DP: Why was U.S. envoy in Hiroshima?

[mcsluggo]

that's also a part of my point, but you missed the conclusion/impact. Though I am not saying you are wrong, I am more so critical of an attitude displayed by some in this thread. (especially, Zoony, who in his usual matter drops his $.02 as if it were a fundamental principle of knowledge)

the argument is that when you make a decision to annihalate entire groups of people, you should never come to a point that what you did was certainly the only way to go, or even if it was the right thing to do. It is important to understand why we did it, and it's important to empathize with the victims.

It's also important that in cases like this we always have some doubt because an attitude of brash certitude creates arrogance and does us all a disservice. I'm not talking about the difference between a world in which we bombed vs a world in which we didn't, not really. I'm talking about here and now, a world in which we arrogantly accept the nuking of Nagasaki and Hiroshima as a historical necessity, even as a good historical necessity, versus a world in which we refuse to ever accept the idea that there was no better way. With such important, and bloody decisions, it's always good to MMQ.

sometimes, it's good to actively doubt, this is one such case

and this... is not being an "apologist".

can't you warmongerers understand that!

[Henry]

Everybody breaks at some point.

Yep. After the second bomb was dropped.

Starving them out may or may not have worked. Heck, it's done wonders for North Korea.

But dropping the bomb on them did work. And when it's war, that's what matters.

[mcsluggo]

Yep. After the second bomb was dropped.

Starving them out may or may not have worked. Heck, it's done wonders for North Korea.

But dropping the bomb on them did work. And when it's war, that's what matters.

actually... the world has EXPLICITLY not been blockading the N. Koreans... they have managed to starve themselves out without the need for outside assistance.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Bang, great post re: the time period and mentalities that were prevalent at the time the decision was made. Those of us who didn't live through that war probably can't fathom what it was like (with dread, paranoia, etc.). The world was so much larger back in the 1940s and you had literally NO CLUE who was doing what. It doesn't seem like we had the luxury of time to come up with "perfect" decision.

What we did do was come up with a decision that won the war AND saved lives. Not too shabby.

[Henry]

actually... the world has EXPLICITLY not been blockading the N. Koreans... they have managed to starve themselves out without the need for outside assistance.

I didn't say we were blockading them. But that's not really the point.

And a blockade of the Japanese would have been a disaster. Good lord.

Does anyone in their right mind think that the Japanese would stop flying planes into our ships? Anyone think that would have stopped overnight if we just sailed back to a perimeter and waited for them to stop trying to kill us?

And even if they did stop, how long could we sustain a blockade that large? How long could we maintain our wartime alliances with the likes of the Chinese and the Soviets? Or the French for that matter? Good grief, the sooner the war was over, the better it would be for everyone, Japanese included.

Besides, the Japanese didn't just need to be defeated. Their culture had to be crushed, removed and replaced. Just like Germany's. Otherwise, merely trying to hold them down economically and politically might have the reverse effect ... just like it had with the Germans a decade earlier.

Sure, I agree it's always good to examine and re-examine decisions made throughout history. But that examination does not automatically mean any given decision was a bad one.

[zoony]

nonsense

we could have blockaded Japan indefinitely. Why was invasion a necessity? ALL of their resources were cut off. No Navy. No Air Force. Hell the country was starving before we even dropped the A bombs.

You say they couldn't break, cause they had honor or fanaticism. I say Bull ****. Everybody breaks at some point. They were just as human as us, they suffer, they bleed, they starve, they would have broken, even without an invasion. And EVEN if they would never have broken, their threat could have been contained.

Your unfamiliarity with Japanese culture is your own cross, nobody elses

How many prisoners did we get on iwo jima? I actually own 4 sake cups used in ceremony for kamikaze pilots.

And if you think there was any chance in hell civilians might have rebelled at some point you are truly hopeless. There is no more an obedient society in the history of mankind than the japanese

[zoony]

Yep. After the second bomb was dropped.

Starving them out may or may not have worked. Heck, it's done wonders for North Korea.

But dropping the bomb on them did work. And when it's war, that's what matters.

I disagree. Even after the second bomb the japanese were nowhere close to breaking. Death was their only breaking point.

What the bomb did do was allow their warlords a way to surrender with honor. Which along with death was their only option

[Prosperity]

zoony I have family that sent their children to walk over Iraqi landmines. And yet the Iran-Iraq war ended without nukes going off.

Your argument doesn't make any sense. You say that they couldn't break, yet if I remember correctly, they signed an unconditional surrender. Everybody breaks, and in fact, the Japanese did break, as Henry pointed out. You are ASSUMING that the strategy that made them break, was the only one that could have done so. And your support for that is what? That you lived in Japan for a few years? That you own some cups? BFD

[zoony]

zoony I have family that sent their children to walk over Iraqi landmines. And yet the Iran-Iraq war ended without nukes going off.

Your argument doesn't make any sense. You say that they couldn't break, yet if I remember correctly, they signed an unconditional surrender. Everybody breaks, and in fact, the Japanese did break, as Henry pointed out. You are ASSUMING that the strategy that made them break, was the only one that could have done so. And your support for that is what? That you lived in Japan for a few years? That you own some cups? BFD

Perfect example. The iran iraq conflict was never resolved. They still hate each other and neither nation is any better off.

And if you are interested in learning more about japanese culture in the 1940s get a library card. That's what I did. My 5 years there gave me nothing

[DjTj]

Perfect example. The iran iraq conflict was never resolved. They still hate each other and neither nation is any better off.

I don't buy the argument that the bombs somehow resolved the dispute in a way that invasion would not have.

What resolved the dispute was the Cold War, and specifically the Korean War. The same thing happened with Germany. The main reason that Japan and West Germany fell into line was because we gained a common enemy - the USSR, East Germany, North Korea, Communist China - the Japanese and the Germans had to choose us or them ... and we were willing to buy a lot more cars.

Same deal in the Middle East. What is the only thing that Iran and Iraq ever agreed on? Hating the United States. A common enemy is the best way to heal a wound ... same thing we're doing now by going to Hiroshima - we want to stand with Japan and England and France in opposing nuclear proliferation in North Korea and Iran.

[Sticksboi05]

zoony I have family that sent their children to walk over Iraqi landmines. And yet the Iran-Iraq war ended without nukes going off.

Your argument doesn't make any sense. You say that they couldn't break, yet if I remember correctly, they signed an unconditional surrender. Everybody breaks, and in fact, the Japanese did break, as Henry pointed out. You are ASSUMING that the strategy that made them break, was the only one that could have done so. And your support for that is what? That you lived in Japan for a few years? That you own some cups? BFD

Their commanders did not break, they were not the ones who wanted to surrender. Their Minister did. In fact one of their commanders killed himself before the surrender in their "cultural method" where I believe you impale yourself.

[Bang]

In fact one of their commanders killed himself before the surrender in their "cultural method" where I believe you impale yourself.

Well, if it's done right in the traditional method, you eviscerate and disembowel yourself, and when you've finished cutting yourself open, a trusted second is to lop off your head, leaving a flap of skin at the front so it humbly bows forward rather than embarrassingly roll across the floor.

~Bang

[nonniey]

nonsense

we could have blockaded Japan indefinitely. Why was invasion a necessity? ALL of their resources were cut off. No Navy. No Air Force. Hell the country was starving before we even dropped the A bombs.

we just wanted an unconditional surrender ASAP

A bomb or invasion is a simplistic cookie cutter way to think.

You say they couldn't break, cause they had honor or fanaticism. I say Bull ****. Everybody breaks at some point. They were just as human as us, they suffer, they bleed, they starve, they would have broken, even without an invasion. And EVEN if they would never have broken, their threat could have been contained.

You do know that an average of 20K people were dying a day in Japanese controlled territory at the time of the bombings (and most of them were not Japanese). 10 more days of that and the total deaths from Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have been surpassed. Exactly how long would you have been willing to contain that?

[luckydevil]

that's also a part of my point, but you missed the conclusion/impact. Though I am not saying you are wrong, I am more so critical of an attitude displayed by some in this thread. (especially, Zoony, who in his usual matter drops his $.02 as if it were a fundamental principle of knowledge)

the argument is that when you make a decision to annihalate entire groups of people, you should never come to a point that what you did was certainly the only way to go, or even if it was the right thing to do. It is important to understand why we did it, and it's important to empathize with the victims.

It's also important that in cases like this we always have some doubt because an attitude of brash certitude creates arrogance and does us all a disservice. I'm not talking about the difference between a world in which we bombed vs a world in which we didn't, not really. I'm talking about here and now, a world in which we arrogantly accept the nuking of Nagasaki and Hiroshima as a historical necessity, even as a good historical necessity, versus a world in which we refuse to ever accept the idea that there was no better way. With such important, and bloody decisions, it's always good to MMQ.

sometimes, it's good to actively doubt, this is one such case

Seriously, this is just an effing awesome post.

[Ryman of the North]

I've never seen anyone with such an inferiority complex towards the US. I don't get it. Canada is a great country, no reason to feel that way

LOL so let me get this straight, I have an inferiority complex because unlike some people I have actually read more than wikipedia or one textbook in regards to the war on the Pacific or other actions taken by america? I actually Like the US, what I dont like is the revisionist historians or the amerocentric ones who tend to overlook anything not complimentary to america. the truth is that america and canada shouldnt be lecturing anyone on human rights or taking land through conquest or pretty much anything to do with such things.

The truth is that as early as 1932 the americans were planning to goad the japanese into war in the pacific, the nascent american imperialistic ambitions were strictly in the pacific islands, they had no influence or interest in africa. They pretty much confined themselves to the south pacific. They knew this brought them directly in the Path of Japan who had made it clear that they were expanding there as well.

The set of embargos was designed to place japan in a position to abandon their own ambitions or to foment war, they to noones surprise chose war.

History is filled with these sorts of things. I also dont think that hiroshima was morally wrong but I do think Nagasaki was overkill and that it was more about showing the russians what could happen to them if they didnt back off.

[Larry]

Feeling the powerful urge to relate my favorite scene from the old Mary Tyler Moore Show.

Ted does something stupid on the air. Lou Grant announces his intention to go in there and beat a lesson into him.

Mary: Lou, you're a grown adult. You know violence never settles anything.

Lou gives her a withering look.

Mary, violence has "settled":

Every war in history.

Every Super Bowl ever played.

And a lot of marriages I know.

----------

Now, as to the debate going on here.

I see what appears to be a debate, here, between people claiming that some tactic other than the nuclear one could have ended the war.

Allow me to point out:

"The bomb ended the war" is a

fact

.

"A blockade could have ended the war" is a

theory

.

[thebluefood]

You guys already said what I was going to say. The atomic bomb is a powerful, frightening thing; but if we didn't drop that bomb, even more Americans and Japanese would've died, no matter the outcome of the invasion of Japan (that would've been inevitable if those bombs weren't dropped).

[FuriousD]

^^^ Well played, Larry!

:helmet:

[Ryman of the North]

F

"The bomb ended the war" is a

fact

.

"A blockade could have ended the war" is a

theory

.

this is a great post.

the fact is that we will never know, however it can be argued thats its fact that the US used atomic weapons on civilians as well.