I could certainly clarify: The civilian population makes the war effort possible.
-
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
I could certainly clarify: The civilian population makes the war effort possible.
DieNgamers
Member
I was talking about the way you can moraly look at the events today. I know these things happened 70 years ago but humans haven't changed that much, have they? I think a lot depends on how we'd deal with these situations today. That's what worries me. I know that people didn't have the luxury of these 70 years back then...
The concept of collateral damage in war has always been puzzling to me. It all appears kinda logical after the event but from a moral standpoint I can't get behind it. I don't want to appear to be above anything and I'm glad I'm not the one who has to make these decisions.
Atraveller
Banned
And plus, it has been said a hundred times in this thread, precision bombing does not exist back then, civilians were bound to die.
That doesn't mean we can't have empathy for the victims who indiscriminately suffered agonising deaths and injuries in bombing raids on cities in WW2. Men, woman, children of all ages most of which had no direct participation in the war.
Non fire-bombing did exist.
petran79
Banned
What was even more frightening was that Stukas used a horrible horn sound whenever they descended for bombing
Atraveller
Banned
Didn't say that.
And non fire-boming in WWII also killed civilians, what was your point?
Sorry you didn't say that, but others people have expressed that attitude.
Even though precision bombing is impossible, you don't have to fire bomb cities made largely out of wooden structures.
When you consider that most Japanese homes at the time were made of thin wood and paper. No, not really, at least not there.
yanipheonu
Member
While I was taking a Philosophy and Terrorism course in Uni, there was an interesting point that the combatant/non-combatant distinction has some flaws.
What of the combatant who is coerced into battle against their will, or is planning to leave the fight?
What about the non-combatant who is actively helping combatants? Or a non-combatant willing to shoot combatants for the sake of some national pride or ideology?
Furthermore, for all our pretences of not killing civilians, war seems to kill plenty of civilians anyways.
DieNgamers
Member
Help me understand. Has anybody read books on that matter? I wonder if the generals knew of the outcome of the fire/ atomic bombings. The extent of casualties I mean.
Did they know?
Did they know?
Several people high up in the military hated the firebombings. I think the secretary of war said that the only good thing about the atomic bombs was that he thought they would stop the fire raids.
The morality was that anything that helped shorten the war was worth it.
Hickbilly Deluxe
Banned
They had a few very well thought out and looked into estimates. They knew very well what they were doing. They were also well versed in what had already happened so far in the war while island hopping, and knew the probable outcomes of a mainland invasion. There is a reason that we are still giving out purple hearts ordered during WWII, the military casualties alone from the invasion was expected to top 1 million injured or killed in combat.
People can like it or not, but dropping those bombs likely saved the lives of millions. If the US and the USSR had been forced to mount a actual invasion of mainland Japan, the death toll would have been astronomical for both military and civilian populations. Japan may never have recovered.
On the subject of the atomic bombings Dan Carlin's Hardcore History 59 - The Destroyer of Worlds opens with some good info on this if I recall.
There was a lot of doubt in how effective the atomic bombs would be and the actual results exceeded most expectations pretty significantly. Not as much as the move towards hydrogen bombs did however, where they were predicting a more uniform increase and found that it was an exponential increase.
It also touches on the attempted coup mentioned above, the one real attempt to overthrow the Japanese power structure was by military leaders unwilling to surrender after the first atomic bomb was dropped.
The fatal flaw often applied to revisionist assessments of the U.S. war effort in the Pacific is often conflating the impossibility of victory for Japan with a Japanese surrender. Many of the worst losses of life, firebombings and the atomic bombs included, were done as effectively a shock to the Japanese populous to break them out of what was effectively war madness as a nation. In the end it actually did require both atomic bombs to break the will to continue fighting.
This was the same fervor that gripped Nazi Germany. It is the same fervor that gripped much of Europe during World War I. Extreme nationalism, military idolization, and an "other" to assign blame to are all the ingredients needed to spark violent jingoism.
Complete BS. You have no idea what you're talking about.
The Japanese surrendered unconditionally. MacArthur could have gotten rid of the Emperor if he wanted.
Furthermore, unconditional surrender with a guarantee that they keep the Emperor was not a something they would have accepted. We know this because it was specifically mentioned in intercepted messages.
petran79
Banned
They did, just like the scientists and engineers that constructed the atomic bomb knew its real purpose
I think that this is more about not knowing how effective the nuclear bombs would be while they were still being developed. The New Mexico test answered a lot of those questions, and I'm sure that the attack planners had a decent idea what the effect would be. It should be noted though, that Japanese cities are a lot more vulnerable than usual because they use a lot less brick and stone than most other countries.
Slight clarification: the coup was attempted after Hirohito announced the surrender on Aug. 10.
I don't think this goes far enough into just how insane Japanese society was during this period. The country had adopted bushido, the samurai code of behavior, as the guiding principle under which every citizen should lead their lives. Which sounds all well and good, except that bushido as envisioned, never existed to begin with. They were working off an imagined myth; it would be as if the US decided to take the cowboy films of the '40s and '50s and use them as the basis of the entire society.
The effect was an utter disregard for human life, both Japanese and foreigner, stupid levels of aggression among the junior officer corps who thought of themselves as successors to the samurai, senior officers scared that their subordinates would overthrow them, and other insanity. Major military decisions, including the one to go to war against China in 1937, were made by junior officers rather than by the government leaders, and military officers would actually assassinate one another. Japan during this era is one of the most crazy societies ever, and I'd say that they were a lot more unstable than the Nazis ever were.
petran79
Banned
Nothing tops Stalin's Soviet Union.
At least Jewish prisoners were liberated and gave us their own account of the death camps.
While Gulags existed for decades and no one knows what happened with the prisoners there.
Not sure what you are trying to say here. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't hear from those Jewish prisoners either if Hitler had not lost the war.
ExtremePopcorn
Member
Both the USAAF and RAF had large sections devoted to the effectiveness of their bombing campaigns in Europe and Japan.
While they didn't know exact casualty numbers, they knew the destruction they were causing from the bombing and could estimate numbers.
Curtis LeMay who commanded the bombing campaign against Japan, including the fire-bombing of Tokyo is known to have said that if the US lost the war, he expected to be tried as a war criminal.
In counterpoint to that, LeMay also said about the bombing campaign "if the war is shortened by a single day, the attack will have served its purpose"
The Soviet Union was evil perhaps, but eminently sane compared to Showa Japan. You would also know for sure that if the they launched a major invasion, it would be at the orders of the highest levels of leadership. With Japan, not so much.
The flip side of the strategic bombing debate is that these soldiers were tasked with the job of winning the war as quickly as possible. What if you had the foreknowledge (or understanding) that every bomber sortie flown would mean save some extra 5-10 friendly casualties by ending the war that much quicker? Or that by not employing strategic bombing, you're letting your enemy be as strong as possible when your ground forces meet them in battle. It's not always an easy decision to make, and it's honestly a more interesting debate than whether the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were justified.
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
So they had to nuke two cities, for better measure.
Yes and fire-bombing kills more.
My point is you acting like they had no choice.
When in reality they used methods that they knew would kill more civilians.
And btw a form of precision bombing even existed in WW2.
Also, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor because they wanted the US out of the Pacific. There were no plans to invade/occupy the US. And even if there were, at this point in the war, it wasn't happening. The US could have backed out and told them to surrender but they were scared of the Soviets and Chinese.
radios shipping overview
Member
I just came out of In This Corner of the World.
😭😭😭
😭😭😭
That doesn't even make any sense. First of all the Chinese were not under communist rule at the time so they had no fear of China. Second of all, Japan is filled with proud people, you better get total surrender out of them or else they WILL try for retribution down the line. This narrative of "well Japan was all but defeated so leave them alone" would have been a short sighted and stupid move.
petran79
Banned
At that time Japan also had an anti-colonialist stance. Their aim was to liberate Asia from the colonial powers (Britain, Netherlands,France,United States) and set those countries and their people under their protection. I remember reading the illustrated memoirs of R.Searl when he was a prisoner in Japanese camps. Most he drew in secret. Indian Sikh were also part of the guards and they were ruthless too.
Communism was much more threatening and less appealing to the middle and upper echelons of those countries.
If by "liberate and set under their protection" you mean murder, rape, and kill anyone who doesn't want to piss on their own culture to learn Japanese and worship their flag, sure.
Heard ISIS just wants to liberate westerners from the tyranny of Christianity and capitalism, and set the people under their protection too.
petran79
Banned
Nazis Aryan race was a disguise for Pangermanism. Unite all Germanic races (English,Dutch,Swedish, French etc) with Germany as the leader. Russia had Panslavism. Protect,liberate and rule over all Slavs. Similarly Japan wanted to be the leader of Asia. Since France and the Dutch capitulated,all their colonies became Japan's.
daninthemix
Member
Committed in order to halt an indefinitely ongoing series of morally reprehensible acts.
biggersmaller
Banned
Few debate the morality of routine bombings of German cities at the very start of the war intent on demoralizing civilians. Why? Because they were fucking Nazis.
Based on their immoral tactics and how little the Imperial army valued human life in their conquest to conquer Asia, Japanese culture was based on cultural purity in ways nearly on par with Hitler.
Based on their immoral tactics and how little the Imperial army valued human life in their conquest to conquer Asia, Japanese culture was based on cultural purity in ways nearly on par with Hitler.
Mortimer Brewster
Member
It ended the war without an invasion of an island of ove 70+ million men,women and children all brainwashed to fight the enemies of Imperial Japan to the death. Under those terms, the war would have raged on for many more months if not years and would have led to millions more dead. With that understanding then yes dropping Fat Man and Little Boy was justified.
Spooky Scary Skeleton
Member
The US wasn't afraid of the Chinese. What you are insinuating is an alternate history. China was fragmented. The Civil War between KMT and CPC was still on-going. The US actually wanted to help the Chinese kicking Japan out of Shanghai and Nanjing. The Soviets, however, was a completely different story. The US didn't want another Germany/Korean peninsula situation on their hands with the Soviets occupying half of Japan.
Familienoberhauptvogel
Banned
I find it difficult to believe in the absolute necessity of Nagasaki and Hiroshima to force a capitulation. Most importantly because many many other options were not attempted beforehand or not even considered.
It was a strong showcase for mutually assured destruction otoh but that's rarely what's being debated.
If Germany hadn't accepted the terms of the surrender we might be speaking of anniversary of Ludwigshafen.
It was a strong showcase for mutually assured destruction otoh but that's rarely what's being debated.
If Germany hadn't accepted the terms of the surrender we might be speaking of anniversary of Ludwigshafen.
Thats what happens when people think of Nazies as inhuman monster that came out if nowhere.
I'll blame all of this on bad education systems.
Is that what they call one of the most brutal cases of imperialism? Liberating? Did the Nazis liberate eastern Europe from the Soviets and vice verse?
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
You do know they called themselves "Imperial Japan" right?
That has got to be one of the most insulting, ignorant, and downright despicable ways to portray the Japanese actions in East Asia during WWII I've ever seen. Bravo.
demosthenes
Member
They liberated Manchuria via raping and mass murder. Sure.
TheRedSnifit
Member
This reads like something that would come out the mouth of a character in Heart of Darkness.
Mortimer Brewster
Member
It was a necessity if the US wanted to avoid a long, brutal, costly ground invasion which would have still required the US Airforce to perform around the clock bombing campaigns to soften positions and support the Infantry and Armor divisions on the ground.
Yes, the use of the bombs also had the added bonus of showing Stalin that the United States had discovered how to weaponize the atom but its main use in Japan was to shock the Japanese into unconditional surrender without requiring a ground invasion to do so,
Also the only chance that the atomic bomb would have been used in the European theatre is if Stalin had continued to push westward planning to conquer more of Europe and the bombs had been used on Soviet cities.
This is propaganda. You know, "lies" since they just replaced who controlled the Southeast Asian colonies.
One of the "lovely" things about Japan's insane adoption of bushido was in how they handled logistics. The colonies and garrisons Japan set up couldn't be supplied from the Home Islands properly because they didn't have enough shipping. What a normal country would do here would be to scale back to just keeping hold of whatever they could support. What Japan did was to tell the soldiers posted to use their bushido spirit and just bear with any shortcomings.
As you can imagine, this doesn't work that great when the shortcomings include things like food. And when the American submarines started slaughtering Japan's merchant marine, it started getting really dire for all of the scattered garrisons. So what was their solution? Cannibalism. Cannibalism popped out in lots of places in the South Pacific, usually where there were severe food shortages, but sometimes even in places where the food supply was sufficient. It's not quite institutionalized cannibalism, but it's not far off either. You don't find the Soviets doing anything like this because they weren't insane the way Showa Japan was.
Which was a famine. Yes, it was exacerbated by Soviet policies, but the main cause was still a natural event. You don't see Churchill blamed for the Bengal famine and you don't see the Americans blamed for killing off the Native Americans with smallpox.
Mortimer Brewster
Member
^^ This, the Nazi's and Imperial Japan were savage scum during the war but let's not pretend the Societ's were perfectly capable and willing to inflict similar atrocities on its enemies. Stalin killed far more but he was smart enough not to push the Americans.
It would have been interesting to see what Stalin would have done if the July 20th Plot had gone as planned and Rommel would have sued for peace in the Summer of 1944. The Soviet breakout into the rest of Eastern Europe was only in the early days and the justification was to push the German armies back and to force their surrender. Without the justification for pushing onwards, I wonder if Stalin in his lust for more territories would have ignored demands to retreat to his border. If he had continued pushing west, I imagine the Americans would have rearmed the Wermacht and Eisenhower would have directed the Allied forces to push the Soviet's back into Russian. It would have likely led to the Atomic bombs being used on Russian targets first and the end of the Soviet Union.
I am no expert on that subject, but I don't think it was just the smallpox which killed the native Americans.
Also, considering how much of a madman Stalin was, I wouldn't put it past him intentionally starving people to death.
petran79
Banned
Ronald Searle quotes this. That man was in a concentration camp and experienced first hand what it meant to be British there. Sure he and others must have heard and seen something.
What is wrong with mentioning that side of the story?
Also every country in Asia Japan treated differently. Just like Germany treated Germanic countries different than Jews, Slavic and South European ones. In Asian countries Japanese treated White Europeans more harshly.
They tried to take advantage of Asian anticolonial sentiment.
He also criticizes his own Empire for abandoning them to get capturedby the Japanese.
Could have just stopped there. Fuck off with the rest of the bullshit. Imperial Japan is remembered in Asia as fucking assholes and savages. You come around here and sprout that shit to anyone who lived through the war here and you're likely to either get very angry stares or just straight up beaten up. No one gives a fuck what some British hostage said, I'm telling you what Asians in Asia think of Japan's occupation. It was not pretty.
KillerMan91
Member
While I absolutely agree that Japan has huge problems regarding of their history European colonial powers are completely on different level. You have plenty of statues about persons that did some shady shit in empire around the Britain (and noone even questions this). British goverment is known to burn records of their colonial past and british leaders have not apologized to pretty much anyone ever. You can have even threads like this here (a lot of people glorifying the empire) because you pretty much have to be history geek to know about shit they pulled around the empire as it's not taught anywhere (in west at least). Classic example of victors writing the history.
No, it was a manufactured famine.
You should read this book
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/28/books/review/Rubenstein-t.html
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2010/11/11/worst-madness/