|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 26 2017 00:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2017 11:08 a_flayer wrote:Hordes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#OppositionThe 1946 United States Strategic Bombing Survey in Japan, whose members included Paul Nitze, concluded the atomic bombs had been unnecessary to win the war. After reviewing numerous documents, and interviewing hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, they reported:
There is little point in attempting precisely to impute Japan's unconditional surrender to any one of the numerous causes which jointly and cumulatively were responsible for Japan's disaster. The time lapse between military impotence and political acceptance of the inevitable might have been shorter had the political structure of Japan permitted a more rapid and decisive determination of national policies. Nevertheless, it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion.
Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated. Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote in his memoir The White House Years:
In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.
— Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.
— Major General Curtis LeMay, XXI Bomber Command, September 1945 Your own bloody damn admiral in the Pacific Fleet was saying it. Curtis seems to agrees with me it had nothing to do with ending the war. But yeah, I am a "thruther". You nutjobs justify this shit for the same reason you celebrate Thankgiving rather than mourning it like proper human beings. Air raids on Japan killed 241,000-900,000 civilians. Atomics killed 129,000–226,000+. How many do you think would have died, only using conventional weapons? That's the question you need to answer. Showing that there was disagreement before / after does not even remotely prove your case.
Just read this instead and then keep quiet like a good little boy: https://www.thenation.com/article/why-the-us-really-bombed-hiroshima/
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On November 26 2017 00:26 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2017 00:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 25 2017 11:08 a_flayer wrote:Hordes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#OppositionThe 1946 United States Strategic Bombing Survey in Japan, whose members included Paul Nitze, concluded the atomic bombs had been unnecessary to win the war. After reviewing numerous documents, and interviewing hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, they reported:
There is little point in attempting precisely to impute Japan's unconditional surrender to any one of the numerous causes which jointly and cumulatively were responsible for Japan's disaster. The time lapse between military impotence and political acceptance of the inevitable might have been shorter had the political structure of Japan permitted a more rapid and decisive determination of national policies. Nevertheless, it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion.
Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated. Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote in his memoir The White House Years:
In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.
— Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.
— Major General Curtis LeMay, XXI Bomber Command, September 1945 Your own bloody damn admiral in the Pacific Fleet was saying it. Curtis seems to agrees with me it had nothing to do with ending the war. But yeah, I am a "thruther". You nutjobs justify this shit for the same reason you celebrate Thankgiving rather than mourning it like proper human beings. Air raids on Japan killed 241,000-900,000 civilians. Atomics killed 129,000–226,000+. How many do you think would have died, only using conventional weapons? That's the question you need to answer. Showing that there was disagreement before / after does not even remotely prove your case. Just read this instead and then keep quiet like a good little boy: https://www.thenation.com/article/why-the-us-really-bombed-hiroshima/
Sweetie, that's not going to cut it.
We do know that there was disagreement over the right course of action prior to dropping the bomb. Recycling those arguments isn't going to prove anything, and only serve to continue a debate that has existed for generations.
|
People disagreed and lined up on both sides, but that’s not important. What’s important is that hordes of Americans “think that dropping the atomic bombs on Japan was done in an effort to end the war.”
Is this some kind of Euro thing? Ulterior/sinister motives are a popular explanation and that pairs with the dumb Americans narrative?
|
On November 26 2017 00:12 Schmobutzen wrote:
It is not clear why the bomb was used in that way.
A lperovitz thesis that the US didn't understand the Japanese culture, because they asked for unconditional surrender, meaning that the Tenno would then abdicate, something the Japanese would never ever do. Up to a point.
The bombs target where Hiroshima and Nagasaki because they had a lot of foreign buildings, meaning stone, because there's high command wanted to see what the bombs would do those.
The Russian invasion was a shock top Japan. In all the documents on their side it is clear that the invasion made much more impression than the bombs, which garnered at the beginning nearly zilch comments, because of the normality off which the cities where squashed.
Historians don't have a clear answer. I think they were just keen on using it. At all costs.
Yea this. No way that two cities and some dead civilians had any meaning to the commanders of the time.
I would say that the 'good' thing to come of the bombings was quite accidental, once the pictures of shadows burned into concrete and stories about cancer in newly born etc started to emerge years after the war it helped create a healthy fear of nuclear war in the general population as well as the leaders of the us and ussr. Which was nice since it meant the world didn't end during the cold war.
|
As with any singular decision of high consequence made in a scenario akin to that of the end of WWII, it was made with some mix of opportunism and genuine military benefit. But it happened over 70 years ago, all the major decision makers of the time are dead, and so are the vast majority of people who were even alive at the time. Sure, there is some merit to discussing history, but I wonder if we’re just relitigating the past. If people bitch about relitigating last year, what about relitigating 70 years ago?
