Are we still waiting, because I'm literally on the edge of my seat here. What -is- the difference between the Axis and Allies. I wonder...
"If there is evil in the world, it lies in the hearts of men." - Edward D. Morrison
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
72 years ago today, the US dropped an atomic bomb on Nagasaki, Japan
- Thread starter GK86
- Start date
Are we still waiting, because I'm literally on the edge of my seat here. What -is- the difference between the Axis and Allies. I wonder...
"If there is evil in the world, it lies in the hearts of men." - Edward D. Morrison
It's interesting that those who went through the American education system probably see it as a necessary evil (conventional war would have killed more, etc.). That's what your historians tell you I guess.
Other points of view indicate that Japan was in fact on the verge of surrender but the US wanted to drop the bombs to send a warning message to Stalin and the USSR.
How you see history depends on how it is told to you, and that changes depending on the interests of who is telling it (see Japan and how it systematically ignores their own atrocities in China to the point that young Japanese think it didn't happen).
Other points of view indicate that Japan was in fact on the verge of surrender but the US wanted to drop the bombs to send a warning message to Stalin and the USSR.
How you see history depends on how it is told to you, and that changes depending on the interests of who is telling it (see Japan and how it systematically ignores their own atrocities in China to the point that young Japanese think it didn't happen).
evil solrac v3.0
Member
Germany invaded Poland first, the same country where video game developers created the game you're quoting. Germany is the one that conquered Western Europe. Japan is the one that conquered most of Asia and killed millions now and committed other atrocities. Japan. Germany. They committed the atrocities. Read a book.
evil solrac v3.0
Member
We've already discussed this and there is no hard evidence to suggest that. In times of total war, you don't give quarter to the enemy. To put it another way, say you're the American president, do you tell Americans that the war could have been ended earlier but you chose to prolong it just to see if maybe Japan would come around and surrender?
Don't think that would go over well.
The problem with this line of thinking is that there's no reason it can't be used against them in the future with chemical or nuclear warfare. The winner writes the books so any horrific attempt at ending war will be deemed 'necessary'. The U.S had every option available to them at that point in the war and bombing civilian cities is what they chose to do; I understand their reasons for not wanting to sacrifice their troops in an extended campaign, but it makes the act no less deplorable. Either way what's done is done.
As much as I'd like to think the human race has learned something about the conflict, it doesn't look like we have learned nearly enough. As usual we learn too little, too late and all of a sudden we have another page of history.
KillerMan91
Member
I have actually sometimes thought that in total wars is there really that much difference between civilians and your average soldier? Pretty much all young men were drafted to armed forces so even if you didn't want to you had to fight. How does person like that differ from civilian? Your death is more acceptable just because of your soldier status?
somecrazymember
Banned
Genuine question: are the american history school books different then in Europe? From what I remember from highschool, The A-bomb was completely unnecessary as the war was almost over.
The whole Russian factor in this situation is fascinating and seldom ever seems to be discussed. I remember reading long ago about Russia scrambling to make land grabs in the wake of them declaring war on Japan and their surrender to the Allies. That they actually invaded Japanese-occupied territories and rolling over their troops even after the surrender and when Japanese troops were under explicit orders to not fight. Does anyone have sources for this?
Was just about to recommend this.
Was just about to recommend this.
stefanneda91
Neo Member
Sorry if I didnt express myself right, the question was rhetorical, what is the difference?
Of course Axis started the war and commited horrible attrocites, my country was occupied by Germany. Of course the Allies fought the good fight and defended the world from nazism and fachism, and there is a big difference.
My point was the war is bad, horrible, and we had a good side and the evil side. We the good guys, decided to nuke 2 cities, kill thousands of people in a split second, and there are lot of historians and people who say there were other solutions and Japan would have surrended. Now it has been debated to death was the A-bomb justifed. There are arguments for both sides. I was just trying to ask a rhetorical question, what is the difference between evil(Axis and the horrble crimes and million of deaths) and less evil (being the A-bomb and 'only' around 200,000) therefore the quote from Witcher books. I am sorry if I offended anyone or if I didnt express myself good. English is not my first language, and I am at work, wrote my post quickly. I am sorry.
