From the documentary, Hiroshima. I had mixed feelings about posting this obvious piece of dramatized propaganda which manages to promote the message that the Americans were total a-holes for using the A-bomb on Japan. The BBC is behind it.
found by Bill Reising.
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Bad Behavior has blocked 4705 access attempts in the last 7 days.
#51 Bobbo
How many American soldiers are 1 million Japanese civilians worth?
Japan’s war machine was broken. The claim that the Japanese would fight to the end is a speculative rationalization for the atrocity Truman allowed to occur. The majority of the Civilians killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were women and children. What threat were they to American soldiers?
I call Bullshit.
64–We already know your position==america was not civilized when it dropped the A-Bomb on innocent japanese civilians.
Now, assuming you understand and agree that this uncivilized act did bring the war to an earlier conclusion than had it not been dropped, AND that (I hope you agreee) innocent Allied Armed Forces throughout the Pacific would have to continue fighting without the bomb being dropped, how many Allied lives sacrificed would have been the honorable thing to do to maintain the honor code of a civilized society?
Please give a round number?
#64….nightstar….the only bullshit occuring here is you and your revisionist history.
The Japanese themselves said they were prepared to fight for every inch of Japan with women and children if that was all they had left. The documents attesting to this position were found in the Japanese archives and are there to this day for history buffs to study.
There were no **innocents** in Japan, the entire population was involved in the war effort…..all of the atrocities that were being committed on China, Korea, Burma, Vietman, the Phillipines, Indonesia and the Pacific islands were known by the civlian population at home and condoned by them.
If there had been a history of the bomb in 1945 as there is today, maybe it wouldn’t have been used, who’s to say. But it was used, and properly so.
I am one of those that takes anything done by BBC with a wary eye, because they do distort to fit their political agenda quite often and can be very anti-American, but I saw this film and didn’t find it a hit piece or anti-American….anti nuke yes…..but not anti-American, nor is it propaganda.
Japan was nuked twice not to avoid a land invasion, but because the Soviet Union was preparing a land invasion from Sakhalin. Even though the Sovets “officially’ declared war only days before Japan surrendered, the Soviet Union had attacked and rolled over much of china much earlier. Truman feared the Sovets were planning an invasion of the japanese mainland and he was an advocate of the “an unused weapon is a useless weapon” theory.
The bomb was used for political reasons for the most part. heck we invaded europe to keep the USSR out, because we knew in 1943 the war was already over for Germany after the battle of Kursk. It was only a matter of time before the Soviet Union was to roll over all of europe and northern africa.
We were already gearing up for the Cold War and the hot one wasn’t even over yet.
#64 nightstar You might want to call a Mulligan on this one. đ
“The claim that the Japanese would fight to the end is a speculative rationalization”
Japan proved time and time again that surrender was not an option during the island hopping. The Kamikazes – that was proof that Japan was NOT going to go down with out a fight.
Hell, right at the time you state Japanâs war machine was broken Japan sends their star battleship the Yamato ( The Yamato was the biggest and most powerful battleship ever built) on a Kamikaze mission with only had enough fuel to get to the battle.
“YAMATO ended her career, as the ultimate kamikaze. On
6 April 1945, she sailed with one light cruiser and nine
destroyers from Japan’s Inland Sea with orders to
attack the US invasion fleet around Okinawa (1,500 ships).
After fighting her way through, she was to beach herself
on Okinawa and become a fortress to aid the defenders
against the American ground troops.”
What more do you need?? A letter from Hirohito? đ
So are you still going to maintain your position or call a Mulligan? I’d take the Mulligan…
Cheers
The Soviets had already been given Eastern Europe at Yalta. The use of the weapons saved Japanese and American lives, but was nevertheless a brutal war crime.
Well, I think all you helpful posters are missing the crucial issue here.
Life is sacred and should be preserved at all costs. That is the civilized value to maintain and to think anything else is dishonest.
I only want to know how many Allied lives should have been sacrificed to maintain a civilized attitude towards the defeat of Japan. I don’t know why nightstar doesn’t give us a number?
I’ve read Hiroshima took anywhere from 50K to 125K lives with Nagasaki about the same, but nightstar want to use 1` Million. Thats ok. Would ANYONE here say that if only ONE Allied life would have been taken that that would be a civilized calculus to give Japan time to consider surrender? Now, on the High Side, who here thinks 1Million minus one avoidable Allied deaths would be justified??? Afterall, those innocent Japanese lives are “worth” just the same as the innocent Allied lives, so surely civilized behavior would equate the two sides and sacrifice the fewest number of people?
Nightstar, how would you factor in the civilized elements as you see them? Myself, I’m probably more towards the ONE Allied, but then, I’m just an uncivilized brute looking for some enlightenment?
BTW, I think mulligans only apply to statements made that do not represent the “considered” opinion of the poster. Maintaining a position after counter facts and arguments are presented does not suggests a mulligan. It would only be the basis of a Mustard flavored raspberry, as in pfffft!
Nightstar===is it a mulligan or a Mustard flavored pfffffft?
Bobbo – “Maintaining a position after counter facts and arguments are presented does not suggests a mulligan. It would only be the basis of a Mustard flavored raspberry, as in pfffft!”
LOL! I don’t think that could ever be said any better! Well said!
I also have this image in my head of the hand doing an “air salute” accompanying the ‘Mustard flavored raspberry – pfffff’. đ
Cheers
#67
> Truman feared the Sovets were planning
> an invasion of the japanese mainland
> and he was an advocate of the “an unused
> weapon is a useless weapon” theory.
It was already agreed at Yalta that the Soviet Union would invade China and if necessary Japan. Not only was Truman aware of this, he endorsed it.
That dropping the bombs would scare the Bolsheviks was considered a side benefit. There is simply no evidence that the primary reason for dropping both bombs was anything other than to force Japan to capitulate unconditionally and immediately.
> The bomb was used for political reasons for
> the most part. heck we invaded europe to keep
> the USSR out, because we knew in 1943 the
> war was already over for Germany after the battle of Kursk
Ah, you must be donning a tin foil hat. Had we not invaded Germany, Germany would not have fallen. The Soviets would have never conquered Eastern Europe without a second front to the war competing for resources. If Germany did not have to worry about an allied invasion in either Europe or through Italy, they would have been able to devote all of their resources to defeating the Soviets and would have likely succeeded.
#69
Stop sitting around the campfire singing kumbayah and wake up. The Soviet Union was given Eastern Europe at Potsdam not Yalta. What logic do you use to claim it to be a crime? What part of dropping the atomic bomb was criminal that had not been done previously and to a larger degree? Certainly not killing. In the grander scheme of things. more people died on the Russian front by a long shot than died at both Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined including all deaths that have occurred as a result of it to date.
Bobbo,
Your question –how many more dead Americans would it have been worth to remain âcivilized?â– Is a loaded one. Your blatant presupposition that a given number of deaths makes something acceptable is a obvious fallacy, which is why I returned another question in place of answer.
You don’t seem to understand the difference between civilians and soldiers. There is no excuse for mass murdering a civilian population.
Prior to WWII civilian populations were generally not considered military targets. That all changed with German Blitzkrieg tactics and allied bombing campaigns in both the European and Pacific theaters specifically targeting civilian populations.
You seem to harp on the term civilized quite a bit. Do you think I used it inappropriately? Is it civilized to mass murder women and children as long as you do it from an airplane?]
As for the number of people who died as a result of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Doubtless you are referring to the quote i copied.
âPrecise figures are not available, but the firebombing and atomic bombing campaign against Japan, directed by LeMay between March 1945 and the Japanese surrender in August 1945, may have killed more than one million Japanese civilians. Official estimates from the United States Strategic Bombing Survey put the figures at 330,000 people killed, 476,000 injured, 8.5 million people made homeless and 2.5 million buildings destroyed.â
http://tinyurl.com/3u583 wikipedia but a starting point nonetheless
So I ask again. Why are you defending the massacre of civilian populations?
#66 Joshua
>>There were no **innocents** in Japan,
>>the entire population was involved in the war effortâŚ..
Your serious?
#68 TH
So 2 Japanese ships attack a fleet of 1500 and this is indicates every Japanese man woman and child intends to fight to the death?
Kamikaze pilots were an interesting phenomenon, sort of like early suicide bombers. Having lost most of their experienced pilots and trying to forestall invasion of their homeland these men sacrificed their lives to try to destroy the enemy. Still this tactic still isn’t an excuse to vaporize a whole bunch of civilians is it?
>>Japan proved time and time again that surrender
>>was not an option during the island hopping. The
>>Kamikazes – that was proof that Japan was NOT
>>going to go down with out a fight.
Animism isn’t appropriate when deciding the deaths of so many people. I assure you Japan has no opinion on surrender or anything else. I’m sure you meant to say the Japanese commanders or leaders. That is quite a bit different from the Japanese people.
Using appropriate measures to deal with a hostile opponent is one thing. Killing his family is something else entirely.
No, I don’t think I’ll mulligan. I’m going to stick to the moral high ground for tactical advantage ^^
#73
> You donât seem to understand the difference
> between civilians and soldiers. There is no
> excuse for mass murdering a civilian population.
> Prior to WWII civilian populations were
> generally not considered military targets.
Sorry but that is simply not true. It was Sherman during the Civil War that first dispelled this notion.
Again, I will say that the way to win a war is by breaking your opponent’s will to continue fighting. WWII made it especially clear that the civilian population contributes substantially to a country’s overall war effort and thus destroying that civilian infrastructure weakens an opponent’s fighting capability. In addition, the deaths of civilians contributes greatly towards breaking a country’s will to fight as evidenced by Japan’s capitulation.
#75
> So 2 Japanese ships attack a fleet
> of 1500 and this is indicates every
> Japanese man woman and child intends
> to fight to the death?
Actually, we have Ultra intercepts that indicate that the military was digging in for an Allied invasion. We have evidence that the Japanese military were training civilians to defend the island by any means necessary including suicide attacks. The military planned to use civilians as a front to protect military personnel. So, yes there is ample evidence that the Japanese planned to fight down to the last man, woman and child.
#75 Ok that is your prerogative to do so. I nor anyone else cannot change the opinion you ascribe to. I assume that you are of the same opinion with the bombing of Dresden, London and others were the same as Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Cheers
#78 TH
>>I assume that you are of the same opinion
>>with the bombing of Dresden, London and
>>others were the same as Hiroshima and
>>Nagasaki.
Yes I am. I condemn these atrocities equally.
#77
“Actually, we have Ultra intercepts that indicate that the military was digging in for an Allied invasion.”
Key word INVASION.
“The military planned to use civilians as a front to protect military personnel. ”
Sounds like the Japanese military fancied a civilian meatshield.
“So, yes there is ample evidence that the Japanese planned to fight down to the last man, woman and child.”
Not by a long shot m8
#80
Did you actually have a point? Yes, they were preparing for an invasion including the use of and aid from civilians. That is clear indication that the civilians had no more intention of surrendering than the military. So, yes by a long, long, long shot it is clear that the vast majority of people were not going to surrender and would fight to the death if they were invaded. Since that is a clear indication that their will to continue fighting had not been broken it meant we had one of three choices: Invade (expensive), Starve the island until they capitulated (costing millions of Japanese lives and dragging the war on longer) or wipe out a couple of cities and scare them into surrendering (which worked).
I challenge you to provide evidence that a majority or even significant portion of the population wanted to surrender unconditionally and immediately.
For the Chinese, WW2 started in 1931 and yet deny of their rights to put Japanese war criminals to justice. Being the “victor” after dropping the bombs, American were the one with full control of Japan’s future. Saving American lives was not the main reason for dropping the bombs since Japan were the only Axis left fighting China, Russia and the rest of the Allies. American simply don’t want Japan to fall into the Communist influence even if it means making deal with letting go of some war criminals.
#82
Nonsense. Re-read your history. China did not become communist until 1949; after the War had ended. China was in the midst of internal civil war and trying to get out from under Japanese rule at the time of Truman’s decision. Thus, China was a complete non-factor on the decision to drop the bomb on Japan.
> Being the “victor” after dropping the bombs
> , American were the one with full control of
> Japanâs future.
Huh?
A. We were not yet victorious. Thus, the point of dropping the bomb. 99% victorious is not at all the same thing as 100% over and the Japanese had not surrendered.
B. Full control is not the same thing as victory. We were facing an extraordinarily expensive invasion or blockade. The Japanese had made it clear that they were going to fight to the last man if necessary and that simply killing a few people through fire bombs was clearly not compelling enough to convince them to surrender.
> Saving American lives was not the main reason for dropping
> the bombs since Japan were the only Axis left fighting China,
> Russia and the rest of the Allies. American simply donât want
> Japan to fall into the Communist influence even if it means
> making deal with letting go of some war criminals.
The overwhelming evidence says otherwise. Without question, the single most important goal was to end the war as quickly as possible and thus saving the most American lives. China as I said was in no position help. The Soviet Union was decimated and really did not want to send what they had left to another war (from their perspective) and neither did we frankly. American soldiers that fought in Europe were seriously not happy about having to go fight another war from their perspective.