• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, the online home of TRIBE MAGAZINE. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register. Join us!

Prove to me the difference between Hiroshima and Nagaksaki and the rape of Nanking

swilly

TRIBE Member
After reading up a fair bit on both subjects and looking at the supposed motives behind both actions I can see little to no difference. So here is your chance prove to me that somehow that the americans in thier bombing of the innocent japanese in thier attempt to bring about a quick end to the war in japan was different than the japanese strategy of wiping out an entire city to bring about a quick end to the war in manchuria.

Incidently the people in that area were manchus and who are actually linguistially very different from the people we know as chinese. They are more similar to the Jin of mongolian years.

but anyways lets hear it

swilly
 

Colm

TRIBE Member
Neither acts can be considered 'good' or 'just' since they are neither proportional nor directed at military targets.

Nevertheless, you do realise Japan invaded China? That alone pretty much undercuts whatever reasoning you're applying here.
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
Japan had the option to surrender before the first bomb hit and after the first bomb hit. The finally results of the explosion were somewhat unknown.

Japan never gave the option of surrender and had already captured the country and the city. The rape of Nanking occurred after the battle and war were already won. Next off the USA never denied its role in the bombing, Japan in its infinite arrogance still claims to be innocent of the atrocities it caused.

The Rape of Nanking was completely senseless and occurred after the region was already taken. It was a systematic raping of women and testing of chemical and biological warfare agents along with live vivisections.

Sorry but the two don't even compare.

Japan waged a war of aggression in an attempt to capture as much territory as possible. They attacked China and they attacked the USA and the fact that they paid the price for it is simple justice. I'm willing to begin to forgive Germany for its actions when 100 years have passed from the Nuremburg trials, the Japan have never admitted or apologized for there actions and teach a revisionist history to there children personally I consider this beyond contempt.
 
tribe cannabis goldsmith - gold cannabis accessories

Deep_Groove

TRIBE Member
OK swilly you're right - you win.

Murder is murder.

Whether you kill someone who is trying to rape you, or you snipe someopne at random from the side of the highway, it's all the same.

From now on, I propose our legal system drops the "self-defence" defence.

Because that's what your argument amounts to.

- Deep_Groove
 

deafplayer

TRIBE Member
America was clearly defending itself. By destroying two Japanese cities, at a time when they had already destroyed many many other Japanese cities.
After all, Japan had leveled dozens of American cities by that point in the war and had to be stopped
And, despite what the American bombing had already accomplished, Japan certainly had the capacity to continue its violent destruction of America, there is no question they would have kept destroying more of the country if not compelled to stop their attacks
They were also given opportunities to surrender, but they went on razing more and more American cities and farmland, wouldn't listen to reason
So they were asking for it
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
deafplayer said:
America was clearly defending itself. By destroying two Japanese cities, at a time when they had already destroyed many many other Japanese cities.
After all, Japan had leveled dozens of American cities by that point in the war and had to be stopped
And, despite what the American bombing had already accomplished, Japan certainly had the capacity to continue its violent destruction of America, there is no question they would have kept destroying more of the country if not compelled to stop their attacks
They were also given opportunities to surrender, but they went on razing more and more American cities and farmland, wouldn't listen to reason
So they were asking for it

I disagree, this isn't a matter of threat.

Japan was given the option of surrender several times. If your told to stop or you will be destroyed and you choose not to that’s your own choice. Nanking was never given the chance to surrender, they had already been taken when the massacre and rape occurred. This is the equivalent of attacking civilian prisoners of war versus attacking a declared enemy city.

This would be more similar to dropping a third bomb the week after Japan unconditionally surrendered.


Again the fire bombing of Tokyo caused much more damage then the 2 bombs put together both in capital losses and accumulated loss of life. Japan had the option to surrender and prevent the nuclear attack ever happening. Nanking couldn't do anything to prevent the atrocity that occurred.


Oh sorry my bad, USA was wrong regardless.
 

deafplayer

TRIBE Member
Well, first of all, I disagree that giving someone the "option of surrender" at all justifies killing them

To me the only justification for violence is self-defence, or 'collective' self-defence (that is, coming to someone else's aid), but you seem to be suggesting some kind of Midieval Warriors' Code of Honour where if you threaten someone with annihilation and give them the option to surrender and they refuse you are thereafter justified in following through on the threat
However, even if I agreed with that premise, I'd be very curious to know how you think giving the imperial rulers of Japan certain surrender options justifies at all massive destruction of Japanese civilian people
Of course if its simply a matter of "Japan was given the option" then the distinction is meaningless, and if the Emperor of Japan refuses surrender, killing cities of the people he rules is cool
Ditto Much said:
I disagree, this isn't a matter of threat.

