Debating the Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb On Hiroshima
In what would become the final days of World War II, the two Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, were destroyed by atomic bombs dropped by the US Air Force, first on August 6, 1945 and then again on August 9, killing at least 120,000 people initially, and around twice as many over time due to radiation poisoning.
The primary reasons given for dropping the two bombs was that it would force Japan to unconditionally surrender. Japan did ultimately surrender on August 15, 1945. The other reason was that it would save American and Japanese lives overall due to the US military not needing to invade the Japanese main land.
With this week’s anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there has been a run up of articles in the media and elsewhere chronicling the anniversary of this event.
First of all the main question many people ask is if the atomic bombings of Japan were necessary?
Setting up surrender talks sanctioned by both the U.S. and the Japanese governments would likely have been difficult. But there is no easy way of ending a war. The primary question is not what is the easier path, but what path will bring a lasting peace while sparing the most Allied lives and, secondarily, “enemy” civilian lives.
While it cannot be proven, had officially sanctioned communication been made by the Allies or the U.S. to Japan thru Konoye, the various peace feelers, or other credible diplomatic channel stating that Japan’s time had completely run out due to the impending threats of nuclear destruction and Soviet invasion, and that immediate surrender would mean the opportunity to retain their throne, there is a good chance the Japanese doves would have enlisted the Emperor to bring Japan to surrender in late July or early August of 1945.
I disagree that setting up surrender talks would of led to the unconditional surrender of Japan. The Japanese at the time practiced the samurai code of Bushido where they would not surrender. Any deal made in peace talks would likely not be called a surrender but a cease fire to save face for the Japanese militarists in charge of the country. Plus I believe the militarists would never of allowed a complete American occupation of Japan because then that would be a symbol of defeat.
With a cease fire in a place and no occupation how different would Japan be today? The militarists would of still been in power after the war and deeply bitter about their failure to win the war. This scenario sounds very familiar to World War I when the Germans were not forced to unconditionally surrender due to the allied armies, particularly the French and English, being worn down with heavy casualties and looking to end the war any way possible, thus the Armistice Agreement was reached. The Armistice directly led to Hitler’s popularity and rise because the Germans never felt defeated after World War I.
The attitude in Japan would of been much the same way if the militarists stayed in power. Why do I think this you ask? It is pretty clear that the mentality in Japan would never accept a complete surrender through negotiations. It took the fire bombing of Tokyo, the bloody fights on Iwo Jima and Okinawa, the Russian entry into the war, plus not one but two atomic bombs before they finally surrendered nearly a week after the second atomic bomb on August 15th. The Japanese did not initially feel compelled to surrender when they believed they could win a bloody fight on their home islands which could of caused the US to eventually seek a ceasefire instead of conquering all of Japan.
So yes, I agree surrender talks may have potentially worked and saved the lives lost from the atomic bombings, but without the unconditional surrender of Japan would it have led to another war years later? Who knows, but this is the thought that General MacArthur and many other people of this generation that fought in World War I had in the back of their minds. They did not want to repeat the mistakes of World War I, thus MacArthur’s famous saying, “There is no substitute for victory.”
In addition there was great thought put into determining the amount of American casualties that the US would potentially lose in an invasion of the Japanese mainland. Operation Olympic was the code name for the US military operational plan to invade the southern Japanese mainland island of Kyushu. The casualty estimate of the invasion of this island range anywhere from 63,000 – 100,000 US lives. Keep in mind these are just the estimates of the one southern Japanese island.
The Japanese were preparing for the all out defense of their homeland called Operation Ketsu-go. Read the link for an in depth look at the defensive plan to protect the Japanese main land. It is obvious that this would have been a bloody fight which was backed up by the American losses of 10,000 Americans dead and missing in the Marianas, 5,500 dead at Leyte, 9,000 dead during the Luzon campaign, 6,800 at Iwo Jima, 12,600 at Okinawa, and 2,000 killed at Peleliu that weighed heavily on the minds of America’s leaders.
The vicious fighting on Okinawa saw the US versus Japanese casualties approaching a 2-1 ratio. Just imagine if someone invaded the United States how hard would Americans fight to protect their homeland? I can guarantee that just about every able body person with a gun besides the citizens of San Francisco and Berkley would take up arms against the invaders. Plus the amount of civilians killed on Okinawa due to the fighting was heavy, not to mention villagers that killed themselves by jumping off of cliffs with their children instead of surrendering to the Americans. Would the Japanese mainland be any different.
Operation Olympic, the proposed invasion plan of the Japanese main land during World War II. Notice no plans were ever made to occupy Korea initially.
An additional factor weighing on the minds of US leaders was the fact this would be primarily a lone US invasion. The fall of Germany was helped by the combined allied armies in the western front and the Russian offensive in the east. In fact, the Russian Army during their 23 day invasion of East Germany lost 78,291 dead. Just an incredible number. Should the US leaders have expected anything different in Japan?
Then the final factor is the, Revenge Factor. Any politician that would of allowed the Japanese to end the war without unconditional surrender would have committed political suicide. The American public wanted revenge and complete victory after what happened at Pearl Harbor. Allowing the Japanese regime that initiated the attack on Pearl Harbor to stay in place would not be acceptable to the American public.
As you can see there are many factors that went into the nuclear bombings. This was not a rash decision made to kill as many people as possible. It was a shrewd calculated strategic decision made at the highest echelons of the US leadership to end the war quickly with the least amount of lives lost. I know many people would also dispute bombing civilians but World War II was fought by the rules of “total war” where civilians were considered legitimate targets in order to break national will power. Look what the Japanese did in China and other areas in Asia. Look what the Germans did in their bombing of Britian. The US military and other allied nations responded in kind in both theaters with the carpet bombings of Germany most notably Dresden and the fire bombings of Japan. In fact the fire bombing of Tokyo cost more lives than dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. “Total War” may not seem like a humanitarian concept, but when the survival of the nation is at stake countries will do whatever is necessary to save their nation. Does anyone doubt if the Germans or the Japanese developed the bomb before the Americans that they would of use it on American or allied targets?
I really do not see another alternative that would of worked that would of caused the unconditional surrender of Japan and the occupation of Japan that followed other than dropping the atomic bomb.
Now one thing I do dispute was the need to drop the second atomic bomb. I can understand Hiroshima, but Truman may have been to quick to bomb Nagasaki. The city must not have been a big military target since it had not received heavy bombing prior to the dropping of the nuclear bomb. So for stategic purposes it was not necessary to bomb for any other reason to break national will power.
A factor I think Truman probably took into account was the fact that the Soviet military entered the war on August 8, 1945 one day before the bombing of Nagasaki. The Soviet invasion had both pros and cons for Truman. The pro was that the invasion would put more pressure on the Japanese to surrender. The negative was that the Soviets were gobbling up territory before the US military could claim territory which I think Truman took into account. If the war dragged on any longer the Soviets could of very welled occupied all of Korea and the northern Japanese main land island of Hokkaido since they had already occupied the Kuril islands.
Maybe a few more days should have been alloted for the Japanese leadership to judge the effects of the Russian entry into the war. Maybe the threat of Soviet occupation would of finally made the Japanese surrender and allow the Americans to occupy them. If this didn’t work then the nuclear option was available.
I feel Truman didn’t take this option into account because he ordered the bombing of Nagasaki only one day after the Soviet entry into the war. I think the fear of the Soviets gobbling up large chunks of territory in Japan is what forced Truman’s hand to bomb Nagasaki. The American leadership felt that the occupation of Japan was critical in the soon to be developed containment policy of the Soviet Union. If the United States did not control all of Japan or ended up with a split Japan then the Soviets would have the advantage in controlling all of northeast Asia. This was definitely geo-politics at its most cunning level.
