[Old Man G Funk]

And VB for the win...

Thanks for cutting the moralistic crap on both sides.

MD

I hardly would call it a "win" considering that the issue is still unresolved.

I completely agree with both of you in cutting the moralistic crap on both sides. The Japanese were no more or less moral than the US side.

 

[valve bouncer]

Except that the Japanese were beaten and they knew it. They were trying to surrender before the first bomb was dropped. You live there. You work at a school, right? Is that what they teach students? That only the overwhelming might of the a-bomb, dropped on them twice, was what led to surrender?

Yes, pretty much. Of course they cast themselves as victims. No real mention of the lead up to the A-bombs. The way the war is portrayed in school texts is an on-going sh*t fight here in Japan.

 

[MikeD]

The only reason the US didn't want to accept them was because we wanted an excuse to use our new weapon. Doing it once might have been acceptable. Doing it twice was completely gratuitous. It only served to show that we really had the capability to make multiple bombs like this and the will to use them repeatedly. Yet, that message was not aimed at the Japanese.

If the Japanese weren't the main target, they sure were in listening distance.

If the Japanese had the a-bomb, would they have used it at the first available opportunity?

My main point is made by VB in that this wasn't a moral decision, it was a logical and practical one, and 100% comprehensible in the minds of those who had fought and suffered through WWII.

If we can take away from it a learning message for ourselves and how we choose to act now, that's great. But you can't rightly or logically condemn the decision from our current viewpoint. I realize for some that a-bomb=immoral, regardless of context, but I don't hold any non-contextual opinion as particularly valid.

We simply firebombed civilians because we felt like it.

Pretty glib to say in 2006, IMHO.

Did we really need unconditional surrender? Could a workable solution have been achieved without bombing civilians haphazardly?

Again, look at context, but I'd still say 'yes' for both the Japanese and the Germans. It's one of the true 'lessons learned' in history...both countries suffered greatly for their aggressions, and turned their prodigious energies towards economic pursuits. Had they had less than complete awe for the US, I don't think that process would have gone so smoothly. ( I do NOT hold that as a universal concept, btw...I think other conflicts and cultures call for different resolutions, per the situation...I don't think a-bombing/incinerating, say, Damascus, is a splendid idea for us now...)

Looking at it culturally at the time, I still maintain the practicality of the decision. Plus, 'need' is a misleading term. It's what we wanted and what we got...whether we had a moral obligation to want less, in order to spare the Japanese pain, is a pretty useless debate.

MD

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Yes, pretty much. Of course they cast themselves as victims. No real mention of the lead up to the A-bombs. The way the war is portrayed in school texts is an on-going sh*t fight here in Japan.

Well, I suppose that is fortunate for us.

 

[valve bouncer]

I hardly would call it a "win" considering that the issue is still unresolved.

Try being in Japan at this time of year, all the national hand-wringing sans any real examination of the causes. To be fair to the Japanese they do make the Allied point of view available through documentaries on TV and books translated into Japanese. What's lacking is any real sense of mea-culpa like the Germans have shown. The reasons for that are another thread in itself.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

If the Japanese weren't the main target, they sure were in listening distance.

If the Japanese had the a-bomb, would they have used it at the first available opportunity?

If the answer were yes, would that make us right?

My main point is made by VB in that this wasn't a moral decision, it was a logical and practical one, and 100% comprehensible in the minds of those who had fought and suffered through WWII.

Practical decisions made without regard for the moral implications tread very close to war crimes.

If we can take away from it a learning message for ourselves and how we choose to act now, that's great. But you can't rightly or logically condemn the decision from our current viewpoint. I realize for some that a-bomb=immoral, regardless of context, but I don't hold any non-contextual opinion as particularly valid.

I'm not going to make a blanket statement that a-bomb = immoral, but you do have to look at what was happening behind the scenes. And, I can certainly look at what was known at the time and make my decision as to the morality of it all.

