posted 01-24- 12:31 PM               

The revolution was a war over money, and our victory was inevitable- it was England against England, and England won. We are the new England- in fact, I live in New England

posted 01-24- 03:04 PM            

On that subject, I think every country does this. It is the job of journalists and historians to not let this happen. That's why I think that trying to stifle discussion of things like the holocaust is ultimately more dangerous than letting the revisionists give their opinion... an open dialog allows people to see all sides of an issue and decide for themselves.

Burkley, you mention this as though the English are the only ones guilty of this, but try to suggest in a public forum that the U.S. dropped the atomic bomb on Japan for political reasons (mostly to do with scaring the Soviets) rather than 'to save American lives'. You will find that most people believe the revisionist history of the atomic bomb being a life-saver, even though the military advised Truman that the atomic bomb was unnecessary and that Japan would collapse and surrender without any invasion of the home island.

posted 01-25- 11:02 PM            

"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."

posted 01-26- 12:05 AM               

Then ask yourself, if 15,000-20,000 Japanese soldiers would fight until only 20 or 30 are left, to defend a hunk of rock hundreds of miles from their homeland (this happened every time we took an island, not just Iwo Jima)...why would they surrender their homeland without a fight?

posted 01-26- 10:48 AM               

Could that have convinced them to surrender?

Could the US at least started their nuclear campain in this way?

Not trying to add to the argument in anyway, just thinking. That if the main effect of the bomb was to convince them to surrender maybe this could have been an alternative to dropping on a city right away.

I have read accounts of Hiroshima, its pretty sickening.

posted 01-26- 10:59 AM            

This may indicate how determined they were.
Old Japanese rifles from WWII after a certain
serial number, I don't know what it is any-
more, are not recommended to be fired. They
were mass produced for the defense of the
homeland. The idea was that anyone able to
squeeze the triger could use one. This
includes women, children and old people. If
the rifle lasted for three rounds before it
blew up that was conscidered good enough.

posted 01-26- 12:05 PM               

So why would Japan surrender because of the "threat" of being nuked? They had to be convinced that we would use it, not just shown that we had it.

What if the demonstration failed in front of them? This was not proven technology. It had only worked once before. A failure would have only encouraged the Japanese to fight on. A demonstration was considered at the time and rejected for these reasons.

You need to understand the utter disgrace that surrender was for the Japanese. In the Pacific hundreds, if not thousands, of solders blew themselves apart with grenades to avoid surrender. On Saipan mothers threw their babies and themselves over cliffs to avoid capture. They had been told that Americans ate babies. It took something as horrific as the atom bomb to overcome this mentality.

posted 01-26- 01:08 PM               

yes there is the possibility that it could have failed but it could have failed on the first bomb they dropped anyways RIGHT?

About the cold war, that was different because of at least 2 reasons, one there wasn't a real war going on so you couldn't surrender? what would you do to surrender?

also the other side had some too not just the US.

Seems a bit different doesn't it?

BTW I fully understand the stuff that was going on, and the resolve of the Japanese people.

posted 01-26- 03:53 PM            

Spanky -

The bomb was dropped on an inhabitaed portion of Jpapan for two reasons. One, to see what it would actually do to a city - which is kind of twisted... and two - we only had 2 weapons. It would be almost 18 months, by best estimates, before another bomb could be built. Militarily speaking you have to put the weapons you have to their best possible use. Blowing up a field wouldn't really demonstrate anything... the Japanese officials would not be there to watch and see the power of the explosion and there would be nothing much around afterward to suggest exactly what the weapon was capable of.

And yes, the accounts of Hiroshima are pretty sickening. Try reading the accounts of the Bataan death march. Or the Japanese campaign into Manchuria - where they slaughtered millions of Chinese including the women and children.

Lothar,

The report by the US SBS that was published in 1946 had the benefit of information that was NOT available at the time the decision the destroy Hiroshima and Nagasaki was made. 20/20 hindsight is a common thing. It should also be noted that while the Imperial Navy was in favor of ending the war, the Imperial Army was not. The commanders spoken to in that report were almost exclusivly Navy, not Army. It should also be noted that at the time of the report many of those commanders were facing criminal charges and were attempting (for their own good) to cast a light of negativity upon the US - and portray Japan as a victim.

The Emporer allowed the war to begin - which made the war right and honorable in the eyes of the people of Japan. The Emporer was also regarded as being nearly a deity... which leads to a belief that he is infallable. For the Emporer to surrender and maintain his hold on his people there had to be a demostratable reason for such action - after all - the Emporer endorsed the war and therefore, since the Emporer could not be wrong, fighting the war was the honorable thing to do - even if it meant annihalation. This was an attitude held not just by the troops but by the people of Japan as a whole. It is this belief and mentality that leads to the Kamikaze's and the willingness of Japanese defenders on insignificant island to hold out the last man.

Also, never forget that we did warn Japan that we had this weapon. We gave them the opportunity to surrender and prevent us using it. 48 hours prior to the first attack we sent a radio signal in the clear to Japan telling them of the existence of the bomb and giving them the chance to surrender now. We also dropped flyers on Tokyo, Hiroshima and several other cities warning the Japanese that a city would be completely destroyed the next day if they did not surrender now. There was no response. After Hiroshima was destroyed we again dropped leaflets and transmitted messages in the clear telling the Japanese to surrender or another city would be destroyed. Again, no response. So Nagasaki was removed from the face of the planet. Even after demonstrating the power to completely destroy their country without ever sending in a single marine the Japanese were arrogant enough to try to make demands about the terms of their surrender. These were not a people who were accustomed to being beaten and for the most part were incapable of accepting surrender except when faced with a threat they knew, beyond any doubt, was unstopable.

Over the last 50 years the Japanese have been portrayed increasingly as victims in WWII. They were not. They were unprovoked agressors. The victims are the millions of Chinese civilians that they slaughtered. All the men who were subjected to and died during the Bataan death march and the many other less known death camps of the Japanese. The men, women and children who died on a beautiful Sunday morning, without any warning, in Pearl Harbor and Honolulu. The Japanese were brutal and showed no regard for human life - be it man woman or child when they invaded all the places they invaded. In China they wiped out entire towns. In many ways they made the Nazi's look like a bunch of pansies. They killed nearly three times more Chinese than the Germans killed Jews and Russians together.

The Japanese started the war with the US. In doing so they signed their death warrant. Yes, civilians were killed by the A-bombs... but, to be honest, that was the least of the President's concerns. The President had no duty to the people of Japan. He did have a duty to the people of the US - and that duty was to see the war end with as few American casualties as was possible. It was also, most likely, the most humane decision he could have made. If we had invaded Japan - the casualties would have been horrendous for the Japanese. They were actually teaching young girls the basics of using a pike - yes a pike! They would have resisted, and they would have been slaughtered.

Many people now look back and say "There was no need! It was a brutal act!" and they are not looking at the whole picture. It was brutal, no doubt about it - but then again it was war... and there is no such thing as a non-brutal war. It was the least brutal thing we could do.

posted 01-26- 10:30 PM            

About 10 years worth of research went into it... not directly This has been one of those things that gets under your skin for me.

On a loosely related topic...

For those of you that ever get the chance - I strongly suggest visiting the Arizona Memorial in Pearl Harbor.

When you get there go to the middle of the monument and stand there, look into the sky - and try for a moment to feel what those sailors felt when they knew the end for them was coming, when those bombers and fighters were screaming in at them at a horrendous speed and they knew, without a doubt that they were about to die. Then step to the center of the railing facing the bow of the ship and look down. You will see and smell diesel fuel still rising from the hulk of the Arizona, as though she were bleeding from her wounds even until today. Now, turn to your left and walk to that terrible wall. The one that lists everyone who died on that ship, most of whom are entombed forever in the broken ship below you. While you stand there, reading as many names as you can stomach, remember that they woke up that morning, not even knowing that they were at war, no idea that in just a few hours they would be dead. The first of many. After this, wipe your tears - and if you have any ability to imagine what happened there, you will have tears to wipe - turn around and look out at the mass of people on the monument with you. Some will be somber and truly realize where they are and what it means. Some will simply believe it is a neat bit of history and nothing more. Some, however, will show no respect at all. They will be laughing, and talking loudly and running around like it is Disneyland. If you are anything like me it will make you angry, and if they are Americans - ashamed.

I have had the privlege to visit the Arizona 6 times over the years, and it is still a deeply moving experience for me every time I go there. If you let yourself, you can feel the sad and painful spirit of the place all around you. And you will never forget it once you have felt it.

I also hope that you have the experience I did on my second visit. When I turned away from that wall I saw a group of Japanese teenagers laughing and joking. And yes, it made me very angry. I went over to them and asked what it was that they found so amusing. They told me that for them this was a happy place, a place of a great victory. Oddly enough, that did not make me angrier at them. Instead of yelling at them, or ignoring them, I did my best to tell them what happened that morning. How the attack came without provocation. How it was merciless and dishonorable. How the men died horribly painful and often excruciatingly slow deaths. Burnt and broken and drowning... or slowly suffocating in the depths of the ship with no hope of rescue. As I spoke their smiles faded. They told me afterwards that those things were not taught in their schools. All that they were taught was of a glorious victory for Japan. One boy then asked me what was taught in our schools about Hiroshima. I told him what I was taught - that it was a terrible thing. That 40,000 plus people were instantly incinerated and many thousands later died of radiation poisining and burns. I told him that we learned that we must never let those weapons be used again. He responded to me by saying that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unprovoked attacks. I reminded him of where he was standing and walked away. That group remained quiet for the remainder of the time we were on the Arizona.

