Nagasaki

[pvenne]

Of course, we allowed them to keep the Emperor.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My response will be piece by piece.

Well, be that as it may (that we allowed them to keep their emperor) we also re-wrote their constitution for them, modeled on American ideas, and we did so in a way that would not allow them to change it under the political limitations it imposed. We also left our troops there and they have stayed until the present day. The emperor remained as a ceremonial post only. Japan effectively became the 52nd U.S. state, after Germany, which also still has U.S. troops on its ground.

[pvenne]

We got to prove that the atom bomb would work, we got retrobution, and it had nothing to do with saving any lives of the American military.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don't you think dropping the bomb in a desert would have proved that it worked? And everything has to do with saving American lives...war, like everything else, is a cost benefit analysis of situations, especially when your forces are wearing thin from excessive casualties. It was more of an "our lives or their lives?" decision. A land invasion of Japan would have taken more lives than that at Normandy.

[pvenne]

By that point in the war the Japanese were completely broken, we could bomb them into the third world if we wanted to.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Japan was not a member of the "First class World" in the 1940s, just had to point this out. We enabled them to achieve the economic might they have in the last half-century.

[pvenne]

What you are taught as history is the vision that someone wants you to believe. That is usually the viewpoint of whoever won.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No. Wrong. Maybe in high school. But at any respectable University, history classes teach you more than just the basics..they go into the point of view of others involved. Anthropology does this job even better. I am a history minor at the University of Vermont and I took a class in the Hist of China/Japan...and it was not all pro-U.S., believe me, but it wasn't a big propaganda speach either.

[pvenne]

All of the documents from WWII have been declassified and you can come to your own decision, if you want to take the time to actually know what happened.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

First, have you read "all" of the declassified documents? All thousands of them? Second, not eveything gets declassified. If there is something that someone doesn't want you to know, then it is black-inked out on the declassified documents. Some things never see the light of day again after they have been classified. And without giving us specific examples of which documents you are talking about, your argument can't stand on its own. You just leave us all thinking that you must be right and to check your argument we'd have to go search for and read 'all' of the declassified documents. .....I mean, ...c'mon.

[pvenne]

tennbear, please dont take my comments too strongly.

[TennBear]

PVenne,

No I have not read nearly all of the Declassified Documents. I cannot even imagine how many there are. But, I have read enough to know that there were many scientists who were against the use of the bomb from several points of view. One important one was that we would be shown as the only country ever to use this horrendous weapon that would cast us in a bad light for all time.

You are following the line that the Japanese People would have fought to the last man. This is based on the belief that the people would have kept up with the kinds of defense as there had been on numerous islands throughout the Pacific. You forget that they had many important shrines that would have been distroyed in this kind of battle. Even the US, which is not known for being thoughtful of other cultures, knew enough not to bomb Kyoto. The city was considered even though it held no emportance either militarily or industrially.

The US did not have to land on Japan. They had no ability to carry on with the war. That was a common trait that Japan had always faced in wars throughout it's history. I'm certain from your study of Japanese history that you know that even though Japan won every battle in its war with Russia in 1905-06 that it totally distroyed their ability to continue and mantain the war. When Roosevelt bartered the end of the war, he angered Japan by counting the war as a draw due to the fact that Russia would have been able to continue the war during the following year. We further angered Japan in the treaty by setting quotas that limited their future navy and put the US and England as the two predominates naval powers limiting all others.

You say that they were not a member of the First Class World. That is a matter of how you determine First Class. They were the industrial power in Asia and had the third largest naval fleet in the world at the onset of the War. They had broken treaties that had limited the number of ships and class of ships to where they were the strongest naval power in the Pacific.

Where Japan fell short is where it has always fallen short. They do not have the natural resourses to be a true suparpower. They have to import all of their oil and all the needed components to manufacture steel. They had already been bogged down in China for too many years at the start of the war. China is like Russia in that you go in and you can't get out. It had already sapped Japan.

You did not respond to the main condition that the War Council had been desolved and that a Council was set up to sue for peace. They had asked for the USSR to intercede. The Japanese knew that the war was over and lost. How do you think that Russia declared war on Japan as soon as the bomb was dropped. Neither Japan nor Russia had wanted to fight one another. Russia was losing too much against the German's and did not want another war front and Japan had had it's entire army bogged down in China and could not handle dealing with a front against another enemy that cared nothing about loss of life.

