945 "It is now no longer necessary for the Russians to come into the Japanese war; the new explosive alone was sufficient to settle the matter." Then later said "It is quite clear that the United States do not at the present time desire Russian participation in the war against Japan."

The British physicist P.M. S. Blackett charged that the sequence of events demonstrated that the use of the bomb was "the first major operation of the cold diplomatic war with Russia." The Atomic bombs' primary purpose was to keep Russia our of the Far Eastern postwar settlement rather than to save American lives.

[CaptAhab]

11. Exactly

Yes, see my other post in this thread. U.S. intelligence knew that Japan did not have the resources to continue fighting and both Nimitz and MacArthur felt that they could force the Japanese to surrender without land invasion or atomic bomb. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was politically motivated to scare the Russians.

[Womblestuffer]

84. Ok, this was the end of the war, civilians were ready to fight to the

death, we had heard of the japanese atrocities, this was documented over and over again......I wish we hadnt dropped a nuke but times were different, we look back now and cringe, It cant be excused but I'm not sure it it can be completely condemned. The rape of Nanking and the treatment of US POW's. An example of the tenacity of the japanese could be seen in the kamikaze and the japanese soldiers found 25 years after the war still hiding out on remote islands. We werent angels but the japanese were far worse.

[mobuto]

2. What if those people were against the Japanese Government?

Easy: they weren't. Whatever you make of the moral arguments for and against the dropping of the atomic bombs, there was no meaningful popular opposition to the militarists. On the contrary, Japanese civilians repeatedly showed their willingness to die before surrendering to advancing Americans. The most horrible example of this, of course, was at Saipan where the entire civilian population committed suicide rather submit to American troops.

[BOHICA06]

5. To end the war ...

yes they did. WWII - probably man's greatest mass savagery - whether it was the Death Camps; Bombing Amsterdam, London, Shanghai, Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima; the rape of Nan-king & Berlin; etc.

In the end, not too many good guys - just an end to fascist & militarist imperialism - for a while.

[tabasco]

8. There were a lot of infantrymen waiting to invade Japan.

There were a lot of Japanese infantry waiting to defend their home island. The fight would have gone on at least another year or more, with hundreds of thousands of KIA/WIA. As sad as it is, dropping the bombs was the right thing to do. What was the alternative? Step up the conventional bombing missions? That was pretty ugly too. But the war had to end. I am glad the US and Japan have become friends.

[JailForBush]

7. Do we deserve the same?

Like World War II era Germans and Japanese, most Americans don't question our fuhrer. They support the federal government's crimes against humanity. If someone nukes us one day, can anyone rightfully say we didn't deserve it?

[Muddleoftheroad]

12. Indiscriminate?

Wow, not sure where to start with this thread. Like all such threads about Hiroshima, it seeks to limit Japanese culpability in their own demise and blame America for stopping a barbarous fascism that actually competed pretty well on every level with the Third Reich.

Several points:

* Japan started the overall war by trying to conquer Asia.
* Japan started the war with the U.S. through sneak attack.
* Japan butchered millions across Asia -- not just in combat. Check out the Rape of Nanking if you doubt this.
* Japan murdered (yes murdered, not killed) thousands every day during the Bataan Death March. They were damned bloodthirsty and monstrous -- chopping off heads, running tanks into soldiers and bayonetting the wounded, when they weren't forcing Americans to bury their own wounded still alive.
* Japan mistreated prisoners of all stripes -- men, women and children, not just military. Their medical experiments alone are almost beyond comprehension.
* Japan was the rape empire, taking rape to new heights with institutionalized rape centers where women were forced to work and service about 30 Japanese a day. Imagine that, raped 30 times each day -- for years.
* Japanese troops had fought to the death and civilians had jumped off cliffs rather than be conquered by Americans.
* The battle at Iwo Jima only a few months before the bombing was especially deadly and a major precursor to what the U.S. would face with an invasion, except then almost everyone on the island would fight us to the death.
* Although the Japanese had sent out feelers about surrender, they did so in such a backroom way because even they feared their own military would not go through with it.
* Even AFTER two nukes, the Japanese military tried to coup and prevent surrender. Can you imagine how easily they would have given in otherwise?
* Yes, America was concerned about adding more territory to the Soviet empire. In retrospect, given what happened to Eastern Europe, Truman was right to be so concerned.

In the final analysis, the U.S. gave demands and Japan didn't surrender. As such, not only were we justified, we HAD to drop the bomb to end the war. America had gone through four years, Britain much more. The allies were stretched thin and worn out. The prospect of hundreds of thousands of American dead and wounded was terrifying. The bombings also saved Japan from complete and total devastation that invasion would have brought.

Ultimately, Truman was right. It worked out. The combination of overwhelming force of the nukes and massive help after the war created a thriving democracy that is unlikely to threaten the world again soon.

[Richardo]

13. Well said, muddle

So many forget the context of the use of the A-bombs on Japan.

Context, people.

[mobuto]

14. I don't think context is everything

The question isn't whether the Japanese "deserved" the bombs or not, after they had committed some of the most heinous crimes in all history, the question is whether it was a valid US policy decision.

By how much did Hiroshima and Nagasaki shorten the war? If it was six months or a year, then yes, they were certainly justified. But if it was only by a week or less, as some evidence seems to suggest, and if the US powers that be knew that at the time, then they were not justified.

[Muddleoftheroad]

15. They were justified EITHER WAY

No one can tell how much it shortened the war because, as I pointed out above, even with the nukes, the Japanese military tried to coup to prevent surrender. With a conventional threat, the Japanese military might well have decided to keep on fighting and it could have lasted years until we basically depopulated Japan in the fight.

What we can be sure of is that the combined efforts of Truman, MacArthur and Marshall worked. Anything else is just Monday morning quarterbacking.

[mobuto]

16. Again, we're back at the same question

And I'm not going to pretend I have the answer.

If the Japanese were prepared to keep fighting, or if the US thought they were, then of course the atomic bombs were justified.

But if they weren't, or if the US thought they weren't - and indeed surrender negotiations were underway - then the bombs weren't justified.

What we can be sure of is that the combined efforts of Truman, MacArthur and Marshall worked. Anything else is just Monday morning quarterbacking.

Sure, its a historiographical what-if that really changes nothing, because regardless, the bombs were dropped. But I'm still not convinced that the two atomic bombs, which killed roughly 250,000 people, were necessary. Now you can go and compare them to some really truly senseless killing - the Rape of Nanjing for instance - but I think they stand on their own as a moral question for the ages.

[Muddleoftheroad]

21. Not a question for me

I am perfectly satisfied with the answer of history. It worked, move on.

But to clarify one point, surrender negotiations were NOT under way. The Japanese had made some discreet inquiries through the Russians and gotten nowhere.

[Flaxbee]

17. Monstrous acts by one country do not justify

monstrous acts by another. There was absolutely no reason to drop the nuclear weapons, they fell mostly on women, children and the elderly in highly populated cities.

And TWO? Why two? To make sure they both worked? The Japanese were guinea pigs to make sure this hideous weaponry worked, one dropped to see what kind of devastation uranium bombs caused, the other to see what plutonium bombs would do. The Japanese were also guinea pigs sacrificed in order to scare the Russians. Why didn't we explode them out at sea off the coast of Japan to reduce human casualties but still prove a point? Why not try that first? Because we didn't care, this country had invested so much money in the development of the bombs that the military was determined to see their investment justified. Nothing noble about it at all.

No one can tell if it even DID shorten the war, it is my understanding that Japan's only condition to surrender was safe passage of the Emperor and the US refused that condition. If the US had guaranteed the Emperor safety, the war might have ended even sooner.

That you even try to justify it is appalling.

[mobuto]

20. That doesn't fly

Actually, in the end, we did allow the Japanese to keep their Emperor. I personally think that was a mistake, but what's done is done.

No one can tell if it even DID shorten the war

No one can say for sure it didn't. That's really the only question as far as I'm concerned, and one that hasn't been sufficiently resolved.

