Second Anniversery of 9/11

[milefile]

Originally posted by DODGE the VIPER
Yet it killed innocent people who had nothing to do with the war, not those that were "willing to die" for Japan.

They would've died anyway, and many, many more. You do understand that there was no such thing as "surgical" bombing in WWII, right? You do understand that they just carpet bombed entire cities, right? Ever heard of Dresden? Firestorm?

 

[Mike Rotch]

Originally posted by milefile
They would've died anyway, and many, many more. You do understand that there was no such thing as "surgical" bombing in WWII, right? You do understand that they just carpet bombed entire cities, right? Ever heard of Dresden? Firestorm?

There has and always will be controversy over carpet bombing of WWII, but we werent alive then and dont have the foggiest clue of what it was like to live in the presence of nazi germany.

At the end of the day, it did the job.

 

[vat_man]

Originally posted by DODGE the VIPER
Yet it killed innocent people who had nothing to do with the war, not those that were "willing to die" for Japan.

Yeah - that's a tough one.

Given Hirohito's stubborness, I'm inclined to believe that in the absence of nuclear weapons the Japanese would not have surrendered without a full scale invasion of Japan.

In that case, I imagine that a lot more people who had nothing to do with the conflict would have been killed than turned out to be the case - and a lot of military personnel.

It's a very difficult moral dilemna, and much as I oppose the use of nuclear weapons I think the correct choice was made.

 

[Mike Rotch]

Originally posted by vat_man
Yeah - that's a tough one.

Given Hirohito's stubborness, I'm inclined to believe that in the absence of nuclear weapons the Japanese would not have surrendered without a full scale invasion of Japan.

In that case, I imagine that a lot more people who had nothing to do with the conflict would have been killed than turned out to be the case - and a lot of military personnel.

It's a very difficult moral dilemna, and much as I oppose the use of nuclear weapons I think the correct choice was made.

Thats true. People are quick to point out that nuclear weapons are cruel, but how else would have Japan been made to surrender without a land invasion, which you point out, would lead to a tremendous loss of life too

 

[TurboSmoke]

Originally posted by Mike Rotch
how else would have Japan been made to surrender

surrender wasnt the only option...
dialog and compromise on both sides may have been more constructive...

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by TurboSmoke
surrender wasnt the only option...
dialog and compromise on both sides may have been more constructive...

There was no possibility of that. Do you actually think the decision to nuke Japan was preferred to a less violent solution? And for the Japanese at that time, anything but total victory or total destruction was considered surrender, the Samurai warrior nation would never had conceded. Period.

 

[TurboSmoke]

Originally posted by milefile
There was no possibility of that.

how do you possibly know this?

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by TurboSmoke
how do you possibly know this?

I infer it based on what I have learned throughout my life about the Japanese military, and Samurai and Shogun philosophy. It is a synthetic opinion, but it is based on at least some knowledge of the "world-view" of the societies in question, and not personal preference (who prefers nuclear war?). It is also based on what I know about war at different times in history. We hardly even have them anymore, despite what people think.

I also infer, from your comments, that you have not asked much about how the world has changed in the past sixty years, especially Asia. I also infer that you do not have what is called a "historical perspective". You seem to assume that people have always thought and acted they way they do now. Your comments strongly suggest that.

Nobody on this forum, indeed, few people living, can imagine what living through WWII was like. There has been nothing that even comes close since.

For at least a year before Japan was bombed for the last time their defeat was obvious and inevitable. They no longer had the man power or hardware to win. All they could do was prolong the suffering of all involved, and yet they continued to fight despite their tremendous losses; Japanese leadership would've rather seen Japan destroyed before taken over by another nation. This all-or-nothing perspective is rare, and maybe even dead, today. This also accounts for why most of Japan's military leaders commited suicide: victory or death. This principle was applied to Japan as a whole.

Now as we all know, governments and militaries do not necessarily represent everybody they claim to defend and serve. This is irrelevant, though, because they are the ones in charge. They are the ones making the decisions, and the consequences of their actions reverberate through the cities of their nation, and through history.

Have you ever watched the film Enemy at the Gate? If not, I suggest you do. It should show you how brutal life was during WWII, from the Soviet perspective. To be a soldier with no weapon, compelled into battle, only to be shot by your own commanding officer for retreating: again, victory or death.

 

[DGB454]

They were alot like militant muslims of today it seems or the Iraqi army.

 

[Mike Rotch]

Originally posted by TurboSmoke
surrender wasnt the only option...
dialog and compromise on both sides may have been more constructive...

Geepers! dont be so ignorant. "Yea, we have kamakazied aircraft carriers, battled bitterly in Guadalcanal, had armies massacred on both sides fighting for japanese atolls and struck at thte heart of the American navy. Lets have a quiet talk over saki to discuss our surrender" Are you that naive??

Never mind the Japanese aversion to surrender! why do you think harikiri and kamakazi existed. As elluded to before, surrender was not the Japanese mentality.

 

[vat_man]

Originally posted by TurboSmoke
surrender wasnt the only option...
dialog and compromise on both sides may have been more constructive...

In addition to the comments above, you also need to rememer that the Emperor was seen as a direct descendant of God, and therefore infallible - you can't imagine how galling it was to the Japanese people to see him signing the surrender papers - it was an enormous blow to the Japanese psyche.

Japan in the twentieth century makes for fascinating study, from a racial, economic and sociological points of view - it truly is a unique country, much of it stemming from its being an island, and therefore physically separated from the rest of the world.

 

[DGB454]

Originally posted by Mike Rotch
Geepers! dont be so ignorant. "Yea, we have kamakazied aircraft carriers, battled bitterly in Guadalcanal, had armies massacred on both sides fighting for japanese atolls and struck at thte heart of the American navy. Lets have a quiet talk over saki to discuss our surrender" Are you that naive??

Never mind the Japanese aversion to surrender! why do you think harikiri and kamakazi existed. As elluded to before, surrender was not the Japanese mentality.

Oddly enough it got into their mentality after the bombs dropped.
Perhaps there may have been a way to show them the power of these bombs before they were dropped on them. Maybe drop them on a smaller uninhabited island or in a desert so they could see their power.

Spilt milk though I guess.

 

[vat_man]

Originally posted by DGB454
Oddly enough it got into their mentality after the bombs dropped.
Perhaps there may have been a way to show them the power of these bombs before they were dropped on them. Maybe drop them on a smaller uninhabited island or in a desert so they could see their power.

Spilt milk though I guess.

Bear in mind it was 1945, and there was no television.