Today in History - August 6 - Hiroshima

[Nickdfresh]

If it was such an important military target then it would have been bombed by conventional weapons for weeks.

The attack on Hiroshima was a terror attack and to maximize that effect they wanted to make sure it killed and destroyed the most people possible.

I sort of agree. The problem was that Japanese industry was scattered and strategic bombing was completely overrated and fluffed up by the "bomber generals" such as Air Marshall Arthur Harris (RAF), Carl Spaatz, and the fucking nutty Curtis LeMay...

In fact, the US conventional firebombings were far more brutal and killed more civilians than did the A-bombs. And in fact the US was running out of decent targets to bomb and the Japanese had learned, like the Germans before them, to scatter and send production underground. But there definitely was a 'shock and awe' effect desired. But I do wish the US had dropped at least one of the bombs on a military target such as the Tokyo Naval Yard or something...

After the Emperor decided on surrender, it is worth noting that officers of the IJA tried to overthrow the high command, kidnap the Emperor, and continue the war even after all this happened.

[Kristy]

Many historians are also full of revisionist shit. When the bombs were dropped, the US had little incentive or motive to "scare the Soviets."

Trying not to get in the argument here but Seshmeister seems to overlook that Emperor of Japan was about to to incorporate the aristocratic Bushido code and essentially create a uniquely Japanese version of fascism upon which surrender wasn't even in the picture.

As for the dropping of the bomb many, if not all Americans were for it at the time. Try Googling and posting some photos of The Rape Of Nanking or The Bataan death march. Maybe the Burma Railway?

[Nickdfresh]

Trying not to get in the argument here but Seshmeister seems to overlook that Emperor of Japan was about to to incorporate the aristocratic Bushido code and essentially create a uniquely Japanese version of fascism upon which surrender wasn't even in the picture.

Um, "about to?" They'd been doing this since at least the early 1930s. The Japanese Army's version of the "Code of Bushido" was a bastardized, revisionist one that was completely absurd when looking at Japanese History. In fact, the idea of committing suicide in defeat was ONLY to apply to the high ranking Samurai (in 1945 terms, the senior officer class of the Japanese Army), and not the average enlist soldier. Hundreds of thousands of Japanese soldiers surrendered during the Russo-Japanese War of 1906 with no particular shame. And in turn, hundreds of thousands of Russians were taken prisoner and treated comparatively well.

By the 1920s, the Japanese decided that they could in no way face a Western Army in terms of industrialization, tech., and firepower; so they needed to fabricate a pseudo-Bushido suicide cult of fanaticism to motivate their soldiers to inflict maximum casualties on the armies of the West. One that never really existed prior in Japanese history....

Read Bradly's "Flyboys" for more information...

As for the dropping of the bomb many, if not all Americans were for it at the time. Try Googling and posting some photos of The Rape Of Nanking or The Bataan death march. Maybe the Burma Railway?

Of course all Americans were for it. We were conditioned to hate the evil subhuman Japs via propaganda.

And yes, the Imperial Japanese High Command of fascist murdering bastards deserves the most blame in all of this. Their wanton and disgusting disregard for human life and treatment of conquered peoples is a complete shame. The post-War Japanese gov'ts have never really owned up for as they play the "martyr-card" of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and labor in denial of their history of militaristic belligerence from about 1931-1945...

The Japanese gov't likes to gloss over facts like that they abducted and fucked to death Korean and Chinese women as 'comfort girls.' And that their junior officers in China had whimsical be-heading contests over which lieutenant could cut off the most heads of Chinese prisoners with a samurai sword. Or that (I believe) they managed to kill more people percapita in China than Hitler ever did in any other single country...

[Seshmeister]

My posts have really been in response to the tone of the initial post.

In terms of civilian deaths the firebombing of Dresden by the British or Tokyo by the US were pretty much in the same league as the atomic bombs. The winners write the history and make the prosecutions although all 3 could have been argued as being war crimes.

Different times thank fuck and we can't really apply our standards of morality today to those times of total war. Still not something to be celebrated though and I stand by a couple of points.

If the idea of dropping the bomb was to get a surrender then it made sense to drop it on a fresh target. There are reports that a few cities like Hiroshima were left untouched for this purpose. If that's the motive then you don't want to confuse the message but it's still undeniably a terror attack in the same way as Allied(and German) nighttime bombing of cities was. It wasn't about aircraft production.

