The Untold History of the United States...

[Sensei]

Hello!

 

I was just watching "The Untold History of the United States"

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1494191/

by Oliver Stone,

and crying for couple of the first episodes,

when the people who thought to rule the world,

such as truman,

bombed and murdered and annihilated hundred thousands of people..

truman, his soul is burning in the hell right now for eternity, claimed that he is "happy to hear of successful nuclear weapon tests"... ?!?

 

85% of americans according to movie, supported mass murdering of hundred thousands of people?!

 

Are your fathers, mothers, grandpas, grandmas one of these 85% of mass murderers that wanted to annihilate all these hundred thousands children and womens.. ???

 

Ask them whether they supported using of nuclear weapon to annihilate other people to wipe out kids and womens from this world..

[Acme]

The Japanese attacked the US, so the US went to war with them. Had the US not used the nuclear bombs they would have still continued the assault on the Japanese mainland and the resulting death toll would likely have been in the millions. War is as war does and no nationality is exempt.

[Sensei]

The Japanese attacked the US, so the US went to war with them.

This is very simplified version.

If you would buy assets from other country,

and this country would stole your assets,

what you would do?

 

US before II world war, stole Japanese assets in US.

So called for population "freezing of assets".

(Recently we have couple examples of this behavior, lucky for you without counter-stike like freeze of Libyan's assets )

 

US government did everything what they can do start the war..

How to do it? Freeze assets of foreign country...

Edited May 23, 2015 by Sensei

[Acme]

This is very simplified version.

If you would buy assets from other country,

and this country would stole your assets,

what you would do?

 

US before II world war, stole Japanese assets in US.

So called for population "freezing of assets".

(Recently we have couple examples of this behavior)

 

US government did everything what they can do start the war..

How to do it? Freeze assets of foreign country...

Yes; millions of lives vs. hundreds of thousands of lives is a rather simple balance. The war is over and I have no interest in arguing over blame. The Japanes Prime Minister appears to agree. Get over it.

 

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe Addresses Joint Meeting of Congress

The Prime Minister then reflected on the history of the U.S.Japanese relationship, which spans over 150 years. Abe, who made a visit to the World War II memorial Tuesday, spoke of taking time to reflect upon the lost dream and futures of those young Americans who died in that conflict. Prior to Abes visit, many experts speculated about how he would address controversial historical issues surrounding World War II that are close to the hearts of those in the AsiaPacific. Abe noted simply that history is harsh and that what is done can never be undone.

 

He added, On behalf of Japan and its people, I offer with profound respect my eternal condolences for all those American people that were lost during WWII and acknowledged that Japans actions during that time have brought deep sorrow for the people of Asia. He concluded his remarks on the subject by stating, I will uphold the views expressed by previous prime ministers in this regard. ...

[Sensei]

No single dead of Japanese child is worth dead of american soldier..

 

Solider is adult going to war for money, while little child is just entering this world, learn how Universe is working..

Yes; millions of lives vs. hundreds of thousands of lives is a rather simple balance.

Will you murder billions of innocent people (or simply living animals?) to survive one of "your's"?

[Greg H.]

This thread is nothing more than an inflammatory rant. As such, reported for trolling.

[Endy0816]

The asset freeze happened after Japan invaded parts of China.

 

Was at least an attempt to deter further aggression. Should look deeper when it comes to cases of escalating hostilities.

 

We've at least started getting away from blanket bans(crosses fingers) and now target individuals.

 

In general the non-atomic plan would have been a wholesale invasion with a higher projected death total on both sides. Which is what Acme was referring to. Would have led to an estimated 5-10 million Japanese civilian causalities. Makes me ill that it came to that, but from a numbers standpoint this outcome was 'better'.

Edited May 23, 2015 by Endy0816

[zapatos]

The Japanese attacked the US, so the US went to war with them. Had the US not used the nuclear bombs they would have still continued the assault on the Japanese mainland and the resulting death toll would likely have been in the millions. War is as war does and no nationality is exempt.

