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

To: mjp

A better-than-average analysis of the situation, but I do have to take issue with the author on one or two small points;

1. The Japanese surrender was hardly unconditional.

2. While it is true that you must inflict horrible suffering upon your enemy to degrade his capacity for resistance, one of the most horrible results of the Second World War (and the years immediately preceeding it) was in bringing the horrors of war to sectors where it had previously hardly ever gone before; i.e. the deliberate and indiscriminate bombing of civilians (as practiced by both sides) as a military necessity.

While the bombs certainly speeded up the decision process, it can be argued they were hardly decisive in a military sense; Japan was finished in 1945, except for the occupation of the Home Islands, and had been seeking to negotiate a surrender through various methods and channels for months prior to the dropping of the bombs.

I take issue with the concept that incinerating hundreds of thousands with one bomb was more "humane" or "moral" than incinerating hundreds of thousands with an entire fleet of bombers. But maybe that's just me.


6 posted on 07/28/2006 8:37:10 AM PDT by Wombat101 (Islam: Turning everything it touches to Shi'ite since 632 AD...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Wombat101

I know that when the bomb was dropped, my grandfather was on an island in the Pacific, staging for the invasion of Japan. All the men knew that their chance of survival was very slim. They were told to expect over a million casualties.

I know that the bomb being dropped instantly changed Japan's priorities, and likely saved my grandfather's life. Many, many lives were spared by our using the bomb. (particularly, American lives) Was it pretty? No, but it beats the alternative.


10 posted on 07/28/2006 8:41:58 AM PDT by Tex Pete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: Wombat101

"I take issue with the concept that incinerating hundreds of thousands with one bomb was more "humane" or "moral" than incinerating hundreds of thousands with an entire fleet of bombers. But maybe that's just me."

One must wonder what Sherman would have thought more humane..


11 posted on 07/28/2006 8:47:54 AM PDT by artifax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: Wombat101
All cultures are equally valid bump ;^) ( Actually, the subject who was about to die was an Aussie, but the concept was applied to GI's in Japannes hands should a invasion took place.)
25 posted on 07/28/2006 9:05:12 AM PDT by investigateworld (Abortion stops a beating heart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: Wombat101

My contention, and I'll admit it's wholly academic



Oh yeah, and once bullets fly academics goes out the freakin window fast.

The US troops had been fighting for four years by this point.

I think your grandfather would have preferred to be home versus trying to take each Japanese island one at a time.


40 posted on 07/28/2006 9:42:35 AM PDT by SFC Chromey (We are at war with Islamists, now ACT LIKE IT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: Wombat101

"and had been seeking to negotiate a surrender through various methods and channels for months prior to the dropping of the bombs"

Source Please?!?!?!


42 posted on 07/28/2006 9:46:40 AM PDT by G Larry (Only strict constructionists on the Supreme Court!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: Wombat101

I agree with you. I've also speculated that the U.S. had no intention of invading Japan anyway -- since it wasn't necessary to do so to win the war.


43 posted on 07/28/2006 9:48:07 AM PDT by Alberta's Child (Can money pay for all the days I lived awake but half asleep?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: Wombat101
While the bombs certainly speeded up the decision process, it can be argued they were hardly decisive in a military sense; Japan was finished in 1945, except for the occupation of the Home Islands, and had been seeking to negotiate a surrender through various methods and channels for months prior to the dropping of the bombs.

And Japan would probably still have an emporer.

50 posted on 07/28/2006 9:53:36 AM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: Wombat101

"... and had been seeking to negotiate a surrender through various methods and channels for months prior to the dropping of the bombs." We see the same sham process at work with MaMooed Imafoolajihad, but as before, you are among the blind who do not see and will refuse to see the sham in this 'negotiation' process, you and J.Feckless Kerry.


87 posted on 07/28/2006 11:23:41 AM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: Wombat101
2. While it is true that you must inflict horrible suffering upon your enemy to degrade his capacity for resistance, one of the most horrible results of the Second World War (and the years immediately preceeding it) was in bringing the horrors of war to sectors where it had previously hardly ever gone before; i.e. the deliberate and indiscriminate bombing of civilians (as practiced by both sides) as a military necessity.

Wombat - The whole point of that section of the article was that by bringing the horror of the war directly to the civilians (who largely supported it), they'd be less inclined to pursue or accept war in the future.

It wasn't necessary to end WW2, but to prevent the Japanese from starting WW3 later.

88 posted on 07/28/2006 11:24:07 AM PDT by BearCub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: Wombat101

Give the ISlamofascists enough time to negotiate and they will eventually incinerate you and your feckless musings.


89 posted on 07/28/2006 11:24:52 AM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: Wombat101
Japan was finished in 1945, except for the occupation of the Home Islands, and had been seeking to negotiate a surrender through various methods and channels for months prior to the dropping of the bombs.

How serious were those negotiations? I have heard conflicting reports on whether negotiations were official. What sort of terms were they asking for?

131 posted on 08/07/2006 4:01:18 PM PDT by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

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