Secondly I think Nagasaki was definitely avoidable and is the best evidence for the argument that a lot of the use of nukes was as a test in the field and a demonstration of power. The Nagasaki bomb was a plutonium bomb and more powerful and much more complex than the Hiroshima one and was dropped before giving the Japanese an adequate opportunity to surrender. There was just 3 days between the bombs being dropped whereas the surrender wasn't for another 6 days after Nagasaki.

There was one good thing about the bombings though in that because the horror of them had been demonstrated it perhaps increased the power of deterrent during the cold war.

[Seshmeister]

The Japanese gov't likes to gloss over facts like that they abducted and fucked to death Korean and Chinese women as 'comfort girls.' And that their junior officers in China had whimsical be-heading contests over which lieutenant could cut off the most heads of Chinese prisoners with a samurai sword. Or that (I believe) they managed to kill more people percapita in China than Hitler ever did in any other single country...

I dunno what you think but cruelty seems to have been more indemic in the Japanese forces than the Germans. With the Germans you had the SS units and some dodgy units made up of troops from the Baltic who seem to have been responsible for most of the atrocities but with the Japanese the evil bastards seem to have been throughout their forces.

On the point of the Koreans I've seen estimates that up to 20 000 Korean slave workers died at Hiroshima which is yet another of those grey items that don't make for good movie scripts or cursory national histories.

[thome]

sorry Sesh, but in War, it's better the enemy, than me or my country. What if some country comes to invade US? A foreign military on US soil. We have a bunch of pansies and pussies in the US that would not show any resolve. compare that to those guys in Afghanistan.

It's not our first day you don't have to make unreal wierd E-Entertainment type shock sentences to get this tread started and keep it going.



Mm.K

P.S. Did you buy a car to keep america alive, we have till friday and they we are all going to D...but first these commercials......

[thome]

I often wonder why many Americans seem to live in fear all the time about stuff that will not happen.

I wonder if Fozzie is ever going to pop that nut poor li'l Kermie has been dutifully stroking him for like ever.

Why can't the Scotish ever satisfy thier lust for bieng jacked off by muppets.

No-Harsh dude just making a broad generalization like you did the nuts you see thru the media are not mainstream America .

The only thing that would have our real attention is if China crashes into the left coast, till then we is pretty relaxed and trust -the them- to keep us safe.

[thome]

Shit.... I'd welcome the Canadian invasion, if only for the health care and the "almost legal" BC Bud. The metric system would take some getting used to, and I doubt I'd ever speak French, but either would be more tolerable than continuing to fund the soulless vampire bastards of corporatism in this country.

What if they -MADE- you speak French, and don't forget about the ZOMBIES Canada is loaded with them.

[Seshmeister]

Wocka Wocka!

I was just pointing out that tha vast majority of countries have tiny armies and never dream that anyone might attack them.

SImilarly I have no idea why the UK is about to buy a brand new shitload of nukes. The politicians seem to think it gives them great international influence but the older I get I can't actually see how that filters down to a benefit to the 99.9999% of the population.

Even in the US where 'defence' really means projection of international power you wonder how a cost analysis of money spent on defence v. money that generates/protects would work out. I'd love to see that figure on paper...

[Nickdfresh]

My posts have really been in response to the tone of the initial post.

In terms of civilian deaths the firebombing of Dresden by the British or Tokyo by the US were pretty much in the same league as the atomic bombs. The winners write the history and make the prosecutions although all 3 could have been argued as being war crimes.

Different times thank fuck and we can't really apply our standards of morality today to those times of total war. Still not something to be celebrated though and I stand by a couple of points.

I think we have a thread on that at the WW2 board I mod, specifically on Sir Arthur Harris. It could be argued that "area bombing" was not necessarily terror bombing as the British were mostly flying at night and the only way to hit a target was to destroy the entire city block around it. The problem was that there were no precision munitions. One could also argue that although the Germans and Japanese could have hypothetically tried Allied generals for war-crimes regarding strategic bombing, the Allied generals defense would have been that the cities they bombed were "defended" and not "open cities," and thereby legitimate targets under the Geneva and Hague Conventions...

