Wet1 Hirohito was emperor until his death in 1989. We allowed him to stay on the throne, our demand was for unconditional surrendure, the end of all hostilites. The Japaneese would kill as many or more people than Hitler did during the holocaust. If the bomb wasn't dropped Stalin would have occupied the N. half of Japan. He killed vastly more people than Hitler dreamed of.
Japan has a royal family to this day going back to the emperors. They no longer rule Japan except as a figurehead much the same as UK. The emperor could not longer be effective as a ruler because he had lost face.
We were saying which was worse The bombing of horosima and nagisaky to satify the US people's desire to use there new bomb (not my words) Causing the instant deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and the long term damage remaining to this day OR Japans bombing of a milatary target of a country who were surplying there enermy and wanted to become involved in the war To my mind Horosima and Nagisaky were THOUSANDS of times worse Im sorry for all the dead peoples familys but they CHOSE to be there (you didn't have conscription did you?), the babys living in those 2 citys DIDN'T
Adam: Regarding the use of atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there was, a few years back, an hour long special on this topic on, I believe, ABC Television. There was a video tape available and a printed transcript. You may still be able to get these items if you dig around hard enough. I got the transcript, which I no longer have, and distilled out the following essence. The atom bombs, though thoroughly destructive,singly, were no more so than the incendiary bombing technic which had already been used to destroy sixty five large Japanese cities. When the Japanese were essentially defeated they tried to bargain for a conditional surrender. But the very high price paid in American and allied lives made a conditional surrender morally unacceptable.The switch to the use of the atom bombs was made to let the Japanese know that the war against them could be greatly intensified if they did not hurry up and surrender unconditionally. There was also a strategic consideration with regard to our Russian "helpers" who were gaining territory in China during the waiting period.. Fairfield
Heres a new thought on the subject, I had a history teach once who thought that Japan surrendered not because of the bombs but they paniced when russia declared war on them. (good teacher, knew his stuff better than any i ever had, sadly he got fired three days before school ended, somthing to do with inappropriate relations with little girls but i dont know the details) I don't know if thats true but if it is the bombs were useless and unjustified. If its not true then the bombs saved the lives of counless japaneese. Just look at their battles before they fought to the last man an invasion wouldn't have been any different. A blockade might have worked but it may have killed more civilians due to starvation and the Japanese still might have never surendered. But either way there are no "good guys" in any war.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Many of the battles fought through the Phillipines and Malayasan areas were long, bloody, and brutal. As a rule the Japanese did not give up or surrender. They fought to the last man. Even after there war there were those who were found that had not surrendered. It took major man power and equipment to take the islands and it was paid in blood for each advance. For the article: *here* This is why they feared the invasion of the Japanese mainland. Not to dishonor those who fell but to add a little lighter mood to the subject. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Hehe some good points raised, my personal opinion is it saved up to a million allied lives and cost around half a million japanees lives, the needs of the many.
or the needs of "our" many, as opposed to "their" many. A sentiment I happen to agree with... lots of us dead, or lots of them dead. Let it be them... I know us.
You are talking about BAYBES and it wasn't just a clean death. Have you ever watched anyone die of canser? my mother and grandmother HAVE They told me how my grand father died (YES caused by the bomb) and It wasn't nice And thats the LEAST of the efects of radiation posioning
Asguard... No-one wants to be in a war. I do understand where you are coming from, but when a war starts, you have to finish it by whatever means at your disposal, and come out the "winner". If you do not, it will be YOUR babies dead. YOURS, or THEIRS. That is the only rule in a war. There is no such thing as a "clean" war. It doesn't, and CAN'T, exist, however much you try to set down "rules" for it's conduct. Nobody wants a war to start. But if it does, your only choice is to win, or lose. THAT is the rule. Ask the victims of Japanese oppresion in the thirties and forties if they'd rather the war was drawn out for another few years, and see what they have to say. I'm glad we won. If it took a few thousand Japanese civilians to ensure my country survived in it's present form, with all of our values intact, then so be it.
may i ask are you for or against abortion? Because its rather hipocitical is your against it to kill babys in the most horible way possable There is NO difference between a baby born in the US or one born in AUSTRALIA or one born in Japan
For what it's worth to this argument, FOR abortion. Freedom is paramount, subject to the correct social values. There is no difference between a baby born anywhere in the world... UNTIL the country in which that baby was born threatens my right to live in the manner in which I choose. That right was given to me by my forebears who fought for a world in which I can do so, subject to a few social value laws. That baby, as cruel as it is in the real world, is then subject to whatever happens to the nation which it was born, because THEY tried to take that right away from me. Look, Asguard, I'm with you all the way. Babies should NEVER be subject to that kind of violent response. But IF it is the only way in which the country it is born in can be taught that humans should not act in such a manner, then unfortunately there is no alternative. Us, or them. Life sucks... wish we could change it.
" lots of us dead, or lots of them dead. Let it be them... " Hey, we *might* have 'saved' a couple million allied lives, but given a 1:1 ratio of deaths, we also saved that many japs, or at least some significant fraction of that many japs. So half a million civilians might have actually been the cost for saving even more of THEIR civs. ya THINK!?