The Japanese were guinea pigs to make sure this hideous weaponry worked, one dropped to see what kind of devastation uranium bombs caused, the other to see what plutonium bombs would do.

I don't buy that. I do believe we were at least partially interested in scaring the Russians, but we knew that the bombs worked - we'd seen the test at Trinity.

Why didn't we explode them out at sea off the coast of Japan to reduce human casualties but still prove a point?

That was Edward Teller's suggestion. But the United States was still at war with Japan, and Nagasaki, at least, was a legitimate military target. And there was no guarantee that an explosion over Tokyo Bay would have been enough to send a sufficient message anyway.

[bpilgrim]

35. they were trying to surrender

you seen to be a fan of the whatever it takes to save lives position - like me - so i think you would agree that accepting their one condition - keeping thier symbolic institution of emperor - as all our military leaders in theater at the time advised IN ORDER TO SAVE LIVES would have been the wise choice ESPECIALLY when you concider IWO JIMA... it COULD HAVE been prevented.

i think history shows that accepting japans 1 condition was a WISE decision and has stood the test of time - no japanese planes flying onto our stuff any more, no prolonged ground war.

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

37. There is no such concept as TRYING to surrender

You don't try to surrender. You simply raise your hands and put up a white flag and do it -- no questions asked and no demands made.

They wouldn't do that.

What history shows is that the COMBINATION of the nukes and a peaceful transition with a lot of U.S. aid secured a democratic future for Japan.

[bpilgrim]

41. STOP SHOOTING we want to give up but you MUST agree to stop shooting

AND NOT TO DESTROY OUR SYMBOLIC HEAD OF STATE.

then it's OUR TURN... we answered with 2 NUKES, then we ACCEPTED their terms and HISTORY has shown that to be a WISE decision.

negotiated surrender terms between nations is as old as war... but don't take my word for it, there's always GOOGLE.

thank GORE he 'invented' the INTERNET ;->

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

43. AND...

When you surrender, all they promise is the stop shooting part. Trials, what will happen to your nation afterward, etc. are ALL left up to the victor.

[bpilgrim]

45. ???

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

46. !!!

victory.

[Flaxbee]

48. Nuclear weapons are WRONG

Period. No justification.

No, we did NOT know what the bombs woul do to human flesh and blood. We knew they would explode, we'd done plenty of tests and marched US soldiers into the fallout but we did not know the extent of the carnage from the actual explosion of the bombs directly on human beings. But boy oh boy, we sure wanted to find out! And we did! Yay for us!


The use of those weapons was nothing more than a gruesome experiment to justify the enormous amounts of money spent developing what has become the bane of mankind's existence.

[Muddleoftheroad]

51. No, having the world conquered by fascism was wrong

Nuclear weapons worked and ended that attempt.

We knew, at that point, that the weapons would kills lots of the enemy and perhaps prod him into surrender. That was enough. Killing is never pretty. Losing to monsters who butcher prisoners and rape as an ordinary event is worse.

[mobuto]

52. ???

Of course we knew what atomic bombs would do to flesh and blood. What, are you kidding me?

Your argument is totally unsupported by the historical record.

The US did carry out real gruesome experiments - I'd say the deliberate firebombing of Hamburg, Dresden and Tokyo counts - but the atomic bombs were no experiment.

[kskiska]

124. It was said at the time that nothing would ever grow there again.

They had no idea what these bombs would do, but wanted to find out.

[Muddleoftheroad]

22. They justified ending the war

We knew what monstrous butchers we were facing. Why continue to face them?

Both cities, btw, were using the rules of war at the time, military targets.

Two bombs were used because the Japanese didn't surrender after one.

Why would we explode them out at sea? They were dropped to kill the enemy, not entertain them.

The U.S. had no obligation to commit to anything for the Japanese, nor should it have. They started a monstrous barbarous war against not just America, but mankind. They deserved no quarter.

[AngryAmish]

47. The given reason for no warning bombs

is that there was a severe lack of fissile material. Do I know that this is true? I do not.

[Muddleoftheroad]

50. We only had TWO bombs

We used both. We could not waste either one.

[bpilgrim]

56. "We could not waste either one." - puke

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

58. The kind of peace you advocate in your post

puke

[alarimer]

49. I agree with you

Mostly I have problems with the fact that these bombs were dropped on largely civilian areas, not legitimate military targets. Of course there was a lot of that going on- the firebombing of Dresden, which I think was also appalling, the London Blitz, etc. So both sides were definitely guilty of the same thing. We cannot claim to be above censure simply by virtue of the fact that we won or that the other side was way worse. The only good things that came out of the bombing of Hiroshima are that it ended the war sooner (how much we will never know) and that no one has used a nuclear weapon in war ever since (unless you cound depleted uranium).

[stevedeshazer]

23. Great points

Thanks for a spot-on post. My great-uncle was one of Jimmy Doolittle's Raiders. He's still alive and well, but spent two + years as a POW after being stranded in China.

[Muddleoftheroad]

26. Thank your great uncle for me

Perhaps you can get HIM to relate what life was like as a Japanese prisoner of war. Maybe that will remind people here what we faced and ignore the pro-Japan propaganda machine that seeks to blame the U.S. for ending the war.

[stevedeshazer]

39. His story is here

I Was a Prisoner of Japan

by Jacob DeShazer

<snip>

I was a prisoner of war for 40 long months, 34 of them in solitary confinement.

When I flew as a member of a bombing squadron on a raid over enemy territory on April 18, 1942, my heart was filled with bitter hatred for the people of that nation. When our plane ran out of petrol and the members of the crew of my plane had to parachute down into enemy-held territory and were captured by the enemy, the bitterness of my heart against my captors seemed more than I could bear.

Taken to prison with the survivors of another of our planes, we were imprisoned and beaten, half-starved, terribly tortured, and denied by solitary confinement even the comfort of association with one another. Three of my buddies were executed by a firing squad about six months after our capture and 14 months later, another one of them died of slow starvation. My hatred for the enemy nearly drove me crazy.

It was soon after the latter's death that I began to ponder the cause of such hatred between members of the human race. I wondered what it was that made one people hate another people and what made me hate them.

http://www2.gasou.edu/facstaff/etmcmull/DESHAZER.htm

------------------------------------------------------------------

My dad, who died last year, was a member of the 276th Combat Engineers, which was a part of the force that took the Ludendorff Bridge at Remagen, Germany, the first group to advance by crossing the Rhine in March 1945. A good accounting of this is here.

<snip>

Starting in December 16, 1944, as the Allied Forces approached the Rhine River, Adolph Hitler ordered all the bridges blown up to prevent a crossing of this wide river.  

The 9th Armored Division, which had been ordered not to cross the Rhine River but to turn south along the west bank in order to join up with General Patton's Third  Army, found a bridge still standing at the little town of Remagen halfway between Cologne and Koblenz.  The defending Germans had left this bridge open in order to retreat some of their tanks and big guns to save them from being captured by the Americans.

On the afternoon of March 7, 1945 a small group of the 27th Armored Infantry Battalion of the 9th Armored Division emerged from the woods, and from the top of a high hill overlooking the Rhine River they observed the bridge still standing, with the Germans retreating across the bridge. The bridge was known as the Ludendorff Bridge after Germany's WWI general.  It had been built during WWI.  When the French occupied this section of Germany after WWI, they filled the demolition chambers underneath the bridge with cement, making it very difficult to destroy the bridge.  The German defenders set up a demolition plan which involved a circuit which could be activated from a tunnel on the east side of the bridge.  The bridge was originally designed as  a railroad bridge, but it was planked over to allow for vehicular traffic.   

When the head of Combat Command B, General William Hoge, observed that the bridge was still standing, he ordered the 27th Armored Infantry Battalion to go down the hill and attack the town of Remagen prior to possibly crossing the bridge before it was blown up.  At the same time, the 14th Tank Battalion of the 9th Armored Division was ordered to proceed to the west side of the bridge after helping to clean out the defenders in the town of Remagen.  General Hoge was actually violating his orders, which were to turn south to join up with General Patton's third Army.

