Nuking Japan Saved Millions? Horsehockey

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'd just like to add that I'm gratefull that neither the Japanese nor the Germans succeeded. Otherwise I probably wouldn't even be able to discuss topics like these with all of you. Take care y'all.
 
I almost have to shake my head in disgust every time some ill informed 'expert' wants to put the Japanese on the same moral ground as Americans. It shows a complete lack of understanding of history and the attitude that the Japanese had towards human life.:banghead:

The Japanese committed wartime atrocities on par with the dealings of the SS- though on a smaller scale. They worked and beat pows to death on a mass scale. If the POWs were tough enough to withstand the beatings and work environment in some of the harshest disease ridden climates on earth and somehow managed to avoid a katana beheaheading by a samarai wanna-be, they were shipped to the Japanese islands to be tortured to death.

To get just a glimpse of the Japanese atrocities, check out this site about the MV AMerican Leader- http://www.usmm.org/duffyamerlead.html

http://www.usmm.org/duffy.html#anchor565360

My great uncle was a crew member on the MV AMerican Leader, and died on the Tomahaku Maru.
 
Cracked Butt,

-Who put the the WWII Japanese on the same ground as us? Now, in the modern day, they are on the same moral ground but I don't think anyone would dispute with the fact that they were a bit sick/murderous in WWII.

-Is this a general statement or a response to something some soul said. Inquiring minds wanna know!

-p
 
Paco, I'm responding to the originalk post- maybe "moral equivalency" is the wrong term for the American lives being much more valuable than the Japanese.
 
You said you are in Bulgaria. Say Bulgaria is at war with another country. The Bulgarian military leaders are going to make plans to inflict maximum casualities on the enemy forces while keeping the Bulgarian forces as safe as possible. They will fire artillery into enemy positions, but avoid Bulgarian forces. In this situation (war), to Bulgarians, Bulgarian lives are more important than the enemy soldiers' lives.
Yes, but this doesnt apply to the civilians. Actually technicly now we are in war, because we are allies of the americans against Iraq. We already had 5, I think, killed and I dont feel more pity to them than to any other soldier. The situation might not be the same though...

If they were indeed ready to surrender, would you then presume that they were somehow incapable of communicating that intention?
I doubt they were. But you probably werent there to check the information. I am sorry if I am wrong.

Honestly, who is feeding you this drivel?
I could ask you the same. ;) Its surprising how the facts we are raised with are different. Makes you think... :rolleyes: And I'd prefer to believe the history books from an unbiased country rather than these from a biased one. What I have heard of is "The valiant death of the 100 millions" and it refers to a mass suicide (not while killing someone), which of course didnt happen.

By the way, about the USA giving money to countries they've been in war with: Dont worry about anything, the politicians didnt do it because they felt so bad for them. Its done for influence over the region and its worth it.

The cultural collision is getting a little too much for me. :scrutiny:
 
Cracked butt,

Well, see? That's your mistake: never read all the posts, just the one or two right before your post!:D
 
And I'd prefer to believe the history books from an unbiased country rather than these from a biased one.
Anna,

There is no such thing.

The history books produced by people who live in your country are written by people with a bias. Just as the ones written by Americans are written by people with a bias, and the ones written by Japanese, French, Iraqis, Germans, or any other nationality all have a bias. There is no such thing as an unbiased source.

The question to ask is, which country has the most consistent history of allowing its citizens to freely investigate the past and to speak their opinions without fear of government reprisal. Your country does not have a good track record in that area, so your textbooks are more likely to be not just biased, but wrong when compared to textbooks that come from some other countries.

America has done some stupid things over the years, but our academicians are rarely afraid of the government punishing them for writing or speaking about what they have discovered. So the people who write our history books might have their own biases, and often disagree with each other -- but at least the government does not use the textbooks for its own propaganda.

When looking for a history book, you should look for ones that come from countries where scholars are not afraid to disagree with the government.

pax
 
Anna,

I'm with pax, see earlier in the thread for a discussion between myself and Khornet that lays clear my views on historiography.
 
pax is smaaart! Pax always comes in like a surgeon: clean and precise without all the drama. Good point on the history books and something we Americans gotta remember when reading our own stuff. It seems like everyone's got an agenda. Such is life.
 
Pax, you are right, I put that wrong, there is no completely unbiased country, but there is less biased one. I believe that in the time this happened we were on your side so its logical to think that the bombs were good.
 
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE COMMENT I THOUGHT WAS HERE?

I spent about 1/2 hour carefully composing it, mixing in my Dad's war stories from Saipan, and when I hit the "Submit Reply", button, I got back "You are not logged in." The entire little essay, a small thing, but mine own, has evaporated. This system used to work better.
 
Thank your favorite deity that it was the US that developed "The Bomb" first.

Had Stalin or Hitler won the atomic race, would we be having this discussion?

The US did the right thing.

Tim
 
Both my grandfathers and one great uncle served in the Army in WWII. They all survived.
If we had invaded Japan they might not have survived.
You don't like that we used the bomb?
Fine. That is your opinion.
The thing is, we didn't start that fight. The Japanese did.
They were not nice, friendly people. They were harsh and brutal to those they conquered and captured. They attacked us with no warning. They crawled up on us and stabbed us in the back.
I say if they didn't like having the bomb dropped on them they should not have started the war.
When you are in a fight, you don't wear padded gloves and let the other guy kick you in the crotch. You hit him as hard as you can and you keep hitting him until he either quits or can't hit you back.
Why should war be any different?
 
It's not 'your favourite deity' that you want to thank that the Germans didn't get there first, it's British commando's that you want to thank.

Germans were also very far along the road to developing a missile that could have delivered it. Same guy who worked on that and the V2 was very heavily involved in the moon landing. Bit of a genius.
 
For those that think the Japanese didn’t target “civilians†after the war started, I suggest you check this out. www.af.mil/news/airman/0298/bombsb.htm

I have a much better article at home that goes into more detail. They determined, from micro fossils in sand bags attached to the balloon, that they had to have come from Japan. The government still had some control with the press, and this information was kept from the public.

six
 
Thank your favorite deity that it was the US that developed "The Bomb" first.
Ironically, Hitler's racist bigotry contributed heavily toward germany not having the bomb before us. He ridiculed Einstein's work as "Jewish Physics" and didn't place much stock in it. If they had pursued development more vogorously, they might have gotten there first. Using V2 rockets, they would have simply erased England and Russia from the face of the earth.... and we would all be speaking German today. The atom bomb was only recognized as a theoretical possibility because of Einstein's breakthrough:

E = m c (squared)

Which was derived by measuring microscopic changes in mass of radioactive elements and measuring the associated release of energy for that mass change. Bottom line, he was the man who showed the world that locked inside a tiny amount of mass is an almost limitless amount of energy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top