Hiroshima: 62 years ago today
posted at 4:47 pm on August 6, 2007 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
I’ve stood at ground zero in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and looked up at that famous hollowed out dome in the cover shot. Both sites are “peace parks” today, with nearby museums dedicated to memorializing the bombings. Of the two, Hiroshima’s is by far the better, in that includes the entire context of the pre-war period, the war, the bombings and some of the aftermath. Nagasaki’s begins and ends with the bomb, or at least it did when I visited circa 1995 or ‘96. It feels incomplete, because without the war’s context it is.
I won’t re-write pieces I’ve written before about the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the first of which occurred on Aug 6, 1945. I’ll just send you to my old blog for a few posts if you’re interested in reading them.
Here’s the first, in which I lay out the moral case at stake in obliterating Hiroshima. The second takes a look at revisionist history, or history distorted by time and the arrogance of pretend omniscience. The third recounts the remarkable perspective of a woman who lived through the bombing of Hiroshima.
My take on the bombings is that ending the war as we did saved tens if not hundreds of thousands of American lives, millions of Japanese lives — and Japan itself.
Update: This will be the last thing I say on the subject for a while, and it’ll be brief. It would do some people a great deal of good to imagine themselves in Truman’s place in 1945. The invasion of Okinawa had just concluded, bloodily. The Japanese had proven that they would fight for every inch of ground, and the closer your troops get to Tokyo, the harder they fight. They gave up 21,000 for a useless rock called Iwo Jima, and would give up many, many more for Kyushu, a much larger mountainous island that is well suited to sustaining years of guerrilla warfare. Meanwhile, you have the USSR, which you have never trusted, just now getting around to declaring war on Japan and obviously eying Hokkaido. They might wait for you to invade Kyushu, get bogged down in the meat grinder that the Japanese have planned for your troops, and then they waltz into a largely undefended northern Japan and seize it. They’ll have to fight the civilians, but there’s not much military standing in their way as there is in yours. Hokkaido and the top half of Honshu might become North Japan, a Soviet satellite. It depends on how fast you can slaughter the Japanese forces in the south, and how many of the civilians you end up having to fight as well.
Now, you’re Truman. This isn’t a video game. You have about 1,000,000 men set to invade a country in which every citizen, down to the children, has been taught to fight and kill your men. You lead a country that is tired of the war. You have an “ally” that is already dismembering Germany and might do the same to Japan if you let him. You don’t have any love for the Japanese, but the strategic map is already changing with Germany defeated, and it’s looking like the USSR is your next headache after this immediate and very bloody headache called Japan. You need to end this headache as quickly as possible. You have a huge force of tired veterans ready to fight, but you also have two bombs that might prevent that fight. Using them might prevent the USSR’s move into northern Japan. Using them might force the Japanese to surrender quickly and let you occupy it while you figure out what to do about Stalin. Using them changes the post-war balance of power radically in your favor, instead of seeing you bogged down chasing a guerrilla army while the Soviets consolidate their gains in Europe and Asia. You’ll destroy a couple of cities, but you’ve been doing that since Dresden and you’ve repeatedly firebombed Tokyo and pounded Shizuoka and other strategic enemy cities, but in this case you might save many, many more than die in the blasts that you order. If you order them.
Put yourself in Truman’s place. What do you do?
When you have no good options, and Truman had no good options, you take the least bad option. I think that’s what he did.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
MB4 how about growing a pair and asking Bryan how he feels about your defense of using a slur?
Bradky on August 6, 2007 at 8:00 PM
Bravo
Bradky on August 6, 2007 at 8:02 PM
MB4 how about growing a pair and asking Bryan how he feels about your defense of using a slur?
Bradky on August 6, 2007 at 8:00 PM
I’ve got a pair.
How about you growing a brain and getting a clue.
MB4 on August 6, 2007 at 8:06 PM
OK, I think we should all just CALM DOWN or someone’s liable to start arguing.
Oh…Never mind.
John from WuzzaDem on August 6, 2007 at 8:07 PM
WillBarrett: “Bombing Survey: 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.”
I don’t know about you guys, but I’m growing very weary of repeating myself…and I still have a lot of work to do tonight, so this will probably be my last post….To sum up, my main point has obviously been: “the ends do not justify the means.” I can’t say it’s been fun, but it has been a much-needed diversion from more pressing things.
The strategic bombing survey of Japan is not held in high esteem by the Air Force nor historians because of its lack of rigor. It’s a very weak sibling to the European bombing survey. It’s well accepted that the researchers involved came to Japan with a pre-existing thesis, did not stay long enough in Japan to gather evidence, and did not question enough of the Japanese actors. Basically, they cherry-picked facts to forward their pre-cooked conclusions.
The facts are that the Japanese military was hoarding immense amounts of war materiel to contest the invasion of Kyushu. They had correctly guessed the landing beaches and were actively redeploying troops and fortifications to repel it. They had stored thousand of kamikaze aircraft and boats that would be unleashed on the invasion fleet. They planned to give it all they had.
This idea that the war would have ended by November also ignores the typhoon which swept through Japan at that time, wreaking havoc on the US fleet. The military planners estimate that had we proceeded with Operation Olympic, that typhoon would have scrambled the invasion fleet enough to set back the invasion to the next year.
Tantor on August 6, 2007 at 8:07 PM
These idiots don’t care about morality, they just care about “winning.” It really is that simple. They’d burn the whole world to the ground as long they ended up on top. They know nothing of Aristotle, and virtue, and the natural law. It’s sad that there are so many people like them on the Right: it just gives the Left ammunition.
