Feelings Toward Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by Ryzorian

I had a huge drawn out letter but decided for this.

Suki, watch the HBO series "The Pacific". It will show you, even a little bit, what the US was like then and still is in many ways. Americans thought the Japanese were blood thirsty monsters that would rape and pillage the homefront if we let them. They weren't seen as "people, or civilians" but more akin to bizaar apemen with swords and fangs. You don't coddle a monster that threatens your family, you kill it.

That's how Japan was seen at the time, an external threat that had to be illimated. For all that people decry what happened with the bombs, the brutality of that war changed the US forever. Is the world better because of that change? Only time will tell.


P.S. Chryuop Your wrong about the US in Germany's rise after ww1. Wilson, the president of the US at the time was against the treaty of versais, knowing that punishing Germany like that would lead to trouble. That was France and Britain. In fact the US didn't even get involved until 1917, when the war was almost over. the US nearly came in on the side of Germany in 1913..France and Britain did everything in their power back then to prevent the US ever forming alliances with three certain countries.. Germany, Russia, and Japan..Sad to say, they were successful...Who knows what the world would be like now if they had failed.

Ummm.. that's no excuse.

One could justify the extermination of Nazi extermination of Jewish people in the same way.

The thing I find hypocritical about Americans is their two wrongs make a right mentality regarding the dropping of the bombs.

[GoNative]

Ronin is it just that they were atomic bombs that makes you think they were so bad?

Over 500,000 Japanese people were killed by conventional bombing during the war. If the atomic bombs were not used and the war was taken to it's conclusion through conventional bombing only is there any reason to think less people would have been killed in the end? The fire bombing of Tokyo killed around 100,000 people alone. If they had of continued that for much longer the death toll would have easily exceeded anything the atomic bombs did and it was just about as horrific.

Plus I really don't find the whole argument that the Japanese were seriously thinking of surrender and it was ignored by the US. Sue for peace? Sure I can accept they tried to do that especially after they realised they were starting to lose. But I doubt they were seriously offering to give up all the lands they had invaded or offering an unconditional surrender. It took the bombs to get that...

[termogard]

Fighting armed or naval forces of your enemy during war time is normal. Extermination of civilians is a disgrace for the army. Plain and simple.

[GoNative]

But during WWII that was the norm. Carpet bombing of cities occurred in Europe too. You never hear that much about the terrible crimes of the British and US forces bombing the crap out of German cities and killing 100's of thousands of civilians do you? We rarely hear that much about the 100 thousand or so people in Tokyo who were killed from fire bombing of the city. The Japanese killed millions of civilians in the countries they invaded. Killing civilians was still pretty much a normal part of war back then.

Anyway point is why is the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki any more horrendous? Purely because so much destruction could be done from just one bomb instead of thousands?

I don't disagree with you that it was terrible and thankfully war has changed somewhat since those days in that they at least now attempt to minimise civilian casualties.

[RickOShay]

Originally Posted by GoNative

But during WWII that was the norm. Carpet bombing of cities occurred in Europe too.

Additionally the allies lost 11 times more civilians than the axis powers did.
World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[termogard]

Originally Posted by GoNative

But during WWII that was the norm. Carpet bombing of cities occurred in Europe too. You never hear that much about the terrible crimes of the British and US forces bombing the crap out of German cities and killing 100's of thousands of civilians do you?

I know about bombings of Hamburg and Dresden. Some historians also consider carpet bombings of civilians as war crimes.

Originally Posted by GoNative

Anyway point is why is the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki any more horrendous? Purely because so much destruction could be done from just one bomb instead of thousands?

Much destruction and consequences such as radiation sickness. People are dying years after end of war.

[protheus]

Originally Posted by GoNative

Ronin is it just that they were atomic bombs that makes you think they were so bad?

The bad thing about atomic bombing is the consequences that follow up. Generations of people having cancer, birth defects even 50 years after, is what makes the atomic bomb so bad.

Too bad at that time there wasn't any other choice to take, to finish quick such a horrible war. It was necessary at the time, but being considered a good thing, is an exaggeration. They are the worst kind of military weapons ever created by man and they're use isn't a good thing from any angle you look at it. Necessary, maybe, but good, never.

[dogsbody70]

and again did the Americans know about the after effects of that bomb?

surely it is that that has prevented many wars developing-- fear of the bomb and its terrible consequences.

It is also easy to say what should have happened in hind sight.

we are good at that.


I believe that when there was the accident at chernobyl and the effects spread around the land-- to other countries-- Maybe the fall out would also bounce back to the original country that sent the bomb in the first place.


I just pray that no country will be foolish enough to set another bomb off-- which would be much worse than those A bombs on the Japanese countries

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by GoNative

Ronin is it just that they were atomic bombs that makes you think they were so bad?

Over 500,000 Japanese people were killed by conventional bombing during the war. If the atomic bombs were not used and the war was taken to it's conclusion through conventional bombing only is there any reason to think less people would have been killed in the end? The fire bombing of Tokyo killed around 100,000 people alone. If they had of continued that for much longer the death toll would have easily exceeded anything the atomic bombs did and it was just about as horrific.

Plus I really don't find the whole argument that the Japanese were seriously thinking of surrender and it was ignored by the US. Sue for peace? Sure I can accept they tried to do that especially after they realised they were starting to lose. But I doubt they were seriously offering to give up all the lands they had invaded or offering an unconditional surrender. It took the bombs to get that...

As Protheus mentioned.

The after effects are the tragic part.

The firebombing was a disgrace too though as was the English bombing and Russian pillaging and raping of German cities.

Also, towards the end Japan didn't have anything to give up. So while your opinion might be valid regarding the earlier attempts to surrender it is irrelevant towards the end.

Also... if I remember correctly I think all that they really wanted was for the Emperor to maintain his position and not be charged with war crimes. As you are well aware.. that happened anyway.

But we'll never know what they were willing to accept as the allies never even entered into negotiation.

[dogsbody70]

some people seem to forget that England was bombed too or doesn't that matter?