In a history class I took in college a Japanese student explained in class that he believed the US should have dropped the first atomic bomb out in the ocean in order to show the ruling militarist the might of the atomic bomb without targeting civilians. I countered his point that if dropping an atomic bomb on Hiroshima did not force the militarists to surrender than how was dropping a bomb in the ocean going to make them surrender? In fact it took two atomic bombings of Japanese cities and the entry of the Russians into the war in order to get the Japanese to finally surrender.
The other argument the Japanese student brought up was why the US did not drop a nuclear bomb on Berlin. That is because the US did not have a nuclear capability by the time Germany surrendered and even if it did the casualty ratio of an invasion of Germany is much lower compared to Japan. First of all it was a land battle where US tanks were able to roll right into Germany from France, secondly Germany was beat and actually was fighting harder to stop the Russian advance in order to be occupied by the Americans. With Japan the US forces would have had to do an amphibious landing followed by a vicious fight against fanatical defenders, which would have made casualties on both sides extremely high. There are clear differences between nuking Japan and Germany.
With 50 years of hindsight it is easy to sharpshoot Truman’s decision, but ultimately he did what he felt was in the best interest of the United States; not the best interest of Japan. This is important to keep in mind because I’m sure he felt the cost of Japanese civilian lives were secondary to protecting the lives of US serviceman and the geo-politics of protecting US national security by implementing the containment strategy of the Soviet Union. I still think that the bombing of Nagasaki may have been to quick, but today you really can’t argue with the results because the Soviet Union is history and Japan is one of the world’s wealthiest countries with the world’s second largest economy. However, I do fully agree with the Hiroshima Peace Park’s motto of never letting this tragedy happen again.
Previous Posting: Remembering Nagasaki
The militarists were bent on national suicide. They would have sacrificed every man, woman and child on mainland Japan to uphold their warped view of Bushido. We already saw hints of it on Okinawa where civilians were throwing themselves off cliffs to avoid capture. So, yeah, IMHO the bombings hastened the end of the war and were justified.
As far as the Japanese, they need to drop the victim persona about the bombings. Was the decision to bomb probably spurned by hatred? Probably. But the Japanese also reaped what they sowed. Had they not slaughtered millions of innocent Chinese, Koreans and Filipinos during their occupations, had they not started a war in the worst possible way, had they treated POW's with respect and not abused them, I think the decision to use those bombs may have been harder to make…
I followed and agree with most arguments GI-Korea posted. At the moment the US decided to drop the atomic bombs, Japan was American's menace, only one still stood up. Quite understandable decision if we think this sixty years later from the pure military tactics, though I never like Truman and especially Curtis E LeMay, the USAF general.
He planned to atempt ethnic clensing of Japanese people by ordering the carpet bombing using the incendiary bombs over more than 100 Japanese cities, even small towns. Incendiary bombs were quite effective in WW II, especial on the Japanese soil. This type bomb killed more people than the atomic bombs. Apparently, he was very good at this.
I wonder what he would've said if he heard the threat to the US from a general of the Chinese People Liberation Army. He justified the carpet boming strategy by quotation of the Chinese civilian deads in Chongquin, which was caused by the Japanese Imperial Navy's inaccurate bombing attack to military factories in Chongquin.
So, it is fair to say most industrial countries share the same sin: the carpet bombing of Choungquin by Japanese, Lodon by Germans, Dresden by Britains, Tokyo by Americans; I think we can find more examples very easily.
Let me open another dispute about the atomic bomb usage. If the atomic bomb was developped and deployed before Nazi-ruled Germany was defeated, would Truman have decided to drop the bomb on the Germany soil?
Most Japanese people believe the answer is No, meaning the decision was partly justified by the racism, not only by the revenge GI Korea wrote. White men couldn't test the effectiveness of the atomic bomb against the same race. Another issue supports this is that many innocennt Japanese-American citizens were sent to detention houses during the WW II, but migrants from Germany were not.
My opinion? Although I'm not really sure, I think it could be the case. The "yellow peril" still spreads out among people in those days, and it was even before the Martin R. King's famous speech. Only whites were treated as human being in the US….
[…] actually did a post on this a couple years ago about the decision to drop the atomic bomb compared to the proposed US invasion of Japan called Operation Olympic. Read the posting and […]
"White men couldn’t test the effectiveness of the atomic bomb against the same race."
That's a bit farfetched. After all, "White men" killed each other fine in WW II. That's a glib way of looking at it.
However, IMO European leaders would have opposed the nuclear assault on Germany. It's a devastating weapon. If you drop some on German outskirts (by accident, perhaps) that borders your country, and suddenly your own people suffers. I imagine thousands of POWs and holocaust victims were imprisoned in Germany a well. Fears of radiation probably factored in.
Meanwhile, Japan is surrounded by sea and "yellow" nations like Korea and China are their neighbors. Call it "racist" if you want, But yes, as far as which is the more convenient target for western leaders (Japan or Germany) my feeling is the former.
Just one more thing about the whole race issue.
Without a doubt, "yellow peril" and other racist misconceptions on Asians resulted in unfair treatments towards Japanese Americans (the internment and profiling)
I'd point out however, that racism doesn't always occur within two strict, binary relationship. It often intersects racial, national, gender or class lines. The Japanese who were oppressed under Americans were monsters and racists in their own right. Even as they were subjected to "yellow Peril" menace, some Asians were treated differently by the dominant society than others.
For example – Muruneko interprets American's decision to round up Japanese but NOT Germans as evidence of how "White people" would rather prioritize "yellow" enemies over Germans (and IAtalins, I suppose), who are fellow "White"s. There is some truth to that.
But non Japanese Asians also KNOW that Japan also set up slave war camps all over Asia to fuel their war effors. We weren't taken to isolated camps by bus and given 3 square meals a day. We perished by droves, and I haven't even touched on Nanking and the comfort women issue. By the emperor's decree, Japanese saw themselves as the "superior" race, people of heaven. I've heard stories about Japanese soldiers drowning KOrean males so our women are forced to bear children to "perfect" Japanese babies.
Thusly, when Koreans and Chinese witness some Japanese taking a HIGH moral road on WW II (the Japanese internment and the atom bomb are often their platform), we can take it with a grain of salt. I know about "yellow" peril, our grandfathers all suffered through it. But it's a bit outlandish for Japanese to criticize Hiroshima and Nagasaki as tragedy derived from racism (a fair point) but negelct to mention their OWN act of bigotry and war crimes against their Asian neighbors.
It's also worth noting that during the 1950's, some Americans perceived Japanese people as smart, sophisticated "model" Asians. After all, Japan was a rising nation that embraced modernization and western ways. Japanese Ameicans spoke fluent English and quickly assimilated. If I recall correctly, America signed the "gentleman's act" in part because it recognized Japan as an emerging power. We all know about Commodore Perry, meiji restoration, etc.
Meanwhile the Chinese (well Asians in general perhaps) were often seen as obedient, effeminate types. They were stuck doing laundry, dish washing, and household chores. The Chinese men were so THOROUGHLY robbed of their mascunlinity in America that they tried to assert their manhood at home, resulting in domestic violence and abuse towards their wives and children.
Hmmm…
Much of what is decried as "racism" in America is actually "culturism"… frequently a valid reason to treat a group differently.
The intentional confusion between the two is a hindrance to willing assimilation, perpetuates the continued existence of undesirable cultural traits, breeds unnecessary conflict and empowers truly racist minority leaders through a platform of hate instead of cultural improvement.
Prior to WWII, many immigrants came to America from both Europe and Asia.
Partially due to the familiarity of European-based American culture, Germans and Italians culturally assimilated more rapidly and more completely than Asians.