I’m sorry if my morality offends you, Professor Blather…Keep on blathering away, and I will continue to be my sophomoric, MORAL self…
WillBarrett on August 6, 2007 at 8:08 PM
Oh. The irony. It burns, it burns.
Oops. That’s the third time he’s spit out “the Right” like its a curse word.
I didn’t realize it really was just another troll. My apologies for feeding it further.
I should have guessed no conservative could be so sorely lacking in basic historical knowledge.
Professor Blather on August 6, 2007 at 8:10 PM
It was one of those things you know you have to do but hate doing it.
KBird on August 6, 2007 at 8:10 PM
MB4 is one slur away from a ban.
Bryan on August 6, 2007 at 8:11 PM
the Japanese of WWII
MB4 on August 6, 2007 at 8:12 PM
the Japanese of WWII
the Japanese of WWII
the Japanese of WWII
MB4 on August 6, 2007 at 8:13 PM
Can we not call the Germans of WWII Nazis?
MB4 on August 6, 2007 at 8:14 PM
First of all, I never said that, that was jdawg, I believe….I was quoting him….
Second, I spit on stupidity and idiocy whether it comes from the Left or Right…I’m an equal opportunity denigrator of immoral positions. Sorry if that hurts your delicate wittle feelings.
Finally, I may not have the historical expertise of a professor such as yourself (ha), but I can at least tell good from evil, something you seem to have a hard time doing. Douche-bag.
WillBarrett on August 6, 2007 at 8:14 PM
I said – “I call them (the Japanese of WWII) that out of respect for him.”
The Japanese of WWII have been, and should be, called MUCH worse than that.
MB4 on August 6, 2007 at 8:15 PM
Those are good books Tantor, if Bradky would go to the library, he would find a plethora of books backing up your statements.
right2bright on August 6, 2007 at 8:15 PM
You just don’t get it. I have in-laws that were alive in WW2. B ryan may as well – I don’t know. Nazi is not the same, now if you refer to them as a K(*(* it is.
Get it now?
Bradky on August 6, 2007 at 8:17 PM
I don’t mind being asked for a source – what’s the big deal?
Bradky on August 6, 2007 at 8:19 PM
Bryan, please read my comment in question and you will see that I specifically said the Japanese of WWII, NOT the Japanese of today. I think that the Japanese of today are just fine.
BTW, I have been called MUCH worse on this blog, MUCH worse, when I comment against Bush and the Iraq war. But I am OK with that.
MB4 on August 6, 2007 at 8:20 PM
We probably disagree morally on a lot of things, but at least we’re willing to give our moral opinions.
Nonfactor on August 6, 2007 at 8:20 PM
Bradky: “let me dumb it down for you. There were no battles occurring at the time the decision to drop the bomb was made. The bomb was dropped and there were still no battles in progress. Hence 20,000 casualties you mentioned is smoke.”
Bradky, it’s pretty absurd to claim that there were no battles in progress when the atom bombs were dropped. There was an ongoing air campaign against Japan where shots were actively exchanged. Our B-29 crews were routinely shot when they parachuted into Japan. Some were sent to Japanese military doctors to be vivisected for surgery practice. Likewise, there were active naval engagements. Ground battles continued in all the islands and land we captured because pockets of Japanese remained who would not surrender. Combat was costing an average of 1500 casualties (ie wounded and dead) per week.
And that was just the American sphere of battle. Vast campaigns were being fought on the mainland of Asia. The Japanese Kwantung Army of some 700,000 soldiers were actively fighting guerrillas and then the regular soldiers of the Soviet Army. And where ever the Kwantung army went, it killed civilians en masse.
Bradky: “The group oriented nature of Japanese is what makes decision making a little slower. Maybe waiting a week wouldn’t have made a difference, no one knows. But it wouldn’t have caused thousands of US casualties.”
The final straw that appears to have convinced the Emperor to surrender came after the Hiroshima bombing when Hirohito asked the military for a better bomb shelter. He was told that the existing bomb shelter was sufficient. It appears that the decision to surrender became a good idea to the Emperor when it became clear that there was no defense against the next atom bomb which could very likely reach him.
Tantor on August 6, 2007 at 8:20 PM
Apparently my estimation of Will’s maturity was both accurate and struck a nerve. This latest post sums up his intellectual capacity (and, ironically, his actual as opposed to feigned morality) rather succinctly.
I’m just glad he left that clever bit of prose before keeping his third or fourth promise to leave us immoral cretins in peace. ;)
————
Tantor:
I just read through this whole thread and just wanted to say thank you for some excellent reading. Your posts are truly outstanding; its rare to find that combination of historical analysis and skilled writing (and they’re entertaining, too)!
If HotAir starts looking for a pinch-blogger, they ought to look in your direction. Really well done.
Professor Blather on August 6, 2007 at 8:20 PM
Quote from the Yale Law School Avalon Project…
This doesn’t even account for trying to knock out the major port located there. This area was a military target to a greater extent than some American cities such as San Antonio, Memphis, San Diego, Pearl Harbor could be considered military targets.
Catseye on August 6, 2007 at 8:21 PM
Get it now?
Bradky on August 6, 2007 at 8:17 PM
You are the one who does not “get it”.
