Did the Japanese deserve the Atomic Bomb?

Sorry Jimbo, i think i did misread your post. In my defence i can only say i was seriously hormonal that day.
But let me just ask a question. You say that we should not continually 'torment people with guilt', as they will become resentful. True. However, let me put it like this, and i hope i don't sound too stroppy today, even though i am.
Let's take the concentration camps as an example. They are used now as a tourist attraction (the concept is called Black Tourism. We all do it when we go to a war cemetry or battlefield). However, i do believe that these attractions are teaching a valauble lesson to new generations. It's telling them this is what somw humans are capable of, and if you do not guard against it something similar could happen again.
That lesson, and not the preaching could prevent attrocities happening to other societies purely because they talk wrong or don't follow the right doctrine.
If i had to i would take every 14 year old to Auschwitz and quietly explain what just a few people managed to do to millions of individuals. If they then went away with that memory in their head and little thoughtful, then maybe it was worth it.
The same can be said for taking children to Pearl Harbor, or to the WW1 cemetries. is it not to teach them this is what humanity can do to one another, don't let it happen again?
Just a little something that i am now going away to think on, because i don't think i have phrased it at all well, and i apologise for that in advance.

 

Hormonal...have a piece of chocolate

 

Already eaten cake with buttercream, lemon curd and topped by chocolate. Not good for the diet i have successfully stuck to since November. Ho hum.

 

Sorry Jimbo, i think i did misread your post. In my defence i can only say i was seriously hormonal that day.
But let me just ask a question. You say that we should not continually 'torment people with guilt', as they will become resentful. True. However, let me put it like this, and i hope i don't sound too stroppy today, even though i am.
Let's take the concentration camps as an example. They are used now as a tourist attraction (the concept is called Black Tourism. We all do it when we go to a war cemetry or battlefield). However, i do believe that these attractions are teaching a valauble lesson to new generations. It's telling them this is what somw humans are capable of, and if you do not guard against it something similar could happen again.
That lesson, and not the preaching could prevent attrocities happening to other societies purely because they talk wrong or don't follow the right doctrine.
If i had to i would take every 14 year old to Auschwitz and quietly explain what just a few people managed to do to millions of individuals. If they then went away with that memory in their head and little thoughtful, then maybe it was worth it.
The same can be said for taking children to Pearl Harbor, or to the WW1 cemetries. is it not to teach them this is what humanity can do to one another, don't let it happen again?
Just a little something that i am now going away to think on, because i don't think i have phrased it at all well, and i apologise for that in advance.


Mossie, do you think there is a shortage of contemporary examples illustrating what wicked men are capable of? Seems to me just turning on the evening news is a pretty good object lesson. Look at what is happening in the Sudan, Somalia, the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, etc. Maybe the Holocaust is a more poignant happening [FONT=&quot]to Jewish people that had kin folks that went through it, but, to the rest of the world it is just another atocity against mankind. I mean, think about it, is it more of a tragedy that 6 million die than 1 million? Like Stalin said, "kill one man it is a tradgedy; kill a million, and it is a statistic".

I understand that Jewish people could get paranoid or be a little distrustful of things that have happened to their families and ancestors, that's perfectly understandable. But it is risky to obsess over it because it makes others think that you only think something is an atrocity only because it happened to Jewish people and that can breed resentment. Personally it bothers me that there are distinctions between people. For instance, I can't stand the terms Afro-American or Jewish-American or Itallian-American, Native American, etc. To me there are just Americans and they are a distinct people in that alone because geography is the only reasonable destinction of mankind that is not high minded or personal (I am not in to the one world government thing). It was Hitler's thing to make distintions and try to convince people that Jews in Germany were not true Germans. It seems to me that we should be going the other way.

I understand about not forgetting from a sense of letting history slip away. I am going to Germany on business for a couple of weeks and I really want to visit one of the concentration camps there (if I can break away on the weekend). But then again, I do care. But a lot of people don't, not because they are callous but because they simply don't relate to it. Those are the ones most likly to take offense at too frequent of a reference. I don't want it forgotten any more than I want Pearl Harbor forgotten as in removed from memory. But when you preserve a tragedy, you walk a fine line. Imagine if you had an ancestor who was a serial killer. It would be a betrayal to the families of his (or her!) victims to sweep it under the rug but at the same time you wouldn't want to hear about it all the time, you would want it fall from conversation.

Does that make sense?
[/FONT]

 

Someone asked on another thread if a soldier should forgive his enemies. The answer is most certainly if he (or she) can. The US had to forgive Japan, and Japan should forgive the US for using the bomb as well. Letting ill will of events that happened over 60 years ago fester, only leads to more pain and resentment by both sides. One side because they can’t get over the offense, and the other that resents the fact the other can’t get over it. Nobody wants to bear guilt especially descendants.

This is one of the reasons I believe it is not a good idea to exhaust people with the memories of the Holocaust. People will bear remorse only so long and then they begin to feel exploited themselves. I person’s or a people’s true character is in their ability to forgive and forget.

How about the fact that some people in Japan still do not recognize the guilts of Japanese during WW2 ? Not wanting to discuss about Nanking is one thing, denying what happened there is alas one of the typical common Japanese attitude you'll find.

You can forgive someone who is honestly willing to cope with a fact, not some mofo denier (ditto for the Holocaust).

 

Yes Jimbo, your arguments do make sense. However, i was using the holocaust or Pearl Harbour (I'm sorry, i can only spell it the English way) as an example. Auschwitz is a World Heritage site. Strange isn't it? that something so unimaginably awful should be preserved alongside Stonehenge and the Taj Mahal.
But what i am trying to say, and i know I'm not going to explain myself very well here, is that these sites, and more modern ones such as the Balkans, or Iraq, should be preserved in some cases to remind future generations what a few people are capable of. Then those lessons can be taken away and teach them to work together, across all faiths and casts, to prevent it happening again.
If just a few can be taught a valuable lesson from visiting a site of horror, such as Auschwitz, then the visitis worthwhile.
Look at the mediaeval bridge that has been rebuilt from the rubble of the one destroyed in the balkans war. The Muslim/Christian/Jewish communities are still wary of one another and still don't mix much, but that bridge is a link between them all, and they will do anything now to protect it. In it's way it is acting like Auschwitz. The links to the past to teach the future. Not there as a lecture, or a harsh warning, just as a lesson to be learnt quietly.
If i could i would take all of the FE students at my University to the German war cemetry at Cannock and make them stand amongst the black gravestones and THINK. Because i am afraid many of my generation don't.
Again i do not think i have expressed myself well here, and i do not think i shall ever be able to on this subject, but if you want me to answer any questions about my beliefs then i shall try to do so.

:mellow:

 

It depends on whose books that you are reading, many of the books I have deal with the RAF side of things and include biographies of men who led various wings during the war.

Nobody can deny the damage done to the German Army by the attack on Rommel’s car by aircraft of the RAF. Even Monty acknowledged the use of Airpower and its effect on the Normandy campaign.

It depends upon who you call or how you define an average historian.
All of his "biographies" make it look like his genius somehow converted his medium tanks into ETO dominating machines.”

In the Book, Patton’s Gap, the author Richard Rohmer who was the Reccie pilot who discovered the Gap, did a remarkable job in describing the situation at the time. He mentions the use of TAC air as he was involved with them. Furthermore he points out that for the opening of Operation Totalise, 1020 aircraft of Bomber Command dropped 3,462 tons of bombs. That was one thing Harris totally disagreed with and was using his heavy bombers as tactical bombers.

But Patton knew how to use air power; he learnt that in North Africa.

I would agree with that point, since i trained as a FAC whilst in the RAF.

 

It depends on whose books that you are reading, many of the books I have deal with the RAF side of things and include biographies of men who led various wings during the war.
Again, you are a plane-o-phile as am I. We read different books than the mere mortals (just kidding!)


Nobody can deny the damage done to the German Army by the attack on Rommel’s car by aircraft of the RAF. Even Monty acknowledged the use of Airpower and its effect on the Normandy campaign.
Oh that’s nothing. US XIX TAC almost shot down Spatz and Doolittle riding in the same plane! BTW: Rommel lost, I think three drivers due to strafing. He didn’t mince words of the destruction that air brings. In fact, he said, if the Allies ever get ashore in Normandy, the German’s might as well pack it up and go home because the air power he witnessed in Sicily.

It depends upon who you call or how you define an average historian.
All of his "biographies" make it look like his genius somehow converted his medium tanks into ETO dominating machines.”
Me, I am more interested in the man’s diary than I am his biographies. If the blind lead the blind…but a man does not lie to himself in his diary.


In the Book, Patton’s Gap, the author Richard Rohmer who was the Reccie pilot who discovered the Gap, did a remarkable job in describing the situation at the time. He mentions the use of TAC air as he was involved with them. Furthermore he points out that for the opening of Operation Totalise, 1020 aircraft of Bomber Command dropped 3,462 tons of bombs. That was one thing Harris totally disagreed with and was using his heavy bombers as tactical bombers.
Don’t understand what you mean by discovering a gap. The only gap I know about was the Falaise gap. It was not discovered it was agreed upon by Monty and Bradley. Patton’s destination was all along the Argentan road. Patton initially ran past it because Monty’s troops were not there and he wanted to make sure there was no gap for the Germans in the pocket to escape. Bradley ordered Patton back to the Argentan road because of the agreement he had with Monty that Monty would fill the region up to the Argentan road because there was going to be artillery and bombing scheduled for that area ahead of the Canadians. You don’t discover something you know about ahead of time. Are you talking about some other “gap”?

But Patton knew how to use air power; he learnt that in North Africa.
Ok, he learned his military tactics from West Point and VMI. What’s the point?

That raises the question of, if what you say is true than why did it take so long to beat the Germans and why was Hitler capable of mount a large scale offensive such as the Battle of the Bulge? Which included very effective use of Luftwaffe airpower?

The battle of the bulge had very little effect of air power. The only significant air strike was in Jan 1, on Bodenplatte to where the Germans not only lost twice as many aircraft as the Americans did and even worse lost pilots which they never recovered from. It was the weather that allowed the Ardennes Offensive to mount. It also prevented the Luftwaffe from flying until Jan, 1, 1945, because once the weather broke, there were over 3000 Allied planes patrolling the area and destroying troops on the ground. The Germans couldn’t win dogfights with the Allies with significant numerical advantages, how are they going to do it out numbered 5 to 1?

This is a bit political, but I think the reason that it took so long to defeat Germany was twofold. First Churchill and the boys wanted to finish Africa and then invade through Sicily/Italy. The allies were against it, and they wanted to go for it on Normandy before the Germans had time to build up the defenses there. But the US commanders yielded. I can’t say for sure this was the wrong thing to do. I think that the British had a bad taste in their mouth from Dunkirk and Dieppe and that influenced their desire to take it slow and indirect. But that’s my perception.

The second reason was the time spent in Market Garden, because it consumed resources, left Antwerp close and halted the offensive of Patton’s that would have gotten them to Berlin “well before” the end of the year since the Germans were on the verge of collapse on that front. For that I blame Ike. Ike could see the resistance in front of Patton was crumbling. Patton not only had inertia but had acceleration. But Ike wanted to be liked because he was a politician desiring to be President some day. He wanted to look like the great diplomat. Also the fact that Ike was too weak kneed to make the decision to use the heavies in front of his lines also prolonged the war. This was a huge mistake and would have had Monty ripping through France at the rate Patton was. I said, Patton got it. I didn’t say Ike or Bradley did. Had Ike have done any of these things correctly, the war would have been over in late Oct-early Nov 44.

If Alexander have been the British ground commander and Patton the US ground commander, the war would have had far less loses and shorter duration regardless of when Normandy had been invaded.

 

The battle of the bulge had very little effect of air power. The only significant air strike was in Jan 1, on Bodenplatte to where the Germans not only lost twice as many aircraft as the Americans did and even worse lost pilots which they never recovered from. It was the weather that allowed the Ardennes Offensive to mount. It also prevented the Luftwaffe from flying until Jan, 1, 1945, because once the weather broke, there were over 3000 Allied planes patrolling the area and destroying troops on the ground. The Germans couldn’t win dogfights with the Allies with significant numerical advantages, how are they going to do it out numbered 5 to 1?


Funny point is that the same loony always end up off topic, whatever the topic is, with his usual uneducated mantra.

Note that he as usual displays his awesome knowledge of WW2 in that post:

maybe he should read a little more about the Battle of the Bulge and learn that from December 23 onward, the Allies were able to conduct massive air operations, like the ones conductec by the 8th Air Force on Christmas Eve against German airfields.

 

Right, i don't know how this particular thread ended up in a thread about whether Japan deserved a whacking great bomb dropped on them from on high, but can a Mod move it somewhere else where it can fester quite nicely until it blows up in someone's face?
Cheers. Kitty

 

Our Polish friends have a point. And it does not need to be addressed at the end of the war, when the Soviet Union was an ally and crucial in defetaing Germany.

The following reads like one of those logic tests, but logic fails:

August 25, 1939
Great Britain and Poland signed formal treaty of mutual
assistance.

September 1, 1939
German troops invade Poland

September 3 , 1939
Great Britain declares a state of war exists with Germany.

September 16, 1939
Soviet troops invaded Poland.

September 18 , 1939
Great Britain declares a state of war exists with ...... ?

...Nope!

In my opinion Poland has deserved an official apology for some time now.




September 18, 1939
Great

 

dude, i never said the British were logical.
Kitty

 

Maybe this thread is exhaused and should be closed. It's not one of our better debates.

 

This has been totally derailed and most of the previous posts do not correlate with the topic.

Forums > Around The World > The War Against Japan Was The Atom Bomb Necessary?
The War Against Japan Forum devoted to the war against Japan

 

Since, yet again the postings do not reflect the original topic it is to be closed.

 

Japan deserved the the atomic as well as Germany!!
Nazi killed so many innocent Jewish.
Japanese Education system have change their history time-line from cruel invasion of Asia Pacific to "NULL".

 

Ya. the research program is the worse among the Axis.

 

From a purely selfish point of view....... glad it happened.

My grandfather was a POW. All POWs were to be executed. War ending saved his life. I am now here.

 

From a purely selfish point of view....... glad it happened.

My grandfather was a POW. All POWs were to be executed. War ending saved his life. I am now here.

Totally agree.