Lt. Karl Timmermann led the first troops across the bridge.  Just before they set foot on the bridge, the Germans blew a 30' crater in the approach to prevent tanks from crossing.  A  young soldier from Rupert, West Virginia, Clemon Knapp, had a tank with a blade in front of it which he called "tank dozer."   Under fire, he brought the "tank dozer" forward to fill in the 30' crater. 

more: http://www.appalachianpower.com/Remagen%20Bridge%20jul14.01.htm

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Those who are younger often don't realize the brutality of war. It's easy from the comfort and hindsight that 60 years provides to second-guess those who were there and lived in that time. Sure, there were undoubtedly political signals to be sent to the Soviets in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the firebombings of Tokyo and Dresden. But had we been around then and had to make these kinds of decisions, I'll bet we would have a different opinion, too.

We should never forget it.

I'll see Uncle Jake this summer, and thank him. Again.

[Muddleoftheroad]

42. Wow!

Your uncle's story is inspiring on many levels. Thank him with all my heart.

[bpilgrim]

44. no military leader in theater at that time agrees with your view

so i find it not only insulting but deceptive to say...

"Those who are younger often don't realize the brutality of war. It's easy from the comfort and hindsight that 60 years provides to second-guess those who were there and lived in that time."

here, take a look at what some of the actual MILITARY LEADERS in theater at that time had to say...

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

peace

[Bridget Burke]

54. General LeMay was SUCH a dove!

He'd engineered the incendiary bombing of Japan & knew that it had been horribly effective.

I'd seen this before; LeMay definitely thought the A-bomb was not needed to make Japan surrender.

[stevedeshazer]

72. So be insulted

You have every right. But don't say that it's deceptive. My dad shared this view, so did all the guys in his unit that I met. So does my uncle, even though he returned to Japan as a missionary.

I read what you posted. With all due respect, I disagree with Mr. Long's conclusion, one that you share. To be sure, he has a lot of supporting stuff on his web site. It is far from the whole story.

Nevertheless, I stand by what I said. Ultimately, it was Truman's decision to go ahead, not Eisenhower or MacArthur or the others mentioned. The bombing ended the war in a matter of days. Was it right? It is a question that will be discussed for a very long time. We have differing opinions, but absent the deployment of fission bombs, it is clear that the Japanese would have continued their fight --- and continued war atrocities. The Japanese soldiers were brutal, and paid no heed to the conventions of war. They fought for Hirohito. Only his surrender would end the war. The Bataan Death March. Torture of American soldiers. The Nanking Massacre (photo below) and so much more.



more here: http://members.aol.com/bcmfofnm/atrocities.html

I hate war. So do you. So peace to you, too.

[bpilgrim]

77. you leave me no choice

it was your words.

i have family - as do most of us - who served and i find it APPALING that we WASTED so many lives on IWO JIMA and OKINAWA when we now know that it probably wasn't necessary.

and it is DECEPTIVE to write that the military leaders at the time agreed with the use of the bomb when the fact of the matter is just the oppostite.

sure most soilders believed what they were told and were VERY happy it was all over and if it took the nukes to do then so be it but history show that they were absolutey not necessary and i tend to go with the opinions of the folks who were actually in a postion to know when forming my opinions.

the evidence demnstrates that we nuked a DEFEATED trying to surrender nations cities filled with innocent men - even our own - women and children... TWICE.

there are NO excuse for such TERRORISM, ever.

but that is just my opinion.

peace

[mobuto]

162. What do you mean it wasn't necessary?

What would you have had our armed forces do? Sit on their asses starting in February, 1945, and let Japan rearm and regroup its armies? I don't understand what you're saying.

the evidence demnstrates that we nuked a DEFEATED trying to surrender nations cities filled with innocent men - even our own - women and children... TWICE.

Please explain this concept of "trying to surrender."

[bpilgrim]

29. many of our familly members faught

unless you were part of the elite but that is a whole nother story.

the INNOCENT civilians - men, women and children - did NOT deserve indiscrimante HELLFIRE for their gov sins ESPECIALLY when they were TRYING to SURRENDER.

no military leader in theater at that time thinks they were necessary and most have PUBLICLLY condemmed their use.

if our nation has turned so RAPID that even 'liberals' accept such TERRORISM in the name of 'justice' we are all doomed as einstien perdicted.

thanks for sharing :hi:

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

30. Innocent?

Not by the standards of war at the time. Cities were manufacturing centers that supported the Japanese war machine's march across Asia. Ports also supported the Japanese navy.

Those "innocent" men, women and children manned factories, raised food for the troops and kept that war machine in fine working order. They also supported the government that was bent on world conquest.

By the standards of the time (since changed), they were military targets.

Ultimately, the only military commander who had all the information available was the president. He agreed the bombing was needed.

[bpilgrim]

32. yes, unless you believe civilians are legit targets like OBL and his ilk

you can try to spin it all you like but you come off sounding LIKE a TERRORIST... just an FYI :hi:

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

34. Again, STANDARDS OF WAR AT THE TIME

They have been since changed. But WWII was fought as a total war by all sides.

[bpilgrim]

36. oh, so at that time we were TERRORIST... according to 'todays standards'

i c

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

38. Nope

We were fighting a war to prevent monstrous fascists from conquering every corner of the globe. THEY set the rules of war by killing civilians, destroying cities, etc. While we fought a total war, we did NOT stoop to their barbarous notions of conquest.

We were not terrorists. Your attempt to claim we were is entirely without basis.

[bpilgrim]

25. we NUKED a DEFEATED trying to SURRENDER nation's civilian population TWICE

against the advice of ALL our military leaders in theater at that time.

they suggested we accept japans one condition for surrender in order to SAVE AMERICAN SOLIDERS LIVES...



i agree

Hiroshima is the second most horrid word in the american lexicon succeeded only by NAGASAKI - kurt vonnegut

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

28. I missed you

I figured you would show up at some point however.

To correct a few points however.

* Japan was not defeated. To be defeated to have to surrender. They had not.
* No, you can't TRY to surrender. You either do or do not. There is no try. Trying is all BS. I tried to date Tyra Banks last night. Of course, I didn't really do anything about it. But I thought about it.
* Nations that lose wars do not make conditions on those who win. It doesn't work that way.

Ultimately, you can argue all you want, but the combined effort of Truman, MacArthur and Marshall worked. Remove one piece and the house of cards collapses.

[bpilgrim]

31. how kind

it is well documented that japan wanted to surrender and had one major condition that we finally accepted after we conducted our first GLOBAL SHOCK-n-AWE



