Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hiroshima, Nagasaki And Christian Morality
The Post Chronicle ^ | 08\10\2005 | Patrick J Buchanan

Posted on 08/10/2005 5:15:47 AM PDT by RepublicNewbie

On the 40th, 50th and 60th anniversaries of D-Day, Presidents Reagan, Clinton and George W. Bush traveled to Normandy to lead us in tribute to the bravery of the Greatest Generation of Americans, who had liberated Europe. Always a deeply moving occasion.

The 40th, 50th and 60th anniversaries of the dropping of the atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, however, were not times of celebration or warm remembrance. Angry arguments for and against the dropping of the bombs roil the airwaves and fill the press.

(Excerpt) Read more at postchronicle.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: buchanan; patbuchanan
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last
Vintage Buchanan
1 posted on 08/10/2005 5:15:48 AM PDT by RepublicNewbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: RepublicNewbie

Well, I tend to celebrate the anniversary of the atomic bombing of Japan. Dad was in the Marines, and was scheduled to be in the first assualt wave..........


2 posted on 08/10/2005 5:29:30 AM PDT by G-Bear (My liver is EVIL, and I must PUNISH it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RepublicNewbie

Buchanan is a jerk.


3 posted on 08/10/2005 5:39:06 AM PDT by Alex Marko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RepublicNewbie
Belated Happy Hiroshima and Nagasaki Day!
4 posted on 08/10/2005 5:48:51 AM PDT by Dallas59 (“You love life, while we love death.” - Al-Qaeda / Democratic Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RepublicNewbie
"Thousands of U.S. soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Japanese who would have perished in an invasion of Japan survived, as did Allied POWs who might have been executed on the orders of Japanese commanders when we landed."

I don’t believe Buckhannon’s unaware that estimates of US casualties were above a million, not "thousands", and the Japanese were estimated to suffer multi-millions of dead.

I don’t believe Buckhannon thinks Japanese fanaticism could be surrounded into submission.

I don’t believe that a Buckhannon can’t differentiate between targeting civilians and responding to the total war in kind but in a scale to end it.

This is just more noise from a tragic fool trying to get himself noticed and find a new base. This is part of the common foundation between the far left communists and KOOK right protectionists alliance that Rush spoke of 6 months ago.

5 posted on 08/10/2005 6:03:05 AM PDT by elfman2 (This space is intentionally left blank)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RepublicNewbie
This is the first Buchanan column I have ever read in it's entirety, and also my last.
You stink, Pat.
One-upsmanship in the force continuum in self defense is absolutely justifiable.
They used bombs, we used bigger bombs.
They were prepared to fight to the last man.
We were obligated to demonstrate we were prepared to kill to the last man.
Pat has now joined the ranks of the hate America first crowd, far as I'm concerned.
What an ass.
6 posted on 08/10/2005 6:20:06 AM PDT by Manic_Episode (OUT OF ORDER)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Manic_Episode

Pat Buchanan is echoing the sentiments of Douglas MacArthur and Dwight Eisenhower. Were they part of the "hate America first" crowd?


7 posted on 08/10/2005 6:42:40 AM PDT by Alberta's Child (I ain't got a dime, but what I got is mine. I ain't rich, but Lord I'm free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RepublicNewbie

Pat stirring the pot, as always. Intellectual arguments are all very well -- if we'd isolated the main island of Japan, she'd have withered on the vine eventually -- but don't most pundits agree that in the long run, blockades don't work? And what about the atom bomb Japan was developing, herself? They'd have used it against us in a nanno-second.


8 posted on 08/10/2005 6:48:35 AM PDT by hershey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it.

-Gen Lee

9 posted on 08/10/2005 6:54:58 AM PDT by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RepublicNewbie
I will give Buchanan credit for mentioning Dresden.

If we are to condemn the atomic bombing of these two towns, then we must also condemn the bombings of Hamburg, Dresden, and Tokyo (B-29 raid raid on Tokyo with incendiary bombs for paper houses).

The Doolittle raid on Tokyo (with little impact except for morale) resulted in over 200,000 Chinese being killed in retaliation for that raid by the Japanese in 1942.

