Japan In Wwii

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='CatherineM' date='01 April 2010 - 11:35 AM' timestamp='1270136134' post='2084805']
My votes are heavily dependent on two people. My dad, and my mom's best friend. My dad was preparing to be sent to the Pacific when the bombs fell. He'd already been through so much in the war, I'm not sure he could have survived much more. I probably wouldn't be here. The second person is my mom's best friend. She's Japanese. Was a Korean war bride. As a school child during the war, she was trained on how to roll underneath advancing tanks to kill herself and take out the tank at the same time. She was at the time disappointed that she didn't get the chance because of the abrupt end to the war.

Anyone who thinks civilians didn't die in the war should read up on Okinawa. Fathers killed their families to keep them from being taken captive. Officers murdered wounded men. It was a hint at what would have come had the invasion of the home islands been necessary.

One last thing. The U.S. government minted enough Purple Hearts for the anticipated invasion of Japan. They believed that so many in fact would be necessary that they didn't have to mint another one until about two years ago. That means all the people who received Purple Hearts in Korea, Vietnam, Dominican Republic, Panama, Grenada, Lebanon, Desert Storm, Somalia, Bosnia, 9-11, Afghanistan and most of Iraq wars received a medal that was originally intended for a soldier who didn't have to be injured or die in Japan. Towards the end, the medals were still in mint condition, but after 60 years, the ribbons had disintegrated and had to be replaced.

We study history to learn from our mistakes, to find a better way, but we should never judge the morality of those who have gone before us if we haven't lived in their time and shoes.
[/quote]

this still doesn't explain why the U.S.A. would choose civilian populations to drop the atomic bomb over. why not drop it on military installations? drop it over the emperor's house...I'm sure we would have received total surrender in those cases as well...

it's one thing to not judge them from where we stand today...i can agree to that somewhat...but the fact that there doesn't seem to be any justifiable answer to why the U.S.A. chose the targets it did...(and the questions were asked back then as well as they are being asked now)...will forever taint the judgement of those who's sole responsibility it was to make these decisions...

[Nihil Obstat]

I'm interested, Cmom, as to why you think the atomic bombing was moral, but not the incendiary bombing. If anything, I can see arguments the other way, since the incendiary bombing was in theory targeting infrastructure.

[Nihil Obstat]

In my personal opinion, we don't need to choose between the atom bombs and an invasion.

In my opinion, the Americans with the help of the Allies should have set up a perpetual blockade of Japan, with constant bombing of military airfields, naval bases, military bases, etc..
Yea, it would have been expensive. Still, probably comparable to the occupation of west Berlin. I realize that everyone was sick of the war at that point, but I just don't think it's possible to justify destroying a civilian centre like that.

[CatherineM]

[quote name='dominicansoul' date='01 April 2010 - 10:58 AM' timestamp='1270137521' post='2084816']
this still doesn't explain why the U.S.A. would choose civilian populations to drop the atomic bomb over. why not drop it on military installations? drop it over the emperor's house...I'm sure we would have received total surrender in those cases as well...

it's one thing to not judge them from where we stand today...i can agree to that somewhat...but the fact that there doesn't seem to be any justifiable answer to why the U.S.A. chose the targets it did...(and the questions were asked back then as well as they are being asked now)...will forever taint the judgement of those who's sole responsibility it was to make these decisions...
[/quote]
I can tell you why they chose the targets they did. Both cities had survived with minimal war damage so the devastation would be more pronounced. Truman was given the option of dropping the bomb in Tokyo Bay, but he didn't think that the Japanese would be shocked enough to surrender without deaths. At the time, the Kamikaze attacks were doing much more damage than the War Department was willing to admit. Some historians believe that had they started those even 6 months earlier, it might have turned the tide. If I remember correctly, they only had 3 bombs total in the arsenal.

