-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Hiroshima's complex legacy re-examined
- Thread starter themadcowtipper
- Start date
- Status
Red Scarlet
Member
Boogie is making me anticipate going back to school..
Despite the reasons/arguments for and against the bombs, I hope that both Hiroshima and Nagasaki are remembered.
Despite the reasons/arguments for and against the bombs, I hope that both Hiroshima and Nagasaki are remembered.
Red Scarlet said:
:lol Yeah, I'm itching to get back to classes too. HIS 343: The History of Modern Espionage. I can't wait
And I agree. However justified dropping the bombs may or may not be, they were still great tragedies and need to be remembered.
demon said:
Finally went back to read that from page 1. Another good article.
LegendofJoe
Member
NotMSRP you have to be one of the most naive persons I have ever encountered on the Internet, or anywhere else for that matter. Do yourself a favor and try to discern what is true or false on your own as opposed to blindly believing whatever you are told.
I hate to call you a sheep, but based on this thread you sure do seem like one.
I hate to call you a sheep, but based on this thread you sure do seem like one.
xabre said:
As has been demonstrated by certain articles linked from here, the Japanese government's peace overtures through the USSR being made in good faith is questionable at best.
Bzzt, sorry. This is the Second World War. Japan was a belligerent, aggressive power which had gone on a decade of expansion and conquest. Unconditional surrender was not an "arrogant concept", it was entirely rational and reasonable.
If the "war hawks" and military are the ones in charge (and they were), then their attitudes are the ones that mattered.
Crag Dweller
aka kindbudmaster
Found another link that examines in detail what we a discussing here. http://www.cia.gov/csi/monograph/4253605299/csi9810001.html#rtoc9
Also a page from PBS about this subject. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/pacific/index.html
Also a page from PBS about this subject. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/pacific/index.html
Kindbudmaster said:
More great finds.
From the first link:
Although xabre has seen fit not to participate, I'd still like to explain a bit why I think that unconditional surrender was a reasonable policy.
In a war like this, there can be serious consequences if you are to agree to a negotiated/incomplete surrender with the enemy state. You could end up with a situation very similar to Post-First World War Germany: a defeated state whose population does not think it has been defeated.
And the consequences of such a situation can be very dear indeed, since in Germany's case, they contributed to the outbreak of the Second World War. To accept less than unconditional surrender would be to risk the outbreak of another war twenty years down the line because you did not completey rid the "defeated" state of the mentality which led them to embark on their war of expansion in the first place.
Thanks for the links.
My personal take on this is probably irrelevant since it's Japanese people that got nuked, well, i naturally feel like we got shortchanged or the Americans were just being asses.
In anycase, reading various sources and putting the war in perspective, I think the atomic bombs were not pre-destined to end the war, but given our iteration of the universe (assuming several parallel universes) what was to be done had to be done.
The worst possible outcome for me is a divided Japan that surrenders too late after the Soviets had invaded, or a US capitalutation that leads most of Japan un-occupied. Japan today might be another pariah state. Of course, there is also the real possibility that Japan as a state may not even exist had the US-Russians invaded and most Japanese faught to the death, not to mention the tremendous loss of life on all sides, but mostly on the civilians who were beholden to the emepror and would die for him.
In the west, it seems like it's ok to portray Germans as pure evil in World War II, because they were white and racist. When talking about Japan, white guilt kicks in and it suddenly becomes about US racism, or US ulterior motives.
My suspicion is that because the war in the pacific was essentially an American victory, people outside and academics who genetically dislikes and distrusts American motives had to double guess every American decision because it's human nature to do so.
That's what I think anyways.
My personal take on this is probably irrelevant since it's Japanese people that got nuked, well, i naturally feel like we got shortchanged or the Americans were just being asses.
In anycase, reading various sources and putting the war in perspective, I think the atomic bombs were not pre-destined to end the war, but given our iteration of the universe (assuming several parallel universes) what was to be done had to be done.
The worst possible outcome for me is a divided Japan that surrenders too late after the Soviets had invaded, or a US capitalutation that leads most of Japan un-occupied. Japan today might be another pariah state. Of course, there is also the real possibility that Japan as a state may not even exist had the US-Russians invaded and most Japanese faught to the death, not to mention the tremendous loss of life on all sides, but mostly on the civilians who were beholden to the emepror and would die for him.