During WWII, many (most?) Japanese in America continued to practice aspects of Japanese culture instead of assimilating with the dominate European-based American culture. With a strong and obvious cultural loyalty to Japan, this brought about reasonable questions concerning their national loyalty and their loyalty to the Japanese emperor.
So… was it "racism" against slant-eyed, yellow-skinned Asians to put Japanese into internment camps? Or was it culturism based on American uncomfortable-ness with a group of people who seemed to identify closely with a nation we were at war with?
As others of the Asian "race", such as slant-eyed, yellow-skinned Chinese, Koreans, etc., were NOT placed into internment camps, it is difficult to make a case that this was a matter of racism… as it seems actually to have been an act against a group practicing a particular culture.
Interestingly, we are seeing the same situation with the Chinese now.
China as a nation is taking advantage of the "we are all Chinese" aspect of Chinese culture to pressure Chinese workers around the world to assist in acts of industrial espionage.
As we know this to be a cultural trait, is it racism to investigate Chinese scientists more closely than others?
J!
The facts are clear; using the bomb on Japan saved both American and Japanese lives, compared to what a fight to the finish would have been. There is no factual basis for doubting this, no compelling counterargument. America should not feel bad or apologize for using the bomb.
As for the note about many Japanese not believing that America would have dropped the bomb on Germany had we had it before we defeated them – that can’t be proved either way, unless there are some documents that speak directly to that. But the very high probability is that we indeed would have used the atomic bomb on Germany to end the war as we were after all rushing to create it with that possible goal on the table. Suggestions of not wanting to use the bomb on them b/c of race are groundless assertions with nothing to back them up.
Richardson
"America should not feel bad or apologize for using the bomb."
Wow. Beautiful American.
If Japan had developed A Bomb first and dropped on US, do you agree the same idea "the bomb saved both American and Japanese lives"?
If China had surrendered after the fall of Nanking and so called "Nanking massacre", do you insist "massacre saved both Chinese and Japanese lives"?
Dropping A bomb on a city is massacre.
Nothing more.
Massacre is war crime, isn't it?
Japanese emperor decided to surrender because US massacred Japanese citizen so terribly.
OK. US won.
However, don't justify massacre.
If you believe dropping a bomb is no problem morally, why don’t you use it on Iraq?
If US drops A bombs on the hometown of Iraq terrorists, they might give up to make more terrors.
And you can say again, "the bomb saved both American and Iraqi lives".
The difference between the U.S. and Japan in WWII is that Japan was the belligerent that started the war, something you appear to overlook or gloss over. Additionally, if Japan got the bomb first, and assuming all other variables constant, dropping the bomb on the U.S. would not have ended the war but prolonged it, again costing many more lives.
Dropping the bombs on Japan was indeed justified. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people did not die b/c the war was ended faster and decisively.
Yes, that is exactly what I’m talking about in ending the war sooner, preventing the invasion/bombings, etc. I’m not sure why you can’t grasp that. Or won’t.
Be serious and realistic if you want a like response.
Richardson
"The difference between the U.S. and Japan in WWII is that Japan was the belligerent that started the war"
Japan decided to fight US because US stopped to sell oil.
So many Americans try to justify the war crimes of US with the excuse of Peal Harbor without the basic historical knowledge.
US was the biggest oil producer and exporter in those days.
You must understand the meaning of oil embargo.
Now, US has become an oil importer.
Americans can not survive without the oil in the Middle East.
And you are fighting there now.
What a belligerent county it is.
Do you try to justify the massacre of innocent women, children, and old men?
Are you sure?
Isn’t it a war crime?
Did you forget Americans “massacred” so many Japanese and German after the war with the name of “war crimes”?
You jump to conclusions when you (incorrectly) assume what I know and do not know concerning the events prior to Japan’s treacherous attack on Pearl Harbor, with diplomats in Washington speaking with forked tongues at the same time!
Not selling oil was not an act of war.
Attacking Pearl Harbor was.
The difference between Japan and the U.S. in the context of the war remains, despite your inept attempt to gloss over that as well.
And no are not capable of refuting that the bombs dropped on Japan in fact prevented both carpet bombing of the entire nation, as well as the battles between forces that would have occurred.
The undisputable bottom line is that the bombs saved many times over what they took in lives.
You'll have to be more specific, troll.
In his "A World at Arms" Gerhard Weinberg arguably produced the best single-volume history of the Second World War. See pp 886-891. He notes that in June and July of 1945 when the Japanese Imperial Government through its ambassador to the USSR tried to enlist Soviet help in ending the war, USA intelligence was eavesdropping on the radio traffic. They could see that "the subject of surrender was actually under discussion in Tokyo, an entirely new feasture of the situation…so far, the advocates of continuing the war were winning out over those who were prepared to surrender." Shortly thereafter, the Potsdam Declaration was issued, calling on Japan to surrender. "Designed to appeal to the peace faction in the Japanese government" the document implied that the Imperial system could be retained and was so understood in Japan. In the internal debates in the Japanese government, the advocates of acceptance (of the Declaration) did not yet include the Prime Minister" so it was rejected. "The Americans waited a few days to see whether there were second thoughts in Tokyo", and then the first of the two weapons immediately available was dropped on Hiroshima. "The internal debates in the Japanese government continued…The Minster of War and the Army and Navy Chiefs of Staff still wished to continue the struggle." Even after the first atomic strike, the Japanese military looked forward to victory or stalemate, costing untold numbers of lives on both sides, in a conventional struggle in Japan proper. Also, there were many in the Japanese government who still ludicrously imagined that the USSR would save their situation. The second available weapon was dropped on Nagasaki. "At an Imperial Council held in the night of August 9-10, the equal division of the Council, three for surrender against three for continued war (this after two atomic strikes) was broken by the Emperor personally." Even after all of this, "opponents of the course ordered by the Emperor made a major effort to reverse the decision to accept the Potsdam Declaration" by trying to kill their opponents, trying to destroy the Emperor's taped surrender recording etc.
Apologists and revisionists aside, this was the only feasible way to end the war. Shintoism had in a most deadly fashion proven its inherent unsuitability as a political guide in a post-agricultural world, rather as has Islam today.
Please ignore jion999. He obviously would have liked to have history pan out this way instead:
– Instead of using the atomic bombs, the US attacks the mainland islands using conventional warfare only.
– After a long and bloody battle for the islands of Japan, the Allies and Japan reach a truce.
– As part of that truce, Japan gets to maintain its current military dominated government structure. It also retains control of Korea and Manchuria.
– jion999 and other Koreans grow up using last names like "Hirobumi" and "Goro" while bowing to the portait of Emperor Hirohito before class each day.
It always baffles me why jion999 and other Koreans always defend Japan's position when it comes to the position of using the A-bomb. Maybe the Japanese textbook revisionism is somehow seeping into the Korean textbooks too?
Richardson
Don't you know US sent Flying Tigers to China secretly before Pearl Harbor to get ready to fight Japan, with American politicians in Washington speaking with forked tongues with Japanese at the same time?
Not selling oil IS an act of war.
If Islam fundamentalists make revolution in Saudi Arabia and start oil embargo against US, do Americans kneel down to them without fight?
You are saying your country is justice and even the war crime of US is forgiven for the victory of US.
All countries go to war for its national interests.
Justice of war is mere propaganda of the government to encourage people to kill enemy.
We are always right, and they are always wrong.
Do you still live in such kind illusion?
PSL
Does US textbook say massacre saves many lives?
Dropping A bomb in a city is not massacre?
Or is there good massacre in your country?
US made so many wars even after WW2.
However, she did not use A bomb after Nagasaki at all.
Why?
It means Americans feel guilty to massacre innocent women, children, and old men, isn't it?
