who caused all these


the people in hiroshima suffered a lot, but who caused all these miserables. who started the war any way?

reply

the bombs dropped on the two Japanese cities were controversial because it was primarily against the civilian population, not the military. Japan may have bombed Pearl Harbor, but that was against the U.S. military and not directed toward our civilian population...



AK-47. When you absolutely, positively got to kill every mofo in the room, accept no substitutes.

reply

Yes, Pearl Harbor wasn't a civilian target. It doesn't mean Japan did not employ tactics of viciously killing civilians in other countries, though. "Rape Of Nanjing", anyone?


Do The Mussolini! Headkick!

reply

And so we should hold their civilians responsible for the actions of the government?

reply

joeymlib:
'Now, decide. Was it really that bad of an idea in the end? Well, it wasn't the worst'

As a normal Japanese citizen, I'd say it was clearly the worst.

And your lengthy lecture misses one important point. What did the US government do after the war in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Do you know the details?

reply

seriously? you're going to turn this movie of all movies into a discussion about who started world war II? Are you kidding me?

reply

Why Not?

P.S. love the name!


AK-47. When you absolutely, positively got to kill every mofo in the room, accept no substitutes.

reply

the united states military had prior knowledge of the pearl harbor attack and let the place be bombed. i don't believe japan was extended the same courtesy.

(the latter sentence, of course, drips with sarcasm)

reply

I don't think that the point was to blame the US. If you notice, the peace rally at the end is clearly not an anti-American rally, but an anti-war/anti-nuclear-weapon rally.

The point was to point out the suffering of the innocent people and to compare that to the suffering of Elle. Elle, like the vast majority of the civilians in Hiroshima, were the innocent victoms of a larger war over which they had no control.

Whether or not the US was right to drop the atomic bombs is another debate and one that will rage on forever. There are complicated arguments of what it would take for the Japanese military to surrender and the estimates the carnage (both military and civilian) it would take to invade the islands of Japan dwarfed the estimates of effects of the atomic bombs. Plus there was the knowledge of the crimes against humanity commited by the Japanese against the Chinese, their prisoners of war, and any women in their path. On the other side is the argument that the Japanese would surrender as soon as the Soviets entered (expected soon) - much rathering to surrender to the Americans than to their historical enemies. But maybe Truman didn't want to give Stalin the chance to claim any Japanese territory and wanted a chance to display the new weapon the FDR had all but threatened Stalin with at Potsdam. It certainly made the world stand back and respect the US military might.

Like the Kennedy assasination, it will be debated forever. But, I like to think that if the US had been able to concieve of the devastation that would happen to civilian populations and the not well understood effects of long term exposure to radiation, they might have reconsidered. But really, when you compare Hiroshima and Nagasaki to the carnage of the fire bombings of Japanese cities (see The Fog of War) and German cities like Dresden (read Slaughter House Five) - when you compare these, whatever crime you can draw from the former is nothing compared to the latter. But that is war and is why we should avoid it. They like to fool us that war is "surgical" and antiseptic (remember the "video game"/smart bomb images of the first Gulf war?) but in reality sometimes a school gets bombed by accident and children get burned alive. That's war and that's why we need to avoid it.

Just MHO.

Peace,
Kevin

reply

Pearl Harbor wasn't a civilian target? There were civilian families of soldiers on base. Conversely, Japan's war machine WAS the civilian population, which was behind manufacturing operations. This is why during WWII there was no such thing as "civilian" target. Attacking areas of dense civilian population was standard procedure for both sides. Keep in mind that the Japanese razed Darwin (not to mention many cities in China and Korea). IMO it really goes both ways...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.

reply

the japanese got what was coming to them. just look at the Nanking Massacre of 37'.

reply

burningcoil777, i guess the American acts in Vietnam, Yugoslavia and Middle East would also justify 9/11 - and probably more - right? in your own words, retaliation is the way to go, so the Americans - on the civilian side, mind you - got what was coming to them, right? a nuclear attack is permissible? your ignorance is stupefying.

reply

"burningcoil777, i guess the American acts in Vietnam, Yugoslavia and Middle East would also justify 9/11 - and probably more - right? in your own words, retaliation is the way to go, so the Americans - on the civilian side, mind you - got what was coming to them, right? a nuclear attack is permissible? your ignorance is stupefying."

ignorant? do you have any idea how many American lives it would have cost to end the war if it had not been for the atomic bomb. thousands upon thousands. in no way were the japanese willing to surrender, as is evident in the battles we engaged in before the dropping of the bomb. would you be willing to send American soldiers to their deaths knowing you could end the war without any more American casualties?

and vietnam was not unjust. the south just wanted to exist its way, where the north wanted the south to bend to their way. would you give up your home and privacy in the name of communism? yes, there were many things we did wrong. but there were also many things we did wrong in world war II. i defy you to say that vietnam is better off than it was when the south was a thriving democracy(despite the flaws of the south's administration). people had the right to practice whatever religion they wanted. now, no religion is permissible.

and what did we do to the middle east to deserve 9/11 you moron!!! huh! look at how we helped our attackers during their war with the soviets. and then they bite the hand that fed them. you are a jackass!

reply

the war for Japan was over way before the bomb was dropped. Eisenhower, MacArthur, Leahy, LeMay, Nimitz, they all had the same opinion that there was absolutely no justification in the bombing. it was merely an experiment, live testing of the new atomic development. i see great similarity to an authentic terrorist act. also, yes, i would be willing to send American soldiers to fight a battle for which they prepared in advance (i mean, it's their duty to fight, right, that's why they're soldiers) instead of killing hundreds of thousand of innocent civilians. no, i don't know how many American lives would have cost to end the war, but do YOU? your utilitarian perspective sickens me. with regards to vietnam, if it was for such a good cause, the americans obviously didn't finish their job; if the end justifies the means, then why didn't they stay there, enduring losses if the result would be the deprivation of the North off nuclear power? i mean, a lesser evil is acceptable for the greater good, right - just like in the Hiroshima bombing - even though the numbers don't quite add up. don't you think they'd have a greater peace of mind today if they'd finish the job? now tell me, where's the greater good, the REAL greater good in the bombing of Hiroshima? you talk about numbers "thousands upon thousands," well the result on the japanese side was hundreds of thousand upon hundreds of thousands (civilians, mind you, i'm stressing my point); find me, please, a categorical imperative for this obvious act of terrorism; you base your beliefs on hypothesis, simply put. also, what did Americans do to the middle east? why were they there in the first place? maybe for the same reason they found themselves in South American countries, no?

"...the surprise bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are morally indefensible."

reply

i would like to know where you got your information on Eisenhower and MacArthur not supporting the use of the atomic bomb. as for the other people you mentioned, i am less concerned but would also be curious where you got your facts.

as for the idea that it was merely an experiment, that is rubbish. yes, it can be looked at as an experiment, as could any weapon being used for the first time in a combat situation. but to refer to it as "merely an experiment."

and where do you get off saying: "yes, i would be willing to send American soldiers to fight a battle for which they prepared in advance (i mean, it's their duty to fight, right, that's why they're soldiers)", in consideration of what we were talking about? how there lives were saved by the bomb. where do i start with this comment? i'll just let you read it again and think about it.

are you unaware of just how brutal the japanese were? what they did to China and indo-china? the philippines? you're probably going to say that the innocents that died as a result of the atomic bomb never committed those horrible acts right? i am aware of this but still have no problem with our actions. we should never have had to of been over there in the first place. wars are not fought comparing the number of enemy casualties with your own. they are fought to be won. and that is what the bomb helped achieved. AND NO THE WAR WAS NOT ABOUT TO BE OVER. they were still as determined as ever. check your facts.

and about vietnam. simply put, i never thought we should have left.

and what was America doing to the middle east that was so horrible?

reply

Two points: The war with Japan was all but over. The bombs were used to back the Soviets off of China (didn't work out so well), secondly, the middle east is another case of us (US) trying to do a central/south america and place our 'fascist' buddies in power. Again, not working out so well. Here's my plan - if we want to control people make them fat and comfortable like us! We'll get behind any plan and believe any line of crap just so as not to rock our own boat. Where are those WMD's anyway?

reply

Japan so did target American citizens, but the feat was too hard as we had the best continental defense. Ever hear of the Rockies Incident? A Hot Air balloon that disembarked from a Japanese carrier which made a quick brush into American-Canadian held waters floated over California and Oregon and such. Later, it reached the rockies. They were to target Civilians and to disrupt America, their primary objective to drop fliers and their secondary to drop small explosives *As to simulate that the skies had turned against the Americans, and that it was now falling upon them. Do this in small communities, and they'll go to lockdown. Do it to a million small communities, and you've got your self a hell of a situation.*, and well the one time this specific balloon dropped explosives *that we have recorded, from this one atleast* was on a hiking party in the Rockies. I don't know the rest of the story, other than the majority of this family died.

Also, the Japanese are perhaps the worst *when viewing history* when compared to Genocides.

The Rape of Nanking, now although I most digress that the invasion it self was never justified by the Imperial Government. Infact, the army stationed in Korea *forgot it's name* went through with a never mentioned invasion of China. This being Manchuria. The campaign started by blowing up part of the train track, and then using what was left to pull in troops in heavy ammounts. The Chinese never responded because of the raging Civil War amongst Nationalists and Communists, and when the 'Rogue' General of this army brought the fact that he had taken Manchuria with little casualties is what intrigued Hirohito to stay in Manchuria and take more parts of China. The rape of Nanking was a LONG series of Japanese troops systematically killing off villages in Manchuria, with no reason expressed.

And KDK you are very wrong.

Anyone who says the war with Japan was already over is full of *beep* The Japanese would have put in a good 5 - 8 years of fighting, or atleast a final series of battles that would result in the crashing of a lot of East Asian economies and America and Britain and Australia's economies crashing and millions upon millions of dead men, and hundreds of thousands more of dead civilians in the cross-fire.

We did the research, we looked at the statistics. The Atomic Bombings WERE justified. The Japanese Imperial Government was not goint to give in to the Americans, infact it wasn't even controlled by the Emperor by this point. It was, once again, basically a Shogunate but with a General of the Army and Navy instead of the Shogun. And yes, you can have a GENERAL over the Navy as long as the title, in that case, includes ARMY. Anyways, their HQ was full of people too devoted to never want to surrender. It was either lose a few million Americans, another few million Japanese, and a lot more Civilians than BOTH of the Atmoic bombings combined.

So, we did it. We decided to drop the first bomb, the Japanese Government responded. They were not surrendering. We feared, that now, they would gear up for an all out invasion of Oregon and Vancouver Island as they converted more Civilians into fighters. So, we decided. We dropped the second bomb. The Japanese Government could no longer stand it, knowing that if any more be dropped they would not have the numbers wanted. Also, both Cities had a very highly Military importance.

One of the two cities, I can't remember which, had a major broadcasting station. This station was used to spy on American broadcasts from ship to ship, and to relay all important commands to troops fighting off the American invaders. The other City had a big military cache, and a sizeable fleet stationed.

Also, admittedly, we did purpously pick more densely populated cities with some major military importance. Although we specifically didn't make the Japanese Military our innitial target, we wanted to leave a Psychological effect on the Japanese Government. We arn't the proudest to admit, but we knew that we would be killing, amongst a lot, Pregnant Women, Little Children, and innocents just wanting to live life and try to ignore what was happening. But they WERN'T our specific targets, just the ones that died in the cross fire of the war.

Looking at the Battle of Okinawa alone, the Casualties are as -

Civilian - 100,000 ( ALL DEATHS, and I'm NOT using Casualties as in afflicted by the war..those KILLED in the Cross Fire, and those who were convinced by Japanese propoganda which said Americans eat little Children over open fires and rape women continuosly, yes I'm not joking with you. )
Japanese Military - 107,000 ( Including Seppuku, and those blowing their own selves up with small explosives. This number includes conscripts from the Okinawan Militia )
American Military - > 38,000 ( 12,000 counted as Missing, or dying later on of Battle of Effects ie Mortal Wounds )

The entire Island chain of the Ryukyu Islands ( running from Taiwan to Japan ) had lost a third of it's population from this battle ALONE. And 90% of the buildings in Okinawa had been completely demolished from the Battle.

Now, take an invasion of mainland Japan. We are landing troops, finally, in Yokohama harbor, due south of Tokyo. The Imperial Navy is fighting off the Soviets near Hokkaido, and have the rest of their navy hiding in Toyko Harbor after being pushed out of Yokohama. Yohohama has one of the largest populations in Japan. We take the same sentiment with what happened in Okinawa. People are scared *beep* of Americans eating them alive and raping them to death, and they are proud as hell to not let their nation fall without a fight. A lot of families commit suicide, mostly with the father killing his family and then joining the Militia with perhaps his sons if they were old enough. We land our Marines, and the fighting commences. Bombardment of the Island commences, once more, and we firebomb the furthest part of Yokohama for Psychological affects, to make them think we are comming in from all directions. We have the upperhand, as the Imperial Army has been forced to draft a lot of it's male population. They are highly untrained now and mostly rag-tag, and we are fierce and have been fighting them for many year now. The year is 46, February, and the snows are just melting *if any, I'm sure Yokohama gets some snow. Last time I checked, it did*. Fighting ensues, the first day alone reaches into thousands of deaths. Throughout the month, we slowly take Yokohama. The Japanese fight hard, some even run at American Marines with grenades out missing a pin. A lot are commiting Seppuku, as they see the Allied line close in. Men, who havn't killed their families, flee and eat their final meals with their families, perhaps make love to their wifes one last time, and kill their families *Speaking in plural, not as if one guy has more than one wife etc*. They then, after consideration, either go back to fight or commit Seppuku and join their families. Majority commit Seppuku, some return to fight the Americans.

Battle drudges on, and we finally have Yokohama. The entire Northwestern part of the city has been bombed to fine dirt and dust, and the inner most part of the city and landing sites appear to be rubble of a former past and littered with bodies. This battle alone rages with Casualties.

