Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

How the hell was Japan going to keep fighting us without oil? they were running out, and they were preparing to surrender. the only thing that held them back was their image, you can't just say "you win you win uncle uncle!" and expect the citizens to be okay with that. yes they were teaching kids to fight with sticks, we would have done the same thing if Germany was going to invade us knowing how they treat the civilians when they invade.

all in all, we didn't need to drop a single bomb at that point, all we needed to do was surround them and wait for them to admit defeat. the bombs were most likely to make the war end faster to prevent the Soviets from getting too much influence over China. (too bad they forgot about Mao)

Do we even have to justify it anymore? It was bad but if we keep worrying over whats justfied and what isn't then...well it would just be fucking retarded.

It happened and nothing really catastrophically bad came of it (no other countries got mad etc.)
I agree we can't just ignore things like this but its been years and years since its happened.

At 8/7/11 03:49 AM, FurryDemon wrote: It happened and nothing really catastrophically bad came of it (no other countries got mad etc.)
I agree we can't just ignore things like this but its been years and years since its happened.

There are a couple reasons that it is still relevant. The wounds still exist all over Japan and in Japan-American relations. Having lived in japan, I can defitely tell you there is a great deal of uncertainty under the surface as a result of the atomic bomb.

Secondly, relations all accross east Asia are quite related to the atomic bomb. These countries are demanding Japan's apology and japan is refusing (even though I personally beleive the issue is just inferiority complex bullshit). How the US has treated and treats the atomic bomb has essentially governed exactly how Japan has treated their acts. As East Asia rises this (fake) rift may cause problems for us.

At 4/3/06 08:30 PM, MisterDurando wrote: Was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the United States justified?

War isn't measured in black and white.
There is no right or wrong in the bombing of the two cities.

When you say Holocaust why did you only bring up the Jews? I guess you forgot Hitler killed hundreds of thousands Mormons, Jehovah Witness, Gypsies. gays ect also died.

Yea it was justified. As one air command letter said," All of Japan is a target, there are no civilians." Japan's citizens were extremely loyal to their country and would have fought for every inch of it. Besides we were getting tired of this war and wanted to end it as soon as possible. It also showed the world the true power of the atomic bomb.

Japan had nothing left to fight with. They had been fighting the longest of any the nations. they had very little man power to fight with anything, their oil supply was cut, and they were ready to surrender, their one stipulation (before the bombs were even droped) was to keep the emperor, that was it, and after the bombs were dropped they got to keep their emperor and from what I remembered in my history class last semester many high ranking officers thought that dropping the bombs was unnecessary. It may of been more of a statment to the Soviets then anything.

At 8/10/11 07:21 PM, bigredone wrote: Japan's citizens were extremely loyal to their country and would have fought for every inch of it.

Then why didn't they all attack American soldiers after the surrender? The citizens were loyal to the emperor, from whom they awaited every order. He wanted to surrender but retain his title, but the bullshit "America wants America gets" powered right through any of that.

At 8/12/11 02:44 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote: He wanted to surrender but retain his title, but the bullshit "America wants America gets" powered right through any of that.

Actually it was internal pressures from his deeply rooted fascist cabinet that delayed his surrender, not anything America did.

At 8/7/11 01:08 PM, Camarohusky wrote: There are a couple reasons that it is still relevant. The wounds still exist all over Japan and in Japan-American relations. Having lived in japan, I can defitely tell you there is a great deal of uncertainty under the surface as a result of the atomic bomb.

Secondly, relations all accross east Asia are quite related to the atomic bomb. These countries are demanding Japan's apology and japan is refusing (even though I personally beleive the issue is just inferiority complex bullshit). How the US has treated and treats the atomic bomb has essentially governed exactly how Japan has treated their acts. As East Asia rises this (fake) rift may cause problems for us.

Having lived in Korea I can tell you that:
1) The rift isNOT fake and;
2) The rift has NOTHING to do with the bomb.

Imperial Japan was evil...more evil than the Nazis. A few examples:
Comfort Women
Unit 731
The Korea Occupation (They tried to obliterate the Korean culture.)