Also, I would think that one lesson we would take away from this is that unconditional surrender is not a necessity at all times. It was the conditions imposed upon Germany from WWI that helped lead to WWII in the first place.

Pretty glib to say in 2006, IMHO.

My vocab failed me, because I didn't mean it to sound like that. I blame it on the fact that I went to a show last night and got very little sleep.

Again, look at context, but I'd still say 'yes' for both the Japanese and the Germans. It's one of the true 'lessons learned' in history...both countries suffered greatly for their aggressions, and turned their prodigious energies towards economic pursuits. Had they had less than complete awe for the US, I don't think that process would have gone so smoothly. ( I do NOT hold that as a universal concept, btw...I think other conflicts and cultures call for different resolutions, per the situation...I don't think a-bombing/incinerating, say, Damascus, is a splendid idea for us now...)

Looking at it culturally at the time, I still maintain the practicality of the decision. Plus, 'need' is a misleading term. It's what we wanted and what we got...whether we had a moral obligation to want less, in order to spare the Japanese pain, is a pretty useless debate.

MD

The "practicality" as you put it was aimed at Russia though. We wanted to show them that we were tough and we used Japanese civilians as fodder to do it. Even if the first bomb was necessary, the second was simply gratuitous. And, as you've pointed out, we were capable of inflicting that much damage without the a-bomb, which leads one to think that the first one was gratuitous as well. Of course, conventional weapons didn't carry the same nuclear side-effects, but those would not be felt immediately in the war.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Try being in Japan at this time of year, all the national hand-wringing sans any real examination of the causes. To be fair to the Japanese they do make the Allied point of view available through documentaries on TV and books translated into Japanese. What's lacking is any real sense of mea-culpa like the Germans have shown. The reasons for that are another thread in itself.

Really, I was sort of interested in how the other side views things. Do they bring up factual arguments about the timeline of events and what transpired, or is it just a general wailing?

 

[valve bouncer]

If the Japanese weren't the main target, they sure were in listening distance.

If the Japanese had the a-bomb, would they have used it at the first available opportunity?

My main point is made by VB in that this wasn't a moral decision, it was a logical and practical one, and 100% comprehensible in the minds of those who had fought and suffered through WWII.

If we can take away from it a learning message for ourselves and how we choose to act now, that's great. But you can't rightly or logically condemn the decision from our current viewpoint. I realize for some that a-bomb=immoral, regardless of context, but I don't hold any non-contextual opinion as particularly valid.


Pretty glib to say in 2006, IMHO.


Again, look at context, but I'd still say 'yes' for both the Japanese and the Germans. It's one of the true 'lessons learned' in history...both countries suffered greatly for their aggressions, and turned their prodigious energies towards economic pursuits. Had they had less than complete awe for the US, I don't think that process would have gone so smoothly. ( I do NOT hold that as a universal concept, btw...I think other conflicts and cultures call for different resolutions, per the situation...I don't think a-bombing/incinerating, say, Damascus, is a splendid idea for us now...)

Looking at it culturally at the time, I still maintain the practicality of the decision. Plus, 'need' is a misleading term. It's what we wanted and what we got...whether we had a moral obligation to want less, in order to spare the Japanese pain, is a pretty useless debate.

MD

A solid analysis Mike. Just a few extra points. There's no doubt that an element of the American strategy in the Pacific was revenge exacerbated by notions of racial superiority. There was a definite sense of wanting to teach the "uppity Japs" a lesson. The Japanese were portrayed as lice, vermin, something to be eradicated using rhetoric that was never seen against the Germans. Once the ultimate weapon became available revenge was at hand. I'm quite certain Curtis LeMay would have killed every last Japanese if he'd had the chance and the means at his disposal.

 

[valve bouncer]

Really, I was sort of interested in how the other side views things. Do they bring up factual arguments about the timeline of events and what transpired, or is it just a general wailing?