MB4 on August 6, 2007 at 8:21 PM
Nonfactor every time I issue a challenge to you (post your WWII paper, give your intellectually superior opinion of Dostoevsky’s exegesis on Christianity) you ignore me. I don’t have cooties. Are you ever planning on responding to one of my posts? I’m getting a little tired of chasing you from thread to thread only to be met with a stony silence.
aengus on August 6, 2007 at 8:22 PM
Bradky: “Tantor your post at 7:28 is the one I would like to see your sources for. I don’t buy some of the facts you presented.”
Name the facts you dispute, Bradky, and I’d be happy to provide the sources, as much as I am able. Right now, your request is a bit ambiguous.
Tantor on August 6, 2007 at 8:22 PM
I’m not a big fan of Wikipedia because anyone can write it. But I found this and though it relevant to the debate. Take it for what it is.
———————————————————–
Speedy end of war saved lives
Supporters of the bombing also point out that waiting for the Japanese to surrender was not a cost-free option—as a result of the war, noncombatants were dying throughout Asia at a rate of about 200,000 per month.[citation needed] Firebombing had killed well over 100,000 people in Japan since February of 1945, directly and indirectly. That intensive conventional bombing would have continued prior to an invasion. The submarine blockade and the United States Army Air Forces’s mining operation, Operation Starvation, had effectively cut off Japan’s imports. A complementary operation against Japan’s railways was about to begin, isolating the cities of southern Honshū from the food grown elsewhere in the Home Islands. “Immediately after the defeat, some estimated that 10 million people were likely to starve to death,” noted historian Daikichi Irokawa. Meanwhile, in addition to the Soviet attacks, fighting continued in The Philippines, New Guinea and Borneo, and offensives were scheduled for September in southern China and Malaya.
The atomic bomb hastened the end of the war, liberating millions in occupied areas, including thousands of interned civilians and prisoners of war from Japanese camps. For example, in the case of the Dutch East Indies, these included about 200,000 Dutch and 400,000 Indonesians romusha (slave laborers). In Java alone, between four and 10 million romusha were forced to work by the Japanese military.[65] About 270,000 Javanese romusha were sent to other Japanese-held areas in South East Asia. Only 52,000 were repatriated to Java, meaning that there was a death rate of 80%.
Moreover, Japanese troops had committed atrocities against millions of civilians, by means including the sanko sakusen (”scorched earth”) policies, the infamous Nanking Massacre and the use of chemical and bacteriological weapons, and the early end to the war prevented further bloodshed. Millions of Asian civilians died of famine under Japanese rule: for example, a UN report states that four million people died in the Dutch East Indies as a result of famine and forced labor during the Japanese occupation, including 30,000 European civilian internee deaths.[66] These war crimes were ongoing, and use of the atomic bombs brought them to an abrupt end.
Philippine justice Delfin Jaranillla, member of the Tokyo tribunal, wrote in his judgement:
“If a means is justified by an end, the use of the atomic bomb was justified for it brought Japan to her knees and ended the horrible war. If the war had gone longer, without the use of the atomic bomb, how many thousands and thousands of helpless men, women and children would have needlessly died and suffer …?[67]
Supporters also point to an order given by the Japanese War Ministry on August 1, 1944, ordering the disposal and execution of all Allied POWs, numbering over 100,000, if an invasion of the Japanese mainland took place.[68]
Maxx on August 6, 2007 at 8:24 PM
I said that you’re one slur away from a ban, and you haven’t used that slur since. As long as you don’t, I won’t ban you.
Bryan on August 6, 2007 at 8:24 PM
Catseye: “This doesn’t even account for trying to knock out the major port located there. This area was a military target to a greater extent than some American cities such as San Antonio, Memphis, San Diego, Pearl Harbor could be considered military targets.”
Good point, Catseye. Nagasaki also would have supported the counter-offensive to the invasion.
Tantor on August 6, 2007 at 8:26 PM
Ironically, its your immorality that offends me. I see nothing moral in your consistent support of positions that would have led to more suffering. You are both immoral and amoral, my friend, but the fact that you hide behind faux morality is at least amusing in its irony.
You’ll understand what morality actually means when you’ve reached the age when you have to make your own real-world moral choices. You’ll find it a little more difficult than proclaiming your own moral superiority over those who made some very hard choices 60 years ago; your amorality in making that judgment becomes immoral when you base it on no historical foundation whatsoever.
You’ll understand one day, I promise. And right about that time, you may find yourself voting conservative, too. Strange how that happens.
You take care now, you paragon of moral virtue. ;)
Professor Blather on August 6, 2007 at 8:26 PM
now if you refer to them as a K(*(* it is.
Get it now?
Bradky on August 6, 2007 at 8:17 PM
I am a kraut. About half actually.
You are being way to sanctimonious. You are a phony.
MB4 on August 6, 2007 at 8:27 PM
Ah, everyone on the internet thinks they are a genius. And everyone else who disagrees with them is their intellectual inferior. Oh well. You might not like being called a douche-bag, but you certainly meet my defintion: a smug, pompous individual who takes great relish in pointing out the imagined intellectual inferiority of other people, rather like a college academic. Oh, and your name just happens to be “Professor” Blather! How coincidental!!
Ah well, Professor Blather, let me know when you’ve published your next magnum opus, you great beautiful genius you. Golly, we intellectual lightweights really need people like you to show us the way!!!
WillBarrett on August 6, 2007 at 8:27 PM
Ditto. Excellent posts, Tantor.
Just curious, are you a historian, or simply a well read history buff?
BacaDog on August 6, 2007 at 8:27 PM
How is presenting the actual choice available at the time presenting a false dilemma? There were no other options! Either we dropped the bomb, invaded, or let the blockade starve them into submission.