Unconditional surrender is used for the excuse of A bomb.
They believe unconditional surrender is a must to prevent another war and talk about Germany after WW1.
It is wrong.
German selected Hitler not because of conditional surrender but because heavy reparations which was forced by victors.
Japanese and German did not make another war after ww2 not because of unconditional surrender but no reparations forced.
If the victor treats loser like a slave after the war, they will fight again.
Unconditional surrender or not is not the point.
The destruction of Japan and Germany made power vacuum in Asia and Europe and communists took power.
Americans must fight new enemy in Korea, Vietnam, and long long cold war.
Unconditional surrender of Japan and Germany didn't create world peace.
In spite of this reality, many Americans still believe the excuse that the massacre of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved many lives.
Operation Olympic is not a must.
So, it’s just twisted logic.
Be honest.
It's a war crime.
It is guilty to kill innocent women, children, and old men even in a war.
Or Japanese of ww2 was not humanbeeing?
Don't worry.
Japanese is different from Korean.
We don't ask for apology and compensation for the war crime of US even if Americans feel guilty for the massacre of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
It was the right thing to do. Japan forced the situation. They had the option to surrender beforehand, as Rand has pointed out with substancial quotes.
Are you also complaining about the post-WWII deal Japan got? Ha!
This reminds me of why you're banned at DPRK Studies.
Richardson
"It was the right thing to do."
Is it the right thing to massacre innocent women, children, and old men?
I can not help you.
All you can do is to ban the different opinions like Chinese communists.
I hope Americans will not make another massacre with the name of "justice" in the future.
With regard to the sundry notions posted previously about the aftermath of the First World War and beyond, let me offer:
During the 1920s Germany, whose foreign policy was under the guidance of Gustav Stresemann, skillfully pared down and disposed of the reparations question. Germany herself had imposed reparations on the French in 1871 after the Franco-Prussian war, and on the Soviet Union in 1918 after the Soviet withdrawal from the First World War. However, the reparations imposed on Germany, if morally defensible, were in their extent practicably unwise, and Stresemann pursued their demise relentlessly and effectively. This all occurred before Hitler came to power. The reason Hitler came to power in large part was because he relentlessly broadcast the myth that the German Army had been defeated by a Jewish cabal in its rear, rather than by unbearable Allied military pressure from August through October 1918 as was the truth. After the Second World War, the General Staff of the German Army, which had maintained the Army's independence from effective civilian control during the time of the Weimar Republic (1918 – 1933) and allowed the Army to be a militarizing influence in German national life, was destroyed. Hence removed from Germany was a recurrent incitement to war. With the Nazis undeniably defeated and discredited in 1945 and the General Staff disbanded, the better angels of Germany's nature could come forth under Konrad Adenauer, to be met by American generosity. Similarly in Japan, with the Emperor's divine status destroyed after the defeat in 1945, Shintoism was defanged in Japan. With the destruction of the General Staffs of the Imperial Army and Imperial Navy which as in Germany had been outside civilian control, the aggressive potential of Japan was severely minimized. That accomplished, Japan could be dealt with as generously as was Germany.
If it is argued that since there have been many conflicts since the Second World War that have seen USA involvement, to say nothing of the long Cold War, and that this means that it was pointless for the USA to fight the Germans and Japanese to unconditional surrender, well, that is another question. Would the world have been better off for the USA to have been content with having damaged its two immediate foes by 1943 or 1944, and let them resume on more possibly equal terms their contests against the Soviet Union and China, respectively? Given the mortal resolve of the American people after December 7th, 1941, this was highly unlikely.
The counterintuitive result of dropping those bombs was that more Japanese and American lives were saved.
The difference between me banning a flippant fool and the Chinese is that it’s a personal blog; you have the right to start you own, but you do not have a *right* to comment at mine. Thanks for re-confirming my decision.
Richardson
“The counterintuitive result of dropping those bombs was that more Japanese and American lives were saved.”
Again?
Your argument is to repeat the old propaganda again and again and make personal attack?
Take it easy.
Have a nice day.
But jion999, you've never refuted the argument.
Please explain how the U.S. not using the bombs – which would have resulted in a prolonged Pacific war, i.e. carpet bombing Japan and battles for perhaps years to come – would have saved more lives in the balance. Explaining the part about how the U.S. blowing all of Japan apart with conventional weapons for years would have been a better alternative is key to your argument.
I'm interested in what sort of factually incorrect and convoluted mess of logical fallacies you'll present, in a detached sort of way.
Richardson
You have a single-track mind because you can not imagine another choice except committing war crimes.
Neither Dropping A bombs nor Operation Olympic was not a must.
Japan had lost most of its ships and plains in 1945. Resources were run out.
Naval blockade was enough.
Americans needed not suffer the indelible disgrace as the first dropper of A bomb.
US did it not because saving lives but because temptation of revenge and decisive victory.
What did US get after forcing unconditional surrender with A bombs?
Decisive victory?
US won the battles but did you forget the fist reason why US stopped to sell oil to Japan and forced her to fight US?
US wanted to keep the hegemony and commercial rights in China.
And what happened after the war?
All of Americans were kicked out from China.
Americans forgot the main purpose of the war and stuck the unconditional surrender of the enemy.
As the result, US was cheated by communists and lost China.
World history has usual phenomena.
If you crash one enemy completely, the other enemy gets power and becomes annoying.
How many Americans expected the coming war with communists during WW2?
Stalin knew it.
Mao Tse-tung was waiting for the time US crashes Japan.
Americans were psyched about the unconditional surrender of Japan and lacked the idea after the change of power balance.
A bombs or Operation Olympic?
It is not the point.
Japan could be ally of US against communists.
But when US had to fight with communists, Japan was too weak to fight together.
How many Americans were killed in Korea and Vietnam?
Thanks to the unconditional surrender of Japan which Americans dreamed, US forced Japan to accept the peaceful constitution which bans to hold military force.
However, US must request Japan to hold military force again a few years later after Korean War broke out.
Dropping A bombs and forcing unconditional surrender and what US got?
First of all, it is guilty to kill innocent women, children, and old men even in a war.
"First of all, it is guilty to kill innocent women, children, and old men even in a war."
If so, then Japan was guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. I could argue that the decision to nuke hiroshima and Nagasaki derived from the urgency to halt further bloodshed by the Japanese hands, civilian or otherwise.
There's perhaps room for debate on this issue. I personally don't see this as black and white. But no matter what their position, the Japanese should approach this issue with a sense of humility and introspection. If the west erred with their decision to use the nuke, it was at least prompted by Japan's war crimes against humanity. Jion999 feels that Hiroshima and Nakashima was an act of petty revenge in BLATANT violation of human life, and that's absurd. Wrong or not, Japan IS responsible for the nuclear devastation on their soil in SOME way.
Many Japanese civilians died as a result, but they have only their government to blame. Many good Allied forces would have died invading Japan (a hchunk of humanity erased under Hitler ALREADY), and as inhumane as it sounds, I think the allies correctly prioritized the lives of their soldiers and citizens over the Japanese. A 2,3 years of conflict at the Japanese islands (innocent people would have died anyways) where both sides suffer, or a wipe out tactic that spares OUR lives and potentially ends this ordeal – the choice is simple.
Hell, if I was living in Korea at the time, I'd say drop 10 nukes on Japan. How could ANY of us endure 2,3 more years of Americans and allied forces trying to overtake Japan? Who knows what kind of punishing yoke Japan would have placed on OUR shoulders so they can mount one FINAL, last ditch effort to win the war? And what if – after ALL that fighting, the allies agree to some BS peace agreement that allows Japan to control Korea and other Asian territories.
