Did the Japanese deserve the Atomic Bomb?

Discussion in 'War Against Japan' started by LostKingdom, Feb 25, 2004.

  1. hunter07

    hunter07 Junior Member

    Nothing to this day equals the brutality of WWII. We can judge US for dropping the bomb all we want. We can say that US just wanted to save lives or we can say it was purely a political move to show what US is capable of. In reality it is hard to say what Truman was thinking at that time and what his motives were.

    I was just trying to make a point that iff Japan had the means of doing the same thing to US they probably would have done that. I regret the the death of so many civillians but I guess Truman felt it was necessary.

    In my opinion "they" ( scientists ) should have never build the bomb in the first place because once you give such a powerful weapons to politicians they cannot help themselves but to test it out. Disregard this statement it is purely philosophical I realise that it is impossible to stop the progress.
     
  2. halfyank

    halfyank Member

    hunter07 first of all welcome to the board.

    I cannot believe in my heart that if Japan, or Germany, had any weapon remotely like the atomic bomb they would hesitate in the slightest to use it. I also don't think that if they had won the war there would be too much debate from their people over if they should have used it. This is just an emotional opinion on my part, I can't back it up with facts.

    I will say this concerning the decision to drop the bomb. I truly feel it was the right one for many reasons. First in the minds of many of the people who helped make the decision it was just another weapon. I don' t think they really had the same kind of information on the effects of the bomb as we do today. They wanted the war over. I can't say if they wanted it over because they wanted to save both Allied and Japanese lives, or if they just wanted to save Allied lives. Either way they did want to save lives. As a political animal I'd say Truman also realized what a political hot potato it would be if he chose not to use the bomb, and it got out that he could have ended the war sooner. All in all I'd say the entire controversy is nothing more than some people doing what we call "Monday morning quarterbacking" using 20/20 hindsight. I also believe that some of the people writing against the decision have ulterior motives, either a desire for money or fame, and that leads them to write what they do.

    As far as the scientists who developed the bomb I have mixed feelings. I understand many of them did so because they thought it was going to be used against Germany. They felt it was the right thing to do considering how evil nazi Germany was.
     
  3. angie999

    angie999 Very Senior Member

    I am sure you are right. You will see however that I consistently take the position that using atomic weapons on Japan was a correct military decision, for which there is no need to seek any moral equivalence.

    Even if every Japanese citizen in 1945 from the emperor down signed a pledge never to use nuclear weapons, I would still say that the US decision was correct because it eliminated the need to carry out an invasion of the Japanese home islands.
     
  4. Gerard

    Gerard Seelow/Prora

    It was a terrible decision to make but it was the right one. The invasion of Japan would have been the bloodiest battle of the war if it had gone ahead. By using the bombs and giving Japan the option to surrender without an invasion proved to be the option which ended up sparing lives in the long run. thats no consolation to the populations of Hiroshima or Japan, but thats the way I see it.
     
  5. Kiwiwriter

    Kiwiwriter Very Senior Member

    The use of the atomic bomb in combat also served an important purpose -- it forcibly brought the world's attention to the dangers of using them.

    I sometimes think that if the US had not used the bombs on Japan, and invaded the Homeland, then the next war fought, that history's version of Korea, between the US and Communist forces -- perhaps in Korea, perhaps in Japan -- would have seen the first use of atomic weapons instead, but in a more horrifying and destructive manner. Perhaps MacArthur would have gained or had power to hurl A-bombs on six or seven Chinese or Russian cities. They might have been tossed around like firecrackers.

    The impact of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was to cause the worldwide revulsion to their further use and make world leaders after the fact pause in their atomic deliberations. Nobody has used atomic arms since Nagasaki. Given the immense destructive power they have now, that's a very, very, good thing.
     
  6. angie999

    angie999 Very Senior Member

  7. morse1001

    morse1001 Very Senior Member

    A very good and detailed book on the background to the use of the bombs is
    Alperovitz, Gar., The Decision to use the Atomic Bomb Fontana Press, London, 1996
     
  8. halfyank

    halfyank Member

    An even better one, without the total bias that Alperovitz and Gar has, is Downfall:The end of the Imperial Japanese Empire by Richard B Frank. To me A & G has an obvious slant. They made up their minds the use of the bombs was wrong and spent the entire book to support that, using fair means or foul. Any author has a thesis that they try to support, but to me Frank is much more even handed about it. As far as Alperovitz and Gar is concerned if something goes against their theory it's left out, Frank will give both pro and con and let the reader decide.
     
  9. morse1001

    morse1001 Very Senior Member

    May I start by saying that the authors name was Gar Alperovitz. In addition, like other historians he gives very detailed sources, which do allow the reader to make up his own mind.

    As for any bias from the author, a mature reader can spot that but should not allow it to affect their reading of the subject. There has been on another thread comments made about David irving who is well known for historical bias but that does not like Alperovitz distract for the very good sources that they use.

    Alperovitz does quite rightly highlight the amount of dissent towards the use of the bombs within the allies. He also looks at the argument of about the fact that japan was making peace feelers.

    A good book about the fall of japan is Toland, John.,The Rising Sun - The decline and Fall of the Japanese Empire
     
  10. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    This is probably the first discussion on the use of an Atomic bomb on this forum so everybody hold on to their chairs...

    I was reading an account where the US sent 329 bombers to bomb Tokyo. It talked about the mass confusion of people of Tokyo that had no homes or even shelters, food or bandages to cover their wounds, even a week after the bombing. With then end of the war in Europe, the Eighth and Ninth Air Forces were moved over. I don’t know about RAF Bomber Command, but they too could have been employed as well. There was no resistance to the bombing in Japan by the end of the ETO campaign. Virtually no flak, no fighters, not even the short term protection in the frequency of poor weather and visibility. I have heard of the necessity of the bombing from the standpoint that invasion would have cost so many lives because the Japanese citizen was trained as a soldier for suicide attacks at invaders. But after reading the description of that one Tokyo raid, it becomes apparent that the Allies would have never invaded Japan against any type of remaining resistance, citizen or otherwise. To me, this meant that if it came down to Japanicide versus losing hundreds of thousands of Allied soldiers, the bombing would have continued until there was nothing left to resist.

    If the kind of chaos that that raid of 329 bombers on one of the low number and most populous of cities on the small island of Japan, imagine if the brunt of the Air Forces had been deployed. It would have done far more damage than the nuclear bombs. The Allies could have simply selected a city, demanded Japan’s unconditional surrender and inform them what city was to be targeted, even drop leaflets to warn the people in case the government wouldn’t. Keep repeating this process and systematically remove city by city with few losses to themselves until the government of Japan, the emperor and the citizens realized the futility of continuing the war just as they did with the shock of the atom bomb. My point here is simply, does it matter if a bombing raid consists of thousands of bombers versus only one when the resultant impact on the city and the duration of it are the same? I do agree that large scale destruction was necessary to drive the point home, but was the emperor and leaders who agreed to surrender, really shocked at the fact such devastation was caused by a single plane or that such devastation was done in minutes without the ability to stop it?

    What do you folks think?

    P.S.

    Do you folks realize that the Godzilla in the Japanese movies was a metaphor for post war US? If you ever watched them, Godzilla was occasionally necessary to stop other monsters (nations like Russia, China and North Korea) which did or would threaten Japan, but Godzilla himself did a great deal of destruction by his presence stepping on their buildings and people (damage to the culture and way of life). At first they fought him and lost. Then he became a protector in which they learned to endure as the lesser of two evils.
     
  11. angie999

    angie999 Very Senior Member

    Wow, what a big question, which I am not even going to attempt to answer with one post.

    On another forum, I am currently taking part in a reading group on Downfall by Richard B Frank, Penguin (USA) 2001 edition (cover price $16.00)*. This is the other Downfall which deals with the end of the Japanese empire in 1945 and nothing to do with Hitler in his bunker. It covers all these issues and we are struggling a bit to get to grips with the complexities of it all.

    The USAAF in fact carried out a whole series of destructive area bombing attacks on Japanese cities. None were as destructive as the Tokyo raid of 9-10 March 1945, but in total they added up to a huge toll of casualties. These raids never came near encouraging the Japanese government to end the war on any sort of terms which would have been acceptable to the allies.

    I do not think that the B-17s of 8th AAF were due to go to the Pacific. They lacked the range to bomb Japan from the Marianas and even Okinawa was a bit far for them. Plus, the B-29, a superior aircraft in every way, was being produced in sufficient numbers. There was a plan to send the RAF's Lancasters, but half of them would have needed to be converted into tankers for the other half for mid-air refuelling according to Frank.

    There was a plan to invade Kyushu, the southernmost of the Japanese home islands on 1 November 1945. This would have involved exclusively US ground forces and it was codenamed Operation Olympic. However, the American intentions had been largely predicted by the Japanese, who prepared their own counter-plan, named Ketsu-Go. Casualties were predicted to be massive and at the highest level by August 1945 the US command was beginning to have second thoughts. The key question, given estimates that it could take until 1946 or even 1947 to force a surrender, was would American public opinion be prepared to countenance a long, drawn out naval blockade and air bombardment.

    And then along came........

    ...... the bomb

    ...... and the Soviet invasion of Manchuria

    * as far as I know, this was never published in the UK and I could not track it down either in UK bookstores or UK based online booksellers, but it is available from amazon's US site at a discount, although outside the US there is no free shipping - incidentally, I can't remember the figures, but amazon was cheaper than Barnes & Noble.
     
  12. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    So Angie, would you say that there would have been no invasion without unconditional surrender, but rather Japan would simply be bombed into capitulation, even if a-bomb was off the table?
     
  13. morse1001

    morse1001 Very Senior Member



    Given the observed effects, America had total air superiority over japan and with the addition of the forces coming from Europe, thhen it would have been possible to extend the attacks and drive Japan to surrender.
     
  14. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    At that time they actually had air supremacy over Japan. I would think the B-17s could be adapted over to long range by simply dropping weaponry and defensive crew members and replacing them with fuel supply or even drop some of the ordinance to expand fuel capacity and reduce weight. But probably just with the RAF heavies they could have just as sufficiently bombed and the mods to the B-17s wouldn't be necessary.

    With the cities in Japan being made primarily of wood, a good bombing run with only a thousand planes would have had more damage than either of the two bombs.

    Angie is right. The Soviets did mix up the equation a bit. Speed was of the essence. Maybe that's the real answer to my question.
     
  15. angie999

    angie999 Very Senior Member

    This is going too far down the "what if" road for me. It is established, though, that the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Truman himself had growing misgivings about an invasion. This is part of the background to using atomic weapons.
     
  16. airplane4me123

    airplane4me123 Junior Member

    Hello,
    images/smilies/default/ohmy.gif

    I know I'm just speaking from the american side but, yah you guys deserved it. When we dropped the bomb we killed ALOT of people which devistated your country, but when you attacked Pearl Harbor, you threw our whole country into a battle in whether Japineese people should really be trusted, therefore you were ruining your own people in a different country, Yah you deserved it. But sorry about your grandma. :(

    Morse 1001 is right.
     
  17. swd1974

    swd1974 Junior Member

    When asked about the abomb I always point to the fire bombings.

    Keep in mind that the fire bombings that burned down almost every major japanesse city killed over 500,000 people. That double what tjhe atomic bombs did.

    As to if it was right. I am always of the mind that when you are attacked or you enter into a war that you show no mercy and no distiction between civillians and military. The people of Japan and Germany supported their governments 100% as did the people of the US, and Britain.

    One reason why I am so against the way the united States fights now. We worry so much about the media and its affects if a missle kills a civilian that it inhibits what the military can do to protect its own soldiers.
     
  18. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    Ryuujin, I don't buy that at all. Thinking they bombed just to show use of tax dollars is absurd, just as if I suggested the sucker punch at Pearl was motivated by the Japanese's need to spend tax dollars as well.

    Unconditional surrender was out of the question. When a nation starts a war by attacking before the declaration, commits war crimes like those against the Chinese and treats POWs the way the Japanese did, then they have no bargaining right. The terms are dictated to them. It was far more in Japan's interest to surrender unconditionally than for the US's interest for them to surrender conditionally. It is worth considering amicable gestures in the surrender of a "civil" enemy, but Japan hardly fits that profile. You give no mercy, you typically get none. The emperor himself might have been guilty of war crimes, do you think they would simply let him off scot free? That's not reasonable.

    The Japanese were in a situation where they should have been (as we say here in the states) "Hat-in-hand". This means they should have humbled themselves to negotiate rather than demand concessions. This "stubborn pride" was the real sustainer of the war and the real killer of the Japanese people who died as a result of subsequent bombings. It seems in your reasoning that you believed that the US was just a nation of savages that hated the Japanese people and wanted to bomb them until they got their “pound of flesh”. If this was true, why was surrender ever accepted? Why did they not just destroy the entire race of people by continuing to bomb for another 6 months to a year? Why would they spend the billions to rebuild the Japan and become close friends with them as soon as the war was over? Why did they give the Japanese people their nation and land back? Could they have not done as they pleased?

    No, the American culture has always been to fight hard when its time to fight, make peace and forgive when it is time for peace. There are no nations that the US harbors bitterness toward in this day and age, not even the Russians. There certainly are people they don’t trust, but they do not view the people of today to be the people of yesterday. I have seen documentaries recently that suggest that the Japanese feel the atomic bomb was uncalled for. To me this is a lack of introspect, the inability to see the type of people the Japanese were then and that it was indeed their actions, not just the Pearl Harbor incident, that justified that the war had to be ended with whatever means necessary. How many innocent Chinese citizens did the Japanese kill and were they killing when the war was effectively over and they refused to surrender? Who was it supplying them with the weaponry and supplies so that they could commit this genocide on the Chinese citizens? Was it not these same Japanese people upon whom the bombs fell? Japan was defeated but refused to surrender. That leaves the US with only one option. It was Japan that made sure there was only one option on the table by their demands.

    Sorry friend, that dog won’t hunt.[/QUOTE]
     
  19. spidge

    spidge RAAF RESEARCHER

    I apologise in advance as I have cut and pasted "parts of" some of my previous posts and added some more.

    The West did not trust Stalin. What ever he did have in mind for Asia was curbed somewhat by the dropping of the bombs?

    The bombs finished the war pure and simple and stopped everything in it's tracks. The potential loss of life was minimised. The destructive power of the bomb was displayed for all to see and pray God, it will remain a deterrent and we will not see it used in anger.

    MY 2 CENTS WORTH!!!

    Whilst the war in Europe had officially ended, the Japanese were still entrenched and awaiting invasion from the allies. Their homeland defence was to be their final "Coup de grace" of defiance.

    Can anybody visualise how this conflict could have ended with a lesser loss of life and devastating trauma on both sides.

    It has been 60 years and the devastation that was unleashed on these two cites of Hiroshima & Nagasaki has not been repeated due to the understanding of the potential of these weapons.

    Europe: Dresden and other German cities towards the end of the conflict. Dresden 1 in 20 deaths, Pforheim 1 in 4 deaths, Wurzburg 90% destroyed and there are many many others.

    If you believe the numbers, Firebombing of Dresden killed more than Hiroshima & Nagasaki combined.

    If we mirror that carnage across Japan, as the allies would not have bombed one city then another, it would have been "blanket" with a much greater loss of life.


    Japanese Atrocities.
    What about the list below?


    A SHORT LIST OF THE DOCUMENTED AND PROVEN ATTROCITIES COMMITTED BY THE JAPANESE FORCES IN THEIR QUEST FOR A NEW CO-PROSPERITY SPHERE UNDER THE GUISE OF:
    “ASIA FOR THE ASIATICS”

    Asia for Asiatics be damned - It was Asia for Japan.

    Nanking, China. Over 200,000 Chinese men used for bayonet practice, machine gunned, or set on fire. Thousands more were murdered. 20,000 women and girls were raped, killed or mutilated. The massacre of a quarter million people was an intentional policy to force China to make peace. It did not happen. World opinion, which until this time had accepted modern Japan's desire to oversee backward China, was repelled in horror.

    New officers were indoctrinated to the expectations of war by beheading Chinese captives. The last stage of the training of combat troops was to bayonet a living human and a trial of courage for the officers. Prisoners were blindfolded and tied to poles; soldiers dashed forward to bayonet their target at the shout of "Charge!"

    Combat medical units moved to China where live bodies were plentiful. If the class was in sutures, a Chinaman was shot in the belly for doctors to practice. Amputations? - then arms were removed. Living people was more instructive than work on cadavers, (a dead body to e dissected) the students need to get used to blood and screaming.

    Bacterial warfare experiments conducted by an infamous medical unit moved to Manchuria. Bombs of anthrax and plague were tested on Chinese cities until the results were so good that too many Japanese soldiers also died. This unit also practiced vivisection. See more details of unit 731, along with web citations for those with the stomach.

    Korean Comfort Women "forced by the Imperial Japanese Army to repeatedly provide sex for Japanese soldiers throughout Asia are said to number between 80,000 and 200,000. Many of the victims were underage at the time, and either died in despair or suffered health impairments. These women, who suffer from mental and physical pain, not to mention social isolation and prejudice, are now seeking an official apology from the Japanese government and individual compensation as a measure to rehabilitate their honour." - Aug 2002

    Malaya. Japanese troops decapitated 200 wounded Australians and Indians left behind when Australian troops withdrew through the jungle from Muar.
    Singapore. Japanese soldiers bayonet 300 patients and staff of Alexandra military hospital 9 Feb 1942. British women had their hands behind their backs and repeatedly raped. All Chinese residents were interviewed and 5,000 selected for execution.

    Wake Island. A construction crew of 1,200 mostly Idaho youths, captured when Wake Island fell, were shipped to Japanese prison camps. Five were beheaded to encourage good behaviour on the trip. The Japanese decided to keep 100 of the civilian contractors on the island to complete the airbase, which became functional in 1943. When US Navy planes attacked the island, the Japanese commander executed the civilians.

    Dutch East Indies. Those Dutch accused of resisting Japan or participating in the destruction of the oil refineries had arms or legs chopped off. 20,000 men were forced into the ocean and machine gunned. 20,000 women and children were repeatedly raped, then many were killed.

    Dutch Borneo. The entire white population of Balikpapan was executed.
    Java. The entire white male population of Tjepu was executed. Women were raped.
    Survivors of USS Edsall (DD-219) are beheaded.

    Philippines. Any soldier captured before the surrender was executed.
    The Bataan Death March -- 7,000 surrendered men died. Those that could not keep up the pace were clubbed, stabbed, shot, beheaded or buried alive.
    Once the prison camp had been reached, disease, malnutrition and brutality claimed up to 400 American and Filipinos – EACH DAY.

    Thailand. 15,000 military prisoners and 75,000 native labourers died building a railroad between Bangkok and Rangoon. Bridge Over the River Kwai.
    Doolittle Raid, Japan. Three of eight US airmen captured were executed.
    Doolittle Raid, China. 25,000 Chinese in villages through which the US flyers escaped were slaughtered in a three month reign of terror.

    Midway. Japanese destroyers rescued three U.S. naval aviators; after interrogation, all three were murdered.

    Attu. Japanese troops overran the medical aid station; after killing the doctors, they bayoneted the wounded.

    Makin Atoll (Kiribati). Nine of Carlson's Marine raiders were left behind, hid for two weeks and surrendered. They were beheaded a few weeks later when a ship was not available to take them to a prisoner of war camp.

    USS Sculpin. Forty-two of submarine Sculpin's crew were picked up by Yamagumo. One, severely wounded, was thrown overbroad. Survivors were forced to work in the copper mines at Ashio until released at the end of the war.

    Indian Ocean. Capt Ariizumi, ComSubRon One, commanded submarine I-8 in the Indian Ocean. On March 26th, 1944, he collected from the water and massacred 98 unarmed survivors of the Dutch merchantman Tjisalak he'd sunk south of Colombo. He repeated this performance with 96 prisoners from the American Jean Nicolet in the Maldives on July 2nd. He destroyed the lifeboats and dived, leaving 35 bound survivors on deck. 23 managed to untie their bonds and swim all night to be rescued by the Royal Indian Navy. Capt Ariizumi committed hara-kiri while his squadron was being escorted to Yokosuka by the U.S. Navy.

    I-26 is also known to have rammed merchant lifeboats from Richard Hovey and machine-gunned those in the water.

    3Aug45. Japanese hospital ship Tachibana searched by Charrette (DD-581) when observed throwing weighted bags overboard. Found thirty (30) tons of ammunition, mortars, and machine guns in Red Cross boxes along with 1,500 soldiers released from hospital on Kai bound for Soerabaja.

    Japan. Eight US airmen were used for medical dissection at Kyushu Imperial University with organs removed while the prisoners were still alive.

    Bushi, the way of the soldier, was the creed of the Japanese in the Pacific War. It was not that long ago. The story of atrocities created under a pagan code is suppressed today in the interests of good will with a business partner. Less we forget. Civilization in only a veneer over other instincts of mankind.

    History tells mass murder comes in many names, of Attila, Genghis Khan, and Tamerlane. Hundreds of Indians and settlers were slaughtered like buffalo. Within the living lifetime: Stalin purged twenty-some millions of his own people. Mao may have topped him during 1949-76. Nazi gave final solution to five or six millions. Kurds have lost millions. The Chamer Rouge killed 1.6 million. Less we forget. Hope for peace, but be prepared to resist savagery.
    ________________________________________
    One Act of Compasion :
    While the Japanse were destroying the US forces in the Philippines, a pilot dropped a message saying they intended to destroy the facility next to the base hospital and that we should we move the patients. We did. They did.
    ________________________________________
    Additional reading. The Knights of Bushido: the Shocking History of Japanese War Atrocities
    by Lord Edward Fredrick Russell, Dutton, 1958. Companion volume to his The Scourge of The Swastika.
    Some items from the book.
    • Jan 1942. Dutch naval POWs taken to the spot where their ship had fired on a Japanese destroyer, decapitated and thrown into the sea.
    • 16Feb42. British evacuees from Singapore on the island of Bauka surrendered to a Japanese detail. The 26 soldiers were executed, the 22 Army nurses were marched into the sea and machine gunned, the twelve stretcher cases were bayoneted. -- Story told by the surviving nurse, who, though shot, was washed ashore.
    • March 1942. Kota Radja, Indonesia. Dutch prisoners put on a barge, towed out to sea, shot and thrown overboard.
    • 7 Oct 43. Wake Island. On the order of RAdm Sakibara, 96 prisoners were blindfolded, hands tied behind their backs and massacred.
    • Oct 1944. New Guinea. A battalion commander confessed after the war, "I asked if I could get an American POW and kill him." Two were delivered, blindfolded, stabbed with a bayonet and decapitated with shovels.
    • 12 Nov 44. New Britain. US fighter pilot made a forced landing. Beheaded, flesh cut form his body, cut into small pieces, fried and served to a large group of officers.
    • 14 Dec 44. Palawan, Philippines. About 100 army and 50 marines had been warned if the US invades, they would be killed. When American planes attacked, Lt. Sato led 50 soldiers to pour buckets of gasoline on the entrances to shelters and ignite it. As the men came out they were bayoneted, shot or clubbed. -- Told by one of five survivors who escaped through a fence, shedding his burning clothes. Last Man Out.
    • 12 Nov 45. Guam. The flesh of LTjg H___, aviator, was served to an infantry battalion. [The Japanese order for this communion-like sacrifice was captured.]
    Russell concentrates on events sanctioned by higher authorities as documented by War Crimes Trial, whereas I have extracted events from readings. Although many leaders practiced human treatment, the norm was total indifference, and bestial behaviour was a totally accepted.

    Use of Allied prisoners of war for slave labour by Japanese companies is discussed in: "Unjust Enrichment" by Linda Goetz Holmes, 2001.

    Her 1994 book, "4000 Bowls of Rice: A Prisoner of War Comes Home", is about Allied prisoners of the Japanese who built the Burma Railway.

    "Last Man Out: Glenn McDole, USMC, Survivor of the Palawan Massacre in World War II" by Bob Wilbanks.


    ATTEMPTING TO DENY THEIR BRUTAL PAST

    View attachment 1190

    I for one over the past few decades have seen the worm turn in favour of the Japanese to a degree where the allies and particularly the USA are the bogey men.

    EXTRACT:

    One sign is the Japanese authorities' approval of several new school history textbooks written by known right-wing scholars.
    One book which has angered the Chinese failed to make any assessment of the number of Chinese civilians killed in the infamous Rape of Nanjing.
    The internationally accepted view is that hundreds of thousands died in an orgy of sexual violence and killing by Japanese troops.

    And Japan's largest national newspaper, the Yomiuri Shimbun, in what I take to be blatant disregard for the known facts, has called on its readers to celebrate, because the new textbooks have cut out all mention of one of the greatest of all the humiliations inflicted by Imperial Japan on its neighbours: the use of large numbers of women in conquered Asian countries as sex slaves for the Japanese army.

    It was right to set the record straight, I read, because the accusations "had been shown to be untrue".
    Surely I thought modern Japan could not give in to the poison of such deceit and hypocrisy ever again.

    For 100 years Japan has been number one in Asia. Now China, with 10 times Japan's population, is in a hurry to take over that role
    I found that its 18 galleries of high-quality displays, maps and texts amount to a lavish and expensive re-write of the history of Japan's imperial age, to show the Japanese as innocent victims of a conspiracy by the Western colonial powers, to thwart Japan's ambition to lead East Asia and force Japan into war.

    By this account annexing Korea, setting up a puppet regime in Manchukuo, the step by step takeover of China, each was done in self-defence, aiming only to bring peace.

    As for Nanjing, I found no mention of Japanese soldiers killing civilians.

    Instead, these words: "The Chinese were soundly defeated, suffering heavy casualties. Inside the city, residents were once again able to live their lives in peace."

    However you look at it - that will not do as a record of what happened.


    BACK TO MY WORDS

    The Japanese should be honouring those that died in Hiroshima & Nagasaki as the ones that died so we (the Japanese nation) might survive. Not being portrayed as the innocent victims of a brutal act by an Allied force who had suffered the brutality and barbarism under Japanese aggression and just wanted the suffering to end.

    Japan was treated very well after the war by the allies – Let us not forget that! They became what they are today because they were allowed to rebuild their country and their lives, not imprisoned, beaten, tortured, murdered etc etc etc.

    I grew up surrounded by people who went away as men but came back a shadow of themselves both physically & Mentally after the brutal torment of Changi and other Japanese hellholes. What about them? What about the suffering of their wives and children in the long years after the war where their men turned to alcoholism and suicide.


    Japan showed no mercy.....................maybe in reality the Allies did.
     
    A-58 likes this.
  20. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    Wow Geoff, how do you really feel?

    The link that Angie put in above on the analysis of the effects of the bombs is very eye opening. It may be the answer to the question I was looking for. According to that analysis of the effects, conventional bombing was not "shocking" to the Japanese, they were mentally prepared for it because it was happening all along. But the bomb dropped from a single plane, causing such devastation caused them to "freak out" when even a recon plane flew overhead. It had quite an awe factor. So, it could be argued in retrospect that it made a difference.

    But, could Truman have known that that would be the response to it as to make the decision that it would be considered a better approach to a quick end?
     

Share This Page