Yokohama has been known for having a pretty big population, being in the millions. Realistically, the majority of Japanese families wern't able to evacuate due to the American bombings of most exit-entrance points *For trying to prevent the Japanese Military to reinforce too, by rendering roads useless*. So, in an attempt to escape, they most likely die in the bombings. The rest stay, and we go through the suicide and seppuku *I consider both very different, as Suicide is pathetic and Seppuku is Honor*. The entire killing family things, bla bla bla, I've said that enough times. The HUGE station of Japanese soldiers is utterly killed off, possibly about 4,300 are Captured and the rest are dead. That ALONE rages into the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DEATHS, MORE than either Atomic bombing.

Now, Civilians. Most likely, a realistic estimate would be 1.8 MILLION DEAD to 2 MILLION DEAD. All of these from Cross fire, Bombings, and Seppuku and murder of one another to bla bla you get that point too. That alone is far more devastating then the Atomic Bombings combined. And a re-look at the deaths, I'd possibly say more like 800,000 to about 1.2 Million. But if you think of that, it is still way too much.

Now, we even have Tokyo and Kyoto to finish off. And the Soviets, not the most examplary people ever, have been taking care of the South Kuril Islands and Hokkaido Island. That alone is pretty devastating, most likely with more Military casualties with the Soviets and over time an annihilation of most cities. Tokyo would have to be bombed for atleast half a year to a year before we could logically invade it. The bombings alone would be more than Yokohama, perhaps.

Now, I don't want to go on because I am sincerely hoping you have all gotten the point by now. All those deaths combined are not worth ending the war, and so we had to plan. What could we do? Well, the only logical thing was let the Soviets handle all the land battles and perhaps have the Japanese lose *beep* more of people, or we bomb every inch of it to fine dirt and dust which would have cost the American economy so much the entire world would be in another depression, which alone could start a WWIII later on much more easily.

So, we made our choices. And we were not proud of those choices. No one is ever proud, the majority of the time, with even their own simple "Get McDonalds or Eat an Apple" sort of choices. Now, I show you the Casualties of both Atomic Bombings.

Casualties of the Atomic Bombings -

Hiroshima - 140,000 Estimated Dead by the Japanese Government *Not by us, they did it, we did NOT estimate their dead. This estimate was made in 1945 and was approved of in the 1970s*
Nagasaki - 74,000 Estimated Dead by the Japanese Government *Again, this figure is also mostly Civilian as the above one includes a pretty big Military number as well*

Casualties from a Conventional Battle, that of Okinawa -

Japanese Civilians Dead - 100,000
Japanese Soldiers/Militiamen/Conscripts Dead - 107,000
American Soldiers/Marines/Sailors/Pilots Dead - >38,000

My thoughts and Estimates, taking in all realistic and life like factors into the equasion, on Casualties if we were to continue the Invasion -

Yokohama - 800,000 to 1.2 Million Civilians Dead, over HALF of the City absolutely destroyed and the rest left in skeletal rubble
Yokohama Defense - Pending on how we got lead to the City, perhaps Millions of Soldiers dead.
Yokohama Invadees, namely the American Marines - Hundreds of Thousands

And, my final point, if the war had drudged on any longer...Eastern Asia would look a lot like the Middle East. Barren, hate filled, and more than enough wars. This world, infact, would be different. The war it self would have lead to the end of Japanese Culture, the Soviets would convert the North into a part of Sakhalin Oblast, and we would have been re-building so much of Japan that it would basically be like Britain - the, instead 51st, 52nd State. Of course, there would also be no Honda Civics to drive. There would be no hi-tech gear, of course we would invent some but not on a Civilian Level, and there would just not be the Japan we know of it as today. No Anime, no funny commercials, and no weird shows. That is what makes them...THEM. And we, to them, look like what they look to us. I'm sure that it is very much a normal kind of Culture, with it's unique attributes. Infact, I KNOW it is.

So, without any further adou, which do you pick?

Atomic Bomb Japan two times, or face millions upon millions of deaths and an incidental erasing of a Culture?

214,000 Dead, or Millions upon Millions put into stacks of bodies much like the aftermath of the entire invasion of Normandy?

And, as more of a P.S., if you WERE to ask the normal Japanese Citizen, the younger ones would say -

I really don't care, it is more of the past.

And the older ones would say -

It was an uninevitable process.

And, infact, the majority do agree that it was best to Atom Bomb than to continue on with the war. Infact, a lot of Japan was rather glad that we riddled them with the two bombs rather than hundreds of billion conventional ones. And billion might sound like a large number, but it is no where close to an exageration. Tip - Go look at the Vietnam War, and the ammount of bombs we dropped *Albeit, I do find our selves at fault for some bad things there*.

Now, decide. Was it really that bad of an idea in the end? Well, it wasn't the worst.

reply