Unlike some other aspects of WW2, this isn’t even one that has some retained relevance to the modern world. Any possibility of dropping a nuclear bomb came and went with that era. So what’s the point of judging whether that action way back in a previous era was right? Should we also take talks of war reparations from WW2 seriously as well?
|
Well, just forgetting about it is by default the worse option. Like in Russia where Stalin is still beloved by many. Talking about this stuff is important, even if it outs dent into ones patriotism.
Oersonally i see the second bomb as a terrible, unnecessary crime. First one? Well, these were the times, plenty of cities were bombed into rubble. Dropping it over some less populated area and see if japan would give up, could have been tried in my opinion.
|
Celebrities also mock Trump. :D
|
I have a question for P6.
+ Show Spoiler + My girlfriend is half-chinese; her mother was born and raised in China in a rural province, which her parents were chased to during WWII after their hometown was destroyed by the Japanese occupying forces. The 3 generations all live together in the USA now, with the grandparents still unable to speak English.
When I first met her, she asked me specifically how much connection I had to Japan and if I've ever been there before because she knew I was half-Japanese. Luckily, I've never been to Japan and my family came here in the 1890s, so she was able to convince her parents (who still hate the Japanese) that my family was not a family of war criminals. Because of that, I'm more inclined to believe the stories that the Japanese did some truly terrible things.
However, that doesn't automatically mean that the bomb should have been dropped in retaliation, as p6 made it sound. Most people ignore the Americans' role at home during this, where not many people were willing to think that Gen. DeWitt's (I had a real hard time believing that the name I chose for this site was so close to this guy) letter was clearly racist and that ignoring Charles Fahy's deliberate withholding of the Ringle Report was not completely fucked as well.
Until I did research of my own, I didn't even know that the internment was done without any factual basis. P6, regarding your posts on the subject, do you think that there is lots of bias in American society on the subject of the bombing that may be affecting your view; considering that the government unfairly treated Japanese Americans and it took until 2011 to realize that the Ringle Report was withheld, and that no investigations were even started into the treatment until Jimmy Carter's presidency?
|
On November 26 2017 01:23 Danglars wrote:
People disagreed and lined up on both sides, but that’s not important. What’s important is that hordes of Americans “think that dropping the atomic bombs on Japan was done in an effort to end the war.”
Is this some kind of Euro thing? Ulterior/sinister motives are a popular explanation and that pairs with the dumb Americans narrative? i'd say it's an Eastern thing; can bet he dabbled with the E. in <matters>.
with broad strokes, it goes as follows: disagreeing sides become irrelevant after the 'bad' side wins because then, they're put in the same boat as far as consequences go(all are responsible for the deed and all are liable for retribution, regardless of "sides").
democracy 1:1 - the losing side becomes at best collateral damage.
i can't fit "Ulterior/sinister motives" somewhere in his lines.
|
On November 25 2017 10:35 sc-darkness wrote:
Wow, they really called him person of the year in 2016. What a garbage magazine. Good thing I don't read it. :D
Person of the year has nothing to do with good or bad. Hitler was person of the year once remember. It's about who has done the most influence during that year, so every new American president pretty much gets it automatically.
|
United States43163 Posts
This is factually untrue and symptomatic of either serious idiocy or ignorance. The Japanese absolutely knew their home land was going to be touched before the bombs, the US had been firebombing cities for over a year before the nuclear bombs. More people died in the firebombing of Tokyo than in the atomic bombs. Saying that the atomic bombs is what made the Japanese realize that their homeland could be attacked is like saying that the Pulse nightclub attack is what made the US realize that Islamic terrorism was a thing.
|
Canada11367 Posts
The Thanksgiving story is idealized, obviously. And while Squanto was an escaped slave, as far as I can tell, once he was back, he voluntarily helped the settlers, and spent the rest of his days working with them- he died in service to the governor.