You ask if we could have proved that it worked by dropping the bomb in the desert. The answer is yes, but it would not have carried the punishment for bombing Pearl Harbor. For arguements sake, say that we needed to drop the bomb to end the war. Why ddi we bomb Nagasaki? We had already bombed Hiroshima, Japan had no air force to prevent us bombing anywhere else in the country at our desire. All we had to do is say that that was the first, if you don't surrender we will distroy another city. Then give a time interval for a petition to surrender. It would have come. The reason was that the bomb over Nagasaki was a different technology and we had to prove both. After Nagasaki, we had no more atoms bombs and would have had to wait for a long period of time to create another. After that we demanded.

[Charleston native]

This is not true. The fact is that Japan had tried and was trying to surrender. The Emperor has dissolved the War Cabinet and had formed a new Cabinet to work for surrender. Because the US and Japan did not have diplomatic relations at the time, the Japanese asked for the USSR to intercede. The USSR had know interest in interceding because they wanted to use the dropping of the bomb to declare war on Japan. Which they did as soon as the first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. They captured some land on the mainland of Asia and Sakolin Island. The US knew that they wanted to surrender, but did not care. Dropping of the bombs would do two things, prove that an atomic bomb could be done and be retrobution for the attack on Pearl Harbor. The Japanese in their bargining for surrender only wanted to guarranty that the Emperor would continue because it was too important to the Shinto religion. We demanded unconditional surrender. The Japanese could not consider any surrender that did not include the continuance of the Emperor and responded that was the case. The US took this as a refusal and dropped the bomb on Hiroshima. Before the Japanese Cabinet could convene again, we dropped the bomb on Nagasaki. They imediately capitulated and accepted unconditional surrender. Of course, we allowed them to keep the Emperor. We got to prove that the atom bomb would work, we got retrobution, and it had nothing to do with saving any lives of the American military. By that point in the war the Japanese were completely broken, we could bomb them into the third world if we wanted to. don't believe all the propaganda that the US has told you. What you are taught as history is the vision that someone wants you to believe. That is usually the viewpoint of whoever won. All of the documents from WWII have been declassified and you can come to your own decision, if you want to take the time to actually know what happened.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think pvenne summed up my thoughts on this perspective. I think the above viewpoint is definitely someone else's opinion. Read your history...Japan was not by any means on the verge of surrendering. Ever hear of kamikaze attacks? While they increased in frequency during the invasions of Okinawa and Iwo Jima, the emporor was imploring the younger people to prepare for the ultimate sacrifice. Japan was running out of young men for infantry and aviation attacks against US forces. Considerations were being taken to arm older children, women, and teenagers as plans for a US invasion drew near. Yes, kamikaze attacks were being prepared using these people.

As a matter of fact, the battles of Okinawa and Iwo Jima helped increase the leadership's push to use the bomb...the battles demonstrated the lengths that the Japanese were willing to go through to prevent a US victory. Again, please read your history. Some of this stuff sounds like conspiracy theorist propaganda.

[pvenne]

kamikaze attacks? While they increased in frequency during the invasions of Okinawa and Iwo Jima, the emporor was imploring the younger people to prepare for the ultimate sacrifice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

yeah, I read that young men were given saki (Strong Japanese alcohol) and told they were dying for God and to save their women from the savage westerners (sound familiar? this is sorta what radical Isalamics are told tody).

[TennBear]

For Charleston Native, I do know about Kamikazee

Here is history:

7 April 1945 Suzuki forms new cabinet to bring war to end.

From U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey: "The mission of the Suzuki government appointed 7 April 1945, was to make peace. An appearance of negotiating for terms less onerous than unconditional surrender was maintained in order to contain the military and bureaucratic elements still determined on a final Bucrapo defense, and perhaps even more importantly to obtain freedom to create peace with a minimum of personal danger and internal obstruction.

A series of conferences of the Supreme War Direction Council before Hirohito on the subject of continuing or terminating the was began on 8 June and continued through 14 August. At the 8 June meeting the war situation was reviewed. On 20 June the Emperor, supported by the Premier, Foreign Minister, and Navy Minister, declared for peace; the Army Minister and the two chiefs of staff did not concur. On 10 July the Emperor again urged haste in the moves to mediate through Russia, but Potsdam intervened. While the Government still awaited a Russian answer, the Hiroshima bomb was dropped on 6 August."

Did the US know about this?

From the Presidential Combined Intelligence Committee, "Estimate of the Enemy Situation" July 8, 1945

"The Japanese ruling group are aware of the desperate military situation and are increasingly desirous of a compromise peace, but still find unconditional surrender unacceptable. The basic policy of the present government is to fight as long and as desperately as possible in the hope of avoiding complete defeat and of acquiring a better bargaining position in a negotiated peace. ...