Chinese history isn't my forte, but if I recall correctly, Japan is at least partially repsonsible for the communist revolution in China. The Nationalist (Chiang Kai Shek being the leader?) and the communists were fighting over control, but they had to temporarily conslidate their powers to oppose the invading Japanese. The Nationalists became weaker and the reds seized power, able to convince their people that communists can fend off the Japanese.
Jion999 is apparently one of those Japanese apologist who believe Japan acted as lord protecter of Asia, fending off Western imperialism. What kinda irks me is that it's people like Jion that provides fuel and fodder for CRAZED korean / Chinese nationalists who badger Japan to apologize for everything, and REFUSES to let the past go. Believe you me, I find these people as thin skinned and unreasonable, even as a Korean. What can I say, two wrongs don't make a right.
Surabol
"if I was living in Korea at the time, I’d say drop 10 nukes on Japan."
Those Americans who believe the justice of US including the massacres of Hiroshima and Nagasaki prefer to take the distorted story of Chinese and Koreans on blind faith.
When Chinese American Iris Chang wrote "Rape of Nanking", many US Medias cheered for that book.
If Japanese was more barbaric during WW2, the massacres of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would be justified more.
What was the motivation of Iris Chang to write the above book?
Chinese nationalism.
And it has two usual enemies.
Japanese and Americans.
After the success of "Rape of Nanking", she wrote "Chinese in America" and criticized the discrimination of White Americans against Chinese immigrants.
This time US Medias booed her so much.
She was disappointed and committed suicide later.
Those Chinese and Koreans who criticize Japanese war crimes never appreciate Americans as the liberator of Asia even if US defeated evil Japan.
On the contrary, they criticize Americans as another invader like Japanese.
Only when they attack Japanese, they exploit American’s “victor’s justice” and hypocrisy.
Americans still don’t like to give up the idea of their justice and glory in WW2.
They must have learned the question about “America’s justice” in Vietnam War.
However, WW2 must be the special war for them even now.
We were right perfectly and the enemies were wrong.
It was a good war.
Chinese and Koreans know Americans’ sentiment and use it for their political benefit.
The readers of this blog must know the mentality of Koreans' anti-Japan sentiment and anti-America sentiment.
They use Americans conveniently.
I wrote it is guilty to kill innocent women, children, and old men even in a war.
I believe most of Americans agree with this idea except the debate of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
However, once starting to talk about A bombs, the humanity and intelligence of Americans go away and Korean type nationalism raise up.
My point is quite simple.
US went to the war for its national interests.
So did Japan.
Japanese committed war crimes.
So did Americans.
US defeated Japan.
But why the victor was right and the loser was wrong?
Why the war crime of the victor is forgiven?
If I challenge the victor’ justice, am I an apologist or a revisionist?
What a convenient word for victors.
What Richardson wrote?
“It was the right thing to do.”
“America should not feel bad or apologize for using the bomb.”
America should not apologize but should feel bad not to use it in the future.
I did not write about the justice of Japanese in ww2 at all.
I did not deny the Japanese war crimes.
Which side is more objective and logical about war of human being?
From Rand’s first comment above:
Jion999:
A horrible failure of education, a stunning example of denial.
Richardson
You don't answer my questions at all.
Answer logically except personal attack if you had a better education.
Japanese massacred Chinese in Nanking with Japanese swords.
Americans massacred Japanese in Hiroshima and Nagasaki with A bombs.
The tools were different but they were same massacres to kill innocent people.
Because Japan surrendered after the massacres, Americans insist it is right thing to save many lives.
If Chinese had surrendered after Nanking massacre, it would have become right thing?
If you kill more people and force the enemy to surrender, the massacre is justified?
It is very funny logic, isn’t it?
I remember reading a quote from an American journalist who reported from the Pacific during WW2. When asked about his opinion of the A-Bomb he replied:
"I feel pity but no remorse. The Japanese Army dissuaded me of that notion"
Jion..troll or not you deserve an answer.
The object of war is to win.
Your whole issue/hang-up seems to be how people died rather than the numbers actually dead and the far greater numbers prevented.
Also, Japan was the belligerent, not China. It does make a difference.
Again I pose the question;
Just repeating that the U.S. didn’t have to use the bomb is not an answer.
Richard
“I feel pity but no remorse. The Japanese Army dissuaded me of that notion”
Is this the confession of American war crime?
"The object of war is to win."
The topic is not how to win the total war.
We are talking about American war crimes and their justification of dropping A bombs.
If you mean it is acceptable to massacre the enemy to win a war, the war crime judgments after the war were obviously hypocrisy and propaganda show of victors.
Richardson
"Your whole issue/hang-up seems to be how people died rather than the numbers actually dead and the far greater numbers prevented. "
"the far greater numbers prevented" is just a presumption and imagination.
If US had not dropped A bombs in August and USSR invaded Manchuria and Korea as scheduled, even the Americans must have understood the ambition of USSR and known it was not the time to fight with Japanese.
"Also, Japan was the belligerent, not China."
It shows how ignorant you are about Chinese history.
Read "MAO The unknown story" by Jung Chang.
Answer my question.
"If you kill more people and force the enemy to surrender, the massacre is justified?"
Japanese was belligerent and American was justice?
It is not an answer of educated man.
Just primitive racism.
I guess if the U.S. had killed all Japanese with swords you’d be ok with that.
Before the bombs Japan was planning to fight to the finish, so that is not a presumption.
Yeah, China was just asking for it. Why not add that Korea deserved to be colonized while you’re at it?
Look, if you can’t or won’t answer the question posed above, just admit it.
But as you’ve reverted to the “racism” card, I don’t think you will. First the facts just aren’t there to support your position. Secondly you’re not the sharpest tool in the shed.
When/if you answer the question, you’ll get a reply.
Richardson
I answered already.
Operation Olympic was scheduled, but not a must.
So called saved lives is just imagination.
And the imagination is used for the excuse of the massacre.
There was the possibility that Japan surrenders after USSR invasion without A bombs.
There was also the possibility that Japan surrenders in the beginning of Operation Olympic.
Imagined big causalities of Operation Olympic is nothing to justify the massacre of A bombs.
Answer my question.
"If Chinese had surrendered after Nanking massacre, it would have become the right thing to save many Japanese and Chinese lives?
If you kill more people and force the enemy to surrender, the massacre is justified?"
jion
Why was it the obligation of the US to play by different rules?
Richard
"Why was it the obligation of the US to play by different rules?"
I hope US to deal with Japanese and Americans in the same rules.
Many Japanese soldiers were executed by US for massacre and war crimes after the war.
US did punish the war crimes of Americans even in Vietnam War and Iraq War, didn't it?
How about the war crimes of US in WW2?
Do you really believe there was no war crime of US in WW2 only?
If Nanking incident was massacre, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were massacres.
No excuse with imagination of Operation Olympic.
I like to put my last comment about this topic.
I knew most of Americans believe propaganda to justify the use of A bombs.
But most of Japanese don’t.
Though they don’t ask for apology to Americans for the use of A bombs, they hope Americans to express sympathies for the casualties of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
So I guess they may be shocked to find the opinions of Americans here.
All of the people love their own country and fight for it with enemies.
Americans, Japanese, Koreans……..
They must have their own justice.
However, if you continue to fight for the justice of your own country only, we have to fight until the extinction of human being.
Because the idea of justice would never be universal.
We have possessed too dangerous weapons to fight each other.
The world has become so small.
The natural resources are so limited and located in the limited area.
If we use them for their own political benefit, we have to fight again.
And the battle would be so miserable.
There is no hero in the modern inhuman war.
I understand why US dropped A bombs in Japan.
There were tired of fighting in the long wars.
They hated their enemies.
The lives of enemy are not valuable comparing with ours.