I mean, even the part where the settlers were helpless, but once the indigenous showed them how to grow stuff, suddenly they prospered is simplistic. They absolutely needed assistance in those early years- Squanto's agriculture training was invaluable- but the governors of both Plimmoth and Jamestown complained about how nobody wanted to work in the early years and the common stores were constantly stolen from... until they stopped stockpiling in common and distributing as needed, parcelled out the land, and lo and behold everyone started working. (Ralph Hamor "by which means we reaped not so much corne from the labours of 30 men, as three men have done for themselves." )
Bradford + Show Spoiler +"And so assigned every family a parcell of land, according to the proportion of their number for that end, only for present use (but made no devission for inheritance), and ranged all boys and youth under some some familie. This had very good success; for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corne was planted than other waise would have bene by any means the Gov[erno]r or any other could use, and saved him a great deall of trouble, and farr better contente. The women now wente willingly into the feild, and tooke their little-ones with them to set corne, which before would aledg weaknes, and inabilitie; whom to have compelled would have bene thought great tiranie and oppression.
The experience that was had in this commone course and condition, tried sundrie years, and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince they [the] vanitie of that conceit of Platos and other ancients, applauded by some of later times; that taking away of properitie, and bringing in communitie into a comone wealth, would make them happy and florishing; as if they were wiser then God. For this comunitie (so farr as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much imployment that would have been to their benefite and comforte. For the yong-men that were most able and fitte for labour and service did repine that they should spend their time and streingth to work for other mens wives and children, with out recompense... etc"
The problems of the colony were multi-causal, but a national holiday isn't going to remember nuance.
It's true the English celebrated their victory in their war against the Pequents- as people are wont to do- VE Day, VJ Day, amongst others. (I will note, the Pequents tried to ally the Narigansets against the English, but the wars between the Pequents and the Narigansets were too bitter that the Narigansets preferred to join with the English to attack the Pequents rather than the reverse).
It's not so obvious to me that this was the origin of the celebration. For one, the timeline seems off. The Mason massacre is in 1637, but in 1631 William Trumball (I think- it's hard to tell from this volume of Bradford where certain writings begin and end) is writing about how + Show Spoiler +"we purpose (Lord willing) to express in a day of thanks-giving to our mercifull God, (I doubt not but you will consider, if it be not fitt for you to joyne in it), who as he hath humbled us by his late correction, so he hath lifted us up, by an abundante rejoysing, in our deliverance out of so desperate a danger; so as that which our enemies builte their hope upon to ruine us by.."
Whether there are earlier cases, I do not know. But in this one at least, notice the emphasis is on surviving/ deliverance, not on rejoicing over dead bodies. Now, are they surviving because one group of indigenous didn't want them there? Sure- but then again, a second group thought they were preferable to the Pequents, so the response wasn't exactly monolithic. Nonetheless, this particular celebration in 1631 was about celebrating survival- that's pretty widely applicable to any group of people still among the living.
However, for all that, the origins are hardly relevant because what a celebration meant in the past often has very little bearing on what meaning modern people give it (see Halloween, St Patrick's Day, Valentine's Day... even Christmas for anyone not Christian.) And what it has become is a family get together with a particular set of food and being generically thankful.
|
United States43163 Posts
On November 25 2017 23:33 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2017 22:16 kollin wrote:On November 25 2017 21:28 Plansix wrote:On November 25 2017 21:23 kollin wrote:
It is quite painful to see the level of nuance that people defending the dropping of the bomb are displaying. It's right up there with the people condemning it as the act of a vengeful nation. While we are all into national guilt, we should all look at our own country's strategic bombing efforts during WW2. Bombing civilian centers was a big part of that war. None of us have the moral high ground. I just dislike the absolutist line from (mainly) Americans toward this subject. It comes across as arrogant because there is enough debate around whether or not the atomic bomb should have been dropped from an ethical standpoint that suggesting, for example, that because the Japanese killed a lot of civilians, or because it's war and civilians die in war, that it was therefore obviously justified and any arguments to the contrary are delusional or drinking the kool-aid is absurd. Ethically there is no justification for bombing civilians. I would prefer a world where we never dropped the bomb on anyone. But was not born into that world. The bomb had been dropped decades before I existed. I also exist in a world where that bomb would have been used, either by the US or some other world power that developed it later on. There is a difference between desiring that atomic weapons not be used and understanding why they were used. If we move beyond the ethical debate, WW2 represents a complete upending of the geopolitical powers. Prior to that war, England and France were seen as dominate military forces and world powers. We have no modern touchstone for this complete overturn of the the known power structure. The world had lurched from the a great depression to the larges war in human history. By the end Russia had rolled over Europe and was pushing into Asia, the US was suddenly a world power. The plan of a protracted siege of Japan was not without risk and did not assure unconditional surrender.