That's not a simple question to answer as it goes back to how Japan went forward after the Meiji restoration. They based their education, military and political systems on Western countries. They never really saw themselves as Asian and had more aspirations towards to joining the European/American club of rich white nations. This involved creating an empire like the Germans/British/French/Americans etc.

The way the Japanese see it, the Western countries conspired against them to stop them joining this club. The Japanese couldn't understand why it was alright for the West to have colonial ambitions but they couldn't. The Japanese felt themselves being pushed against the wall and the only way they could extract themselves was to fight.

I kind of have some sympathy for their position and really the West must share some of the blame for the war. The main bulk though really lies with the delusions of the Japanese generals into thinking they could take on the West and not get their arses handed to them.

 

[dan-o]

Given the carnage and suffering inflicted by the Japanese I don't think a thorough bitch-slap in the form of destroying their manufacturing base, remaining military might (navy etc) and even giving the civilians a taste was uncalled for. You can't start a war then cry uncle when the tables turn and expect compassion.

As far as rationale/morality of dropping the a-bomb is concerned it's a mute point 60 years later. It's impossible to look back, regardless of the facts at hand, and feel the culture of the time. All I care about is that another nuke is never used again.

 

[dan-o]

The Japanese were portrayed as lice, vermin, something to be eradicated using rhetoric that was never seen against the Germans.

That probably has more to do with the heritage of the US at the time. My family had soldiers fighting for both the US and germans in WW2, often against each other as it turns out. It's easier to dehumanize those who are physically different as I'm sure you are aware of living in japan.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

A solid analysis Mike. Just a few extra points. There's no doubt that an element of the American strategy in the Pacific was revenge exacerbated by notions of racial superiority. There was a definite sense of wanting to teach the "uppity Japs" a lesson. The Japanese were portrayed as lice, vermin, something to be eradicated using rhetoric that was never seen against the Germans. Once the ultimate weapon became available revenge was at hand. I'm quite certain Curtis LeMay would have killed every last Japanese if he'd had the chance and the means at his disposal.

I doubt he would have used it on Germany.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

That's not a simple question to answer as it goes back to how Japan went forward after the Meiji restoration. They based their education, military and political systems on Western countries. They never really saw themselves as Asian and had more aspirations towards to joining the European/American club of rich white nations. This involved creating an empire like the Germans/British/French/Americans etc.

The way the Japanese see it, the Western countries conspired against them to stop them joining this club. The Japanese couldn't understand why it was alright for the West to have colonial ambitions but they couldn't. The Japanese felt themselves being pushed against the wall and the only way they could extract themselves was to fight.

I kind of have some sympathy for their position and really the West must share some of the blame for the war. The main bulk though really lies with the delusions of the Japanese generals into thinking they could take on the West and not get their arses handed to them.

I've heard that analysis before, and it really should be more widespread. The causes of war are more intricate than what one gets in most schools here in the states, and oftentimes have lessons that we would do well to head today.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Given the carnage and suffering inflicted by the Japanese I don't think a thorough bitch-slap in the form of destroying their manufacturing base, remaining military might (navy etc) and even giving the civilians a taste was uncalled for. You can't start a war then cry uncle when the tables turn and expect compassion.

As far as rationale/morality of dropping the a-bomb is concerned it's a mute point 60 years later. It's impossible to look back, regardless of the facts at hand, and feel the culture of the time. All I care about is that another nuke is never used again.

It is only moot in-so-far-as we can't go back and change the decision. Those who do not learn from history, however, are doomed to repeat it. It may be impossible to "feel" the culture of the time, but there are certainly lessons to be learned about bigotry, rash decisions, hate, etc. that are very useful today, especially in our current "crusade."

 

[N8 v2.0]

Spare me the moralising tone, our lot were just as bad. Australian soldiers in particular were notorious for not taking prisoners. Americans routinely sent the skulls of dead Japanese back to the folks at home. We have nothing to be proud of.

