|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Mosley
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 7:08 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
One more thing about the Japanese precedent: there was a group of "die-hards" after the main "die-hards." This clique of officers were going to stage a coup and the key objective of their plan was to seize the tape of the Emperor's surrender order before it could be broadcast.
I highly recommend that doubters of the A Bomb decision get a hold of JAPAN'S LONGEST DAY which was produced by Japanese scholars. An illuminating read.
Last edited by Mosley on Sun Jun 17, 2007 7:14 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 7:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Communication around town was not so instantaneous back, gotta remember, let alone a place as remote from Tokyo as Hiroshima. I really don't think this was a factor, though, like I said before. We had two bombs and by golly we were going to drop them. "Course, we always had the choice to drop them on a lot of rice fields, I guess ... |
The US wanted to end the war. There is no evidence that demostrating the bomb would have done the trick. |
The opposite is also true, and the entire point. |
The opposite is not true.
| Quote: |
Blood on Our Hands?
By Nicholas D. Kristof
The New York Times
Tuesday 05 August 2003
Tomorrow will mark the anniversary of one of the most morally contentious events of the 20th century, the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. And after 58 years, there's an emerging consensus: we Americans have blood on our hands.
There has been a chorus here and abroad that the U.S. has little moral standing on the issue of weapons of mass destruction because we were the first to use the atomic bomb. As Nelson Mandela said of Americans in a speech on Jan. 31, "Because they decided to kill innocent people in Japan, who are still suffering from that, who are they now to pretend that they are the policeman of the world?"
The traditional American position, that our intention in dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and then Nagasaki was to end the war early and save lives, has been poked full of holes. Revisionist historians like Gar Alperovitz argue persuasively that Washington believed the bombing militarily unnecessary (except to establish American primacy in the postwar order) because, as the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey put it in 1946, "in all probability" Japan would have surrendered even without the atomic bombs.
Yet this emerging consensus is, I think, profoundly mistaken.
While American scholarship has undercut the U.S. moral position, Japanese historical research has bolstered it. The Japanese scholarship, by historians like Sadao Asada of Doshisha University in Kyoto, notes that Japanese wartime leaders who favored surrender saw their salvation in the atomic bombing. The Japanese military was steadfastly refusing to give up, so the peace faction seized upon the bombing as a new argument to force surrender.
"We of the peace party were assisted by the atomic bomb in our endeavor to end the war," Koichi Kido, one of Emperor Hirohito's closest aides, said later.
Wartime records and memoirs show that the emperor and some of his aides wanted to end the war by summer 1945. But they were vacillating and couldn't prevail over a military that was determined to keep going even if that meant, as a navy official urged at one meeting, "sacrificing 20 million Japanese lives."
The atomic bombings broke this political stalemate and were thus described by Mitsumasa Yonai, the navy minister at the time, as a "gift from heaven."
Without the atomic bombings, Japan would have continued fighting by inertia. This would have meant more firebombing of Japanese cities and a ground invasion, planned for November 1945, of the main Japanese islands. The fighting over the small, sparsely populated islands of Okinawa had killed 14,000 Americans and 200,000 Japanese, and in the main islands the toll would have run into the millions.
"The atomic bomb was a golden opportunity given by heaven for Japan to end the war," Hisatsune Sakomizu, the chief cabinet secretary in 1945, said later.
Some argue that the U.S. could have demonstrated the bomb on an uninhabited island, or could have encouraged surrender by promising that Japan could keep its emperor. Yes, perhaps, and we should have tried. We could also have waited longer before dropping the second bomb, on Nagasaki.
But, sadly, the record suggests that restraint would not have worked. The Japanese military ferociously resisted surrender even after two atomic bombings on major cities, even after Soviet entry into the war, even when it expected another atomic bomb � on Tokyo.
One of the great tales of World War II concerns an American fighter pilot named Marcus McDilda who was shot down on Aug. 8 and brutally interrogated about the atomic bombs. He knew nothing, but under torture he "confessed" that the U.S. had 100 more nuclear weapons and planned to destroy Tokyo "in the next few days." The war minister informed the cabinet of this grim news � but still adamantly opposed surrender. In the aftermath of the atomic bombing, the emperor and peace faction finally insisted on surrender and were able to prevail.
It feels unseemly to defend the vaporizing of two cities, events that are regarded in some quarters as among the most monstrous acts of the 20th century. But we owe it to history to appreciate that the greatest tragedy of Hiroshima was not that so many people were incinerated in an instant, but that in a complex and brutal world, the alternatives were worse. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 7:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| The Japanese view of the Allies is that they were "soft". Not willing to do whatever it took. Blowing up some rice fields or water would have confirmed this view and made them even more determined to fight on. |
Pretty much what I'm talking about, and thanks for chiming in on my side. What I said from the start is that we had to show them that we not only HAD a city-killing weapon, and not just that we could use it, but that we had the will to become such monsters that we actually WOULD.
And we showed them. in the process, of course, we became those very monsters I've been mentioning in asides. (Nogun-ri, Mi Lai, Agent orange, nuns raped in Nicaragua by mercenaries on Reagan's payroll, Abu Ghraib, Falluja - each of these things hurt America, you know, and I'm just here to say that I don't like to see my country in pain. We hurt every day because of these things we made happen..)
And people around the world hate us and want to blow us up. Gee, how amazing that is. 
That last part was sarcasm, you know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| And we showed them. in the process, of course, we became those very monsters I've been mentioning in asides. (Nogun-ri, Mi Lai, Agent orange, nuns raped in Nicaragua by mercenaries on Reagan's payroll, Abu Ghraib, Falluja - each of these things hurt America, you know, and I'm just here to say that I don't like to see my country in pain. We hurt every day because of these things we made happen..) |
The Sandanistas were doing to others what the US did to them.
The US doesn't use more force than others during war
| Quote: |
| And people around the world hate us and want to blow us up. Gee, how amazing that is. |
It is interesting that the mideast street didn't say anything when Saddam gassed the Kurds or when Assad destroyed the city of Hama or when Khomeni killed 30,000 political prisoners in 1988. Come to think of it Osama never got much criticism when he killed muslims in Afghanistan.Northern alliance what relgion are they?
It is also no coincidence that the enemies of the US are the worst violators of human rights anywhere.
Al Qaeda , the Khomeni followers and the Bathists hate the US cause they want to conquer the mideast and need the US to be out of the way |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 7:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mosley wrote: |
One more thing about the Japanese precedent: there was a group of "die-hards" after the main "die-hards." This clique of officers were going to stage a coup and the key objective of their plan was to seize the tape of the Emperor's surrender order before it could be broadcast.
I highly recommend that doubters of the A Bomb decision get a hold of JAPAN'S LONGEST DAY which was produced by Japanese scholars. An illuminating read. |
Woulda, coulda shoulda, isn't it? I have no doubt about your assertions, but I do doubt they mean no other options existed. If they were going to, why didn't they? Even if they had, how does that change the eventual outcome?
1. Did the US need to invade Japan?
2. Wouldn't a blockade and continued bombing of military sites have had the same result, albeit in the longer term?
3. Given Japan is a resource-poor nation, a blockade/sanctions would have driven them back to the 1700's, no? If so, it is on their leadership's shoulders, not ours, no? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mosley
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 7:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The bomb ended the war QUICKLY. It allowed Japanese-held territories to be liberated far more quickly than would have been the case had only conventional weapons and means been employed. Thousands of POWs were saved from death because of the quick end to war-to say nothing of the GIs and Marines who would've been killed taking Japan.
Ask your Korean-man-in-the-street what he thinks of the A Bomb usage. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 8:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mosley wrote: |
The bomb ended the war QUICKLY. It allowed Japanese-held territories to be liberated far more quickly than would have been the case had only conventional weapons and means been employed. Thousands of POWs were saved from death because of the quick end to war-to say nothing of the GIs and Marines who would've been killed taking Japan.
Ask your Korean-man-in-the-street what he thinks of the A Bomb usage. |
Quick is always best, eh? I repeat: for what reason did we *need* to invade and occupy Japan? Also, besides Korea, what areas are you talking about? (I am not expert on what Japan held at the time of surrender.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mosley
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 8:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
EFL:"Quick" was best in this case! Again, look at the quick liberation of much of E. Asia from Japanese tyranny. There's a famous photo of a U.S. bomber(B-17, I think) flying around unmolested over the Diet building. The U.S. had almost total air superiority by '45 but that sure as hell wasn't going to induce the militarists(including the Emperor) into surrendering.
As far as your last question goes: you ARE pulling my leg, right? Besides Korea, there were these still under Japanese control: much of China, Taiwan, Singapore, Malaya, Vietnam, Hong Kong, the Dutch East Indies. I must be forgetting one or two more.
The seven year U.S. occupation turned Japan into a peaceful nation with a democracy. A flawed one but aren't they all? I can't help but think of Churchill's ''dictum" of democracy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The_Conservative
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 9:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Bobster wrote: |
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| The Japanese view of the Allies is that they were "soft". Not willing to do whatever it took. Blowing up some rice fields or water would have confirmed this view and made them even more determined to fight on. |
Pretty much what I'm talking about, and thanks for chiming in on my side. What I said from the start is that we had to show them that we not only HAD a city-killing weapon, and not just that we could use it, but that we had the will to become such monsters that we actually WOULD.
And we showed them. in the process, of course, we became those very monsters I've been mentioning in asides. (Nogun-ri, Mi Lai, Agent orange, nuns raped in Nicaragua by mercenaries on Reagan's payroll, Abu Ghraib, Falluja - each of these things hurt America, you know, and I'm just here to say that I don't like to see my country in pain. We hurt every day because of these things we made happen..)
And people around the world hate us and want to blow us up. Gee, how amazing that is.
That last part was sarcasm, you know. |
We were no more monsters then we were before. It makes no difference whether you are killed by an A-bomb or a bullet.
And it is not because of the A-bomb that people around the world hate us and want to blow us up.
And again, the only alternative was to launch an invasion city by city and in the process kill a LOT more civilians and TRULY become monsters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The_Conservative
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 9:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Communication around town was not so instantaneous back, gotta remember, let alone a place as remote from Tokyo as Hiroshima. I really don't think this was a factor, though, like I said before. We had two bombs and by golly we were going to drop them. "Course, we always had the choice to drop them on a lot of rice fields, I guess ... |
The US wanted to end the war. There is no evidence that demostrating the bomb would have done the trick. |
The opposite is also true, and the entire point. |
Incorrect. In case you forget, we DID do the opposite (we blew up Hiroshima and then asked them to surrender. They refused. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 9:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Communication around town was not so instantaneous back, gotta remember, let alone a place as remote from Tokyo as Hiroshima. I really don't think this was a factor, though, like I said before. We had two bombs and by golly we were going to drop them. "Course, we always had the choice to drop them on a lot of rice fields, I guess ... |
The US wanted to end the war. There is no evidence that demostrating the bomb would have done the trick. |
The opposite is also true, and the entire point. |
Incorrect. In case you forget, we DID do the opposite (we blew up Hiroshima and then asked them to surrender. They refused. |
You are intentionally misconstruing the conversation. Sad. Try again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
contrarian
Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Location: Nearly in NK
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 10:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Before Hiroshima, the Japanese held all of the home Islands except Okinawa. They held all of Korea, large parts of Mongolia (the Russians were rapidly running them out of there), parts of mainland China, Much of Indonesia, Thailand and even Burma, not to metion Viet Nam (Ho chi min was running them out of there.
Stalin even proposed landin troops in Hokkaido after the surrender. MacArthur told them they would have to fight the Marine Corps if he did.
The were at least 25,000 Canadians, who had come from the ETA scheduled to be in the invasion force.
The bomb saved lives rather than costing them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Julius
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 12:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| contrarian wrote: |
Before Hiroshima, the Japanese held all of the home Islands except Okinawa. They held all of Korea,
The bomb saved lives rather than costing them. |
The aftermath also left an interesting side detail: what to do with korean war criminals?
Korean articles like thi take a sympathetic view of these people as victims inducted into brutality by the japanese.
http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/196271.html
I suppose I'm inclined to agree...but is that really true?
When you see that such brutal war criminals were tried and convictied by international court- but- cleared by korean courts later- it seems to be a case of "Koreans can do no wrong" all over..
http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/11/13/korean-war-criminals-cleared/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 1:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| contrarian wrote: |
Before Hiroshima, the Japanese held all of the home Islands except Okinawa. They held all of Korea, large parts of Mongolia (the Russians were rapidly running them out of there), parts of mainland China, Much of Indonesia, Thailand and even Burma, not to metion Viet Nam (Ho chi min was running them out of there.
Stalin even proposed landin troops in Hokkaido after the surrender. MacArthur told them they would have to fight the Marine Corps if he did.
The were at least 25,000 Canadians, who had come from the ETA scheduled to be in the invasion force.
The bomb saved lives rather than costing them. |
Now, that was useful information, assuming it is accurate. It would tilt me a bit more towards using the bomb, but I need more info. After all, the Japanese were in retreat in all theaters according to you. Had the allies called a cease fire, it seems unlikely there would have been a counter-attack of any significance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 1:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| And again, the only alternative was to launch an invasion city by city and in the process kill a LOT more civilians and TRULY become monsters. |
Um, no, you're not listening. There were alternatives to either a ground attack, or two dead radioactive cities. A naval blockade. A single bomb on a sparsely-inhabited area. Wait them out. We had the capability to do that.
Maybe they were considered. They weren't tried. We wanted to send a message to the Russians. They listened. In Korea, the held to the 38th Parallel, at least until their juche-giddy puppet decided elsewise a few years later.
Hey, dude, that's what happened. |
|
| 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
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
