Yeah America has fireworks! Nagasaki and Hiroshima Loved It!

[Pfalzer]

Hell yeah on August 6, and 9 of 1945 we gave the japan the best light show ever Nagasaki and Hiroshima loved it! It was totally free and everyone had fuking stadium side seats. They were definately shocked and awed. pfff do we have fire works :P

[Azrael]

The editorial originally ended with the line "Japan of all countries should know this." But then I figured that might actually offend some people and potentially cross a line or two, so I took it out.

But I've gotten a steady stream of emails which more or less say the same as the post above, except mostly with more tact.

[Pfalzer]

o was not angry lol i was tryign to be funny which the subject of question is not so funny.... but im a bastard so ill still laugh :P I'm sorry if i offended anyone with the above post...

[Mechs]

:D I thought it was funny.

[h2orowe]

I'm in tears because I'm offended you heartless bastard! Tanx f4r teh laffz, nub.

[Arctic_Slicer]

I don't really find it offensive too much but I don't live in Japan either. Some might find it offensive but I would think that alot of them would probabally understand that you were trying to be funny. I guess if there is alot of complaints about it the thread should be locked to keep the forums civil.

[scan2001]

People are way too sensitive.

[Mr. Mouthwash]

People are way too sensitive.

Except for the ones who aren't sensitive enough.

[dibabear]

Dunno, I think the whole "we gave 'um fireworks" comment is just bad taste. It's one thing to have had to use the damned thing, it's another to actually be proud of it.

[Pretentious]

The editorial originally ended with the line "Japan of all countries should know this." But then I figured that might actually offend some people and potentially cross a line or two, so I took it out.

But I've gotten a steady stream of emails which more or less say the same as the post above, except mostly with more tact.

I would've said to go for it. Then again, I absolutely love cringe type humor so whatever.

[Pfalzer]

yeah people are way too sensitive... people dont have humor anymore....

[Hito]

Dunno, I think the whole "we gave 'um fireworks" comment is just bad taste. It's one thing to have had to use the damned thing, it's another to actually be proud of it.

Exactly. There are some things that are okay to joke about and I don't think this is one of them...

[Pretentious]

Who said anything about being proud? It's a joke.

And as the great George Carlin said, "You can make a joke out of ANYTHING. Look at rape. Rape can be funny. Imagine Porky Pig raping Elmer Fudd."

[Pfalzer]

yeha i don know who said i was proud of it neither did i state i was proud of it.... u guys need to lighten up :P

[hapamama]

I don't think it's funny to laugh at the deaths of that many civilians. And yes, my husband family and my family had relatives in the Hiroshima region at the time of the bombings.

[Pfalzer]

omg lock this thread people are gettign retarded....

[Mr. Mouthwash]

omg lock this thread people are gettign retarded....

Yeah, please people, only post in this thread if you _agree_ with Pfalzer. Seriously, if you don't agree with him, what the hell are you doing here?

P.S. Sarcasm is humor too. ;)

[Pfalzer]

lol i enjoy all forms of humor and i am usually the butt of the joke of each of those forms ;) the nagasaki and horishima thing was ba don my part i know lol poor taste blah blah blah im sorry was supposed to be one of those fucked up but sarcastic jokes but everyones cryign about it... so you know whatever. ;) Ive seen wors eon OP9 than wht i wrote so you poeple need to chill the hell out and laugh a little...

[mikormack]

omg lock this thread people are gettign retarded....
one could argue that this thread was retarded from the beginning...

[hapamama]

If we're following Pfalzer's line of "what's funny", it would be okay to joke about all those people who died in the 9/11 attacks, particularly in front of families of the victims.

If being sensitive to that much hurt and loss is being "retarded", I think I can live with that label.

[Pretentious]

I don't think it's funny to laugh at the deaths of that many civilians. And yes, my husband family and my family had relatives in the Hiroshima region at the time of the bombings.

See, I'm different. I live under the belief that anything, no matter how horrifying, can be funny. It just all depends on exactly how good the joke is. Like I said though, I absolutely love cringe humor.

Since you brought it up, courtesy of Gilbert Gottfried: "Sorry I'm late. My plane had to be rerouted through the Empire State Building."

Friggin' gold.

[hapamama]

See, I'm different. I live under the belief that anything, no matter how horrifying, can be funny. It just all depends on exactly how good the joke is. Like I said though, I absolutely love cringe humor.

Don't get me wrong, I like cringe humor, but there are some things that are just sick to laugh at. I don't laugh at children dying or being orphaned. It just hits too close to home.

[Azrael]

Which is why I cut the line. I certainly didn't feel comfortable about using it. I didn't think the potential humor outweighed the potential insensitivity/offensiveness of it. Quite the opposite, actually.

[JustTooCrazy]

Good decision.

[GTARob]

While I'm all for sick humor, deriving pleasure from an event that involved the spontaneous combustion to 150 thousand people disconcerting.

Then again, I did smile when I saw an import racer with a sticker on his car that read, "Hiroshima Racing, Made in America, Tested in Japan"

So, go figure.

Rob

[Deadhead]

I really dont like it when people try to have little Japan pity parties.

Japan at that time was a profoundly evil country (they killed 35 million people in China, tested biologial weapons on Pows, Dissected PoWs without anestetic, had a system of state sanctioned rape, encouraged cannibalism amongst the soldiers, etc).

Sure, it was unfourtunate that the bombs had to be dropped, but the fact is that they were dropped to save american lives (400,000 to 1 Million would have died in an invasion of mainland Japan) and to end the atrocities Japan was commiting.

[Steelrose]

I don't usually think about the bombing of Japan, but compaired to the possible amount of time spent on invading the mainland....

I just don't see how Japan can say that they didn't lose the war. Or for that matter, that Pearl Harber never happened. But then again, as Az says, "We are Japan, we are the borg, resistence is futile."

BTW, that last line, "And y'know what? Dare I say it, our fireworks are actually *better*. We're America. We're very good at blowing shit up, as many many other countries can attest to." I was laughing for 10 minutes after I read that.

[Deadhead]

The thing I like least about 'atomic bomb pity parties' is that they are generally so uninformed.

Even when you include radiation deaths from the bomb, the U.S. killed way more Japanese with our conventional bombing of Japan than the A-Bombs.

Another thing I dont like is the seeming double standard with bombings of Japan compared to that of Germany. If a German started having a Dresden pity party, people would just say 'Its unfourtunate, but you were killing alot of jews, and we had to do what we had to do'.
Japan, Who killed 3 times as many people in China as Germany did in the Holocaust, does not get a similar reaction, mostly because they have tried/suceeded to cover up their wartime atrocities.

[Pierrot le Fou]

Please give me some proof that they killed 35,000,000 people, because I'm calling bullshit n that one.

When the Japanese lost Saipan, the US was able to indiscriminately bomb the Japanese mainland without much resistance. They didn't surrender.

When the Russians started taking back China and allied with them, China was entirely lost to the Japanese. They didn't surrender.

When the US invaded Okinawa, the military leadership knew that winning was impossible, so they fought to inflict maximum losses. After they lost, with 20,000+ dead Americans and many times that in dead Japanese soldiers, because of propaganda, about 1/4 of the Okinawan population committed suicide out of fear of the US soldiers. The Japanese still didn't surrender.

The US was forecasting huge losses (tens of thousands) in the invasion of Kyushu. The Japanese had trains millions of civilians to repel an invasion with bamboo spears. There were 600,000 troops in Kyushu who had positioned themselves out of naval battery range, but close enough to shore to prevent the US from being able to dig in. The goal? To break the American will to fight. They still had 10,000+ kamikaze aircraft, and plenty of kamikaze boats. They threatened to execute every single allied POW if there was an invasion of the Japanese mainland.

We firebombed Tokyo, killing over 100,000 civilians, and flattening the city. Osaka and Kobe were also heavily bombed. They didn't surrender.

We offered the Potsdam declaration, demanding unconditional surrender. They ignored it. They didn't surrender.

We dropped a bomb on Hiroshima on August 6th. 100,000 or so civilians died instantly. Another 50,000 would die later. They didn't surrender.

We dropped another bomb on Nagasaki on August 9th. 60,000 or so civilians died instantly, Another 40,000 or so would die later. They didn't surrender.

We resumed conventional bombing of Osaka. They didn't surrender.

Only on August 15th did they surrender, with a broadcast by the emperor. What did that broadcast say? (full text here)

the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should We continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.

What do you think that 'most cruel bomb' was? It was a horrible horrible act of barbarism, but what's even more disgusting than the fact that we used the bomb is the fact that it was necessary to use it. Civilians have always been a casualty of war, and unfortunately we saved more by dropping the bomb than we likely would have killed through an invasion (and who would have killed themselves as in okinawa).

[Citizen]

Fun facts:

1. America warned Japan in various ways before the bombings. They had plenty of time to evacuate.
2. Hiroshima and Nagasaki truely were military targets. It wasn't a cold-hearted slaughter of innocent civilians.
3. Nagasaki was a freakin' near empty industrial city.
4. Japan was also working on making A-bombs. They made almost as much progress as America did. The only thing hindering them was a lack of uraniam. Guess who they planned on bombing! Give up? America, YAY! And they would have probably used much less tact then we did.

[Deadhead]

Here are some links about japanese atrocities.
http://www.china.org.cn/english/features/136576.htm

Japan declared that they could defeat China in three months, but China resisted for eight years at a cost of 35 million lives and 100 billion US dollars worth of materials
http://www.china.org.cn/english/features/celebrations/128171.htm

Heres one specifically about Japanese bio chem testing/warfare (interesting)
http://www.skycitygallery.com/japan/japan.html

Heres one where it gives the number 30 million
http://www.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/NanjingMassacre/NMSFC.html
30 million Chinese died from indiscriminate killing and starvation during Japan's occupation

One specifically about Nanjing
http://www.gotrain.com/dan/nanking1.htm

Heres a good book:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0306811782/102-7590501-8144159?v=glance

Another good book
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0306811782/102-7590501-8144159?v=glance
The description about that is really misleading, its mostly about japanese war atrocities, not what it says it is. It actually gives the number 35 million within the book

There, That should be enough to prove my point for now. I had some really good stuff from a thread on another board where I was talking about this, maybe I will look it up later.

^^^ About the other powers developing bombs.

Nazi germany had effective missiles that could have delivered bombs to Moscow or London (the V-2s) and they were like 95% of the way to a bomb.
In the last days of Nazi Germany they sent what they had to Japan, according to 1 show I saw Japan was months away from its own bomb.

PS. If by 'Tens of thousands' you mean 'Hundreds of thousands' (refering to Kyushu invasion) then you would be right.

The military estimate given to Truman (based off of casualties from Okinawa and
Iwo Jima) was 400,000 to a million.
However you cut it the A-Bombs saved lives.

(The edit button is a wonderful feature. -Az)

[Pierrot le Fou]

Chinese government sources are about as unbiased as nationalist Japanese textbooks. C'mon now...

You're going to have to do a tad better than that.

[Deadhead]

Those books I mentioned have the numbers in them, but I cant copy/paste a book.
Besides, only 2 of those were Chinese Gov sources.

Still, I think the evidence that I provided was plenty.

[Marblehead]

Chinese government sources are about as unbiased as nationalist Japanese textbooks. C'mon now...

You're going to have to do a tad better than that.


That deserves an honest to goodness circa 1988 LOL. congrats!

[Pierrot le Fou]

That deserves an honest to goodness circa 1988 LOL. congrats!

Tiananmen Square Protests were held in 1989. If that's what you're referring to.

[Marblehead]

Tiananmen Square Protests were held in 1989. If that's what you're referring to.


No, not really but why the fuck not?!?! GO FAILED DEMOCRACY, GO!

[mikormack]

while I am in no way trying to excuse or forgive Japan and its role in the war, I think it's important to consider all the facts before passing judgement.

that being said:

the atomic bombs likely sped up the Japanese surrender by a matter of weeks, if that.
the Japanese government barely had time to analyze what even happened in Hiroshima when the bomb fell on Nagasaki.
the Americans wanted to use the bombs to scare the Soviet Union as the Cold War was just beginning. furthermore, they wanted to take Japan before the Soviets could get to it so that Japan did not fall to Communism.
the US essentially used Hiroshima and Nagasaki as experiments to test the effect of nuclear weapons on human beings.
the US remains the only country ever to have used full-powered nuclear weapons on civilians in a time of war.
the US military censored all accounts of the bombings from witnesses and journalists, and only recently have accounts been made public.


but, as previous poster's mentioned, in the US at the time the general concensus was that the Japanese would never surrender and it would take a full-scale invasion, causing massive casualties, for the war to end. in that context, one can understand the sentiment, but that doesn't mean one should forgive such an inhumane act. war sucks in general; whether it's occupation, sex slavery, death camps, trench warfare, nasty diseases, amputations, firebombings or nuclear weapons. no one is innocent, so don't let victor's justice go to your head and think that the US is always altruistic and good.

let me end with two quotes, one by then-General Dwight D. Eisenhower, and one from a consultant of General MacArthur, in case you don't believe me:"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380

"When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71.

[Pierrot le Fou]

Save that we didn't allow the emperor to keep his God status, which was certainly NOT a part of the conditional surrender they were offering. They wanted the Emperor to remain a God, remain untouchable, and be above it all. He wasn't, and the unconditional surrender was different in that very key way. The nationalist imperialism was done in the name of their God-Emperor. Not so likely to happen if he loses the God status.

[Deadhead]

Can you cite a source for 'the atomic bombs sped up the japanese surrender by a matter of weeks'?

Everything I have read makes it apperent that the Japanese were prepared to fight to the last man, and nothing short of a full scale invasion of Kyushu (US from the south, USSR from the North).
Really, If the USSR had invaded Japan they would have wanted control of part of it after the war (Germany style). I'm surprised the northern half of Japan isnt grateful We dropped the bombs, seeing how awful the USSR was (look at what they did when they took Berlin).

# the Americans wanted to use the bombs to scare the Soviet Union as the Cold War was just beginning. furthermore, they wanted to take Japan before the Soviets could get to it so that Japan did not fall to Communism.
# the US essentially used Hiroshima and Nagasaki as experiments to test the effect of nuclear weapons on human beings.
# the US remains the only country ever to have used full-powered nuclear weapons on civilians in a time of war.

Yeah we wanted to scare the USSR, but that was really just icing on the cake. We didnt drop the bombs for that sole purpose.

As for the using the drop as experiments, thats BS. We knew full well what would happen when we dropped the bombs (having tested them in New Mexico) and we knew their destructive power, and we knew they would kill people. You make it sound like we were testing them for the first time
Its true that we had no idea about radiation (we were testing nukes in the atmosphere til the 60s, and there is a famous picture of Oppenheimer and Leslie Groves standing in the highly irradiated test site in new Mexico)

Yeah, We are the only country to have used nukes, but we are also the only country who has ever been in that situation.
We didnt know anything about radiation
We were faced with a ruthless and powerful enemy willing to fight to the last man
We had to be weary of our ally the USSR.

We used the nukes for shock effect. We could have just as easily firebombed Hiroshima (and probably did more damage) but the bombs were much more effective in terms of ending the war. The Japanese were used to firebombings, they were not used to a single bomb destroying a city.

[mikormack]

perhaps it would be better to say...

'according to many experts, including former and future presidents, two generals and multitudes of military officers, the atomic bombs likely sped up the surrender by a matter of weeks.'

but, you asked, so here you are (http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USSBS-PTO-Summary.html) :

The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, after interviewing hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, reported:

"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

and you are forgetting that the bombs used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were of different types -- we had tested nuclear weapons before but NEVER on people and in fact the type used in Nagasaki we had never tested before.

and further quotes because they are so much fun...

The decision to bomb Nagasaki only a few days after Hiroshima raises separate issues. Some people hold that most of the arguments for the use of the atomic bomb do not justify dropping the second one on Nagasaki. In his semi-autobiographical novel Timequake, Kurt Vonnegut said that while the Hiroshima bomb may have saved the lives of his friends in the U.S. armed forces, Nagasaki still proved that the United States was capable of senseless cruelty.
from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki)

and also from that article...

Many critics believe that the U.S. had ulterior motives in dropping the bombs, including justifying the $2 billion investment in the Manhattan Project, testing the effects of nuclear weapons, exacting revenge for the attacks on Pearl Harbor, and demonstrating U.S. capabilities to the Soviet Union. Scientists who had worked on the project later noted that they were pressured to finish the bomb by a set schedule, one which was timed to coincide with the Russian entrance into the Pacific theater, and one which additionally implied that the war would be potentially over very soon.

[Dead Sexy Vocab]

Death to America.

[Deadhead]

What a waste of a post vocab.

Mikormack: Listen, I read that link and it never said anything about Japan preparing to surrender (at least not in the atomic bomb section).
I have however read in several places that the Japanese were prepared to fight to the last man in defense of Kyushu. In fact, the Japanese government had a plan to arm civilians with bamboo spears in the event of an invasion.
The military heads at the time predicted 400,000 to a million American casualties.

The link you provided does not refute this. Its an interesting page about the war in the pacific, but nowhere does it say anything about Japan preparing to surrender.

As for the second bomb. Yes, the second bomb was of a type that had never been tested, but we knew what it would do. You keep talking about 'testing the bomb on humans'. You dont need to test a bomb on humans, it does the same thing to humans that it does to everything else, it incinerates them. Again, your link says nothing about this either.
Funny thing about the Wiki article, it starts with many critics believe now if there was ever a way to say 'this next part is an opinion' that was it.
I for one am willing to agree that the U.S. had ulterior motives in dropping the second bomb (like showing the world we could make more). We probably shouldnt have dropped the second. Its just like the firebombing of Dresden, yes it was a bad decison that was made, but it was done to try and prevent a much greater atrocity.

Dropping the first however, was a good idea and helped end the war with fewer U.S. casualties.

Listen, the link was good, but it didnt back up anything you said. I kinda think you linked me too a big long page about WW2 not expecting me to read it, so you would sound like your claims have some validity. Anyone can link to a page, I could like you to tubgirl and say that it proved that I singlehandedly won WW2 with my time machine. You really dont have a ton of credibility when you pull shit like linking me to stuff that doesnt back you up.
Seriously dude, have some self respect.

[Pierrot le Fou]

From your source:

Early in May 1945, the Supreme War Direction Council began active discussion of ways and means to end the war, and talks were initiated with Soviet Russia seeking her intercession as mediator.

The talks by the Japanese ambassador in Moscow and with the Soviet ambassador in Tokyo did not make progress. On 20 June the Emperor, on his own initiative, called the six members of the Supreme War Direction Council to a conference and said it was necessary to have a plan to close the war at once, as well as a plan to defend the home islands. The timing of the Potsdam Conference interfered with a plan to send Prince Konoye to Moscow as a special emissary with instructions from the cabinet to negotiate for peace on terms less than unconditional surrender, but with private instructions from the Emperor to secure peace at any price. Although the Supreme War Direction Council, in its deliberations on the Potsdam Declaration, was agreed on the advisability of ending the war, three of its members, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister and the Navy Minister, were prepared to accept unconditional surrender, while the other three, the Army Minister, and the Chiefs of Staff of both services, favored continued resistance unless certain mitigating conditions were obtained.

Emphasis mine.

The question is, if the Potsdam declaration interrupted plans to send the prince to Moscow to negotiate a surrender that the emperor had privately said should be secured 'at any price,' then why didn't he just accept the Potsdam declaration, offering surrender, rather than try to go through the Russians?

Here is what I know about Japanese government having lived here and worked in it for 2 years: everyone waits for somebody else to make the decision.

Almost everyone wanted the war to end. A few hardliners aside, everyone knew it was lost. But rather than discuss this openly and get it done, they were sneaking around and dilly-dallying while the US was bombing them back to the stone age.

I can only feel so much pity.

The Emperor, only after over 250,000 of his people had been vaporized in the Tokyo firebombings, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, decided to own up to what he claimed to have wanted in the first place? A little late? Would it have happened eventually? Sure. The survey there says only another 3 months. And hindsight is a wonderful thing, and all that, but we were scheduled to invade in November (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_downfall) which wouldn't have done much good if, as the article stated, they were likely to surrender by December 1st.

All American POWs would have been executed.

American soldiers would have faced massive losses.

Civilians would have charged the beaches with bamboo spears like lambs to the slaughter.

I understand what you're saying, but the Japanese had lost in 1944 when Tojo fell from grace over Saipan. It took them a slew of firebombings, two atomic bombs, the loss of troops all over southeast Asia, the suicides of a quarter of Okinawan civilians, and 14 months to surrender. An American wrote the report, and the officers interviewed were using hindsight knowing how badly they would have been slaughtered. Does it surprise you that they would say they would have surrendered?

Who was it -- hapacheese maybe -- who said that when his grandfather arrived in the US for the first time after WWII and saw how huge it was, he said, "No wonder we had no chance, how could we fight against this?" After the US military set up in Japan, I would make the crazy assumption that the Japanese leaders, who had been ignoring reality for 14 months, would finally snap out of their delusion.

That's my opinion, and we'll never know for sure. All we have to go on is hindsight and some old documents.

[Deadhead]

Yeah, the Atomic bombs saved American lives, I dont know what more there is to save.

Chances are they saved Japanese lives too, How many civilians would have died in suicide charges?

Really, I am a little unclear what Mack is even argueing. Is he for the dropping of the bombs? Or against it?
Personally, I think the bombs were the best of bad options, and that using them was the right decison. The first one anyways, The second bomb being used had a little shaky reasoning behind it.

EDIT: Yah, I gotta get to bed now, be back tommorow.

[Pierrot le Fou]

When you have two bombs, and you aren't sure if one will do it, you drop the second in the hopes that you fool them into thinking that you have enough to keep dropping until there is no Japan left.

And from the sounds of the surrender speech, I'm pretty sure that they fell for it.

[mikormack]

I am anti-war, and anti-nuclear weapons, but the point of my posts was not to 'prove' that the nuclear weapons were unnecessary and barbaric -- that is post de facto judgement that serves no purpose. I wanted, though, to counter the cheerleading going on by both Pierrot and Deadhead who tried to glorify the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians.

yes, if we had invaded we likely would have suffered massive casualties. yes too, if we had waited, would they have likely surrendered regardless of an invasion or bombings or the Soviet Union joining the war.

we were starving them of food, oil and pretty much everything they needed to continue the war. their army and navy were shattered. by all accounts, including from military leaders (such as Gen. Douglas McArthur and Gen. Dwight Eisenhower), the bombings were fairly unnecessary, and merely served the expedite the end of the war by 10-14 weeks along with incinerating two Japanese cities.

was it necessary? I am not in a position to judge that. my gut reaction tells me no, but as I stated before I am antiwar. what does seem apparent is that if we had not bombed Hiroshima or at the very least Nagasaki, the war would have ended and the same number of Americans would have died. the link I provided does indeed state that Japan would not have continued past the end of the year, and even US military voices were saying so before the bombs were dropped. so don't give me the bullshit that it was simply biased sources saying so after the fact: this is an official government sanctioned survey that you are disputing. it's not just any old 'opinion' here...

but I do think Pierrot has a point about Japanese and their hesitation to act. but even so, an island nation can only survive for so long with all their ports completely blocked, surrounded by the entire Allied powers.

but anyway, if you guys don't wanna agree with my cited sources, go right ahead. no one can know for sure exactly what would have happened, we can only judge what did happen.

and on that note, to Deadhead: my link was actually the footnote from the Wikipedia article upon which I found the quote. if it was not in the actual original document that is quite odd, but my apologies for citing directly and not citing the entry instead.

[Pierrot le Fou]

glorify? GLORIFY?!

What do you think that 'most cruel bomb' was? It was a horrible horrible act of barbarism, but what's even more disgusting than the fact that we used the bomb is the fact that it was necessary to use it.
Post #29 (http://outpostnine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=14328&postcount=29)

And yes, you're right, eventually Japan would have been starved into submission. They were on a rice ration before we even got to Saipan. The civilians would have been the first to starve. It was a barbaric decision that I think was right despite its barbarism.

[dibabear]

See, I'm different. I live under the belief that anything, no matter how horrifying, can be funny. It just all depends on exactly how good the joke is. Like I said though, I absolutely love cringe humor.

Since you brought it up, courtesy of Gilbert Gottfried: "Sorry I'm late. My plane had to be rerouted through the Empire State Building."

Friggin' gold.

See now Gilbert I can laugh at. George Carlin too. Why? Because they made something grave into something funny. Hell, Slim Pickins riding the bomb in in "Dr. Strangelove" is funny. That whole movie makes me laugh.

As for Pfalzer's joke, it just falls flat. It sounds more like a brag or bravado than humor. Az's tongue in cheek "and they should know something about that" is more subtle and a bit of cringe humor like those "man with no legs" or "green and red" jokes when I was a kid.

How we say what we say can convey more meaning than just the words themselves. Even in English.

[Pfalzer]

haha obviously you are new lol theres no way in hell i would brag about US involvement in anything haha not too long ago everyone was pissed becu zi said america had the twin tower thing coming. But i agree i do suck at jokes :D

[dibabear]

Yeah, the Atomic bombs saved American lives, I dont know what more there is to save.

So an American life is somehow worth more than a Japanese life? This sounds just like the kind of shit the Japanese or German nationalists spewed and continue to spew.

The atomic bombings saved Japanese lives as well as the population was ready to fight until their deaths as they did in Okinawa. Only after actually hearing the Emperor's speech, in his own voice for the first time in their lives, did everyday Japanese accept defeat.

Based on the information available at the time (and declassified about 10 years ago) the military knew that the Japanese military had intercepted and broken our codes because of the sudden build up of troops on Kyushu. At the time they were planning a Normandy like invasion and wanted a 4 to 1 advantage so as to be able to gain a foothold. With the Japan having moved her troops south that ration became closer to 1 to 1, a losing proposition for any invading army anywhere.

The estimate then was that it would cost 200,000 American lives, at least 500,000 Japanese lives, possibly more, and up to 3 years to successfully invade and secure the country. And...with the entrance of the Soviets in late July there was a very good chance that Japan would have to be partitioned the same as Germany was. As it was, the Soviets kepted Sakalin (sp?)

So...Truman decided to drop the bomb on August 6th. Japan didn't know what had hit them and only started to realize this when the second bomb was dropped on August 9th. As Pierrot says, it was a gamble as we only had two bombs but the Imperial government believed that we had many more. And so it surrendered.

There is also some indication that had we insisted on removing the Emperor from power that Japan would not have surrendered when they did.

[Deadhead]

^^^ When you are in a state of war, it is more important to think of the lives of your own citizens. A government has a responsibilty to think of its own people first (while trying to temper this with basic human rights).

If it was the choice between 400,000 American soliders dying and 300,000 Japanese citizens (a citizen tactitly supports their government with taxes, as well as works on the farms and factorys that allow a government to wage war) then yes, I would choose the soldiers.

Also, if you look at civilian starvation in other wars (some 800,000 Germans in WW1) then the bombs probably saved Japanese lives as well. The first bomb was a good decison all around, and the second one (although questions can be raised) was probably also a good idea

As for your link: Yes, I missed that part and I owe you an apology. However, the U.S. had no idea that Japan was preparing to surrender, and hindsight is 20/20. Yes, we could have saved more lives by waiting, but if you look at what the U.S. knew it was far and away the right decison, better than a Kyushu invasion.

[sophisticated_monkeys]

"And y'know what? Dare I say it, our fireworks are actually *better*. We're America. We're very good at blowing shit up, as many many other countries can attest to."
lol, I thought he was talking about the Middle East/Iraq/Bush when I read that. The A-bomb didn't even come to mind until I read this thread.

[Deadhead]

I always heard that Japan had better Fireworks, being so close to China.

Granted thats a little off topic, but I would like to know which country has better ones.

[whispering]

I think it pretty much sums up how fucked up this world is, when some think that people going through living hell is funny.

[Dead Sexy Vocab]

I think it pretty much sums up how fucked up this world is, when some think that people going through living hell is funny.

Most of the people in the world don't really care at all, which means that we're all going to hell. :D

[Praetorian]

Who said anything about being proud? It's a joke.

And as the great George Carlin said, "You can make a joke out of ANYTHING. Look at rape. Rape can be funny. Imagine Porky Pig raping Elmer Fudd."

http://www.tshirthell.com/shirts/products/a247/a247.gif

Somehow reminded me of this.


To the original topic, I don't have anything to say. Pfalzer, I actually thought you were rather smart once. And I'm not saying this because of your tactless 'joke' (although I have to admit I personally am not offended) but more because the way you write. You didn't always write AOL style, did you?

[atomiton]

history is written by the winners... most of the proponents of the bomb were taught it was necessary from early schoolhood... when one is most impressionable.

it is very difficult to be unbiased.

it's also very hard to admit one is wrong... or if one has strong nationalistic (the new religion) view, it is hard to admit one's nation is wrong. deshou?

war, in my opinion too, is sick.

[Deadhead]

^^^ You act like nationalism is new. nationalism is as old as the nation (or the city state) making about.... 8000 years old.

I have never been in a class that glorified the decison to drop the bomb, but thats just me. You act like they teach WW2 hitory to preschoolers. By the time its taught, chances are people will be old enough to formulate an opinion.

Interesting enough, the American Revoloution (which they do teach us about very young) is usually glorified, and as a result people dont understand it much.

As I learned more about it, I really realized Great Britain was right to demand the taxes they did (To pay off the French Indian War, in which they saved our asses) and we were just some ungrateful little shits who wrapped up the fact that we wanted a free ride in democratic rhetoric.
Also, those taxes we were taught were oh so unfair only affected a small percent of the population.

[hanacker]

I think Japan has better fireworks than America, although I haven't seen much in the way of American fireworks outside of Hawaii and Disneyland.

[kensei]

Okay, I'll keep this short:

I'm all for having a twisted sense of humor. Still, saying something like

omg lock this thread people are gettign retarded....
directly after someone says

I don't think it's funny to laugh at the deaths of that many civilians. And yes, my husband family and my family had relatives in the Hiroshima region at the time of the bombings.
makes you out to be an insensitive prick. You know, I had relatives there, too. I wasn't particularly offended by what you said, but rather your lack of courtesy in regards to the feelings of others. Also, I want you to imagine how it would look if some random German bloke made a joke about Jews and ovens.