Yes.. there was little love for the Japanese soldiers on behalf of the Aillies who had witnessed first hand the cruelty infilicted by the Japanese on their allied pow's. Yes, I know about their treatment since my uncle was captured at Bataan and was one of the few to live thru the experience.

 

[dan-o]

It is only moot in-so-far-as we can't go back and change the decision. Those who do not learn from history, however, are doomed to repeat it. It may be impossible to "feel" the culture of the time, but there are certainly lessons to be learned about bigotry, rash decisions, hate, etc. that are very useful today, especially in our current "crusade."

I think I read that on a library somewhere. I'd argue that the Cold War is evidence that horror of nukes wasn't taken lightly by the US or others after WW2. There was/is lots of posturing and intimidation but the reality of use hasn't been forgotten.

 

[valve bouncer]

Yes.. there was little love for the Japanese soldiers on behalf of the Aillies who had witnessed first hand the cruelty infilicted by the Japanese on their allied pow's. Yes, I know about their treatment since my uncle was captured at Bataan and was one of the few to live thru the experience.

Interestingly German POWs interned in Japan in WW1 were treated very well. The ones in my city were actually given the run of the city as there was really no-where they could go. Russians prisoners from the early 1900's were treated similarly well. There's actually a well tended Russian cemetry near where I live.
What happened in WW2 was an abomination. Some present day right wingers disavow that treatment as it disgraces the true tenents of Bushido.What happened in Bataan and Burma etc was a bastardization of that code.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

I think I read that on a library somewhere. I'd argue that the Cold War is evidence that horror of nukes wasn't taken lightly by the US or others after WW2. There was/is lots of posturing and intimidation but the reality of use hasn't been forgotten.

There's evidence to suggest that the horror of nukes wasn't taken lightly by the US before the end of WWII. The scientists involved in the Manhattan Project were very explicit about the power of this weapon and urged against its use on the Japanese.

But, that's not the only lesson to take away. I would argue that another good lesson is that ignoring morality for the sake of practicality is not something that should be taken lightly. Another would be that bigotry does not make for good policy. I'm sure there are more.

 

[dan-o]

I don't think the true horror could be understood before something other than the nevada desert was blown up. You could have an idea but actual human devastation is concrete evidence. That's why I said the horror was taken seriously after ww2. Mustard gas probably seemed like a good idea in 1915 but that viewpoint changed pretty quick once reality set in.

 

[N8 v2.0]

There's evidence to suggest that the horror of nukes wasn't taken lightly by the US before the end of WWII. The scientists involved in the Manhattan Project were very explicit about the power of this weapon and urged against its use on the Japanese.....

And yet these same scientists went ahead and tested the A-bomb in the NM desert even though they didn't truely know if the chain reaction of the blast would stop... but they were willing to take the chance...

 

[dhbuilder]

Spare me the moralising tone, our lot were just as bad. Australian soldiers in particular were notorious for not taking prisoners. Americans routinely sent the skulls of dead Japanese back to the folks at home. We have nothing to be proud of.

no war is pretty.
and no moralizing tone intended.
they weren't the honorable samauri type that we see portrayed.
now were they ?

i just watched a show about the manhatten project.
right after the first test somebody said, "hey i know what we can do with two of these."

 

[Old Man G Funk]

And yet these same scientists went ahead and tested the A-bomb in the NM desert even though they didn't truely know if the chain reaction of the blast would stop... but they were willing to take the chance...

Nice red herring.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

I don't think the true horror could be understood before something other than the nevada desert was blown up. You could have an idea but actual human devastation is concrete evidence. That's why I said the horror was taken seriously after ww2. Mustard gas probably seemed like a good idea in 1915 but that viewpoint changed pretty quick once reality set in.

Certainly that horror would have set in after the first bomb.

Also, I think that after seeing the horror of firebombing cities, we had a pretty good handle on what horror we could inflict.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Nice red herring.

thanks.. red snapper.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Certainly that horror would have set in after the first bomb.