Japan was given the option of surrender several times. If your told to stop or you will be destroyed and you choose not to that’s your own choice. Nanking was never given the chance to surrender,
Oh, I forgot Harishima and Nagasaki held municipal referendums and voted overwhelmingly to die, while Nanking was not given such a choice.
they had already been taken when the massacre and rape occurred. This is the equivalent of attacking civilian prisoners of war versus attacking a declared enemy city.
. . . I dont know if you know this, but attacking a "declared enemy city" is "attacking civilian" - not prisoners of war, of course, but destroying cities full of people is quite as illegal, as I suspect you are aware
Whether its more or less wrong personally is not clear to me but it seems any moral distinction between the two general generic practices (as you propose them) can only be trivial or marginal or in any case not profound ("Sorry but the two don't even compare.")

Okay to be clear I think this is insane - but, I'm curious how much thought you've given this:
was the Japanese regime actually told their cities would face instantaneous annihilation from atom bombs? were the people of Japan?
I would also ask whether, (assuming already-devestated, crippled, no-longer-threatening Japan's Imperial rulers are legitimate negotiators on behalf of the cities full of people called Hiroshima and Nagasaki), I would ask whether three (3) days after the first bomb is a fair amount of time before slaughtering another city, especially if, according to you, "The finally results of the explosion were somewhat unknown." (I should add that the allies for years were aware of the lasting radiological effects a bomb would have, which some people apparently claim was unknown - not to say you were suggesting that)

Perhaps most importantly, you seem to be assuming that the "options" "given... several times" to unconditional surrender to the US were reasonable, genuine/in good faith, fair, as they would have to be in order to be meaningful at all in the way you assert.
(This does not square with some very authoritative opinions on the subject)
That, for example, the very obvious presence of motivations besides merely securing Japan's surrender did not play a deciding role (is it so hard to imagine that maybe they weren't entirely dedicated to achieving the surrender because they were also significantly dedicated to achieving the dropping of an atom bomb for its own host of reasons?)
Otherwise you could demand they all take off their clothes and jump on one foot or die and if they refuse "the option" you're justified in wiping them out, at an extreme, of course, but the point is, and I think its a fair question: what reason do you have that "the option of surrender [given] several times" was fair enough, genuine enough, that you can actually say "thats your own choice"?

This would be more similar to dropping a third bomb the week after Japan unconditionally surrendered.
In fact it would be even "more similar" to something that actually did happen
Maybe you know about it?

Again the fire bombing of Tokyo caused much more damage then the 2 bombs put together both in capital losses and accumulated loss of life. Japan had the option to surrender and prevent the nuclear attack ever happening. Nanking couldn't do anything to prevent the atrocity that occurred.


Oh sorry my bad, USA was wrong regardless.
:rolleyes:
yeah, cus I'm the one applying insane moral reasoning that treats America differently

the fact that they paid the price for it is simple justice. I'm willing to begin to forgive Germany for its actions when 100 years have passed from the Nuremburg trials[the trials of 200 people are that significant?], the Japan have never admitted or apologized for there actions and teach a revisionist history to there children personally I consider this beyond contempt.
You sound like a fucking violent extremist.....
Make sure to announce when you've decided to grant your pardon to "Germany" and "the Japanese", I'm sure people in both nations are eagerly awaiting the day
by the way what makes you think that "the Japanese have never admitted or apologized for their actions and teach a revisionist history to their children and personally [you] consider this beyond contempt"?
(also I didnt realize the Japanese people were a monolithic former criminal in denial)

Frankly I find it disturbing when a great mass of human beings is imagined in this way, it sounds like fanatical nationalism that makes it so easy to destroy humans by concieving of them as a bunch of editorial page political cartoon characters rather than as human beings who live in societies
 
Last edited:

swilly

TRIBE Member
Ditto Much said:
I disagree, this isn't a matter of threat.

Japan was given the option of surrender several times. If your told to stop or you will be destroyed and you choose not to that’s your own choice. Nanking was never given the chance to surrender, they had already been taken when the massacre and rape occurred. This is the equivalent of attacking civilian prisoners of war versus attacking a declared enemy city.