The Japanese beleive, however, that unconditional surrender would be the equivalent of national extinction. There are as yet no indications that the Japanese are willing to accept such terms. Teh idea of foreign occupation of the Japanese homeland, foreign custody of the person of the Emperor, and the loss of prestige entailed by the acceptance of the terms of unconditional surrender are most revolting to the Japanese. To avoid these conditions, if possible, and, in any event, to insure surival of the institution of the Emperor, the Japanese might well be willing to withdraw from all territory they have seized on the Asiatic continent and in the southern Pacific, and even to agree to the independence of Korea and to the practical disarmament of the their military forces."

President asked that if he use the bomb to give warning to make them aware and if they do not surrender then to make dicision.

July 17, 1045

From the Scientific Advisory Board: "A Petition to the President of the United States"

"In view of the forgoing, we, the undersigned, respectfully pertition: first, that you exercise your power as Commander-in-Cheir, to rule that the United States shall not resort to the use of atomic bomb in the war unless the terms which will be imposed upon Japan have been made public in detail and Japan in detail and Japan knowing these terms has refused to surrender; second, that in such an event the question whether or not to use the atomic bombs be cided by you in the light of the considerations persented in this petition as well as all the other moral responsibilities which are involved."

I am running long. I have documents to state that the President agreed to let them know. That the Japanese would surrender if they were guaranteed that the Emperor would be allowed to continue, that they guarantee was taken out of the demade for surrender because of Chiang's objection. That at Hiroshima that the manufacturing area was deliberately not hit and was outside of the damage area. That at Nagasaki that Mitsubushi Steel and the port were not hit and the bomb was aimed at a civilian area.

I am not saying that the Japanese were not bad, they were. We did know that they wanted to surrender and that they would have surrendered without either bomb being dropped.

[pvenne]

For Charleston Native, I do know about Kamikazee

Here is history:

7 April 1945 Suzuki forms new cabinet to bring war to end.

From U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey: "The mission of the Suzuki government appointed 7 April 1945, was to make peace.  An appearance of negotiating for terms less onerous than unconditional surrender was maintained in order to contain the military and bureaucratic elements still determined on a final Bucrapo defense, and perhaps even more importantly to obtain freedom to create peace with a minimum of personal danger and internal obstruction.

A series of conferences of the Supreme War Direction Council before Hirohito on the subject of continuing or terminating the was began on 8 June and continued through 14 August. At the 8 June meeting the war situation was reviewed. On 20 June the Emperor, supported by the Premier, Foreign Minister, and Navy Minister, declared for peace; the Army Minister and the two chiefs of staff did not concur.  On 10 July the Emperor again urged haste in the moves to mediate through Russia, but Potsdam intervened. While the Government still awaited a Russian answer, the Hiroshima bomb was dropped on 6 August."

Did the US know about this?

From the Presidential Combined Intelligence Committee, "Estimate of the Enemy Situation" July 8, 1945

"The Japanese ruling group are aware of the desperate military situation and are increasingly desirous of a compromise peace, but still find unconditional surrender unacceptable. The basic policy of the present government is to fight as long and as desperately as possible in the hope of avoiding complete defeat and of acquiring a better bargaining position in a negotiated peace. ...

The Japanese beleive, however, that unconditional surrender would be the equivalent of national extinction. There are as yet no indications that the Japanese are willing to accept such terms. Teh idea of foreign occupation of the Japanese homeland, foreign custody of the person of the Emperor, and the loss of prestige entailed by the acceptance of the terms of unconditional surrender are most revolting to the Japanese. To avoid these conditions, if possible, and, in any event, to insure surival of the institution of the Emperor, the Japanese might well be willing to withdraw from all territory they have seized on the Asiatic continent and in the southern Pacific, and even to agree to the independence of Korea and to the practical disarmament of the their military forces."

President asked that if he use the bomb to give warning to make them aware and if they do not surrender then to make dicision.

July 17, 1045

From the Scientific Advisory Board: "A Petition to the President of the United States"

"In view of the forgoing, we, the undersigned, respectfully pertition: first, that you exercise your power as Commander-in-Cheir, to rule that the United States shall not resort to the use of atomic bomb in the war unless the terms which will be imposed upon Japan have been made public in detail and Japan in detail and Japan knowing these terms has refused to surrender; second, that in such an event the question whether or not to use the atomic bombs be cided by you in the light of the considerations persented in this petition as well as all the other moral responsibilities which are involved."