Also, I think that after seeing the horror of firebombing cities, we had a pretty good handle on what horror we could inflict.

Yes.. and why needlessly risk large numbers of B-29's and their crews to launch large scale fire bomb raids when the same thing (on a smaller scale) could be done with a single bomber carring a single bomb?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Yes.. and why needlessly risk large numbers of B-29's and their crews to launch large scale fire bomb raids when the same thing (on a smaller scale) could be done with a single bomber carring a single bomb?

First of all, who said that we should have gone on fire bombing raids? Nice straw man.

Second, we owned the skies by the time we dropped the a-bomb. There was little Japan could do to our planes.

 

[N8 v2.0]

First of all, who said that we should have gone on fire bombing raids? Nice straw man.

Second, we owned the skies by the time we dropped the a-bomb. There was little Japan could do to our planes.

Below is a letter written by Harry Truman on January 12, 1953 to Prof. James L. Cate which seems to clearly present his understanding of the necessity of using the atomic bombs to end World War II.



THE WHITE HOUSE
Washington
January 12, 1953

My Dear Professor Cate;
Your letter of December 6, 1952 has just been delivered to me. When the message came to Potsdam that a successful atomic explosion had taken place in New Mexico, there was much excitement and conversation about the effect on the war then in progress with Japan. The next day I told the Prime Minsiter of Great Britain and Generalissimo Stalin that the explosion had been a success. The British Prime Minister understood and appreciated what I'd told him. Premier Stalin smiled and thanked me for reporting the explosion to him, but I'm sure he did not understand its significance. I called a meeting of the Secretary of State, Mr. Byrnes, the Secretary of War, Mr. Stimson, Admiral Leahy, General Marshall, General Eisenhower, Admiral King and some others, to discuss what should be done with this awful weapon.

I asked General Marshall what it would cost in lives to land on the Tokyo plain and other places in Japan. It was his opinion that such an invasion would cost at a minimum one quarter of a million casualties, and might cost as much as a million, on the American side alone, with an equal number of the enemy. The other military and naval men present agreed. I asked Secretary Stimson which sites in Japan were devoted to war production. He promptly named Hiroshima and Nagasaki, among others. We sent an ultimatum to Japan. It was rejected.

I ordered atomic bombs dropped on the two cities named on the way back from Potsdam, when we were in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. In your letter, you raise the fact that the directive to General Spaatz to prepare for delivering the bomb is dated July twenty-fifth. It was, of course, necessary to set the military wheels in motion, as these orders did, but the final decision was in my hands, and was not made until we were returning from Potsdam. Dropping the bombs ended the war, saved lives, and gave the free nations a chance to face the facts. When it looked as if Japan would quit, Russia hurried into the fray less than a week before the surrender, so as to be in at the settlement. No military contribution was made by the Russians toward victory over Japan. Prisoners were surrendered and Manchuria occupied by the Soviets, as was Korea, North of the 38th parallel.

Sincerely,
Harry Truman

 

[N8 v2.0]

In a biking related foot note, the wind tunnel at Texas A&M university, where Lance Armstrong spent so much time, uses a propeller from the Enola Gay, the plane which dropped the first atomic bomb on Japan.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Below is a letter written by Harry Truman on January 12, 1953 to Prof. James L. Cate which seems to clearly present his understanding of the necessity of using the atomic bombs to end World War II.
<snip>

And your point is?

It does not necessarily show what you say it shows.

 

[N8 v2.0]

And your point is?

you are a revisonist nutter...?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

you are a revisonist nutter...?

And this is different from Bush asserting that Iraq did have chemical weapons how?

Look at what he says too. "Dropping the bombs ended the war, saved lives, and gave the free nations a chance to face the facts." This is simply stating what happened and then his opinion as to the matter. Of course, the fact that his opinion doesn't say that he killed a bunch of civilians for no good reason is not surprising, is it?

