Hiroshima (1 Viewer)

[VIRIATO]

Hiroshima,
I guess there will always, perhaps forever, remain a discussion about Hiroshima. Was the dropping of the bomb necessary to end the war, a necessary sacrifice of human lives? Or was it not?
In fact one should remember that during WWII the civilian population was considered a «fair target» for both sides, and really the so called Axis powers were the first to bomb civilians indiscriminately. And certainly Nazi Germany won the contest for atrocity of the War easily and by far with the Holocaust. But the fact remains that also the Allies bombed civilians on a gigantic scale, remember Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo ( more dead in a single bombing than in England during the entire Blitz ) and...Hiroshima/Nagazaki. Today, when the so called Western Democracies wage war, at least the civilians are not admitted as a target themselves but just as «collateral dammage». War values, if you can speak of such amidst Man's greatest monstruosity, have evolved.
Hiroshima. At the time of the dropping of the bomb, the Japanese knew they were defeated, and were trying to negotiate peace through the Russians, who refused to negotiate with them until they got into the war against Japan.
Also the powers that be in the US at the time certainly took into account the power of the atomic weapon at the bargaining table with the Russians and an interest in ending the war before the Russians would wage war on Japan and consolidate their Iron Curtain on the East. And the ultimatum to Japan ( unconditional surrender ) before the dropping was not clear on the possibilities of the Japanese keeping their Emperor. On the other hand, how can one tell for sure for how long would Japan's militarists have kept their grip on their country and continue to fight a desperate war? What might have happened if Japan had to be invaded? What would the cost be in terms of more human suffering? I do not pretend to have any answers, for an interesting discussion on this watch the BBC's The World at War, The Bomb-FEb-Sept 1945.
But the fact remains, Hiroshima, a human tragedy, a very low point in the History of Mankind.

 

[VIRIATO]

Hiroshima, Hiroshima,
I can see you, I can see me and our children. Our life candles are lit up and burning as another day goes by. Suddenly there's a silver bird in the Summer sky, it comes from afar and abruptly our frail candles are blown away by a strong wind, it comes from the sky. Some of us vanish at once, leaving behind shadows of what we were. Others languish, deadly flowers blossoming inside. I can hear bells, can you not? Let them never ring again. Hiroshima, Hiroshima...

 

[CannonFodder1971]

This is one debate that never ends. Personally I think the Allies could've been smarter at Potsdam, but Truman was no FDR and Churchill had been soundly beaten by Atlee in the British General Election, thus having limited authority to throw his weight around.
Stalin, strangely enough, actually kept his word and declared war on Japan within the timeframe agreed after VE Day. It would have been better to have let the USSR act as the go-between and thus allow the Japanese peace faction to have a means of saving face in "negotiating" a settlement, which would still have been an unconditional surrender.
Not only was there the carnage of Hiroshima but you must remember all the other implications: a belligerent USSR created its North Korean statelet prior to the cessation of hostilities. I think perhaps had the Allies been able to toss a sop or two to the Japanese, such as a bit more respect towards the Shinto religion (say to have let the Emperor remain as a head of church might have been useful), and then it could have let the talks via the Russians. As things stood at the time Japanese society was on the verge of collapse and although formidable militarily there was no offensive capability - look at the land war in China for example. And don't forget that Stalin was happy with the redrawing of Europe (67,000 square miles of Poland was something of an ironic prize considering that Britain and France originally entered the war to prevent the seizure of the Polish Baltic corridor). Stalin not only kept his word to enter the war but he also recognised the various "spheres of influence", ie he pulled the plug on the Greek communist partisans ELAS because the Eastern Mediterranean and the Suez were under the British "sphere".
It is unimaginable that at Potsdam the Allies couldn't have agreed to keep the USSR neutral and let them provide the fig-leaf for a Japanese surrender via a cessation of hostilities etc. Of course many people had an interest in the bombings taking place, and the desire for revenge (Brits/Commonwealth for Singapore, Americans for Pearl Harbour, the Philippines etc) was always a factor for decision-makers, even if not one that the general public could have known about.

 

[Louis Badolato]

I cannot second guess Truman for Hiroshima. If we had been forced to invade the Japanese homeland, millions of Japanese and an estimated half-million U.S. troops would have died. This was another case of a strong leader making the correct, but morally indefensible, decision.

On the other hand, nothing is more horrifying then the advent of the Nuclear age, and the thought of another weapon of mass destruction being used is terrifying. The allegedly intelligent physicists who put these horrors in the hands of politicians are the ones whose actions are the most morally indefensible.

 

[sceic2]

When discussing the history of atomic bomb and Japan, I personally use the following parameters for my thought’:
(1) We did not start the aggressive acts that lead to war (the invasion of China and Korea, the Japanese agents spreading political discontent throughout Asia, the extreme nationalism and racism expressed by the leadership in Japan, etc.);
(2) We were at war with a society that did not value the individual life;
(3) We were already killing large numbers of people in combat and air raids on civilian targets (more people were killed in the fire raids on cities in Germany or Japan than were killed in the two atomic blasts or from radiation combined);
(4) While some scientists knew a great deal about nuclear radiation, no one had ever detonated one in a real life situation in a population center with all of the variables that can occur outside the controlled environment of the laboratory (at the first test in New Mexico some scientists were placing personal bets with each other that the world’s atmosphere would erupt in a nuclear reaction or the world would literally crack, or that the earths rotation would be changed); and,
(5) The Russians (Stalin) were an unknown and uncertain factor that somehow had to be stopped from taking over the world. I have read that Stalin had seriously been considering going to war with the US after the war with Germany was won and that Harry Truman had some knowledge of that and used the atomic weapons for two purposes – end the war in Japan and let Stalin know we are willing to use them to win a war.

If we in the present begin to judge the actions of those in the past with whom we do not share the same physiological knowledge and with the changed morality of the present, what will the future say about the morality of our actions? Michael

 

[Njja]

We were at war with a savage group of people that believed in the "Warrior

Code" they mistreated prisoners, butchered civilians (China ect) then like most

bullys abandoned their "code" and surrendered when faced with destruction.

I have little reguard for what they brought on themselves. My sympathy is

reserved for the boys at Pearl Harbor, Bataan, Corregidor, and those

mistreated by the abused "Code of Honor"

I studied Ishin Ryu Okinawian Karate and learned a great deal about respect,

self control, and self confidence, about avoiding trouble if possible, because \

you had nothing to prove to others. I will never understand the aggorance,

and lack of humanity, often displayed by many while embracing the "Bushido

Code"

Njja

 

[jazzeum]

I think it's generally accepted that there was some political message being sent to Stalin at the time. The Allies knew they had a powerful weapon although how devastating I'm not sure they knew that. However, the Russians knew what we had because of espionage. That's why Stalin did not act surprised when Truman told him the news.

Getting back to the question at hand: they started the war, they reaped the whirlwind. What do you think the reaction would have been in the West if Truman didn't use a weapon that would have ended the war? He had no choice.

 

[VIRIATO]

We were at war with a savage group of people that believed in the "Warrior

Code" they mistreated prisoners, butchered civilians (China ect) then like most

bullys abandoned their "code" and surrendered when faced with destruction.

I have little reguard for what they brought on themselves. My sympathy is

reserved for the boys at Pearl Harbor, Bataan, Corregidor, and those

mistreated by the abused "Code of Honor"

I studied Ishin Ryu Okinawian Karate and learned a great deal about respect,

self control, and self confidence, about avoiding trouble if possible, because \

you had nothing to prove to others. I will never understand the aggorance,

and lack of humanity, often displayed by many while embracing the "Bushido

Code"

Njja

Hi Nija,
Just remember that most of the victims at Hiroshima were not the «they» you mention in your post. They were civilians, women, children, old or young people, not even military cannon fodder, civilians who just got caught in the wrong place at the wrong time and moment in history. They were the victims of a brutal militarist dictatorship at a moment when a peace party was trying to wrestle control of the country from the militarists.
How can most Japanese civilians killed at Hiroshima, Nagazaki or Tokyo be held responsible for the brutalities you mention in your post? I have simpathy for them as I have simpathy for any innocent people victimized by war. I have no simpathy for war criminals, many of them were tried by the winning powers, but they were different people. Remember, you might have been born in Japan at that time, it's that simple, just a matter of fortune.

A pleasure to debate with you,
Paulo

 

[VIRIATO]

When discussing the history of atomic bomb and Japan, I personally use the following parameters for my thought’:
(1) We did not start the aggressive acts that lead to war (the invasion of China and Korea, the Japanese agents spreading political discontent throughout Asia, the extreme nationalism and racism expressed by the leadership in Japan, etc.);
(2) We were at war with a society that did not value the individual life;
(3) We were already killing large numbers of people in combat and air raids on civilian targets (more people were killed in the fire raids on cities in Germany or Japan than were killed in the two atomic blasts or from radiation combined);
(4) While some scientists knew a great deal about nuclear radiation, no one had ever detonated one in a real life situation in a population center with all of the variables that can occur outside the controlled environment of the laboratory (at the first test in New Mexico some scientists were placing personal bets with each other that the world’s atmosphere would erupt in a nuclear reaction or the world would literally crack, or that the earths rotation would be changed); and,
(5) The Russians (Stalin) were an unknown and uncertain factor that somehow had to be stopped from taking over the world. I have read that Stalin had seriously been considering going to war with the US after the war with Germany was won and that Harry Truman had some knowledge of that and used the atomic weapons for two purposes – end the war in Japan and let Stalin know we are willing to use them to win a war.

If we in the present begin to judge the actions of those in the past with whom we do not share the same physiological knowledge and with the changed morality of the present, what will the future say about the morality of our actions? Michael

Hi Michael,
About morality, there was some morality at that time, not just today. Remember the Nuremberg trial? Have you seen the images of Mr. Oppenheimer crying on TV? If the decision to bomb was right if it was wrong, that's pretty much debatable, what I think is most important is that the fact that the bombing did occur was a tragedy, a historical milestone that had better never happened, like many others in human History. It is true that the horror only became known in its full dimension after the bombing, that's the danger with new weapons, also never before had the bombers been used in such ways. That's one of the reasons I think History is of the utmost importance: let's remember it, teach it to the newer generations, its lessons are precious.

My pleasure to debate with you,
Paulo

 

[binder001]

Actually the "civillinas" at Hiroshima were in fact "cannon fodder", every last one of them. These citizens were the personal property of the Emperor of Japan. Their lives were owed in duty to him. The home islands were their equivalent of "holy ground". It isn't just propaganda films, the Japanese civillians were being trained and indoctrinated to conduct a holy war of resistance to the white devils. The men, old and young, were to fight in the army, some young men were being given just enough pilot training to get a plane off the ground and dive it into an Allied ship. Children and youth were being trained to use bamboo spears to attack US troops, civillians were to be use to throw mines under tanks, or be worked to death in factories, the whole population was to be sacrificed for the death-cult perversion of bushido. Imagine the mind of someone who convinces a teenager to strap themselves with explosives and blow up a busload of civillians (like we have with the death cults that have perverted Islam), now multiply that times the entire population of Japan in 1945. Look at the tactics used on Okinawa and waht happened to the civillians caught in the fires. Every village and town in Japan would have to be bombed, strafed, blasted and burnt! The entire culture and history of Japan would have been erased. As casualties mounted, instead of holding the Russians off Japan, we would have been begging them to invade. End result, a divided Japan, like Korea and Germany. Instead of wringing hands over the "inocent victims" of Hiroshima, they should be remembered as fallen to save the other millions of Japanese.

Plus the Japanese WERE working on an atomic device of their own, in fact they were closer to a workable weapon than the Germans. They would have used it without any regret or remorse. They poisoned, infected and mudered thousands of Chinese civillians and many, many Allied prisoners, what makes anyone think that they would have paused a second on using an A-bomb?. They were the most fascist, racist regime in the world - even more so than the Nazis. They have just had better "spin control" on history. In fact, Japanese school children today are still taught to view themselves as the VICTIMS of WW2. Sorry, no real regrets over what happened at Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

 

[VIRIATO]

Actually the "civillinas" at Hiroshima were in fact "cannon fodder", every last one of them. These citizens were the personal property of the Emperor of Japan. Their lives were owed in duty to him. The home islands were their equivalent of "holy ground". It isn't just propaganda films, the Japanese civillians were being trained and indoctrinated to conduct a holy war of resistance to the white devils. The men, old and young, were to fight in the army, some young men were being given just enough pilot training to get a plane off the ground and dive it into an Allied ship. Children and youth were being trained to use bamboo spears to attack US troops, civillians were to be use to throw mines under tanks, or be worked to death in factories, the whole population was to be sacrificed for the death-cult perversion of bushido. Imagine the mind of someone who convinces a teenager to strap themselves with explosives and blow up a busload of civillians (like we have with the death cults that have perverted Islam), now multiply that times the entire population of Japan in 1945. Look at the tactics used on Okinawa and waht happened to the civillians caught in the fires. Every village and town in Japan would have to be bombed, strafed, blasted and burnt! The entire culture and history of Japan would have been erased. As casualties mounted, instead of holding the Russians off Japan, we would have been begging them to invade. End result, a divided Japan, like Korea and Germany. Instead of wringing hands over the "inocent victims" of Hiroshima, they should be remembered as fallen to save the other millions of Japanese.

Plus the Japanese WERE working on an atomic device of their own, in fact they were closer to a workable weapon than the Germans. They would have used it without any regret or remorse. They poisoned, infected and mudered thousands of Chinese civillians and many, many Allied prisoners, what makes anyone think that they would have paused a second on using an A-bomb?. They were the most fascist, racist regime in the world - even more so than the Nazis. They have just had better "spin control" on history. In fact, Japanese school children today are still taught to view themselves as the VICTIMS of WW2. Sorry, no real regrets over what happened at Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

Hi Binder,
The reality is that nobody can tell for sure what might have happened. At Okinawa there was fierce resistance, but also, for the first time, Japanese soldiers surrendered by the thousands. And the Japanese government was trying to negotiate peace through the Russians. As you say in your post, Japan's population was to be sacrificed by their rulers. It's easy to instrument people when you're in a closed dictatorship. The rulers were the real criminals. But at the end of the war there was already a fight between the peace party and the militarists for power, and even amongst the latter, surrendering was starting to be accepted provided that Japan kept their emperor. I sincerely doubt that Japan had much left to fight with, their economy and vital resources were a complete shambles, how could they possibly get an A-bomb? Anyway I am not fully informed on a Japanese atomic project, can you refer me to any source of information? Then again, the militarists might have won their fanatic quest for power ( there was an attempt at a coup even after the Emperor declared surrender ), who knows for sure what might have happened .
My simpathy goes to those who died at Hiroshima, Nagazaki, Dresden, Coventry, London, Warsaw. The rulers rule and the innocent die.

Interesting debate,
Paulo

 

[Njja]

Paulo

Japan had a unique class structure as explained in "The Lone Samurai" the

Life of Miyamoto Musashi by William Scott Wilson. Miyamoto Musashi killed his

first opponent at age 13. By age 30 he had fought more then 60 matches

without defeat, at that time he decided to kill no one else. He is considered

the greatest Samurai, truely without fear. He defeated one great swordsman

with a simple oar from his boat.........he kept his opponent waiting until the

swordsman lost his composure and charged Musashi as he finally rowed his

boat to shore.

You have a culture that used human victums to rate the quality of their

swords (what could be severed with one pass).

Human beings create their environments, through action or inaction. The

Japanese people were prepaired to defend the home islands to the last man

the actions taken saved many American Lives.

Njja

 

[Louis Badolato]

An interesting perspective on this issue is that of the Allied soldiers whose butts would have been on the line if Japan had to be invaded. An excellent voice for these troops is that of George MacDonald Fraser, a scout sniper in the Black Cat Division, 14th Army in Burma, in his autobiographical work "Quartered Safe Out Here". Mr. Fraser (my favorite author) wrote (at pages 217-218) as follows:

"Some years ago I heard a man denounce the nuclear bombing of Japan as an obscenity; it was monstrous, barbarous, and no civilised people could even have contemplated it; we sould all be thoroughly ashamed of it.

I couldn't argue with him, or deny the obscenity, monstrosity, and barbarism. I could only ask him questions, such as:

'Where were you when the war ended?'

'In Glasgow.'

'Will you answer a hypothetical question: if it were possible, would you give your life now, to restore one of the lives of Hiroshima?'

He wriggled a good deal, said it wasn't relevant, or logical, or whatever, but in the end, to do him justice, he admitted that he wouldn't.

So I asked him: 'By what right, then, do you say that Allied lives should have been sacrificed to save the victims of Hiroshima? Because what you're saying is that, while you're not willing to give your life, Allied soldiers should have given theirs. Mine for one, possibly.'

. . . he was unwise enoigh to say that was the point - we were soldiers, the bomb victims were civilians. . . . 'Japanese women and children!' I conceded this, and pointed out that I had three children - but if I had gone down in Malaya they'd never have been born; they would, in fact, have been as effectively deprived of existence as the children of Nagasaki. Was he advocating that?"

MacDonald Fraser concluded (at page 220) as follows:

"The dropping of the bombs was a hideous thing, and I do not wonder that some of those who bore a part in it have been haunted by it all of their lives. If it was not barbaric, the word has no meaning.

I led Nine Section for a time; leading or not, I was part of it. They were my mates, and to them I was bound by ties of duty, loyalty, and honour. Now, take Nine Section as representing these Allied soldiers who would certainly have died if the bombs had not been dropped (and remember that Nine Section might well have been not representatives, but the men themselves). Could I say, yes, Grandarse or Nick or Forster were expendable, and should have died rather than the victims of Hiroshima? No, never. And that goes for every Indian, American, Australian, African, Chinese and other soldier whose life was on the line in August, 1945. So drop the bomb.

And it was not only their lives, as I pointed out to my antibomb disputant. To reduce it to a selfish, personal level . . . if the bombs had been withheld, and the war had continued on conventional lines . . . the odds are that I'd have survived . . . But I might have been that one, in which case my three children and six grandchildren would never have been born. And that, I'm afraid, is where all discussion of pros and cons evaporates and becomes meaningless, because for those nine lives I would pull the plug on the whole Japanese nation and never even blink. And so, I dare suggest, would you."

I have a new born son, and when I look in his eyes, I know in my heart that Mr. MacDonald Fraser is right, at least from where I stand.

 

[sceic2]

Hi Nija,
Just remember that most of the victims at Hiroshima were not the «they» you mention in your post. They were civilians, women, children, old or young people, not even military cannon fodder, civilians who just got caught in the wrong place at the wrong time and moment in history. They were the victims of a brutal militarist dictatorship at a moment when a peace party was trying to wrestle control of the country from the militarists.
How can most Japanese civilians killed at Hiroshima, Nagazaki or Tokyo be held responsible for the brutalities you mention in your post? I have simpathy for them as I have simpathy for any innocent people victimized by war. I have no simpathy for war criminals, many of them were tried by the winning powers, but they were different people. Remember, you might have been born in Japan at that time, it's that simple, just a matter of fortune.

A pleasure to debate with you,
Paulo

Paulo, it is good to debate, I too enjoy a good discussion. It’s too bad this forum limits us as we engage in discussions (not face-to-face, etc.), but getting a point across in a limited amount of words is a challenge I welcome. And, I want everyone to know its friendly for my part and I take everyone else as being friendly as well. Discourse is the only way to understand each other and the tolerance of the opinions of others is vital in an open society.

First, I believe that the responsibility for a society’ government and its actions and the consequences of those actions rest with the citizens of that society, regardless if the government is totalitarian or not. If the citizens of any particular society do not, then who does? The Japanese did have innocents among them. So what. They allowed the culture to exist as it was. The Russian people also bear responsibility for Stalin. The German people bear the responsibility for Hitler. We Americans bear the responsibility for our actions as well. We held people as slaves for several hundred years. We used means of mass extermination to rid ourselves of the Indian nations and take their land for our own. We Americans have a great deal of responsibility for our actions also. One way of doing that is to be honest with others and ourselves without rewriting history to fit some acceptable model.

During the course of war, it’s not who is right or who is wrong. It’s who get there the fastest with the mostest. We got there with the mostest firstest. Might does not make right, but it wins wars. War is about winning and not being annihilated by the enemy. The Japanese would have killed millions of Americans if they had won. They would have done it without fear of consequences or their conscience. My evidence, Shanghi, Nanking, and many, many other places. I for one am not sorry we did it. It ended that horrible war and I believe saved lives. It also showed the world, we would protect our society at all cost. We won our continued existence. Michael

 

[jazzeum]

I'll say it again: they deserved what they got. Better that they should die than an American or Allied soldier should. The people get the government they deserve usually and this was no different. As Michael pointed out they don't even teach what happened in the war. Let people think of the victims of Shanghai before they feel pity for the Japanese. They reaped what they sowed.

 

[DMNamiot]

Hi Guys,

Obviously we have some very interesting opinions on this topic, I generally dont like to enter the fray on Hiroshima, because I think they got what was coming to them remember it was a total war with the stakes being the destruction of or the salvation of your country and its culture. Sitting here in 2006 I find it difficult to fathom what the state of mind was for our (US) civilians and soldiers. We can look at it a judge them as right or wrong but the simple fact is we are trying to apply our state of mind to this action and for many people it doesnt seem to be right well I am not one of those people I think they got what they deserved to get for waging war with America and her Allies.

We kick around the number of 1/2 a million GIs saved I have to say this is probably a low side estimate because of the pure and simple reason their emperor ordered them to lay down their arms and stop fighting and he could have ordered the opposite. I have had a few discussions with Vets from the Pacific Campaigns and everyone of them has said the Japs were fierce fighters and we paid dearly for every inch of realestate we took from them inorder to bring the war to a successful conclusion. So do you think they would have reacted any differently if their emperor ordered the entire nation to resist? I think not. I feel they deserved what they got and thats that.

Dave

 

[VIRIATO]

Paulo, it is good to debate, I too enjoy a good discussion. It’s too bad this forum limits us as we engage in discussions (not face-to-face, etc.), but getting a point across in a limited amount of words is a challenge I welcome. And, I want everyone to know its friendly for my part and I take everyone else as being friendly as well. Discourse is the only way to understand each other and the tolerance of the opinions of others is vital in an open society.

First, I believe that the responsibility for a society’ government and its actions and the consequences of those actions rest with the citizens of that society, regardless if the government is totalitarian or not. If the citizens of any particular society do not, then who does? The Japanese did have innocents among them. So what. They allowed the culture to exist as it was. The Russian people also bear responsibility for Stalin. The German people bear the responsibility for Hitler. We Americans bear the responsibility for our actions as well. We held people as slaves for several hundred years. We used means of mass extermination to rid ourselves of the Indian nations and take their land for our own. We Americans have a great deal of responsibility for our actions also. One way of doing that is to be honest with others and ourselves without rewriting history to fit some acceptable model.

During the course of war, it’s not who is right or who is wrong. It’s who get there the fastest with the mostest. We got there with the mostest firstest. Might does not make right, but it wins wars. War is about winning and not being annihilated by the enemy. The Japanese would have killed millions of Americans if they had won. They would have done it without fear of consequences or their conscience. My evidence, Shanghi, Nanking, and many, many other places. I for one am not sorry we did it. It ended that horrible war and I believe saved lives. It also showed the world, we would protect our society at all cost. We won our continued existence. Michael

Hi Michael,
Very interesting point you raised about people's responsibility for their regimes. This might lead us very far indeed, like to the responsibility of the German people for the Holocaust. The way I see it, and it's just my 2 cents, people are not inherently good or heroic or willing to sacrifice their lives to overthrow totalitarian regimes. They mostly think about going on with their daily lives the best way they can. They are easy prey to propaganda and disinformation. Throughout History, in totalitarian regimes, very small informed minorities, elites if you like, started the opposition to those regimes and eventually toppled them by eventually getting others on their side. How did they fall indeed? I think the general upraising against the totalitarian regime is mostly a fantasy, wishful thinking if you like.
For me it's clear that the Bomb brought a fastest end to the war. But perhaps more important, the experience of its horror surely prevented a Third World War. No Cold War conflict was ever resolved through this mean, thank God. This doesn't make it less of a humane tragedy ( my point is not being sorry about it but acknowledging it as a horror that must never happen again ). But other tragedies happened in this particular war, and in this thread my intention was to focus not just on Hiroshima but also on the widespread use of bombing by both sides against civilian targets. The Holocaust is something different, maybe another thread someday.
I also understand that I am an outsider, and that it's easy to talk about something that occurred 60 years ago. Only the people that went through it really know how it feels, and I have my utmost respect for them. Sometimes I have seen War remembrance ceremonies through TV in London, those with the royalty present, the bands, the bells,the veterans, the deep silence. It sends a shiver through my spine: just think of such enormous loss of human life. But I am surely glad there was victory in the allied's hands. My parents told me that even here in Portugal, a non belligerent country, there was widespread cellebration and relief. Maybe relief was the key word for everyone, either side of the equation.


Warm regards,
Paulo

 

[VIRIATO]

Hi Guys,

Obviously we have some very interesting opinions on this topic, I generally dont like to enter the fray on Hiroshima, because I think they got what was coming to them remember it was a total war with the stakes being the destruction of or the salvation of your country and its culture. Sitting here in 2006 I find it difficult to fathom what the state of mind was for our (US) civilians and soldiers. We can look at it a judge them as right or wrong but the simple fact is we are trying to apply our state of mind to this action and for many people it doesnt seem to be right well I am not one of those people I think they got what they deserved to get for waging war with America and her Allies.

We kick around the number of 1/2 a million GIs saved I have to say this is probably a low side estimate because of the pure and simple reason their emperor ordered them to lay down their arms and stop fighting and he could have ordered the opposite. I have had a few discussions with Vets from the Pacific Campaigns and everyone of them has said the Japs were fierce fighters and we paid dearly for every inch of realestate we took from them inorder to bring the war to a successful conclusion. So do you think they would have reacted any differently if their emperor ordered the entire nation to resist? I think not. I feel they deserved what they got and thats that.

Dave

Hi Dave,
You have used a key expression: «total war». That's what I regret, that it was a total war and that it happened that way, besides the fact that it happened at all, total or not. Let's hope no more total wars come our way.


Regards,
Paulo

 

[VIRIATO]

An interesting perspective on this issue is that of the Allied soldiers whose butts would have been on the line if Japan had to be invaded. An excellent voice for these troops is that of George MacDonald Fraser, a scout sniper in the Black Cat Division, 14th Army in Burma, in his autobiographical work "Quartered Safe Out Here". Mr. Fraser (my favorite author) wrote (at pages 217-218) as follows:

"Some years ago I heard a man denounce the nuclear bombing of Japan as an obscenity; it was monstrous, barbarous, and no civilised people could even have contemplated it; we sould all be thoroughly ashamed of it.

I couldn't argue with him, or deny the obscenity, monstrosity, and barbarism. I could only ask him questions, such as:

'Where were you when the war ended?'

'In Glasgow.'

'Will you answer a hypothetical question: if it were possible, would you give your life now, to restore one of the lives of Hiroshima?'

He wriggled a good deal, said it wasn't relevant, or logical, or whatever, but in the end, to do him justice, he admitted that he wouldn't.

So I asked him: 'By what right, then, do you say that Allied lives should have been sacrificed to save the victims of Hiroshima? Because what you're saying is that, while you're not willing to give your life, Allied soldiers should have given theirs. Mine for one, possibly.'

. . . he was unwise enoigh to say that was the point - we were soldiers, the bomb victims were civilians. . . . 'Japanese women and children!' I conceded this, and pointed out that I had three children - but if I had gone down in Malaya they'd never have been born; they would, in fact, have been as effectively deprived of existence as the children of Nagasaki. Was he advocating that?"

MacDonald Fraser concluded (at page 220) as follows:

"The dropping of the bombs was a hideous thing, and I do not wonder that some of those who bore a part in it have been haunted by it all of their lives. If it was not barbaric, the word has no meaning.

I led Nine Section for a time; leading or not, I was part of it. They were my mates, and to them I was bound by ties of duty, loyalty, and honour. Now, take Nine Section as representing these Allied soldiers who would certainly have died if the bombs had not been dropped (and remember that Nine Section might well have been not representatives, but the men themselves). Could I say, yes, Grandarse or Nick or Forster were expendable, and should have died rather than the victims of Hiroshima? No, never. And that goes for every Indian, American, Australian, African, Chinese and other soldier whose life was on the line in August, 1945. So drop the bomb.

And it was not only their lives, as I pointed out to my antibomb disputant. To reduce it to a selfish, personal level . . . if the bombs had been withheld, and the war had continued on conventional lines . . . the odds are that I'd have survived . . . But I might have been that one, in which case my three children and six grandchildren would never have been born. And that, I'm afraid, is where all discussion of pros and cons evaporates and becomes meaningless, because for those nine lives I would pull the plug on the whole Japanese nation and never even blink. And so, I dare suggest, would you."

I have a new born son, and when I look in his eyes, I know in my heart that Mr. MacDonald Fraser is right, at least from where I stand.

Hi Louis,
Very interesting book, for sure. Interesting point, from where you stand. As I said in other replys, what I regret is that the War happened that way, a total war as Dave very well put it. If it was really necessary or not necessary to bomb, I remain unsure. Would the Japanese have fought to the last? Would they not? I have no knowledge of real civilians, Japanese or German, or Italian, fighting Allied soldiers in their lands. But who knows? Listen to General MacArthur's final words at the surrender scene at Tokyo Bay: he surely knew the value of peace.

Regards,
Paulo

 

[VIRIATO]

Paulo

Japan had a unique class structure as explained in "The Lone Samurai" the

Life of Miyamoto Musashi by William Scott Wilson. Miyamoto Musashi killed his

first opponent at age 13. By age 30 he had fought more then 60 matches

without defeat, at that time he decided to kill no one else. He is considered

the greatest Samurai, truely without fear. He defeated one great swordsman

with a simple oar from his boat.........he kept his opponent waiting until the

swordsman lost his composure and charged Musashi as he finally rowed his

boat to shore.

You have a culture that used human victums to rate the quality of their

swords (what could be severed with one pass).

Human beings create their environments, through action or inaction. The

Japanese people were prepaired to defend the home islands to the last man

the actions taken saved many American Lives.

Njja

Interesting point on responsiblity Nija. If you'd like see further below, pardon, further up... my poor 2 cents.

Regards,
Paulo