The list goes on and on.

In all reality the mistake we made might have been investing so heavily in re-building Japan. Had we spent that money on China and Korea we might have a much more stable and peaceful Asia than we have now. Instead we re-built the oppressors of the 19th and 20th Century.

___________________________
But someone else mentioned oil and how they could fight without it. This is revisionistic thinking. Yeah today a modern military could not move without oil (although some countries are finding ways around oil). But back in WWII even Germany and other European powers were still using mules and horses to haul supplies. Hell, when Germany entered Poland the polish had horse-mounted cavalry charge German tanks.

The truth is the Japanese leadership were ready, willing and able to press civilians into a defense of the home island. We were facing house-to-house warfare. We were firebombing Japanese cities which resulted in just as much damage and death as either of the atomic bombs. (BTW: we weren't preparing to drop a third. After Nagasaki the world went a brief time without any atomic or nuclear bombs.) But the Japanese were still holding on and ready to fight a guerilla war.

The thought being we'd grow war-weary and/or run out of money to continue the fight. But when we could do with one plane and one bomb what had been requiring squadrons of B-29s and hunderds if not thousands of bombs...we forced the Japanese hand.

At 8/12/11 02:44 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote:

At 8/10/11 07:21 PM, bigredone wrote: Japan's citizens were extremely loyal to their country and would have fought for every inch of it.

Then why didn't they all attack American soldiers after the surrender? The citizens were loyal to the emperor, from whom they awaited every order. He wanted to surrender but retain his title...

The reason was we ended up letting him retain his title. However, we made him powerless. Furthermore, we forced him to admit to his people that he was not a God. If you're familiar with the Asian concept of "saving face" (it's MUCH stronger than in the West), then you'd realize how this just shook Japanese culture to its core.

So whatever your point was about "America gets what it wants"...really isn't evident here.

At 8/12/11 09:30 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 8/7/11 01:08 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

Hell, when Germany entered Poland the polish had horse-mounted cavalry charge German tanks.

That's a myth, Mason, I'm surprised at you. The Polish used cavalry to bring their artillery into place, they never charged head with sabers in the air a la 19th century.

At 8/12/11 09:30 PM, TheMason wrote: Having lived in Korea I can tell you that:
1) The rift isNOT fake and;

Oh, the rift is VERY fake. The Japan that exists now is NOT the Japan that existed then. All of the Koreans (quite a few) know that. The issues that exist nowadays have ZERO to do with what happened several generations ago. That stuff is only brought up for leverage.

2) The rift has NOTHING to do with the bomb.

How Japan has dealt with their past is directly related to how the US had dealt with the atomic bomb. They see us defiantly refusing to apologize for using the atom bomb while still practicing a huge amount of nationalism. Japan has this responded by not apologizing for the things that they did.

At 8/12/11 11:04 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Oh, the rift is VERY fake. The Japan that exists now is NOT the Japan that existed then. All of the Koreans (quite a few) know that. The issues that exist nowadays have ZERO to do with what happened several generations ago. That stuff is only brought up for leverage.

How Japan has dealt with their past is directly related to how the US had dealt with the atomic bomb. They see us defiantly refusing to apologize for using the atom bomb while still practicing a huge amount of nationalism. Japan has this responded by not apologizing for the things that they did.

Husky, I've got to hold your feet to the fire on this one. You're wanting your cake and eat it too. Sorry for the cliches, but on one hand you're telling me that the rift is "VERY fake" and on the other you're telling me it's the US' fault that Japan does not apologize for their atrocities, which were far worse than the bombs, because we won't apologize to them for dropping the two bombs?

Sorry...but you've got to be wrong on at least one point.

Now I'll grant you with the Asian concept of face saving, us not apologizing for the bomb may (or may not) effect how Japan deals with their past. It's hard to tell because on the other hand there is a respect for power and honor in defeating your foe. So apologizing may actually work against us and could embolden Japan NOT to take accountability for their actions.

As for the point about the rift being "VERY fake"...I'm sorry you're just plain wrong on this point. To say that the rift between Japan and its 20th Century Imperial holdings is "VERY fake" would be like claiming the rift between Germany and the victims of the Holocaust (Jews, Gypsies, Gays, etc) is "VERY fake" too.

* Unit 731 performed medical experiments in China that were every bit as barbaric and cruel as Josef Mengele's in Nazi Concentration camps. On top of cutting off arms, Unit 731 dropped plague infested fleas over rural areas to study the outbreak and burn patterns of the disease. In fact there are still outbreaks of plague in these parts of China today that are attributed to this.
* There was cannibalism and mistreatment of POWs. In fact when Allied forces were about ready to take back a camp...the Japanese would either shoot the prisoners or lock them in bunkers pour in gasoline and light a match. Oh, ever hear of the Bataan Death March?
* Then there is taking the women of occupied countries and sending them to the front lines where they were gang-raped, beaten, forced to get abortions (in the not the cleanest or most gentle conditions) and often brutally murdered.
* In Korea the Japanese tried to obliterate the entire Hangul culture They made it illegal for Koreans to get an education and learn to read and write in their native language. They turned the entire population into slaves and peasants.

But I'm sure you're right. Having lived in the land of the immensely shamed oppressors you've got a good feel for the feelings of the cultures Japan oppressed. Considering how the elders of Japan don't want to talk about what they did and the schools don't want to teach about what happened from 1900-1945 (much like German schools from 1933-1945) I'm sure the younger Japanese are a wellspring of knowledge to draw from about the Asian rift.

But you go to Korea or the Phillipines or China and there are still raw feelings about Japan. Why do you think N. Korea fires so many missiles towards Japan...more than they fire towards Hawaii? (When I say "fire", when they test a missile they usually send it on a trajectory to pass through or near either of those places airspaces.) Why is still common to see "Fuck Japan" spray painted on walls in Korean cities?

The wounds that Japan created with its neighbors are just as deep and painful (probably more so) than the wounds that are still festering with victims (and their decendents) of the Holocaust.

At 8/12/11 10:10 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote:

At 8/12/11 09:30 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 8/7/11 01:08 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

Hell, when Germany entered Poland the polish had horse-mounted cavalry charge German tanks.

That's a myth, Mason, I'm surprised at you. The Polish used cavalry to bring their artillery into place, they never charged head with sabers in the air a la 19th century.

I looked at Wikipedia and it's sources. It appears their sources are legit.

In truth...we're both right. You're correct that the tank battle I referred to is a myth. However, my point that Poland still mounted cavalry charges with spears and sabres. These were rare (90% of Polish cavalry attacks happened on foot) and were waged against light infantry units.

So I would also assume my point about historical revisionism over oil being necessary to maintain a military campaign on the Japanese mainland still holds?

At 8/13/11 08:24 AM, TheMason wrote: Sorry...but you've got to be wrong on at least one point.

Let me clarify this then. The rift that is a result of World War II is very fake. There is definitely a rift, but it is more territorial and economic.

Now I'll grant you with the Asian concept of face saving, us not apologizing for the bomb may (or may not) effect how Japan deals with their past.

The wounds still exist n Japan from the atomic bomb, in the same manner the wounds still exist in the other East Asian Countries.

As for the point about the rift being "VERY fake"...I'm sorry you're just plain wrong on this point. To say that the rift between Japan and its 20th Century Imperial holdings is "VERY fake" would be like claiming the rift between Germany and the victims of the Holocaust (Jews, Gypsies, Gays, etc) is "VERY fake" too.

Really? How many Jewish people hate modern day Germany? How many? Oh yeah, NONE.

[atrocities]

You don't need to teach me about the atrocities. I already know.

But I'm sure you're right. Having lived in the land of the immensely shamed oppressors you've got a good feel for the feelings of the cultures Japan oppressed. Considering how the elders of Japan don't want to talk about what they did and the schools don't want to teach about what happened from 1900-1945 (much like German schools from 1933-1945) I'm sure the younger Japanese are a wellspring of knowledge to draw from about the Asian rift.

You assume I haven't had any meaningful contact with Chinese, Korean, or Phillipino people. I have, and like I said before the wounds exist. However this is NOT the reason their is a current rift between the countries. Frankly, until someone brings up what Japan did none of them even think about it. The current rifts have more to do with economic, geography, territorial disputes that are older than the Empire of Japan, and for geopolitical attention.

But you go to Korea or the Phillipines or China and there are still raw feelings about Japan. Why do you think N. Korea fires so many missiles towards Japan...more than they fire towards Hawaii? (When I say "fire", when they test a missile they usually send it on a trajectory to pass through or near either of those places airspaces.) Why is still common to see "Fuck Japan" spray painted on walls in Korean cities?

Let's break this down.

China: The rift here is territorial and geopolitical. China is the new up and coming power and is trying to unseat Japan as the majro economic and influential power in the East. Secon there is a dispute about some very resource right islands just dsouth of Okinawa.

South Korea: The rift here is created largely by economics and attention. Korea is struggling to be relevant in a China-Japan centered Asia. Second is what I call the Korean inferiority complex. Korea is the perrenial red-headed step child of east asia. This has been the case since Japan was in the Warring States period. They feel so inherently inferior, that they lash out against Japan as an easy target.

North Korea: Aside from the inherent instability of those in power, they fire at Japan because Japan is the West of East Asia. Japan represent everything about the traditional West that communist North Korea despises.

Phillipines: I do have to admit that I don't know enough about this country to know what sort of rift exists. however I still know enough to know the wounds caused by Japan in World War Two are not at the surface and not the driving force behind any rift.

The wounds that Japan created with its neighbors are just as deep and painful (probably more so) than the wounds that are still festering with victims (and their decendents) of the Holocaust.

You keep talking about the rift between holocaust victims and Germany. There isn't any. There are definitely wounds, but there is no rift because of it. The Germany that exists today is as close to Nazi Germany as modern day Japan is to itsWorld War Two identity.

Any rift that exists has extremely little to do with what Japan did in the 30s and 40, and more to do with current issues and wants. Those who say otherwise in these countries are either a small minority or are trying to rally people to a different cause. It's no different than using religious texts to cause an emotional response so that people will fight for your unrelated cause.

They attacked us, we attacked them.

We warned them to back off before dropping the nukes. They didn't. After the first one, they still didn't back off. So we dropped another one.

Anyone that doesn't like that we dropped the bombs on them is un-American and should be held for treason.

At 8/13/11 01:13 PM, HogWashSoup wrote: Anyone that doesn't like that we dropped the bombs on them is un-American and should be held for treason.

I guess your version of 'American' doesn't include critical thinking...

At 8/13/11 08:37 AM, TheMason wrote:

At 8/12/11 10:10 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote:

At 8/12/11 09:30 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 8/7/11 01:08 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

In truth...we're both right. You're correct that the tank battle I referred to is a myth. However, my point that Poland still mounted cavalry charges with spears and sabres. These were rare (90% of Polish cavalry attacks happened on foot) and were waged against light infantry units.

Yes, I was specifically referring to that tank battle. A valid point otherwise :3

So I would also assume my point about historical revisionism over oil being necessary to maintain a military campaign on the Japanese mainland still holds?

Never had an issue with that, just wanted to refer to the cavalry charge.

At 8/13/11 11:09 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 8/13/11 08:24 AM, TheMason wrote: Sorry...but you've got to be wrong on at least one point.

Let me clarify this then. The rift that is a result of World War II is very fake. There is definitely a rift, but it is more territorial and economic.

There is a lingering rift from WWII. To claim that it is fake is just as wrongheaded as claiming that the entirity of the rift is limited to the 1941-1945 conflict. The reality is Asians have a longer cultural memory than we in the West do, and the US in particular. Furthermore, the most modern flare up of these eons old tensions was from 1904-1945 when Japan arose as the preeminent military, political and economic power in the region. Japan embraced Westernization and the technological advances that came with it. Thus when they sought to expand into China (for the umpteenth time in umpteenth centuries) they used their favorite invasion route: Korea.

Yes, are there economic and territorial tensions? Yes. Once the ROKAF got their first F-15Ks, their Chief of Staff did an overflight over the Dok-do islands that is a source of contention between them and Japan. But to simply dismiss the rift as purely "economical and territorial" is simply blind to wounds that are left over from the cultural holocaust of the first half of the 20th Century. With the Jews, Gypsies and other persecuted groups under Hitler these were international cultural identities that could tap into springs of culture outside of Germany and occupied Europe. Cultures like Korea did not have such sources perserving their cultural identity and heritage. What it means to be Korean is something they are still struggling with today...and that is a direct result from the modern Japanese occupation.

At 8/18/11 09:22 PM, TheMason wrote: There is a lingering rift from WWII. To claim that it is fake is just as wrongheaded as claiming that the entirity of the rift is limited to the 1941-1945 conflict.

I don't but this whole argument for one second. Sure there are wounds, no doubt, but to say that the rift that exists today is made up in part by these wounds just smacks of scapegoatism. To be blunt, Korea has been the bitch of East Asia for millenia. The Chinese invaded it. The Japanese invaded it. The Jurchens invaded it. The Mongols invaded it. The west invaded it.

Cultures like Korea did not have such sources perserving their cultural identity and heritage. What it means to be Korean is something they are still struggling with today...and that is a direct result from the modern Japanese occupation.

Korea has a place to draw outside culture: China and Japan. This is the problem. The Koreans do not seem to have the ability to truly draw upon their own culture. Nowadays China is a major power and Japan is a major economic power. Korea is merely the land in between that everyone forgot, and I think Korea not only knows it, it religiously believes it. When the world looks at the East, they see the size, power, and history of China, and the wealth, technology, and art of Japan. Korea does not show up in the picture. Also, let's not forget that the cultural history of Korea is located above the DMZ...

At 8/18/11 09:41 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 8/18/11 09:22 PM, TheMason wrote: There is a lingering rift from WWII. To claim that it is fake is just as wrongheaded as claiming that the entirity of the rift is limited to the 1941-1945 conflict.

I don't but this whole argument for one second. Sure there are wounds, no doubt, but to say that the rift that exists today is made up in part by these wounds just smacks of scapegoatism.

Then I guess arguing the point with you is pointless. You make good points...valid points. However, you're way too absolutist and I think that blinds you when looking at the history and current international relations in the region.

At 8/18/11 10:34 PM, TheMason wrote: Then I guess arguing the point with you is pointless. You make good points...valid points. However, you're way too absolutist and I think that blinds you when looking at the history and current international relations in the region.

Actually I was taught to look behind the rhetoric to find where the real motivation lies when it comes to history. Then again, a major part of historical academia is the philosophy that "reasonable minds can differ".

Where you see lingering wounds from World War Two, I see nothing but scapegoatism for a deeper identity issue. My background and teachings, as well as other scholarship I have read shape my views, just like your background and experience shape yours.

In actuality reality probably lies in between our points, as I am mor elikely to be biased toward Japan and you toward Korea.

At 8/18/11 11:25 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Actually I was taught to look behind the rhetoric to find where the real motivation lies when it comes to history. Then again, a major part of historical academia is the philosophy that "reasonable minds can differ".

The thing is I'm not talking about rhetoric...I'm talking about sociology. Japan came into Korea and actively erased as much of Hangul culture as they could. 50 or 60 years is not enough time for a society to reclaim it's identity and heritage.

Where you see lingering wounds from World War Two, I see nothing but scapegoatism for a deeper identity issue.

Yes you do present an opinion that is partially formed by historical facts. However, it wasn't until the 20th Century that one of these countries had the technological ability to so completely dominate the other two.

Simply put, Japan inflicted some very deep wounds on two very old enemies. Do I think China and Korea and the Phillipines play the victim card? Yes. It is a rational play to make in international politics. However, that doesn't mean that Japan didn't do it to themselves for one and secondly that such posturing is mere "scapegoatism".

In actuality reality probably lies in between our points, as I am mor elikely to be biased toward Japan and you toward Korea.

This is where, with all due respect, I was saying you were blind. This whole time I've been trying to make this point. Were the Japanese bastards in WWII and did horrible things? Yes. And I think this still effects relations between the three countries. However, because of Japan's shame this gives China and Korea a very big card to play and I think they play it when economic and territorial issues come up.

I don't deny your point...I'm just saying its foolish to so totally dismiss the WWII rift like you do.

At 4/3/06 08:30 PM, MisterDurando wrote: Well, I just had a debate about this in school, and frankly I'd love to hear some opinions from educated people. Was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the United States justified?
Hopefully I can get a big debate going here. = P

Hmmm, well giving the fact that America was invaded and backstabbed by them I would say the retaliation was needed, but I wouldn't ever say killing someone is at all justified, its still wrong to kill I mean, but if its the only thing you can do to save yourself then thats what you gotta do even if its wrong.

At 8/20/11 01:15 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: Hmmm, well giving the fact that America was invaded and backstabbed by them I would say the retaliation was needed, but I wouldn't ever say killing someone is at all justified, its still wrong to kill I mean, but if its the only thing you can do to save yourself then thats what you gotta do even if its wrong.

While this sentiment may be logically sound it represents an extremely shallow understanding of the conditions of both Japan and America, as well as the rest of the World, in 1945.

In my honest opinion it was best for everyone dropping those bombs saved us from years more of war and eventually having to invade japan costing more American and Japanese lives. Everyone knows for every inch of land we took a hundred Japanese soldiers would have to die they would rather kill themselves than see the U.S. take their home

At 8/20/11 04:58 PM, flyingmonk48 wrote: Everyone knows for every inch of land we took a hundred Japanese soldiers would have to die they would rather kill themselves than see the U.S. take their home

The fact that we are even having this debate shows not everyone believes this. Sure there may be many lay people who agree with this, but the people on the "not so necessary" camp are heavy hitters in these sort of topics. I would definitely take more heed in the opinion of hundreds of historical scholars than a hundred million average people who know little to nothing about the situation.

At 8/20/11 09:06 PM, Camarohusky wrote: The fact that we are even having this debate shows not everyone believes this. Sure there may be many lay people who agree with this, but the people on the "not so necessary" camp are heavy hitters in these sort of topics. I would definitely take more heed in the opinion of hundreds of historical scholars than a hundred million average people who know little to nothing about the situation.

One of the things we've got to be careful of is forgetting hindsight is 20/20. So there are actually two questions of justification:

1) With the advise and information that Truman and the military had at the time: was the invasion necessary?
2) With the information that became available after the War from Japanese sources...how accurate was the information? (ie: Knowing what we know now 60+ years later, was it the right call?)

From everything I've read about the war plans for a Japanese invasion war planners really did expect we'd be facing an enemy determined to fight us to the last person. In fact we ordered so many purple hearts to be made for this campaign that they are still being given out today. Furthermore, after the first bomb was dropped the Japanese propaganda machine was telling it's people that the US only had one bomb, while Japan had dropped twelve such bombs on American cities like New York, Washington, Chicago, LA, etc. So yeah, with the information and evidence they had at hand at that moment...I think their decision was justified.

But you make a valid point, was Japan really going to be that tough of an invasion? Probably not, after awhile we would've probably subdued them. But we'd have to have become ruthless in how we carried out the ground war.

At 8/21/11 08:55 AM, TheMason wrote: From everything I've read about the war plans for a Japanese invasion war planners really did expect we'd be facing an enemy determined to fight us to the last person.

The vast majority of the people who claim Japan would not have been a tooth and nail death match for every inch say that there were many people in the military who knew that Japan would not defend every inch. Also they say that many of the officers who were privy to Japan's communications knew that there were not as many Japanese soldier (and when I mean not as many I mean like 33% of what was projected) in Kyushu ready for the invasion.

If Truman did not have this information or some indication that Japan was not ready, willing, or able to prolong the war much further, there was a strong breakdown of communication within the military.

The Cold War and Race based theories are all based on the extremely high liklihood that Truman knew the prpoganda that Japan would fight to the last man was just that, propoganda.