Anyone else fed up with Japanese denial of WWII wrongdoing?

[Cskin]

Go ask the boys of Company A and B who spearheaded the invasion of Normandy (Omaha), ask them what the beach was like and whether dropping a nuclear bomb on Japan to spare future Company's that horror.... ask them if it was the right thing to do.

Japan got what they deserved, a heavy price to pay for "waking the sleeping Tiger". At that point, the saving of American soldiers far outweighed the damage and destruction brought upon the Japanese people.

Finally, I'm more sickened by the Smithsonian bowing to the demands of the Japanese. Who gives a damn what they think and whether they feel they're pain was represented in the exhibit. Maybe they need to visit Pearl Harbor and pay respect to the 1500 sailors entombed in the Arizona that started the war. I'll end with the rather obvious observation, the head of the Smithsonian and the board is obviously far left and blames America for all of the world's ills. Just like the Liberals to try and portray history as a further evidence of America wronging the world.

[NavyDave]

My god there can't be people actually this stupid out there.:doh:

[NavyDave]

I shouldn't have callled you stupid.

Ignorant is a better term.

But obviously the new liberal revisionist version of US history books have poisoned our young minds of mush in Conneticut.

P.S.

The movie Pearl Harbor is not true history

[Golgo-13]

Originally posted by OURYEAR#56

You're being dramatic Kilmer. All we had to do was take out the Emperor, the little sh*t. One sniper bullet, and the whole Asian pacific affair would have ended. We should have struck what the japanese people derived their power from. We would never had to worry about Cuba, Russia, or Osama. Consequentially thousand of soliders died anyway.

How do you even come up with this stuff?

[redman]

I should add something. I think it's very healthy for the world to remember very clearly the effects of the Bomb on the cities it was used on. This isn't because I particularly sympathize with the 1940's Japanese people. Rather, it's because the world needed to learn how horrible these weapons are as a deterrent against using them in the future. That knowledge helped in no small part to prevent additional use of nukes during the cold war, e.g. in Korea.

[codeorama]

So tommy and redman, if Iraqi's detonated a nuke in DC, in your minds they would be justified because we started the war, we awoke them????

First, I am NOT defending Japan's actions, however, pearl harbor came because we were blockading their oil. We were not just sitting around minding our own business. We became involved and we were outsmarted by them. Peroid. Our intelligence ingnored all the signs of the attack, our military "lost" their fleet, and on and on....

The ONLY point I was trying to make was that our government had no idea that the long term affects would be what they where. If they had, I will bet any amount of money that the decision may not have been as easy as it was. People in Japan died long after the war was over, lineages were wiped out through people becoming sterile.

Just for once, put yourself (no one in particular) in someone else's shoes and ask yourself what you would do or how you would react?

Were any of us personally responsible for US atrocities in Vietnam or Korea?? Did they happen?

Wake up.

Some of you guys make it sound like the people whining are the same exact people that made the war policy back then, but they are not, they didn't make those decisions, but they are effected by them.

[Darth Tater]

Even given the long-term effects (and the long-term effects were not as extreme as expected), this was a decison:

Alternative 1 -- Invade (assume 30 day-action)

US Soldiers killed ~ 800,000

POWs killed ~ 200,000

other non-Japanese killed ~ 400,000

Japanese killed ~ Over 1M

Risk, aside from the carnage and possible failure: Soviet Union gets 1/2 of Japan

Alternative 2 -- Drop the bomb

Liberal number of Japanese Deaths due directly: 200,000

Deaths to US Military: 8

Risk: Future cancer deaths and other negative health consequences.

Point is, even with full knowledge of the consequences, failure to choose to the drop the bomb would have been evil while dropping it was the best choice.

Oops, forgot the deaths from the Indiana (?)

[NavyDave]

The ones whining are more than likely in the same party affiliation Democrats who started the wars that were finished by Republicans.

Vietnam: liberals, spineless politicians, and other activists basically had us leave those civillians to the mercy of Khmer Rogue, pol pot after we fought the war PC style

[codeorama]

The facts are:

We didn't know the full effects of the nukes, they had never been used in that situation.