If the idea of dropping the bomb was to get a surrender then it made sense to drop it on a fresh target. There are reports that a few cities like Hiroshima were left untouched for this purpose. If that's the motive then you don't want to confuse the message but it's still undeniably a terror attack in the same way as Allied(and German) nighttime bombing of cities was. It wasn't about aircraft production.

Well, terror was a motive. But it should be stated that strategic bombing was no easy task, and that targets were prioritized. We can argue that cities were "saved" for something special. But we can also say that there were fewer and fewer targets to hit in Japan by 1945, as they had been blockaded, and their industry was crippled and spread out through out Japan already as far as production went.

So, what do you bomb?

Secondly I think Nagasaki was definitely avoidable and is the best evidence for the argument that a lot of the use of nukes was as a test in the field and a demonstration of power. The Nagasaki bomb was a plutonium bomb and more powerful and much more complex than the Hiroshima one and was dropped before giving the Japanese an adequate opportunity to surrender. There was just 3 days between the bombs being dropped whereas the surrender wasn't for another 6 days after Nagasaki.

But there is also little evidence that the Japanese gov't, deeply fractured and beset by infighting by this time, seriously wanted to surrender...

There was one good thing about the bombings though in that because the horror of them had been demonstrated it perhaps increased the power of deterrent during the cold war.

I couldn't agree more. The vivid demonstrations of horror and a little slice of nuclear hell only showed a taste of what awaited the US and USSR after a full exchange of weapons dozens if not hundreds of times more powerful than "Fatman" and "Littleboy."

[Nickdfresh]

Thome, get the fuck out of this thread you retard jackoff troll!

[Nickdfresh]

I dunno what you think but cruelty seems to have been more indemic in the Japanese forces than the Germans. With the Germans you had the SS units and some dodgy units made up of troops from the Baltic who seem to have been responsible for most of the atrocities but with the Japanese the evil bastards seem to have been throughout their forces.

Both the Japanese and German armies were cruel and racist, but in slightly different ways perhaps. I think the Japanese were slightly more primitive and less subtle in some ways.

I think it is a mistake to say that only the SS and Soviet/Western Euro collaborators did the atrocities. The entire German war-plan for the invasion of the Soviet Union (Operation Barbarossa) was predicated on stealing food and supplies from Russian civilians and allowing them to starve or to die of exposure during the winter, because the German Army (Ostheer) knew there was no way they could properly resupply their troops...

On the point of the Koreans I've seen estimates that up to 20 000 Korean slave workers died at Hiroshima which is yet another of those grey items that don't make for good movie scripts or cursory national histories.

The Koreans suffered horribly. However, another ugly factoid is that many collaborated with their Japanese overlords, and that many of the most cruel guards of Allied POWs were not Japanese, but the marginalized, humiliated Koreans serving in the Japanese Army as underlings.

[Nickdfresh]

I also love the way you continually try to make one of the greatest military leaders in the history of mankind YOUR BITCH.

Fuck you, dummy. MacArthur had his day. But his soldiers that went into Korea were unprepared and under-trained, resulting in defeat and unnecessary casualties...

Mac sucked in Korea. He also took a lot of credit for other peoples' work....

GENERAL Macarthur............. Mother FUKKER!

Your a typical monday morning asshole working on heresay and lies to feed your stupid ego.

You aren't fit to shine his boots.

And you aren't fit to suck his dick, though you're sure trying!

[Nickdfresh]

The detonations in Japan were the hard decisions you will never have to make it is done not in books on University tables.

The Debate is idol mind chatter of the dullards.

He had 60 years of days devoted to your future well being.

Face in the fire.

Military men become obsolete in times of peace that is why he was no longer needed.

NOTHING ELSE!

How the fuck would you know, civilian hand-worker?

[Nickdfresh]

The compassion of -OUR GOVERMENT- is why we didn't destroy every city and every human on the island of Japan.

Because we didn't have enough incendiary bombs nor aircraft...

In war we were within our rights to do so.

Right does not mean justified....

We END'D IT.

We stopped the war.

With help from the Soviets, British, Australians, New Zealanders, Chinese, Filipinos, etc...

You can debate till the end of time.

and nothin changes except assholes attemting to re-write history.

and it pisses me off.

Who's rewriting what, jackoff?