In the west, it seems like it's ok to portray Germans as pure evil in World War II, because they were white and racist. When talking about Japan, white guilt kicks in and it suddenly becomes about US racism, or US ulterior motives.
My suspicion is that because the war in the pacific was essentially an American victory, people outside and academics who genetically dislikes and distrusts American motives had to double guess every American decision because it's human nature to do so.
That's what I think anyways.
Instigator
Banned
Deku said:
While the Japanese were rather brutal, they basically wanted to be like the other Western powers of that time, carve up a little empire of their own, be a big player. With America also expanding in the Pacific and trying to limit Japan's influence, this created the potential for conflict. WW2 just provided the opportunity for opened hostilities.
The Nazis were mass murderers, but the shitty Versailles treaty (gave away parts of China to Japan... :rollseyes), on top of the depression, just paved the way for that kind of government to take over.
Imagining an invasion of Japan puts chills down my back. Sometime during the tail end of the war, Japan had brought back troops to Japan from Manchukuo to defend the home islands. I think I heard a number awhile back that said there were 3 Million soldiers on the Japanese home islands by mid 1945 - could be more, could be less. Seems reasonable enough.
Just imagine it for a minute.
Allied ships arriving. Bombs exploding on Japanese beaches in Kyushu. Kamikaze coming from all directions. Death, blood, everywhere. In the end, the allies capture the Japanese coast.
Moving on. The allies launch offensives on the inner parts of Kyushu. Soldiers and civilians alike hide in trees waiting to ambush allied soldiers. Men wait in their houses with katanas or guns in their hand hoping to get the hit on the Americans, even if it means suicide. The Japanese dig potholes to prevent tanks from rolling in. Yet, the allies capture more land.
They reach the cities of Nagasaki and others. People wait in their houses and ambush the soldiers with katanas, guns, whatever. The tops of houses are riddled with huge buckets of hot water waiting to burn soldiers with. Groups of people - could be women or children if they were that desperate - in the streets pretending to be civilians and then blowing themselves up at the last minute (kinda like today's terrorists in Iraq).
I don't think I need to go on. People have written books about an invasion of Japan, and I've never read any of them. But I don't doubt what I put up would occur. Would the allies have conquered Japan? Eventually, but why claim a victory when you would have no enemy to claim it to?
Yikes.
EDIT: http://www.waszak.com/japanww2.htm
:O
Just imagine it for a minute.
Allied ships arriving. Bombs exploding on Japanese beaches in Kyushu. Kamikaze coming from all directions. Death, blood, everywhere. In the end, the allies capture the Japanese coast.
Moving on. The allies launch offensives on the inner parts of Kyushu. Soldiers and civilians alike hide in trees waiting to ambush allied soldiers. Men wait in their houses with katanas or guns in their hand hoping to get the hit on the Americans, even if it means suicide. The Japanese dig potholes to prevent tanks from rolling in. Yet, the allies capture more land.
They reach the cities of Nagasaki and others. People wait in their houses and ambush the soldiers with katanas, guns, whatever. The tops of houses are riddled with huge buckets of hot water waiting to burn soldiers with. Groups of people - could be women or children if they were that desperate - in the streets pretending to be civilians and then blowing themselves up at the last minute (kinda like today's terrorists in Iraq).
I don't think I need to go on. People have written books about an invasion of Japan, and I've never read any of them. But I don't doubt what I put up would occur. Would the allies have conquered Japan? Eventually, but why claim a victory when you would have no enemy to claim it to?
Yikes.
EDIT: http://www.waszak.com/japanww2.htm
:O
Instigator
Banned
CVXFREAK said:
But invasion and nuking Japan were not the only options.
Japan is really a small, densely populated country with little ressources except human ones. Bomb its industrial/military base and keep a blockade all around it and you don't have to invade. The Japanese threat is neutralized. An invasion is just the need to declare victory.
