Oh no William you are very good at making rash statements and then vanishing without answering your critics.Look back at this whole thread and you have disappeared at ever crucial issue.You have to explain how you see japans and germany's horrific acts as mere reprisals or reacting to certain violence against them.I cant wait to hear your logic on this view, as its a new take on a subject i have seen debated a thousand times.
xris, so were they
They had neither the resouces nor the manpower to control anyone; yet they do have an enormous pride and honor that unites them as a people and still do as did the Germans at that time.
It is common sense, for Japan to attack such a power as the United States could only come from an act of "desperation", IMO.
William once again you make certain claims or air your views without one ounce of truth in them.This distortion of the truth is worrying ,i wonder what drives you to make statements, hoping no one will question them.
Coming from a generation whose parents and work colleagues suffered terrible by their aggression ,your defence of their action is really making me feel angry.
No they weren't. Not by a long shot.
William william..you have inferred the German desire for purity of race and the Japanese scrutiny is in someway responsible for their protective brutal attacks on their neighbours.They have felt threatened threatened by who??You are only to ready to condemn the allies for their response but then claim your even handedness is for peace sake.
I have no desire fort history to repeat itself but saying the Germans and Japanese had reasons to kill rape and murder is making my skin crawl.
In lieu of the insurrmountable odds of Japan winning from such an aggressive maneuver is to me, just non-sensical. No matter how I effort to understand Japan's act as an act of up-provoked aggression I can't make it add up.
Unless someone can unequivically "prove" that, my opinion remains unchanged. The only thing that makes sense is the fear they as a people felt that led to that act.
Now one can assume "their leaders" were "power hungry"; that to me in view of those odds, would indicate a stupidity on their part.
Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.
Xris you have twisted and distorted and misinterpreted all that I have said to appease your own anger and disgust which is understandable, as I have said and do agree as to why it is there and where it comes from. From your response, for reasons I have a hard time understanding, you chose not to hear me. That is your preogative. All I can say is YOU deal with it as best you can. That is all I CAN say.
The one major argument against using the weapon was that the Japanese were actually suing for peace during the period before the dropping of the bomb. One provision that they requested was that the Emperor be left in his office. One that had great meaning to the Japanese. The U.S. refused and insisted on complete surrender. Interestingly, after the bombs were dropped, the U.S. agreed to this provision and the Emperor was saved. This particular sequence of events makes many historians think that the U.S. was not interested in a peace before they used the bombs.
Was President Truman's decision the correct one in deciding to bomb Japan with two atomic bombs in World War 2?
There has been so much controversy surrounding the use of the bomb. Many believe that using the atom bomb brought about a speedy end to the most destructive conflict in human history.
The case against using the atomic bomb goes something like this ,that Japan was on the verge of capitulation and it was therefore unnecessary, even inhumane, to use the bomb. Dwight D. Eisenhower even said, "it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."
During a 1975 interview, Tibbets himself said that he regretted killing so many people, but that he slept well at night because he knew that using the bomb saved American lives
The case for using the weapons is/was that Japanese resistance became even more intense in late 1944 and 1945. Thousands of American sailors lost their lives in Kamikaze - or suicidal - attacks. American warships were severely damaged and even sunk by the Kamikazes. Taking the islands of Iwo Jima and Okinawa cost almost 20,000 American lives.
An invasion of Japan was planned for early 1946. American casualties were projected at 500,000. The projections for Japanese casualties - military and civilian - ran into the millions. Based on what they had seen at Iwo Jima and Okinawa, our war planners knew that Japanese resistance would be fanatical. As a preparation measure, 500,000 purple hearts were ordered.
Three-and-a-half years of war had cost America 400,000 lives. How many more were we prepared to lose? Did President Harry Truman made the only choice he could? Use the bomb.
That they didn't surrender after the first Atomic Bomb shows the dedication of the Japanese to their religion (in which their leader was a deity), do you think that Japan were about to give up and surrender?
Was this a crime against humanity an immoral act of enormous proportions or can we justify in the light of history?
