EhimeDave wrote:After all, Japan was the aggressor nation and the Japanese citizens were given ample opportunity to evacuate and/or end the war before the bombs fell.
rufustfirefly wrote:As to Roosevelts original stand agaisnt civilian Bombing. Yes he urged ALL nations at the sart of WW2 to refrain from bombing civilians. However the Nazis breaking of this deal by bombing Rotterdam and the urgings of Churchill after the blitz seems to have changed his mind. Perhaps he had to break some of his ideal rules of war when he realised that the other side aknowleded NO rules at all...
William MacDonald wrote:
... and yet production increases sharply from when the bombings begin, so what precisely does that tell you about the overall effectiveness of bombing raids? These statistics also don't address the size, quality, etc. By the end of the war the Japanese were producing lots of planes, but they were basically reconditioned old planes and metal was in such short supply that they had to drop the landing gear to reuse.
William MacDonald wrote:You also have failed to address the fact that U.S. bombing patterns were determined on population density alone. The target wasn't military industry, the target was people, and any industrial damage was incidental. The general in charge of the bombings admitted this publically.
Except that again you neglect qualitative data. The Japanese army was massed in the south of Japan near Okinawa, as was all their equipment, stores, etc. Russia was, until that point, neutral, and their betrayal was unexpected. Strategically Russia's change in position was devestating since Japan was badly positioned to repel any serious attack from the north.
William MacDonald wrote:I'm not making any assumptions about what you think, in fact I'm pretty certain that you think it was morally justifiable. However it was wrong. Rooseveldt himself said it was wrong before the U.S. became involved in the war. I have yet to see anyone actually address that point. Your government led this policy that bombing civilians was morally wrong. I'm not accusing you, your own President is accusing you. He set the parameters for moral behaviour in this context.
William MacDonald wrote:How then do you explain the dramatic drop in the statistics you quoted? Only 36% of Japan's industrial capacity was destroyed according to your assessment, but the drop between 1944 and 1945 is more than 36% in almost all cases. Japan was simply out of metal.
William MacDonald wrote:
Reading this the words housing and workers come up a lot... and not one mention of military installations. In short this confirms, in the general's own words, that he was targeting civilians. And the statistics are deliberately stated to mislead. 1/3rd of the country's workers in manufacturing, but no mention of what percentage of the total population this was, and of those only half were involved in wartime manufacturing. ... but that doesn't change that factory workers are NON-COMBATANTS and not soldiers. In other words, 100% civilian targets.
Thanks for proving my point, again.
William MacDonald wrote:... so you agree that the Japanese army was totally unable to resist the soviet invasion. Well my point is proven then, thanks.
William MacDonald wrote:... so Al-queda isn't responsible for 9/11 because there was a warning? Oh, come on. Pull the other one, it's got bells on it.
William MacDonald wrote:... and this is just a straw man. Bombing Tokyo didn't save civilians in China.
The U.S. knowingly targetted civilians, in contravention of their own policy, for no good reason. It didn't end the war.
Staticnz wrote:Should they have dropped the bomb? On the one hand a chance to end the war (if it was that), but by killing civilians (which is supposed to be what is wrong). And I think that warning is a rather paltry thing.
So this is a rare argument where hindsight is not 20/20 for me, but a big messy blob of should haves, could haves...was right to do...shouldn't have...etc etc.
EhimeDave wrote:You still assume we think that the bombing of Japanese cities was wrong or that the US government is morally responsible for it. After all, Japan was the aggressor nation and the Japanese citizens were given ample opportunity to evacuate and/or end the war before the bombs fell.
...or that they...Bucktoothed, coke-bottle-glasses-wearing Honorable Evil Japanese General-San wrote:Ah so, Ai'ru getto yuu Honorable Amerika-man San, iban ifu itto desutoroi asu oru!!!
*Hiroshima gets nuked*
Oh no, Hiroshima! Amerika-Man habu Supaabomu?!
Hm, we no care! Mebi onri habu one supaabomu, so so!
*Nagasaki gets nuked*
"Oh no, ze habu two supaabomu! OK, we gibu appu now Honorable Amerika-Man San. Yuu win, beri sori."
'Cos for the whole 'Japan was going to keep fighting to the bitter end, until we bravely dropped two nukes on their cities' theory to work, that's the kind of stupid 'I'll get you Captain America!' mindset you'd have to ascribe to them (i.e. the career soldiers in charge of the war effort), and when you stop and think about it that's just stupid. I'll be the first to admit that this country has more than it's fair share of crazies and that there's something of a cultural trend towards obsession (to put it nicely), but running headlong towards total national/cultural/racial annihilation for what amounts to bloodyminded spite is a couple of hundred steps too far...especially when there's the much more plausible alternative explanation of 'maybe if we hold out a little and surrender to these guys who we haven't been at war with for the past few years we'll get a more lenient punishment'.Seriously, read the article and think about it FFS wrote:...were in fact quite savvy, well aware of their difficult position, and holding out for strategic reasons. Their concern was not so much whether to end the conflict, but how to end it while holding onto territory, avoiding war crimes trials, and preserving the imperial system. The Japanese could still inflict heavy casualties on any invader, and they hoped to convince the Soviet Union, still neutral in the Asian theater, to mediate a settlement with the Americans.
The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki served a few strategic/PR purposes for the US (again with the collectivisation, and again sorry for the linguistic necessity). Where you're reading it wrong is in placing Japan as the target audience for what was at the time the world's biggest bang . Firstly, they resulted in the extremely-expensive-to-develop new nuclear weapons actually being used, whereas had they not been dropped all those resources and time (roughly 4 years and $26 billion adjusted for time) would have been arguably wasted. Using them against the last major World War 2 holdout 'enemy nation' gave them a target that wouldn't be strenuously objected to at the time, as opposed to having to find a new post-WW2 target or relying on the much less intimidating field tests to show the world - especially any other emerging would-be superpowers, for example the Soviet Union - how powerful their new superweapon was. As far as 'stopping the War' goes, yeah - it was unnecessary mass-murdering overkill; but as far as telling whoever else looked like coming out of the war as a future big player 'don't mess with the US' it was pretty damn effective, not to mention the influence on the arms race of the Cold War. It also gave the military-industrial complex a nice lucrative gig for the next few decades, and those guys are powerful and have deep pockets. And then of course there's the aforementioned "We Totally Stopped The War, Not Those Commie B*****ds" PR boost.William MacDonald wrote:...The U.S. gained absolutely nothing strategically from the bombings...
histgirl wrote:And again, if you want to do JET because you love Japan and not because you love teaching/children, please don't come. There are enough ALTs bad at their job that are wasting taxpayer money already. JET is not a free ticket to Japan.
Ode to a Grasshopper wrote:There are one or two major problems with the "Hiroshima and Nagasaki stopped the war and so they were justified" claims being put forth here. I'll leave addressing the the 'Well, they were warned so it was OK' rubbish being spouted here, since as has already been noted such an approach is akin to blaming someone who gets knifed while being mugged for not just handing over their wallet like they were told, except that in this case it's like someone getting knifed in a mugging by workers from a rival company because their boss wouldn't hand over their wallet.
Ode to a Grasshopper wrote:Firstly, such an approach is basically endorsing collective punishment of the people of Japan - at the time - for the actions of their military leadership. Culpability-wise it gets grey enough just according responsibility for the indirect consequences of peoples' own individual actions, let alone holding civilian populations accountable for the choices of their army's commanding officers. All of this 'Japan was the aggressor nation so it was OK' crap only works if you make Japan out to be one homogenous whole, and it's not. Some six-year-old schoolkid in Hiroshima is a bit different from some soldier in the field of war, let alone the military leadership who actually issues the orders. If you're going to hold the whole of Japan responsible for the choices of their war leadership then by that same reasoning you yourself have to accept responsibility for everything bad that your country has ever done. Since the USA - like my own native country Australia - was inhabited prior to colonisation/being 'settled' and said colonisation/settled-ness came at the expense of wiping out the native populations, I'm not sure any of us want to go down that road. Anyone who does, well: you're a genocidal maniac and that kind of shoots down your moral standing. StaticNZ gets a pass on that one, but only because the pakeha couldn't actually beat the Maori and so opted for a Treaty instead.
Coincidentally, collective punishment of civilian populations is a war crime.
So, you know: Still Not OK.
8 May 1945 - Japan tried to surrender through the Soviet Union.
June 1945 - Both the US Army and Navy recommended to Truman that he
clarify the US demands in regard to the Emperor. It was recognized that
he was absolutely essential so he could order his men to lay down their
arms. Without him, there would have been anarchy in Japan.
11 July 1945 - Japan offered to surrender unconditionally, with one
exception - they wished to retain their monarchy. They didn't insist on
retaining Emperor Hirohito. They were willing to replace him with his
small son, for example. The US wouldn't even talk to them - the bomb
was dropped on them without the US ever responding to any of their
peace feelers. Since we let them keep their monarchy (they never
unconditionally surrendered - the US offered assurrances to the Emperor
Users browsing this forum: btlef0, Google [Bot] and 6 guests