Before history buffs come in, I know the prelude to the Cold War probably prevented a containment scenario. Nuking Japan was not just about bringing a quick end to the war, it was a large warning sign to the Soviets. They were already thinking about the next war and Japan was the first playground.
Red Scarlet
Member
GaimeGuy said:
For the most part, the Russian people loved Stalin, and many thought he was unaware of the starvation and prison camps throughout the country. Those that were in the know that fell out of his favor or became useless (Kamanev/Zinoviev/Yezhov) were killed along with those that either spoke/wrote/voted out against him outright (Trotsky/Bukharin/17th Congress). Even some of the people imprisoned by him cried at the news of his death. The *public* "hate" for Stalin did not really begin until after Kruschev denouncing Stalin at the 20th Party Congress (de-Stalinization).
After his death, Stalin was more or less declared a tyrannical monster, his corpse was removed from the mausoleum Lenin was buried in, and moved off to a small garden to the side of the building. The only remaining statue of Stalin is in Georgia, where he was born.
I'm not much of a book reader, but a book I did read about Stalin was really great about the man, called Stalin: Triumph and Tragedy.
Crag Dweller
aka kindbudmaster
Drozmight said:
These are taken fron a Q&A from the link I posted from the PBS show "Victory in the Pacific"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/pacific/sfeature/sf_forum.html
Also this:
SantaC
Member
Wasn't Albert Einstein indirectly involved in making the first Atomic Bomb? Maybe we should thank Einstein for hating Hitler and leaving for the US. Imagine Einstein working the A-Bomb for the Germans instead.
Saw a very interesting documentary couple of months ago, where Hitler had a plan to drop an Atomic Bomb in New York. According to the documentary, Hitler was close of achieving this, but thanks to bomb raids by the british, they destroyed Hitler's secret bases.
Ironicly, the man once working for Hitler was responible for creating the first rocket to the moon.
Saw a very interesting documentary couple of months ago, where Hitler had a plan to drop an Atomic Bomb in New York. According to the documentary, Hitler was close of achieving this, but thanks to bomb raids by the british, they destroyed Hitler's secret bases.
Ironicly, the man once working for Hitler was responible for creating the first rocket to the moon.
SantaCruZer said:
No, Einstein really opposed Hitler and very soon after he left Germany he wrote a letter to FDR (in August of 1939) encouraging the US to start a nuclear program to develop such a weapon before the Nazis could. Einstein knew how bad it could be if Hitler got his hands on such a weapon and didn't want to see that happen so in a way he kicked off what would lead to the Manhattan Project.
After the war, he did lobby for nuclear disarmament.
Crag Dweller
aka kindbudmaster
ManaByte said:
Scientists in the 1930s, using machines that could break apart the nuclear cores of atoms, confirmed Einstein's formula E=mc² . The release of energy in a nuclear transformation was so great that it could cause a detectable change in the mass of the nucleus. But the study of nuclei -- in those years the fastest growing area of physics -- had scant effect on Einstein. Nuclear physicists were gathering into ever-larger teams of scientists and technicians, heavily funded by governments and foundations, engaged in experiments using massive devices. Such work was alien to Einstein's habit of abstract thought, done alone or with a mathematical assistant. In return, experimental nuclear physicists in the 1930s had little need for Einstein's theories.
In August 1939 nuclear physicists came to Einstein, not for scientific but for political help. The fission of the uranium nucleus had recently been discovered. A long-time friend, Leo Szilard, and other physicists realized that uranium might be used for enormously devastating bombs. They had reason to fear that Nazi Germany might construct such weapons. Einstein, reacting to the danger from Hitler's aggression, had already abandoned his strict pacifism. He now signed a letter that was delivered to the American president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, warning him to take action. This letter, and a second Einstein-Szilard letter of March 1940, joined efforts by other scientists to prod the United States government into preparing for nuclear warfare. Einstein played no other role in the nuclear bomb project. As a German who had supported left-wing causes, he was denied security clearance for such sensitive work. But during the war he did perform useful service as a consultant for the United States Navy's Bureau of Ordnance.
http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/nuclear1.htm
http://www.childrenofthemanhattanproject.org/HISTORY/H-03.htm
http://www.dannen.com/ae-fdr.html
Instigator said:
Looks like a blockade would have killed even more Japanese through starvation.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/pacific/sfeature/sf_forum_0505.html#b
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
Anyone doubting the need to drop the bombs should read a book about how the war in the Pacific was actually fought. That would really offer some perspective on the mindset of the American political leaders. As someone else said, you're using a 2005 mentality to things that happened in the early 1940s when the world was a very different place.