[dairygirl4u2c]

most people when talking about whether it was moral, dont look at a very important fact. hitler had been defeated months i believe before the bombs were dropped. those against the US were dwindling fast. and either way, we could have used smaller nukes, just to make the point, and/or detonated larger ones just to show we can. killing so many civilians is barbaric, unjustifiable, any way ya slice it.
there is a small chance at plausibility, in arguing that not dropping the bomb would caused too many US losses. philosophical questions, such as how many US lives are worth a decrease in japanese fatality? can we allow a thousand US soldiers die, so that we can spare a million japanese? this is probably what prompted them to drop the bomb. but, i almost surely wouldn't think it moral regardless of this consideration. a tough issue, in this war decisio, or any war decision, is-- would you be willing to die to save those japanese soliders, or allow your son or daughter to die to save them? when making any war decision, ya gotta put yourself in the shoes of the soldier, in my mind. id have to say, yes id be willing to die, or allow a loved one to die, to mitigate the damages to the japaese, as hard as that is to sayt yes to.
but, whatever the case, most who support it, dont give reasons that i see, usually. or their reasons are usually unjustifable. it i thnk boils down to 'kill em all' mindsets, and ruthless revenge etc.
incidentally, i know this proportioality for saving US lives, was addressed in "fog of war", that movie mentioned above, and how we were unjustified, was also discussed. there were a lot of 'hot heads' in WWII, as that movie notes. that's probably how the bomb was decided justifiable. just a matter of who was there, then, that's all, leadership decisions, it's not that any one would have done it.
this issue is almost not worth discussion, as it legitimizes the issue when it seems obvious that it was wrong. but, most people don't consider that we had beat hitler etc, or the proportioality stuff.... and if ya dont have those in your mind, it would then be something almost worth dignifying. but, after all the stuff ive said about, it's not really worth dignifying the issue of whether it was justified.

Edited April 1, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='01 April 2010 - 11:31 AM' timestamp='1270139490' post='2084830']
most people when talking about whether it was moral, dont look at a very important fact. hitler had been defeated months i believe before the bombs were dropped. those against the US were dwindling fast. and either way, we could have used smaller nukes, just to make the point, and/or detonated larger ones just to show we can. killing so many civilians is barbaric, unjustifiable, any way ya slice it.
there is a small chance at plausibility, in arguing that not dropping the bomb would caused too many US losses. philosophical questions, such as how many US lives are worth a decrease in japanese fatality? can we allow a thousand US soldiers die, so that we can spare a million japanese? this is probably what prompted them to drop the bomb. but, i almost surely wouldn't think it moral regardless of this consideration
but, whatever the case, most would support it, dont give reasons that i see, usually. and their reasons are usually unjustifable. it i thnk boils down to 'kill em all' mindsets, and ruthless revenge etc.
incidentally, i know this proportioality for saving US lives, was addressed in "fog of war", that movie mentioned above, and how we were unjustified, was also discussed. there were a lot of 'hot heads' in WWII, as that movie notes. that's probably how the bomb was decided justifiable. just a matter of who was there, then, that's all, leadership decisions, it's not that any one would have done it.
this issue is almost not worth discussion, as it legitimizes the issue when it seems obvious that it was wrong. but, most people don't consider that we had beat hitler etc, or the proportioality stuff.... and if ya dont have those in your mind, it would then be something almost worth dignifying. but, after all the stuff ive said about, it's not really worth dignifying the issue of whether it was justified.
[/quote]
All this, and yet you still think the incendiary bombing was all right?
You know that killed even more civilians than the atomic bombs did, right?

Edited April 1, 2010 by Nihil Obstat

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='CatherineM' date='01 April 2010 - 12:28 PM' timestamp='1270139314' post='2084828']
I can tell you why they chose the targets they did. Both cities had survived with minimal war damage so the devastation would be more pronounced. Truman was given the option of dropping the bomb in Tokyo Bay, but he didn't think that the Japanese would be shocked enough to surrender without deaths. At the time, the Kamikaze attacks were doing much more damage than the War Department was willing to admit. Some historians believe that had they started those even 6 months earlier, it might have turned the tide. If I remember correctly, they only had 3 bombs total in the arsenal.
[/quote]
i find it hard to believe that such intelligent men would think that dropping the bomb in less conspicuous places would NOT have any pronounced devastation...seriously???

i still feel that the masons in our government looked gleefully at destroying high Catholic populations...but that's just my humble opinion...

and I agree with dairygirl...lots of hotheads running the war at the time...they just wanted it over and done with...and judged immorally in the process...