The distinction between civilian and participant in total war is not meaningful. Total war harnesses the full power of the population to the war effort. Putting a uniform on a conscript does not make him a more valid target than he was the day before as a docker loading supplies onto ships.
War is fundamentally criminal. There is no ethical way to murder each other over political differences. Perhaps the best way would be for the two countries to issue their demands and then sacrifice their own citizens and industrial output by lot. Each country executes a thousand of its own citizens each day, selected at random, until one country can no longer endure and gives in to the demands of the other. I suspect the populace would quickly decide that they didn't care for the war after all.
|
On November 26 2017 05:02 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2017 23:33 Plansix wrote:On November 25 2017 22:16 kollin wrote:On November 25 2017 21:28 Plansix wrote:On November 25 2017 21:23 kollin wrote:
It is quite painful to see the level of nuance that people defending the dropping of the bomb are displaying. It's right up there with the people condemning it as the act of a vengeful nation. While we are all into national guilt, we should all look at our own country's strategic bombing efforts during WW2. Bombing civilian centers was a big part of that war. None of us have the moral high ground. I just dislike the absolutist line from (mainly) Americans toward this subject. It comes across as arrogant because there is enough debate around whether or not the atomic bomb should have been dropped from an ethical standpoint that suggesting, for example, that because the Japanese killed a lot of civilians, or because it's war and civilians die in war, that it was therefore obviously justified and any arguments to the contrary are delusional or drinking the kool-aid is absurd. Ethically there is no justification for bombing civilians. I would prefer a world where we never dropped the bomb on anyone. But was not born into that world. The bomb had been dropped decades before I existed. I also exist in a world where that bomb would have been used, either by the US or some other world power that developed it later on. There is a difference between desiring that atomic weapons not be used and understanding why they were used. If we move beyond the ethical debate, WW2 represents a complete upending of the geopolitical powers. Prior to that war, England and France were seen as dominate military forces and world powers. We have no modern touchstone for this complete overturn of the the known power structure. The world had lurched from the a great depression to the larges war in human history. By the end Russia had rolled over Europe and was pushing into Asia, the US was suddenly a world power. The plan of a protracted siege of Japan was not without risk and did not assure unconditional surrender. The distinction between civilian and participant in total war is not meaningful. Total war harnesses the full power of the population to the war effort. Putting a uniform on a conscript does not make him a more valid target than he was the day before as a docker loading supplies onto ships. War is fundamentally criminal. There is no ethical way to murder each other over political differences. Perhaps the best way would be for the two countries to issue their demands and then sacrifice their own citizens and industrial output by lot. Each country executes a thousand of its own citizens each day, selected at random, until one country can no longer endure and gives in to the demands of the other. I suspect the populace would quickly decide that they didn't care for the war after all.
There was a Star Trek episode where they did that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Taste_of_Armageddon
|
I'll also go ahead and say that of all possible scenarios in which nuclear weapons exist we are living in one of the brightest timelines, and that's (arguably) to no small degree because two got dropped on Japan before they became really big.
Given a time machine, I wouldn't go back and kill Hitler for fear of what could have happened instead. Honestly, I'd not touch anything that happened before 1991.
I don't know that any of that was knowable beforehand so I won't say that that justifies the decision to drop the bombs. But it should be kept in mind.
|
|
|
Wow, for once Trump said something completely spot-on.
|
doesn't seem that spot on to me; at any rate, being right less often than a stopped clock is a pretty sad result 
|
On November 26 2017 09:08 LegalLord wrote:
Wow, for once Trump said something completely spot-on.
Even if he's in the no position to talk kind of position. He thinks CNN is "fake" merely because they cover stuff that makes him look bad, meanwhile Fox news entertainment gets a pass because they blow smoke up his arse and run the distracting stories he wants them to. I'm no fan of CNN myself, but Trump's endless tirade against them is the most hypocritical shit one can imagine when he thinks Fox is great.
|
On November 26 2017 09:17 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2017 09:08 LegalLord wrote:
Wow, for once Trump said something completely spot-on. Even if he's in the no position to talk kind of position. He thinks CNN is "fake" merely because they cover stuff that makes him look bad, meanwhile Fox news entertainment gets a pass because they blow smoke up his arse and run the distracting stories he wants them to. I'm no fan of CNN myself, but Trump's endless tirade against them is the most hypocritical shit one can imagine when he thinks Fox is great.
That much, at least, is fair.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