and that ALL military leaders in theater at the time were AGAINST it's use and felt not only that it was unnecessary but also grossly imoral.

~~~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 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

more info about the decision and the debate...
http://www.doug-long.com/ga1.htm

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

33. Not really true either

It is ONLY well documented that a tiny portion of the Japanse leadership wanted to surrender. Losing nations typically don't set terms to the nations that defeat them.

The Japanese military did NOT wish to surrender and, despite the emperor's wishes, attempted a coup even after the nukes were dropped. So your statement is not correct.

[bpilgrim]

40. you said it...

no japanese official would have surrendered or been allowed to without protecting the emperor, as history has born witness to.

and yes there were some fanatics in the military who would never surrender as i am sure there are some like that on ALL sides.

yet that doesn't negate the FACT that the japanese gov is on record for trying to surrender prior to our terrorist act.

yet they still didn't surrender when the bombs were dropped.

they only surrendered when their 1 condition was met.

and yes it IS the norm to NEGOTIATE terms of surrender.

sorry, but i agree with OUR military leaders who were in theater at that time who say it WASN'T NECESSARY and it only WASTED LIVES... thiers and OURS!!!

would you have negotiated for surrender if we didn't have to take IWO JIMA by force?

think about it...

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

53. Tiny PORTIONS of the Japanese government

Made minor moves to indicate a possible willingness to surrender. That is NOT trying to surrender. That is negotiating. Meanwhile, their armies of butchers still roamed Asia and parts of the Pacific.

All history has born witness to is that the nukes worked.

Actually, it is NOT the norm for a totally conquered enemy to surrender conditionally.

I agree instead with one of our great DEMOCRATIC presidents -- Harry S. Truman.

As for Iwo, not necessarily. If they tried to set any conditions -- ANY conditions -- I would not have negotiated.

You negotiate with reasonable states not with butchers.

[bpilgrim]

55. even they didn't bomb indiscrimately NANKING or destroy the whole city

in fact they behaved very simularly to the way we are now in the ME especially in IRAQ... they even used the term ILLEGAL COMBATANT.

"I agree instead with one of our great DEMOCRATIC presidents -- Harry S. Truman. "

what happened to MacArthur?

* The day after Hiroshima was bombed MacArthur's pilot, Weldon E. Rhoades, noted in his diary:

General MacArthur definitely is appalled and depressed by this Frankenstein monster . I had a long talk with him today, necessitated by the impending trip to Okinawa. . . .

and to sacrifice the lives of those brave men and women on IWO JIMA and OKINAWA - BOTH SIDES - because you were unwilling to negotiate reminds me of the extremist position of many in imperial japan at the time who i hold couplable for driving their nation to such a fate the same ones who you ironically profess publicly to despise. but i will point out EXTREMIST anywhere they exist wether they be on our side or theirs and that i suppose is the main difference between you and me.

peace

[mobuto]

57. "Even they didn't bomb indiscriminately Nanking?"

No, they just singled out babies and grandmother to rape with their bayonettes. Nobody every accused the Japanese army of not discriminating.

And they were most discriminating in their choice of victims for gruesome biological experiments (some of the American deaths caused by which were blamed on the atomic bombs) and sex slaves.

[bpilgrim]

59. thats right

they did not destroy the whole city, brutal acts by individuals yes, massive indiscriminate destruction on a scale to match our own sanctioned by their gov, NO.

fyi: we also conducted many cruel experiments, even on our own citizens. we also protected the members and research of the infamous 'medical' experimentation unit 741

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

60. Wrong

So very wrong it's disturbing.

This is the worst rationalization of an event I have seen recently.

No, the Rape of Nanking was NOT "brutal acts by individuals." It was a wholesale rape and slaughter of a city by an army. That kind of butchery and barbarism is rarely seen in the annals of history. The action was by an institution, not just by individuals. Close to 400,000 people -- mostly civilians -- were murdered. MURDERED. Not killed in wartime. Butchered like animals.

Frankly, every single soldier involved in that massacre should have been executed. And would have if I had been involved in the peace.

Here is a link to a book of photographs of the monstrous acts by the Japanese army. I dare you and others here to look at it and call what they did "brutal acts by individuals" ever again.

http://www.tribo.org/nanking/

[bpilgrim]

62. your numbers seem to be wildly inacurate since there were only about 200k

there by the time the army arrived - most had fled - but the point and fact is that the japanese did NOT wantly and indiscrimately destroy the whole city.

there is nothing in japanese history that compares to the destruction and devestation we inflicted on their cities AND civilian population.

then there is vietnam... were we killed MILLIONS of people and drop more tons of explosives then all the combined armies of wwII.

not a very moral record to run on i would say but that distracts from the topic of HIROSHIMA and NAGASAKI and our decision to NUKE a DEFEATED, trying to SURRENDER nation... TWICE.

peace

[mobuto]

64. Revisionist history

Bpilgrim, did you go to the David Irving school for historical research? What's next, holocaust figures were exagerated?

Numbers vary, but most estimates place the number of murders in Nanjing between 200,000 and 400,000.

then there is vietnam... were we killed MILLIONS of people and drop more tons of explosives then all the combined armies of wwII.

You must be joking. At no point was it ever American policy to kill civilians. Ever.

Go talk to Filipinos or Koreans or Chinese or Vietnamese or Burmese or Malayans or Indonesians or New Guineans or, hell, even American POWs about the Japanese Army. You're arguing out of ignorance. And your willingness to claim that casualties were exagerated suggests the worst and most despicable form of historical denial possible.

[bpilgrim]

66. a popular refrain

but it is well known that we indescrimately killed civilians in vietnam... ever hear of FREE-FIRE-ZONES or operation PHOENIX?

as far as the numbers killed in nanking they are USUALLY wildly exagerated due to the war propaganda but most esitmates but the population of nanking at the time of the japanese armys arrival at 200 to 250k

and the american misionary there at the time who buried most of the dead and took care of the injured never mentioned numbers anywhere near the huge numbers put out by the war propagandist.

but i am sure you are willing to deny that there were war time propagandist as well.

be that as it may... their sins do not justify OURS and the scale of thier destruction in nanking pales in comparison to ours in hiroshima and nagasaki but the larger point is that they were a DEFEATED NATION trying to SURRENDER when we rained hellfire down on them from the sky.

there is NO excuse for that.

peace

[mobuto]

69. I'm sorry,

but anybody who tries to minimize the Rape of Nanjing is out in my book. You speak of war propagandists - well what are you then? Explain to me how your comments should be looked at any differently from those of Holocaust revisionists. In that respect you look to be no different from David Irving.

[bpilgrim]

75. you should be

calling folks names is not a polite way to have a discussion and i believe is frowned upon here on DU.

i am not defending anyones actions, just pointing out facts and taking issue with our actions.

you try to put words into my mouth or put stereotypical lables on me but that has been a charecteristic of yours from the start here on DU and expected by now.

peace

[mobuto]

76. No, you should be

Attempt to deny or minimize crimes against humanity is entirely and immediatly suspect. That's exactly what you just did.

David Irving too claims that his attacks on accounts of the Holocaust are not meant to "defend anyone's actions" and are "just pointing out facts," and yet his agenda is abundantly clear.

[bpilgrim]

78. for pointing out our own TERRORISM

or that there is a lot of historic war time propaganda in the numbers of deaths you reported in NANKING, surely you must be joking.

NANKING wasn't utterly destroyed as was HIROSHIMA and NAGASAKI, nothing to be ashamed of in pointing that out.

now, you can carry on with the cheap smear tacticts of the right if you wish but i will bow out now if you continue in that vein.

peace

[mobuto]

87. War Propaganda?

Nanjing wasn't as destroyed as Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it was more destroyed as many more people were killed.

Or do you think buildings are more important than people?

[Muddleoftheroad]

71. No, the Japanese actions were heinous barbarity

And you seek to change the subject by discussing another war decades later. Let's focus on Japan the MILLIONIS killed in their quest for power.

Then let's talk about the day-to-day barbarous acts committed by the Japanese -- on Chinese, on Koreans, on Filipinos, on Americans on British and pretty much everybody they came in touch with.

Their use of rape as an industry defies imagination and your try to compare us to them.

Your posts make me want to vomit.

If this is the peace you choose, then I will die fighting.

[bpilgrim]