[Nihil Obstat]

I believe that what happened was far too utilitarian. It was placing a value on Japanese lives, valued in American lives, and American convenience. I understand the reasoning, but I don't think it's justifiable.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='01 April 2010 - 11:38 AM' timestamp='1270139895' post='2084837']
All this, and yet you still think the incendiary bombing was all right?
You know that killed even more civilians than the atomic bombs did, right?
[/quote]

well, i didn't realize the extent of the incendiary bombing. perhaps they could have been less severe, at least to the civilians, and not do it as much.
an important point, though, is that we were killing japense at a great rate with that bombing, and they still were not giving up. so, even as done, it was arguably okay. it's just part of war, and the self destructio to both sides.
my guess is that they could have done it differently, though, i dont think you can bomb the civilians and put the onus on them to stop their leaders who dont care about their civilians, when they're getting slaughtered. im not sureif that was the case or not though.
so id probably change my vote if i could. id want more info to make a well formed decisio though.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='01 April 2010 - 11:46 AM' timestamp='1270140365' post='2084840']
well, i didn't realize the extent of the incendiary bombing. perhaps they could have been less severe, at least to the civilians, and not do it as much.
an important point, though, is that we were killing japense at a great rate with that bombing, and they still were not giving up. so, even as done, it was arguably okay. it's just part of war, and the self destructio to both sides.
my guess is that they could have done it differently, though, i dont think you can bomb the civilians and put the onus on them to stop their leaders who dont care about their civilians, when they're getting slaughtered. im not sureif that was the case or not though.
so id probably change my vote if i could. id want more info to make a well formed decisio though.
[/quote]
I think you can delete your vote and vote again.


Something I'm trying to keep in mine is that this really was extreme circumstances. The world had never seen anything like this before. I still think what happened was very wrong, but I get that people can make mistakes when faced with unique situations, like being at war with half the world, and having the power to level cities.

[CatherineM]

[quote name='dominicansoul' date='01 April 2010 - 11:40 AM' timestamp='1270140001' post='2084838']
i find it hard to believe that such intelligent men would think that dropping the bomb in less conspicuous places would NOT have any pronounced devastation...seriously???

i still feel that the masons in our government looked gleefully at destroying high Catholic populations...but that's just my humble opinion...

and I agree with dairygirl...lots of hotheads running the war at the time...they just wanted it over and done with...and judged immorally in the process...
[/quote]
One hothead who didn't want it over was MacArthur. He was pissed when the bombs fell. He was old school when it came to military stuff, and thought it was dishonorable. Plus, it prevented him from being able to truly restore face after Bataan. I also think he was upset that he wasn't consulted.

[Apotheoun]

The intentional bombing of civilian populations is immoral.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='01 April 2010 - 12:59 PM' timestamp='1270137575' post='2084817']
I'm interested, Cmom, as to why you think the atomic bombing was moral, but not the incendiary bombing. If anything, I can see arguments the other way, since the incendiary bombing was in theory targeting infrastructure.
[/quote]
When I think of incendiary bombing I think of what the germans did to London during the blitz.

My uncles served in the Pacific theater, they fully expected to die in the invasion of japan, since it would be a fight to the death over every blade of grass and every inch of soil. None of them were sorry when Japan was bombed, and no vet I every talked to was sorry either. It was war, and if all it took were 2 bombs to stop it they were mighty glad.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='01 April 2010 - 06:03 PM' timestamp='1270159421' post='2085154']
When I think of incendiary bombing I think of what the germans did to London during the blitz.

My uncles served in the Pacific theater, they fully expected to die in the invasion of japan, since it would be a fight to the death over every blade of grass and every inch of soil. None of them were sorry when Japan was bombed, and no vet I every talked to was sorry either. It was war, and if all it took were 2 bombs to stop it they were mighty glad.
[/quote]

so the japanese didn't take their 'to th grave for all of us' motto all the way? why not?
do ya think it just was because there's no point dying in a fire ball, when ya cant at least inflict pain on the other side? cause it was pretty clear they were going to lose either way. i might actually be more akin to cmom's position, if the facts showed that the US casualties would have been super high. id need more facts with the A bomb thing, too. cultural, numbers etc.
but even still, that dont mean we couldnt use smaller nukes, andor did 'example' bombs that are huge, on nonpeope territory.

Edited April 1, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[Saint Therese]

[quote name='Era Might' date='01 April 2010 - 11:49 AM' timestamp='1270136953' post='2084812']
I do not consider the dropping of the atomic bombs a matter of legitimate discussion. To even debate it would be to legitimize it. It is an abominable and indefensible act.
[/quote]

More people were killed in the fire bombing of Tokyo than at Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.

I think most people are unaware of the horrors and atrocities committed by Japanese soldiers to Allied civilians and military POW. There was good reason that Tojo was hanged.