...
-
Last edited by Bobwirtz; 01-18-2007, 08:35 PM. -
As much as wikipedia is a "good" site to use, the problem is that it is not considered an "authoritarian web site", because anyone can edit and change details. Information aquired from that site would not hold weight in a report. You need books because they go through an extensive editing process.Originally posted by helsel,j
Web sites are risky, but if the site checks out, go for it!
Comment
-
Hiroshima - Her Fate Was Sealed Dec 7
The dropping of the atomic bomb is a very controversial subject to our younger generation. What was right on that August day in 1945 is now consider wrong today.
In my opinion: It was the best and right decision at that time and moment in history.
I can offer a different prespective and a simple reason for dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima.
This is my point of view from an Asian from the 1950's generation.....................It saved the lives of ALLIED SOLDIER'S, POW's and CIVILIANS from the occupied lands of Imperial Japan.
Remember, Imperial Japan still occupied all or part of China, Hong Kong, IndoChina(Viet Nam, Burma, Laos), Indonesia, Korea, Malaya, Phiippine Islands, Singapore and ect.
How many of these civiilans and non-combatants from occupied countries were being tortured, suffering or starved to death; all while Imperial Japan talks for a more favorable peace or United States decide to drop the atomic bomb.
What would the feelings of Allied nations under occupation - if United States had a weapon to end the war, but did nothing......????
What happened to the Chinese civilian's in Nanking or after the Doolittle's Raiders left.....????
What happened to the Phiippine civilians before and during the libertion of Manilla.....????
Remember, Imperial Japan has been at war and occupied parts of China, since 1932. Biological and chemical warfare were being done on POW's and civilians in Harbin, China. Japan was creating their own Hitler's Ostland in Northern China.
Discussions or peace talks with Imperial Japan for a more favorable agreement is neither a surrender nor a truce.
Do we forget the Korean War and Vietnam War peace talks which lasted for years.
We have talked about the invasion of Japan(Operation Olympia) and Allied POWS. There is no question about a soldier's fate in war. The longer the war last - he is living on borrowed time.
My opinion is formulated because, my father was a infantryman with the 75th Divison fighting in Europe. He lacked a few points for the GI's point system to return back home to the States. He would of been reassigned to another Division and earmarked for the invasion of Japan.
My Mother and Grandmother survived the Japanese occupation in Hong Kong, Canton and later Southeast China. After the Dec 7, Pearl Harbor attack, Imperial Japanese forces quickly overran British Colonial forces protecting Hong Kong and eventually the entire region. The homes and villiages of civilans were looted, plundered and young girls kidnapped. That is one reason my mother at 9 years old had her hair cut short and dressed like a boy. The Chinese people were allowed the barest amount of food for survival. Most of the villiage crops were for Imperial Japanese troops and Manchu forces or shipped back to Japan. The occupation of China by Japan was brutal and well photograph - but not often seen in the West. There is nothing more brutal than the use of a sword or bayonet. This was not the quick death by beheading too.......!!!!
At 92, my grandmother has no regrets for dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. The only regret is China was not able to occupy Japan, after the war.
Wayne
.Comment
-
I had forgotten to check back to this site.
Several things to consider regarding the use of the atomic bomb:
1.) Estimated casualties of Army, Naval, Marine, and Air Corps personnel was 1,000,000.
2.) Japan had readied thousands of Kaitens (Manned torpedoes)..and while they had only suceeded in destroying 1 ship (USS Underhill, a destroyer escort), that is not to say that more would not have suffered.
3.) Japan had several squadrons of Raiden fighters, which were EXCELLENT fighters, and while many pilots were not experienced, Japanese ace Saburo Sakai felt that it could have done a LOT of damage to bomber fleets with even moderately skilled pilots.
4.) Japan is a very community-based nation, and the Samurai code indicates that death is honorable. This goes for women and children fighting as well.
My opinion of the National Air and Space Museum / Smithsonian is not a pleasant one. I was there when they had their beloved "Atomic Bomb" exhibit, and it was a disservice to the vets. The bombs killed around 300,000 direct and 250-400,000 indirect (cancer, sterilization).....but it saved at LEAST 1,000,000 people and brought the war to end much more rapidly. It was horrible....but so were the images of the Rape of Nanking, the Bataan Death March, the MILLIONS of photos out there of dead or dying soldiers. War is hell...suck it up and quit trying to tell me that nuking 300,000 people instantly is any more humane than burning 75,000 people alive per night in fire bombings would be a better option. Last point: Don't tell me that Hirohito or Hitler would have sat on such a weapon without using it.
JonComment
-
Operation DOWNFALL was the planned invasion of Japan in 1945, comprised of Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet. The estimated casualties of 1,000,000 were put to Truman by both the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary for War Stimson. These conflict with the estimate projected by Nimitz's staff of 49,000 and the 105,000 of MacArthur's. The 1M casualty figure was espoused by those in favour of 'dropping the bomb' and has no basis in fact or for consideration of the total personnel projected to participate in both Olympic and Coronet.Originally posted by ChaserComment
-
But when you think about it...every man, woman, and child has a potential threat. 100,000 seems low when you think about the Raiden fighters (limited) in the skies, the kaitens (not so limited...) in the waters, the guns, and the fact that the Japanese were willing to fight and die as long as they took at least one GI with them.
JonComment
-
-
I completely agree. There are many variables, and factors far beyond anything we could understand without being there. Furthermore, I do not believe Truman was excited at the concept, nor do I believe that many took delight in such horrors.
I will not say I am happy about the results of the bomb, but I believe that it saved many American lives, and I also believe that it was used in the only manner that would effectively induce a Japanese surrender. Right or wrong, it is history and deserves to be preserved in a fair light.
JonComment
-
The bomb.
I do agree that the use of the two boms did induce a Japanese surrender , leaving little choice - the war fraction was defeated.
Without the use of the Atomic weapon the war would probably have gone on and an invasion would have been costly in lives for all concerned.
Who would want to have been first on the beach ? ( Not me for sure ).
Some aspects of the use of the bomb do cause me some concerns.
The ending of the war with Japan was a must but there were other considerations in play as well.
The Russians - the start of the cold war - "letting them know what we have and what it can do" , in fact " being sure we know what it can do" was a possible incentive to use it.
The two targerts had recieved little attention from the USAF and the wide area allowed for maxium efect of the blast.
Just what it would actually mean to those under it - no one really knew .
It was the ultimate lesson for mankind , we must never use this again.
Will some nut do this in the future - lets pray it never happens - the potential is frighteningly real.
The Japanese were trying to get out of the war - the Russians knew this and we knew it as well.
The Russians closed the door wanting to grab what they could , declaring war on Japan ( as had already been asked of them) , if there was the chance of a land grab Stalin was never one to miss out.
Could the Japanese been talked into surrender if they could have retained the Emperor ?
Time in war means lives - talking would have cost lives.
The bomb was it right to use it - I am 50 /50 on it certainly to end the war quickly .
As far as any other considerations go ?
In the end Stalin had the last laugh - he knew everything about the bomb.
Stings song " I hope the Russiand love their children too" is apowerful modren message about the use of " the bomb".
Unfortunately we hold the seeds of our own destruction in so many ways and as species we are so short sighted.
Did it save lives - yes but the cost - its still being paid for by the surivors.
A terrible decision to have to make - hindsgight makes the issue no clearer and even more complicated knowing what the full potential of the weapon was.
There can be no justification for their use and those who would seek to do so in a terrorist situation or otherwise deserve our deep and utter contempt.Comment
-
I say do it! It ended the war and (before it could unfold) the eventual stalemate in the South Pacific.Comment
-
Although surrender with conditions is not necessarily an option, and while some may have surrendered, others would still want to fight. I don't play the "purist" motivation, but I do believe that the benefits greatly outweighed the risks.....and the cost was worth it.
JonComment
-
Stalemate.
Japan was beaten there was no stalemate only the question of what the invasion of the Japanese mainland would mean .
The potential for holdouts did exist but the Emperor addressing the nation and ordering surrender killed it.
Would a similar situation have come about had the bombs not been dropped ?
Internally Japan was divided , there was a growing will that the war should be ended , time would mean lives.
A terrible weapon but perhaps using it was right.
We make our judgements 60 years on with the wisdom of knowing most of the facts and divorced from the prospect of invading on a scale which would have dwarfed D-Day.
The bombing raids on Japan did kill more and produced a situation in which defeat was clear to all.
To have a terrible weapon and to use it to end a war when continuing means the certain loss of life amongest your own people - the real consequences of the bomb much was ignorance at the time.
"I have become the destroyer of worlds" ...so very true.Comment
-
IMHO, the 1,000,000 casualty figure remains a fantasy. This figure was an estimate provided by the 'Los Angeles Times' and has no grounding in fact, again, I point to the field commanders 'on the ground' so to speak, Nimitz expected 49,000 casualties in the first 30 days and MacArthur estimated 105,000 in the first 120 days. Surely these individuals had a better understanding of the enorminty of the task than us 'revisionist' historians?!!Comment
Comment