Sunster
Member
In school our books just tell us what happened. The teachers are the ones who tell us it was necessary.
Surface of Me
I'm not an NPC. And neither are we.
"What are you doing?", Stalin asked Roosevelt.
"Killing monsters", Roosevelt replied, dawning his silver sword.
"Killing monsters", Roosevelt replied, dawning his silver sword.
jellies_two
Member
I remember a quote from someone that said ideally the nuclear football codes should be stored next to heart of a young aide to the president and a knife provided. Should the president feel it is unavoidable he would be required to kill the aide to get the codes so that he could instigate an attack that would kill millions.
The pentagon was told of this idea and was horrified: such an arrangement would unfairly warp the decision to push the button.
The pentagon was told of this idea and was horrified: such an arrangement would unfairly warp the decision to push the button.
CebollaDeAbbott
Banned
That's interesting.
In Australia, I recall first being taught in Primary school (by our Principal no less). Didn't touch on whether it was necessary or not, only focused on how horrible it was, and what a tragedy it was.
I also recall we were shown a picture book in grade 6 that touched on the horrors, I don't remember the title.
With that said, I don't remember any core subject really focusing on it in Secondary. The main war we focused on was World War One, only really paying attention to Gallipoli. Only subject I recall discussing nuclear weaponry at all was a extra History subject focusing on the Kennedy family.
With all that said, in my opinion it was a horrific incident and I believe everyone should take the time to read accounts of the event, it is very humbling. However, the many other scenarios that could have unfurled were just as if not more horrific.
The sad story of both World Wars is that every nation committed horrific acts and murdered millions.
Sunster
Member
We learn very little about WW1. Only focusing on it briefly. I didn't learn about Gallipoli until playing Battlefield 1. hahaha
Battlefield 1 has a criminally underrated campaign that is not only beautiful and fun but teaches the player a lot about WW1
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
Nobody is saying it was good, the argument is that it was a lesser evil. Thousands had died of starvation prior to the Japanese surrender and the food situation was worsening daily with the blockade and conventional bombings further slashing food production in the closing months of the war. If the war dragged into 1946 we're talking outright famine levels for huge swaths of the country - that's without an invasion. Casualties from conventional bombings are in the hundreds-of-thousands prior to the atomic bombings, and would continue with the war. Civilians always die during invasions, in addition to massive numbers of military dead on both the Japanese and American sides. As of the Japanese surrender, the campaign in Manchuria had not come to a close and large portions of the Chinese mainland were still under Japanese control and still being fought over with the Chinese. The war continuing would mean more American, Soviet, Chinese and Japanese soldiers dying, in addition to more Chinese and Japanese civilians dying. The war coming to an immediate end was in absolutely everybody's interest.
The questions are whether or not the war would have continued without the bombings, and more pertinently, whether or not the Americans had reason to believe that an unconditional surrender was imminent. Both of these points are contended by historians on both sides of the debate and there is no complete consensus.
CebollaDeAbbott
Banned
It's interesting how different subjects are overseas.
We are the opposite, covered the fundamentals of World War 2 pretty roughly. I think World War 1 has more of a legacy here in Australia as it was the first major war we fought in.
elrechazado
Banned
Was targeting civilians with conventional bombs ok?
jellies_two
Member
the precedent was set prior, Hitler bombed London, the Allies decimated Dresden, both were purposefully targeting civilians.
elrechazado
Banned
Ok, then it's odd that you chose to preface your argument with a self righteous "sorry Americans".
teruterubozu
Member
Yeah well it's a debate that has raged for 3/4 of a century, and yet people think it will be settled in this thread. LOL.
astroturfing
Member
more ok than wiping everyone out like they are bacteria in an instant with ZERO chance to escape. it's completely perverse.
ask yourself, would you rather have your city bombed with conventional bombs or nukes..? if you pick nukes you must be out of your goddamn mind.
It was a goddamn war crime.
"but what about firebombing" The only reason the two targets weren't firebombed was because we wanted a control for the damage the nuke did vs conventional. We used civilians as a science experiment. This the actual reason, btw, given by the military. Not speculation.
"but what about firebombing" The only reason the two targets weren't firebombed was because we wanted a control for the damage the nuke did vs conventional. We used civilians as a science experiment. This the actual reason, btw, given by the military. Not speculation.
elrechazado
Banned
Given the bombing campaigns with conventional bombing killed many more, and people perished often by fire, it makes no difference. Nukes aren't magic vaporizers.
Trump: we'll kill the families of the terrorists.
Turin Turambar
Member
Yep. Keep telling yourself that.
Who said that there were only 2 options?
What did they need to destroy two cities instead of one? One would have been enough to show the destructive power.
And, if you want to show the destructive power, why wouldn't have first throw one nuke near the coast, and then warn the next one will be in Tokyo if they don't surrender?
The Tokyo firebombings caused more destruction and as much death as both nukes combined - in a more concentrated area. And they had very little impact on the war in comparison. If we want to talk about military decisions by America which are hard to justify today, I'll start there rather than with the nukes.
Pretty sure Obama already did that several times over. Sometimes not even family, just aid workers. Not sure why you are making hypothetical arguments when it already happens.
elrechazado
Banned
The second bomb was subsequent to the first because the Japanese refused to surrender. Basic history.
This has already been addressed. Even after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki the Japanese officials didn't really want to surrender without favouring terms and conditions and the emperor had to step in to overrule all of that and make way for their unconditional surrender. Bombing a coast could've been pointless and have no effect leading to bombing of Tokyo and even more casualty. Just to remind you, Japan had 3 days to surrender after the first bombing and even then they didn't....bombing a coast would've done even less.
The war was shit and it was a grey area in that Japanese were the aggressors (almost ruthlessly so) and Americans were the doom bringers. Whatever the decision, the end result would've received scrutiny nonetheless.
Razgriz-Specter
Member
There were 3 days between them Japan had to surrender and still refused.
CaviarMeths
Member
Real life is not an action movie.
UltimaPooh
Member
Again an invasion would have resulted in civilian deaths as well.
Doctor Bat
Member
I know we're talking Nagasaki, but can't help pointing out that 99% of the uranium in the bomb dropped on Hiroshima failed to undergo chain reaction. 7/10 of a gram of uranium became pure energy. In retrospect it was actually a pretty crude thing and remarkably inefficient. And yet it killed something in the region of 60,000 - 80,000 people in an instant.
NPR:
We should probably take this into account when we say an invasion would have killed many more innocents. The bomb was supposed to kill and destroy much, much more than it did.
NPR:
We should probably take this into account when we say an invasion would have killed many more innocents. The bomb was supposed to kill and destroy much, much more than it did.
That's not a defense.
Welfare
Member
Like, I don't understand how someone can suggest not to drop the bombs when the Japanese would not surrender to unconditional terms and a ground invasion would kill many more civilians and Ally soldiers.
Shit, they didn't even want to surrender after the first nuke. What are you suggesting the US do after that? It was unfortunately a necessity.
Shit, they didn't even want to surrender after the first nuke. What are you suggesting the US do after that? It was unfortunately a necessity.
Killing innocent people is never ever a necessity.
Hexa
Member
Then that's not an argument. If you're not arguing in favor of preventing civilian deaths, what is your point?
CosmicQueso
Member
Tell that to the people that started the war.
elrechazado
Banned
You're right, we have all of these smart tomahawk missiles with laser and satellite targeting, we should have just sniped the Japanese leadership. Thanks for your important hindsight insights.
Doctor Bat
Member
I can.
elrechazado
Banned
Repeating platitudes with nothing useful or realistic to say, apparently.