No one else had nukes, there was no fear of retribution.

You can spin it anyway you want, but that is what it boils down to.

But again, Given the choice at that time, I would absolutley use nukes or any other means to resolve the matter and save American lives. Today is a different world and a different time, we don't nuke our enemies even if it might save some lives because it basically comes down to the realization that by using them, you are ultimately destroying the earth.

[Darth Tater]

No one has denied that we didn't know the full effects (and many thought they'd be worse than they were, something that was considered) and I don't think anyone would want to use nukes unless their use is the lesser evil of the alternatives available (however, I can't imagine any reasonable scenario).

The fact is, this decision to drop the bomb is now easier knowing the results than making the choice in uncertainty. In truth, given what we now know, there really was no choice.

[Henry]

I'm not sure what your point is Code.

We had a technological advantage in a war we were fighting against an adversary that drew no quarter and expected none in return. We used it. That's how wars go. And if the Japanese didn't expect us to use any and all means at our disposal to defeat them, they shouldn't have bombed Pearl Harbor. THAT is what it boils down to. I guess I just don't understand the thinking behind apologizing for winning a war we didn't start.

[codeorama]

Henry,

I'm not saying we should apologize to them for anything, period. I'm just saying that if the world was as it is today, we would not have nuked them. We did because we had the advantage. However, we put them in a position where they had to attack us. We were not the unsuspecting victim that many tend to paint us as. If we were neutral, why were we blocking them from receiving oil...? The US had clearly chosen sides in the war and Pearl Harbor was the logical plan of action from their perspective, the only mistake they made was not continuing with the remaning waves of the attack to cripple the fleet further.

As many historians have suggested, had they continued the attack, the US may have been crippled to a point that wouldn't allow us to win.

Lets face it, what genius puts his the majority of his fleet in one place and lines them up all nice as targets while a world war is going on?

[Henry]

Code, please PLEASE stop saying we were blockading the Japanese. We imposed a trade embargo, which cut off OUR oil from the Japanese, but that's not exactly the same as blockading a country and forbidding it from maritime commerce through force.

Our trade embargo was in direct response to Imperial Japanese expansion. You know, like the sanctions on Iraq, or North Korea, or Cuba, or any number of other countries whose policies of which we dissapprove. Often such action does not lead to full scale global war. The only reason they were 'forced' to attack us is due to their own imperialistic ambitions. They needed our resources. Maybe in response to our embargoes, the Japanese could have considered not attacking everything in sight. But instead they felt the need to continually expand throughout the Pacific. And it's OUR fault for first attempting to contain a warmongering expansionist nation through diplomatic channels?

As far as it somehow being our fault for not being ready, do you know how many potential American targets there were in the Pacific? We did not have a particularly lagre military before WWII. Back then we simply didn't keep a standing Army and Navy capable of proctecting all our interests at once. Sure we had clues to the Japanese intentions, but then again there were clues leading up the 9/11 attacks too. Hindsight is 20/20. I see little point in blaming the US military for lacking such clarity in 1941.

[BONES]

Let me ask one question, what do you think would have happened if the japs had the atomic bomb and we did not.

[codeorama]

Henry,

All I'm saying is that we knew Japan was a participant in WWII, we decided to help Britain and to impede Japan. I'm not arguing which side was right or wrong, obviously we chose the right side, but I'm simply pointing out, that comparing WWII Japan with Iraq of the present or Cuba is, well, there is no comparison. It's apples and oranges.

But make no mistake, I never said Japan was justified in my eyes, but I can understand from their perspective why they did it. But Again, I've never said we shouldn't have done what we did, we were clearly correct in our actions.

As far as the military not being prepared, again, apples and oranges to 9/11, the world was at war, Japan was active and the situation was totally different from today.

Bones, If that's directed to me, read my posts, I never said we shouldn't have nuked them. If not, nevermind.

[BONES]

Code, no i am not directing that at you.What I mean is that if the Japs had the bomb , we might be speaking Japanese right now.

[Tommy-the-Greek]

Originally posted by codeorama

So tommy and redman, if Iraqi's detonated a nuke in DC, in your minds they would be justified because we started the war, we awoke them????

Code, Let's set the record straight. Iraq invaded Kuwait. We led a multinational force against them to forceable remove them from Kuwait. The terms of surrender were not adhered to by Iraq. They violated almost every term of the surrender, hence the war never ceased. Do you understand this? The first war never stopped. This is the very simple point most liberal dems just don't get. I get a kick out of there so called intelligence when they can't comprehend simple logic.

[BONES]

Code that was not directed at you. all I'm saying that if the japs had the bomb during the war we would all be speaking japanese right now.

[codeorama]

Originally posted by BONES

Code that was not directed at you. all I'm saying that if the japs had the bomb during the war we would all be speaking japanese right now.

I understand, and I agree, if the Japanese had the bomb, they would have used it, but again, I never said we shouldn't have.

[codeorama]

Tommy, Sorry, but just in my opinion, I don't share your view that the war never ceased.

[chiefhogskin48]

Funny you guys should bring up this article. I am involved in the new Udvar-Hazy Center (they would be pleased to know that the exhibit is drawing publicity, however controversial) and thankfully the higher-ups in the museum are ANYTHING but PC, as they are mostly retired military generals and the like. They won't back down on something like this to make it read as revisionist history. Instead, it will be portrayed in an objective, "just-the-facts" manner. I don't think whining Japs will do anything to alter the content of the exhibit much.

The atomic bomb should not be controversial. In hindisight, the use of the bomb may be MORE justified, not less, than it was at the time. I HATE leftist, peacenik, revisionist history.

[Larry]

Another thought that I don't see pointed out here:

A lot of folks seem to say that the alternative to "the bomb" was an invasion (and ground-based conquest) of Japan.

I'm not certain that an invasion of Japan would have even been possible.

Invading a modern, industrialized country is tough.

It was three miles accross the English Channel from England to France, (and we had air and naval superiority over the channell), and we came how close to failing in that attempt?

As far as I'm concerned, the only way an invasion of Japan could even have been attempted is from Russia, China, or Korea. (The only way Korea could've been used as a staging area was if China had kicked the Japanese out, which means it would have been, effectively, part of China.

So, when you're drawing your hypothetical "how things would've been different without the bomb" scenario, please explain: If the alternative was an invasion via China or Russia, then what're the odds that Japan even exists as a country today?

----------------

Now, if you want to discuss the "morality" of using such a weapon:

There's nothing unusual about a nuclear bomb. It's simply a bigger bomb. Nothing more inherently radical than, say, the idea of using your catapult to throw explosives instead of rocks. It's simply another thing in the progression.

Tactics may have morality (the idea that cities, because they represent the economy that supports a military, are therefore military targets, for example), but weapons do not. (Because weapons don't make decisions, only people do.)

Do you know why we haven't used nuclear weapons in Iraq? It's because we didn't need to. (And that's why I want us to have a strong, conventional, military. I always want the President to have the option of winning without nukes.)

[Cskin]

Good point Larry...

Although.... i think there was already a plan being developed to attack Japan from the sea, not to mention bombing Tokyo into a giant crater. Anyway we invaded, we were still looking and millions of men lost from both sides... and still even further loss of life from civilians. In the end, the deaths of civilians from Hiro. and Naga. were estimated to be far less than that of a more traditional invasion.

[PCS]

Okay. Here's a couple of reads on the invasion plans. Operation Downfall

Transcript of discussion of Operation Downfall 1998

2nd one is a long read but worth the time.

[Ghost of]

code,

the question about if it would be OK for Iraq to detonate a nuke in DC because of our war seems rather disingenuous.

You could ask a similarly absurd question about the morality of me shooting a home invader vs. a man gunning down a pregnant woman in the street. The morality of those employing force is also judged, otherwise no action or conduct has any context.