There was an article I read last week that the US intended to use at least 9 atomic bombs as part of an invasion. Three bombs for each invasion area, with one bomb to "soften" the landing area, one bomb dropped behind the landing area, and a third bomb to nuke reinforcements.

Buchanan is flat wrong that Japan could not defend itself -- there were about 10,000 Kamikaze planes ready for the invasion, and Japan was constantly building more.

US Navy losses off Okinawa were horrific in World War II. The invasion of Japan would have made the losses to the US Navy at Okinawa pale by comparison

I guess if we only lost 5 battleship, 20 aircraft carriers, 30 cruisers, and a 100 destroyers in the invasion of Japan, then maybe Buchanan would see a different light. (These figures are extreme, but well within ball park figures of what could have happend.)

And in case you don't realize it, today we don't have 20 aircraft carriers to lose in a single battle.

The figures that the Truman administration estimated were 500,000 Allied soldiers killed and over 2 million Japanese soldiers if Japan was invaded. There was also fighting going on in the Philippines, and people dying in Japanese death camps.

Finally, even when the Japanese War Council met to discuss surrender after the atomic bombings, the War Council was deadlocked -- it was the Emperor's vote that broke the deadlock. In the next 24 hours, there were several military attempts on the Emperor's life. Japan's warlords were not that willing to surrender even after getting NUKED a couple of times.

So Buchanan is off in the weeds with some of his analysis and commentary.

10 posted on 08/10/2005 6:55:07 AM PDT by topher (God bless our troops and protect them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RepublicNewbie
But were the means used -- the destruction in seconds of two cities, inflicting instant death on 120,000 men, women and children, and an agonizing death from burns and radiation on scores of thousands more -- moral?

Probably not. I see it as the lesser of two evils. Christians are supposed to line up and march through the gates to their symbolic ovens like the Jews did for centuries until they wised up and decided they weren't going to take it any more and started fighting back.

The guy writing this piece probably wouldn't be writing this stuff if we had lost. First he would have had to learn Japanese or German, and would only be able to write nice things about their conquerors who ruled over them.

I've said on other threads like this, I got my father back about three years before expected. My youngest years were fatherless. I'm grateful that mine came back and turned out to be a wonderful father.

How my heart goes out to people in our society who don't have anything but sperm donors for fathers, some of whom are family members. They don't know any better, but it has to affect them.

11 posted on 08/10/2005 7:01:52 AM PDT by Aliska
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aliska

When Operation Coronet was planned, it was assumed that the Japanese had four divisions on southern Honshu. We would go in with six. After Okinawa, where my cousin Dicky O'Brian (marine) was killed it was learned that they actually had eight.
Buchanan had a relative killed at Aushwitz....He fell out of a guard tower.


12 posted on 08/10/2005 7:09:19 AM PDT by massgopguy (massgopguy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Those guys didn't have 60 years to reflect. I can excuse those who were profoundly close to the horror.


13 posted on 08/10/2005 7:23:49 AM PDT by Manic_Episode (OUT OF ORDER)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: massgopguy
He fell out of a guard tower.

If I had been there and known what I now know and had access to the proper weapon, I would have felt morally bound to shoot him with no moral qualms whatsoever, if only I had the courage to do so, which is an unknown. Hopefully I would have been single with no dependents to leave behind when they cornered me in the woods and shot me.

Pat Buchanan reeks anti-semitism at times. Must run in families for generations. That's why I don't read his drivel as a general rule.

14 posted on 08/10/2005 7:29:27 AM PDT by Aliska
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Manic_Episode
Those guys didn't have 60 years to reflect.

That point isn't relevant to Buchanan's article. He's looking at the issue in the context of Christian principles, which don't change over time. If something was objectively "wrong" in 1945, then it would be objectively "wrong" today (and vice versa).

15 posted on 08/10/2005 7:33:23 AM PDT by Alberta's Child (I ain't got a dime, but what I got is mine. I ain't rich, but Lord I'm free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: topher

There have been a number of comments over the years by military people who suggested that an invasion of Japan was absolutely unnecessary for the U.S. to win the war. As an island nation with few natural resources, the country could not possibly have sustained a major military force for very long.


16 posted on 08/10/2005 7:37:48 AM PDT by Alberta's Child (I ain't got a dime, but what I got is mine. I ain't rich, but Lord I'm free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Manic_Episode
Pat has now joined the ranks of the hate America first crowd, far as I'm concerned.

In my opinion, that happened years ago. I think America is home to too many Jooooos for his taste.

What an ass.

Indeed.

17 posted on 08/10/2005 7:42:06 AM PDT by Petronski (I love Cyborg!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
It was not objectively wrong then, or now.
The more time passes the more objective we should become.
Those closer to the reality are more subjective.
18 posted on 08/10/2005 7:58:03 AM PDT by Manic_Episode (OUT OF ORDER)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: RepublicNewbie
Sad how many are eager to apologize for terror, so long as it is their side doing the terrorizing. Here Buchanan at least has his head screwed on right.

People who would normally be suspicious of government decisions will justify anything it does during wartime. War is the Health of the State.

19 posted on 08/10/2005 9:07:48 AM PDT by Dumb_Ox (Be not Afraid. "Perfect love drives out fear.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RepublicNewbie

A late "Happy Nagasaki Day!" to everyone I missed yesterday!


20 posted on 08/10/2005 9:14:39 AM PDT by TheDon (The Democratic Party is the party of TREASON!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Not being an expert on Christianity, can anyone tell me if Buchanan's statement below is true? Does not the Book of Kings in the Bible argue against Buchanan's arguments?

Whatever the mindset of Japan's warlords in August 1945, the moral question remains. In a just war against an evil enemy, is the deliberate slaughter of his women and children in the thousands justified to break his will to fight? Traditionally, the Christian's answer has been no.

21 posted on 08/10/2005 11:24:59 AM PDT by razoroccam (Then in the name of Allah, they will let loose the Germs of War (http://www.booksurge.com))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topher
Buchanan is flat wrong that Japan could not defend itself -- there were about 10,000 Kamikaze planes ready for the invasion, and Japan was constantly building more.

I saw a fascinating show on the Discovery Channel last weekend, about the role the Emperor played in the planning and execution of the war. If not a direct planner, he signed off on everything, including the atrocities against the Chinese before the Japanese ever bombed Pearl Harbor, of which he was also aware.

Near the end of the war, when surrender of the armed forces was demanded by the Allies, there were some who wanted to do so, but the leader of the Army forces vehemently disagreed saying that he still had a million men who were ready to die for Japan and that they would kill all the Americans who landed on their shores.

That shows that they were willing to fight to the death of every soldier and civilian, if need be to repel and invasion. It would have resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of American soldiers, obviously, as well. My late father-in-law was one who was slated to have been sent in that invasion in the Fall of 1945, so he was grateful that the bombs were dropped.

22 posted on 08/10/2005 12:30:28 PM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
As an island nation with few natural resources, the country could not possibly have sustained a major military force for very long.

That may be true, but it would have resulted in the deaths of many hundreds of thousands of civilians; many more than were killed in the initial dropping of the atomic bombs and even the cancer in their aftermath. For some to say that it was immoral to drop the bombs, then say that it was better to have starved them to death instead strikes me as a disengenuous argument.

23 posted on 08/10/2005 12:34:37 PM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
There have been a number of comments over the years by military people who suggested that an invasion of Japan was absolutely unnecessary for the U.S. to win the war.

Those military people, who wouldn't have been hitting the beach, are in the distinct minority. The opinion of the majority, particularly those who fought on Okinawa, holds much more weight.

24 posted on 08/10/2005 2:58:12 PM PDT by A.A. Cunningham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
There have been a number of comments over the years by military people who suggested that an invasion of Japan was absolutely unnecessary for the U.S. to win the war. As an island nation with few natural resources, the country could not possibly have sustained a major military force for very long.

The other aspect was the entry of the Soviet Union -- and the countries that they were going to seize and not give up control of.

The Soviet Union was slated to enter the war on August 15 or maybe September 1. Now Russia probably could have occupied most of the Northern Islands of Japan as well as all of Korea.

We had to paratroop troops in to prevent the Soviet Union from occupying South Korea after they moved into the Northern portion.

Stalin had signed a non-agression pact with Hitler and divided Poland with Hitler. When the Soviet Union was in dire straits during the time of the siege of Stalingrad, Stalin signed a non-aggression pact with Japan, and moved all the Far-Eastern troops to the German front. This was part of the Russian winter blitz that crippled the German advance.

The Cold War might have been different if most of Korea/Japan was in the hands of the Soviet Union. We might have even lost Taiwan.

One of my uncles was in the Philippines, and he probably would have been killed in a few weeks because of the attrition in his squad. They were paratroopers, so they had to earn their combat pay.

25 posted on 08/10/2005 6:32:57 PM PDT by topher (God bless our troops and protect them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
There have been a number of comments over the years by military people who suggested that an invasion of Japan was absolutely unnecessary for the U.S. to win the war. As an island nation with few natural resources, the country could not possibly have sustained a major military force for very long.

And they may be right about that. But one of my key points is that we did very similar bombing of German and Japanese cities. In fact, it was reported by the official historian of the US Navy in World War II (Samuel E. Morrison) that the fast battleship bombardment one night wreaked more terror on the Japanese civilian population than the aircraft bombings.

Why?

They never heard any air raids sirens or anythings. Just explosions going off with no sense of where they were coming from. I forget where this occurred.

But imagine not having any warning in the middle of the night and having explosions everywhere. If I was a small child, I would be affected by something like that for years to come.

Too many people, IMO, focus on the atomic bombings because they were atomic, but the conventional bombings did very similar things -- if you lost both legs from those or suffered extreme burns and died slowly, it is the same as some of the long term effects of the nuclear bomb.

26 posted on 08/10/2005 6:39:53 PM PDT by topher (God bless our troops and protect them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ
For some to say that it was immoral to drop the bombs, then say that it was better to have starved them to death instead strikes me as a disengenuous argument.

This is a common mistake that people make when rendering a moral judgement on a subject -- going with the "lesser of two evils" on the basis that there are only two options available. This disingenuous approach to morality is precisely what convinces a lot of people that "safe, legal abortion" is necessary in this country because "thousands of women dying from back-alley abortions" is the only alternative scenario.

Sure -- I'd rather have pneumonia than tuberculosis if these are the only two options available to me. But a common cold would be better than either of them, and I don't know anyone who wouldn't prefer "good health" to all three of these!

27 posted on 08/11/2005 6:29:06 AM PDT by Alberta's Child (I ain't got a dime, but what I got is mine. I ain't rich, but Lord I'm free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Manic_Episode
It was not objectively wrong then, or now.

On what basis do you make that statement (in terms of Christian moral principles, which is the basic premise of Buchanan's article)?

28 posted on 08/11/2005 6:31:59 AM PDT by Alberta's Child (I ain't got a dime, but what I got is mine. I ain't rich, but Lord I'm free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: topher
Too many people, IMO, focus on the atomic bombings because they were atomic, but the conventional bombings did very similar things -- if you lost both legs from those or suffered extreme burns and died slowly, it is the same as some of the long term effects of the nuclear bomb.

This is absolutely correct.

29 posted on 08/11/2005 6:33:16 AM PDT by Alberta's Child (I ain't got a dime, but what I got is mine. I ain't rich, but Lord I'm free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: RepublicNewbie
And if Truman considered Hiroshima and Nagasaki military targets, why, in the Cabinet meeting of Aug. 10, as historian Ralph Raico relates, did he explain his reluctance to drop a third bomb thus: "The thought of wiping out another 100,000 people was too horrible," he said. He didn't like the idea of killing "all those kids."

Japan surrendered before the third bomb could be readied.

Note also that both Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been warned well in advance via leaflets about bombs. That sort of changes the moral calculus because they could have gotten everybody out of there except those involved in the war industries, had they wanted to.

30 posted on 08/11/2005 6:36:31 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (No wonder the Southern Baptist Church threw Greer out: Only one god per church! [Ann Coulter])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A.A. Cunningham
Those military people, who wouldn't have been hitting the beach, are in the distinct minority.