As was subsequently reveal through historical documents, Japan was already suing for peace before the bombs were dropped via Russian emissaries. The only condition was that the Emperor was to be allowed to say in place, which the U.S. denied, insisting on unconditional surrender. After the bombs were dropped, this condition was permitted.
As far as I can gather from the below links, Japan was defeated proir to the bombings.
Was Hiroshima Necessary?
Was the Atomic Bomb Necessary?
Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Information from Answers.com
Debating the American Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb
From the above articles, I conclude "NO".
I have to agree that Truman's ego was the factor behind the Atomic Bomb. Remember that the Soviets had basically won the war in Europe against the Nazis.
The Soviets were preparing to enter the war against Japan. Roosevelt had won the war against Japan.
The only thing that Truman wanted was the glory of delivering the final blow against Japan and making sure the Soviets did not take a share in the glory.
Here is a pretty good description of the situation in July, 1945, in Japan, when the Japanese were planning to surrender and only praying/hoping/begging for a negotiated surrender.
Quote:Into the month of July, the leaders of the imperial armed forces clung to the idea that as Allied lines of supply and communication lengthened, their own forces would do better on the homeland battlefields. But by this time Japan had virtually no oil, its cities were in ruins and its navy and naval air capability virtually non-existent. It is unclear at what point Hirohito abandoned the illusion that his armed forces remained capable of delivering at least one devastating blow to the enemy so that his diplomats could negotiate a surrender on face saving terms. But six months of intensive U.S. terror bombing of the Japanese civilian population had forced him, the Court group, and the government to take into account not only their huge losses of men and materials, but also food shortages and the growing war-weariness of the Japanese people. How could they lead and preserve their system of rule after peace returned?
That question weighed on their minds when the Potsdam Declaration arrived (July 27-28), calling on them to surrender unconditionally or face immediate destruction. Yet they rejected the four-power ultimatum, feeling as former prime minister and navy "moderate," Admiral Yonai Mitsumasa, said to his secretary on July 28, "There is no need to rush."
Domestic political considerations drove Japan's decision-makers. Ultimately, what mattered most was where each of them, and the institutions they represented, stood as a result of an unconditional surrender.
Hirohito, counting on the success of the Foreign Ministry's peace overtures to Moscow, resisted facing reality and never acted resolutely. But many months after their surrender, Hirohito, Kido, and Foreign Minister Togo Shigenori placed all blame on the military and claimed that they had been forced to reject the Potsdam terms because they feared precipitating a military coup d'etat which would have threatened their lives and brought about a worse situation than the one they confronted. They were clearly dissembling. What they had really feared was the destruction of their entire framework for rule.
After the Suzuki government rejected Potsdam, Hirohito waited to hear from Stalin, worried about defending the tokens of his legitimacy -- the three "imperial regalia" -- and lost the chance to end the war before the Soviets entered it. But some cabinet ministers and members of a cabinet advisory committee, composed largely of the leaders of big business, revisited the Potsdam Declaration, arguing that it had been a mistake to postpone acceptance of its terms. Prime Minister Suzuki, however, ignored their advice because the emperor and the army were not on board. By July, sixty-four Japanese cities had been largely or partially destroyed by conventional bombs and millions of pounds of incendiaries. There was little left to be destroyed: the crisis abroad and at home had merged.
If he had not insisted on an unconditional surrender for his own glory, and granted a pardon to Hirohito, Truman could have ended the war weeks earlier.
It is ironic that Truman later elected not to persecute the war criminal Emperor Hirohito, while thinking nothing of turning tens of thousands of poor innocent Japanese children into marshmallows. Hopefully in the future Truman will be put on trial for his war crimes and be remembered along with Hitler and Hirohito for his cruelty and savagery.
...The case for using the weapons is/was that Japanese resistance became even more intense in late 1944 and 1945. Thousands of American sailors lost their lives in Kamikaze - or suicidal - attacks. American warships were severely damaged and even sunk by the Kamikazes. Taking the islands of Iwo Jima and Okinawa cost almost 20,000 American lives. ...