-
Man is not civilized. Most today really arent that much different from ancient Romans for instance. I wish we were but … we just arent.
-
Once again “History is always written by the victors” Yes your right many ppl should have been next to the Nazi’s and Japs at war crime trails.
-
Im sure ill get flak on the comment but if the tables had been changed im sure the russians would have used the bomb to end the war. Dont think that many ppl from the time would disagree with this comment. “Dont like getting bombed…stop starting wars then a**hole!”
-
Personally I think it was the perfect way to end one of the nastiest wars in human history. To me its a symbol of what we have to look forward to if we dont change our stance on war. Its good that most of the leaders of ww2 are dead coz they held a much different outlook on war. Just look how close we came to a nuclear holocaust during the Cuban missle crisis. Both countries (US and USSR) had the old war pigs earging on the conflict. Thankfullly cooler heads prevailed. (Im sure ill get some flak on this one too)
You are entitled to your opinion,and to speak as you feel you must. That is one of the reasons we fought the war. as far as guilt, or shame go, you may keep all of that for yourself if you wish. There will be no apologies from America over this, The Axis attempted to rape the world, and the Allies stopped them. America is clean, and free of delusions concerning the Nuclear deployment against Japan. Later, The Chinese, and N. Korean Gov’ts knew when enough was enough, they listened, and the world was better for it.
- Raspenau -
Since Japanese had lost most of their tankers and other supply-vessels they could not supply their military bases and economy…
So wouldn’t Japan have fallen anyways - without atomic bombs? Just by waiting.
And since there were already quite a strong peace movement inside Japanese goverment, surrendering wouldn’t have been that long step to take.
_
What would be worse?
Starving just about all the Japanese to death, or nearly to death (they couldn’t supply all their needs) over a number of years, or dropping the atom bombs and killing a tiny proportion of their population?
Well, supply-troubles worked very well in WW1 Germany, and couple of germans even survived. 
As people get more and more dissatisfied the power of opposition leaders/groups grows greatly. And in 1945 half the japanese cabinet was already pro-peace.
“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 Dec 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 Nov 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.”
- U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey
_
I/m totally agree with alephh
So, what was going to happen between early August 1945 and 31 December 1945 that would drive Japan, without an invasion, atom bomb, or Russian attack, to decide that it would suddenly accept unconditional surrender?
Particularly when the whole posture of the nation as exemplified by its leadership was disposed to fighting to the last man.
as an aside…here’s just how sorry the japanese are about things they did during the war…
Japan Rules Against War Claims
Published: 5/10/07, 6:46 AM EDT
By HIROKO TABUCHI
TOKYO (AP) - Japan’s Supreme Court rejected compensation claims by Chinese victims of atrocities committed by Japan in the 1930s and 40s, which included the use of biological weapons and a massacre in the city of Nanjing, defense lawyers said Thursday.In two separate decisions made Wednesday, the top court upheld rulings by lower courts since 1999 that the current Japanese government was not liable for compensation demands from foreign citizens for wartime actions, according to defense lawyer Norio Minami.
The plaintiffs from the two cases, who totaled 198 people including the families of the victims, had demanded apologies and combined compensation worth $15.8 million for death and suffering caused by wartime biological experiments, the so-called “Rape of Nanjing,” and the firebombing of Yong’an city in China’s Fujian province.
“These are unjust decisions that ignore the human rights and personal suffering of the defendants,” Minami said. “The Supreme Court has completely neglected its responsibility to uphold justice.”
Of the 180 plaintiffs involved in one of the cases, which sought compensation for biological warfare experiments, only 10 are actual survivors, the rest are relatives, lawyer Shuji Motonaga said. The remaining 18 plaintiffs sought payback for germ warfare, the Nanjing occupation and the bombing of Yong’an, said Masahiko Yamada, one of that group’s attorneys.
The court refused to provide details of Wednesday’s decisions.
But despite Wednesday’s rejection, a lower court ruling in 1999 acknowledged that a special section within the Imperial Army, known as Unit 731, used biological weapons against China.
The Japanese government has never formally apologized over its germ warfare program or its rampage in Nanjing. The government acknowledged a germ warfare unit existed, but has remained mum on its details.
Historians estimate that Unit 731 may have killed as many as 250,000 people in their experiments - which included vivisections of Chinese prisoners and the use of germs - during the 1930s and '40s, when Japanese troops occupied much of China.
Researchers generally agree Japan’s military also slaughtered at least 150,000 civilians and raped tens of thousands of women during its 1937-38 occupation of Nanjing. The Chinese government puts the number of dead at more than 300,000.
According to defense lawyers, Japan’s bombings of Yong’an killed or injured more than 10,000 people in 11 raids from 1938 to 1943.
Tokyo’s stand has long been that compensation claims were settled under postwar treaties between Japan and other nations. None of Unit 731’s members has ever been tried for the killings.
Japan’s refusal to compensate victims has fueled views among many Chinese that Tokyo has never sufficiently atoned for its brutal occupation.
When The Home islands were finally occupied by the Allies, they discovered a huge cache of stored aircraft, vehicles, weapons munitions, and all of the supporting supplies needed to contest a land invasion. I dont know the Japanese word for them, but the Germans called them “Werewolf redoubts” .The government of Japan was capable of inflicting very large numbers of casualties upon the invading Allies. The Allies, had no intention of accepting even one more casualty at the hands of the Japanese, and remembering the murder of thousands of military, and civilian personel at pearl Harbor, (yes, it was murder, as no Declaration of War had been served, and no state of war existed.) There was little compassion to be found for Japan.The Americans possessed the means to end it with out risking any Allied troops, or expending huge amounts of treasure.
Sorry guys, but no one can sell me on “War Crime” sophistry, or any of the other political fantasies that have been assigned to this event. I will not second guess the decisions made, or those who had to make them.
True, there was massive ignorance regarding the effects of radiation. There was a whole industry in the US, probably well before the war, of people painting luminous paint on watch “hands”. Most of these people developed radiation related cancers by the late 40s or early 50s. I recall seeing an article in Life Magazine about it.
Also, during the 50s, the US military conducted tests in the desert with nuclear artillery shells and exposed hundreds, perhaps thousands of troops by making them stand around in the desert, away from the blast, but close enough to get a dose. What we didn’t know then…
You’re undoubtedly right cam77 - shame on all of us. But consider the simplest fact of all: if Japan had never attacked us, none of this would have happened.
I think any military commander faced with the prospect of multiple landings on multiple beaches against an enemy that is more than willing to die for the greater glory of the homeland, the emperor and his own people, and estimates - however flawed they may be - of a million casualties, that military commander would drop the bombs. It’s a very simple equation - no casualties among your own soldiers versus a million.
Be honest, cam77, which would you choose? It’s so easy to make these moral judgments in hindsight.
Not to mention the shoe-fitting X-Ray, which I couldn’t get enough of as a kid in the '50’s. Unfortunately the shoe salesmen got too much of it.
http://www.orau.org/PTP/collection/shoefittingfluor/shoe.htm
This is interesting ex-post-facto speculation but really completely beside the point. No one at the time had 20-20 foresight and it may have been wrong in any event. What I do know for certain is that if Japan had surrendered at the time that Germany surrendered, no atomic bomb would have been dropped on it.
how can i choose a diferent rank i want a german rank?
visit the FAQ…link at the top 2nd from left
You know what was going to happen - the fulll sea and air blocade of Japane islands by the US army ,USAAF and NAVY.
And i/m sure the befor the inevitable famine has bagan in islands the japanes ( being the not stupid nation ) themself throw dowm the military clique and the imperror would force to sign the peace.
This war could be stoped even early ( and without the cruel bombing) if the allies refused its famouse the UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER note in the Potsdam conference.
Particularly when the whole posture of the nation as exemplified by its leadership was disposed to fighting to the last man.
This leadership was not agains the surrender in the jule of 1945. All what they need to save the institute of japane Monarhy i.e. post of Imperor.
Thay even could admit the war crime trial above the japanes high officers (but most of them killed themself right after the capitulation)
But for allies it was unacceptable. Do you accidentally know why;)?
It seem the British monarhy do not bother the democraty in the England:)
I can’t see that happening. The militarists had enough people and arms to resist a popular uprising, as they had had since they established before the war what was effectively a military junta to replace the civilian government.
The militarists would probably have let the masses starve as long as they stayed in a position to influence events, just like Hitler and his mates let the German people starve and suffer and let Germany be destroyed around them, rather than surrender. I don’t know how that would have played out with the civilian government actually in power, but still at risk of being displaced again by the military, in the last months of the war.
If the Emperor decided independently to surrender (which in a sense he ultimately did, anyway) then surrender might have happened as it was likely that the armed forces would follow his orders, as they had during a murderous rampage by ultra-nationalist troops in Tokyo in 1936. Then again, junior army officers tried to stage a coup and invaded the Imperial Palace after the Emperor announced the surrender, although apparently in the belief that the Emperor had been deceived by his advisers into surrendering.
This war could be stoped even early ( and without the cruel bombing) if the allies refused its famouse the UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER note in the Potsdam conference.
It could have been stopped immediately after Potsdam if the Japanese accepted unconditional surrender, but they were trying to negotiate terms when they weren’t in a position to do so. The sticking point was leaving the Emperor alone, which the Allies eventually agreed to do. I don’t think they should have agreed to this from a war crimes viewpoint because the Emperor knew what was going on, and approved all the most important decisions, and was up to his ears in the war from approving it in July 1941. From a post-war and occupation viewpoint it was probably a better idea to leave him there to maintain as much unity and stability as possible in Japanese society. MacArthur deserves most of the credit for his deft handling of the Emperor and his position during the Occupation, which avoided a lot of problems which could have occurred.
I don’t have the slightest problem with requiring unconditional surrender, in the sense that Japan didn’t get to negotiate terms but just laid down its arms; abandoned all conquered territory; and accepted occupation. Here is what Tojo said in a speech to the Diet in January 1942 about my country.
“As regards the Netherlands East Indies and Australia, if they continue as at present their attitude of resisting Japan, we will show no mercy in crushing them.”.
We know what ‘crushing them’ meant in practice after Japan occupied the NEI. Murder, torture, rape, sexual slavery for captured women, starvation, and general brutality and inhumanity towards all Europeans.
The Allies were much kinder to the Japanese after they surrendered than the Japanese were to the people in any country they conquered, and than they would have been to my people if they had occupied Australia.
Japan didn’t surrender because the Japanese wanted to preserve their Emperor, and I suspect because he wanted to preserve himself. Japan clearly didn’t want peace at any cost. If it had, it wouldn’t have got bombed, conventionally or atomically, after Potsdam because it would have surrendered. The bombing was a consequence of Japanese intransigence, not Allied brutality or inhumanity or unreasonableness.
This can be turned around by saying that it was the Allies’ fault for not conceding preservation of the Emperor’s position earlier. I don’t think so. Why should the dominant party concede anything? Japan never did when it was in the same position. It just took everything it wanted by force. As ye sow, so shall ye reap.
This leadership was not agains the surrender in the jule of 1945. All what they need to save the institute of japane Monarhy i.e. post of Imperor.
But for allies it was unacceptable. Do you accidentally know why;)?
It was an article of faith with the American people after Pearl Harbor, although precisely what it meant wasn’t clear and shifted in the minds of different people at different times, as explained here http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/Pearlman/pearlman.asp
It seem the British monarhy do not bother the democraty in the England:)
It’s a constitutional monarchy with the monarch having little real direct power, and the entitlement to remain in power only as long as he or she doesn’t use it to interfere too much with the democratically elected government.
The British King or Queen (used to be an Emperor as well until WWII finished off the British Empire) can’t be compared with the Japanese Emperor who was a god (until WWII put an end to that). The British monarch was only head of the Church of England, and answerable to the Christian god. Not all that important, really. 
One might ask the survivors of Pearl Harbor, Bataan, Guadalcanal, Tarawa, and Iwo Jima ( just to pick a few,)what they think about the idea of The deployment being a disgusting and low act, or that America turned into murdering baby killers, or maybe you could bring it up to the next of kin to those who didnt survive…
- Raspenau -
Building on that theme, only 6 men - all Australians - survived out of 2,400 men (1,650 Australian and 750 British) from the Sandakan POW camp in Borneo, and then only because they escaped on a death march in 1945 intended to get rid of the evidence of mistreatment.
In Japan in the last months of the war, the Japanese caved in mines in Japan killing hundreds of Allied POWs working as slave labourers, again to get rid of the evidence of mistreatment.
Early in 1942, 21 Australian nurses were herded into the sea at Banka island and murdered by the Japanese (one survived), while at least one other was, on Japanese records, being raped by the Japanese around the same date. There is no record of what happened to her afterwards, but it’s not hard to guess.
There were countless other similar incidents, along with the institutionalised brutality and depravity of the Japanese in most POW camps towards tens of thousands of prisoners.
Does a nation which carried out such acts deserve gentle consideration about how to prosecute the war when it has the opportunity to surrender but chooses not to?
Not as far as I’m concerned.
I’m sorry for the people who suffered in the bombings, conventional and nuclear, if they weren’t part of Japan’s evils, but apart from that Japan deserved what it got. And more.
Personally, I believe that when one discusses the pros and cons of these historical decissions, one should do it from the knowledge and perspective of the time. Put one’s self in the shoes of the decision-makers. They would have had to consider many of the points already made, some of them they would not have been aware of without the wisdom of hindsight.
I also believe that unless one wants one’s deeds to come back and kick one in the butt, then the decision has to be the lesser of the weavels presented.
Did the dropping of the bombs slaughter thousands of innocent Japanese? - Of course it did!
Did this action prevent greater numbers of deaths of innocent Japanese? - Of course it did!