If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Aged 16-25? Share your experience of using the discussion boards and receive a £25 voucher! Take part via text-chat, video or phone. Click here to find out more and to take part.
Options
Comments
That doesn't necessarily make it immoral. Or, more to be exact, any more immoral than any other aspect of the WWII in the Pacific. The war in the Pacific needed to be completed quickly, and it was completed quickly after the second A-bomb went down. Japan would not have surrendered, and the US could not have turned around and gone home because Japan would have simply gone and re-conquered the whole of the Far East again. And, to be brutally honest, Japan is not in a position to attack the morality of anyone else.
The world knows that nuclear attack is not worth it because of Japan, as MoK stated. Knowing what an A-bomb would do made both the US and USSR back down during ther Cuban Missile Crisis, for instance, whereas if the A-bomb had remained untested in "real life" then I don't think they would have done. Kruschev only just backed down as it was.
Or they could have had a public demonstration with an ultimatum, broadcast it on the BBC, etc. etc.
They did.
Hiroshima (I think) was the major military naval base.
The problem with the concept of "innocents" in wartime is that they aren't. Those women and children were building the bombs and planes. They weren't directly involved in killing people by pulling the trigger, but they were involved.
Are conscripted soldiers innocent?
And that would have done what, exactly?
The loss of life was necessary to finish the war. People now don't grasp the mentality of the Japanese at the time, they don't grasp the idea that surrender was shaming. The only reason why the Japanese surrendered was because the next A-bomb was destined for Tokyo, and the loss of life became more shaming than the surrender.
No such thing.
All bases have supporting towns where the workers & their families live - along with all the support to those bases.
How many children killed in Nanking? How many people going about their daily business were raped and murdered by the Japanese forces?
You cannot see incidents in isolation without looking at what prompted them.
You do it with reference to the bombing of London/WTC so why not Hiroshima?
What would that have achieved and do you think that the Japanese would have believed it?
I think it can be.
I don't think it will be.
what youd think theyd play nicely? so we get a nice story to tell our kids of the war that was hard but we certain to win, war is nasty, the emperor used nasty tactics
infact japan is still technically a 1 party state with the old 'lords' running their companies
I just hope the demonstration would have made japan back down. Spose they wouldn't have. It's never ever easy to justify the killing of thousands, i guess all we can do is choose the lesser of two evils.
Those Revisionist Historians have made their best run at turning the perception of much that took place prior to the birth of the current young adult generation, to the dismay of those of us who lived through those events.
I count among my close acquaintances men who survived Bastogne, Chosin, Okinawa, Guadel Canal, Iwo Jima, and other battles. Their personal experiences often come in stark contrast to the political propoganda of those who "write history" from third hand - or even more distant - "revelations", considered from the safety of classrooms on the other side of the earth.
Cultures vary immensely, and personal observation leads me to believe that the "rabid" mindset of the Islamic extremists is surpassed by commitment of cultures based in the Far East. Disagreeing with political perspective and holding respect for the commitment of the combatants is NOT a dichotomy; the Japanese nation required being addressed in a language and tone which they comprehended. Much of the barbaric nature of the treatment of the Japanese held prisoners of war comes from their perception of the dishonor involved in surrender... they looked upon those who surrendered to them as sub-human, and unworthy of ANY concessions. Look at Okinawa, where citizens chose sepiku rather than surrender. Japan would NEVER have surrendered, without the requisite demonstration of what would follow, without it.
You think Okinawa to be a horror-show? Extrapolate that to the Japanese mainland.
The use of atomic weapons to end the war with Japan was the CORRECT decision, because it also initiated the rebuilding of Japan into the economic power it is today. A scorched earth policy would have been necessitated sans that usage, and there would have been NOTHING remaining to be rebuilt.
when and where?
I find MOST hilarious all of these self-proclaimed "experts" who offer up their jewels of wisdom, having never seen the TRUE face of war...
from an objective viewpoint, is WW2 comaparable to Vietnam though
Because something like that had never been seen before. A weapon that could kill hundreds of thousands without the Americans even having to enter Japan. It demonstrated the futility of carrying on. They would have fought to the last man otherwise, they were taught death was preferable to surrender. If a Japanese soldier surrendered they were told that they would be shunned by society if they ever returned, including their family.
The Allies took many, many more German and Italian prisoners than Japanese. The Japanese literally blew themselves up before they could be captured, civilians included.
If the Americans had invaded the Japanese mainland it would have been carnage, the Japanese would have fought suicidally to the last man and its possible that even more civilians would have died, although that, obviously, is debatable.
If you think the Japanese mentality to surrender was the same as the Germans then read a history book.
Japanese in WW2
"Although some Japanese were taken prisoner, most fought until they were killed or committed suicide. In the last, desperate months of the war, this image was also applied to Japanese civilians. To the horror of American troops advancing on Saipan, they saw mothers clutching their babies hurling themselves over the cliffs rather than be taken prisoner. "
That was just on the small island of Saipan, a tiny taster of what it would have been like on the Japanese mainland.
Well being an armchair pacifist is all fine and dandy but seeing as 1.5-1.8 million Japanese soldiers died in the second world war compared to 350 - 400,000 civilians the numbers suggest that an invasion to the Japanese mainland would have cost many times that in civilian lives.
(Don't have a link to the statitiscs, from Britannica and Encarta.)
Considering that the Americans only ever fought the Japanese on scarecely populated Pacific Islands, China and Singapore etc. an out and out battle for survival by an enemy that doesn't surrender on a densely populated island such as Japan would have meant extremely large numbers of civilians and soldiers from both sides would die. I think very possibly more than died in the A-bomb blasts.
The Americans were fighting a dedicated, Asian army in the Jungle in both cases. So yes.
Japan did instigate the war for the US while in a neutrality state. When the US dropped the bomb, it was during a time of war.
It's not nessisarily justified but either way, invasion or bomb, a lot of people would've died.
I see now after those links and that TV show that the Japanese were rather brainedwashed into complete and utter beleif... quite shocking.
Any war is comparable with another. What the fuck are you talking about? All wars bear at least a few similarities we can compare.
Yeah the Japs wouldn't have surrendered, so the Nukes were justified in order to save the war dragging on much longer and potentially more lives being lost.
What the fuck are you talking about? He suggested the Vietnam war wasn't comparable to WW2.
or thr usa ...which of course will be terrorists ...
were the reasons for going to war the same though..nope, although being in a war gives you a first hand insight into what it's like, it doesn't mean you can't observe what happened and talk about it, Globe seems to think he knows more than WW2 historians because he fought in Vietnam
The ignorance I was speaking of was the assumption that the Japanese were "brainwashed" into anything; it is a postulation based in complete ignorance. Far Eastern cultures have belief systems which are radically different from what THE MOST here have yet experienced... they are no more "brainwashed" than are you, who believe that individual life has a value.
Those who have posted that the Japanese would have surrendered? AGAIN, post from ignorance upon the subject.
You people put great stock in "historians", and have no comprehesion of the manner in which "history" is altered/revise in order to forward a political agenda. You mock CNN, and yet believe that what "historians" forward is "factual", when, in reality, it is simply the press covering an event from the perspective of distance and time. However... it is no more sacred because it appears in print than if it were to be presented on Fox News.
Read the German or Japanese "history" of WW2, or the French version, or the Russian version, and then compare to the American or British version. You would hardly believe that they were speaking of the same event in history.
I recently read a book entitled "Odysseus in Vietnam", which attempted to "prove" what grunts in Vietnam experienced in Vietnam, substatiated by the works of fiction written by Homer. "Proving" reality, by the test of fiction. And this book was written by one of the foremost "experts" on PTSD. You "educated elite" make me laugh; education does not prove intelligence, nor 'common sense', which is ANYTHING but common. Education frequently means you have lived vicariously through the experiences of others, like some Walter Mitty, rather than experience it, yourself.
But, in response to the little snide attempt at defamation, YES, a veteran of infantry combat has a MUCH GREATER grasp upon the subject of close combat than does ANY book smart historian from the pampered and protected perspective of their classroom. Don't like that reality? Sign your name on the line, swear to the oath, pick up a weapon, and experience combat for yourself. Those video games and movies are NOT combat, however much you delude yourselves, and they will NOT turn you into a Hemingway.
It's also odd how Historians use information form actual veterans to compile their works and interview them, if they apparently twists the facts out of proportion. And with you saying we mock the media; do you think the Media gives a real idea of wars? Or just plays its own agenda? Or something else?
i'll happily sign my name on the line, swear to the oath, pcik up a wepaon and experience combat for myself, thing is, i'd actually look at what i was fighting for and not be some silly patriot who thinks they're doing their country a favour by fighting in a pointless war, look at Vietnam, look at Iraq, you said it yourself, these people have different belief systems, i think it's wholly stupid of the American government to think they'll just sweep these things over with an Iron Fist, you should've known better yourself when you signed on the line, sweared the oath, picked up a weapon and experienced combat for yourself, because personally, between you and me, i'd rather be book smart historian who actually analysed what happened and tried to stop something like that happening again...
I put no more faith in the interpretations of "historians" than I believe that one particular news source ALWAYS gets it right about what happened in a single day's event. Whether it is your evening news, the newspaper, or some multi-thousand page treatise writen on the events of a decade, or a century, NO ONE is blessed with omniscience. NO ONE. And ALL are prone to their own prejudices.
isn't ironic though that it's because of all the biased media reports and interpretations of history that poor people like you were forced to go to an unjust war
You would rather believe what others tell you, within their own prejudices and agendas? I will take it then that you SUPPORT genocide, as was a consequence of the US withdrawl from Vietnam; how many Dega deaths do you claim personal responsibility for? A thousand? Ten thousand? How many deaths in the killing fields of Cambodia, a collateral consequence of the US withdrawl? And exactly how would the US having never involved itself in that conflict, would those hundreds of thousands of lives have been spared.
You are so myopic, you have not even a clue of your hypocrisy.
Taking a stand against genocide is "unjust"?
NO ONE "forced" me to go to war... I enlisted, I chose the Marine Corps, I requested infantry, I requested Vietnam, and I requested a second tour after I saw what was coming. I PUT MY LIFE BEHIND MY MOUTH, AND MY BELIEF SYSTEM, rather than simply running that mouth on internet forums. And I left a gallon of my own blood in Vietnam, rather than stand back and mutely observe the coming genocide from a position of detached safety.
As far as I can tell, a job of a soldier is to go to war for their leaders prejudices and agendas, and figt, regardless of his own beleifs. I would be prepared to do that if necessary. But that is not to say I would beleive in the reasons. I would merley be donig my job. Indeed, if I fail at college I have thought about the Armed forces. You do not need to agree with the war, alot of soldiers don't. But that is not the point. It is their job to fight.
i'm sorry you choose to do that, i'm sorry you believed what you were doing was right, i respect that opinion, personally i think it was a load of balls and many of your comrades died for something wrong, but anyway, what the hell are you talking about seriously, i'm Irish, i was born over 10 years after Vietnam ended, is it my fault i didn't serve or something, that you've got more guts than me or something cos i tell you what, i'd happily fight in a war if the situation was right