First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Hiroshima - 70 Years Since The Atomic Bombing
4315 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Arizona
Offline
Posted 8/6/15
Its sad but I would have been worse if we had invaded Japan.
27705 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / TX
Offline
Posted 8/6/15
It's certainly admirable to keep reminders of the past however I will not let the past dictate my future. As for the bomb itself I would neither criticize its use or endorse it since that is before my time and without having live in those times I can't say what I would have done if place in the same situation.
17777 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M / outer wall, level...
Offline
Posted 8/6/15
Suicide cliff, Saipan.
Iwo jima.
Nuff said
20904 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M
Offline
Posted 8/6/15
History is history. yes it was tragic but the world have to continue and not blame each others for history.
9140 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
52 / M / Madison, Wi
Offline
Posted 8/6/15
This is a very sensitive issue. However, we do need to look at the WHOLE picture.
The Soviet Union, during the Potstdam Conference, said they would not enter the war against Japan until another month. The month was up when we dropped the bombs.
Truman had the authority to order the bombing. He knew that even though there were members of the Japanese cabinet that wanted peace, but not enough to over rule the war hawks in the cabinet.
Truman knew that an invasion of the home islands of Japan would cost more lives than the invasion of Normandy. The guesstimation was incredibly high for both American and Japanese casualties.
He also knew that Stalin wanted to get as much as he could from Japan, including Honsho.
In other words, the next year was going to get even more ugly.
Here is what the bombing did, besides killing thousands of people and destroying two cities...
The Japanese Cabinet was evenly divided. So the Prime Minister during the meeting personnally asked His Majesty the Emperor what was his will. The Emperor broke the tie.
With that, the Soviet Union could only invade as far as North Korea and the northern parts of China.
True, American lives were saved, but so did countless Japanese lives were saved, along with most of their culture. (try to think what a full invasion by the Allies would have done to Japan's culture.
While watching a documentary many years ago, a former Japanese soldier said he would not expect an apology from the USA. He said if Japan had the bomb, they would have used it.
That right there proved the point that War is an insult to humanity.
I get upset whenever i hear warhawks saying we should go bomb some people instead of pursuing peace. I am not a die hard pacifist, but peace is always better than the alternative.
1344 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M
Offline
Posted 8/6/15
Well, the necessity of the atom bombs is debatable since Japanese morale wasn't in great shape before they got dropped. There's evidence that the Soviet declaration of war did about as much to convince the Japanese leadership to surrender.
19921 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / A town called "Ci...
Offline
Posted 8/6/15 , edited 8/6/15
I'm torn on this issue.

Its a very horrifying experience and nobody and especially a country as beautiful as Japan should experience something like this.
Its one of the worst things to happen in the war. I feel very bad for those suffering and especially those who suffer discrimination.


At the same time, Japan's military government foolishly rejected the Postdam Declaration.
It was supposed to be a peaceful offering to Japan. Basically, Japan should just surrender, get it over with, and that was basically it. Nope, "WE FIGHT TILL OUR DEATH! ATTACK, ATTACK, ATTACK!"
As if the Tokyo Air Raid taught them nothing.



Even after Hiroshima, they still ignored pleas for surrender!

If there was anyone to blame for this, its the Japanese government!
Those fools let their people suffer and after all the terrible things they've done to other countries.

And if we had to invade them, not only would we risk more lives but the Soviets would attack them too, and if they occupy Japan, well you can look at North Korea for future reference.

So, yes it was a terrible thing. But the Japanese military government helped bring about this destruction and I hold them ultimately responsible for this. Such tragedy.
9512 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F
Offline
Posted 8/6/15 , edited 8/7/15
I'm Japanese, I've had A LOT of thoughts regarding war-related things that has things to do with Japan.

I just want to make this clear.

I, as a Japanese person do not agree with the Japanese government's outlook on the subject at all (I'm sure you feel the same a lot of times too.)
And I can say the same thing for a lot of Japanese ppl that I know irl.
When ppl say "They (Japanese/American/Korean/Etc.) wants/thinks/etc. _________" do not look at it as if that's representing REAL PEOPLE's thoughts/desire.

I feel like a lot of times, the media is trying to portray this false sense of reality, don't get sucked into it. Decide it for yourself.

Have you ever seen Barefoot Gen? It's an impactful story, but what really stood out for me is when after Gen & his mother survived the bomb, but the rest of the family died, there was an announcement of Japan surrendering, and other citizens who heard the announcement was "disappointed" that their country lost the war.
Gen's mom got outraged & yelled at them "WHO CARES ABOUT THAT?!? I just lost my family!!" (I know it's misquoting, but.)
That part really really stuck with me.

Also, I met an atomic bomb survivor from Hiroshima when I was in HH & she showed no bitterness & I guarantee you, her mind is not thinking about "Where is my apology?" She did not have a victim mentality. She was a forward thinker.

World would not be the same w/o all the things that has happened. Positive & Negative.


EDIT: "I, as a Japanese person do not agree with the Japanese government's outlook on the subject at all (I'm sure you feel the same a lot of times too.)" --> Just in case someone sees this, this sentence makes it seem like I'm 100% aware of the Japanese government's pv on this subject, but that is not true. I'm not aware of it 100% at all, but I just know that I at least agree w/ handful of things.
I also want to add that I usually disagree w/ most of government's view this (JP/US), since there is ALWAYS so much hidden/covered information that government will not tell you ever, or will "release" it in 50yrs or whatev.
Posted 8/6/15

youngchop wrote:

I'm Japanese, I've had A LOT of thoughts regarding war-related things that has things to do with Japan.

I just want to make this clear.

I, as a Japanese person do not agree with the Japanese government's outlook on the subject at all (I'm sure you feel the same a lot of times too.)
And I can say the same thing for a lot of Japanese ppl that I know irl.
When ppl say "They (Japanese/American/Korean/Etc.) wants/thinks/etc. _________" do not look at it as if that's representing REAL PEOPLE's thoughts/desire.

I feel like a lot of times, the media is trying to portray this false sense of reality, don't get sucked into it. Decide it for yourself.

Have you ever seen Barefoot Gen? It's an impactful story, but what really stood out for me is when after Gen & his mother survived the bomb, but the rest of the family died, there was an announcement of Japan surrendering, and other citizens who heard the announcement was "disappointed" that their country lost the war.
Gen's mom got outraged & yelled at them "WHO CARES ABOUT THAT?!? I just lost my family!!" (I know it's misquoting, but.)
That part really really stuck with me.

Also, I met an atomic bomb survivor from Hiroshima when I was in HH & she showed no bitterness & I guarantee you, her mind is not thinking about "Where is my apology?" She did not have a victim mentality. She was a forward thinker.

World would not be the same w/o all the things that has happened. Positive & Negative.



Good points all around here. I agree.
51499 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 8/6/15
People who say the bombings were "a necessary evil" need to do research on the subject rather than repeating the propaganda their high school history books taught them. This event was NOT necessary at all. Even our president and all our notable military leaders at the time admitted that it was completely unnecessary and we would've still won quickly without dropping the bombs. Japan was already defeated by that point. They couldn't fight back. The bombs weren't dropped to end the war. They were dropped because we were scared the Russians were going to invade Japan, even though we now know that wouldn't have happened before the U.S. got there.

It's sad how history is written by the victors and not by the ones who tell the truth. Rewriting a major war crime to make kids grow up believing we did the right thing is pretty much brainwashing. I've seen some people say Hiroshima and Nagasaki were revenge for Pearl Harbor. It's stupid how so many people can believe an attack on a military base justifies a genocide of two heavily civilian populated cities. Attacking civilians goes against the only real rule of warfare. Violating that rule makes you a war criminal.

Here's a nice little article that quotes a lot of top military leaders, including Eisenhower, at the time of the bombings:
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0806-25.htm

The author put it best when he said this:

In other words, the virtually unanimous and combined judgment of the most informed, senior, officers of the U.S. military is unequivocal: there was no pressing military necessity for dropping the atomic bombs on Japan.

And this:

The story of military necessity, quickly and clumsily pasted together after the War's end, simply does not hold up against the overwhelming military realities of the time. On the other hand, the use of the bomb to contain Russian expansion and to make the Russians, in Truman's revealing phrase, "more manageable," comports completely with all known facts and especially with U.S. motivations and interests.


TL;DR: The dropping of the atomic bombs was entirely unnecessary, according to pretty much everybody involved with the decision at the time. In the end, the objective was to piss off the Russians, not end a war that was already over. Even so, we still would've won before the Russians could reach Japan.


The War would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb. The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the War at all.

- Major General Curtis LeMay
46232 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
38 / M / 地球
Offline
Posted 8/6/15 , edited 8/6/15
I am sorry, but I just can't put "necessary" and "evil" words together, they simply don't match.

Murder is murder, no matter how we try to sugarcoat it with -A killed B so we need to kill them as well- that is just a twisted way of "justice".

In a war, when the military forces do fight, they know they will may have to sacrifice their lives for their countries. But no matter the country or which side of the conflict we are talking about, when they mess up with the lives of the civilians, it doesn't have a "rightful excuse".

It was a tragic and horrible mass murder of thousands of civilians that would never of happen. But war is absurd by itself, so trying to explain the reasons/make excuses of that dreadful crime is kind of futile.
Posted 8/6/15
I post this with BlazingRagnarok and PhantomGundam posts in mind:
Japan’s unconditional surrender was as conditional. President Truman had made unconditional surrender a key point in his public statements, so anything less would be seen as backtracking. (Watch a short movie newsreel from May 1945 that ends with Truman emphatically demanding Japan’s unconditional surrender.) Most of the Japanese, including many of those seeking a peace agreement in the months preceding Hiroshima, required that they be allowed to keep the office of Emperor. That requirement also fit General MacArthur’s conviction that he needed the Emperor retained to ease the task of occupying Japan. The surrender document was carefully crafted to meet both needs. Early on it proclaims “the unconditional surrender to the Allied Powers of the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters and of all Japanese armed forces and all armed forces under Japanese control wherever situated.” But later it stipulates, “The authority of the Emperor and the Japanese Government to rule the state shall be subject to the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers,” implicitly agreeing to a continued role for the Emperor!

America’s demands for unconditional surrender cost hundreds of thousands of lives, many of them American. For the reasons already elucidated, it appears that Japan would have surrendered much earlier, and certainly prior to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, under essentially the same terms it eventually received. While, at first, this might seem to be Truman’s fault (see the topic immediately above), he was subject to domestic political considerations and other pressures as can be seen from a July 16, 1945, cable from former Secretary of State Cordell Hull to then Secretary of State James Byrnes, opposing a peace option that would explicitly retain the Emperor. (If you follow the link, note that the cable was sent on Hull’s behalf by Acting Secretary of State Joseph Grew. Otherwise it can be confusing.) The cable says that option was supported by “the heads of War and Navy and by the Under Secretary of State” and continues:
The proponents believe that this step might shorten the war and save allied lives. … The other side is that no person knows how the proposal would work out. The militarists would try hard to interfere [as they in fact did with their coup attempt during the night of 15-16 August, known as the Kyujo Incident]. Also should it fail the Japs would be encouraged while terrible political repercussions would follow in the U.S. Would it be well first to await the climax of allied bombing and Russia’s entry into the war?

Japan’s resistance to specifying surrender terms it would find acceptable cost hundreds of thousands of lives, mostly Japanese. The sequence of MAGIC intercepts on the previously mentioned National Security Archives web site show even those Japanese most committed to seeking peace as unwilling or unable to specify concrete conditions for a peace treaty. For example, the July 29 MAGIC intercept quotes Japan’s Ambassador to Moscow, Naotake Sato, as saying:
I find it most difficult to make any prediction as to the Soviet reply to our proposal. If the proposal of the Japanese Government simply requests the aid of the Soviet Government [in ending the war] and if it fails to give any indication of the basis on which this request is made, then I think it not at all unlikely that the Soviet Government will refuse to consider it on the ground that it cannot decide upon such a momentous move on such a flimsy basis.
The A-bomb probably played some role in the Soviet decision to enter the war. Some of the above evidence indicates that the Soviet declaration of war played an important, and possibly a decisive role in ending the war. In May 1945, when Nazi Germany had been defeated, Stalin committed to enter the war against Japan within three months. At first, this might seem to imply that the August 6 and 9 atomic bombings played no role in the Soviet Union’s August 9 declaration of war on Japan, the May decision was probably encouraged by Soviet espionage which showed America close to completing the bomb.

The role of the A-bomb in ending the war is exaggerated in the general societal belief. While the bomb played a role in ending the war, it was not the sole cause. I would not go as far as Ward Wilson’s statement that the bomb “played virtually no role” in ending the war, but the evidence he and Alperovitz present discredits the generally accepted societal view that the bomb was solely, or even primarily responsible. As is often the case, the truth is more nuanced.

Some factions wanted to use the bomb on a Japanese city in order to impress the Soviet Union that it should accept American hegemony in the post-war world. In a 2003 interview2, Manhattan Project scientist Joseph Rotblat is asked, “In addition to World War II concerns, was STS152, “Nuclear Weapons, Risk and Hope,” Handout #4, AUT 2011-12, Page 6 of 7 2 Guy Harrison interview with Joseph Rotblat, “Fighting the Bomb,” in The Caymanian Compass, Friday, 28 March 2003, pages A20-A21. Rotblat was awarded the 1995 Nobel Peace prize, for his “efforts to diminish the part played by nuclear arms in international politics and, in the longer run, to eliminate such arms.” America's fear of the post war Soviet Union a significant factor in the development of the bomb?” He answers:
Officially not, because Russia was our ally at the time. However, many people involved always felt that the main enemy was Russia. I personally knew about this as a result of an informal meeting with General Leslie Groves [director of the Manhattan Project]. He said to me, “You realize, of course, that the whole purpose of this is to subdue the Russians.” So it was clear that the Cold War had already started during the hot war [World War II].
The above quoted interview is not accessible on line, but a similar quote is, and appears to be a reprint of a 1983 Rotblat article from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

The widespread misconception that the A-bomb ended World War II haunts us today. I nuclear weapons were powerful enough to transform a belligerent Japan into a nation seeking peace on any terms, that would be strong evidence that nuclear deterrence should not be tampered with. If that belief is wrong, it is a dangerous foundation for building our current nuclear logic.
Did Eisenhower object to the use of the A-bombs on Japan?
Prof. Bernstein’s article, “Ike and Hiroshima: Did He Oppose It?”, in the September 1987 issue of The Journal of Strategic Studies summarizes the evidence better than any notes I could create. - from link on the front page.

I think this will become some sort of debate but i hope people will follow my link and give consideration to the fact that the only people who really knew the enormity of the devastation that would follow had little means to communicate it across to the masses. They also undertook the project [top secret] under the guise that it would be used against American enemies [with German in mind] and i'm guessing they had already grasped some of the theory that if two were to have this power, they could come to some peaceful solution. They furthermore thought they were in a race against Germany to produce the A-Bombs. Only, Germany wasn't aware of any race and that's why they fell behind. Even more, it was known that there were insignificant military targets.

Yes, America was at the time also aware of the growing in strength Soviet, and knew what were now allies would become no longer, sooner rather than later. Some believe there was cold war starting during the world war 2 for that reason. The soviet spied on the Americans and thus got to know of the Americans building the Bomb. America at this time was much more superior without having to demonstrate it be so. It of course did not guarantee that the Russians will be controlled this way. They did after all, catch up eventually. Soviet also decided it should enter the war after their espionage, that was May. The bombing landed Aug. Unlike the bombing, the the Soviet joining might have played much more of a role in concluding the war against Japan. So it could be that the bomb being made produced a good though unsustainable result, the bomb being used might have also produced some positives but with fairly a number of negatives. - From putting together different links.

I was never a big fan of history so I've injected as little opinion as possible. This post might give what the two users posted some moderation or knots. Take it how you must.
14934 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / San Francisco
Offline
Posted 8/6/15
You can not judge the actions of the past unless you were present for them. Even if the average American didn't wholeheartedly believe the propaganda being broadcasted in the media at the time (and they did until Kronkite televised the Vietnam War, saying "I thought we were winning"), death was happening all around them. Many people knew someone who had died in the war and it was not uncommon for the sons of an entire family to be completely wiped out.

I went to the Hiroshima Peace Memorial in 2008. At the time, I was with a couple of elderly Americans who had all lived through WWII and had lost friends and family members in battle. There's a sign in front of the museum asking those to pray for the souls of the many Japanese and East Asian people who perished during the war. One of the elderly women turned to me and bitterly said "I'm not going to pray for them. They were the enemy."

Over 60 years after the war had ended, the hate and bitterness had not healed. I felt great compassion for her and wondered if, had I lived through what she had lived through, would I have been any different?
5729 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
16 / M / Palatine, Illinois
Offline
Posted 8/7/15
It's a sensitive topic but to me it's simple.
Both parties are at fault, if one wants an apology the other should get one too.
23 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Ganymede
Offline
Posted 8/7/15
I thought I would be walking into a hornet's nest of ignorant and stupid comments about this touchy subject, but I have to say I am extremely pleasantly surprised to see that the opposite is true. I appreciate the breath of fresh air that is reading all of your civilized, respectful opinions about this topic as well as your well-informed and researched historical commentary. I also like the empathetic but forward-thinking atmosphere in here. You guys have made my day.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.