However, if you insist the massacre of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justice, Japanese can not accept it.
US and Japan are the allied countries now.
But Chinese and Koreans are trying to use the historical controversy and American’s justice to attack Japan again and again.
US congress passed the resolution of comfort women.
I am worrying about the future of US-Japan alliance.
I know the glory of WW2 is so important for Americans.
But US is the country to create the movie of “Flags of our fathers” and “Letters from Iwo Jima”
I hope them to understand the feeling of Japanese.
We don’t ask for any apology or compensation for the massacre of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to Americans.
We just hope Americans not to use the bomb anymore in the future with the name of American justice.
Jion,
I would condemn USA for droping the bomb if they dropped in an other country, but dropping it in Japan makes sense for koreans and chinese people.
Japan commited so much atrocity during the war that it is impossible to feel sympathy for Japan. You got what you deserved …. (remember, you started it)
It is ridiculous watching you begging for sympathy when you guys keep insulting the memory of the comfort women. You want a sign of respect for japan? show respect first.
Dr. yu
It is a bad habit of Koreans to pretend to be victims or victors when they talk about WW2.
When Japanese army massacred Chinese, so many Korean soldiers were in Japanese army to kill Chinese.
This picture was drawn by Chinese to criticize Koreans as a follower of Japanese to massacre Chinese.
http://photoimg.enjoyjapan.naver.com/view/47/43/e…
Americans executed or punished hundreds of Korean soldiers as war criminals after WW2 because they were so barbaric against American POWs.
And if you have the knowledge that many Koreans were massacred by A bomb in Hiroshima including one of Korean princes, you would not say it makes sense.
Prince Wu of Korea(??, ??)
He was an officer of Japanese Imperial Army.
"Prince Wu was restationed to Hiroshima in 1945, and on 6th August, 1945, he was killed by the atomic bomb blast on the way to his office. His body was moved to Korea and was buried in Hongneung Imperial tomb on 15th August, the day of Korean Liberation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu,_Prince_of_Korea
Many Koreans are ignorant about such kind facts and ridicule the tragedies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
A bomb is a weapon to massacre people indiscriminately.
Jion
You are ridiculous and the fact that koreans fought at the side of the japanese during the war show only how you forced them to do so. Korean hatred to japan dates hundred of years, so no korean would fight for japan.
Again you got what you deserved and I'm sure the americans thinks the same, afterall you killed many americans too.
Have you heard this: "tread others the same way you want to be treated". It is not a japanese proverb but it is wise and has a deep meaning. Think about it.
Dr. yu
"You are ridiculous and the fact that koreans fought at the side of the japanese during the war show only how you forced them to do so. Korean hatred to japan dates hundred of years, so no korean would fight for japan."
Koreans fought for Japan during ww2.
The history shows it.
That is the reason why there were many Korean war criminals.
If you agree with the justice of US to drop A bombs on Japan, accept the judgments of Americans to punish Korean soldiers as war criminals, too.
On the other hand, no Koreans did fight Japanese during WW2.
Though there were so called Korean independence fighters in China, they did not shoot any bullets to Japanese.
Only the thing they did was to come back to Korea after the war and killed each other.
It is very funny to see the Korean imagination in which they resisted Japanese bravely and got independence by themselves.
Do you believe the fairy tale of General Kim Ilsung which USSR distorted?
Most of Koreans were Chinilpa (pro-Japanese Koreans) in those days.
Because Japan surrendered and political situation changed drastically in Korea, all of Koreans who worked for Japanese behaved like they were pro-independence or victims of Japan after the war.
Otherwise, they must have been criticized or jailed by terrorists who came back from China.
Most of Chinilpas were not punished at all after the independence in the result.
Do you know the reason why?
Was there no Chinilpa in Korea?
Because everybody lied to survive.
The story of Korean modern history is based on their lies.
The reason why Koreans prefer to behave like victims of Japan is that they are afraid of being alleged as Chinilpa.
Jion,
I dont care if korean history is based on lies. I know a true: Japan got what deserved.
No use in speaking past one another; some Koreans did willingly serve in Japan’s military, some were forced to do so. Some Koreans did indeed commit war crimes while in the Japanese military. Also, many Korean “laborers” (i.e., slaves) were shipped all over the place to work for the Japanese military with no say in the matter. I know for a fact that at least 5,000 Korean “laborers” died in the Marshall Islands. The Marshallese people, btw, hate the Japanese even more than Koreans do; the Japanese lopped off a lot of Marshallese heads, 1914-1944.
To say that Kim Il-sung is a liar and has created a mythology surrounding Korean freedom fighters does not negate the fact that there was indeed a robust resistance movement; it is dishonest to suggest so.
Now there is a blatant bit of Japanese propaganda! Actually it’s just a lie.
Dr. yu
"Japan got what deserved."
So did Korea.
US dropped A bombs on Japan and divided Korean peninsula.
The split of Koreas was the cause of Korean War which killed 3 millions of Koreans and created many frustrated Kyoppos in US who hate Japanese and Americans blindly without making self examinations.
Ah, true colors!
Not sure of the logic where Korea "deserved" to be divided.
But par for the course.
Richardson
"many Korean “laborers” (i.e., slaves) were shipped all over the place to work for the Japanese military with no say in the matter. "
So were African Americans during ww2.
Because they were not trusted as soldiers by white Americans, African Americans were forced to work as servants of white men in WW2.
There were Korean Generals and officers in Japanese force.
How about US force?
Did you have any African American or Asia American generals or officers?
It is a typical hypocrisy of American democracy.
"To say that Kim Il-sung is a liar and has created a mythology surrounding Korean freedom fighters does not negate the fact that there was indeed a robust resistance movement; it is dishonest to suggest so. "
So, tell me.
Where and when is the battle of Korean independence war during WW2?
I am not talking about bank robbery or terrors.
It is historical truth that there was no riot in Korea to fight against Japanese during WW2 even if Koreans insist 200,000 of Korean women were kidnapped and raped by Japanese force.
WoW! This was an interesting read. Some of you have a lot of hate inside. I've heard it all before. In the end there is one conclusion.
Japan aligned itself with the Nazis. Japan attacked America. After that Japan got it's butt kicked by the American A-bomb, because it refused the option of surrender. The Japanese had the option of surrender before the A-bomb. They didn't want it. So Japan got what it wanted/deserved, two citys destroyed. As an American, I have no negative feeling about it.
America isn't perfect. But it comes closer than all others. I'm very lucky to be an American, and I have no sadness for what happens to those that attack my country.
Dan
"As an American, I have no negative feeling about it."
Good comment. Typical patriotic American.
You don't have negative feeling about America's massacre of American Indians, African slaves, Filipinos, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Vietnamese, and Iraqis.
America is justice, and all massacres committed by US are justified.
OK
However, why US lost the war in Vietnam?
If USAF had dropped 10 A bombs on North Vietnam, US would have gotten victory.
Why US didn't do it?
Because US couldn't do it.
The matter of humanity is so important in US.
US can not drop A bomb anymore in the future except total war.
And Americans make all the best to justify the past faults to drop A bombs on the cities without notice and massacre the innocent women, children, and old men.
If you believe it is no problem to drop A bomb on the enemy, drop it on Iraq.
If you drop A bombs on all the cities the terrorists come from, I believe Iraqi terrorists would give up to make any terrorism.
But Americans can not do it.
If US does it, the party which is against the war takes power in the next election.
It is a reality of this world.
Dear Jion,
I'm having fun here because of you. It's just so good to keep repeating "You got what you deseved" that it is helping me to relax from my stress.
Now that I'm a billionare business man I decided to buy some a-bombs and drop them in Japan too. Of course I coudn't forget about you my friend, so please give me your address that I will send a special one for you. Because you deserve it !!!! Hahaha !!!!!
