The Nuking of Japan

[Shell B]

I'm a literalist, CoH. Sorry.

Solace guy, you said we were sitting on our asses. You might have meant otherwise. The context makes it ambiguous.

[Mystic]

You know what , I can sympathize, having been big time behind Iranian Leadership, I use to justify taking US hostages over all these speculative things. They US planning such and such, and it stopped a plan that would've killed so and so people....but at the end, I said...even if you justify the initial take over (on speculation), why keep them for that long? Then people say because this and that....

I stopped justifying way before even I stopped believing in Islam.

And what I learned is people can justify a lot of things. Maybe not anything but a lot of things.

Patriotism and pride in religion and pride in culture is not worth developing a morality that deep down inside you are not at peace with.

[System of Solace]

I meant that the only way Russia would have got mainland Japan (if they chose to invade it) was if we did nothing for months. I've only debated people on this topic who hold a dumbed down version of Position A (It's bad because dead people) and I really assumed most people would agree with B. I still think there are 6 problems with your idea, Shell-
1. The Japanese emperor rejects the idea because his pride outweighs his common sense (very unlikely)
2. The Japanese emperor accepts but the public complains the conditions do not give Japan enough and he has to reject them
3. The Japanese emperor jumps right on but rejects the conditions, saying we surrendered (more likely but it is likely he would have accepted them)
4. The Japanese emperor suspects trickery on the part of the US
5. The American public responds with outrage and violent unrest and possibly revolt will happen (most likely)
6. Japan continues as a facist state run mostly by the military leader and never becomes a true ally of the US or most nations because of it's government
The first 3 are pretty weak and are just possibilities. The other 3 may be serious problems. I just feel the Japanese emperor would be thrown off guard by the sudden surrender/peace that he would suspect trickery, accept immediately, or let his pride take control of him.

[Creed of Heresy]

you're a literalist, and I love wrapping things in euphemism. COMMUNICATION PROBLEMS AHEAD! ;D

[jonb]

I meant that the only way Russia would have got mainland Japan (if they chose to invade it) was if we did nothing for months.

The Soviet Union was far more prepared than that. Russia still holds islands the soviets took over in that day. The Soviets could after all transfer troops from Europe to the coast of Japan in one train trip.

[Anomalocaris]

The northern japanese territories were relatively puny. They can be taken with battalion or brigade sized landing forces. Japanese defenses were concentrated on the main island of Honshu. Here multiple corp sized landing forces would be necessary to gain foot hold. These was no way soviet union could have gained Japanese main island by its own powers.

[greneknight]

Immoral and unnecessary. Japan was about to surrender, given that Russia had just declared war on them. Yes, they would have continued fighting for a bit longer . . . maybe, but it sure beats killing that many civilians. On top of that, the U.S. was in the process of sending more nukes, as if what we had already done was not enough.

Interestingly, I had a recent change of opinion on this topic. I thought it was necessary to stop the blood bath, or at least successful in doing so. Having done more research, I realize that I was wrong. There is never a reason for nuclear weapons. Ever. I would have preferred the United States surrender and then laugh as the Japanese try to actually enforce the surrender on American soil. I'm happy with our relationship to Japan at this point. I just wish it had a less evil past.

I agree with Creed of Heresy. You are looking at the whole thing from the American perspective. But Japan's conquests of many Asian countries caused untold sufferings to the people there. The Japanese were noted for their cruelty and they massacred a lot of civilians in Asia, eg the Nanking Massacre. For us in the West, it was ok but the A-bombs ended the mass slaughters of Asians by the Japs. Yes, it's unfortunate that Japanese civilians had to die but if it's a question who should die, I'd rather the death of the civilians of the aggressor country. I've read accounts of British prisoners of war in Japanese concentration camps and how many more would have died if the saviour A-bombs had been dropped even a month later.

Interestingly, unlike Germany, Japan remains unrepentant. They have re-written history books for Japanese kids which claim that they were liberating Asia from British rule. And to this day, they have shrines in Yasukuni where they worship and honour the memory of even Class A war criminals. Imagine if Germany had a shrine to worship Hitler and the other Nazi criminals. Whenever there are disagreements between Japan and other Asian countries, Japanese leaders will make a show of going to Yasukuni to worship the war criminals. That's how unrepentant Japan is.

[Anomalocaris]

The difference in the level of Repentence between Germany and Japan can easily be explained by how important such Repentence is to each country immediate postwar interests.

For Germany, bordered on one side by resurgent france, on the other by overwhelming power of the soviet union, it was absolutely vital to position herself so she becomes politically acceptable as an ally to other western european countries, particularly France. For Japan, thanks to alliance with the united states, and the extreme weakness of her Asian neighbors, really didn't need to apply herself smooth relations with other Asian countries.

Once the opportunity of the immediate postwar period is past, the domestic forces makes it much harder to change.

[Shell B]

I agree with Creed of Heresy. You are looking at the whole thing from the American perspective.

That's an interesting take on my argument. "America did the wrong thing!" response: "You're being so American." What the . . . ?

But Japan's conquests of many Asian countries caused untold sufferings to the people there.

Irrelevant, unless you look at the nukes as a buddy revenge thing.

The Japanese were noted for their cruelty and they massacred a lot of civilians in Asia, eg the Nanking Massacre.

Still irrelevant, but I'll take the bait. I know Japan was doing horrible things. We didn't drop bombs on Japan to stop them from massacring people.

For us in the West, it was ok but the A-bombs ended the mass slaughters of Asians by the Japs.

Japs, dude? *facefuckingpalm* At any rate, you are talking about the Sino-Japanese Wars and looking at it from a popular media perspective. Not taking their other conflicts into account, let's just look at the years where World War II overlapped with the second Sino-Japanese War. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_...r_II#China

Yes, it's unfortunate that Japanese civilians had to die but if it's a question who should die, I'd rather the death of the civilians of the aggressor country.

I'm sure you would. I would rather not see my countrymen die, but I don't want to see anyone who is innocent die. We burnt people who were doing nothing wrong alive. We burned their clothing onto their bodies. We completely leveled two cities with as many bombs. I use the term "we" loosely. We didn't do anything.

I've read accounts of British prisoners of war in Japanese concentration camps and how many more would have died if the saviour A-bombs had been dropped even a month later.

Have you read accounts of how the Allies treated prisoners of war? Probably not. Those aren't very pretty, either. Have you read about how we put our own countrymen in camps that were little better than work camps because their eyes were a bit slanty?

Interestingly, unlike Germany, Japan remains unrepentant.

Oh, please. All the giggly Japanese girls over here taking pictures of everything they see don't need to be repentant. Japan has taken leaps forward and is a good ally.

They have re-written history books for Japanese kids which claim that they were liberating Asia from British rule.

What country doesn't do that? I was taught that the Native Americans were scalping savages when I was in middle school. Of course, I was taught that they cooked turkey in elementary school.

And to this day, they have shrines in Yasukuni where they worship and honour the memory of even Class A war criminals.

Some would say we have had some pretty major war criminals in our midst. I would say the forced interment of American citizens for being "Japs" is a war crime.

Imagine if Germany had a shrine to worship Hitler and the other Nazi criminals.

I'm sure some of them do.

Whenever there are disagreements between Japan and other Asian countries, Japanese leaders will make a show of going to Yasukuni to worship the war criminals. That's how unrepentant Japan is.

What is the point about caring if they are repentant? You didn't say you're sorry, so it's totally cool that I dropped two nuclear bombs on you? What kind of logic is this?

I understand that it is human nature to try to excuse transgressions. The very reason that people try to excuse the nukes is the reason that Japan tries to excuse the war crimes. No one likes feeling uncomfortable about their nation's actions. People like pride more than shame. It's all perfectly explainable on both sides.

[Annik]

Regardless of your stance, can it be at least agreed that dropping two nuclear warheads was too much? I mean for fuck's sake. These are innocent people going about their day, not war criminals.