|
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 |
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 7:49 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| ddeubel wrote: |
Ok,
I'll take the bait.
Please answer my question in a practical and factual way.
Why was there any need to invade? (other than the need to control, dominate, subjugate).
There was an option and that was to do nothing. There was no threat to America at all. None whatsoever and even for years and years to come. The place was destroyed.
You guys have bought into all the hysteria and definitely are reading history wrong. What I'm not doubting is that under the climate of the times, most felt that this was the solution - bomb 'em. What I'm arguing is that they were wrong, governed my mass psychosis and hysteria and totally went down an immoral and evil path.
Why was there a need to invade? Where was the threat in Aug. 45?
DD
http://eflclassroom.ning.com |
Well, I guess the "need to invade" resulted from several factors:
1. Wars are an abnormal state of affairs between nations...and most nations would rather be at peace with present or past adversaries than remain at war with them. When nations are at war, it draws scarce resources that might be used for more productive purposes...including lives. When states are legally at war, it means that they acquire for themselves the legal right to kill the combatants of the state they are at war with, and to intern and/or appropriate the property of the citizens they are at war with. The legal state of peace removes that right, and protects your citizens.
2. The Allies were committed to a policy of unconditional surrender as the basic prerequisite for peace with the Axis nations. It was felt that in order to achieve lasting peace, a World War I-style armistice was not enough. It was necessary to reorganize the societies of the Axis in order to prevent future wars. The Allies didn't want to give Germany a third chance, or Japan a second chance, to start a war. And since Japan and Germany have not started any wars since 1945, the historical record demonstrates it was the right decision.
3. Japan was still subjugating allies of the USA and the Allies even as late as August 1945...in particular China, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, and Papua New Guinea. Even if the leaders of the US and UK had simply decided to "stop" fighting, these nations would still be suffering under the occupation and armed agression of Japan.
4. Even if Japan was 'ruined' in 1945, its leaders and most of its population were intent on carrying on the war, and capable of inflicting harm on US soldiers and citizens. Shortly after the USS Indianapolis delivered the Hiroshima bomb to a US airbase in the Marianas, for example, it was sunk by a Japanese submarine with the loss of almost all hands. If the US had simply 'stopped' and not planned to invade Japan, the war would have gone on interminably. I think it's a safe assumption to think that most people on the Allied side wanted the war to be over once and for all.
5. I mentioned above, between 1943 and 1945 as many people were dying in China and Southeast Asia every month as were killed in the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Arguably, this alone justified ending the war by the most prompt methods available.
6. Most leaders and American citizens probably felt in 1945 that 'doing nothing' was not an option. Between September 1939 and December 1941, the US TRIED to 'do nothing'...to avoid getting drawn into the war. 'Doing nothing' is what tempted Japan into attacking Pearl Harbor in the first place.
7. After all the aggression and atrocities committed by Japan prior to 1945, it's probably a safe bet to assume that the average American felt no obligation to Japan or its citizens NOT to use the bomb to end the war. They probably felt that if the average Japanese felt perfectly entitled to invade, attack, rape and plunder its neighbors and citizens of neighboring nations for so long, why shouldn't Americans assume they have the right to drop the bomb on Japan to end the war. They probably felt that they had no need or moral obligation to be any more humanitarian towards the Japanese than the Japanese had been towards their neighbors. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 10:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| T-J wrote: |
I think control dominate and most importantly subjugate were very real goals in 1945. Remember in 1945 it had only been 27 years since the horrors of WWI supposedly put an end once and for all to such horrific carnage brought about by nations bent on domination.
I think the powers of the time had the short 15 year peace in mind and were not about to let a wounded animal crawl back in its cave to lick its wounds and regain its strength.
This whole discussion is interesting in a Monday morning quarterback sort of way, but it really cannot be taken as a serious discussion until you accept that the world was a different place and the psyche of those making the decisions at the time were effected by the world they lived in.
It is easy to say that the taking of life is wrong, but when you really believe that it is your life and more importantly the lives of those that you are charged with defending and protecting on the line, your decision is not as black and white as it is sitting behind your computer. |
Very well put. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Milwaukiedave
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Location: Goseong
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
I've been hesitant to post in this thread with the exception of what I said early on. Before I continue, let me be clear I'm not someone who thinks going to war with another country is a good thing (I have been against the war in Iraq since it began, but that's a different topic). Given the fact what we are talking about happened long before I was born, I have no power to change that, only to make sure it doesn't happen again.
I agree with the majority of what both Kuros and Maninthemiddle has said, so I won't repeat what they said more eloquently then I could. Probably one of the subjects I've read about the most in my life is about the atomic bombings during WWII due to a close family connection.
My feeling is that a full scale invasion of Japan would have lead to many more US and Japanese deaths then the bombing of Hiroshima. Some seem to think this invasion was created to justify the bombings. That is not true. There was a very real fear that the bomb may not detonate and that nothing would happen or that the Japanese would not surrender and an invasion would still be necessary.
The other thing that kind of bugs me is that the people who are horrified by the bombings seem to forget not only was the US was attacked first by Japan, but they also invaded and occupied several countries including Korea. Can you justify any bombing no matter what the death toll is? Can you justify invading and taking over a county?
Sure it is easy to just sit there and say, "what if?" (I believe someone else referred to it was revisionism), but the one truth is that we can't go back and change what happened 60+ years ago. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NAVFC
Joined: 10 May 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 1:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ddeubel wrote: |
Ok,
I'll take the bait.
Please answer my question in a practical and factual way.
Why was there any need to invade? (other than the need to control, dominate, subjugate).
There was an option and that was to do nothing. There was no threat to America at all. None whatsoever and even for years and years to come. The place was destroyed.
You guys have bought into all the hysteria and definitely are reading history wrong. What I'm not doubting is that under the climate of the times, most felt that this was the solution - bomb 'em. What I'm arguing is that they were wrong, governed my mass psychosis and hysteria and totally went down an immoral and evil path.
Why was there a need to invade? Where was the threat in Aug. 45?
DD
http://eflclassroom.ning.com |
Yes there was a need to invade. If Japan wasnt going to surrender, the only way to hold its government accountable would have been an invasion. While Japans Navy was in shambles, it brought the remainder of its air power and army back to the mainland anticipating an invasion.
An Invasion would have been necessary to end the war and thus with the defeated Japanese, begin enforcing the restrictions and sanctions to be placed upon them after the war. Without the invasion all youd have been doing is letting them re constitute their war machine. It was war. The Japanese were going to fight until the war was over one way or another.
You obviously are using wishful thinking if you beleive that if we just would have all of the sudden halted hostilities, no bombing or invasion that Japan would have simply stopped. They would consider such tatamount to giving up, and such was NOT in Japans code of honor or mentality during the time.
They were going to fight until the war was over and one side had achieved complete victory. The only way for complete victory is to destroy your enemy or make them say uncle. So the choices were clear, Invasion (4 million plus civilians dead) or use the bombs and force a surrender (220,000 killed)
strategically, andpsychologically some action had to be taken,
Like I said, you are completely ignoring the Japanese mentality during world war 2. It wasnt "gee, were getting our ass kicked in this war, we better quit"
Letters of Iwo Jima would be a good watch for you to understand this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 1:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ddeubel,
Actually I haven't posted much on this topic because, quite frankly, I think the level of discourse has been a little juvenile there. I can appreciate it if you feel that some of the other posters on that thread have been very rude to you and to each other, to say the least.
You and I have chatted about a couple of other topics on other threads, and I've always appreciated that our conversations have been civil and considerate. I realize that our opinions on this topic differ, but I respect your opinion, and I hope I'm not coming across as going out of my way to attack you or anything.
I think a LOT more civility on this thread is in order, folks.
Just my $0.02,
MOS
| ddeubel wrote: |
| What I'm arguing is that they were wrong, governed my mass psychosis and hysteria and totally went down an immoral and evil path. |
Hmm...maybe I should have looked at this a little more closely before posting.
... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ManintheMiddle
Joined: 20 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 1:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
mises conjectured:
| Quote: |
| That many civilians should not have been killed. Not in the Tokyo raids, not with the h-bombs. It is morally unacceptable, even in war. |
I see. So when does counting beads of dead on your abacus enter into the realm of the morally indefensible? 
| Quote: |
| But I'm not a hippie. |
Uh, hate to break the news to ya, bruddah, but you sound like one of those slippa wearers.
| Quote: |
| Victory can mean many different things. |
Only to a po-mo armchair historian.
Adventurer advanced the notion:
| Quote: |
| The US could have negotiated with the emperor to stop its hostilities and to choose not to invade Japan, but the U.S. wanted to subjugate Japan. |
Ya know, bruddah, usually you're in the ball park but this time you're not even in the city where the ball park is located.
The Americans did attempt to negotiate with the emperor on many occasions and MacArthur was strongly in favor of keeping him in power in order to assuage the feelings of the Japanese people--something many top brass were not inclined to do. But the war cabinet tried to undermine these overtures at every turn, something which is well documented. Our primary concern in invading Japan was to pacify it so that it would never be a threat again in the region. That was a very understandable objective and one which the Asian victims of Japanese oppression accepted without hesitation. Indeed, had it been left to them, more would have gone on trial including the emperor himself. Hirohito was also culpable earlier on in the process of getting his people on a war footing, which is also well documented.
Kuros noted of ddeubel's most recent comments:
| Quote: |
| The US could have negotiated with the emperor to stop its hostilities and to choose not to invade Japan, but the U.S. wanted to subjugate Japan. |
Oh, I'd say the irony is lost on him. He muses in the pristine stratospheric atmosphere of idealism, which is never earthbound.
It is truly a double-standard of bereavement is that the Japanese to this day lament the bombing of Hiroshima but have nothing at all to say about the single most devastated city of the entire war, Manila, which was the victim of a scorched earth policy in January, 1945 as the Japanese Army retreated into the hills of Luzon.
ddeubel fantasized:
| Quote: |
Why was there any need to invade? (other than the need to control, dominate, subjugate).
There was an option and that was to do nothing. There was no threat to America at all. None whatsoever and even for years and years to come. The place was destroyed.
You guys have bought into all the hysteria and definitely are reading history wrong. What I'm not doubting is that under the climate of the times, most felt that this was the solution - bomb 'em. What I'm arguing is that they were wrong, governed my mass psychosis and hysteria and totally went down an immoral and evil path.
Why was there a need to invade? Where was the threat in Aug. 45? |
Your ignorance on this subject is exceeded only by your gall. Do you really believe half the things you write? So now the military and civilian leadership of the U.S. was psychotic and just waiting for Arthur Miller to write a play about it, eh?  
Yes, Herr Deubelmeister, we have all bought into the Big Lie that ended the war. We're all willing dupes, useful idiots, as it were. Contrary to what you imagine, the war cabinet and its military allies were still firmly in command in the period of time in which Operation Coronet was being planned. Moreover, the Allies had determined long before that they would expect unconditional surrender from the Japanese and all that entailed. As it was, Truman agreed to let them keep their beloved but heavily implicated emperor and in governing Japan after the war the U.S. sunk billions of aid into helping them create what was to become the first sustainable democracy in Asia outside of India. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
T-J
Joined: 10 Oct 2008
Location: Seoul EunpyungGu Yeonsinnae
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 8:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ddeubel wrote: |
Ok,
I'll take the bait.
Please answer my question in a practical and factual way.
Why was there any need to invade? (other than the need to control, dominate, subjugate).
|
Japanese soldiers who surrendered after the end of World War II:
Sakae Ōba, did not surrender on Saipan until December 1, 1945, three months after the war ended.
1950s:
Yūichi Akatsu remained on Lubang Island from 1944 until surrendering in 1951 in the Philippine village of Looc.
Shōichi Shimada, who continued to fight on Lubang Island, was killed in a clash with Philippine soldiers in 1954.
1960s:
Private Bunzō Minagawa held out from 1944 until May 1960 on Guam.
Sergeant Tadashi Itō, Minagawa's commanding officer, surrendered days later, May 23, 1960 on Guam.
1970s:
Shōichi Yokoi, who served under Ito, was captured on Guam in January 1972.
Kinshichi Kozuka, who held out with Onoda for 28 years until he was killed in a gunbattle with Philippine soldiers in 1972.
Hiroo Onoda, who held out from 1944 until 1974 on Lubang Island in the Philippines with Akatsu, Shimada and Kozuka, surrendered to his former commanding officer in March 1974.
Teruo Nakamura was discovered by the Indonesian Air Force on Morotai Island, and surrendered to a search patrol on December 18, 1974
These people were in no way going to surrender without a dramatic show of superior strength. The atomic bomb destroyed all hope of resistance and saved Japanese as well as Allied lives.
The most humane thing to do when in a war is to end the war as quickly as possible, to end the suffering of those that are in war zones and to start a rebuilding process. Had we stopped our advance, as some have suggested, how many lives would have been lost to starvation and disease as the U.S. Navy waited off the coast of Japan? How many more POWs would have died in camps throughout Korea and China?
The lives of those that were lost in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are mourned by all, but to call into question the morality of the bombings is naive at best. Period end of discussion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jandar
Joined: 11 Jun 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 6:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So anyway in the spirit of the OP.
I want to ask the question:
"In the event of a nuclear strike against Tehran, how can the world avoid the political fallout that would result?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The US ought to invest in another weapon system - one w/o any fallout.
Deterence works but nuclear weapons because of problems like fall out aren't a very good form of deterence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
T-J
Joined: 10 Oct 2008
Location: Seoul EunpyungGu Yeonsinnae
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 7:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jandar wrote: |
So anyway in the spirit of the OP.
I want to ask the question:
"In the event of a nuclear strike against Tehran, how can the world avoid the political fallout that would result?" |
There is no avoiding it, as it already happened.
It has been what it is since 1948 with the foundation of an Israeli state, and exemplified in '72, '79, '83, '93, and '01 by some of the more notable terrorist attacks.
Pres. Bush's much maligned "with us or against us" line wasn't a new stance. It was stating the stance of those that have stood against the U.S. and its allies for decades. Unfortunately there are many that do not acknowledge the reality that there are very bad people in leadership positions in some countries that have a fundamental hatred for us, and want to see the "great satan" destroyed.
So your question was how do we avoid the fallout? We have already been at war with these people for sixty years, what fallout? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
postfundie
Joined: 28 May 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 11:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
There was an option and that was to do nothing. There was no threat to America at all. None whatsoever and even for years and years to come. The place was destroyed.
You guys have bought into all the hysteria and definitely are reading history wrong. What I'm not doubting is that under the climate of the times, most felt that this was the solution - bomb 'em. What I'm arguing is that they were wrong, governed my mass psychosis and hysteria and totally went down an immoral and evil path.
Why was there a need to invade? Where was the threat in Aug. 45?
|
where was the threat in Aug 45? Are you aware of how much killing the Japanese did when they retreated. In Aug 45 they still Occupied China and S. Korea. You would think they would have surrendered after the first bomb but the fact that it took two should tell you something. Why not just leave Hirohito in Power? I'm sure Truman ahd Germany after the first world war in mind. Better to end it and end it for all then to have to face another war. It hurts to see the pictures and to visit Hiroshima (especially pictures of children who were killed). War is evil but better to have the enemy totally defeated and to be so sick of war that they'd never think of it again then to have the whole thing start again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
asylum seeker
Joined: 22 Jul 2007
Location: On your computer screen.
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 8:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jandar wrote: |
So anyway in the spirit of the OP.
I want to ask the question:
"In the event of a nuclear strike against Tehran, how can the world avoid the political fallout that would result?" |
Well if it was the W. Bush administration they would just do it and ask questions later.
However, I can't see an Obama administration nuking Iran unless Iran struck first in some way and if Irann did strike first then there would be unlikely to be any 'political fallout' as it would be completely justified. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2010 4:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Obama evades Hiroshima
| Quote: |
| U.S. and Japanese leaders could emulate the success of Verdun by visiting a site of joint suffering -- for example, one of the Pacific islands where so many young men perished during the bloody "island-hopping" campaign. Such an event would remember the war as one in which soldiers of both countries fought valiantly and suffered terribly, providing a unifying focal point and reinvigoration of the two countries' shared commitment to peace. |
But Clint Eastwood already made that movie: Toilet Paper (手纸) from Iwo Jima.
In all seriousness, I was wondering if opponents of the Hiroshima bombing (aka proponents of 100 Tarawas) had anything new to say on this old subject. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rollo
Joined: 10 May 2006
Location: China
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 8:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I believe something like 100,ooo civilians a month were dying in japanese occupied China and other territories. There had been killing of pows in camps in 1945. Some British troops were marched into the jungle and shot in Malaya.many felt it was important to end the war as soon as possible in order to save the men in captivity U.S. pows had been drenched in gasoline and set afire.. th rape of Nanjing and attocities in Manilla, led many to believe that if japan were to be invaded. shanghai and other Chinese cities would be victimized in a similar fashion. . There were no talks going on with the Japanese about surrender. the invasion would have been horrific. A civillian population trapped between two huge armies fighting to the death. I dont think the bomb would have been used in the way it was used if the effects of the radiation were really understood by the Truman administration. Oppenheimer and other scientists were strong advocates for using the bomb. Terrible terrible thing. It ended a terrible war. Probably saved a lot of lives. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 12:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here's an article.
It was only after the war that the American public learned about Japan's efforts to bring the conflict to an end. Chicago Tribune reporter Walter Trohan, for example, was obliged by wartime censorship to withhold for seven months one of the most important stories of the war.
In an article that finally appeared August 19, 1945, on the front pages of the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald, Trohan revealed that on January 20, 1945, two days prior to his departure for the Yalta meeting with Stalin and Churchill, President Roosevelt received a 40-page memorandum from General Douglas MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from high-level Japanese officials. (The complete text of Trohan's article is in the Winter 1985-86 Journal, pp. 508-512.)
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html
I know nothing about this topic, though. |
|
| 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