Will, you have yet to tell us what you would have done instead. If dropping the bomb was immoral, what would the moral option have been?
“The end does not justify the means” is an empty argument. How would you acheive the end, then, if the means available are unjustified? The only answer is to change the desired end, and when talking about war, that can be disastrous.
Jezla on August 6, 2007 at 8:27 PM
Tantor:
Specifically about the assault on the palace and hundreds of people who committed suicide. I think the palace attack may have occurred in WW1 for something different.
The kamikaze references leave out one of the more tragic facts about the Japanese military. Many of the kamikazes were teens chained into the cockpits with only enough gas to make it to where our ships were. The few that had radios in the cockpit left would largely be screaming “mother” as they dove in. The Japanese population had little choice but to support the war and the school kids were armed with wooden rifles and sticks.
Not sure why this needs to be contentious. Looking at history should be a learning process. What was right, what was wrong, could it have been done differently, etc. All opinion to be sure but not unhealthy…
Bradky on August 6, 2007 at 8:29 PM
Well I think my morality is right, you think yours is! Well I’m not a relativist, so one of us has to be right. Guess only God knows, you wise, wise individual…A regular Socrates, a Plato, an Archimedes! Thank goodness for such wise, wise individuals like you who can teach us all the way: and leave a trail of human carcasses in the process. Cheers you magnificent douche!
WillBarrett on August 6, 2007 at 8:30 PM
Your new here aren’t you?
right2bright on August 6, 2007 at 8:31 PM
No, not at all. You enjoy using offensive slurs. I don’t.
Simple as that.
Bradky on August 6, 2007 at 8:32 PM
I said that you’re one slur away from a ban, and you haven’t used that slur since. As long as you don’t, I won’t ban you.
Bryan on August 6, 2007 at 8:24 PM
It is your blog, so you make the rules, understood. But I think that calling the Japaneses of WWII cannibals was “far worse” than what I called the Japaneses of WWII, not to get anyone else in trouble and I don’t think that I will.
MB4 on August 6, 2007 at 8:34 PM
Sounds like a pickup line… (just kidding)
Bradky on August 6, 2007 at 8:34 PM
The big deal is that he gave you what you asked, and then you attacked. If you ask for something to clarify, and the poster gives you the reference books, than why attack?…he gave you what you wanted, he backed up his statements with fact. If all you have is “so’s your mom” than you aren’t a poster but a poser.
right2bright on August 6, 2007 at 8:35 PM
Bradky on August 6, 2007 at 8:32 PM
You enjoy being sanctimonious. You love it. Admit it.
MB4 on August 6, 2007 at 8:35 PM
WlllBarrett, putting yourself in the spring of 1945, what course of action would you have taken?
It’s a legitimate question given your position regarding the immorality of using the bomb.
BacaDog on August 6, 2007 at 8:36 PM
BacaDog: “Ditto. Excellent posts, Tantor. Just curious, are you a historian, or simply a well read history buff?”
Why thank you, BacaDog. You’re a scholar and a gentleman. I prefer “history nut.” I flew as a navigator in the Air Force so the aviation part of the war appeals to me. Also, the anti-American criticism every anniversary of Hiroshima always irritated me, so I read up on it over the years.
Also, by some strange coincidence I’ve come in contact with a lot of atom bombing artifacts and people. I saw the Enola Gay in pieces ten years ago when I took a tour of the Smithsonian back shop at the Paul Garber Restoration Facility (now closed). Have a photo of myself with the big star on the empennage. I have touched the Enola Gay. I went on a job to the old building on Offut AFB near Omaha where the Enola Gay was built. I stumbled across the third atom bomb at the Nimitz Museum in Fredericksburg, TX (highly recommended). Then I ran into Firebee, the bombardier who pushed the Button on the Enola Gay over Hiroshima, at a gun show in Houston. I met Paul Tibbets at the Cavanaugh Air Museum in Dalls. Have a photo of myself with him.
Tantor on August 6, 2007 at 8:36 PM
:)
It’s rare to find someone so willing to prove every ill thing said about them, my friend. You’re doing well in that regard. Out of curiosity … did I give you too much credit when I guessed you were an undergraduate? With each post you sound a few years younger.
My trollish new liberal friend, you enjoy your continued descent into frothing, rabid vulgarity now that you’ve been thoroughly schooled. It’s admittedly sort of fun to watch. Just don’t call me a “Jap,” okay? You’ll get in trouble.
;)
Professor Blather on August 6, 2007 at 8:38 PM
Unfortunately, the goal of war is to inflict unacceptable numbers of casualties on the enemy, forcing them to surrender. Nagasaki had two purposes. 1. to take out a military target. 2. to demonstrate that Hiroshima wasn’t a fluke. We were telling Japan that we could destroy their country without putting a single boot on the ground if necessary. One plane, one bomb, one city.
Catseye on August 6, 2007 at 8:41 PM
Adios, kids. I mean sayonara. It’s been fun. I’ll leave you with this from one of Bryan’s own posts. It sums up the reality of the situation pretty well – from someone who doesn’t have to rely on the history books to speak the simple factual truth:
Professor Blather on August 6, 2007 at 8:42 PM
You people shouldn’t disrciminate against the Enola Gay. Atomic bombs have the right to choose their own sexuality. Anyone who discriminates against the Enola Gay is a homophobe.
aengus on August 6, 2007 at 8:43 PM
I’m not your friend.