Sniff, sniff. Poor victim. You want me to feel sorrow for you, while you hate me. Good luck with that, poor little victim. If I saw something worthy of Pity in you, maby. But I don't. Your country was Racest and hateful, as are you now. Your race had no mercy then, so don't ask for pity now. Japan deserved its fate.
"Typical Patriotic American", THANK YOU, very much!
Jion,
Do you have proof or evidence that americans droped a-bombs in Japan? As far as I know there are no evidence of such "history". I think you are creating false accusation against USA.
Doesn't it sound familiar to you? Hahaha !!!!!
Dan, you better watch out. The moderator will delete your comments if they don't agree with your position. Remember, America bad, rest of the world good. HTH
Yes, they didn’t have a choice – neither did whites and every other race; it’s called the draft (none had their heads chopped off by their officers, though).
But your comment is a red herring; you made the unqualified statement that Koreans –your implication was all- willingly served the Japanese, which is obviously false.
Even a cursory Google search would have relieved you of your ignorance – some examples after ~20 seconds of looking;
http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/aframerw…
http://www.buffalosoldier.net/WW11AfroAmericanMed…
Such a brave person to speak of the people who had the Japanese boot on their neck.
In WWII, my father said that his tank batallions right flank was protected by a black army unit during the Battle of the Bulge. He can't remember if they were infantry or a tank group, but he remembers the Germans pounding the heck out of them and busting up their unit really bad. He also remembers seeing black soldiers on R&R in England. Doesn't seem like they were servants.
Richardson
Did you find generals of African Americans or Asian Americans in your links?
You can not do it.
This is a Korean Japanese General who was executed by Americans as a war criminal after WW2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Sa-ik
There was no democracy for minorities in US during WW2.
Do you have an intension to ignore this fact and criticize Japanese only?
I don't have an intention to criticize US only.
I mean there were so many discriminations in the world of 60 years ago not only in Japan but also in US.
Don't use the fault of Japanese as an excuse to drop A bombs.
It was a war crime of US.
US was not a perfect country to give a divine punishment.
Dan
I don't hate you.
You are an usual American.
I don't expect too much.
Take it easy.
Richardson
"Yes, they didn’t have a choice – neither did whites and every other race; it’s called the draft (none had their heads chopped off by their officers, though). "
It was also draft for Koreans to work for Japan in those days.
Indians also got draft for British Empire.
Japanese soldiers were forced to fight to death.
Most of prisoners in the pacific were not Japanese but Koreans.
They were much luckier than Japanese.
It is “noblesse oblige” of Japan.
"none had their heads chopped off by their officers, though"
??
Can you show any evidence that Japanese chopped off the heads of Koreans who rejected the draft?
You can not. I know it.
Don't write a comment without evidence.
I understand Americans prefer to believe the barbarity of Japanese which is insisted by Chinese and Koreans without doubt because it helps Americans to believe the justification of massacre in Hirosima and Nagasaki.
Chinese also insist Americans invaded North Korea first in Korean War and US used Chemical weapons there.
Is it truth?
Chinese communists tell a lie every time.
Don’t use it only when it is convenient for US.
Really?
I already gave you the link, troll – you have to actualy read;
"Left – Brig. Gen. Benjamin O. Davis, Sr., the first African-American general in the U.S. Army, watches a Signal Corps crew erecting poles, somewhere in France. August 8, 1944. His son, Benjamin O. Davis, Jr., graduated from West Point and commanded the Tuskegee Airmen."
http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/aframerw…
http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/aframerw…
Richardson
Oh, there were African American Generals, too.
I congratulate you.
You catch up with Japanese democracy level 60 years ago.
But you don't dare to deny the fact that there was no democracy for minorities in US during WW2, do you?
Civil right movement of Black Americans started after WW2 because they fought for the US also.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_Civ…
Indians fought for Britain and spoke up for their independence after WW2.
Japanese American soldiers were forced to fight in the most dangerous fronts of Europe.
That's why their regiment became the most highly decorated unit of its size and length of service in the history of the U.S. Army, including 21 Medal of Honor recipients.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/442nd_Regimental_Com…
I mean there were so many discriminations in the world of 60 years ago not only in Japan but also in US.
US was not a perfect country to give a divine punishment.
Do you like to resist this reality?
I am so happy that there are no crazy Americans in your government not to drop A bombs on Iraq.
It is not a debate to decide whether US was justice or Japan was justice in WW2.
I am talking about simple things.
"All of countries go to war for national benefits."
"The government broadcasts its justice to encourage people to kill enemy."
"And ignorant people believe that propaganda."
"It is guilty to kill innocent women, children, and old men even in a war."
Why you can not accept it?
It is normal to accept it as human being, isn't it?
Once starting to talk about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, usual intelligence and humanity of Americans varnish and primitive nationalism is rising.
It is so amazing that there are so many Americans who believe the justice of dropping A bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
What king of education did you have?
Why the babies of two or three years old have to take the responsibility of the war?
You can not criticize nationalistic Koreans who burn the US flags.
There is no county of Justice.
There is no race of justice.
If Americans can not accept this reality, she will continue to make wars in the world in the future and suffers many casualties including Americans.
moderator, why were my comments edited/deleted? My comments were grounded in historical fact. Are you anti-American?
I like to read a comment of theequalizer.
It is a debate of real feeling.
It is meaningless to exchange the ideas of surface.
Can you show any evidence that Japanese chopped off the heads of Koreans who rejected the draft?
Can you show any evidence that Japanese chopped off the heads of Koreans who rejected the draft?
You can not. I know it.
Don’t write a comment without evidence.
I never said "Koreans" had their heads cut off by Japanese (though it's not unlikely), and nothing I wrote should give anyone that implication. In fact I did not, in that instance, specify a nationality.
I was referring to Marshallese, also a colony of Japan where “laborers” (slaves) were pressed into work and indeed many were beheaded. The Japanese found the Marshallese to be poor slaves, so imported thousands of Koreans.
You have a real problem with straw men & red herrings.
I guess no response concerning the black general that you said I "could not" give any proof of (even though I'd already posted the link at that point?
Lazy, ignorant, and illogical.
Note: forgot blockquotes on the above – my reply starts with, "I never said…"
Jion san,
You must be really ignorant. You complain that japanese civilians were murdered but you forget that Japan did the same. Tell me why it is a crime when someone kills japanese civilians, but it is not when the japanese kills civilian from others countries.
You are bothered so much with the things americans did but you conveniently forget about what japan did. You are not the victim, you are the murderers.
Do you remeber the japan's "one thousand years kingdom"? Well it lasted only 4 years and ended with two a-bombs in your country. You lost the war but not the madness as you still dream about the "one thousand years kingdom"(woww!!!). The bombs were clearly an advice to the japanese to wake up to the reality and forget such madness, but by the fact that you still desire it so much, shows that two bombs were not enought.
"Why the babies of two or three years old have to take the responsibility of the war?"
Good question. Did the japanese soldiers think about it when killing people around all Asia? Japanese people have no right to complain about war crimes.
jion999,
Misdirection won’t work; you tried to counter the fact of the Japanese using Koreans as slave labor during the war with unrelated and manufactured claims about the U.S., and you have been proved wrong, again.
And all your misdirection and lies still have not changed the fact that dropping those two bombs saved many lives over in balance.
It was the right thing to do.
theequalizer,
I did not touch your comment. Akismet may have swallowed it up and no I am not anti-American. Just post it again.
Richardson
During ww2, Koreans worked for Japan and Black Americans worked for White men.
You call those Koreans as "slaves" and the miserable labor of black Americans as "draft".
"Slave" is a word which means poor people kidnapped and sold by white Americans from Africa.
