Hiroshima (1 Viewer)

[VIRIATO]

There are some interesting links around, when I get back with more time I'll try to list some.

 

[panda1gen]

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

Dear Michael

At one level I agree but the problem is this, once a totalitarian government gets hold - and the lesson from Germany in particular is that it can happen to any potentially civilised or democratic country - the levers of power mean that it is already too late. I have not seen anyone argue that the Japanese regime in WW2 would have hesitated to use the bomb.

Once at war, the powers that be do what they consider they must, including the A bomb. At least we now (theoretically?) have the UN and the Hague courts to hold them to account if they cross the line.

As for the regimes, most Iraqis didn't want Saddam. The Russians lost 25 million people killed by Stalin's regime, more than Hitler killed depending upon whom you read, the colonial powers including the British and Americans have acted arguably 'undemocratically' to other groups at times. Power corrupts......

One million+ people demonstrated in London against going to war in Iraq - did it make any difference?

Some people are apparently worried about Britain and US civil rights because of the war on terror. There was a TV programme about a 20 year labour supporter being thrown out of the party conference and then detained - briefly - under the prevention of terrorism act, just this week - his 'crime'? To shout 'rubbish' from the back to some of the comments made in a speech by the foreign secretary in the party conference. (To make matters worse he was a Jew born in Germany before the war but who managed to escape - the programme reflected his anger at the way he felt the party was going)

How do you unseat a Government peacefully, except in a democracy? Isn't that what the second world war in particular was about?

Sorry for the political posturing but at the end of the day, we shouldn't lose sight of what it is all about.

 

[jazzeum]

Let's try to veer away from getting into current politics as this can be a very divisive issue.

 

[panda1gen]

OK, not trying to be modern political but it is recent history

 

[CannonFodder1971]

Given time zones this one has the potential to be quite a long relay. I'll try to dig out a few reference works on Potsdam but you must remember Truman's shortcomings on the whole Russian dimension on this, and whatever about the means through which the coup de grace would be delivered to Japan it should be remembered that Hisorshima and Nagasaki were as much exhibitions for the benefit of other parties as they were a means of ending the war. And by bringing the USSR in as a co-belligerent ally in the Pacific theatre was to cost 35,000 Americans in less than a decade afterwards, in Korea, so the decisions were not cheap in terms of American lives and they were real and concrete losses unlike the theoretical ½ million we hear about. Had Stalin's henchmen been landed with the job of negotiating with the Japanese it would have kept them firmly out of the theatre and still given some leverage for the buffer zone that was being created in post-war Europe, eg the Lublin puppet regime was a blank cheque with no reciprocal benefit to the Allies. There could've been so much more achieved at Potsdam had there been less machismo with the atom bomb. I still think Truman could've radically altered the post-War balance of power in the entire Pacific rim had he roped the Russians into the surrender of Japan.

 

[Louis Badolato]

Paolo,

This is cetainly an interesting debate. I agree that total war is a terrible thing, but it is unquestionable that WWII was such a war. Perhaps a more interesting question than whether Hiroshima or Nagasaki was right is whether the United States would have dropped an A-Bomb in Germany if we had one before the Nazi's surrendered. I have noticed that, historically, most acts by America that can be debatably called barbaric have been inflicted on non-european opponents (the A-Bombs on Japan, the massacre of American Indians in the 19th Century, our actions in the Philopines after the Spanish American War or in Nicaragua in the 1920's). We certainly had no compunction about the fire bombing of Dresden, which gravitates in favor of the conclusion that we would have used the A-bomb on Germany, but the use of conventional weapons is very different than the use of weapons of mass destruction. The Nazis, who had stockpiles of Somin and Sarin, the deadliest nerve agents of the time, never used them on the Allies in WWII. I wonder what we would have done?

Regards,

Louis

 

[sceic2]

I think we would have used the bomb on Germany, had they been further along in the development of their version. I have read several books and seen a couple of documentaries about the motivation of the lead German nuclear scientist to not be as productive as he could have been. There has been some debate as to his motives but the fact is that he did not press the issue the way that Einstein had thought that he was.

The second issue is the production of heavy water. Heavy water is an important manufacturing aid in the production of fissionable material. When the Allies conducted a raid on the heavy water facilities in Norway, they found that the total volume of heavy water was not sufficient to be of any value and that the Nazi’ were not producing it at the rate they were thought to have been. They just did not have the facilities or the expertise in place the way we did. It is true; the Japanese were closer than the Germans. One of the last U-boats to leave Germany for Japan near the end of the war was loaded with fissionable uranium. Yes, we Americans are quick to use violence against the colored races faster than the white race, however, this was total war and I think that Roosevelt and Truman would both have used the bomb where it was needed, Europe or Japan. Michael

 

[Eazy]

One of the best things to come from the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is the fact that nuclear weapons have never been used since.

The world saw the effect of what could happen and that gave second thoughts to the leaders of the Cold War who held the power in thier hands.

If we hadn't seen the effect of nuclear war how much easier would it have been to push that button?

 

[VIRIATO]

Paolo,

This is cetainly an interesting debate. I agree that total war is a terrible thing, but it is unquestionable that WWII was such a war. Perhaps a more interesting question than whether Hiroshima or Nagasaki was right is whether the United States would have dropped an A-Bomb in Germany if we had one before the Nazi's surrendered. I have noticed that, historically, most acts by America that can be debatably called barbaric have been inflicted on non-european opponents (the A-Bombs on Japan, the massacre of American Indians in the 19th Century, our actions in the Philopines after the Spanish American War or in Nicaragua in the 1920's). We certainly had no compunction about the fire bombing of Dresden, which gravitates in favor of the conclusion that we would have used the A-bomb on Germany, but the use of conventional weapons is very different than the use of weapons of mass destruction. The Nazis, who had stockpiles of Somin and Sarin, the deadliest nerve agents of the time, never used them on the Allies in WWII. I wonder what we would have done?

Regards,

Louis

Hi Louis,
When one says the dropping of the bomb was barbaric, one must take into account not only that there was total war but also much more barbaric acts that took place during WWII. I think the Holocaust or the massacres perpretated by the Japanese were much more cold blooded, unjustified deeds than the dropping of the bomb: the A-Bomb at least had the objective of finishing the war although it remains debatable, in my view, if it had been absolutely necessary to drop it.
Also, like I've pointed out in my first post and somebody else also pointed out, moral and civilization standards evolve, and it's certainly awkward to judge actions from the past in the light of today's values. Slavery was considered acceptable until values changed through a lot of drama including the ACW. This is also valid for the massacres of the american Indians: it was part of the colonial methods, let's put it that way. This political correctness thing of saying you're sorry for something done many years or even centuries ago, under completely different values, seems a little absurd to me. Also take into account that the ones that ask for forgiveness are sometimes many generations away from the real culprits.
About Germany being bombed, I think if it had been deemed necessary it would possibly have happened. But fortunately things did not go that way, the situation was quite different from Japan's, Germany being directly suffocated by the Russians and the Western Allies from both sides, without the advantage of being an island. If Germany had been A-bombed, maybe Europe would'n't be what it is today, so deep would the scar be and so different are, I think, the Japanese people and the German one. Also the bombing Allies would constantly be in Germany's face, so to speak, while in Japan's case there is an ocean between them and the US. Well, speculation...


Regards,
Paulo

 

[Louis Badolato]

Paolo,

I agree that there were far more barbaric actions in WWII perpetrated by the Japanese than our dropping of the A-Bomb. The rape of Nanking, the Bataan Death March and the systematic starvation, abuse and eventual killing of thousands of P.O.W.'s at camps such as Cabanatuan are certainly far worse. Quite frankly, I don't believe a debate like the one we are having today could have occurred back then. I think the citizens of the United States, Great Britain, China and the Commonwealth nations hated the Japanese, and probably rejoiced at their surrender, no matter what the means of bringing it about. I believe that while morality has certainly evolved since WWII, one thing remains the same: the acts of the Japanese Troops, whether or not you believe in the "Bushido" warrior code as they interpreted it, have horrified all who have studied it. I suspect that, as terrible as it sounds (and I certainly don't hold these feelings personally), a good many of the combatants and civilian victims of the Japanese Empire would like to have seen more A-bombs dropped on Japan.

Regards,

Louis

 

[sceic2]

As Shakespeare said in one of his plays, “The world is a stage and we are but players upon it.” The final act on nuclear weapons is yet to be written. Who knows what will happen if some extreme group decides to detonate one in some population center? If Iran gets the capability or if North Korea feels the need, life will change for us all. At that point who cares who dropped the first one, it’s who drops the last one that counts, if you want to be around after. And, as he said, “The plays the thing.” Michael

 

[Joey]

This thread has been an interesting read.

Just my opinion:

I believe the A-bomb was not absolutely necessary, but it certainly speede up things. No matter what the cost was, much worse things happened throughout WWII. The A-bombs weren't as destructive as the air raid on Tokio either.

In my opinion, I think the Japanese emperor even saw this bomb as a possibility of not losing popularity. Once Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuked, the emperor had an excuse to surrender. He just said that because of the cruelty the allies had shown, he had to surrender to protect the people of Japan. Since WWII, the imperial family is more popular then ever...

BTW, anyone ever read the story about the only man surviving the two A-bombs dropped on Japan?

 

[Fubar]

Binder , Here , Here!!!
That nails it .

Fubar