I would never be friends with an arrogant, self-righteous “person” (since calling you a douche hurts your feelings) like you. Why is it that you think you’ve “schooled” me? Because everyone who already agreed with you still agrees with you? WOW AMAZING I BOW DOW TO YOUR SUPERIOR ARGUMENTATIVE SKILLS. AWESOME DUDE. I mean, like this site doesn’t have people who have already made up on their minds on every issue under the sun, and are just waiting for Christ-figures like you to show them The Way! I mean, right?!
I’m also not a liberal…but I know in your little closed mind, people only fit into simple categories of “right” and “left.” Sad. Truly sad. ROCK ON DUDE!
WillBarrett on August 6, 2007 at 8:46 PM
Bradky: “Specifically about the assault on the palace and hundreds of people who committed suicide. I think the palace attack may have occurred in WW1 for something different.”
Not so. Take a look at this Wikipedia entry under “Military Reaction” near the bottom:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan
Bradky: “The kamikaze references leave out one of the more tragic facts about the Japanese military. Many of the kamikazes were teens chained into the cockpits with only enough gas to make it to where our ships were. The few that had radios in the cockpit left would largely be screaming “mother” as they dove in. The Japanese population had little choice but to support the war and the school kids were armed with wooden rifles and sticks.”
The kamikazes weren’t chained into their cockpits. That’s a myth. They weren’t exactly volunteers, being peer pressured into volunteering. If they didn’t volunteer, their families would be shamed and shunned by society. Their neighbors and towns would make it hard on the family of a coward and a traitor. So they knew they had to complete their mission, if not for Japan, for their families honor.
I worked with a Japanese kamikaze who had emigrated to America. My guess is that he was one of those teenaged kids who would have been unleashed on the invasion fleet. He was all gung ho to do it. However, when somebody asked him if he would fly a kamikaze mission now, he said he was too chickensh*t now.
All soldiers of all armies cry out for their mothers when dying.
While I don’t doubt that many kids were armed with wooden rifles and sticks, many were expected to fight with sharpened bamboo spears.
Tantor on August 6, 2007 at 8:46 PM
Excellent!
You’ve probably seen this, but it’s worth a read if you haven’t. It’s a study of the role of Signals Intellegence during the final stages of the war with Japan.
Interesting to me in that it describes what people knew based on the available intellegence. One can interpret for himself whether the right decision was made.
BacaDog on August 6, 2007 at 8:46 PM
Ironic, that a destructive force, ends up saving millions and a country.
Sacrificing in Iraq may be the same price with the same payoff.
We had to conquer Germany, for them to rebuild, we didn’t “conquer” Korea and look at them now. We didn’t “conquer” Viet Nam and count the millions killed afterwards.
We conquered Japan, and look at their society. Still Japenese, still independent, still a nation, and still soverein.
right2bright on August 6, 2007 at 8:48 PM
MB4: “But I think that calling the Japaneses of WWII cannibals was “far worse” than what I called the Japaneses of WWII, not to get anyone else in trouble and I don’t think that I will.”
It is a historical fact that many Japanese soldiers were cannibals in WWII. It’s backed up by court documents in the case of the officer charged, tried, and executed for war crimes on Chi Chi Jima. There are also affadavits by the Australian soldiers with respect to finding their comrades remains cooked and half-eaten in Japanese camps. You can find both in Bradley’s book, “Flyboys.”
Tantor on August 6, 2007 at 8:51 PM
Oh good grief!
I love how the armchair “scholars” are so adept at debating the mistakes of past generations, by citing knowledge that was not available to the decision makers at the time. Yes hindsight is 20/20.
A leader makes the best possible decision based on whatever intelligence he/she has at the time.
A loser bores everyone with his “buts” and “howevers” in his after-the-fact anlysis.
reaganaut on August 6, 2007 at 8:53 PM
Hey Professor Blather, just wanted you to know that I have Pampas Grass in my back yard along the creek. It is beautiful. I don’t know why someone would call you a plant, but it is a great hardy plant.
I would recommend Pampas Gra…wait, I’m sorry I misread what he wrote.
Goodnight WillBarrett, sleep tight. School is out for the night, the professor has gone home. Classes begin again tomorrow. Don’t be late, you can’t afford to miss another class.
right2bright on August 6, 2007 at 8:54 PM
Excellent.
Who’s your favorite role model, Bill or Ted?
fogw on August 6, 2007 at 8:55 PM
Yes, we should not debate the mistakes of past generations. Slavery made perfect sense to the Founding Fathers, so we should not criticize them for allowing it.
Goddnight right2bright, it IS past my bedtime (I am, after all, a young child, at least according to the dear Professor).
By the way, it is hilarious watching you people with your masturbatory praise for one another: “Oh Tantor are you a historian or just a genius?” “Oh thank you, I’m just a history buff that loves the fact that them Japs were nuked.” Hilarious.
WillBarrett on August 6, 2007 at 9:00 PM
Neither, your mom. DEFINITELY your mom.
WillBarrett on August 6, 2007 at 9:02 PM
Yep, I was going to say that. The fact is, our soldiers and Marines would have been put in the position of having to shoot countless women, children and old men at point blank range. How many troop transports would have been lost to kamikazees? How many civilians would have been killed in the pre invasion bombing raids/naval bombardments? Who knows how long the fighting would have continued even after the emperor surrendered?
Everyone knew full well that an invasion would have been a blood bath. When it comes right down to it, Truman saved American lives, which is the job of an American President and Commander and chief.
Of course he also saved Japanese lives even if know one wants to admit that.
reaganaut on August 6, 2007 at 9:06 PM
Amen, reaganaut. There were differing opinions among the allied military leadership at the time, based on the same intellegence. Ultimately, Truman had to make the call based on what he knew. So, he did and he didn’t look back.
BacaDog on August 6, 2007 at 9:07 PM
You still haven’t answered my question.
BacaDog on August 6, 2007 at 9:09 PM
Good choice.
But trust me, if she were alive, she wouldn’t care for your sophomoric view of the world.
fogw on August 6, 2007 at 9:09 PM
It is a historical fact that many Japanese soldiers were cannibals in WWII.
Tantor on August 6, 2007 at 8:51 PM
Yes, I certainly believe and believed you then and the other things that you have said as well. My comment was not meant to sound like I didn’t.
That’s why I earlier said:
Tantor on August 6, 2007 at 7:12 PM
Game, set, match.
MB4 on August 6, 2007 at 7:55 PM
MB4 on August 6, 2007 at 9:11 PM
Oh, cripes, you just don’t have a clue, do you? Slavery? How is the issue of slavery even remotely germaine to the discussion. I’m talking about people who have to make decisions based on whatever intel the possess at the time, and halfwits like yourself who second guess them. I really shouldn’t bother feeding a troll….
reaganaut on August 6, 2007 at 9:14 PM
Still waiting…………
BacaDog on August 6, 2007 at 9:16 PM
Sorry, there’s a lot of animosity being thrown at me, I don’t see all the questions….
Oh, what would I have done? I thought I already answered that. Probably waited a little longer to see if the Japanese would’ve surrendered. Eisenhower, Nimitz, MacArthur, and many others in the military did not think either an invasion or bombs were necessary. MacArthur, I believe, argued that the Japanese would’ve surrenderd if Hirohito had been allowed to keep his title (which I think ended up happening anyways). Then, I would have at least tried a display of might (i.e. dropping it on a purely military target or uninhabited island close to the Japanese homeland)…After that, who knows?
WillBarrett on August 6, 2007 at 9:16 PM
You can take issue with the analogy, I take issue with the statement. It didn’t make sense to the Founding Fathers, most were extremely troubled by it – in fact it was the wheels they set in motion that rooted it out of the continent.
And now back to the regularly scheduled program.
Spirit of 1776 on August 6, 2007 at 9:17 PM
Bradky and WillBarrett
According to this reference, Japan wasn’t even willing to surrender after the SECOND Atomic bomb was dropped.
So if Japan wasn’t ready to surrender after the SECOND atomic bomb hit Nagasaki… they surly would not have surrendered if we would have waited longer than 3 days after the FIRST drop on Hiroshima.
Finally Hirohito came around to surrender was the only option on 15 August 1945. So they had the ability to surrender immediately after Hiroshima, thereby avoiding the second bomb on Nagasaki, but they didn’t. The dead in Nagasaki are on Hirohito’s head, not ours.
And Japan was lucky that Hirohito finally came around to unconditional surrender by the 15th, because we would have had another weapon ready to drop by the 18th.
Maxx on August 6, 2007 at 9:17 PM
The bomb draws an emotional response from many like Will for no better reason than it is a big bang and does killing in one shot, rather than many small bombers that kill a greater number over a longer period, which seems to draw much less emotional response. And to them, the morality of burned skin from atomic radiation is worse than the morality of burned skin from conventional thermal radiation. Somehow, in the mind of the pseudo-moral intellectual, that academic difference makes moot the millions of lives saved from using atomic weapons to end war.
What people like Will need to understand is that the dropping of the bomb was not used to kill Japanese. It was used to save Japanese. The best estimates for ending the war with conventional munitions were at least 2-10 million Japanese dead. With the bomb, the war was ended with 200,000 instead.
Now, Will, how can you NOT justify using the bomb if saving lives is paramount?
This is where the pacifist ideals are revealed to be Marxist ideals instead. Like Marxism, pacifism is an ideology that ends up killing millions of people in the name of humanity if allowed to run its course. A pacifist would rather kill 10 million Japanese with conventional munitions rather than kill 200,000 with atomic munitions, simply because the atomic munitions are viewed as tools of western imperialism.
jihadwatcher on August 6, 2007 at 9:17 PM
Coming in very late to this conversation, but: to those who condemn the dropping of the A-Bomb to end the war, please read the following by Paul Fussell, hardly a “right-winger”:
Thank God for The Atomic Bomb
(side note – this appeared in The New Republic in 1987; I doubt they’d publish anything like it now)
Lurking Vet on August 6, 2007 at 9:18 PM
I don’t think that is true. As a result of the surrender, it did save Japanese lives, but the purpose was to save American soldiers’ lives.
Spirit of 1776 on August 6, 2007 at 9:22 PM
Yea, maybe slavery wasn’t the best choice…But my point merely was that just because we weren’t there in the person’s shoes doesn’t mean we can’t judge their actions. I mean, that seems like a pretty slippery slope to me.
Why do you people keep on inisting that I’m a pacifist? I’m not by any stretch of the imagination. You are entire argument is based on the assumption that we would’ve HAD to invade…which I and many scholars disagree with (and many of the top brass in the military at the time). Thus, if that assumption is false, than your argument is false. It MAY be true, but you people take it for Gospel, when in fact many in the military at the time did not think it necessary or prudent (which goes to your pointe reagnaut).
Also, I’m really tired of being called a pseudo-intellectual because I happen to disagree with you on something. I’m not asking you to be civil, but please don’t insult my intelligence.
Also, jdawg, I don’t mean to disrespect your mother. Sincerely.
WillBarrett on August 6, 2007 at 9:24 PM
I recall that as a kid one of my teachers was preaching the same line as WillBarrett and I came home and repeated it.
My mother said, “Do you wish your dad was dead?”
I said no and she explained things to me about how he wrote that his unit was headed to a port in France from Germany to go to Japan and did not sound like he would be coming back.
That did it for me.
MB4 on August 6, 2007 at 9:29 PM
Thanks. You’re not alone in the “seige” strategy. Some at the time thought we could blockade and starve the Japanese into submission. Some were invasion advocates, and some said drop the bomb.
I think, though, that the word “murder” was not a term anyone in the decision loop would have used in 1945 when making those decisions. Particularly given the bloody history of the Pacific campaign and the atrocities done by the Japanese military.
Personally, I think they looked at the bomb as a means to simply end the war at the least cost to us. That’s ok by me.
Let’s face it, war is inhumane. In the end though, you end it by killing the enemy until they lose the will to fight.
BacaDog on August 6, 2007 at 9:29 PM
When someone states that killing people in wartime is “murder” that is the pacifist creed. Of course, invading Japan was not necessary to win the war, but it was necessary to finish the war properly and to create the Japan that exists today – prosperous, westernized with a constitution – and not left as a Shinto military regime.
Yes, Spirit, it was dropped to save American lives, but for the purpose of this discussion about Japanese lives, the salient point is that it saved a lot more Japanese than it would have saved American. Maybe 20 to 1. And that point is clearly lost on our friend Will and others who can’t understand that.
jihadwatcher on August 6, 2007 at 9:32 PM
I agree to a point. I went some time ago to a traveling Lincoln exhibit and one of the commenters stated that Lincoln might be considered racist today. I use this example because in one of JYD posts of Byran’s that he links above, he too says – an unfortunate comment by Lincoln.
Of course, that man was visionary for his day, and as Emerson said as the time if he lived in a different era his sayings would be known as are Aesop’s fables. But we each live in our own time, and we make the best decisions with the information that we have at the time.
To comb through history I think, obviously, is critical. But to project our mentality on to them does little good. In that time the value of an American life vs. life of another other person in the world, for good or ill, weighed more highly than it does today. Actions taken to save American lives are consistent with that.
Spirit of 1776 on August 6, 2007 at 9:35 PM
Of course, I never actually said that. Ugh, you have to be willing to separate civilians from the military, dude. I think killing innocent civilians is murder, not soldiers. I know you think Hiroshima was a “military target,” but c’mon, be serious, it was a city with women and children in it….It wasn’t like it was an army base or something.
WillBarrett on August 6, 2007 at 9:36 PM
Your point is valid, and I agree with the undeniable fact it saved lives.
My point is merely that we keep it down the center line – we can revise history both ways: to glorify or degrade. I prefer to deal with the truth: we did it to save American lives. The other was a bonus…and as Bryan pointed out, probably largely lead to their affinity towards the US these days.
Spirit of 1776 on August 6, 2007 at 9:38 PM
Point taken. But it’s not like everyone in 1945 thought the atomic bomb was the ONLY way of defeating Japan. Nor did they think invasion was the ONLY way. That’s sort of been my point….Clearly some people in 1945 did view it as morally wrong and militarily unnecessary, so I don’t think the argument that we can’t apply our own hindsighted view to their actions applies, considering many people during the time had that view.
WillBarrett on August 6, 2007 at 9:39 PM
I read the link – that was their conditional surrender offer. It took another four days to accept unconditional terms. If you click on the citation in your link you will see that the Japanese physicists didn’t get to examine the epicenter of Hiroshima until the 13th at which time they discovered the radioactivity – they surrendered in totality the next day.
As I originally mentioned Hiroshima makes eminent sense and there is no debate about the first bomb – only the timing of the second is my point of debate.
This is all just a debate of woulda, shoulda, coulda. Why it has to be contentious is curious.
Bradky on August 6, 2007 at 9:41 PM
So’s your mom? mixed me up with a different post I think.
Bradky on August 6, 2007 at 9:43 PM
Wow. I am late to the party again. Great posts people.
Hmmm. The defeat of the Axis powers in WWII was total, complete, overwhelming, and utterly humiliating. Sorta’ like the defeat suffered here in this thread by WillBarrett and his friends. The principal difference being that I usually wince a bit when I think about what happened to the Japanese people. Maybe that’s why I enjoy re-reading these types of discussions/threads every August. It’s victory without all the collateral damage and human tragedy of total warfare.
CyberCipher on August 6, 2007 at 9:44 PM
YEa, DuDe, you like ToTaLlY dropped an atomic bomb on us!!!
WillBarrett on August 6, 2007 at 9:45 PM
That is why you are a pacifist who could never win a real war against a real enemy. If you are going to be pacifist, at least have the courage to admit it and not dodge the title.
BTW, we have tried fighting a war without killing civilians, as per your policy, and see what happens? In the same time span, 5 years, that we took on Hitler and Japan and defeated them both, massive enemies with massive power, the US armed forces have yet to defeat a bunch of muslims in Iraq running around in pajamas. Why? Because we refuse to kill civilians.
And for that, the Left tells us that the war is lost. And they are right. So much for the pacifist way of waging war.
jihadwatcher on August 6, 2007 at 9:49 PM
Some people? The vast majority of American people were happy the bombs were dropped. Japan was our enemy and we had no love lost for the country or its people. More importantly, my father, like MB4’s father and hundreds of thousands of other fathers would have been deployed to Japan and would have experienced high casualties. You talk about innocent people being killed in Japan. Well, our fathers were innocent, too.
Blake on August 6, 2007 at 9:51 PM
jihadwatcher on August 6, 2007 at 9:49 PM
WillBarrett on August 6, 2007 at 9:53 PM
V-J Day is August 14. Everybody celebrate by kissing a pretty girl in the street. Yeah!
Blake on August 6, 2007 at 9:55 PM
The American people were happy the war was over….If the war had been ended by another means, they would’ve been just as happy. My grandfather was stationed in the Pacific, so I guess according to your logic, I’m obligated to support the atomic bombing. Not gonna happen, as I think the war could’ve been ended by just waiting (neither a bomb nor an invasion)
WillBarrett on August 6, 2007 at 9:57 PM
Yes, your point was not lost during the whole of this thread. I actually think that is one of the beauties of this country – it is not necessary for all of us to agree, but to come to a collective will. The action taken to end WWII was not unanimous, nor is it unanimously approved today.
But it did represent the collective will of Americans then, and not to be too philosophic, but the fact that you and I can disagree on it today, weighing both expedience and moral responsibility is part of the strength of the national character, imo. Both aspects must be considered to come to the best conclusion…which in this case in 1945, I think we did.
Spirit of 1776 on August 6, 2007 at 9:58 PM
Done deal. Just one?
Spirit of 1776 on August 6, 2007 at 9:59 PM
The usual leftist moral equivalence between those who believe in defending the west and terrorists who wish to destroy it. Bravo. Not only are you a pacifist, you are worse, a leftist. Shouldn’t you be at yearly Kos? Or is that over now?
Shall I waste my time trying to argue the moral difference between fighting WW II and terrorists flying planes into buildings? Would you even care?
jihadwatcher on August 6, 2007 at 9:59 PM
The bomb saved my grandfather’s life. He was going to land on that beach. He hated beach landings….
Too bad we aren’t fighting this war like we did that one.
Tim Burton on August 6, 2007 at 10:00 PM
TexasDan on August 6, 2007 at 10:01 PM
erg. botched emphasis/quotes.
TexasDan on August 6, 2007 at 10:01 PM
Jezla on August 6, 2007 at 8:27 PM
You are wasting your time trying to ask Will a question. He will not answer you, only to say that he is our “moral superior”. He has also promised several times to go away, yet he still hangs on.
Best to not feed the troll.
jdawg on August 6, 2007 at 10:02 PM
Bradky on August 6, 2007 at 9:41 PM
That doesn’t change the fact that after they SAW the devistatation of Hiroshima, which was dropped at about 8am on August 6th, and then SAW the death and devistation of the second bomb on Nagasaki on the 9th… THAT THEY STILL WERE UNWILLING TO SURRENDER ! Couldn’t they SEE the death and destruction ?
They obviously didn’t care about their own people because they could SEE what happened to them, but were STILL unwilling to surrender even after the second bomb on Nagasaki.
Nagasaki deaths were on Hirohito, not us.
Maxx on August 6, 2007 at 10:03 PM
I here and read that some people thought it wasn’t
necessary.That Japan was beat.Far from it.
Dropping the bomb was the right thing to do.
Some war documentry’s suggest President Truman was concerned
about US casulaties,you could make an argument today in regards to democrats concerned about Irag.But to be fair
to Truman it was world war two.But democrats are more worried about poll numbers than they are about right and wrong,good and evil.
Prior to Truman giving the Japanese the ultimatem,
the Japanese were talking to the Russians,and at that
time were still not going to surrender,if i got that right.
Dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the right
decision.Never mind the idiots with their revisionary history.
Look at Iwo Jima,Okinawa,Pearl Harbour,and the Kamakazi’s.
canopfor on August 6, 2007 at 10:08 PM
That’s a new one. Now I think you’re just yanking a few chains and looking for a reaction. If you don’t want your intelligence insulted, kindly refrain from making off-the-wall incredulous statements like that one.
You have officially been bumped up to troll status.
fogw on August 6, 2007 at 10:08 PM
Yea, well, I’m desperately procrastinating some work I have to do, and it fills me with glee to watch you guys get so upset about someone who calls themself a conservative DARING to have a different view about the atomic bombs. I’m not a leftist. au contraire, just someone who believes in moral absolutes like not killing innocent civilians based on something they might do…GOD I’M SO EVIL. Let’s take a step back. You people are defending this: http://www.gensuikin.org/english/photo.html
I’m not. I’ll sleep fine tonight. Also, DO NOT CLICK THAT LINK, it will just reaffirm your view that WAR IS HELL MAN.
WillBarrett on August 6, 2007 at 10:09 PM
Indeed, Maxx, the bombing gave Hirohito a face-saving way out of the war. By claiming the US had used a new technology, and therefore, had an unfair advantaged, it now freed the Japanese people of their honor-duty to wage war and never to surrender. With the bomb, the Emperor had a way to save face, and his people could now surrender with honor because he said they could. So the bomb was a blessing for Japan in three ways:
1) It ended the war for Japan
2) It ended the war with fewest casualties for Japan
3) It allowed surrender while allowing Japan to save face
Only the bomb could achieve all three benefits to the Japanese people. And yet still, we have the suffer the slings and arrows of the white man’s atomic guilt.
jihadwatcher on August 6, 2007 at 10:09 PM
from wiki, baby….I guess they are all trolls too…Pretty fine company, if I do say so myself.
WillBarrett on August 6, 2007 at 10:12 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »