Japanese military murdered between 3 to 10 million people during WWII

[thewiseguy]

But most of us like to talk about Hiroshima.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP3.HTM

It was war, I am very sorry for the death of civilians during it, but at the same the American government should not apologize for ending it.

[proteus_lives]

1. +100.000

[gratuitous]

2. So blanket reprisals against Japan's civilian population were warranted?

The logic of the defendants at Nuremberg.

[Pavulon]

6. If they contributed to the Imperial Japanese system

by working in any industry they were legit under the rules of that conflict.

[gratuitous]

8. Interesting line of reasoning

Under the goose-and-gander principle, that would mean that the September 11 attacks were legitimate, since surely someone in the World Trade Center or the Pentagon that day contributed to the Imperial United States system.

Oh wait, the United States isn't an empire! :eyes:

[Pavulon]

10. Wake me up when we are fighting an open war. Context

is very important. The context you learned in social studies does not work on ww2. The targets were legitimate and no sane person would trade the casualties incurred during an invasion for the immediate impact of the bomb.

Revisionist history is the largest form of stupid.

[gratuitous]

16. We're so exceptional!

So what's good for the goose is no longer good for the gander? Considering the impact the United States' financial and military policies have had on people all over the globe, any retaliation isn't legitimate because . . . we're the United States and nobody else is? The instantaneous vaporization of two population centers (deaths numbered in the hundreds of thousands) is excusable, but the toppling of two symbols of financial and military oppression (deaths numbered less than three thousand) isn't. What an odd world to inhabit.

[Pavulon]

17. Ahh revisionist laziness. I wonder if there is some college

teaching this to people making them stupid or if it is self taught. The war between the US and the AXIS powers in radically different than any war the US is currently fighting or has fought since.

It accomplished a goal, ended ww2 without more death on bot sides. I am sure you are aware of civilian activity on Okinawa and understand that when Japan was invaded the resistance would have killed for more americans and japanese civilians than the 150k killed in the bombing of two military targets.

I would be very careful with that statement in public, i know this is the internet where that is accepted, but in most places that would be fighting words and the person who broke you nose for saying that would pay a small fine for public affray. Comparing us activity in ww2 to 9/11 is a great way to get a physical response. There was no military target at 9/11 just a terrorist attack.

The us targeted military targets with the bomb in ww2. To mix ww2 context with modern context is amazingly stupid.

[WinkyDink]

26. Well, aren't we bellicose! I find arguments based on assumed future events inadequate at best.

[Hawkowl]

74. I'd have to agree with him

You really can't equate the criminals attacking 9-11 to the Allies massive bombing of civilians. At least not in public. I can see the reasoning of the terrorists attacking the World Trade Center (Wall Street, globalization, etc.) but must emphatically reject it. If the human race is to survive, we must progress, and the 9-11 attacks were a deliberate provocation for the US to start a WWII type retaliation and thrust the entire world back into a more brutal time period. Unfortunately, we took the bait.

And if you do start voicing your opinion that somebody's grandfather is the equivalent of Mohamed Atta, then you will indeed be lucky to get away with just a broken nose depending on what part of the country you are in (NYC for example). (I would not punch someone in the nose for this misguided comparison even though I am an airline pilot and was working on 9-11).

Context of the historical times in which events occurred must be factored in whether it be the atrocities of the American civil War, the 30 years war of the Germanies or WWII. Imposing 21st century morals on past conflicts is by definition, revisionist.

[Pholus]

30. Revisionist?

Look at your little rhetorical flamethrower there Pavulon!!! "laziness," "stupid," a wish for a violent act to occur to the person with whom you are disagreeing. Tone it down there Tex!

I have always been fascinated with exactly how the target selection was done. The USAAF in Europe DID NOT AGREE with the British strategy of taking the bombing campaign to target civilians. Dresden was the exception and you can find a lot of debate within the chain of command about the necessity but I'm sure with your perfect college education you knew that already.

Only in Japan did we start razing the civilians as much as we could. Yes, there was a reason to believe they would assist in the invasion. But by the time know that most Japanese civilians were pretty much powerless against their military and resigned to their fate.

Try reading "Danger's Hour" by Jules Crittenden to see what I mean.

The result was the end of the War but there were a LOT of ways that war could have ended better. But we needed to telegraph our capabilities to the Soviets as well.

[Pavulon]

48. Hindsight, always 20-20, on REVISION

context and history is easy to handicap. Especially the act of viewing information in modern lens. Never said wish, only in most places that would get a beer bottle broken over you head or a drink in the face.

[Pholus]

64. There was not even close to 100% agreement even at the time.

And the dissenters were pretty high up among the big players.

[Pavulon]

80. Never is. But the war ended and we did not have to invade

win win.

[bvar22]

81. Well, at least THAT is the Government Approved Cover Story.

Most of the field commanders in the Pacific disagree.

We can file your post with the other Government Approved Cover Stories.

*Gulf of Tonkin

*Lone Gunman

*No one could have foreseen

*Saddam had WMD

*Afghanistan was protecting Osama

*The OIL just went away.

and other too numerous to list.

[asdjrocky]

85. Why are you being so agressive?

And let me ask you this, are you that aggressive in the real world? How does that work out for you?

[Confusious]

53. Deaths in the 200,000 range for both together

Hundreds of thousands is weaselly. Makes it sound like there was more then there actually was.

The fire bombings of Tokyo killed more then that, but was completely legal under the Geneva conventions. Industry and military located within a city is a legitimate target.

Hiroshima was the headquarters of the 2nd army. Legal under the geneva conventions. Conventions which the Japanese ingnored BTW.

You can have some rules, or no rules in war. Some are better then none.

[WinkyDink]

25. Women standing at a bus stop?

[Pavulon]

46. War has unpleasant byproducts. They were dead dec 8th

by the choice of their government.

[alarimer]

78. Fuck that warmongering bullshit.

You sound like Bush. Next you will claim they were collateral damage.

Then the American who voted for Gore are also responsible for the invasion of Iraq and the thousands upon thousands of people killed in those illegal wars.

Now that Afghanistan is Obama's war, we are also personally responsible for all the civilians killed, instead of the war criminals who are actually responsible.

[Hawkowl]

75. Don't bring Pakistan drone attacks up

O.K. seriously. That is the sort of attack we are conducting RIGHT NOW. If you want to get your dander up where your indignation and protest can actually do some good in the here and now, scream about the US murdering civilians in countries where we have not declared war.

Right now, with your (and mine) 21st century morals, the USA is perpetrating war crimes under its own rules. The acts of war in WWII were in complete compliance as determined by the Geneva conventions at the time.

[provis99]

83. how about all the japanese babies we killed?

But they're just Japs, not real human beings, from your point of view.

[damntexdem]

7. So an attack on a militarily-relevant city (Hiroshima) was.

That on a militarily-irrelevant city (Nagasaki) was not.

[Pavulon]

11. Read up, port city, used to supply war.

port and war material destroyed. You guys try to revise history without the most basic facts.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=&imgrefurl=http://www.corbisimages.com/Enlargement/NA006858.html&usg=__BIeh6AcbpCZbvDMoq7rl9usWTy0=&h=480&w=463&sz=83&hl=en&start=90&tbnid=VaVyjClK-qP10M:&tbnh=128&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dnagasaki%2Bbombing%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dsafari%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Den%26biw%3D1895%26bih%3D1068%26tbs%3Disch:10%2C1148&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=1205&vpy=568&dur=1061&hovh=129&hovw=124&tx=78&ty=148&oei=7mxcTNLjCcL68AaGoYCBAg&esq=undefined&page=4&ndsp=29&ved=1t:429,r:15,s:90&biw=1895&bih=1068

[Pholus]

31. You're saying they MISSED the target then?

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Maps/HiroshimaMap.shtml

The port is off the map to the bottom.

[Pavulon]

49. I wonder if they ran a shift there the next day?

bet not.. No they hit the target.

[Pholus]

59. Ujina Port was basically untouched and ran relief efforts in the hours following.

So, they did run a shift there the next day, yes.

You'd have been better off talking about the army HQ which was wiped out (though the C.O. was away). But older history books often cite popular legend rather than researched fact. That takes time to assemble from primary records.

[Pholus]

33. Well, Nagasaki was the Mitsubishi Steel Works and an aircraft factory.

But Pavulon is just sooooo fun to read with all that indignant self-righteousness I really shouldn't throw him any bones.

[Pavulon]

50. Nope, I read history written in context. Say in the 50's

before it gets rebuild by morons to earn a thesis or sell books.

[Pholus]

60. So what history book from the 50's did SUCH a great job on this topic.

I'll read it. Which one?

[Iggo]

72. List?

[roguevalley]

12. everyone now can speak as they wish but it doesn't matter a whit.

we weren't there. Hindsight is wonderful isn't it? I wish it had not happened at all but it did and the idea now, especially now, is to learn the sorry lessons of it.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

20. Oh Jesus...

"So blanket reprisals against Japan's civilian population were warranted?"

