Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Justified?

[Kruska]

..........There is only one "Justification" in a war: Does it lead to victory?
Would Churchill, or Stalin, or Hitler, or Mussolini, or Tojo had hesitated more than an eye-bat?

Hello hardlec,

no doubt - all off the above adds up to what actually happened. All committed war-crimes - but only the defeated were placed on trial, such as in any war before.
And this has led to a constant repeat - of - "as long as we win - we can justify whatever" - which IMHO is not a basis for justice and peace - but a guarantee for further wars.

Regards
Kruska

 

[lljadw]

Hello hardlec,

no doubt - all off the above adds up to what actually happened. All committed war-crimes - but only the defeated were placed on trial, such as in any war before.
And this has led to a constant repeat - of - "as long as we win - we can justify whatever" - which IMHO is not a basis for justice and peace - but a guarantee for further wars.

Regards
Kruska

that's leading us to the interesting question:is the goal of war to lay a base for justice and peace,or is it to win,at all price :wink:

 

[Kruska]

that's leading us to the interesting question:is the goal of war to lay a base for justice and peace,or is it to win,at all price :wink:

Hello IIjadw,

there are those who distinguish between "good" wars and "bad" wars. And IMHO it looks a bit doubtfull - if one declares or sells a war to be for a good cause but at the same time dissregards international laws of war, or even takes refuge from the constantly updated international laws by simply not ratifying it.

Regards
Kruska

 

[LeEnfield]

If you fight a war then the only object is to win...If you lose the war you have to take what ever your opponent cares to dish out to you, if you win you can like the allies be magnanimous in victory. Now the Japanese were treated extremely well by the Americans especially if you consider just how they treated the people of the countries that they captured. Also how they broke every civilized rule in the book and then some, for a Japanese person to say that they were hard done by then they have a very narrow view of what was done in their name

 

[COFindus]

The difference between the earlier "Win at all price" was just open and to see for all the new "Win at all price" is more like "Win at all price and dont let anyone see how expensive it was".

 

[Kruska]

If you fight a war then the only object is to win...If you lose the war you have to take what ever your opponent cares to dish out to you, if you win you can like the allies be magnanimous in victory. Now the Japanese were treated extremely well by the Americans especially if you consider just how they treated the people of the countries that they captured. Also how they broke every civilized rule in the book and then some, for a Japanese person to say that they were hard done by then they have a very narrow view of what was done in their name

Hello LeEnfield,

I do understand the principle logic of eye for eye and tooth for tooth - I fully agree that the Japanese could and should have been punished far harder in regards to their war crimes upon their surrender.

But it still does not excuse the breaking or dissregard towards laws of war. A close relative of someone get's hidiously murdered (Japan attacks and committing uncountable warcrimes) - it is logical that the relative might strike back in the same hidious way (Firestorms and A-bomb) - but he would have to face court on being charged with hidiously murdering a hidious murderer.

Simply stating the other guy started to murder first - won't work in a civil court - unless the jury and the judge happened to be all related to the accused retaliator. :wink:

Anyway the world we live in is bad and crule - and the majority of politicians will make sure it stay's that way.

Regards
Kruska

 

[Chukpike]

Although this is like the 50th rehash of this topic(there is a search function) it is still entertaining.

Kruska, and his civil court? Really funny.:drunkb: (Gotta love that Russian vodka).:wink:

 

[Kruska]

Although this is like the 50th rehash of this topic(there is a search function) it is still entertaining.

Kruska, and his civil court? Really funny.:drunkb: (Gotta love that Russian vodka).:wink:

Hello Chukpike,

you ever tried, Vodka mixed with tea? - goes great - it creeps up on you and kills you slower then you could ever imagine - but in the end - you will loose out.

Regards
Kruska

 

[REK]

Thing to remember about starving Japan into surrender. How many of the over a million slave laborers from China, Korea and elsewhere would have died as they where already on short rations. and how many others the elderly children , poor etc would have to die befor the leaders called it quits?

Absolutely correct. And there is another group too who are so frequently overlooked: the prisoners. This short video clip of a man who owed his life to the atomic bombings is a timely reminder - as we approach the 65th anniversary - of what the Japanese had in store for them.

 

[REK]

Thing to remember about starving Japan into surrender. How many of the over a million slave laborers from China, Korea and elsewhere would have died as they where already on short rations. and how many others the elderly children , poor etc would have to die befor the leaders called it quits?

Absolutely correct. And there is another group too who are so frequently overlooked: the prisoners. This short video clip of a man who owed his life to the atomic bombings is a timely reminder - as we approach the 65th anniversary - of what the Japanese had planned to do to them.

 

[Kruska]

Absolutely correct. And there is another group too who are so frequently overlooked: the prisoners. This short video clip of a man who owed his life to the atomic bombings is a timely reminder - as we approach the 65th anniversary - of what the Japanese had planned to do to them.

Hello REK,

it would only be "absolutly correct" if we would know absolutly that Japan would not have surrendered on the terms (incl. the non-conviction of their Emperor) previous to the implementations of the nukes. Since we will never know - there will never be an "absolute correct" towards the nuke action.

Regards
Kruska

 

[Jeff Simmons]

One thing that is definite

The only thing that I am absolutely certain is true in this debate is that I personally wouldn't have wanted to make the call. I think Truman -- a war veteran himself -- probably did so with the best possible information at hand. It doesn't mean I have to agree with it, but I understand the extreme pressure under which he must have been. I, myself, would probably have crumbled beneath it.

 

[Kruska]

The only thing that I am absolutely certain is true in this debate is that I personally wouldn't have wanted to make the call. I think Truman -- a war veteran himself -- probably did so with the best possible information at hand. It doesn't mean I have to agree with it, but I understand the extreme pressure under which he must have been. I, myself, would probably have crumbled beneath it.

Hello Jeff Simmons,

well I am not Truman - but to me it is clear as cristal glass that he never had any hesitation towards using that "new-promising" weapon. Japan had started of the war with the USA, Americans got killed and all suffered from Japanese attrocities - why should he care about what Japan or it's Emperor want's? - finish off the bastards and at the same time Stalin will get a clear message too.

So nothing wrong about using these nukes at all IMHO, it's just this postwar nonsense-excuse about saving Japanese and Allied lives that get's me kinda pis.ed off.

Naturally others were and are looking daily for reasons to confront the USA and their political gospel spreadings about humanity and democracy - so e.g. the nukes, Napalm in Vietnam, Iran-Contras, or Iraq's WMD come in handy - that's all - it's politics.

Regards
Kruska

 

[Jeff Simmons]

I am me

Kruska:

I am not Truman, either. I am ME. And I know that for ME, I wouldn't have had the nerve to make the decision. And I am sure Truman didn't make his decision without some serious forethought. He may have even lost some sleep over it, both before and after the attack.

Jeff Simmons

 

[Kruska]

Kruska:

I am not Truman, either. I am ME. And I know that for ME, I wouldn't have had the nerve to make the decision. And I am sure Truman didn't make his decision without some serious forethought. He may have even lost some sleep over it, both before and after the attack.

Jeff Simmons

Hello Jeff Simmons,

right - and I am sure that Truman ran through all the pro's and cons in regards to the nukes - the pro arguments prevailed ;-)

Regards
Kruska

 

[LeEnfield]

The Atom bomb was going to be used on Germany at one time but by the time the bomb was ready most of Germany had already been over run by Allied Forces, so the Japanese got it instead.
Now talking about an eye for an eye, I have never gone down that path even during the War, but it was important that you won that war regardless of the costs.
Talking about the Allied POW who fell into the hands of Japanese, I worked for a firm as a manager who employed quite a number of men who had been in the Japanese hands as POW and I can tell I never knew one of them who was able to continue his job to the correct retirment age. They suffered from ill health and some of them suffered from mental problems from the beatings that they got. Even after Peace had been declared there British POW still being Executed.
Now if the bombs had not brought this war to a more speedy end just what would you have done to end the war.

 

[Micha]

The only way anyone can judge Truman’s motives in dropping the atomic bomb is by analyzing the result of his decision. No one can know, even by reading his personal diary, the exact reasons he had for using the bomb. It was likely a combination of many: punishment, justification of cost, saving lives, and ending the war as quickly as possible. However, it is evident that in the “grand scheme of things” the use of the atomic bomb saved lives. About 105,000 Japanese lost their lives in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. While this is a high number, the number who died in the American bombing raids on the six largest Japanese cities is far greater, about 250,000. Consequently, such a large number of deaths is by no means unprecedented. An invasion of Japan would possibly have cost between 250,000 and three million Japanese and American lives and ended the war four months later, at the very earliest. It may be concluded that no more people died in the atomic bombings than would have in an invasion of Kyushu, and that said bombings did have the effect of ending the war more quickly. Truman’s motives, therefore, cannot be called into question in light of the results of his decision.

At least in this case, the end justifies the means.

 

[Kruska]

The Atom bomb was going to be used on Germany at one time but by the time the bomb was ready most of Germany had already been over run by Allied Forces, so the Japanese got it instead.
Now talking about an eye for an eye, I have never gone down that path even during the War, but it was important that you won that war regardless of the costs.
Talking about the Allied POW who fell into the hands of Japanese, I worked for a firm as a manager who employed quite a number of men who had been in the Japanese hands as POW and I can tell I never knew one of them who was able to continue his job to the correct retirment age. They suffered from ill health and some of them suffered from mental problems from the beatings that they got. Even after Peace had been declared there British POW still being Executed.
Now if the bombs had not brought this war to a more speedy end just what would you have done to end the war.

Hello LeEnfield,

I agree to all what you have written and I too know several ex PoW's who had suffered terribly under the Japanese.

You ask what I would have done to end the war - well (I) would have nuked the crap out of them - and later after the war I would never have had any doubts on my mind as to excuse or explain my decision other then - we retaliated and finished off an agressor.

Certainly I would not point my fingers at them in regards to war crimes - since I commited them just as well - and I wouldn't come up with lame excuses in regards to having saved Japanese lives.

Now as a politician who want's to point out onto others wrongdoings whilst promoting a halo around my head- well I would have given them a 2 week timeline (Including the Emperor offer) before nuking them in August 45.

Regards
Kruska

 

[Jeff Simmons]

Kruska: A "two-week time line?" Based on what? Would you send a letter to the emperor saying something to the effect of, "We've got this here bomb, and just one of them can blow the dog tar out of an entire city. And we'll give you 14 days to keep that from happening." Do you think they'd have even believed that?

 

[Botak]

Ok... granted I only scanned through the first couple of pages of this thread... so if I'm being a d1ck by saying something already demonstrably proven wrong, my apologies...

But, there remains plenty of very solid contemporary evidence, both anecdotal and documented that a) the Japanese High Command had no intention of surrendering, b) that combined casualties would've indeed hit seven figures, and c) that the conventional bombardment required to support a conventional assault of the japanese homelands would've caused far more infrastructural damage (aforementioned casualty rates aside) than the two A-Bombs did (previous posters being quite correct that those critics of the bombs conveniently forget about bleating about the Tokyo raid the week before).

It's horrible, and it's f#$&ing abohorrent that atomic weapons had to be deployed. but it was a f#$&ing abohorrent war, and as terrible as that decision was, I just can't see how the alternative could've been any better. I just can't. I mean, if you really want to be cold about it, the math alone is enough to justify it....

I know that leads to wider arguments about how you value human life, but I just don't see any other alternative outcome plausibly cited working out better than the decision to drop on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And at the risk of making a really objectionable statement, I think it's a credit to the Japanese people that they reacted to those events they way they did. They're a world leader in many cultural, economic and social respects... achievements which though achieved after a total defeat, quite possibly could've surpassed the long term achievements that Japan could've enjoyed if it had been even half as successful as it's military leadership wanted it to be when they drew up their plans in the first place.