79. yet it pales in comparison to NUKING cities filled with innocent civilians

TWICE, especially when you take into account that they were materially soundely DEFEATED and trying to surrender.

and when you take into account our record before AND since we don't have a moral leg to stand on when it comes to war time atrocities.

don't wrap that flag to tight around you it cuts off the circulation just like it did to the imperial japanese soilders.

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

80. No, nothing except the Nazis pales by comparison to Japan

Japan is almost unique in the level of monstrosity it achieved. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed in the blink of an eye.

Nanking, one of many places assaulted by the Japanese, was destroyed one person at a time in incredibly vicious and barbarous ways.

Japan was neither defeated nor trying to surrender, no matter how much you claim it. If you are defeated, then you stop fighting. Obviously, they had not. And trying to surrender is my favorite of your humorous comments in this thread.

Our record before or since is meaningless here. We are talking about WWII. You can create as many smokescreens for the Japanese as you wish, but they are all meaningless.

I don't have to wrap myself in a flag to be relieved that the U.S. crushed the monsters of Japan.

[bpilgrim]

82. when you start to see a whole race of people as 'MONSTERS' you have ISSUES

the very same issues that the folks you claim to hate had.

peace

[mobuto]

91. A whole race?

The last time I checked, the Japanese did not constitute a race.

[bpilgrim]

93. or NATION

peace

[mobuto]

96. OK

Do you really believe its racism to identify a people with their government?

For example: The French marched to Borodino might be racist because the French as a whole didn't march to Borodino, only their army did?

[Muddleoftheroad]

100. Monsters do monstrous acts

Perhaps even more than their German allies, the Japanese were seized by a national bloodlust and insanity. They did countless monstrous things and were indeed monsters.

Is the Japanese race monstrous? Of course not. Nor do I hate even one Japanese person for WWII. Time, as they say, heals all wounds. But I do hate what they did and I hate any attempt to rationalize it.

[bpilgrim]

104. Humans do monstrous acts

all sides

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

105. We were amateurs by comparison

victory.

[mobuto]

108. Nope no difference between fascists, nazis, and democrats

All sides in World War Two were equal.

(snort)

[mobuto]

90. Not when it comes to medical experiments

when it comes to experimentation of living human beings, not even the Nazis could equal the savagery of the Japanese under the militarists.

[bpilgrim]

94. what do you think Hiroshima and Nagasaki was

as well SHOCK-n-AWE


peace

[mobuto]

95. Hiroshima = political target; Nagasaki = military target

Next?

[bpilgrim]

98. just because you have a limmited vision doesn't mean our leaders did.

peace

[mobuto]

115. So, Einstein

(or is it Mr. Irving?)

Please condescend to explain to us myopic types how the dropping of the two atomic bombs was a biological experiments. Given our limited vision, we'll need to have our hands led through the explanation.

[bpilgrim]

117. Effects of Ionizing Radiation: Atomic Bomb Survivors and Their Children

Effects of Ionizing Radiation: Atomic Bomb Survivors and Their Children (1945-1995)

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/5805.html

peace

[mobuto]

119. Interesting

Are you're saying that the decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki was made by the National Academy of Sciences?

(snort)

[bpilgrim]

121. no, i am pointing out that it was also an experiment

which has been vigorously studied and researched.

peace

[mobuto]

125. Uh no,

I defy you to find any evidence that suggests that human experimentation was a motive for dropping the bombs. Any at all. Take your time - because its not going to be easy.

Studies are following 9/11 survivors too. Maybe post-traumatic stress researchers staged the attacks in order to find an adequate subject group? That's basically what your saying, and its just as spurious.

[bpilgrim]

127. we happen to value research ask unit 731

For its part, the United States decided not to prosecute participants in the biological warfare effort in exchange for their silence and information learned from experiments.

more...
http://www.stimson.org/cbw/?sn=cb20020112244

peace

[mobuto]

129. You're too much :-)

Yes, the United States is as bad or worse than the Japanese militarists, because we did not fully prosecute their war crimes. That makes sense.

Weren't you just complaining a minute ago about "victor's justice?"

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. :-(

[bpilgrim]

131. thank you

i am just pointing out facts, though.

you drew your own conclusions.

peace

[mobuto]

133. Facts?

You mean like 98% of Hiroshima's population died in the atomic blast?

Or facts like "war propandists" "exagerating" the rape of Nanjing?

Oh sure, you command the facts.... (snort)

:-)

[mobuto]

61. The worst thing I have ever read

The Rape of Nanking was official policy, genocide, and it involved in one incident the killing of many more than died combined in the atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Japanese "experiments" on civilians and POWs (which killed literally tens of thousands) were of a volume and level of barbarism unmatched by anybody anywhere - and that includes by the experiments of the infamous Dr. Mengele.

To compare them to actions by the US government is offensive not only to American citizens, but to the victims of one of the most vicious and brutal regimes in human history. Millions of Chinese civilians were slaughtered and the entire population of Korea was enslaved. That you would even think to compare the actions of the United States with those of imperial Japan is a slander of the highest order.

Shame on you.

[bpilgrim]

63. same reaction i had

when i read up on the decision to NUKE a defeated nation TWICE.

we DESTROYED a WHOLE city AND it's civilian population while it was trying to surrender and i agree it was HORRIBLE.

and i haven't seen any evidence that shown the japanese had an official policy of genocide in the region nor have i seen any reliable information that says they killed hundreds of thousands of civilians there. there was an american missionary living in the 'safe zone' at the time and i am sure he would have noticed such an event but i never seen any of his letters describe such an event.

most of it turns out to be war propaganda that was RAMPANT at the time - like the FAKED hirota koki memo

peace

[mobuto]

65. Oh really?

In 1923, the Korean population of Japan was exterminated.

During the course of the Second World War, as many as 30 million Chinese were killed, although most estimates put that at only a mere 10 million. At least half were civilians.

i seen any reliable information that says they killed hundreds of thousands of civilians there.

Japanese killed millions of civilians in China. They massacred civilians in the Phillipines, in Mongolia, in Korea, in Burma, etc. They massacred American POWs at Bataan.

[bpilgrim]

67. really

and as i said before their sins do not wash away our own.

and they didn't TOTALLY destroy ANY large cities like we did.

were they brutal and destructive, yes. where we brutal and destructive, yes.

where we more brutal and destructive than they?

we won the war didn't we.

i don't think we want to get into a body count contest... we may win that one two, remember we still haven't stopped killing since 45.

and so it goes...


peace

[mobuto]

70. We also won the war in the West.

Was the United States more brutal and destructive than Nazi Germany?

Or is yours yet another false contention from the David Irving school of historical revisionism?

[dai]

73. It is a perfectly fair comparison

Unless you disregard US Government actions towards the Native Americans.

It is also interesting that you bring up the plight of the Filipinos, who suffered greatly under American oppression as well during the Phillipine insurrection.

Oh, but I guess that's just Mark Twain's "revisionist history"

[Muddleoftheroad]

74. No it's not

We are talking about actions in WWII. Not before. Not since.

[dai]

81. You're right!

We were about to give up our occupation of the Phillipines, but then Pearl Harbor happened, right?

And I also forgot, we gave the Native Americans all their land back during WWII as well.

[mobuto]

83. And the Rape of Nanjing

Was instituted to protest the disenfranchisement of Native Americans by the Western colonialist aggressors.

[bpilgrim]

85. pales in comparison to the MEGA DEATH and DESTRUCTION of Hiroshima AND

Nagasaki but why bring that up when it has NOTHING to do with our decision to inflicting TERRORISM in an INSTANT on a scale unprecedented in human history?

:shrug:

peace

[mobuto]

92. Mega death = one million deaths

One million people did not die at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, combined, and multipled by four.

Next?

Main Entry: mega·death
Pronunciation: -"deth
Function: noun
: one million deaths -- usually used as a unit in reference to nuclear warfare

[bpilgrim]

97. MASSIVE DEATH

sorry.

though your math is wrong since about 250k people have died in hiroshima alone due to the bombing, but i know... who's counting, eh?

and so it goes...

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

101. How many would have died if we took the island like we did Iwo?

Nearly all Japanese soldiers died on Iwo because they refused to surrender. At least 75% confirmed dead. Now apply THAT to Japan. How many civilians would have killed themselves or fought to the death?

[bpilgrim]