I am running long. I have documents to state that the President agreed to let them know. That the Japanese would surrender if they were guaranteed that the Emperor would be allowed to continue, that they guarantee was taken out of the demade for surrender because of Chiang's objection. That at Hiroshima that the manufacturing area was deliberately not hit and was outside of the damage area. That at Nagasaki that Mitsubushi Steel and the port were not hit and the bomb was aimed at a civilian area.

I am not saying that the Japanese were not bad, they were. We did know that they wanted to surrender and that they would have surrendered without either bomb being dropped.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

well tennbear, you know more than I thought you did, but i still disagree with you. But we can agree to disagree for now, you make a strong argument, though.

[alon504]

Today, 60 years ago, Japan was experiencing one of the worst tragedies in human history. After the drop of a second American atomic bomb, the city of Nagasaki, and its citizens were tragically marked forever. Over 80 000 people were exterminated by the bomb (called Little Boy), and the ones that survived were later killed by the effects of radioactivity. The other city destroyed, Hiroshima, lost about 75 000 people, and, similarly to Nagasaki, witnessed the slow suffering of the few survivors.

  I do not expect this to become a useless political or ideological war, but solely a reminder of human cruelty. Just like the world remembers other tragedies like 9-11, the bombings of these cities can not be forgotten.

http://www.exploratorium.edu/nagasaki/mainn.html

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I completely agree. It's ashamed Japan attacked the United States and invited a response. War is terrible. It brings death to too many innocents.

[Ruso]

I just love how people assume so much and place all blame on the President in our wonderful government of balanced power.

[pvenne]

also, viper: dont you need more than a few hundred people in a poll to be representative of all youth? I wonder what the propper representative figure would have to be?

[Viper]

I don't recall the actual figure but it was large enough to make headlines in Canada and the US.

My opinion of Moore isn't that he is evil but extremely greedy, deceptive and has said some very bad things about America and Americans at his over seas tours that all add up to me not liking him at all.

Moore is easily a topic of discussion itself. If you'd like to start one, perhaps I will tomorrow anyway, I'd be happy to participate in it.

[pvenne]

I don't recall the actual figure but it was large enough to make headlines in Canada and the US.

My opinion of Moore isn't that he is evil but extremely greedy, deceptive and has said some very bad things about America and Americans at his over seas tours that all add up to me not liking him at all.

Moore is easily a topic of discussion itself.

[Ruso]

I really like the Awful Truth, and also, Bowling for Columbine. I really admire his bravery and his willignesss to challenge the most powerful man in the world. I dont think he should be labeled as "antiamerican" because of being a strong dissenter. I think he is very creative and aware that his nation is not as good as most think. That is the reason he is so loved in Europe and Latin America(rest of western world), because he accepts his nation's errors. He also makes it clear that he loves it. However I do agree that he is an extremist and tends to take things out of context. (ie. Fahrenheti 9-11)

Also, lol, here statistics around Bush ended up with most people relating him with "evil" and "stupidity"

Anyways this way out of topic, but just had to comment on that...

[pvenne]

I really like the Awful Truth, and also, Bowling for Columbine. I really admire his bravery and his willignesss to challenge the most powerful man in the world. I dont think he should be labeled as "antiamerican" because of being a strong dissenter. I think he is very creative and aware that his nation is not as good as most think. That is the

[Viper]

he doesn't protest, or join politics and try to make a difference, he doesn't rally

Actually he did these very things.

During stops at various colleges and high schools in Michigan on his 60-city "Slacker Uprising Tour," the "Fahrenheit 9/11" filmmaker offered gag prizes such as clean underwear, clean dorm rooms and a years supply of doritos, and packages of ramen noodles to first-time voters who pledged to vote for Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry.

That alone is called illegal vote bribery and should have landed him in jail.

He then released a piece of fiction labelled as truth slandering a presidential nominee in theaters on an election year.

Criminal Slander requires a 5 point model, all of which Moore's film falls under yet he wasn't jailed for it.

Doubting the government and recognizing the faults of your country is noble and I do it all the time but to lie to others about others, bribe them, slander, verbally attack without provocation or reason are not American.

[pvenne]

Actually he did these very things.

During stops at various colleges and high schools in Michigan on his 60-city "Slacker Uprising Tour," the "Fahrenheit 9/11" filmmaker offered gag prizes such as clean underwear, clean dorm rooms and a years supply of doritos,  and packages of ramen noodles to first-time voters who pledged to vote for Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry.