This would be more similar to dropping a third bomb the week after Japan unconditionally surrendered.


Again the fire bombing of Tokyo caused much more damage then the 2 bombs put together both in capital losses and accumulated loss of life. Japan had the option to surrender and prevent the nuclear attack ever happening. Nanking couldn't do anything to prevent the atrocity that occurred.


Oh sorry my bad, USA was wrong regardless.
Nanking had surrendered but china had not. There is a big difference. From what I have read nanking was to be an an example of what was to come if the rest of the country did not surrender. Similar to what chingis khan did when he invaded. He wiped out one city in the hopes that the rest would simply surrender. There is little difference between that and what the americans did at Hiroshima.

Except for one major difference the japanese had agreed to surrender and give up the war as long as they could keep thier emperor. The americans in thier western racist minds could not allow this so they kept on fighting. Imagine if japan had invaded italy and in thier ultimatim it said you can keep your country and surrender as long as you state that there is no catholic god and we are going to remove the pope from power.

They would tell you to fuck off and fight until the last man. Similar to what the japanese did.

Also another major reason why they dropped the bomb was to give russia a warning.

swilly
 
tribe cannabis goldsmith - gold cannabis accessories

deafplayer

TRIBE Member
The Japanese leadership was also clearly defeated and at least on the verge of surrender, willing to discuss it and well aware that their situation was hopeless and that defeat was inevitable (most of their population starving, etc), as many very senior military/political people involved in the war have stated, with surprising bluntness (and its surprising that discussion nevertheless settles on whether it would have been better or worse than invading the island)

people very often only compare it to 'what if we had to invade the island?!?! OMG!'... the assumption being the inhuman japs will OBVIOUSLY fight to the very last infant, making "their choice" that we would the have to slaughter them the old fashioned way, on their own soil, to..... defend............. ourselves
because they are such maniacs, which makes it a choice between horrible invasion or atomic warfare, which was not necessarily the case
that last part was the point
 

deafplayer

TRIBE Member
swilly said:
...an example of what was to come if the rest of the country did not surrender. ... There is little difference between that and what the americans did at Hiroshima.
...

Also another major reason why they dropped the bomb was to give russia a warning.
It wasn't even just to show the Japanese, to get them to surrender, it was to show the rest of the world we have the bomb and we'll USE it, on CITIES

they could have demonstrated it in a clearly observable but non-city location, as someone suggested at the time (a great Japanese forest)

but that can't match the value of using it on a city, in terms of gaining credibility


I hadnt thought much about the stuff in this thread until now, thanks Swilly
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
deafplayer said:
You sound like a fucking violent extremist.....
Make sure to announce when you've decided to grant your pardon to "Germany" and "the Japanese", I'm sure people in both nations are eagerly awaiting the day

Sorry its the price you pay for invading my families nation and destroying what they had after they surrendered. The second a government surrenders and accepts invasion acts of aggression become worse in my opinion.
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
deafplayer said:
It wasn't even just to show the Japanese, to get them to surrender, it was to show the rest of the world we have the bomb and we'll USE it, on CITIES

Thats one argument. However there was also another one put forth. On Iojima the Japanese military made two things very clear. First that they would fight to the last man without surrender and next that they would torture any enemy combatant that surrenered to them.

The USA(allies) was looking at having to invade one of the most defended countries on earth. Facing an enemy force that would not surrender and would comit sucide rather than capture.

The argument that the USA leveled was that even after the fire bombing of Tokyo Japan simply was not going to surrender. Even after a first atomic bomb Japan was not willing to surrender.


they could have demonstrated it in a clearly observable but non-city location, as someone suggested at the time (a great Japanese forest)

but that can't match the value of using it on a city, in terms of gaining credibility


I hadnt thought much about the stuff in this thread until now, thanks Swilly

They had already fire bombed Tokyo to the tune of almost half a million lives and the government of Japan that controlled the military refused to negotiate a surrender. Destroying a forest would have proved nothing it was hoped that after the first bomb was dropped a second would not be necessary.
 