Not as retribution, certainly, so you're loaded choice of "reprisals" is petulant.

The question is was the wholesale destruction of cities warranted to accomplish an objective, to wit, the unconditional surrender of Japan and removal of Japan as a threat to her neighbors?

And, as opposed to what?

You can study those questions and conclude that the destruction of cities was or was not warranted, but the thoughtless snark-off about Nuremberg is saying, whether you intend it or not, that no action can ever be undertaken for any reason because someone at Nuremberg said he had a reason to commit war crimes.

You say, "Who ate the last cookie?"

I say, "I didn't do it."

You say, "That's what O. J. Simpson said."

See how useful that is?

[MajorChode]

29. Not quite

The decision to nuke Japanese civilians was not one that was entered into lightly or without basis. The Japanese manufacturing base was dispersed throughout their cities in civilian homes from one end to another. Instead of large factories producing ammunition, you literally had families of all descriptions making bullets in their dining rooms. There were also other strategic objectives and many other reasons for doing so. To suggest that the bombings were merely "blanket reprisals" is very far afield from being historically accurate, and comparing it to how Germany rounded up all sorts of people and systematically tortured them to death is nothing short of absurd.

There's plenty of basis for valid debate on whether the US should or should not have dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan in 1945. However, nothing you have mentioned comes close.

[Joe Fields]

61. If japan could have bombed our mainland they would have.

[Hawkowl]

They actually did

There is a record of Japan releasing balloon borne incdinaries into the forests of the Pacific Northwest. One even landed in Oregon.

[ZombieHorde]

3. If you are claiming Japan has asked for an apology, you should provide a link, if you are not

claiming Japan has asked for an apology, your OP is misleading.

[Newest Reality]

4. To me it was not about ending it,

which was a good thing, it is how!

There are many details to argue about it, but the ending was horrific beyond imagination.

Was the first bomb necessary? Was the second? That all depends on how you see the situation and the INTENDED results.

Was Hiroshima Necessary?
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html

[REP]

5. It is not something to feel good about nor endlessly handwring over

I think it's more productive to, as trite and corny as it sounds, try to prevent things from getting to that point again. Embracing Japanese WWII tactics for dealing with prisoners, however, is a lousy way to attempt that.

[LostInAnomie]

9. The Japanese rivaled the Nazis in depraved barbarity.

No apology needed.

[roguevalley]

13. rape of nanking. they rewrote history in their schools. pious

exhortations aside, they haven't stood up for their sins either. No one has learned a damned thing.

[ZombieHorde]

21. The Japanese government is not asking for an apology,

and we did not nuke the people who participated in those atrocities, we nuked people who looked like the people who participated in those atrocities.

[WinkyDink]

27. Interestingly, the Allies never, ever bombed the railroad tracks leading to the death camps.

And the bombing of Dresden has been denounced by many as a war crime.

[jberryhill]

14. And this is relevant to what?

Whatever one's view of the morality of use the atomic bombs, there's a point you don't seem to get.

One (or collectively one's democratic country) is not responsible for the actions of others, only the action taken by oneself.

Your post seems to be a classic "two wrongs make a right" response, unprovoked by anyone asserting a wrong in the first place.

And, since you probably won't understand the above, one can make arguments that dropping the bombs was a good thing, a bad thing, or whatever. But the determination of that outcome is independent of some bad thing that someone else was doing. You have to assess your own position in the context of YOUR morality, not someone else's.

[LargeGreenSpider]

15. Well, let's just nuke 'em again, then

/snark

[proud2BlibKansan]

18. So we needed to murder even more innocent people

What a disgusting OP. Unrec.

[Confusious]

54. I'm sure shooting flowers at the japanese would have won us the war! nt

[Joe Fields]

65. yeah, that's what we were all about...

:think:

[inna]

71. +1000. thanks.

sad that this thread got 17 recs.

[Sherman A1]

19. Given the circumstances as I understand them

I believe Mr. Truman made the correct decision and I believe that I would have done the same.

[LostinVA]

22. Read Iris Chang's "Rape of Nanking"

Plus other more academic works, but that's a good start.

on edit: I believe the second bomb absolutely shouldn't have been dropped.

[thewiseguy]

45. They were not ready to give up the fight even after the second bomb was dropped

In fact they got false information from an American POW that the next city to be nuked was going to be Tokyo and even then they were hesitant to surrender.

I think dropping both bombs was unfortunately necessary.

[LostinVA]

70. I disagree with you 100%

[activa8tr]

23. Next there will be a thread on DU about the attrocities inflicted by the

North in the Civil War.

Geeze people, where does this desire to re-fight the wars stop?

[miyazaki]

51. Pathetic when some justify one extermination atrocity for another.

[LostinVA]

24. Also, read 'Last Train to Hiroshima"

[Pholus]

28. As you SAID, it was the military. So we did that just like we did Iraq.

Hitting a target that had little to do directly with the initial atrocity just to show the world that we shouldn't be messed with.

Up to this point, I had a hard time arguing against Hiroshima -- after all, my father was slated for the invasion's first wave. It was a complex decision for the time.

But you gave me a the beginnings of the counterargument I had been missing....thank you.

It was basically just "we'll shove a boot up your 'butt' cause it's the American way" sentiment then?

[malaise]

32. So how many people did the Brits, French, Spanish et al

kill before WW1 and WW2.
And how many have the Americans killed since WW2.

All imperialists are murderers - spare me the details.

[TexasObserver]

34. Japan was guilty of unspeakable tyrannies for decades before Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The use of those horrific weapons was appalling, but it was likely required. Even with those two attacks, there were top military in Japan who wanted to fight it out in Japan.

The conduct of Japan from 1895 to 1945 was as horrible as any country of that era. The top of that society had to be decapitated, not merely beaten.

Since the end of WWII, the world has avoided the horror of wars such as WWI and WWII largely because of the nuclear deterrent, which could not have existed without Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

[Pholus]

36. The bombs were not revenge for tyrannies, they were to force a timescale for surrender.

We had them on the ropes and it was a matter of time. Take the expert's opinion on that:

"It always appeared to us, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse." - Hap Arnold's Memoirs
"My staff was unanimous in believing that Japan was on the point of collapse and surrender." - Douglas MacArthur

The Japanese military were trying to get the Soviets involved to negotiate a surrender. The Soviets were starting to position for an invasion themselves. The bombs were needed to force a QUICK surrender before that would happen and we would have to share victory.

[TexasObserver]

37. I didn't say they were. You're drawing a conclusion unfounded on my post.

You're free to believe whatever you want, but don't mischaracterize my post as an excuse to say something you want to say. I never said the bombings were intended to punish Japan for their tyrannies. That's a fiction your own mind supplied, for reasons that only you know.

One point of my post was that the those running Japan had lived a lifetime of treating the remainder of the world as their doorstep, that they had been as evil as any group on the planet, and that without the horror of Nagasaki and Hiroshima would not likely have gone quietly. Another point of my post was that whatever the horror, the two bombings ushered in the era of nuclear deterrence, which has saved tens of millions of lives.

[Pholus]

38. Really.... THAT was what you were getting at?

Here, let me fix your subject for you so that it is RELEVANT to what you claim to have been saying:
"The military leadership would never have surrendered without something like the bombs."

See, now your post is titled to match what you claim it's main point was. Clarity in writing is very important. After you've correctly identified what you say you're going to argue, establishing them as BAD PEOPLE (TM) now comes in the body of
the post.

All fixed! :)

And yes, I am free to believe what I want. For the record, I believe fact, not feel-good fiction.

1) The Japanese were seeking negotiations. We didn't like the terms they were offering or the channels they were using. I'm not implying that our rejections were not right.
2) We also knew that the Soviets were now our rivals and we didn't want to do what Patton did and just keep fighting. We needed to show them that success was not assured if they tried to attack.
3) We knew we had the Japanese beat. Operation Coronet was being planned, but it was also clear that it was a contingency rather than the main thrust of our efforts. A good winter would probably have done wonders for ending the war.

BTW You must not have lived through the same cold war I did. Nuclear deterrence was only a political face saving gesture for the original miserable failure in nonproliferation that goes back to the 50's. I recall more than one story coming out after the cold war about how close we were to a hot war at this time or that (sometimes through human error). I also seem to remember the Cuban Missile Crisis in particular as being where several USAF generals were just about ready to get the whole shooting match over with.

Nuclear Deterrence was HARDLY this big wonderful self-fulfilling policy. We were G*dd*mned lucky.

[TexasObserver]

39. I've spent all the time I will this year educating another Japan defender.

Once a year Japan defenders say what you say, and once a year they're wrong.

I suggest you go to college and get a degree in History, as I did, if you want to understand History.

[Pholus]

55. Funny thing -- I was going to major in history too...

but I really wanted a job after college so I chose something more practical. So history remains a hobby.

I don't feel bad about that choice right now.

1) I can recognize the double standard we applied between theatres in WW II regarding the targeting of civilians. I am also aware of the underlying reasons for that double standard.

2) I can properly place the context of the decision to use the atomic bomb in terms of the oncoming cold war.

3) I don't have to selectively answer points made in a debate.

4) I do not expect that an appeal to my credentials wins an argument.

My family fought and some died in the Pacific theatre. I am hardly a defender for the atrocities committed by Japan. I simply recognize that the decision to drop the bomb on Hiroshima had more to it than the feel good stories we hear.

[Confusious]

68. You don't need a degree to understand history

You just need to look at it without the "America (Insert this or that country here) is always evil in every action it takes" glasses on.

[GSLevel9]

35. and Stalin murdered 5-10x that many... why not nuke Moscow? nt

:sarcasm:

[L0oniX]

40. They killed over 9 million Chinese too.

[tabasco]

41. Fuckinay.

Good post.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

42. So you're saying the Japanese had it coming.

[OmahaBlueDog]

43. Japan was far from an innocent victim

http://www.archives.gov/iwg/japanese-war-crimes/

The info at the link is wonky and dry, but it details authoritative source material on Japanese military rape, biological warfare, and mistreatment of prisoners.

[tabasco]

44. Kick.

:kick:

[spanone]

47. is there a history forum?

[PufPuf23]

52. What is relevant is what nations today have the capability and

policy to deploy tactical nuclear weapons and what nation has used nuclear weapons.

The Neo-Liberals and Neo-Cons by policy would use tactical nukes counter to international norms and have used DU extensively in aggressive war based upon lies.

History is history, now is now.

The Genie is out of the bottle, alas.

[thelordofhell]

56. Fuck the Atomic Bombs already

Every year, the same old A-Bomb reaction. And every year I have to point out a lot more Japanese died in the firebombings before we dropped Fat Man and Little Boy. Believe it or not folks, but our conventional bombs did more damage and killed more Japanese than our Atomic weaponry ever did.

[Umbral]

57. Because Hiroshima and Nagasaki are crimes for which 'our' Country is responsible...

sorry if that doesn't fit your meme, but reality sucks shit, sometimes.

[Hawkowl]

79. So do you drive a car?

In the future, when global warming has made large swaths of our planet uninhabitable, you are comfortable with a tribunal passing judgment on your grandchildren because you were an American. An American who used more than 10 times the resources of other earth citizens, and an American who refused to curb their global warming activities. You would be found guilty of crimes against humanity along with your grandchildren.

Do you see the futility of applying future moralities against historical conventionalities?

Or are you as thick skulled as most American conservatives?

[bkozumplik]

58. they bombed pearl harbor

nuff said.

[Pholus]

62. Eisenhower would disagree with you.

"...in 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."

- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380

[Confusious]

67. "It was my belief"

I always see that quote.

Does it escape your notice that Eisenhower was supreme commander in Europe?

He might not have been privy to all that was going on on the other side o the world?

[Umbral]

63. Oh, oh oh, they started it!!! nt

[EFerrari]

66. You've conflated dropping the bomb with ending the war. n/t

[ReeShard]

69. The bomb did end the war

Your revisionist history doesn't fly

[ismnotwasm]

73. And there were massive diplomatic

As well as communication failures on both sides. We were supposed to be the good guys right? Or is the rule a life for a life?

I'm not really arguing though. Ultimately, I see war as a solution as the problem. Engage in enough wars, and we'll see a Hiroshima again. When I think about it, that's part of what got us into the mess we're in right now---Ol' Ms. Rice extending visions of "mushroom" clouds to Americans so ready, so primed to hate.

[time_has_come]

76. Oh, so you know the truth, huh? Where's you get it, wikileaks? Come on...

...you cannot state, as a fact, that the bombs were required to end the war. There is evidence to support the hypothesis that it would have soon ended without it.

As well, were two bombs required? In your opinion, was the second bomb needed to end the war? Or was that the first of thousands of nuclear experiments?

There are piles of evidence that the second bomb was wholly unnecessary.

But hey, let's nobody apologize. Never apologize, no way.

[alarimer]

77. Two wrongs don't make a right.

So our killing thousands of civilians (not military targets) is right? Bullshit. Take your fucking right-wing propaganda elsewhere.

Carpet bombing cities is ALWAYS wrong, no matter who does it, as well.

[david13]

82. Dudes. This war is long since over and done with. Let's move on. dc

[provis99]

84. and the US and USSR killed 100 million or so during the Cold War.

So whats your point?