Citation please?

[MigL]

If this is a "war is a terrible thing" thread, then I'm in agreement.

 

If this is a "US is a terrible country" thread, then I've lost a little respect for you Sensei.

 

P.S.

Don't learn your history from Hollywood or Oliver Stone.

Edited May 23, 2015 by MigL

[iNow]

An overview of the idea and citations here: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Speedy_end_of_war_saved_civilian_lives

 

Or here: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1946/12/if-the-atomic-bomb-had-not-been-used/376238/

 

It's a grain of salt style argument IMO, though.

Citation please?

[Endy0816]

Operation Downfall

 

Can't say anything with absolute certainty but we can reason that it would have been pretty horrific.

[zapatos]

Those are interesting links but from my reading of them they don't seem to support the assertion that the death toll would have likely been in the millions. While that was certainly a possibility if the population at large was able to fight, many of the estimates suggested fatalities in the hundreds of thousands.

[Sensei]

If this is a "war is a terrible thing" thread, then I'm in agreement.

 

If this is a "US is a terrible country" thread, then I've lost a little respect for you Sensei.

1) you should watch movie, I am referring to, before replaying..

 

2) no country should use nuclear weapon to kill people who was no guilty.. on people, who is not responsible to starting war in the first place..

 

If dictator bombs your country, kill him, not the all hundred millions of people of his nation!

 

3) there is no excuse for whoever attacked first, when they are starting attacking and bombarding of civilians that are innocent and not guilty!

 

P.S.

Don't learn your history from Hollywood or Oliver Stone.

I don't learn history from Hollywood or Oliver Stone..

 

Are you suggesting that this movie is lie?

[zapatos]

Here is another view of what was occurring near the end of the war:

 

 

 

Following the bombings, U.S. officials moved to quickly propound a narrative that justified these barbaric acts -- a narrative that bore little resemblance to the truth. So the public was told that the bombs were mercifully dropped on the fanatic Japanese to end the war as rapidly as possible, avoiding an invasion that would have, according to Truman, cost a half million American lives. The U.S. had no choice. The act was not only justified, it was humane. Just think of all those Japanese who would have also died in an invasion.

This version of history left out a few inconvenient facts. Japan was already on its last legs and had been searching for an acceptable surrender formula since May. General Douglas MacArthur, who joined Generals Eisenhower and Arnold and Admirals Leahy King, and Nimitz in disavowing the bombings, later insisted that the Japanese would have surrendered in May if the U.S. had offered guarantees about preserving the emperor. Intercepted Japanese cables affirmed this fact. Truman described the July 18 cable as "the telegram from the Jap emperor asking for peace." Truman also knew that the Soviet Union was about to come into the war and that the Soviet invasion was what the Japanese most dreaded. In May, Japan's Supreme War Council declared, "Soviet entry into the war will deal a death blow to the Empire." At Potsdam, Truman got confirmation that the Soviets were about to enter the Pacific War and wrote, "Fini Japs when that comes about." He told his wife that the war would end a year sooner now.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/oliver-stone/the-us-and-japan-partners_b_3902034.html

[CharonY]

A few things have to be kept in mind in that context. The first is that the nuclear weapons did not represent the highest amount of civilian casualties in the conflict. At the same time it is not quite clear whether the bombs were the main factor of surrender, or whether e.g. the attack of the Soviets was the element that resulted in that decision. In either case it would be speculation, but as it stands one cannot state with certainty that the bomb ended the conflict (for the same reason that one cannot state that the Soviets did).

 

Finally, during that time all parties at least willingly accepted civilian casualties if not actively promoted it. It is a dangerous thing (and a bit of a folly) to try to assign modern values to historic events. It is close enough to make you think that at that time we shared the same values, but in truth public perception change radically within one or two generation (sometimes even faster and there are plenty of examples).

[MigL]

If one considers that the city of Dresden was the target of about 4000 tons of incendiary bombs, and that the estimates for deaths from that one bombing, range from a low of 25000, to 100000 or a possible high of several hundred thousand ( not likely ) casualties, the two atomic bombs each killed from 4 times as many to about the same number of people.

So what is different..

That they were Japanese ? That atomic weapons were used ? Are you suggesting that the Japanese didn't need to be stopped ? Or the Germans ?

 

The figure of 175000 casualties from the atomic bombs pales in comparison to the number of Russians killed in WW2.

 

War is hell. That's what makes it something to be avoided.

Sometimes it can't be, Sensei.

Edited May 23, 2015 by MigL

[overtone]

. Had the US not used the nuclear bombs they would have still continued the assault on the Japanese mainland and the resulting death toll would likely have been in the millions.

That's irrelevant. Once the US knew it had a working Bomb, sometime in January of 1945, the alternatives on the table were all just various ways of informing the Japanese of the new reality.

 

The Japanese were counting on the horrors of invasion, given Japan's demonstrated ability to persuade its citizens to fight to the death, to bring the US to a settlement that did not involve occupation and removal of the ruling government. They were afraid not only of the fate awaiting the rulers in American hands, but the fate of the citizenry under American subjugation - the Japanese command knew full well what Japanese soldiers had done in Nanking and other conquered Chinese cities.

 

But once the US had the Bomb, that strategy was bankrupt - if it came to that, the government and all the military resistance and most of the population would be destroyed from a safe distance at almost no risk to Americans, no occupation necessary.

 

So the actual question is why the US waited so long before informing the Japanese government of the change in its options, and why the method of informing them was the surprise obliteration of two major cities in quick succession.

 

The secrecy and the surprise and the civilian targets were none of them necessary - they were choices, and the result was atrocity deliberately chosen. Not just the wholesale slaughter of civilians (hospitals and elementary schools were directly under the detonations), but the long months of possibly avoidable war (including the firebombing of Tokyo, the battle of Okinawa, all the miseries ) while the Japanese were left in the dark, given no reason to abandon their dedicated resistance.

 

 

 

 

It is a dangerous thing (and a bit of a folly) to try to assign modern values to historic events

The US and it Allies executed Japanese and German milltary commanders for less than Hiroshima alone, let alone Nagasaki. And the morality of Hiroshima, the ethical issues of Nagasaki, were debated among the Americans who knew what was happening - they were not oblivious to these matters, and several strongly objected to the adopted tactics on grounds of morality as well as efficacy.

 

If the verdict is that these distant ancestors of history did not share our modern values and enlightened sensibilities, that they were moral pigmies compared to our wonderful selves, let's make that verdict explicit - which values did they lack, what exactly was the nature of their moral inferiority and ethical immaturity?

Edited May 23, 2015 by overtone

[swansont]

No single dead of Japanese child is worth dead of american soldier..

The same could be said of children of the countries of Europe, and yet the Japanese ally (Germany) engaged in such behavior. This declaration also implies the Japanese bombed no civilian targets. Are you ready to stand by that?

 

And probably most importantly, they could have surrendered prior to the attack, but they did not.

 

Solider is adult going to war for money, while little child is just entering this world, learn how Universe is working..

I doubt very many people become soldiers for the money, especially during wartime.

[StringJunky]

...T

I doubt very many people become soldiers for the money, especially during wartime.

I don't think money factored in the minds of the Kamikazi pilots.

 

On the OP: War is war, all targets are legitimate. War is not a fight between soldiers, it is between nations. Todays child is tomorrows soldier.

I find it faintly absurd the idea of surgical warfare.

Edited May 23, 2015 by StringJunky

[Prometheus]

...

 

Ask them whether they supported using of nuclear weapon to annihilate other people to wipe out kids and womens from this world..

 

I have sympathy with your reaction - it's always harrowing to learn about the worst chapters of human suffering. But America does not have a monopoly on this, and, on a side note, Japan need to acknowledge the suffering they inflicted on their neighbours.

[Delta1212]

The same could be said of children of the countries of Europe, and yet the Japanese ally (Germany) engaged in such behavior.

 

Really, you don't need to reach that far afield. Germany may beat everyone in terms of scale during WWII, but the Japanese got very creative. I've read a lot of things about WWII that would qualify as horrific, but Japan's Unit 731 is the only thing so far that has managed to make me feel physically ill while reading about it.

 

No war is ever clean, but that one was especially dirty on all sides in how civilians were treated, and the only way anyone comes out looking good is by comparison with someone else who did worse.

[Sensei]

If one considers that the city of Dresden was the target of about 4000 tons of incendiary bombs, and that the estimates for deaths from that one bombing, range from a low of 25000, to 100000 or a possible high of several hundred thousand ( not likely ) casualties, the two atomic bombs each killed from 4 times as many to about the same number of people.

So what is different..

That they were Japanese ?

Japanese had their own Dresden, disgusting and senseless bombing of Tokyo with firebombs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo

 

Either Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo and Dresden, are all examples of war crimes, that nobody was arrested, prosecuted, and convicted for..

 

That shows & learn people that justice is just for losers, while winners will be walking in glory.

Which means it's joke, not justice. Justice should be equal for everybody regardless of nationality.

Even more, they will have full (85% american's?!) support of their society to annihilate other civilians?!

 

That learns to never surrender and you can wipe out entire nations freely?!

 

That atomic weapons were used ?

Absolutely yes.

 

Are you suggesting that the Japanese didn't need to be stopped ? Or the Germans ?

To stop unarmed kids and womens you need to annihilate them.. ?

 

The figure of 175000 casualties from the atomic bombs pales in comparison to the number of Russians killed in WW2.

Russian's didn't die in one second, but during dozen of sieges of their cities.

They had chance to escape (please beware I am talking about civilians victims), but refused to do so, or was forced by russian's dictatorship government to not escape..

So that's partially russian's government guilty for so many civilian's casualties.

[swansont]

And the Japanese have Chongqing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Chongqing

 

as well as other war crimes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes

 

This does not mitigate or excuse or justify these other events. But really, please stop with the holier-than-thou attitude.

[overtone]

As we all know, high morale and a clean conscience, a sense of fighting for a good cause, is not an illusion or mere Hollywood movie conceit.

 

Aside from the direct atrocity total of the strategy adopted by the US in its employment of nuclear weaponry, a total which (based on the secrecy interval between the gun bomb completion in early March and the drop date August 6) reasonably speaking includes at least:

 

the death toll in the March firebombings (Tokyo, Osaka, Nagoya, and a dozen others) - including the American POWs killed in those raids

some of the death toll in the Battle of Okinawa

the death toll in the June firebombings

 

and the possible but not atrocity military toll as well as civilian toll of every battle fought after the US had completed its basic design for the gun Bomb (Hiroshima) and knew for sure it had a Bomb in its arsenal (after mid-January of 1945)

 

which would include the battle of Iwo Jima, as well as the battle of Okinawa and others.

 

This means that foregoing any chance of persuading the Japanese to surrender earlier on our terms, by threatening them with the new Bomb as soon as we had one for sure, carried a very high opportunity cost, even if one reduces it by some large fraction to account for some hypothetical improbability of the Japanese actually surrendering to the threat.

 

And an examination of this opportunity cost supports the general observation that the morally superior option, the sound ethical choice - here, informing the Japanese command of the existence and nature of the Bomb, which made worthless all their preparations for last ditch Home Island defense against occupation, and giving them a chance to surrender as early as possible - is almost always the best choice from all other reasonable points of view as well.

 

The US had a unique opportunity to cover itself in glory, establish itself as an "Always Good" game player right at the beginning of the Cold War, and put rock solid foundations under its military and civilian morale for generations to come. And blew it.

Edited May 24, 2015 by overtone

[Endy0816]

Da, by not having to use three bombs we missed our chance to drop the demon core on people.