I would venture to guess that most military experts would tell you that invading Japan was not necessary at all. If this sounds outlandish, just consider this: the U.S. did not occupy all of Germany after World War II, and in fact made a very calculated decision to let the Soviets seize the capital of Berlin. General Eisenhower decided that extensive U.S. involvement in eastern Germany wasn't worth the cost in U.S. casualties.

31 posted on 08/11/2005 6:41:23 AM PDT by Alberta's Child (I ain't got a dime, but what I got is mine. I ain't rich, but Lord I'm free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Well what did they expect the US to do then. Simply lay siege to Japan for a few years? That would have been cruel to orders of magnitude more people than the two Bombs were.


32 posted on 08/11/2005 6:41:49 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (No wonder the Southern Baptist Church threw Greer out: Only one god per church! [Ann Coulter])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
Well what did they expect the US to do then. Simply lay siege to Japan for a few years? That would have been cruel to orders of magnitude more people than the two Bombs were.

Why do you assume that this would necessarily be the case? I'd have to do some research to confirm this, but I don't think Japan's agricultural base was incapable of feeding its own population. True -- it had to import natural resources from all over the Pacific Rim in order to maintain a modern state and a major military force. But eliminating a nation's affluence by laying siege to it is hardly "cruel" in any sense -- especially if the vast majority of that nation's citizens are delusional enough to believe that it is somehow a worthwhile price to pay for their obstinate "honor" in defending their country.

33 posted on 08/11/2005 7:33:09 AM PDT by Alberta's Child (I ain't got a dime, but what I got is mine. I ain't rich, but Lord I'm free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Well, from stories of what took place immediately after the surrender, they could only find one chicken egg in the entire land.


34 posted on 08/11/2005 7:37:45 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (No wonder the Southern Baptist Church threw Greer out: Only one god per church! [Ann Coulter])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

It was a just war.


35 posted on 08/11/2005 7:43:15 AM PDT by Manic_Episode (OUT OF ORDER)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

Was that because they had no means of feeding themselves, or because a substantial portion of the nation's productive and agricultural capacity was needed to fuel its military machine all over the Pacific Rim?


36 posted on 08/11/2005 7:55:31 AM PDT by Alberta's Child (I ain't got a dime, but what I got is mine. I ain't rich, but Lord I'm free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Manic_Episode
It was a just war.

Understood, but that doesn't mean by definition that every application of military force within that war is morally legitimate.

37 posted on 08/11/2005 7:56:45 AM PDT by Alberta's Child (I ain't got a dime, but what I got is mine. I ain't rich, but Lord I'm free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

However you slice it, that's pretty bad.


38 posted on 08/11/2005 7:58:51 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (No wonder the Southern Baptist Church threw Greer out: Only one god per church! [Ann Coulter])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
John 11:49-50
49 But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all,
50 nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish.

It was a simple math equation.

39 posted on 08/11/2005 8:02:46 AM PDT by Manic_Episode (OUT OF ORDER)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
However you slice it, that's pretty bad.

Really? I should hope not -- because "laying siege" on an island nation is exactly what the U.S. has been doing to Cuba for 45 freakin' years!

40 posted on 08/11/2005 8:17:55 AM PDT by Alberta's Child (I ain't got a dime, but what I got is mine. I ain't rich, but Lord I'm free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Some siege, when Mexico and Canada aren't participating.


41 posted on 08/11/2005 8:19:50 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (No wonder the Southern Baptist Church threw Greer out: Only one god per church! [Ann Coulter])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Manic_Episode
But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all, nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish."

Using a quotation like this from Scripture to support your position is ridiculous, when you consider that "the whole nation" in question (Israel) actually did perish despite Caiaphas' statement that it would be expedient for one man to die so that the whole nation would not. One generation did not pass before Jerusalem was sacked by the Romans (in 70 AD), and the Israelites scattered throughout the world at the time.

42 posted on 08/11/2005 8:23:48 AM PDT by Alberta's Child (I ain't got a dime, but what I got is mine. I ain't rich, but Lord I'm free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

Cuba's standard of living is comparable to a Third World country right now, yet nobody there is starving to death as far as I know.


43 posted on 08/11/2005 8:25:02 AM PDT by Alberta's Child (I ain't got a dime, but what I got is mine. I ain't rich, but Lord I'm free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

It's communism that's keeping it that way, in this siege-by-sieve.


44 posted on 08/11/2005 8:27:39 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (No wonder the Southern Baptist Church threw Greer out: Only one god per church! [Ann Coulter])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Scripture is multi-demensional, and it was a simple math equation.


45 posted on 08/11/2005 8:53:15 AM PDT by Manic_Episode (OUT OF ORDER)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Really? Gee whiz! Tell that to the Chinese, Vietnamese, French, Dutch, & British citizens they managed to put under the Greater East Asia Co_prospertiy Sphere. They fielded a pretty vital & effective military for 8 years. In fact, didn't they manage to kick British & Commonwealth ass all over SE Asia well before they bombed Pearl Harbor? Does the conquest of Hong Kong, Singapore, the sinking of Repulse and Prince of Wales
ring a bell? Wasn't there a sizable Canadian contingent captured at Hong Kong? Pretty good for what the Brits dismissed as a "bunch of backward runts with poor eyesight."
The Japs had every intention of defending the home islands to the last man woman and child. They armed their civilians with bamboo spears in anticipation of launching mass banzai charges against American units. Fanatics don't care about tin, rubber, steel or petroleum reserves. They'll use rocks to kill their enemies if they have to.


46 posted on 08/11/2005 9:21:25 AM PDT by 95 Bravo ("Freedom is not free.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
I would venture to guess that most military experts would tell you that invading Japan was not necessary at all.

Your guess would be incorrect.

47 posted on 08/11/2005 9:31:49 AM PDT by A.A. Cunningham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: 95 Bravo
Tell that to the Chinese, Vietnamese, French, Dutch, & British citizens they managed to put under the Greater East Asia Co_prospertiy Sphere. They fielded a pretty vital & effective military for 8 years. In fact, didn't they manage to kick British & Commonwealth ass all over SE Asia well before they bombed Pearl Harbor? Does the conquest of Hong Kong, Singapore, the sinking of Repulse and Prince of Wales ring a bell? Wasn't there a sizable Canadian contingent captured at Hong Kong?

When was the last time any of these things occurred -- 1942? Was the Japanese military capable of doing any of these things by mid-1945?

The Japs had every intention of defending the home islands to the last man woman and child. They armed their civilians with bamboo spears in anticipation of launching mass banzai charges against American units. Fanatics don't care about tin, rubber, steel or petroleum reserves. They'll use rocks to kill their enemies if they have to.

We know all about that. Solitary fanatical Japanese soldiers have been found on islands all over the South Pacific for decades after the war ended -- they never got the word that the war was over, so they simply assumed that they still had to fight on for the Empire.

I think most of us would agree that these dedicated soldiers with such an awesome sense of duty were among the most harmless and inconsequential people to inhabit this planet over the last 60 years.

48 posted on 08/11/2005 9:44:23 AM PDT by Alberta's Child (I ain't got a dime, but what I got is mine. I ain't rich, but Lord I'm free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: RepublicNewbie

The only threat to Buchanans' life was drinking too much scotch.

This guy is a loser who thinks he won when he crossed the finish line. Problem was, the race was over an hour before.


49 posted on 08/11/2005 9:51:55 AM PDT by hgro (ews)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

By mid-1945 the Japanese strategy was simply to inflict as many casualties on the Allies as possible before dying. There was no thought of survival or surrender. The warlords had mobilized the entire population to fight an invasion. There were still airplanes and ships and boats to crash into Allied warships. There were plenty of volunteers ready to crawl beneath American tanks with pole charges or land mines and detonate themselves.
That constitutes a military that was still very much a threat, although much diminshed in offensive capability. They were defending their home islands, and would have gladly sacrificed the entire population if necessary.
Fortunately, 2 A-bombs convinced the Emperor of the wisdom of surrender.
Thankfully, that event has never had to be repeated. But there is no doubt in my mind that it was both a viable and necessary option at the time. No regrets here.


50 posted on 08/11/2005 11:33:01 AM PDT by 95 Bravo ("Freedom is not free.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson