|
Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Nagoyaguy
Joined: 15 May 2003
Posts: 425
Location: Aichi, Japan
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2007 7:32 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| Yeah, cause the pending Russian involvement had NOTHING to do with the surrender OR the dropping of the atomic bomb. |
I didn't say that. Don't go trying to put words in my mouth. Of course the entry of the Soviets was a factor. However, not the only factor. Just as the use of atomic weapons was a factor, but not the only factor.
But dont believe me. How about believing Hirohito himself? Here is what HE said in his address to the Japanese nation explaining his reasons for surrendering;
| Quote: |
| the enemy has recently used a most cruel explosive. The frequent killing of innocents and the effect of destitution it entails are incalculable. Should we continue fighting in the war, it would cause not only the complete Annihilation of our nation, but also the destruction of the human civilization. |
Nothing about the Soviets as much as about the a-bomb. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Yawarakaijin
Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Posts: 504
Location: Middle of Nagano
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2007 8:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Remember what happened to the Bill Mahr show Politically Incorrect? It got cancelled just because he took issue over the word coward. Called them nut jobs, wackos, freaks, religious zealots, everything in the book. Questioned whether or not they were actually cowards and in "the land of the free and the home of the brave" he was quickly dispatched.
History will be debating far after we are gone about whether or not the A-bombs were justified or not. I don't believe that was the thrust of the thread. Was being canned for his comments justified? I don't believe so. I wish he would have been left in power so that a real honest discussion could have been opened. The same way I wish Mahr had been able to keep his show in order to balance some of the rhetoric of the day.
Was it a case of a country playing the victim card in order to shout down anyone who held a different opinion? Yes. Was it a uniquely Japanese reaction? Hardly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ironopolis
Joined: 01 Apr 2004
Posts: 379
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2007 1:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| User N. Ame wrote: |
By the way, did you know that 20% of those who perished in the Hiroshima blast were Korean slave labourers, most of them forced to work in Imperial Army munitions factories in the area. And at the Peace Park's eternal flame of remembrance, "all" the names of the victims are listed, ie, all Japanese victims. The local Korean community fought for decades for the right to have their family members memorialized, and it wasn't until the 1970's that the local government agreed, but only on the condition that it be a separate memorial, on the far side of the park. It's rather disgraceful. |
Indeed, not many people know this at all. I'm not a bit surprised that there's already been someone on this thread who commented about never having known about this. And it's certainly very clear that the park authorities don't really want people to know.
It's true that it was in 1970 that, after many years of campaigning by Korean groups in Japan, a memorial was finally allowed. However, at that time it was not allowed in the park, it was only at one of the bridges leading into the park. Eventually, about 7 or 8 years ago it was moved into the park itself, but, as User correctly said, it's on the far side, well away from the museum itself and quite easy to miss. Although it's been marked on tourist maps for a few years now, it initially wasn't. I remember being there about 5 years ago and noticing that it was neither signposted, nor marked on some of the maps. Disgraceful is surely a most apt description of this.
| nagoya guy wrote: |
The minister learned that there is one thing you can NEVER EVER do in Japan- attempt to go against the Cult of the Victim that has been carefully nurtured after WW2. You can screw with any other issue- women's rights, the economy, whatever. Just leave the comfy warm feeling of being the innocent target of a nuclear weapon the hell alone! |
I don't agree with the later statement that Japan "deserved" to be nuked, but I think the above is very much nail on head as an answer to the original question.
As well as not being able to go against the cult of the victim, it's also quite a big no-no to suggest that Japan wasn't the sole victim and/or played a role in creating other victims. The above example about the Korean victims illustrates this well, as do a couple of other Hiroshima related examples. The reaction of the peace museum when evidence was discovered of Japan's attempts to make its own atomic bomb - when asked if this would be included in the museum, the answer was that there wasn't enough room!! There was also a city near Hiroshima (Kure, IIRC) who once wanted to set up something like a sister city arrangement with Auschwitz, as it was suggested that Hiroshima & Auschwitz were THE two great war crimes. Some lefty peace group put forward a suggestion that it be a three way arrangement, including Nanking. Surprise, surprise, the plan was quietly dropped. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gaijinalways
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Posts: 2279
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2007 2:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting, I leave for a day and I see 2 whole pages of responses  .
So, it seems to be a 'taboo' opinion to voice that maybe someone decided to end a war more quickly.
Ali, people die in wars, and unfortunately the victims are not always soldiers, sometimes civilians and prisoners.
As tp 9/11 and the atomic bombs being dropped being similar, that is something to think about. Remember, not only Americans died when the World Trade Center (WTC) went down. There was no declared war, and unless you want to name the country where most of the hijackers came from (Saudia Arabia, one of our allies  ), there was no nation involved.
Hmm, now would it be political suicide for a president to say that political foreign policy caused 9/11? I'm not sure, some house representatives and senators have already voiced that opinion, and nothing untoward has happened.
Certainly no resignations were proffered.
But public opinion is a tricky thing.  And this is Japan, where sometimes not towing the line can have consequences. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
guest of Japan
Joined: 28 Feb 2003
Posts: 1601
Location: Japan
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2007 4:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I was surprised by the backlash when I read the story in the English media, but my wife said that the Japanese expression used was "shoganai". I think all of you must agree that the expression "shoganai" when used to discuss the death of hundreds of thousands is a lot more offensive than the English translation, "it couldn't be helped." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
southofreality
Joined: 12 Feb 2007
Posts: 579
Location: Tokyo
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2007 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| guest of Japan wrote: |
| I was surprised by the backlash when I read the story in the English media, but my wife said that the Japanese expression used was "shoganai". I think all of you must agree that the expression "shoganai" when used to discuss the death of hundreds of thousands is a lot more offensive than the English translation, "it couldn't be helped." |
The people outraged by his statements were not outraged because of his choice of words, but by his assertion that the use of the atomic bombs was unavoidable. Kyuma's perceived opinion was that the US had no choice but to use the bombs. He said, after the row began, that what he meant is that from the US point of view, there was no other choice but to use atomic force. This, of course, was still deemed unacceptable by the outraged parties.
To answer the original question about whether Kyuma had to resign or not... who knows? He'd already gotten into hot water earlier this year with his candid statements regarding Bush and whether or not the Iraq invasion was justified. Maybe he was meant to resign. The new minister, Koike is already showing promise. Her appointment will likely boost the flagging image of Abe and the LDP. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mothy
Joined: 01 Feb 2007
Posts: 99
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2007 7:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yawarakaijin wrote: |
Remember what happened to the Bill Mahr show Politically Incorrect? It got cancelled just because he took issue over the word coward. Called them nut jobs, wackos, freaks, religious zealots, everything in the book. Questioned whether or not they were actually cowards and in "the land of the free and the home of the brave" he was quickly dispatched.
History will be debating far after we are gone about whether or not the A-bombs were justified or not. I don't believe that was the thrust of the thread. Was being canned for his comments justified? I don't believe so. I wish he would have been left in power so that a real honest discussion could have been opened. The same way I wish Mahr had been able to keep his show in order to balance some of the rhetoric of the day.
Was it a case of a country playing the victim card in order to shout down anyone who held a different opinion? Yes. Was it a uniquely Japanese reaction? Hardly. |
I think the Bill Maher thing was stupid. I must admit I was pretty hawkish in the year or two following 9/11 but even I thought that he was right to say they weren't cowards and there was nothing wrong with what he said. But something that makes me more understanding about people's attitude about what Maher said is that he said it (if my memory serves me correctly) within a few months of the attack. Most people weren't in the mood for that kind of talk, and so although it was wrong he lost his job over it, I do understand the public outcry, even if I didn't support the outcry.
With Japan it's over 60 years later. Enough time has passed that they should be able to understand that when you go to war you can't expect the other side to pull their punches. Although it's a legitimate debate whether ot not the atom bomb should have been used, or if it should have been used in the way that it was- Americans debate that and they weren't the target of the bomb- to act the victim is silly. Mass civilian death, as horrible as it is, is a chance you take when you go to war.
I hope I made sense. I had a clear idea of what I was going to say when I started typing but at some point my mind started to wander.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gaijinalways
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Posts: 2279
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 12:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I was surprised by the backlash when I read the story in the English media, but my wife said that the Japanese expression used was "shoganai". I think all of you must agree that the expression "shoganai" when used to discuss the death of hundreds of thousands is a lot more offensive than the English translation, "it couldn't be helped." |
I'm not sure it's less offensive, especially when it is often used to mean " I could help you, but you're not important enough to make me do so" or " yes, due to poor planning again we have to do things we shouldn't have had to do, but we can't say that" .
But could it have been helped ? Of course, by not invading the rest of Asia to begin with, duh!
| Quote: |
| Kyuma's perceived opinion was that the US had no choice but to use the bombs. He said, after the row began, that what he meant is that from the US point of view, there was no other choice but to use atomic force. This, of course, was still deemed unacceptable by the outraged parties. |
But again, what is untrue about this statement ? Why is this unacceptable 60 years later when everyone knows that Japan was at war, a war they started ? Victims of history, indeed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Temujin
Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Posts: 90
Location: Osaka
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 1:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mothy wrote: |
| Mass civilian death, as horrible as it is, is a chance you take when you go to war. |
Did the Korean slave labourers take part in that decision to go to war? Or for that matter, did any of the civilian population take part in the decision? All those babies that died must have deserved it for 'taking the chance to go to war'.
The world would be a better place if people stopped assuming that the civilian population of a country are inherently responsible for the actions of their leaders. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shuize
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 1270
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 1:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
I've actually met some Japanese who -- very quietly -- agreed with the use of the atomic bombs. Of course, they were from the south of Kyushu, well removed from Nagasaki but directly in the path of the planned allied invasion.
Given that the military was predicting 1,000,000 allied casualties and that all previous battles had produced a roughly 10:1 casualty ratio between Japanese and allied killed, I've always thought the use of the atomic bombs was an easy call. As unfortunate as it was, the very same effect (minus radiation) was achieved with firebombing raids. In fact, it's not often mentioned in Japan, but more German civilians died during the firebombing of Dresden than Japanese in either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Of course, since all side bombed civilians with conventional weapons, much less is said about that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gaijinalways
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Posts: 2279
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 1:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
shuize posted
| Quote: |
| Of course, since all side bombed civilians with conventional weapons, much less is said about that. |
That's very true, the fire bombing in Tokyo was horrific.
Temujin posted
| Quote: |
| The world would be a better place if people stopped assuming that the civilian population of a country are inherently responsible for the actions of their leaders. |
I don't think anyone is assuming that. What we are assuming is that when a national's country goes to war, no one is safe. That is what a lot of Japanese tend to forget, that if you start a war, someone is going to finnish it. Of course, victory may not go to the side you think is deserving .
Then again, the Americans are relearning this same issue with Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't wonder why some disiilusioned people from the Middle East (or with right wing Middle Eastern values) are attacking American targets or in some cases American allies'. I'm only wondering why it's not happening more .[/b] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
womblingfree
Joined: 04 Mar 2006
Posts: 826
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 12:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Nagoyaguy wrote: |
The minister learned that there is one thing you can NEVER EVER do in Japan- attempt to go against the Cult of the Victim that has been carefully nurtured after WW2....
I hate to say it, but Japan fully deserved to be nuked. Actually, in the long run untold lives were saved on both sides as a result of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. |
The American airforce burned to death 50-90% of the civilian populations in 67 Japanese cities, including burning to death 100,000 men women and children in Tokyo in a single night.
This all happened before the dropping of the atomic bombs, again on civilian targets which had little to no defence.
It was a hugely disproportionate attack at the end of the war and was not proportional to the objectives trying to be achieved. If the US had not won then the architects of these bombings would have hung as war criminals.
Not my words, but the words of Robert McNamara and Curtis LeMay, the men responsible for inititiating the attacks in the first place.
The theory that lives were saved by these nuclear attacks is a fiction that has been harboured since it happened and is no more than conjecture.
What would the invading forces have been up against? A group of the elderly, children and women armed with little more than farming implements.
Britain had a similar rear-guard and I am grateful that Hitler never got around to nuking the UK in order to prevent the onslaught of my infirm great-grandparents and eleven year old Dad with his catapult.
If the enemy commits crimes they are hung. If the victors commit crimes they never happened. How do you define a war crime? After WWII it was generally accepted that it was, "Something they did that we didn't do."
Of course that idiot should have resigned. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shuize
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 1270
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 2:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| womblingfree wrote: |
| The theory that lives were saved by these nuclear attacks is a fiction that has been harboured since it happened and is no more than conjecture. |
As you note, the U.S. Air Force had the capacity to burn whole cities to the ground -- which it did -- and yet that still did not bring an end to the war. Had the atomic bombs not been used, you can be sure more such conventional raids would have taken place.
Whenever I hear people state that the war was almost over or that the atomic bombs didn't save any lives, I want to ask: Then why did Japan not surrender before the bombs were used? Why did it take two atomic bombs to compel surrender? Moreover, do you think Hiroshima, Nagasaki and other cities would have been left standing if the war had dragged on?
It's not well known, but there was an attempt by Japanese military officers to steal the Emperor's surrender message in order to continue fighting. This was after the firebombings and after two atomic bombs had already been used.
| Quote: |
| What would the invading forces have been up against? A group of the elderly, children and women armed with little more than farming implements. |
I beg to differ. If you think an invasion of Kyushu would have been a pushover, read up on the battle for Okinawa and the planned invasions of Kyushu and Honshu.
Okinawa: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Okinawa
Kyushu and Honshu: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall
The second article reports 10,000 kamikaze planes ready for use in the defense of Kyushu. As a reference, approximately 2,000 were used in the battle for Okinawa which lead to the loss of dozens of ships and nearly 10,000 allied casualties at sea. The same article indicates the Japanese plan for the defense of Kyushu would have involved a modified version of the "defense in depth" plans used on Iwo Jima and Okinawa with approximately 900,000 soldiers available there compared to around 77,000 on Okinawa and 22,000 on Iwo Jima. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
womblingfree
Joined: 04 Mar 2006
Posts: 826
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 3:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| shuize wrote: |
| womblingfree wrote: |
| The theory that lives were saved by these nuclear attacks is a fiction that has been harboured since it happened and is no more than conjecture. |
As you note, the U.S. Air Force had the capacity to burn whole cities to the ground -- which it did -- and yet that still did not bring an end to the war. Had the atomic bombs not been used, you can be sure more such conventional raids would have taken place.
Whenever I hear people state that the war was almost over or that the atomic bombs didn't save any lives, I want to ask: Then why did Japan not surrender before the bombs were used? Why did it take two atomic bombs to compel surrender? Moreover, do you think Hiroshima, Nagasaki and other cities would have been left standing if the war had dragged on? |
The targetting and slaughter of innocent civilians to achieve a military objective is a terrorist act and a war crime.
Did it put a quick halt to the war? Of course. Could this have been achieved in a way so as to spare the deliberate targetting of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians? Quite probably, but we'll never know as this path wasn't chosen. Not just in the case of the nuclear bombs, but in the terror bombing of Japanese cities beforehand.
If there were huge military forces building up then why not drop nuclear bombs on them? Why a civilian city? Would you advocate the use of nuclear weapons to bring about a quick resolution to other conflicts? How about Vietnam? Iraq? How about bombing the townships of South Africa to end apartheid?
Would Hitler have been right to have nuked New York and London if he'd had the capability to bring a quick end to the war? Or was its use only justified because it was us doing the bombing?
The fact is that if the full knowledge of nuclear war had been known to those that gave the order, then that order would almost certainly not have been given. This is why it has never been given since.
The question we have to ask ourselves is how much evil must be done to do good? In this case the answer, from those that ordered and carried out the attacks themselves, and also key strategists in Operation Downfall, is too much. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mothy
Joined: 01 Feb 2007
Posts: 99
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 4:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| womblingfree wrote: |
It was a hugely disproportionate attack at the end of the war and was not proportional to the objectives trying to be achieved. If the US had not won then the architects of these bombings would have hung as war criminals.
Not my words, but the words of Robert McNamara and Curtis LeMay, the men responsible for inititiating the attacks in the first place.
The theory that lives were saved by these nuclear attacks is a fiction that has been harboured since it happened and is no more than conjecture.
What would the invading forces have been up against? A group of the elderly, children and women armed with little more than farming implements.
|
It was a disproportionate attack, but it was meant to be that way. It was intended to send the message (to both Japan and the USSR) that fighting was futile because the US had such superior strength. As such it was proportional to the objectives they were trying to achieve. It ended the war. It sent that message. I don't think any other tactic would have done both of those things as effectively- and as shuize (I think) brought up, the fire bombings would have continued until the war ended and there is no reason to doubt that as many civilians would have died in those continued attacks as in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So the real problem is not with the use of the atomic bombs but with the targeting of heavily populated areas, a tactic which for some reason seemed to be accepted at the time as every country that had a bombing fleet bombed cities during the war. The people at that time seemed to view this as an acceptable part of war. Were the Germans who orchestrated the bombings of London tried for their role in that? I'm not sure. If they were there was definately some hypocrisy in the bombs, but if they were not I think it just shows that this tactic was accepted at the time and was not a war crime so there was no double standard.
Of course anything that didn't happen can't be proven but there is enough evidence out there that it is quite reasonable to believe that lives were saved by the war not continuing any further. The ways people would have died if the war continued: Starvation (Many died of starvation after the war too, but even more would have if the war would have continued), the invasion (There would have been an invasion, and based off of the results of the previous island invasions the casualties would have been heavy. The Japanese still had an army that was large enough it could have fought in Japan for some time. Also the civilian population, although not a true threat, had been training to defend the homeland and I'm sure at least some would have fought and died to do so.), continued bombings (that alone would have seen more die than the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki), and also the fighting in other places where Japan still had forces. People forget that the war was still going on in China. Japan still occupied much of China when the war ended. All of these things, although it has to be speculation since it didn't happen, are the most likely events that would have occurred. Hard to imagine that in the combined casualties of the American, Japanese, British, Chinese, Russian, Australian, and all the other nationalities involved, that the deaths wouldn't have exceeded those that were lost in the A-bomb. Opposing the use of civilian targets is a reasonable belief. That a greater amount of lives would not have been lost if the war had continued longer is not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