Japanese were brainwashed to the point that mothers threw their children off of cliffs before commiting suicide themselves instead of surrendering to American troops on the various islands that the US liberated. Tiny, insignificant islands were absolute charnel houses. 6,800 Americans died taking Iwo Jima alone. It is beyond sobering to imagine a full scale invasion of the mainland.
Japanese were brainwashed to the point that mothers threw their children off of cliffs before commiting suicide themselves instead of surrendering to American troops on the various islands that the US liberated. Tiny, insignificant islands were absolute charnel houses. 6,800 Americans died taking Iwo Jima alone. It is beyond sobering to imagine a full scale invasion of the mainland.
Instigator
Banned
Vormund said:
That's all assuming Japan wouldn't surrender and that no attempts to surrender were made which is the main argument for nuking them.
I don't think anyone who actually supports nuking Japan can seriously argue it was done to save Japanese lives. If the Japanese were really that fanatical then the logic of dropping nukes would be to keep nuking them until they surrender. It's a high-stake game that could have meant more than two cities being vaporized if the enemy chose to remain stubborn and proud.
Actually, Einstein supported the use of the ABomb, believe it or not.
I'm trying to find the exact quote, but I remember a quote of him saying "Sometimes, it is necessary to do an evil thing to prevent an even greater evil from taking place"
Something like that, at least.
I'm trying to find the exact quote, but I remember a quote of him saying "Sometimes, it is necessary to do an evil thing to prevent an even greater evil from taking place"
Something like that, at least.
Way to ignore the point entirely, which is that a full-scale invasion of japan would have been immeasurably more costly in lives than the invasion of such a small island. But continue ignoring that...ronito said:You're right. That's much more than the civilians killed in the bombings or by radiation. Or all the people that would've been slaughtered in negotiations, or blockade. I'm totally convinced champ.
Nah. I've read several books on Iwo Jima. I'm just saying that civilian lives that were lost were much more than the lives of soldiers that were lost. Way to ignore that. Yes, a land invasion would've been disasterous, but if given time cooler heads might've prevailed. Guess we'll never know now.
Vinzer Deling
Banned
Boogie said:
What exactly are you trying to imply? That Japan deserved it solely because they were colonizing Asia?
I guess only the western powers can be belligerent aggressive power which had gone on a century of expansion and conquest.
I wonder where the Japanese got the idea of colonialism = power? Oh yeah from the British Empire (India, Thailand, Myanmar, Malaysia), France Union (Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos), Dutch (Indonesia) and Americans (Hawaii, Phillippines, misc Pacific islands).
:lol
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
ronito, if you had been president you could have told the country that we would wait for the cooler heads to prevail as thousands of kamikaze pilots added to their tally of dead Americans every day in what was by then an obviously lost cause to everyone but the Japanese.
Even at the time the bombs were dropped, the Japanese were still killing thousands of Asians every month. Don't forget them in your calculations.
Even at the time the bombs were dropped, the Japanese were still killing thousands of Asians every month. Don't forget them in your calculations.
Vinzer Deling
Banned
Guileless said:
By proxy of being drafted into the Japanese army towards the end of the war. :lol
ronito said:
A land invasion was planned for December 1945. It was pretty much ready to go forward and planned out in very great detail. If the A-Bomb didn't do it's job, the invasion was ready as a backup plan. There wasn't time for "cooler heads to prevail". Either they could use the atomic bomb and lose 100,000 people or go forward with the land invasion and lose 2,000,000 (or more).
If they went with the land invasion and 2,000,000 people were killed, how the hell do you explain to people that you had a weapon that could've prevented that much loss of life at a tenth of the number of losses?
btrboyev said:
You stated something that was revisionist/apologist bullshit that was already shot down multiple times in this thread.
People like you need to go down to a bookstore, or hell turn on the History Channel, and study WWII for a while to understand the state of things in the 1940s. Japan was ready to fight until the last child, and even after the bombing there were elements that wanted to prevent the Emperor from surrendering.
Sometimes I'm convinced the actual teaching of historical fact has failed in favor of implanting agendas on students. NotMSRP's loyalty to his "professor" who says Japan was days away from having an A-Bomb in August 1945 just backs up my disgust.
Actually, go turn on your TV and turn on the History Channel right now. With today being the 60th Anniversary of the Atomic Bomb dropping; the channel is running multiple excellent documentaries on the end of WWII. You may learn a thing or two.
To be fair, most on the left regard the History Channel or any sort of program that tells 'national' history to be disgusting right-wing/corporate propaganda produced with the tacit approval of the government to propagate a myth of national identity.
So you'd likely get that kind of rhetorical 'well, such and such channel/program is biased' in favour of a right-wing agenda.
Your point though is valid, since most of the time, even if there is valid criticism about 'national' histories and historical programs being a bit too jingoistic or patriotic, the alternative history presented is skewed in the other direction.
I honestly don't think the A-bomb issue is going to be settled, although its nice to see that a supposedly left-wing GAF OT board can actually have a sane discussion about this without it turning into a Noam Chomsky choirboys get together.
So you'd likely get that kind of rhetorical 'well, such and such channel/program is biased' in favour of a right-wing agenda.
Your point though is valid, since most of the time, even if there is valid criticism about 'national' histories and historical programs being a bit too jingoistic or patriotic, the alternative history presented is skewed in the other direction.
I honestly don't think the A-bomb issue is going to be settled, although its nice to see that a supposedly left-wing GAF OT board can actually have a sane discussion about this without it turning into a Noam Chomsky choirboys get together.
Deku said:
The History Channel isn't just "national" history...
I fear the future of mankind if looking at historical fact is considerd propaganda by any political side.
Edit: Actually I find it hilarious how anyone can think the History Channel is right-wing propaganda especially when their big special this month is called "Ape to Man":
http://www.historychannel.com/apetoman/
ManaByte said:
The History Channel, I've been told from people who object to most of its programming, tends to glorify war, conflict, conquest, and when it comes to American history, generally tow the conservative line. I have some problems with this as well because some of the programming sounds and feels like a government sanctioned text book.
The left as a rule, dislikes war, thinks war doesn't solve anything (even if it actually can), and is suspicious of patriotism, because they think there's too much of it. So that pretty much makes all the programming of the history channel, which focuses primarily on human conflict, right-wing programming to brainwash the public in their eyes. A left learning history channel would run endless documentaries about unions fighting corporations, reruns of Chomsky's stuff, and stuff like the Power of Nightmares, and maybe some documentaries and programming on warfare during the politically correct days of the year when its ok to celebrate war, but only World War II, and only the victory against the evil facist Nazis.
btrboyev said:
Maybe writing something more substantive than one line flame bait sentences would help your cause.
Deku said:
Again, how could a channel with a major big-budget special titled "Ape to Man" (all about the missing link) be considered right-wing propaganda? Evolution? RIGHT WING PROPAGANDA about EVOLUTION? :lol :lol :lol :lol
Edit: Hell. Last week there was a really good show on the History Channel giving possible scientific explanations for things the Bible describes. Why would a right-wing channel be trying to give scientific explanations for miracles?
ManaByte said:
I haven't been watching the History channel lately, but I don't think the left would have a problem with evolution programming. But then again, that's really new territory for the History Channel, because Evolution is closer to science than history. But I'm just saying that the conflict based programming tends to get a thumbs down from the left.
And what I mean from the left isn't John Kerry left, who is basically left-wing relatively speaking to an extremely right-wing Republican party, but real people on the left, like Ralf Nader, Noam Chomsky and a lot of GAF posters, acorrding to a political survey people took.
Deku said:
No it is not something new for the History Channel. The History Channel is a spin off from the Discovery Channel and from DAY ONE the History Channel has had a very strong scientific/fact-based background and is the farthest thing from a right-wing mouthpiece you can get.
- Status