103. how many would have been spared if we didn't have to take IWO JIMA?

United States Casualties at Iwo Jima

KIA+MIA WIA Fatigue Total
6,821 19,217 2,648 28,686

Japanese Casualties at Iwo Jima

Prisoners KIA Total
1,083 20,867 21,000

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

106. Love to have you fight a war

You'd be wonderful. You'd never be willing to have your soldiers fight, even though your nation was overwhelmingly attacked and your soldiers butchered by the enemy bent on world conquest.

[mobuto]

118. Bullshit!

That's complete bullshit. I love how you accuse standard figures for the Rape of Nanking of being "exagerations" and "war propaganda," without providing explanation, when you yourself just did much worse.

The prewar population of Hiroshima was 255,000.

And you say that 250,000 people were killed in Hiroshima?

Are you kidding me?

Roughly 66,000 people are estimated to have died at Hiroshima, although the destruction was so great that the exact total will never be known. A few thousand more have died since because of wounds suffered or the after effects of radiation. That's pretty far from 250,000.

Approximately 39,000 were killed at Nagasaki.

[bpilgrim]

122. Estimated population and deaths due to the atomic bomb

1. Estimated population and deaths due to the atomic bomb

Estimated population exposed to the atomic bombing
- Hiroshima City 340,000 - 350,000
- Nagasaki City 270,000

Estimated deaths Aug. 6 - Dec. 31, 1945
- 140,000 (±10,000)
- 70,000 (±10,000)

(Source: Appeal from Hiroshima and Nagasaki to the Third Special Session of the U.N. General Assembly Devoted to Disarmament in 1988)

2. Hiroshima keeps count of the deaths due to radiation illness from the bomb and the last time i seen it - 03 - it was over 200k if memory serves, but feel free to doubt me rather than dig the figure up yourself.

peace

[mobuto]

126. The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

by the Manhattan Engineer District, June 29, 1946.

There has been great difficulty in estimating the total casualties in the Japanese cities as a result of the atomic bombing. The extensive destruction of civil installations (hospitals, fire and police department, and government agencies) the state of utter confusion immediately following the explosion, as well as the uncertainty regarding the actual population before the bombing, contribute to the difficulty of making estimates of casualties. The Japanese periodic censuses are not complete. Finally, the great fires that raged in each city totally consumed many bodies.

The number of total casualties has been estimated at various times since the bombings with wide discrepancies. The Manhattan Engineer District's best available figures are:

Estimates of Casualties Hiroshima Nagasaki
Pre-raid population 255,000 195,000
Dead 66,000 39,000
Injured 69,000 25,000
Total Casualties 135,000 64,000

The relation of total casualties to distance from X, the center of damage and point directly under the air-burst explosion of the bomb, is of great importance in evaluating the casualty-producing effect of the bombs. This relationship for the total population of Nagasaki is shown in the table below, based on the first-obtained casualty figures of the District:

TABLE B
Relation of Total Casualties to Distance from X
Distance from X, feet Killed Injured Missing Total Casualties Killed per square mile
0 - 1,640 7,505 960 1,127 9,592 24,7OO
1,640 - 3,300 3,688 1,478 1,799 6,965 4,040
3,300 - 4,900 8,678 17,137 3,597 29,412 5,710
4,900 - 6,550 221 11,958 28 12,207 125
6,550 - 9,850 112 9,460 17 9,589 20

No figure for total pre-raid population at these different distances were available. Such figures would be necessary in order to compute per cent mortality. A calculation made by the British Mission to Japan and based on a preliminary analysis of the study of the Joint Medical-Atomic Bomb Investigating Commission gives the following calculated values for per cent mortality at increasing distances from X:

TABLE C
Per-Cent Mortality at Various Distances
Distance from X, in feet Per-cent Mortality
0 - 1000 93.0%
1000 - 2000 92.0
2000 - 3000 86.0
3000 - 4000 69.0
4000 - 5000 49.0
5000 - 6000 31.5
6000 - 7000 12.5
7000 - 8000 1.3
8000 - 9000 0.5
9000 - 10,000 0.0

It seems almost certain from the various reports that the greatest total number of deaths were those occurring immediately after the bombing. The causes of many of the deaths can only be surmised, and of course many persons near the center of explosion suffered fatal injuries from more than one of the bomb effects. The proper order of importance for possible causes of death is: burns, mechanical injury, and gamma radiation. Early estimates by the Japanese are shown in D below:

TABLE D
Cause of Immediate Deaths
Hiroshima
Cause of Death Per-cent of Total
Burns 60%
Falling debris 30
Other 10
Nagasaki
Cause of Death Per-cent of Total
Burns 95%
Falling debris 9
Flying glass 7
Other 7

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/abomb/mp10.htm

[bpilgrim]

130. that report is a bit dated

1946

besides, i trust the japanese probably have the best and most up-to-date info on jaanese casualities due to radiation wich continues to kill long after it was first released.

peace

[mobuto]

132. No, its not dated

Nobody was better positioned to accurately guage the immediate casualties than the US military occupation.

As a historical revionist and denier of genocide, you seem quite familiar with "war propaganda." Surely, you must see the reasons to be skeptical of inflated casualty counts produced decades afterwards? Hiroshima's prewar population was 255,000. Now that size was inflated a bit with refugees. But you really believe that 250,000 died? There must not be any Hiroshimonians left.

Cheers.

:-)

[bpilgrim]

135. 1946 is dated to me then...

and i would take the japanese word for it today vs our own when we wont even revel the BASIC DETAILS of what happened that day in our own national museum dedicated to the event to this very day.

on edit: btw, the numbers i posted above were u.n. numbers not japanese though i would still recommend that folks interested for the most up to date data to check out the latest numbers as kept by the city of hiroshima.

peace

[mobuto]

139. Snore

1946 was one year after 1945, which means researchers in 1946 had the best access to morgues and mortuaries and could make the best and most accurate body count.

I'm sorry, but I really don't care what's "dated" for you.

As for Hiroshima's own figures, in 1976 the city of Hiroshima estimated for the UN that the bomb had produced 140,000 deaths (+/- 10,000), including those who died of related illnesses afterwards. But unlike the US figures, the Japanese figures rely heavily on estimates made decades afterwards - after memories had begun to fade and political posturing began to take the place of clinical detachment - so your keen intellect might just suspect that those numbers might have been marginally inflated.

But of course you didn't claim 140,000 deaths, you claimed 250,000.

Come on, where are they hiding?

[bpilgrim]

141. todays estimtes are over 200k for hiroshima and over 140k for nagasaki

just because you stopped counting doesn't mean the bomb stopped killing.

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

140. Japan

You seem to believe Japan. After about a decade of raping, looting, pillaging, murdering and conquering their way across Asia and the Pacific, you believe THEIR figures on how many died?

[bpilgrim]

142. and the U.N.

i would think that japan had better statistics than we on their own people that are well documented and backed up by the U.N. so yes their numbers have credibility.

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

145. Politics

Japan has spent the last almost 60 years in a full-court press of international marketing about its WWII atrocities while still refusing to admit their full weight at home.

I wouldn't trust ANYTHING they said about the war.

[bpilgrim]

147. exactly

japan has spent the past 60 years rebuilding and marketing it's PRODUCTS it has mostly tried to ignore the past and move forward and they certainly have come a long way in a short time.

as far as not wanting to talk about their past atrocities this is a trait common to all gov including our own.

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

149. No, Japan has marketed victimization

They continue to this day to paint the biggest fraud this side of Holocaust denial. They paint themselves as victims of WWII. Nothing could be further from the truth. As a nation, as an army, as a government, they embraced, they reveled in their role as abusers and oppressors.

They continue to deny it in textbooks and to deny payment to those they harmed.

[bpilgrim]

152. i haven't seen any

got a link to the gov campaign? or text boxs were they 'deny' their role in wwII?

that they don't discuss their own atrocities is not very different from most gov issued text books in any country, including our own.

the fact that IWO JIMA and everything that followed could have been avoided is a fact that will forever stain our conscience no matter how many of the 'monsters' we kill or no matter how many times we NUKE'm nor how hard we SCRUB.

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

155. Marketing

Oh, how about the city of Hiroshima's endless attempts to paint itself as a victim and want to show the results of the bombing, but not the cause for it?

http://www.city.hiroshima.jp/shimin/heiwa/protest/smithsonian031226e.html

Yes, Iwo could have been avoided. It is appalling that the Japanese didn't surrender sooner. But they didn't. Blame them. They started the war. They wouldn't end it.

[bpilgrim]

173. Request for a description of atomic bomb damage in the Enola Gay Exhibit

that's called HISTORY though i'm sure the neoCONs would probably call it 'marketing' :crazy:

the japanese wanted to surrender and were calling for talks - as is the NORM - but we weren't ready apparantly and tens of thousands more perished which i understand means almost nothing to folks like yourself and some politicians but it does to me and i'm sure the folks who are asked to do the dying.



your flippint and jingoistic disregard for american soliders lives is most likely very offensive to any vet, esspecially wwII vets, if they happen upon your posts and you may consider that the next time you expose yourself publicly.

peace

[mobuto]

151. The UN has no statistics

the statistics you cited were compiled and presented to the UN by the City of Hiroshima.

Next?

[bpilgrim]

154. i just posted them

but you probably have no use for the u.n. as well.

peace

[mobuto]

160. I probably what?

Excuse me?

[abracadabra]

102. listen to "1945" by Social Distortion ?anybody?

anybody cool here?

We all know the PUNK movement in general was digusted by self rightous idiots justifying mass murder with NUKES.

Anyone here heard the SOCIAL DISTORTION song 1945?
a big hit ! released as a single

speak up if yer out there.

(RIP-Dennis Dannel - he was a very good friend of mine)

[SquireJons]

107. It was right because we won.

If Japan had dropped a bomb on a city, say San Francisco, and killed all of the people, you can bet your sweet bippy that the persons responsible would have faced a war crimes tribunal and execution. The winners decide what is fair and right. I wonder if the Japanese would have used the bomb as indiscriminately as we did, particularly if it was winning?

I am often reminded of William Sherman's observation that "War is all hell. There's no use in trying to reform it. The more terrible it is, the sooner it will be over." Hard to argue with that in my mind, but at least let's not delude ourselves or rationalize our actions. The atomic bombs dropped on Japan were the equivalent of a Roger Clemens high inside fastball at the Russians heads. And that's all there is to it.

For those concerned about the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they should consider Stalingrad, or Berlin or Tokyo or Dresden. The list goes on and on. And can you say that the fates of the people Heroshima were crueler than those in Stalingrad?

"Bush lie and who die?"
Oh sorry, wrong war...

[dai]

111. Absolutely right.

Best post on this thread, bravo!

If Imperial Japan got their "divine wind" and pulled off a victory, all the unimaginable suffering and horrors of Nanking would be written off as mere regrettable circumstances on the road to "progress". Just like the hundreds of thousands in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo, Dresden..."sad but necessary"

[Muddleoftheroad]

114. Slight difference

Japan attacked the world in an attempt at widespread conquest.

And, for the record, the bombs were not used indiscriminately. Perhaps you might ask actual soldiers and marines who would have died trying to do the work that the bomb did.

[bpilgrim]

116. victors justice

doesn't make it right nor does it make you forget all the other unmentionable atrocities committed then on all sides.

the lesson i learn from this is that if we the aledged good-guys are capable of such wanton massive indiscriminate death and destruction no wonder the doomsday clocks is just minutes to midnight.

peace

[mobuto]

120. Compare the Japanese occupation of China and Korea

with the postwar US occupation of Japan.

And tell me, who are the good guys?

Run along now...

[bpilgrim]

123. to our occupation of IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN and it becomes clear

we are no different, right down to illegal combatants.

the only thing i am thankfull for right now is that they haven't used any NUKES... yet - not counting DU.

and so it goes...

peace

[mobuto]

128. Bwhahahahah

You have a great dark sense of humor.

That's comical -- the idea that the US occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq is worse than the Japanese occupation of Korea, where the entire population was enslaved and tens of thousands of women were systemically subject to gang rape (including the last queen, who was gang raped and then murdered when a bayonet was rammed into her genitals), or China, where entire towns were wiped off the map, where as many as 30 million people were murdered, where civilians were tortured to death, where gruseome experiments were performed on tens of thousands, and where the population of Nanjing was subject to the greatest single act of terror in the history of humankind.

It takes a wonderfully perverse sort of humor to come up with that image - the irony alone is overwhelming.

[bpilgrim]

134. that you find humor in this topic

only reveals your own 'perverse' feelings.

i don't find the atrocities commited by armies and governments amusing, bizzarr for sure, but not homorous.

i didn't say it was worse only simular both political - bringing peace and prosperity (GEACPS) to the region - and in our conduct, midnight raids, illegal combatants, aggressors, exploiting resources, murdering civilians, etc.

hope that clears it up for you - i know you are/were a supporter of the iraq war, but that doesn't change the facts on the ground.

peace

[mobuto]

138. What's funnier than genocide?

The only thing comical in this whole disgusting subject is your absurd comparison. Your little animated .gifs of dancing skeletons are obscene. Your willingness to brush off the rape of Nanjing as being nothing but a series of "individual acts" exagerated by "war propaganda" is as profoundly offensive as the worst forms of Holocaust denial. Your willingness to fabricate unsupportable claims (e.g., the US bombed Hiroshima as a biological experiment) speaks volumes.

Find me rape camps where tens of thousands Iraqi women are kept as sex slaves to be gang-raped by American soldiers. Find a city in Aghanistan where Americans have killed 300,000 and raped 80,000, stacking severed heads as a warning. Find civilians who have been cut in half, or injected with experimental poisons, or frozen alive, or had their skin flayed off by American troops.

You do these things, and you'll have the beginnings - and just the beggings - of a comparison.

Until then, kindly go away. And have a nice day.

:-)

[reprobate]

18. Sun6302 and SquireJons are mostly right.

Our military had already determined that Japan was incapable of continuing the war, with no fuel, arms or able bodied men. The stories of a half million casualties expected were just propaganda.

The japanese gov't had already made overtures to surrender thru the swedish gov't. The only thing they asked was to allow the emperor to keep his throne. But Sec. of War Stimson told Truman of the danger russia would present, so the offer was ignored. Stalin was painted as the most dangerous man in the world, and the bomb was used to intimidate him. So began the cold war. But in fact the cold war started the day the russian revolution began. The US opposed the revolution, even to sending troops to support the Romanoffs. Ever since, for almost a century it was the US intention to kill the USSR.

Looking back with the perspective of an old man who lived thru WWII as a child, it is apparent that the capitalist rulers of our country have been a major limitation to world peace, even to supporting Hitler until he almost killed our brothers the Brits. Of course, profit knows no morals.

[Muddleoftheroad]

24. Not even close

I love it when people say Japan couldn't have continued fighting. All we have to do is look a few decades later and see that the Vietnamese prove this to be a silly statement.

People can continue fighting long after conventional forces are without the means to fight a traditional war. The other path we would have had to choose is blockade which, given the size of Japan, would have taken an enormous force of ships and lasted a damn long time. It would have cost lives as well, because the Japanese still had troops in the field elsewhere. And they undoubtedly would have continued attacking the blockade with anything they could.

As for your casualty claim, I trust the military on this one more than somebody sitting behind their computer screen. But to clarify, here is the casualty information from Iwo Jima, a far smaller battle involing only 70,000 U.S. troops and 27,000 Japanese.

Total Losses
U.S. personnel
6,821 Killed
19,217 Wounded
2,648 Combat Fatigue
Total 28,686

Japanese Troops
1,083 POW
20,000 est. Killed

"Over third of the total Marines who participated in the invasion were either Killed, Wounded or suffered from Battle Fatigue."

For the Japanese, nearly all died fighting.

http://history.acusd.edu/gen/WW2Timeline/LUTZ/iwo.html

Now try projecting those figures into an invasion of the mainland see what you get. Those troops had the same supplies the mainland would have and less desire to win defending their homeland.

The fact that you DARE blame capitalists for the Japanese points to how frivolous your post really was.

[SquireJons]

109. It's not that simple.

There's no doubt that the military government of Japan was dangerous and exploitative. But there is also little doubt that Japan represented a threat to no one by Autumn of 1945. Yes, there were still problems, like the fact that their armies were still deployed and not really engaged, but we're talking about a modern war here. They would have been helpless, and the Russians were coming with a million man army and payback in mind.

More people would have died if we hadn't dropped the bombs, but the reasons for using them were political, not military.

[Muddleoftheroad]

112. Tell that to the Chinese and Koreans

and who all else. The Japanese still had armies in the field. They were still at war, no matter how much some here wish to claim otherwise.

Helpless? Sure, those Iraqis look mighty helpless right now. LOL. You can indeed "live off the land" if needed. Those armies remained a thread till they surrendered.

[reprobate]

110. Try reading a bit deeper than high school history.....

...you'll find it all true.

[Muddleoftheroad]

113. What "all true"

You mean like the nearly infinite list of barbarous acts by the Japanese?

[w4rma]

19. Wars suck. Let's try to have less of them. (n/t)

[TexasMexican]

86. Japan got what it deserved, and Germany was lucky they lost when they did.

Had Germany been able to hold out longer I'm sure we would have done the same to them, and they too would have deserved it.

[bpilgrim]

88. sounds like something a TERRORIST would say

:puke:

peace

[otohara]

89. never mind

.

[bpilgrim]

99. i would like to hear your thoughts

:hi:

peace

[Forkboy]

136. Well,no suprise where this thread went

:)

[bpilgrim]

137. well

i hope it was informative for some ;-)

peace

[Robb]

143. I find it hopelessly ironic

That someone who uses terms like "terrorists" to describe the WWII U.S. government and crew of the Enola Gay also posts so vehemently against "name calling". :eyes:

[bpilgrim]

144. and i find it typical

that folks who don't like the facts i mention to put words in my mouth.

our gov committed terrorist acts on a MASSIVE scale ESPECIALLY by NUKING a DEFEATED nations cities filled with innocent civilians, men, women and children... TWICE, while they were trying to SURRENDER.

the soliders were just following orders as they were trained to due but i do feel the decision makers bear the burdon of responcibility for their decisions.

i'm old fashioned in that way i guess.

btw: what would you call our gov current acts in the ME? I bet you're pretty upset with them...

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

146. The Terrorists were in Japan and Germany

In fact, for day-to-day monstrous behavior of their army, the Japanese might have even outdone the monsters in Deutchland.

For about the 1,000th time, Japan was not defeated. It still had armies in the field. It was still at war. And you cannot try to surrender. You simply do it.

And, by the rules of war at the time, both targets were legimate military targets. Thank God we hit them and ended the Japanese tyranny.

[bpilgrim]

148. true

but that doesn't negate our own terrorist acts no matter how hard you try to paint them as 'monsters'.

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

150. We didn't commit terrorists acts, there is nothing to negate

Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended a war started by the monsters in Japan.

And I don't paint them as monsters, there is photographic proof that's what they were. There are eyewitness accounts. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

[bpilgrim]

153. by your standards sure

but not by common standards held by most humans, obviously.

if calling them monsters is your perferred balm so be it but then do not ask for whom the bell tolls.

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

156. By the standards of the time

Which really are the only standards that matter. Not yours. Not mine.

I call them monsters because I am informed.

[bpilgrim]

168. our actions were BARBARIC

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/pers-us/uspers-l/wd-leahy.htm

* 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:

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 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

peace

[Robb]

157. How do you know I don't agree with you?

Maybe I just find the argument style dishonest. I don't agree with you, either, but it's the style that's more disturbing.

Call anyone a "terrorist", and you're playing on the emotions the word brings up, not the issues. It makes the rest of your argument (which may have merit, I'm no expert) weaker. Why not go for broke and use "baby killer"? :shrug:

[bpilgrim]

158. because you put words in my mouth

and the stance you took.

and now you have come right out and stated it plainly.

pointing out that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrorist ACTS is simply a FACT.

some can't handle the facts... and i don't blame them, i have a very hard time myself.

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

159. Not at all terrorist

And not at all a fact. You can't apply current norms to history and expect any logical or rational result.

However, even by standards of the day, the Japanese were monstrous in their actions -- hacking off heads, butchering prisoners, experimenting on POWS and raping their way across Asia and the Pacific.

Had they conquered us, we'd be lucky if one in 10 Americans lived through it.

[bpilgrim]

164. yes, a MONSTROUS TERRORIST act of MASS DEATH and DESTRUCTION.

there is no denying this plain fact, ESPECIALLY when you consider they were trying to SURRENDER.

you can wave all the dead bodies you like, it won't wash away our own sins.

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

166. Yes, there is. I deny it.

See.

They were NOT trying to surrender. Surrender is a simple act. You do it and await the consequences.

America has many sins like most nations. NONE OF THEM relate to these bombings.

[mobuto]

169. When the going gets tough, the tough use BLOCK LETTERS

Sorry, but larger letters do not a stronger case make. They are, however, irritating to the eye.

Cheers.

[bpilgrim]

171. emphasis

is mine :evilgrin:

peace

[mobuto]

172. All the emphasis in the world

cannot make up for a few simple facts.

[bpilgrim]

174. ???

peace

[Robb]

161. I wish I had.

But you use inflammatory language without any help from me.

If your facts were strong, you wouldn't have to.

[bpilgrim]

163. your words

"That someone who uses terms like "terrorists" to describe the WWII U.S. government and crew of the Enola Gay"

i never said that but you had no problem alledging that, talk about 'dishonest'

i plainly stated the facts above and during the course of the discussion have gone on to describe those acts in more detail.

what would you call the INDESCRIMINATE mass death and destruction of those two cities?

i say that calling it a TERRORIST ACT is not only fair but an apt discription.

look this is DU i am sure there are plenty of english majors who could help out with this 'style' problem.

:hi:

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

165. I would call it a success

The deliberate (not indiscriminate, but well planned and handled) nuking of those two cities ended the war and saved an enormous number of lives.

[mobuto]

167. bpilgrim in this thread

has decreed that the Rape of Nanjing was an "exageration," has said that the atomic attacks were a biological experiment, and equated the US occupation of Afghanistan with slave-nation Korea under the Japanese.

I see a rather distressing pattern here, one indicating what can only charitably be called ignorance of the brutality of one of the most evil regimes in all of human history.

[bpilgrim]

170. though i have tried to be as plain as possible

folks still like to put words in my mouth or twist what i say, just like fox...

but UNLIKE fox we have a permanante record that will make it plain for those are interested to check and draw their own conclusions.

but i will point out that i said the numbers of deaths posted by muddled seemed inflated/exagerated since most reliable accounts i've seen had the population of the city to be substantially less as reported by a christian missionary who was living there at the time.

i also noted that the atomic bombings also contained an element of scientific research in our motivations.

and that our actions in the ME REGION - not JUST afghanistan but ESPECIALLY Iraq - are SIMULAR in behavior to imperial japan of wwII era not ONLY militarily but also and especially POLITICAL... right down to the term ILLEGAL COMBATANTS!

thats right, thats what the imperial japanese army called the soilders and INNOCENTS it tried by MILITARY TRIBUNALS then EXECUTED according to their law.

sound familiar?

think about it...

peace

[bpilgrim]

175. Take note of what your politicians do to foreigners...

The Bush administration decreed that the courts were powerless to review indefinite detention without trial because the prisoners were foreign nationals being held "beyond the ultimate sovereignty" of the US. In the World War II military tribunals dispensed rough justice on or close to the battlefield, it argued, and the war against Islamic fascism was being fought on the same principles as the war against European fascism.

But what made a kind of sense in the aftermath of the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon makes little sense now. Guantanamo is about as far from the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq as it's possible to get.

...

There are signs that the judges are beginning to resent the limit on their power to insist on proper distinctions. Just before Christmas, judges at the federal appeals court in San Francisco asked a good question: If the Bush administration was free to hold detainees outside the rule of law, was it also free to torture them or summarily execute them? Yes, replied the Government's lawyer, in theory Guantanamo detainees could be tortured and shot and there would be nothing the US courts could do.

The judges were horrified. This was "the first time that the government has announced such an extraordinary set of principles -- a position so extreme that it raises the gravest concerns under both US and international law." They snubbed the administration and ruled that the US courts could hear claims from the detainees.

more...
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/edit/archives/2004/02/17/2003099105

"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
-- Thomas Paine

peace