He also says, "When it looked as if Japan would quit, Russia hurried into the fray less than a week before the surrender, so as to be in at the settlement." This says to me that he already knew Japan was quitting.

 

[N8 v2.0]

And this is different from Bush asserting that Iraq did have chemical weapons how?

Look at what he says too. "Dropping the bombs ended the war, saved lives, and gave the free nations a chance to face the facts." This is simply stating what happened and then his opinion as to the matter. Of course, the fact that his opinion doesn't say that he killed a bunch of civilians for no good reason is not surprising, is it?

He also says, "When it looked as if Japan would quit, Russia hurried into the fray less than a week before the surrender, so as to be in at the settlement." This says to me that he already knew Japan was quitting.

it must suck to be you is about all i can say.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

it must suck to be you is about all i can say.

Yeah? And why is that? Because I try to look beyond the BS, rah rah, we can do no wrong, propaganda? One reason there is a lot of anti-America-ism in the world today is because we walk around like our sh*t don't stink. This attitude helps engender terrorists that wish to do us harm. Bush can drop all the bombs he likes and you can cheerlead him all you like as well, but it won't flesh out the root causes and we won't be at peace so long as we continue to make the same mistakes.

 

[dan-o]

Comparing nuking japan to the ramifications of our current foreign policy is kinda odd. Japan is, despite our amoral and bigoted actions (in your words) of 60 years ago, our ally.

 

[seismic]

it must suck to be you is about all i can say.

You arent very popular around here, right?!

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Comparing nuking japan to the ramifications of our current foreign policy is kinda odd. Japan is, despite our amoral and bigoted actions (in your words) of 60 years ago, our ally.

Why is it odd? Simply because Japan is our ally now doesn't mean anything beyond that we were able to help them rebuild financially and that they've been dependent on us for protection ever since the war due to our demand that Japan not have a standing army.

I certainly see a connection with our current situation and how we perceive history. The more we idolize ourselves, the less we ground ourselves in reality. The further we get from reality, the more likely we are to think that Iraqis will greet us with flowers when we invade. If part of that is caused by omission of certain facts about our past escapades, then perhaps those facts should come to light.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Yeah? And why is that? Because I try to look beyond the BS, rah rah, we can do no wrong, propaganda? One reason there is a lot of anti-America-ism in the world today is because we walk around like our sh*t don't stink. This attitude helps engender terrorists that wish to do us harm. Bush can drop all the bombs he likes and you can cheerlead him all you like as well, but it won't flesh out the root causes and we won't be at peace so long as we continue to make the same mistakes.

I'm sorry my last post was a bit harsh.. sorry 'bout that.

However, history shows that lasting peace only comes thru decisive military victories. Yes, the US has made some mistakes but all, in all, She's done far far far more good for the rest of the world than harm.

 

[N8 v2.0]

You arent very popular around here, right?!

I'm not here to make friends.

 

[dan-o]

Simply because Japan is our ally now doesn't mean anything beyond that we were able to help them rebuild financially and that they've been dependent on us for protection ever since the war.

Well, if that's all it takes for a nation that has been defeated in an ammoral and hateful way to become an ally I guess we can expect Iraq to be on our team in the future?

Japan rightfully got their ass handed to them, regardless of the means. I imagine they know that, my german friends certainly do.
In the end they were rewarded with what they thought war would attain (as VB mentioned earlier and you agreed with): entry into the rich-boy club.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

I'm sorry my last post was a bit harsh.. sorry 'bout that.

However, history shows that lasting peace only comes thru decisive military victories. Yes, the US has made some mistakes but all, in all, She's done far far far more good for the rest of the world than harm.

No worries about your comment.

I'm not so sure that lasting peace only comes through decisive military victories. I think there's a lot more to it than that.

Edit: As for how much good the US has done, I don't know that I can argue with you on that score. But, I think we should own up to the mistakes that we have made. IMO, it makes us a better nation when we can stand up and accept responsibility for our actions.