This is the danger of revisionist and nationalistic history.

-Stark

posted 01-26- 11:47 PM               

Note:
If any of you ever have the priviledge of visiting the Arizona, don't take a commercial boat trip to the monument. The commercial operators can not dock at the ship and let you on board. The Navy takes you over for free. Just go to the Arizona Visitors Center on the base. Get there early or you will have a long wait.

posted 01-27- 06:55 AM               

It was war and thats how it goes.

Jeez try to think a little off the norm and get all kinds of flak.

Sorry if I don't fit your mold boys.

Theres nothing wrong in my mind with rethinking how stuff was done in the past. As it may point out a better solution to a similar problem in the future right?

I wasn't aware of the problem of not having more bombs for 18 months.

Though they could have just carpet bombed and gotten a similar effect.

Or used some of the Bio/chem warfare agents Canada was making by the trainload at the time.

posted 01-27- 01:10 PM            

However, looking back at the balance of power in the Pacific, we find the Japanese to be a crushed nation with no offensive capability. On our side, we have the full Allied forces (since Germany was already defeated), immense strategic bombing capabilites and total air superiority.

So we come to the problem of how to defeat the Japanese, but there are other considerations too. Our relationship with the USSR was going to be the story of the next decade, and our role in a post-atomic world would be the ultimate legacy of the war. So we had to balance a military solution with Japan with our other international interests.

The atomic bomb surely seems overkill for the problem of defeating Japan. As Spanky said, we could have carpet bombed the entire country for years without ever risking an invasion.

The atomic bomb was very useful for defining the power relationship between us and the USSR. It was also useful to assure our position as the most powerful country in the world in the post-atomic age.

Given the history of this event, the rational explaination for the use of the atomic bomb has to be weighted toward our relationship with the USSR and our desire to make the U.S. the absolute military authority in the world. It also accomplished the purpose of forcing Japan to surrender, but surely this couldn't have been it's prime purpose.

You've thought about this a lot more than me, and I'm sure you'll disagree with this post, so let me ask you a question:

Had we developed the bomb in 1944, do you think it would have been an appropriate weapon to use in Europe? What effect do you think that would have had on our European relations even today?

Your description of your visit to Pearl Harbor was moving... no one denies that this event was a tragedy. However, it is only relavent to the discussion of the atomic bomb if you are suggesting that it was used as a weapon of vengance (which I'm sure it was to some degree).

posted 01-27- 02:00 PM               

Isn't carpet bombing what we did to Germany? In fact, the 8th AF stopped all bombing of Germany 2 weeks before their surrender because they ran out of targets! They didn't surrender until after Hitler commited suicide and even then only after the entire country was occupied and the Russians had overrun Berlin. Nope, sorry, neither the Germans nor the Japanese nor even the English would have surrendered just from "carpet bombing". It would have taken (or did take) an invasion or a nuke to get the job done.

posted 01-27- 02:09 PM               

The Russians were our atomic bomb so we didn't need it. If we had the bomb in 1944 and Russia had lost in the East and was not kicking the shit out of the Nazi's then IMO we would have used the nuke on Germany. Without having to fight the Russians, Germany may have been able to stop the Normandy invasion or at least been able to hold back an invasion of their homeland on one front.

posted 01-27- 02:21 PM            

The Russians weren't much better for us than an atomic bomb. We knew at the time that the more land the USSR occupied, the more problems we would have in post-war Europe.

Also, the Russians had entered the war in Japan, surely they would have overrun Japan just as they had overrun Germany.

posted 01-28- 07:57 AM               

Where did you learn we would drop on germany?

At what stage of the war did they think about doing this?

posted 01-28- 02:44 PM               

That was exactly my point

posted 01-28- 03:21 PM               

All discussion of dropping or not dropping the bomb on Japan or Germany is, technically, "what if's". But based on what we do know, and if we ignore "revisionist" history we can make some pretty sound projections.

posted 01-28- 03:39 PM               

In my mind it is history that has been revised and re-examined.

Usually with better data, and hopefully clearer heads.

What should we listen too? Only the thoughts on the matter formed days after the fact?

What history isn't revisionist?

Everytime a new book comes out on any subject of history its been revised and rethought.

posted 01-28- 04:04 PM               

I'm also not comfortable with the fact that the bombs were dropped on such heavily populated areas. Considering the fact that this weapon had never before been seen or even imagined by most people, it's hard to believe that the Japanese would not have surrendered after seeing a demonstration on a less populated area. We are all somewhat desensitized to the kind of fear these weapons evoked, but imagine what people thought back then when this technology was new.

posted 01-28- 06:57 PM               

Pack up and move on.

posted 01-28- 08:20 PM               

Your world must be very boring if you only talk to your friends about things you all agree upon. In fact, based on your "Off Topic" thread, your life is boring. Think about it.

If you would rather not exercise your grey matter and perhaps learn something then don't read the thread.