The Atom Bombs Watch

username1738683
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#1
How can a history forum let the dates go unmentioned, these two were unique events in history. A new era, we're still feeling it.

So were the US justified, even if it doesn't matter to anything what our moral standards dictate from the safe distance?

From an American perspective, it was justified. As justified as it was for the crews who dropped them to have nightmares about it later.
0
reply
luq_ali
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 year ago
#2
Long before those bombs were dropped, The United States, my home country, was dropping napalm bombs (the first mass usage of that weapon in warfare) all over Tokyo, including in residential areas, killing, between 1942 and 1945, killing, according to some estimates, up to 200,000 civilians.

Prior to the dropping of the atom bombs, in Hiroshima and Nagaski, where more than 200,000(approximately an additional 20,000 Japanese troops were also killed, not saying that was right, but they were at least belligerents in war) people, men, women, children, babies, were incinerated, not to think of the many more who died later, not to think of those who lived and died years later after suffering from radiation poisonings and cancers, prior to the dropping of the bombs, The Empire of Japan wanted terms of surrender to include the keeping of their Emperor and other things. Those terms were rejected by the U.S., which despite the objections of some of the most significant and top military commanders, carried out the bombings, fueled in part, by racism, for at the same time as those bombs were being dropped in Japan, Japanese Americans were in internment camps, merely for being descendants from Japan, not having been tried nor convicted of anything.

After the first atomic bomb was dropped, within days, a second one was dropped-now remember-this was before the internet, this was before the types of communication we have today. And then after the second destructive bombing, another act of genocide (neither bombs were dropped on "military targets"-they were dropped on cities of civilians) The Empire of Japan surrendered to the very same terms that they had previously been refused...meaning all those people who were killed did not have to die. This was an absolute war crime and an act of genocide, it was not war-it was terrorism upon a civilian population. But, the lions, not the sheep, write the history books...

(Original post by zhog)
How can a history forum let the dates go unmentioned, these two were unique events in history. A new era, we're still feeling it.

So were the US justified, even if it doesn't matter to anything what our moral standards dictate from the safe distance?

From an American perspective, it was justified. As justified as it was for the crews who dropped them to have nightmares about it later.
1
reply
username1738683
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#3
(Original post by luq_ali)
This was an absolute war crime and an act of genocide, it was not war-it was terrorism upon a civilian population. But, the lions, not the sheep, write the history books...
That's one way of looking at it, some people say the same about the Dresden bombing. Is your contention that the US ought to have allowed Japan to surrender in their own terms?
1
reply
luq_ali
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 year ago
#4
No, I am not saying the U.S. should have given Japan the terms of surrender it wanted. But, the U.S. used, as a justification, the fact that Japan would not submit to an unconditional surrender and reject allowing the Emperor to stay in position, as the justification for the necessity of dropping atomic weapons on two cities full of civilians. The justification of dropping two atomic weapons on Japan's civilian population was the terms of surrender offered by the Japan being unacceptable. Thus to drop weapons of mass destruction, knowing and not caring that catastrophic civilian deaths would result, using the false justification for doing so, then turning around and giving Japan the terms of surrender which were initially refused, reveals the horrible dishonesty and maliciousness of the United States government. The decision was absolutely motivated by racism, as evidenced by President Truman's comments in his personal diary.

You make a great point with the Dresden Bombing! And I am not sitting here, forgetting the atrocities committed by Japan during WWII, by other Nations in WWII or previous and subsequent wars.



(Original post by zhog)
That's one way of looking at it, some people say the same about the Dresden bombing. Is your contention that the US ought to have allowed Japan to surrender in their own terms?
0
reply
Captain Haddock
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 year ago
#5
(Original post by luq_ali)
No, I am not saying the U.S. should have given Japan the terms of surrender it wanted. But, the U.S. used, as a justification, the fact that Japan would not submit to an unconditional surrender and reject allowing the Emperor to stay in position, as the justification for the necessity of dropping atomic weapons on two cities full of civilians. The justification of dropping two atomic weapons on Japan's civilian population was the terms of surrender offered by the Japan being unacceptable. Thus to drop weapons of mass destruction, knowing and not caring that catastrophic civilian deaths would result, using the false justification for doing so, then turning around and giving Japan the terms of surrender which were initially refused, reveals the horrible dishonesty and maliciousness of the United States government. The decision was absolutely motivated by racism, as evidenced by President Truman's comments in his personal diary.

You make a great point with the Dresden Bombing! And I am not sitting here, forgetting the atrocities committed by Japan during WWII, by other Nations in WWII or previous and subsequent wars.
Agreed. What's more, I'm not sure what terms of surrender could realistically be unacceptable enough to make dropping the nukes seem acceptable.
1
reply
luq_ali
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 year ago
#6
I agree with you, absolutely! Why is it, that the bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, can not be called Nuclear? If terrorist has a dirty bomb which is detonated, it would be considered a nuclear attack,and the fallout and damage from the blast would not be that of a full nuclear bomb, but would certainly cause catastrophic loss of life. Is there some technical reason for the different language of "atomic bombing" or would it be inaccurate to simply say nuclear bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? (because almost every reference in the media universally will say atomic bombs)

(Original post by Captain Haddock)
Agreed. What's more, I'm not sure what terms of surrender could realistically be unacceptable enough to make dropping the nukes seem acceptable.
0
reply
username1738683
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#7
(Original post by luq_ali)
The decision was absolutely motivated by racism, as evidenced by President Truman's comments in his personal diary.
.
Well, of that I am not too sure. I have wondered if the US would have ever contemplated dropping one on Berlin, had Nazi resistance called for extreme measures and race might have played some role in it but there were other advantages for the US to reap: to show the Soviets what the atom bomb could do, to save any further loss of life on their side, to terminate the conflict for good as they did. We can't fully soak up the atmosphere at the time, Okinawa cost tens of thousands of american casualties, very few people in the US must have had a moral problem with it, specially when even higher numbers were being killed in conventional air bombing. In the face of all that, I wouldn't put racism at the top as motivation.

There may be something in the surrender dealings, the US may have dragged it on a bit in order to send a clear message to Stalin but it is far from established that they did. There was a hard faction among the Japanese leadership that would not bow to an unconditional surrender, Hirohito wouldn't even admit to the nation they had lost the war afterwards.
0
reply
luq_ali
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 year ago
#8
Racism was a fundamental part of the calculation, as must be seen in the context of the times. We must remember, immigration laws to the United States were racially based on those times, with on apologies made for such racism-with an entire legal system in place to enforce the institutionalization of racism all across the country in every aspect of life. The internment of Japanese Americans and descendants was racially based, few Germans and Italians were rounded up, and when they were, they usually were afforded some aspects of due process-there were specific allegations of spying or treason leveled, that was NOT the case with the Japanese, and of course, later, reparations were paid (though the amount was feeble) to those Japanese Americans who suffered through internment, loss of rights, property, etc. Such measures and history can not be ignored or disregarded or revised, not that I am saying such is your intention, I am just speaking to the growing issue of revisionism as a mean to justify or water-down past injustices.

But I do agree with you, racism can NOT be said to be the sole determining factor. You are spot on with your analysis of the difficult negotiations, the refusals to acknowledge defeat, etc. So it would indeed to be incorrect, to blame it all on racism, as if there were no other factors, and I was not trying to say that was the sole determinant, just that it was a significant factor. Most certainly, as I indicated there were atrocities committed by many parties, absolutely including the Japanese, from the Rape of Nanking, The Bataan Death March, human experimentation projects, and much, much more.



(Original post by zhog)
Well, of that I am not too sure. I have wondered if the US would have ever contemplated dropping one on Berlin, had Nazi resistance called for extreme measures and race might have played some role in it but there were other advantages for the US to reap: to show the Soviets what the atom bomb could do, to save any further loss of life on their side, to terminate the conflict for good as they did. We can't fully soak up the atmosphere at the time, Okinawa cost tens of thousands of american casualties, very few people in the US must have had a moral problem with it, specially when even higher numbers were being killed in conventional air bombing. In the face of all that, I wouldn't put racism at the top as motivation.

There may be something in the surrender dealings, the US may have dragged it on a bit in order to send a clear message to Stalin but it is far from established that they did. There was a hard faction among the Japanese leadership that would not bow to an unconditional surrender, Hirohito wouldn't even admit to the nation they had lost the war afterwards.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts