Hiroshima

[The Mullinator]

#1 Not dropping the bomb would have resulted in a major US invasion force which in my opinion would have been far worse than Vietnam when it came to American and Japanese losses (both civilian and military).

#2 Today it would be a warcrime. However if we were to punish crimes retroactively or even declare one side to have been a "bad guy" because of what would constitute a warcrime today then I guarantee that very few countries would not have been punished for past crimes. This is the classic "it was a different time" argument that actually does apply.

#3 If it were France or Britain that had dropped the bomb yet everything else in history remained the same (US cold war, Vietnam, 911, etc) would the US still be the the classic country to declare evil today? Would people simply accept the "it was a different time" argument for Britain or France? Its something to think about.

#4 Dropping the bomb on Japan may have been a blessing in disguise for Japan. We will never know an alternate history but I suspect if the US had not dropped the bomb and instead simply withdrew once Japan had formally surrendered then I suspect we would not be thinking of Japan today as a major country for research and technology. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if Japan would have attempted another attack on the US later.

#5 I don't know much about the way the Japanese military thought at the time. However if its history from before contact with the rest of the world is any indication then dropping atomic bombs on military targets would only have physically weakened its military but strengthened its resolve to destroy the US.

Just my opinion of the matter.

 

[smwScott]

People would have died eiter way. Whether it saved lives or cost them is debatable. However, these bombing were very much in line with the "total war" tactics employed during the entire war, it's no surprise that it was used against civilian targets. It was terrible, but another war that would have taken years to finish would have been worse (probably with an even greater cost to civilian lives).

Oh yeah, and whoever said we bombed the Japanese to allow us to defeat Germany is a ****ing dumbass who should never, ever post in the politics forum again. I am willing to go on the line and bet that he's conservative too, not to stereotype too much but they're the ones I'd expect to be so ignorant and stupid (and still pretend to know what they're talking about).

 

[jondy]

How do you know? Are you psykic? (Can't spell it.) How do you know Japan wouldn't have developed a WMD on thier own, and bombed us? You can't tell what history would have done. It's not a math problem, you can't just say, "Well, if they had done this, the world would be better."

What would you people have rather happened? Have thousands, to millions killed on each side in the Invasion? Or have all of Japan starve due to the blockade? You people who say its a terrible warcrime, but why? Because lots of people died? It's war, that happens, and many more would have died in the invasion. Because of radiation deaths? What about the other kinds of death that would come out of invasion, getting toasted with a flame thrower? Skewered on a Bamboo stick? Tortured when caught? Because it leveled a city and caused damage to many homes? If there had been an invasion, the whole of Japan would be destroyed, not just 2 cities. Millions would die. Japan would probably be worse than Berlin. So what would you have done?

ok.

 

[15357]

Things that were good:

1. Destroyed the colonial rule.

2. Ended the war.

3. and many many more but i can't think of stuff :|

Bad:

1. Lots of People died.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

The dropping of the bombs was better compared to the invasion. Millions would be dead on both sides in the invasion. It's a compromise. MORE civillians would be dead if they had not bombed. Not taking the option that would save the most people would be a crime.

 

[ríomhaire]

How do you know? Are you psykic? (Can't spell it.) How do you know Japan wouldn't have developed a WMD on thier own, and bombed us? You can't tell what history would have done. It's not a math problem, you can't just say, "Well, if they had done this, the world would be better."
To those that think the Atomic bombings are a War Crime-
What would you people have rather happened? Have thousands, to millions killed on each side in the Invasion? Or have all of Japan starve due to the blockade? You people who say its a terrible warcrime, but why? Because lots of people died? It's war, that happens, and many more would have died in the invasion. Because of radiation deaths? What about the other kinds of death that would come out of invasion, getting toasted with a flame thrower? Skewered on a Bamboo stick? Tortured when caught? Because it leveled a city and caused damage to many homes? If there had been an invasion, the whole of Japan would be destroyed, not just 2 cities. Millions would die. Japan would probably be worse than Berlin. So what would you have done?

It's a warcrime because inocent civilians where targeted and iradicated, that't the very definition of a warcrime. And how could you think all of japan would be wiped out? If you want to assume X or Y would have happened (which you couldn't) then Japan probably would have surrendered.

 

[JellyWorld]

How many of you would support nuking, say, NY or LA if that would *somehow* bring the war to an end with Japan defeated (I know it sounds dumb but it's just a hypothetical situation)?

If you say yes, then the nukes on japan are justified, if you say no then the nukes aren't.

 

[bliink]

it saved lives on both sides and with japan out of the way we could concentrate on germany more.

Germany surrendered in early May of '45
Japan surrendered in mid August of '45

Germany had already surrendered when Japan was bombed.

Why are you arguing here if you don't even know the outcome of WWII?

 

[Lemonking]

lol pwned

 

[CrazyHarij]

The Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, to a large degree responsible of the attack on Pearl Harbor publicly exclaimed his regret for doing this, and wrote this in his diary:

"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."

Wikipedia writes this:

Yamamoto certainly believed that Japan could not win a protracted war with the United States, and moreover seems to have believed that the Pearl Harbor attack had become a blunder — even though he was the person who came up with the idea of a surprise attack on it. The Reluctant Admiral relates that "Yamamoto alone" (while all his staff members were celebrating) spent the day after Pearl Harbour "sunk in apparent depression".

Even directly after the attack, there was regret and fear in the japanese people.

Also, the attack wasn't entirely unprovoked. The US had, by its occupation of the pacific sea, severely hampered the japanese sea- and airspace, as well as cut off the routes for imperative trade routes. Furthermore:

Roosevelt signed an unpublished (secret) executive order in May of 1940 allowing U.S. military personnel to resign from the service so that they could participate in a covert operation in China: the All Volunteer Group, also known as Chennault's Flying Tigers. Over a seven-month period, Chennault's Flying Tigers destroyed an estimated 600 Japanese aircraft, sunk numerous Japanese ships, and stalled the Japanese invasion of Burma. With the United States and other countries cutting exports to Japan, Japan planned a strike on Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941 without warning or declaration of war, dealing severe damage to the American Pacific Fleet.

The effect of this attack was also severely blown out of proportion, for obvious reasons:

Despite the perception of this battle as a devastating blow to America, only five ships were permanently lost to the Navy. These were the battleships Arizona, Oklahoma, the old battleship Utah (then used as a target ship), and the destroyers Cassin and Downes; nevertheless, much usable material was salvaged from them, including the two aft main turrets from Arizona. Four ships sunk during the attack were later raised and returned to duty, including the battleships California, West Virginia and Nevada. Of the 22 Japanese ships that took part in the attack, only one survived the war.

Also, Japan was planning to declare a formal declaration of war, however, as written, it didn't get through in time.

In 1991, it was rumored that Japan was going to make an official apology to the United States for the attack. The apology did not come in the form many expected, however. The Japanese Foreign Ministry released a statement that said Japan had intended to make a formal declaration of war to the US at 1 PM, twenty-five minutes before the attacks at Pearl Harbor were scheduled to begin (it appears that the Japanese government was referring to the "14-part message", which did not even formally break off negotiations, let alone declare war). However, due to various delays, the Japanese ambassador was unable to make the declaration until well after the attacks had begun. For this, the Japanese government apologized.

The US response to this, over the years, was a hundred times worse than the japanese actions.

Public hate was incited towards Japan with comics, propaganda and posts like this:

And the US eventually nuked the shit out of them:

Capture by the Allies of islands such as Iwo Jima and Okinawa close to Japan brought the homeland within range of naval and air attacks, Tokyo was firebombed and later on 6 August 1945 an atomic bomb, the "Little Boy", was dropped from the B-29 "Enola Gay" and destroyed Hiroshima. On 8 August 1945 the Soviet Union declared war on Japan, as had been agreed to at Yalta, and launched a large scale invasion of Japanese occupied Manchuria (operation August Storm). On August 9, in Nagasaki, another atom bomb, "Fat Man" was dropped by the B-29 "Bock's Car".

The combination of the use of nuclear weapons and the new inclusion of the Soviet Union in the war were both highly responsible for the surrender of Japan, although the importance of the Soviet incursion has been largely overlooked in conventional American histories of the conflict.

The Japanese surrendered on August 14, 1945, signing official surrender papers on September 2, 1945 aboard the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay.

Today, children are still suffering in Nagasaki and Hiroshima because of the nuclear attacks, and their grandchildren probably will suffer equally since there's been so much damage in their genes.

 

[Eg.]

well, if the atomic bomb was not developed, then the main islands of japan would have to be invaded. to soften up the area, napalm and high explosive weapons would have been used on All the cities before their takeover. what the atomic bomb did was shorten the war. instead of ruining the majority of japanese cities and decemaiting the population, the destruction of just two cities ended the war.

also the rules of war were different back then, and it is sorta naive to think even today there are actual safeguards. the geneve(sp) conventions are just there to make us fell better. both sides in Europe and the Asian theaters did terrible, terrible things. lets say WWII didnt end with japan surrendering, but a truce like Korea, in a japanese museum we may see

"and the civilians on various Emperial Islands helped the cause by rationing their supplies and fighting to the last man, even with there bare hands" mind you im putting history in different wording. replace rationing with "starved" and "fighting back" was killing your own wife and children since you think the marines blood themselves by eating babies. each side did a lot, but mind you, they did it a) to survive, with japans case. and B) to end the war quickly because they could, wiht america

 

[Dag]

It's a warcrime because inocent civilians where targeted and iradicated, that't the very definition of a warcrime. And how could you think all of japan would be wiped out? If you want to assume X or Y would have happened (which you couldn't) then Japan probably would have surrendered.

Japan wasn't about to surrender. You act like civilians would not be killed if we invaded. Japan was training civilians on how to kill Americans, and they believed whole-heartedly all they were told. If we had kept up the supply drought to Japan, they still would not have given up. They would have let half of Japan starve to death before even considering giving up. We aren't talking about a nation like Germany were to escape was your life was a good thing. Japan believed to die was always better than surrender. So give up? I don't think so.

 

[Foxtrot]

It's a warcrime because inocent civilians where targeted and iradicated, that't the very definition of a warcrime. And how could you think all of japan would be wiped out? If you want to assume X or Y would have happened (which you couldn't) then Japan probably would have surrendered.

Wow you sure don't know much about war back then. Civilians were targetted a lot for bombing back then, maybe not always directly, but lots died in bombing.

 

[Foxtrot]

The Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, to a large degree responsible of the attack on Pearl Harbor publicly exclaimed his regret for doing this, and wrote this in his diary:


Wikipedia writes this:


Even directly after the attack, there was regret and fear in the japanese people.

Also, the attack wasn't entirely unprovoked. The US had, by its occupation of the pacific sea, severely hampered the japanese sea- and airspace, as well as cut off the routes for imperative trade routes. Furthermore:



The effect of this attack was also severely blown out of proportion, for obvious reasons:



Also, Japan was planning to declare a formal declaration of war, however, as written, it didn't get through in time.


The US response to this, over the years, was a hundred times worse than the japanese actions.

Public hate was incited towards Japan with comics, propaganda and posts like this:

And the US eventually nuked the shit out of them:



Today, children are still suffering in Nagasaki and Hiroshima because of the nuclear attacks, and their grandchildren probably will suffer equally since there's been so much damage in their genes.

Wow you are as bad as the Japanese museums, you act like we forced them into war. And wtf is with that propaganda? You think we should have been happy about them slaughtering our peace time military? Well then **** you.

 

[ríomhaire]

Wow you sure don't know much about war back then. Civilians were targetted a lot for bombing back then, maybe not always directly, but lots died in bombing.

I do, during the Blitz London was only not bombed on 1 night, I just chose Hiroshima because it was the biggest and the one where the radiation is still afecting people today.

 

[VictimOfScience]

Japan wanted the war to end long before Hiroshima, they even asked the Soviet Union to be a neutral party to help with peace talks between Japan and the Allies, but they refused and declared war on the Soviet Union. The Japanese sent letters and messages to America to tell them that most of the civilian government has no interest in fighting on and that as long as they can keep their emperor, they would surrender. America either ignored them or just replied with no thankyou.

Hiroshima and Nagasaka was not needed and the imminent invasion by the Soviet Union would of caused more damage on the Japanese people then any superweapon ever could, and the Japanese knew it and the Americans knew it.

A lot of people believe that America only dropped the bomb to test it on an actually target to look at what sort of devastation it could truely offer and to show Stalin that America not only had a nuclear weapon but was fully capable and willing to use it against the Soviet Union if needed.

This hits it right on the head. Showing the Russians we meant business because when we told Stalin about the weapon of great destructive power we had developed, he barely acknowledged the fact, showing no sign that he knew what we were talking about. The demonstration had the effect of a showing of force to the Russians and ending the war by demonstrating to the world what kind of destruction we are capable of if provoked. Like avenging Pearl Harbor. Going to war is never going to be for the reasons the government says--just look at the current one: Oil? Finishing the job for Bush Sr.? Avenging 9/11? WMD*snicker*? Freedom? Establishing a democratic foothold in the Middle East? To help forget Somalia? To help Forget Afghanistan? All of the above?

I am of the opinion that, as awful as it was(and indeed still is), it was necessary for a number of reasons not entirely clear at the time. Everything happens for a reason and that reason is not entirely clear at the time...like Morpheus in the Matrix and how things have happened now and they could not have happened any other way....

And anyone still considering LemonKing's supposedly cryptic comments, try this:
"The domestic abuses of Louis XIV's rule and the disastrous financial policy of the regency were partly liquidated by Fleury, but the extravagances of Louis XV's court, the expense of warfare, and the defeat of attempts at reform left the monarchy weak by the time of the king's death. Efforts to reform the inequitable tax system failed, as did the attempt by René Nicolas de Maupeou to suppress opposition to reform from the parlement.

Throughout Louis's reign, the aristocracy asserted more influence, and the upper bourgeoisie gained more financial power. The country knew general prosperity, but the government was near bankruptcy. The apathy of Louis XV in the face of these problems found expression in the saying 'Après moi le déluge' [after me, the flood], wrongly attributed to the king himself. The failure of the monarchy to solve its fiscal difficulties led directly to the French Revolution during the reign of Louis's successor, Louis XVI."

 

[Razor]

It didn't take long after the atomic bombings for questions to arise as to their necessity for ending the war and Japan's threat to peace. One of the earliest dissents came from a panel that had been requested by President Truman to study the Pacific war. Their report, The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, was issued in July 1946. It declared, "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." (Bernstein, ed., The Atomic Bomb, pg. 52-56).

n 1948 Sec. of War Henry Stimson published his memoirs, ghost-written by McGeorge Bundy. In them Stimson revealed, "It is possible, in the light of the final surrender, that a clearer and earlier exposition of American willingness to retain the Emperor would have produced an earlier ending to the war". Stimson and Bundy continued, "Only on the question of the Emperor did Stimson take, in 1945, a conciliatory view; only on this question did he later believe that history might find that the United States, by its delay in stating its position, had prolonged the war." (Stimson & Bundy, pg. 628-629).

"Although it cannot be proved, it is possible that the Japanese government would have accepted the Potsdam Proclamation immediately had Secretary Stimson's reference to the imperial structure been retained. Such a declaration, while promising destruction if Japan resisted, would have offered hope if she surrendered. This was precisely Stimson's intention." Butow adds, "The Japanese military... interpreted the omission of any commitment on the Throne as evidence of the Allied intention to destroy forever the foundation stone of the Japanese nation. Here was an invaluable trump card unintentionally given them by the Allies, and the militarists played it with unfailing skill." (Butow, pg. 140-141).

Martin Sherwin has also followed up on Stimson's observation: "That unconditional surrender remained an obstacle to peace in the wake of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the Soviet declaration of war - until the government of the United States offered the necessary (albeit veiled) assurance that neither Emperor nor throne would be destroyed - suggests the possibility, which even Stimson later recognized, that neither bomb may have been necessary; and certainly that the second one was not." (Sherwin, pg. 237, emphasis in original). As noted earlier, Stimson explained, "the Allied reply [to Japan's 8/10 surrender offer]... implicitly recognized the Emperor's position" (Stimson & Bundy, pg. 627).

http://www.doug-long.com/hiroshim.htm
http://www.doug-long.com/


Most of it isn't really worth reading as he is just going over all the points, the last part of the second page is where the gu summarises the points and answers the initial question.

 

[VictimOfScience]

Oh, and since everyone is so concerned with whether or not the US is guilty of warcrimes during WW2, maybe we should look at both sides of the coin:

THE NANKING MASSACRE
In 1928, the Chinese Nationalist Government moved the capital of China from Peking to Nanking. The city normally held about 250,000 people, but by the mid-1930's its population had swollen to more than 1 million. Many of them were refugees, fleeing from the Japanese armies which had invaded China since 1931. On November 11, 1937, after securing control of Shanghai, the Japanese army advanced towards Nanking from different directions. In early December, the Japanese troops were already in the proximity of Nanking.

On December 9, after unsuccessfully demanding the defending Chinese troops in Nanking to surrender, the Japanese troops launched a massive attack upon the city. On the 12th, the defending Chinese troops decided to retreat to the other side of Yangtze River. On the 13th of December, the 6th and the 116th Divisions of the Japanese Army first entered the city. At the same time, the 9th Division entered Guang Hua Gate, and the 16th Division entered Zhong Shan Gate and the Tai Ping Gate. In the afternoon, two Japanese Navy fleets arrived on both sides of the Yangtze River. On the same day, December 13th, 1937, Nanking fell to the Japanese. In the next six weeks, the Japanese committed the infamous Nanking Massacre, or the Rape of Nanking, during which an estimated 300,000 Chinese soldiers and civilians were killed, and 20,000 women were raped.

During the Nanking Massacre, the Japanese committed a litany of atrocities against innocent civilians, including mass execution, raping, looting, and burning. It is impossible to keep a detailed account of all of these crimes. However, from the scale and the nature of these crimes as documented by survivors and the diaries of the Japanese militarists, the chilling evidence of this historical tragedy is indisputable.

(I)THE TRAGEDY AT YANGTZE RIVER
On December 13th, a large number of refugees tried to escape from the Japanese by trying to cross the Yangtze River. They were trapped on the east bank because no transportation was available; many of them tried to swim across the river. Meanwhile, the Japanese arrived and fired at the people on the shore and in the river. A Japanese soldier reported that the next day he saw an uncountable number of dead bodies of adults and children covering the whole river. He estimated that more than 50,000 people were killed at this tragic incident of the Nanking massacre.

(II)ANNIHILATION IN THE CITY
When the Japanese troops first entered the city on the 13th, the streets were crowded with more than 100,000 refugees or injured Chinese soldiers. The Japanese relentlessly fired at these people. The next morning, tanks and artilleries entered the city and killing of people continued. Dead bodies covered the two major streets of the city. The streets became "streets of blood" as a result of the two-day annihilation.

(III) MASS EXECUTION OF CAPTIVES
A large number of Chinese soldiers had already been captured in the suburban areas before the Japanese entered the city. The rest of the Chinese soldiers scattered inside the city and changed into civilian clothes. After the "City-Entering Ceremony" on the 17th, the Japanese arrested anybody who was suspected to be a Chinese soldier. A large number of young men who were arrested, together with those who had been captured earlier, were sent outside of the city to be massacred, from several thousand to tens of thousand at a time. In most cases, the captives were shot by machine guns, and those who were still alive were bayoneted individually. In some cases, the Japanese poured gasoline onto the captives and burned them alive. In some cases, poison gas was used.

(IV) SCATTERED ATROCITIES WITH EXTREME CRUELTY
Numerous atrocities occurred within and around the city, and the victims were largely civilians. Japanese soldiers invented and exercised inhumane and barbaric methods of killing. The brutalities included shooting, stabbing, cutting open the abdomen, excavating the heart, decapitation (beheading), drowning, burning, punching the body and the eyes with an awl, and even castration or punching through the vagina.

(V) RAPING
An estimated 20,000 women were raped by the Japanese soldiers during the six weeks of the Nanking Massacre, most were brutally killed afterwards. The Japanese soldiers even raped girls less than ten years old, women over seventy years old, pregnant women, and nuns. Rampant raping took place in the streets or at religious worshiping places during the day. Many women were gang raped. Some Japanese even forced fathers to rape their daughters, sons to rape their mothers, etc. Those who resisted were killed immediately.

(VI) ATROCITIES IN THE SAFETY ZONE
When the Japanese were approaching Nanking in mid-November, a group of concerned foreigners formed an international rescue committee to establish a safety zone in an attempt to protect the refugees. The safety zone was located inside the city and consisted of more than twenty refugee camps, each of which accommodated from 200 to 12,000 people. During the six weeks of the Nanking Massacre, the Japanese frequently entered the safety zone to arrest young men. Every time, several hundred young men were arrested and executed on the site.

 

[Foxtrot]

Oh, and since everyone is so concerned with whether or not the US is guilty of warcrimes during WW2, maybe we should look at both sides of the coin:

THE NANKING MASSACRE
In 1928, the Chinese Nationalist Government moved the capital of China from Peking to Nanking. The city normally held about 250,000 people, but by the mid-1930's its population had swollen to more than 1 million. Many of them were refugees, fleeing from the Japanese armies which had invaded China since 1931. On November 11, 1937, after securing control of Shanghai, the Japanese army advanced towards Nanking from different directions. In early December, the Japanese troops were already in the proximity of Nanking.

On December 9, after unsuccessfully demanding the defending Chinese troops in Nanking to surrender, the Japanese troops launched a massive attack upon the city. On the 12th, the defending Chinese troops decided to retreat to the other side of Yangtze River. On the 13th of December, the 6th and the 116th Divisions of the Japanese Army first entered the city. At the same time, the 9th Division entered Guang Hua Gate, and the 16th Division entered Zhong Shan Gate and the Tai Ping Gate. In the afternoon, two Japanese Navy fleets arrived on both sides of the Yangtze River. On the same day, December 13th, 1937, Nanking fell to the Japanese. In the next six weeks, the Japanese committed the infamous Nanking Massacre, or the Rape of Nanking, during which an estimated 300,000 Chinese soldiers and civilians were killed, and 20,000 women were raped.

During the Nanking Massacre, the Japanese committed a litany of atrocities against innocent civilians, including mass execution, raping, looting, and burning. It is impossible to keep a detailed account of all of these crimes. However, from the scale and the nature of these crimes as documented by survivors and the diaries of the Japanese militarists, the chilling evidence of this historical tragedy is indisputable.

(I)THE TRAGEDY AT YANGTZE RIVER
On December 13th, a large number of refugees tried to escape from the Japanese by trying to cross the Yangtze River. They were trapped on the east bank because no transportation was available; many of them tried to swim across the river. Meanwhile, the Japanese arrived and fired at the people on the shore and in the river. A Japanese soldier reported that the next day he saw an uncountable number of dead bodies of adults and children covering the whole river. He estimated that more than 50,000 people were killed at this tragic incident of the Nanking massacre.

(II)ANNIHILATION IN THE CITY
When the Japanese troops first entered the city on the 13th, the streets were crowded with more than 100,000 refugees or injured Chinese soldiers. The Japanese relentlessly fired at these people. The next morning, tanks and artilleries entered the city and killing of people continued. Dead bodies covered the two major streets of the city. The streets became "streets of blood" as a result of the two-day annihilation.

(III) MASS EXECUTION OF CAPTIVES
A large number of Chinese soldiers had already been captured in the suburban areas before the Japanese entered the city. The rest of the Chinese soldiers scattered inside the city and changed into civilian clothes. After the "City-Entering Ceremony" on the 17th, the Japanese arrested anybody who was suspected to be a Chinese soldier. A large number of young men who were arrested, together with those who had been captured earlier, were sent outside of the city to be massacred, from several thousand to tens of thousand at a time. In most cases, the captives were shot by machine guns, and those who were still alive were bayoneted individually. In some cases, the Japanese poured gasoline onto the captives and burned them alive. In some cases, poison gas was used.

(IV) SCATTERED ATROCITIES WITH EXTREME CRUELTY
Numerous atrocities occurred within and around the city, and the victims were largely civilians. Japanese soldiers invented and exercised inhumane and barbaric methods of killing. The brutalities included shooting, stabbing, cutting open the abdomen, excavating the heart, decapitation (beheading), drowning, burning, punching the body and the eyes with an awl, and even castration or punching through the vagina.

(V) RAPING
An estimated 20,000 women were raped by the Japanese soldiers during the six weeks of the Nanking Massacre, most were brutally killed afterwards. The Japanese soldiers even raped girls less than ten years old, women over seventy years old, pregnant women, and nuns. Rampant raping took place in the streets or at religious worshiping places during the day. Many women were gang raped. Some Japanese even forced fathers to rape their daughters, sons to rape their mothers, etc. Those who resisted were killed immediately.

(VI) ATROCITIES IN THE SAFETY ZONE
When the Japanese were approaching Nanking in mid-November, a group of concerned foreigners formed an international rescue committee to establish a safety zone in an attempt to protect the refugees. The safety zone was located inside the city and consisted of more than twenty refugee camps, each of which accommodated from 200 to 12,000 people. During the six weeks of the Nanking Massacre, the Japanese frequently entered the safety zone to arrest young men. Every time, several hundred young men were arrested and executed on the site.

The worst part is is that the Japenese won't admit to doing it.

 

[CptStern]

Oh, and since everyone is so concerned with whether or not the US is guilty of warcrimes during WW2, maybe we should look at both sides of the coin:

THE NANKING MASSACRE
In 1928, the Chinese Nationalist Government moved the capital of China from Peking to Nanking. The city normally held about 250,000 people, but by the mid-1930's its population had swollen to more than 1 million. Many of them were refugees, fleeing from the Japanese armies which had invaded China since 1931. On November 11, 1937, after securing control of Shanghai, the Japanese army advanced towards Nanking from different directions. In early December, the Japanese troops were already in the proximity of Nanking.

On December 9, after unsuccessfully demanding the defending Chinese troops in Nanking to surrender, the Japanese troops launched a massive attack upon the city. On the 12th, the defending Chinese troops decided to retreat to the other side of Yangtze River. On the 13th of December, the 6th and the 116th Divisions of the Japanese Army first entered the city. At the same time, the 9th Division entered Guang Hua Gate, and the 16th Division entered Zhong Shan Gate and the Tai Ping Gate. In the afternoon, two Japanese Navy fleets arrived on both sides of the Yangtze River. On the same day, December 13th, 1937, Nanking fell to the Japanese. In the next six weeks, the Japanese committed the infamous Nanking Massacre, or the Rape of Nanking, during which an estimated 300,000 Chinese soldiers and civilians were killed, and 20,000 women were raped.

During the Nanking Massacre, the Japanese committed a litany of atrocities against innocent civilians, including mass execution, raping, looting, and burning. It is impossible to keep a detailed account of all of these crimes. However, from the scale and the nature of these crimes as documented by survivors and the diaries of the Japanese militarists, the chilling evidence of this historical tragedy is indisputable.

(I)THE TRAGEDY AT YANGTZE RIVER
On December 13th, a large number of refugees tried to escape from the Japanese by trying to cross the Yangtze River. They were trapped on the east bank because no transportation was available; many of them tried to swim across the river. Meanwhile, the Japanese arrived and fired at the people on the shore and in the river. A Japanese soldier reported that the next day he saw an uncountable number of dead bodies of adults and children covering the whole river. He estimated that more than 50,000 people were killed at this tragic incident of the Nanking massacre.

(II)ANNIHILATION IN THE CITY
When the Japanese troops first entered the city on the 13th, the streets were crowded with more than 100,000 refugees or injured Chinese soldiers. The Japanese relentlessly fired at these people. The next morning, tanks and artilleries entered the city and killing of people continued. Dead bodies covered the two major streets of the city. The streets became "streets of blood" as a result of the two-day annihilation.

(III) MASS EXECUTION OF CAPTIVES
A large number of Chinese soldiers had already been captured in the suburban areas before the Japanese entered the city. The rest of the Chinese soldiers scattered inside the city and changed into civilian clothes. After the "City-Entering Ceremony" on the 17th, the Japanese arrested anybody who was suspected to be a Chinese soldier. A large number of young men who were arrested, together with those who had been captured earlier, were sent outside of the city to be massacred, from several thousand to tens of thousand at a time. In most cases, the captives were shot by machine guns, and those who were still alive were bayoneted individually. In some cases, the Japanese poured gasoline onto the captives and burned them alive. In some cases, poison gas was used.

(IV) SCATTERED ATROCITIES WITH EXTREME CRUELTY
Numerous atrocities occurred within and around the city, and the victims were largely civilians. Japanese soldiers invented and exercised inhumane and barbaric methods of killing. The brutalities included shooting, stabbing, cutting open the abdomen, excavating the heart, decapitation (beheading), drowning, burning, punching the body and the eyes with an awl, and even castration or punching through the vagina.

(V) RAPING
An estimated 20,000 women were raped by the Japanese soldiers during the six weeks of the Nanking Massacre, most were brutally killed afterwards. The Japanese soldiers even raped girls less than ten years old, women over seventy years old, pregnant women, and nuns. Rampant raping took place in the streets or at religious worshiping places during the day. Many women were gang raped. Some Japanese even forced fathers to rape their daughters, sons to rape their mothers, etc. Those who resisted were killed immediately.

(VI) ATROCITIES IN THE SAFETY ZONE
When the Japanese were approaching Nanking in mid-November, a group of concerned foreigners formed an international rescue committee to establish a safety zone in an attempt to protect the refugees. The safety zone was located inside the city and consisted of more than twenty refugee camps, each of which accommodated from 200 to 12,000 people. During the six weeks of the Nanking Massacre, the Japanese frequently entered the safety zone to arrest young men. Every time, several hundred young men were arrested and executed on the site.

so that justifies this?

disclaimer: graphic image

I'm sure he appreciated the distinction

 

[Icarusintel]

The worst part is is that the Japenese won't admit to doing it.

yeah, even today, of course china doesn;t admit to its atrocities to its own people either

 

[VictimOfScience]

Now compare the number of dead from Truman's bombings and the subsequent radiation:~200,000.

General Hideki Tojo is considered responsible for the murder of almost four million Chinese. Tojo approved government-sanctioned biological experiments on POWs.

"Imperial Japan's biological killing fields are a lost chapter of history that the full horror of which is only recently been exposed and understood in all its enormity. Japan set up Headquarters of Unit 731 in Ping Fan near Harbin and Unit 100 in ChangChun, and Mukden, now called SunYang, in China to develop plague bombs for use in WWII. The base was disguised as Epidemic Prevention and Water Supply Unit. The complex in Ping Fan was completed in 1939, contained more than 150 buildings, including 2 secret prisons and 3 crematoria, and was the largest WMD Biological Weapon research center in the world."

 

[Razor]

Victimofscience, by playing that card, you are justifying all warcrimes where the perpetrator blamed their warcrime on a previous war crime, which would mean that Osama was justified in killing over 3000people on September 11th.

And even if that was correct, it would of probably been slightly more justified for Chinese troops to do it against the perpetrators of the Nanking massacre, not for American troops to do it against two population centres in Japan.

 

[VictimOfScience]

No Stern/Razor, it doesn't justify it, but it does shed some light on the oft overlooked fact that Japan was nowhere near as innocent as people think. Everyone is so focused on Hitler being the world's major sicko, but there are a bunch of others that come very close to his repertoire of horror.

I am hard pressed to justify anything in war, but if putting an end to atrocites and further horror can happen, then it must be done for the greater good of the world...but it leaves me at a loss and saddened for humanity :x

Incidentally Razor:
Hideki Tojo's nickname was "the razor (kamisori)". His commemorating tomb is located in a shrine in Hazu, Aichi.

 

[Icarusintel]

Victimofscience, by playing that card, you are justifying all warcrimes where the perpetrator blamed their warcrime on a previous war crime, which would mean that Osama was justified in killing over 3000people on September 11th.

And even if that was correct, it would of probably been slightly more justified for Chinese troops to do it against the perpetrators of the Nanking massacre, not for American troops to do it against two population centres in Japan.

the chinese were hardly in a position to do anything with their own inner turmoil between the Nationalists and Communists, and past actions aren't always good reasons for future ones, but since this wasn't the justification for the bombins of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that doesn;t matter

 

[Razor]

Incidentally Razor:
Hideki Tojo's nickname was "the razor (kamisori)". His commemorating tomb is located in a shrine in Hazu, Aichi.

Lol, didn't know that.

 

[operative x]

The only "Warcrimes" commited, or crimes in general, was that the Japanese Generals wouldn't give up; their "Bushido" code was their own undoing. All they had to do was realize they had lost, but instead they allowed thousands of their citizens to die. They're the real "badguys" in this situation. The atomic bomb was our way of knocking some sense into them. Sort of like if you had a stubborn friend that insisted on doing a drug, and you punch him in the face which resulted in hitting one of his teeth out inorder to get him away, sure he has lost a tooth, but it was for his own good.

 

[Solaris]

Your trying to make it okay becuase you attacked the state.
Your dissacoiating the deaths.
A state is a concept.
Lives are not, and hundreds of thousands(millions even?) were killed that day.
Was that worth it to change the mind of a government.

 

[Foxtrot]

Your trying to make it okay becuase you attacked the state.
Your dissacoiating the deaths.
A state is a concept.
Lives are not, and hundreds of thousands(millions even?) were killed that day.
Was that worth it to change the mind of a government.

You can't just generalize like that, it wasn't just to change the mind of the government, it was to end the war and avoid a massive invasion.

 

[Mith']

You can't just generalize like that, it wasn't just to change the mind of the government, it was to end the war and avoid a massive invasion.

I believe the government had something to do with the war..

Anyway the point is that you didn't have to nuke a city! The message would have been just as clear if dropped on a target of military importance (Which I doubt Hiroshima was), a base or something like that. All that the people in Hiroshima had done wring was being on the wrong place at the wrong time.

If Saddam had nuked your neighbourhood before the invasion of Iraq that would immediately be a war crime, though it is not much different from Hiroshima.

 

[Dag]

I believe the government had something to do with the war..

Anyway the point is that you didn't have to nuke a city! The message would have been just as clear if dropped on a target of military importance (Which I doubt Hiroshima was), a base or something like that. All that the people in Hiroshima had done wring was being on the wrong place at the wrong time.

If Saddam had nuked your neighbourhood before the invasion of Iraq that would immediately be a war crime, though it is not much different from Hiroshima.

If Saddam had won, if Saddam had invaded and killed 4 million people of bordering countries, if Saddam had tried to Cripple our Pacific fleet with mass bombings and Civilian targets. (Yes, during Pearl Harbor, many civilian centers were targeted too.) If they would have dropped the bomb on a place of major military importance, than they would run a huge risk of losing the plane with the bomb, because those sights would be heavily defended, right? And then, they too could gain the technology, or even the bomb itself. And if that happened, the government would have hushed it up, and told the people to keep fighting anyway. And Russia was becoming a Huge problem too. While Britain, America, and Canada had not even entered Germanies borders, Soviet Russia had steamrolled Berlin and was parading Red Flags through the city. You all seem to forget that this was not a time of diplomatic solutions, this was during a confrontation where enemies fought with the most bitter hatred mankind has known. And the Allies wanted Stalin to host free elections, and practice a less extreme form of Communism. But why should Stalin listen? He had taken Berlin while the rest of the Allies were still at the border. Hell, Stalin hated the other allies, he only joined the war on thier side with the idea of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." So with all these victories under his belt, why stop there? Why not proceed to do as Hitler did and take back Europe (Except this time, he would take Britain). The other governments were tired of war, citizens wanted out. The democracy wanted them out. But Stalins government was totalitarian, he wasn't held back by such restrictions, he could go in and wage war, and probably win. But if a major enemy of Russias, Japan, got pounded with the First WMD the world had ever seen, don't you think Stalin would think twice? Think about it, the bomb wasn't just to make America feel better, or to kill innocents. (Because alot more would have been killed in an invasion.) But to show the Soviets that they could not overstep thier boundries. It wasn't the mindset of today, where war is bad and diplomacy could solve everything. Might made right, and thats the way the world worked.

 

[Locust]

If we wanted to show em our power we should have showed them our massive american dongs; they would have cowered in fear and been our greatest allies. But to drop nukes on two cities as a show of power, that was just wrong. We could have atleast hit em where there would have been some miltiary benefit, such as a base or ship fleet. Maybe the bases were too far inland though and our bombers couldn't reach them.

 

[Dag]

Did you not listen to me? Hitting one of thier bases. (Which, were becoming non-existant do to constant bombing, and military was moving into the cities.) or Naval ships. (Which they basically had no more left of.) would run the huge risk of losing the bomb and tech to the Japanese. (And leave the sex jokes out of this.)

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Your trying to make it okay becuase you attacked the state.
Your dissacoiating the deaths.
A state is a concept.
Lives are not, and hundreds of thousands(millions even?) were killed that day.
Was that worth it to change the mind of a government.

More civillians and military would have died in the invasion than have died to date as a result of the bombings. Like I said earlier, it would be a moral crime to NOT choose the option that resulted in less loss of human life.

 

[French Ninja]

My opinion was problaby already posted by someone else, meh:

I believe that the atomic bomb was necessary in order to stop the war in the Pacific. An invasion of Japan would have costed 500,000 to 1 million casualties on the US's side. Japanese casualties, both military and civilian, would have costed thousands of lives. Costs for reconstruction would have been much higher.
The second bomb was justified by Japan's stubborness who were unwilling to surrender.
A land based offensive could have made a massive version of Saipan, where over half of the population walked off a cliff instead of surrendering to the US.
War crimes carried by the Japanese needed to be ended quickly and the only way to do this was by an Atomic Bomb.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Sure, the Japanese state was evil. Doesn't mean that it's justifiable to drop a nuke on civilians. Military target, fair enough. Civilians? Without warning? Ow.

The problem is that dropping the nuke was, arguably, a good thing.

It showed the world what nukes could do. Specifically, it showed Russia what nukes could do. Without Hiroshima and Nagasaki there might never have been an arms race, there might never have been a cold war. Be against nuclear weapons as much as you want, but in the end they have saved far more than they have killed. Not because the USA didn't have to invade Japan. Because without the threat of nuclear armageddon, there would have been a WW3 between NATO and the Warsaw pact, with conventional weapons.

 

[ríomhaire]

but they could have droped it on a military target.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Well yes.

But in the long run: Military target > civilian target > world war 3
I still voted for 'it was disgusting'. Of course who can tell what would have happened if it hadn't been dropped?

Consider: If England, Czechoslovakia and France had allied against Hitler before WWII and invaded, there would have been no cold war and no world war 2, no horribleness, America wouldn't be such a superpower, no vietnam, etc.

But there'd also have been far less civil rights advances in the sixties.

 

[Solaris]

It did bring the beginning of MAD. Which arguably stopped the cold war from being a real war. However, it could have been shown off on a milarty target.

 

[Mith']

* The Manhattan Project had originally been conceived as a counter to Nazi Germany's atomic bomb program, and with the defeat of Germany, several scientists working on the project felt that the United States should not be the first to use such weapons. One of the prominent critics of the bombings was Albert Einstein. Leo Szilard, a scientist who played a major role in the development of the atomic bomb, argued "If the Germans had dropped atomic bombs on cities instead of us, we would have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them."

* Their use has been called barbaric as several hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed, and the choice of areas heavily populated by civilians. In the days just before their use, many scientists (including Edward Teller) argued that the destructive power of the bomb could have been demonstrated without the taking of lives.

* It has been argued that the use of atomic weapons against civilian populations on a large scale is a crime against humanity and a war crime. The use of poisonous weapons (due to the effects of the radiation) were defined as war crimes by international law of the time. Some have argued that Americans should have done more research into the effects of the bomb, including radiation sickness and the terrible burns that followed the explosion.

* Some have claimed that the Japanese were already essentially defeated, and therefore use of the bombs was unnecessary. General Dwight D. Eisenhower so advised the Secretary of War, Henry L. Stimson, in July of 1945. The highest-ranking officer in the Pacific Theater, General Douglas MacArthur, was not consulted beforehand, but said afterward that there was no military justification for the bombings. The same opinion was expressed by Fleet Admiral William Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President), General Carl Spaatz (commander of the U.S. Strategic Air Forces in the Pacific), and Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials); Major General Curtis LeMay and Admiral Ernest King, U.S. Chief of Naval Operations, and Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet.

* Others contend that Japan had been trying to surrender for at least two months, but the US refused by insisting on an unconditional surrender. In fact, while several diplomats favored surrender, the leaders of the Japanese military were committed to fighting a 'Decisive Battle' on Kyushu, hoping that they could negotiate better terms for an armistice afterward—all of which the Americans knew from reading decrypted Japanese communications. The Japanese government never did decide what terms, beyond preservation of an imperial system, they would have accepted to end the war; as late as August 9, the Supreme Council was still split, with the hardliners insisting Japan should demobilize its own forces, no war crimes trials, and no occupation. Only the direct intervention of the Emperor ended the dispute, and even after that a military coup was attempted to prevent the surrender (although it was easily suppressed).

* Some have argued that the Soviet Union's switch from wary neutral to enemy on August 8, 1945 might have been enough to convince the Japanese military of the need to accept the terms of the Potsdam Declaration (plus some provision for the emperor). As it happened, the decision to surrender was made before the scale of the Soviet attack on Manchuria, Sakhalin Island, and the Kuril Islands was known, but had the war continued, the Soviets would have been able to invade Hokkaido well before the Allied invasion of Kyushu.

* Other Japanese sources have stated that the atomic bombings themselves weren't the principal reason for capitulation. Instead, they contend, it was not the American atomic attacks on August 6 and August 9, but the swift and devastating Soviet victories on the mainland in the week following Stalin's August 8 declaration of war that forced the Japanese message of surrender on August 15, 1945. Certainly the fact of both enemies weighed into the decision, but it was more the fear of Soviet occupation that hastened imperialistic Japan's acceptance of defeat.

* 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.

* Some believe more effort to reduce casualties should have been made. Further, some claim this could have been done without affecting the stated purposes of the bombing. "No evidence has ever been uncovered that leaflets warning of atomic attack were dropped on Hiroshima. Indeed, the decision of the Interim Committee was that we could not give the Japanese any warning." However, after the Hiroshima bombing, Truman announced "If they do not now accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air the likes of which has never been seen on this earth." On August 8, 1945 leaflets were dropped and warnings were given to Japan by Radio Saipan. (The area of Nagasaki did not receive warning leaflets until August 10, though the leaflet campaign covering the whole country was over a month into it's operations.) On August 9, 1945 at 11:02 (Nagasaki time) Fat Man exploded at 1950 feet near the perimeter of the city, scoring a direct hit on the Mitsubishi Steel and Arms Works with a yield of 19-23 kt.

* 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.

All I have to "say"