Though many Koreans could study in Japanese universities in those days, those black American soldiers who fought in WW2 could not study in university after the war in the south of US.
Americans ignore the dark history of US and use the discrimination in Japan 60 years ago as an excuse of the massacre committed by Americans.
It is guilty to kill innocent women, children, and old men.
Do you like to insist that US was so barbaric country in which it is not guilty to massacre innocent women, children, and old men for "justice"?
What did you learn in elementary school?
Richardson
OK.
If you continue to insist that the massacre is right thing to do, I will give you easier questions.
1. Dropping atomic bomb in a city without notice is massacre or not?
yes or no
2. Is there a concept of good justified massacre in your country?
yes or no
3. If yes, could you please show me other examples of good justified massacre except Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the history of human being?
Uuuuum
GI Korea deleted my questions to Richardson again.
I think those questions were good questions to him.
No way.
You are the blog master.
I respect for your decision.
I also like to appreciate you to forgive us make debate about atomic bomb.
"3. If yes, could you please show me other examples of good justified massacre except Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the history of human being?"
The Jonestown Massacre… some problems just solve themselves.
J!
ChickenHead
"The Jonestown Massacre"
A crime of Cult religion and decision of US government are in the same level?
I knew the conclusion of this debate from the beginning.
When A bombs were dropped on Japan, all of Americans cheered for that decision.
Barbara Bush, wife of Bush 41, confessed that she felt so happy to know that US dropped A bombs on Japan because she thought this would end the war and her fiancé, George, would come back to her.
However, Americans knew the terrible devastation of the atomic bombings after the war.
Furthermore, the idea about human rights has changed a lot after the civil right movement.
Now, the discrimination against African Americans or Asian Americans is so little in US.
Americans have changed a lot.
Nobody supports to drop A bomb anywhere anymore in the world now.
US did not use A bomb on Vietnam even when she lost the war in Vietnam.
It exactly shows the real feeling of Americans about A bombing.
However, Americans still can not admit the mistake and war crime of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in their public stance.
I understand it.
They don’t like to make Truman as a war criminal like Hitler.
It is enough.
Japanese does not have an idea to revenge Americans by asking for apology and compensation to US.
We are not Koreans.
Cheering for the bomb being dropped. . .
vs.
Cheering for the likely end of the war.
Happiness that the bomb was dropped. . .
vs.
Happiness that loved ones were coming home.
Just about everything you write is like that; a grain of truth paraphrased with similar but not exactly right words, with the result being completely out of actual context.
In the same way, noting that dropping bombs on Japan was the “right thing” to do, does not mean it was done with glee.
Your careful use/changing of key words, to in turn change meanings, is too precise for this to be a language barrier.
Richardson
If you believe it is right thing to drop A bomb on a city and massacre innocent women, children, and old men, it must be no problem that you admit Americans did it with glee.
You try to deny that Americans did it with glee because you feel guilty about it, don't you?
OK.
I give you a easier example for you. It is a special service for you.
A boy named Richardson gets punch on his face by a boy named yu.
Richardson got angry and killed all of yu's family for revenge.
Is Richardson guilty or not in US court?
Even if the enemy commits war crime, it is guilty if you massacre the innocent people of the enemy for revenge.
Clear?
That’s just a falsehood. Your if/then structure is illogical.
One does not have to feel “glee” about doing the right thing. For example, cutting out a cancerous lung is the “right thing” to do to live for some people; some will feel “glee” that the person will live, but it would be incorrect to say that they felt “glee” about the lung being cut out. Misattribution of adjectives is a curious problem of yours.
Your attempt at an analogy is equally ridiculous.
Try this;
A neighborhood criminal enslaved some local populations, slaughtered others, and generally caused issues in the local area. The criminal finally went too far when it attacked someone a couple of neighborhoods away that it thought it could get away with. A knock-down drag-out, no holes barred fight ensued in which both were injured but the criminal got beaten badly. The criminal had to unconditionally surrender and reformed completely. However its educational system still produced some nationalistic punks with logic problems and a flare for taking reality out of context. Then end.
Richardson
One nationalistic punk who was educated in Japan insists that massacre is criminal
One nationalistic punk who was educated in US insists that massacre is justice.
Which is better?
It is guilty to massacre people.
Don't massacre people anymore. American!
I understand you become so stubborn.
Nobody likes to admit his fault.
If US does not drop A bomb anymore, it is enough for Japanese.
I also like to know your answer about my questions of Aug 15th, 2007 at 2:55 pm.
"Could you please show me other examples of good justified massacre except Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the history of human being?"
Show me – direct quote – where I said the a-bombs were “justice.” You cannot.
I said it was “the right thing to do.” I said it “saved lives.” That is true.
Do not attempt to paraphrase me as you cannot do so without altering the intended context.
Richardson
"I said it was “the right thing to do.” I said it “saved lives.”"
What kind lives did you save with dropping A bombs?
Korean War was the second stage of WW2.
Americans couldn't prevent Korean War in which 3 millions of Koreans were killed.
Because Americans were cheated by communists, massacre of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not the end of the tragedy.
Not the battle in Japanese islands but the battle in Korean peninsula you had.
In short, Americans must to fight in the territory of ex Japanese empire in the result.
Obviously, the bombs did not save lives.
They were just massacres committed by Americans.
Americans were so enthusiastic for defeating Japan and Germany and selected wrong partners in WW2.
If US had not dropped A bombs and USSR invaded Manchuria and Korea as scheduled, such an easygoing Americans would have understood the ambitions of USSR and the nonsense of operation Olympic.
Obviously, the bombs did not save lives.
It is just excuse of American war crime.
I’ve already addressed this above; the bombs saved both allied and Japanese lives due to precluding extended battles, invasions, bombings, etc. All very clear. A following war does not preclude those lives in fact saved by using those two bombs. You don’t have a logical or factual leg to stand on.
Your assertion is based upon an “if” that never occurred and is irrelevant to the actual events that did occur
That the bombs saved both allied and Japanese lives is a fact.
Richardson
hahaha
In short, all you can to is to repeat old propaganda again and again like a broken recorder.
Saving the lives with A bombs is not the point.
It is guilty to massacre innocent women, children, and old men.
You don't like to be killed by A bombs because your country commits war crime, do you?
It is meaningless to talk with you anymore.
Take it easy.
And I appreciate you to give me so many comments even if you ban me on your blog.
You did ban me because of the topic of comfort women, didn’t you?
Let’s talk about that topic next time.
I've explained exactly why the bombs saved more lives in the balance, more than once.
You've never given any logical or fact-based account of, as you claim, the bombs did not save more lives in balance, even though I've asked directly for that a few times.
You make statements/accusation (and direct quotes on "justice"???), won't/can't back them up, and now bow out. Very fitting.
And that, jion999, is precisely why you got banned at DPRK Studies; you're a troll.
Richardson
Don't worry.
I am not interested in your small small world which nobody cares.
Next time.
I am sleepy.
Richardson
"you’re a troll"
So, you were trolled?
hahaha
Bye bye.
Sayonara jion san. You got what you deserved !!!!
I have met people with heads like Rock. But i think jion is just trying to get the record for the most posts. That, or he/she has a very boring life, and gets off with the attention he/she gets here. No one can be that ignorent. OR Now we know why the japanese lost.
It appears that the better informed, are the ones with the fewest post. Damn, I better slow down lest they catch on to my complete lack of true information.
[…] many lives, both American and Japanese in fact. I?m not going to rehash what is already written; http://rokdrop.com/2007/08/10/re…ring-hiroshima/ Richardson | Homepage | 11.06.07 – 10:39 pm | […]
[…] Next Posting: The Decision to Drop the Bomb […]