~atp~

TRIBE Member
Ditto Much said:
Sorry its the price you pay for invading my families nation and destroying what they had after they surrendered. The second a government surrenders and accepts invasion acts of aggression become worse in my opinion.
Ditto, this makes no sense. Can you (seriously) help me understand what you mean by the above?
 
tribe cannabis goldsmith - gold cannabis accessories

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
deafplayer said:
The Japanese leadership was also clearly defeated and at least on the verge of surrender, willing to discuss it and well aware that their situation was hopeless and that defeat was inevitable (most of their population starving, etc), as many very senior military/political people involved in the war have stated, with surprising bluntness (and its surprising that discussion nevertheless settles on whether it would have been better or worse than invading the island)
So why didn't they surrender after the fire bombing of Tokyo. An event that was in many respects far more violent than either of the nuclear attacks?

people very often only compare it to 'what if we had to invade the island?!?! OMG!'... the assumption being the inhuman japs will OBVIOUSLY fight to the very last infant, making "their choice" that we would the have to slaughter them the old fashioned way, on their own soil, to..... defend............. ourselves
because they are such maniacs, which makes it a choice between horrible invasion or atomic warfare, which was not necessarily the case
that last part was the point

But they acted exactly like this on each of the island the US recaptured. Why would the fight harder for the small islands than for the mother island?
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
~atp~ said:
Ditto, this makes no sense. Can you (seriously) help me understand what you mean by the above?

I mean from the date that germany accepted its defeat I count 100 years. On that date I no longer hold germany in contempt.

I'm not saying that germans are bad people or that I don't like them. Just that as a european we get to treat them like rude bastards and make jokes about them. The germans get to be the butt end of any joke we want, we also get to hold parades celebrating our liberation whenever we damn well feel like it. And we're allowed to use them as the bad guys whenever we feel like it (in movies or video games for instance).

Its the humiliation a country recieves for pulling what germany pulled.

In the case of Japan... If your from one of the invaded countries where Japan raped and sacked and used your people for military experimentation until the government appologies and admits its acts I think you can treat the Japanese like shit. No you can't spit on them in the street or refuse them a job but you can sure as hell laugh at them and use them as the butt end of any joke you want.

I agree its silly and its pointless.
 

~atp~

TRIBE Member
Ditto Much said:
Thats one argument. However there was also another one put forth. On Iojima the Japanese military made two things very clear. First that they would fight to the last man without surrender and next that they would torture any enemy combatant that surrenered to them.

The USA(allies) was looking at having to invade one of the most defended countries on earth. Facing an enemy force that would not surrender and would comit sucide rather than capture.

The argument that the USA leveled was that even after the fire bombing of Tokyo Japan simply was not going to surrender. Even after a first atomic bomb Japan was not willing to surrender.





They had already fire bombed Tokyo to the tune of almost half a million lives and the government of Japan that controlled the military refused to negotiate a surrender. Destroying a forest would have proved nothing it was hoped that after the first bomb was dropped a second would not be necessary.

Where in the hell do you get your information from?

The reasons for dropping those bombs had nothing to do with "punishment" or the "preservation of peace". The reasons are wrapped up in public opinion, perception, fear and most significantly, power. Surrender was absolutely possible and it is even readily admitted by official American sources! If you disagree, you are disagreeing not only with factual history, but the opinions of those who established such violent policies!!

What continually amazes me is the HUGE FUCKING BALLS that the American government has with respect to stating what their real intentions are. I mean, forget PNAC, take a look at the official sources! Here:

I JULY 1946 ...a telegram received on 6 May in the German embassy at Tokyo revealed that Hitler was dead, the promised new weapon had failed to materialize and that Germany would surrender within a matter of hours. Kido believed, presumably on Japanese Army representations, that the Army would not countenance peace moves so long as Germany continued to fight. It is not clear whether this was a face saving position, designed to avoid a prior Japanese surrender. In any case on 9 May 1945, immediately after the Nazi capitulation, General Anami, the War Minister, asked the cabinet for an Imperial conference to reconsider the war situation. The significant fact, however, is that Japan was pursuing peace before the Nazis collapsed, and the impoverishment and fragmentation of the German people had already afforded a portent of similar consequences for an intransigent Japan.
6. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs did not defeat Japan, nor by the testimony of the enemy leaders who ended the war did they persuade Japan to accept unconditional surrender. The Emperor, the lord privy seal, the prime minister, the foreign minister and the navy minister had decided as early as May of 1945 that the war should be ended even if it meant acceptance of defeat on allied terms.
The war minister and the two chiefs of staff opposed unconditional surrender. The impact of the Hiroshima attack was to bring further urgency and lubrication to the machinery of achieving peace, primarily by contributing to a situation which permitted the prime minister to bring the Emperor overtly and directly into a position where his decision for immediate acceptance of the Potsdam declaration could be used to override the remaining objectors. Thus, although the atomic bombs changed no votes of the Supreme War Direction Council concerning the Potsdam terms, they did foreshorten the war and expedite the peace.
Events and testimony which support these conclusions are blue-printed from the chronology established in the first section of this report.
(a) The mission of the Suzuki government, appointed 7 April 1945, was to make peace. The position of negotiating for terms less onerous than unconditional surrender was maintained in order to contain the military and bureaucratic elements still determined on a final Bushido defense, and perhaps even more importantly to obtain freedom to create peace with a minimum of personal danger and internal obstruction. It seems clear however that in extremis the peacemakers would have peace, and peace on any terms. This was the gist of advice given to Hirohito by the Jushin in February, the declared conclusion of Kido in April, the underlying reason for Koiso's fall in April, the specific injunction of the Emperor to Suzuki on becoming premier which was known to all members of his cabinet.
(b) A series of conferences of the Supreme War Direction Council before Hirohito on the subject of continuing or terminating the war began on 8 June and continued through 14 August. At the 8 June meeting the war situation was reviewed. On 20 June the Emperor, supported by the premier, foreign minister and Navy minister, declared for peace; the army minister and the two chiefs of staff did not concur. On 10 July the Emperor again urged haste in the moves to mediate through Russia, but Potsdam intervened. While the government still awaited a Russian answer, the Hiroshima bomb was dropped on 6 August.
(c) Consideration of the Potsdam terms within the Supreme War Direction Council revealed the same three-to-three cleavage which first appeared at the Imperial conference on 20 June. On the morning of 9 August Premier Suzuki and Hirohito decided at once to accept the Potsdam terms; meetings and moves thereafter were designed to legalize the decision and prepare the Imperial rescript. At the conclusive Imperial conference, on the night of 9-10 August, the Supreme War Direction Council still split three-to-three. It was necessary for the Emperor finally to repeat his desire for acceptance of the Potsdam terms.
(d) Indubitably the Hiroshima bomb and the rumor derived from interrogation of an American prisoner (B-29 pilot) who stated that an atom bomb attack on Tokyo was scheduled for 12 August introduced urgency in the minds of the government and magnified the pressure behind its move to end the war.
7. The sequence of events just recited also defines the effect of Russia's entry into the Pacific war on 8 August 1945. Coming two days after the Hiroshima bomb, the move neither defeated Japan nor materially hastened the acceptance of sur- render nor changed the votes of the Supreme War Direction Council. Negotiation for Russia to intercede began the forepart of May 1945 in both Tokyo and Moscow. Konoye, the intended emissary to the Soviets, stated to the Survey that while ostensibly he was to negotiate, he received direct and secret instructions from the Emperor to secure peace at any price, notwithstanding its severity. Sakomizu, the chief cabinet secretary, alleged that while awaiting the Russian answer on mediation, Suzuki and Togo decided that were it negative direct overtures would be made to the United States. Efforts toward peace through the Russians, forestalled by the imminent departure of Stalin and Molotov for Potsdam, were answered by the Red Army's advance into Manchuria. The Kwantung army, already weakened by diversion of its units and logistics to bolster island defenses in the South and written off for the defense of Japan proper, faced inescapable defeat.
There is little point in attempting more precisely to impute Japan's unconditional surrender to any one of the numerous causes which jointly and cumulatively were responsible for Japan's disaster. Concerning the absoluteness of her defeat there can be no doubt. The time lapse between military impotence and political acceptance of the inevitable might have been shorter had the political structure of Japan permitted a more rapid and decisive determination of national policies. It seems clear, however, that air supremacy and its exploitation over Japan proper was the major factor which determined the timing of Japan's surrender and obviated any need for invasion.
Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to I November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

Japan's interest in peace was governed largely through Russia, though America knew precisely what Japan's desire was (the preservation of the monarchy):

July 1945 - Japan's peace messages
Still, the messages from Togo to Sato, read by the U.S. at the time, clearly indicated that Japan was seeking to end the war:
  • July 11: "make clear to Russia... We have no intention of annexing or taking possession of the areas which we have been occupying as a result of the war; we hope to terminate the war".
  • July 12: "it is His Majesty's heart's desire to see the swift termination of the war".
  • July 13: "I sent Ando, Director of the Bureau of Political Affairs to communicate to the [Soviet] Ambassador that His Majesty desired to dispatch Prince Konoye as special envoy, carrying with him the personal letter of His Majesty stating the Imperial wish to end the war" (for above items, see: U.S. Dept. of State, Potsdam 1, pg. 873-879).
  • July 18: "Negotiations... necessary... for soliciting Russia's good offices in concluding the war and also in improving the basis for negotiations with England and America." (Magic-Diplomatic Summary, 7/18/45, Records of the National Security Agency, Magic Files, RG 457, Box 18, National Archives).
  • July 22: "Special Envoy Konoye's mission will be in obedience to the Imperial Will. He will request assistance in bringing about an end to the war through the good offices of the Soviet Government." The July 21st communication from Togo also noted that a conference between the Emperor's emissary, Prince Konoye, and the Soviet Union, was sought, in preparation for contacting the U.S. and Great Britain (Magic-Diplomatic Summary, 7/22/45, Records of the National Security Agency, Magic Files, RG 457, Box 18, National Archives).
  • July 25: "it is impossible to accept unconditional surrender under any circumstances, but we should like to communicate to the other party through appropriate channels that we have no objection to a peace based on the Atlantic Charter." (U.S. Dept. of State, Potsdam 2, pg. 1260 - 1261).
  • July 26: Japan's Ambassador to Moscow, Sato, to the Soviet Acting Commissar for Foreign Affairs, Lozovsky: "The aim of the Japanese Government with regard to Prince Konoye's mission is to enlist the good offices of the Soviet Government in order to end the war." (Magic-Diplomatic Summary, 7/26/45, Records of the National Security Agency, Magic Files, RG 457, Box 18, National Archives).
The Potsdam declaration specifically excluded verbage that could have prevented the ensuing nuclear atrocities:

On July 2, 1945, Sec. of War Henry Stimson and Truman discussed a proposal by Stimson to call for Japan to surrender. Stimson's memo to the President advised, "I personally think that if in saying this we should add that we do not exclude a constitutional monarchy under her present dynasty, it would substantially add to the chances of acceptance". Stimson's proposed surrender demand stated that the reformed Japanese government "may include a constitutional monarchy under the present dynasty" (U.S. Dept. of State, Potsdam 1, pg. 889-894). However, the constitutional monarchy line was not included in the surrender demand, known as the Potsdam Proclamation, that was broadcast on July 26th, in spite of Stimson's eleventh hour protestations that it be left in (Diary of Henry L. Stimson, 7/24/45, Yale Univ. Library, New Haven, Conn). Pacific war historian Akira Iriye explains, "One reason for this change [the removal of the Emperor retention line] was the growing influence within the State Department of men like [Sec. of State] Byrnes, Acheson, and MacLeish - with no expertise on Japanese affairs but keenly sensitive to public opinion - and the president's tendency to listen to them rather than to Grew and other experts." (Iriye, pg. 255-256). In regard to his disagreement with Under Sec. of State Grew over allowing Japan to retain the Emperor, Dean Acheson later admitted, "I very shortly came to see that I was quite wrong." (Dean Acheson, Present at the Creation, pg. 112-113).
 

~atp~

TRIBE Member
Ditto Much said:
In the case of Japan... If your from one of the invaded countries where Japan raped and sacked and used your people for military experimentation until the government appologies and admits its acts I think you can treat the Japanese like shit. No you can't spit on them in the street or refuse them a job but you can sure as hell laugh at them and use them as the butt end of any joke you want.

So...........................if my government encourages violent policies of rape, pillagery, torture, and so forth against, let's say, Indonesians, do Indonesians have a right to laugh at me and use me as the butt end of any joke? Which has the not-so-subtle implication of dropping ethical standards against an entire fucking people for reasons instigated by a totalitarian regime and/or military machine?
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
Okay guys what exactly do you want me to believe and agree with?


The original statement by swilly was.

After reading up a fair bit on both subjects and looking at the supposed motives behind both actions I can see little to no difference. So here is your chance prove to me that somehow that the americans in thier bombing of the innocent japanese in thier attempt to bring about a quick end to the war in japan was different than the japanese strategy of wiping out an entire city to bring about a quick end to the war in manchuria.
my issue with this was based on two factors.

First Japan was able to prevent both atomic bombs by act of surrender, where as Nanking did in fact surrender and were still attacked.

Second although both resulted in significant loss of life the Americans were facing a long drawn out battle with little chance of a Japanese captulation where as Machuria had already collapsed and nanking was a mop up.


-------------


Now did the USA need to bomb Japan?

I think thats the question you and deafplayer are trying to answer. Which is somwhat beside the point, all war and all attacks are unnecessary at the root of it. Previous invasions had shown that even without resources the Japanese army would fight to the last man without surrender. Fire bombing and attacking Japan itself was not resulting in much.

So now the question becomes did the USA have to bomb to civilian targets like they had done in Germany with Dresden?

Nope personally i don't think they had to.

Okay so now the question becomes did Japan have to rape and torture the people of nanking?

Nope obviously they didn't.


So if we are sked to rank which crime is worse (and I'll call both of them crimes for the sake of this argument) we have to create a ranking system.


So the nuclear bombs:
- estimates of the combined death toll range from 100,000 to 220,000

Rape of nanking
- More than 300,000 Chinese civilians had been killed

Okay so from property loss the nuclear attacks were worse, in terms of human lives the rape of nanking was worse. Both are horrific and wrong but the body count suggests Nanking is actually slightly worse.

So lets try to create other ways to measure and to quantify this. I suggest that the ability of the victim to prevent the attack is a factor in the horror. In the case of nanking it was a walled city and Japan clearly had it in control. They wanted to send a message out that they were the baddest bad asses around so they raped and tortured. In the case of Hiroshima and Nagaksaki the USA had no ground presence or likely ground presence in the near future. Surrender was offered and rejected and the Americans wanted to prove that they had the weapon to end all weapons and that if Japan didn't surrender now there would be nothing left standing.

Yes I agree both are pointless and silly, however Japan(government of) had the ability to stop its citizens being attacked where as Nanking(government of) didn't as Machuria no longer had any form of central government after a 18 year war that had devestated them.




I have stated my logic and reason. Yes all war is bad, yes attacking civilians is bad, however:

Allies
Military dead: 17 million
Civilian dead: 33 million
Total: 50 million


Axis
Military dead: 8 million
Civilian dead: 4 million
Total: 12 million

(military/civilian)
Japan 1,900,000 / 700,000
China 4,000,000 / 6,000,000

Lets not pretend that Japan was acting as liberators of the east. They were slaughtering on a scale that only Stalin was able to match. Of the 700,000 japanese civilian casualties half of them were lost in the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagaksaki and the fire bombing of Tokyo. These attacks were meant to give Japan the message that it was time to surrender now before it suffered losses on par with what was done to Germany a country that started with the same population.

(5,500,000 / 1,840,000)
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

judge wopner

TRIBE Member
~atp~ said:
Where in the hell do you get your information from?

The reasons for dropping those bombs had nothing to do with "punishment" or the "preservation of peace". The reasons are wrapped up in public opinion, perception, fear and most significantly, power. Surrender was absolutely possible and it is even readily admitted by official American sources! If you disagree, you are disagreeing not only with factual history, but the opinions of those who established such violent policies!!

What continually amazes me is the HUGE FUCKING BALLS that the American government has with respect to stating what their real intentions are. I mean, forget PNAC, take a look at the official sources! Here:

Japan's interest in peace was governed largely through Russia, though America knew precisely what Japan's desire was (the preservation of the monarchy):

[/LIST]The Potsdam declaration specifically excluded verbage that could have prevented the ensuing nuclear atrocities:

this is an intersting subject, one i studied during a really good military history course in university. ive forgotten most of it but ill agree there is considerable evidence that the bomb was dropped more as a message to the russians and any one else about american supremacy than in hopes of speedily ending the war in japan.

that being said there were other considerations and issues at play:

at any given time the nature of diplomacy is such that words are carefully chosen and often shrouded in legal complexity for the sake of face. just reading the message atp posted from a japanese communique is a text book example of this:

no actual mention is ever made of japan surrendering, only that "unconditional surrender is impossible", the only mention is peace under the atlantic treaty terms, but the thrust of this document displays the greater issue at play:

there was considerable indication japan would seek peace from high ranking officials, while at the same time there was a longstanding dealy in actual peace terms, while the war was still being fought, troops on both sides still dying there was a diplomatic stalemate: this stalemate in its most basic terms was predicated on both the american insistance on "unconditional surrender" and japan's unwillingness to acccept the terms of unconditional surrender and stripping of the emporers powers. (though i am inclined to think it was not just the emporer who resisted this considering the many many aristocratic groups who stood to loose much if his hold on power was diminished)

the question remains, in hindsight the cards line up rather well, and i admit to the massive grey area and suspect motivation of the US in employing the bomb. as the post above even concludes air superiority much as it was in europe after the fall of the luftwaffe, made the allies the juggernaut in both theaters of war. perhaps so much so, that after months, almost years of bombing civilian cities with impunity american commanders lost sight of what they were actually fighting much the same way a drunken brawl ends in one man continually striking a man after he is clearly unconscious and covered in his own blood.

the concern in wanting to limit infantry casualties that were piling up at an alarming rate was a valid reason as any to employ a device that could inflict maximum damage with minimal US risk. though an atom bomb may have been overkill. but this desire to "end the war" to "bring our troops home" to stop the killing of soldiers that all the wesetern powers were growing tired of provided fantastic cover for the more sinister desire to show the world not to fuck with the USA and their new big bombs.

its a tricky issue, i dont think the latter motive was the only true factor, its impossible to qualify any notions that japan would have surrendered, as diplomacy in war time is as much a military and strategic device as it is a political one. (clausewitz may say its the exact opposite, who am i to disagree?) but japans military actions leading up to diplomatic consideration of surrender were anything but the seeking of peace.

japan's formal and informal policy was that surrender was unacceptable at all stages of war from the foot soldier to the highest ranking general. japan did not recognize the geneva convention or any sort of war crime treaty and thus did not treat prisoners in the manner becoming a soldier. (though i will admit both sides likely carried out atrocities against POW's, but it is a well documented and understood fact taht japan as a matter of policy and practice prefered not ot even take prisoners let alone abide by any standards in treatment)

accounts of japanese soldiers by both sides (even by the british earlier and by the russians during the sino-russian war) often were known to fight until the death, not just the classic kamakazie piolots who's numbers have been exaggerated to imply every japanese solider was a suicidal nut, but significant enough to affect tactical operations that continually had to address the more aggressive and risk taking elements of japanese infantry.

i recall a high ranking artillery commander writing about how japanese artillery used to preceed advancing infantry by several yards at times while US forces would use much longer distances for saftey. post war interviews with japanese artillery commanders displayed a greater concern in sudden infantry attacks against bombed positions than the inevitable loss of ones own troops in employing such tactics.

anyway the fact is that when an enemy repeatedly says during a conflict that they are prepared to die before accepting surrender at so many levels of conflict, when the diplomatic process agrees to discuss terms but fails to conclusively affect change for peace or accept the terms of the stronger power at that time, delaying the process and shows resolute strenght in face of continuous urban bombing campaingns, the american administration and its military personell would be hard pressed to consider much else after so many years of war and loss of life.

again i accept much of what is said w/ respect to japan's gradual consideration of surrender towards the end of the war, i think predicting the surrender of such a massive force is a mugs game, akin to pickign the top of a bull market in stocks: its much easier in hindsight.

its akin to those gangsters who get killed and their greiving widows always say "but he was changing his ways and going legit" , one wonders how true it was and if the transition process is too slow for those still in it non?
 

JEMZ

TRIBE Member
This thread is really really dumb.

I can't believe I allowed myself to read it.

I mean really, all I'm reading here is what you guys have pulled from Google on Japan and China and now are using to base a completely assinine argument on one mass extermination's valadity over another.

Why don't you argue over how dumb this conversation is? At least that might bear some facet of enlightenment.
 

judge wopner

TRIBE Member
JEMZ said:
This thread is really really dumb.

I can't believe I allowed myself to read it.

I mean really, all I'm reading here is what you guys have pulled from Google on Japan and China and now are using to base a completely assinine argument on one mass extermination's valadity over another.

Why don't you argue over how dumb this conversation is? At least that might bear some facet of enlightenment.
i dont get your post,
why are you so angry at this thread?
some salient points from both ends have been
brought up, and the issue is much deeper than simply "validating one mass extermination over another"

so what im saying is, i dont think you actually read this entire thread so much as you skimmed through it and really just wanted to blow off some steam. bravo. :p :D :D
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders
Top