That alone is called illegal vote bribery and should have landed him in jail.

He then released a piece of fiction labelled as truth slandering a presidential nominee in theaters on an election year. 

Criminal Slander requires a 5 point model, all of which Moore's film falls under yet he wasn't jailed for it.

Doubting the government and recognizing the faults of your country is noble and I do it all the time but to lie to others about others, bribe them, slander, verbally attack without provocation or reason are not American.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

well if he did do those things, then it was probably to raise his own name into the spotlight and for the promotion of his work. and can you really call it bribery? bribery means to tell someone they have to do A or you will do B. And his movie is not fiction, none of it was made up. I think you mean it wasn't a fair depiction, and this is true. it is one-sided and decontextualized and very biased, but it is all true. But hey, it didn't stop Bush from winning the election in 2004, just like losing the election didn't stop him from winning the elction in 2000 (wow that sounds weird).

[Viper]

well if he did do those things, then it was probably to raise his own name into the spotlight and for the promotion of his work.  and can you really call it bribery?  bribery means to tell someone they have to do A or you will do B.  And his movie is not fiction, none of it was made up.  I think you mean it wasn't a fair depiction, and this is true.  it is one-sided and decontextualized and very biased, but it is all true.  But hey, it didn't stop Bush from winning the election in 2004, just like losing the election didn't stop him from winning the elction in 2000 (wow that sounds weird).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's not bribery, that's extortion and coersion. Bribery is when you the practice of offering something (usually money) in order to gain an illicit advantage.

According to US law, you cannot bribe votes, it's illegal and prosecution was almost taken.

Actually, there were many, many things in that film that were 100% incorrect. It's been proven. If you want to start a new thread on it, I will prove it. Sure some was just twisted context but that was only a small part of it. You cannot label a documentary as fact with just half truths, lies and slander.

[pvenne]

That's not bribery, that's extortion and coersion.  Bribery is when you the practice of offering something (usually money) in order to gain an illicit advantage.

According to US law, you cannot bribe votes, it's illegal and prosecution was almost taken.

Actually, there were many, many things in that film that were 100% incorrect.  It's been proven.  If you want to start a new thread on it, I will prove it.  Sure some was just twisted context but that was only a small part of it.  You cannot label a documentary as fact with just half truths, lies and slander.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

the documentary wasnt fact, that would mean that its point was correct, which it wasnt. i just meant that the footage used was all true, i mean, i saw it with my own eyes and it easnt a cartoon....it was all true, just twisted. this doesnt mean moore is right, or that bush is as bad as the fil says he is...it just means that what you see wasnt made up (unless you can say that the people in the film were actors). i get your point, but do you see what i mean. i dont think we are in disagreement. (and you were right, it was coercion i was talking about, i guess you offer a more correct definition of bribery.)

[Viper]

True in that everything filmed was 'literally' filmed but false in many statements, accusations, timing and schedules.

Twisted contexts and sentiments we both agree upon.

You know he made more from that movie than Bush ever will from ME oil?

[rusthebuss]

That's debatable.  There's some that believe Japan would have surrendered anyway once Russia entered the war.  US leaders wanted Japan for themselves, thus the race to drop the bomb before Russia formally entered the Pacific Theater. 

I can't help but think that it had to be done.  It would have been done sooner or later.  Unfortunately the japanase were the sacrifice so that we might avoid an all out nuclear war later.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well look how we helped Japan prosper to what it is now. Also people forgot that we tried to stay out of the war until Japan attacked us and killed our men! Also what about what the Japanese did to all of the island nations around there. I don't feel bad about droping the bomb. Sorry that lives had to be loss but Japan was way out of hand.

[rusthebuss]

I really like the Awful Truth, and also, Bowling for Columbine. I really admire his bravery and his willignesss to challenge the most powerful man in the world. I dont think he should be labeled as "antiamerican" because of being a strong dissenter. I think he is very creative and aware that his nation is not as good as most think. That is the  reason he is so loved in Europe and Latin America(rest of western world), because he accepts his nation's errors. He also makes it clear that he loves it. However I do agree that he is an extremist and  tends to take things out of context. (ie. Fahrenheti 9-11)

Also, lol, here statistics around Bush ended up with most people relating him with "evil" and "stupidity"

Anyways this way out of topic, but just had to comment on that...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He made alot of lies. He cut out parts of clips to make it seem like what it wasn't. I don't like him. I don't appreciate him strolling all over Europe and bad mouthing America with complete lies with twisting and bending the truth with his propaganda. Thats what he spews is propaganda.