First off, I apologize if this has been said before, but the OP said the Japanese were afraid of the Russians because they had beat them in a war recently, and this is completely incorrect, the Russians were actually thrashed by the Japanese in the Russo-Japanese war
I'm sorry to start a debate on your first post but here goes.
I never did say war, I was talking about two much more recent battles that Japan and Russia fought, both times the Japanese surrendered, an agreement was made and each respective force returned to their sides. Fairly civilized. However, the Japanese remembered this when trying to conquer the the pacific, especially China. That's why they didn't really go towards the north of china, they really didn't want to piss of the Russians, who by that time were already fighting the Nazis and as we all know, a sort of ally to the Japanese.
Hey, your forum post is far too long but I still wanted to give you my opinion.
Japan was a feudal country until the 1850's when an American navy fleet lead by a man named Perry proved that if Japan didn't modernize, it would easily be crushed by the rest of the world. This broke the 200 year isolation law of sakoku where anyone who tries to leave dies and anyone who tries to enter dies as well. In short, America strong-armed Japan to modernize.
I believe it was a matter of sailing a fleet up to Japan and saying "hey, if you don't open trade routes, we'll shoot them open", I see it in there somewhere, but this wording suggests actual debate
The reason Japan was in a state of sakoku was to preserve its culture and maintain itself as a powerful nation independent from outside help.
After the Meiji Restoration where the military leader of Japan (aka the Shogun) was set down to an adviser and the true Emperor was placed back on the throne, America's treaty that Perry brought over strictly controlled Japan's resources and worldwide influence. The Japanese didn't like this.
The Japanese still held trade on a fairly tight leash. Foreigners were forced to stay in designated areas for quite a while. In the meantime, Japan sent out people to all over the globe, learning science, culture and society before bringing the knowledge back to Japan. This is what caused their rapid modernization.
After 80 years of rapid modernization, possibly the quickest modernization in history, Japan started conferences without the USA and (after building their own Navy and Military Forces) joined the Axis in World War II.
With the resources still pouring in from the USA and Axis as its allies, Japan started an offensive against Korea, Taiwan, and China. Enslaving the people, murdering all resistance, and destroying their conquered country's cultures and enforcing their own culture, Japan forced Korea, China, and Taiwan to lose their own history and even language during all of World War II.
This (above) has nothing to do with WWII, this war had been going on before Hitler even considered invading anywhere.
"Harsh Betrayal" (below) seems like a fairly prejudiced way to put things. Japan had always believed to be a superior country, that 'brought salvation' to the less fortunate living in other countries. (which shouldn't be a complicated concept for the americans, har har jokes) Many countries that were 'liberated' by Japan actually didn't mind, and preferred being controlled by the Japanese over the western colonists.
It didn't turn bad until Japan invaded China (for the umpteenth time) and needed insane production rates to feed the war.
America cut off the resources in order to stop the Japanese invasion from progressing any further. Whether or not it was a baiting tactic is up to the beholder.
Seeing Japan's harsh betrayal, America cut off Japan's resources of oil and other materials that couldn't be manufactured in the country. Placing battleships in Pearl Harbor as a "defense" against a Japanese attack, the USA baited a trap for Japan.
Japan took the bait and bombed Pearl Harbor giving the USA an incentive to join the Allies and stop being neutral. This also pulled America out of the Great Depression and mobilized all US citizens to support the war. Lots of propaganda and cartoons against Germany and Japan were made to influence the public before Pearl Harbor was bombed making it seem the USA was preparing for this moment.
Japan's old feudal ways were very strong during this time as well with heartless inhumane experiments being conducted on prisoners including cannibalization. This is why no Japanese prison taken after surrender was left to live.
Meanwhile the USA was in a wild race with Germany and Japan to develop the first nuclear weapon. The USA bombed Tokyo in the guise of a regular attack when in reality it was to destroy Japan's only nuclear reactor producing uranium.
The USA did a similar attack against German forces and eliminated their refining plant. Left with the tools to create bombs but no material, Japan begged Germany for resources. Germany then sent three (or something close to that) U-Boats (aka early submarines) to Japan stocked with pure Uranium.
While on mid-transit to Japan, Germany surrendered and to prevent another economic backlash like World War I, the U-Boats surfaced and were handed over to the US Military.
Japan, without any way to create nuclear arms but determined to fight to the last breath, fought on until the USA threatened to use their newly developed nuclear bomb on them. Thinking it was a bluff but still cautious, Japan mobilized their forces to defend Tokyo against such a bombing while still pressing on against the USA refusing to surrender.
The United States then unleashed their first atomic bomb on Hiroshima. Japan recoiled with the horror at this new weapons raw power. The US told Japan to surrender once again, stating they had another bomb. Japan thought this too was a bluff. The second bomb was sent over Nagasaki further devastating Japan. The USA told Japan, again, to surrender or they will bomb again. Japan, believing the USA would turn their entire nation into a nuclear wasteland, surrendered not knowing the USA only had 2 Fatboy Atomic Bombs.
If the USA hadn't bombed Japan, Japan would have never surrendered and an both North America and Japan would have taken huge losses. Although not ethical, it was a necessary means to stop a long and bloody conflict.
Today the USA is now Japan's military services. Having forced Japan to adopted a Constitution much like their own, Japan's feudal ways were smashed. The Emperor was reduced to a figurehead and a president was elected. Japan is now not a militarily powerful nation but is the quickest technologically growing nation today. Although American influence has been harsh and brutal, Japan was not reduced to another 3rd world country and still has its closely guarded culture.
In short. I believe Japan being bombed was needed although I'm not happy about it.
I wasn't actually planning on joining this topic, considering quite the amount of misconception and ignorance towards these events.
However, I feel like I should compliment your post, as an attemt to clarify the events a bit.
I've thrown in some notes of my own, at points where what I was taught in Japanese history class differs. Not to correct you, just to add some more informartion/clarity.
I much liked your 'Constitution much like their own' comment. It's quite the understatement, just to clarify to other readers;
1: Japan's surrender was unconditional, so the US now owned Japan.
2: The current Japanese constitution was translated from English.
A bit of curiousity arose to see if anyone was going to bring up any Pearl Harbor conspiracy theories. I liked your subtle explanation of "baiting an attack".
The more complicated conspiracy would be as such;
Pearl Harbor was one of the largest naval base of the US at the time. Seeing how all participants understood the war to be a naval one, they planned their strike on Pearl Harbor in order to destroy the main US naval force, and force a surrender.
The only reason why the plan didn't work, was that a major part of the fleet stationed at Pearl Harbor 'happened to be' somewhere completely different the day the Japanese struck.
Suspicious much?
Either way, I'm quite sorry knowing most people won't read your post. They could use the background information.
OT; Even though I'm one of the people who'd say "war is war, people die", I don't believe it was the 'right thing to do'. It ended up being necessary, but it wasn't right.
If anyone disagrees, they should watch Grave of the Fireflies, even if they dislike anime.
I always find it odd that people will get extremely worked up about nuclear weapons being deployed against civilians, but never really get all that bent out of shape if civilians die to conventional war mechanisms.
I think its because the nukes had such a wow effect that we actually scared ourselves, otherwise people kind of feel bad but then go about their business when conventional war breaks out.
Yes I do. By respecting your opponent, no matter how hard the fighting gets.
In World War I belongings of crashed pilots would be dropped over their home airstrip, to make sure they were returned to their family. There is respect in that. Honour even.
Mind, I do not claim war is honourful, only that there can be honour in war. That is down to the individual soldier.
The more complicated conspiracy would be as such;
Pearl Harbor was one of the largest naval base of the US at the time. Seeing how all participants understood the war to be a naval one, they planned their strike on Pearl Harbor in order to destroy the main US naval force, and force a surrender.
The only reason why the plan didn't work, was that a major part of the fleet stationed at Pearl Harbor 'happened to be' somewhere completely different the day the Japanese struck.
Suspicious much?
Thing is, conspiracy theories are just that, theories. A more plausible theory than the one you've posed would be that, Pearl Harbor was an advanced naval base that could basically keep Japan's navy at bay if they did decide to strike. We knew they'd amassed ships but didn't appreciate the industrial might that they'd built.
Most likely, they didn't have great Intel and made a slip-up...as someone who's studied a lot of historical wars, one small mistake and all your plans go to pot. Still, Pearl Harbor was a victory for the Japanese, they crippled the American fleet and America had to scramble to get back what was lost.
And I'm not sure that 3 carriers constitutes most of the American Pacific fleet. There were more than 90 ships anchored in the bay that day. If you're talking the quality and superiority of ship, it might be an arguable point, but the Japanese seemed to think that the 8 battleships anchored in the bay were worth more than 3 carriers. Sinking 24 out of a little over 90 ships is a very successful attack, almost 1/3 of the US Pacific fleet out of commission or damaged in a few hours...I don't think the US would have allowed that much damage to be done if it was a feint.
1. It was war
2. Japan had targetted civilians long before (read: China)
3. Japan needed something big to make them stop the war
4. America dropped something HUGE to make them stop the war
5. Japan was being a massive bully, they had it coming.
6. Dropping 2 bombs to end a war in an instant is better than spending months in sea/air bombardments, where civilian casualties could very well have been even greater
7. As for the nuclear fallout debarcle, no one had a very good idea about the effects of the bomb long after it had been dropped, so at the time, it was even more correct to do.
8. Screw Japan. Anime is awful
My neighbor's dad was a fully trained Kamikaze pilot in WWII. His number never came up so he's still alive today. I talked to him about the subject once and he said that he fully supports America's decision to drop the bombs because while the Japanese people wanted to surrender, the Japanese government did not. The completely unquestionable defeat of their military force and government gave the Japanese people power to create a new government; the one we know today.
YES! it was a waste of human life, a waste of war materials and damn right cowardley. The iradiation and mutaion is still causeing problems for Japan TODAY.
Killing roughly estimated around 120000 civilians?
Looking at the immediate number of casualties alone, thats 40 times the people killed in the attack on World Trade Center and as far as I'm aware the largest amount of people killed in any one terrorist attack.
Cause thats what it was, pure and fucking unadulterated terrorism
I wonder how my age has anything to do with that?
Are you arguing that since everyone else was doing genocide, it was somehow alright?
I am well aware that everyone and their old mum had deathcamps from roughly around the 1800s and forward. The British did it, the Boers did it, the Japanese did it, the Germans did it, the Russians did it, everyone was fucking doing it, hell the american occupation of the Phillipines around the turn of the 1900s is a classic textbook example of terrorist style occupation.
I fail to see how that somehow makes a intended, targeted attack on civilians alright.
You can argue that it was necessary and maybe it was, but that doesn't make it right.
If you knew all those facts and number but still can't see why it was necessary for the Americans to do what they did in The Pacific then I may as well not bother.
I reiterate - Would you rather have Hiroshima in the History books, or (alternatively) another few years of perpetual slaughter numbering in millions more lives claimed. Hiroshima was a much needed fullstop for that moment in time and if you deny that fact then you are supporting the extension of a horrific war.
if something is "right" or "wrong" is seldom a consideration in a millitary decision.
Hard choices are made everyday and people get killed regardless.
At the end of the day I'm just glad they didn't drop one on Germany, because I live next door to them.
Deciding to kill civilians is beyond the boundary of normal "military decisions". If any other nation on the planet would have done it, their leaders would have stood trial for crimes against humanity.
if something is "right" or "wrong" is seldom a consideration in a millitary decision.
Hard choices are made everyday and people get killed regardless.
At the end of the day I'm just glad they didn't drop one on Germany, because I live next door to them.
Deciding to kill civilians is beyond the boundary of normal "military decisions". If any other nation on the planet would have done it, their leaders would have stood trial for crimes against humanity.
Almost every nation involved in WWII bombed civilians, either on purpose or as an unavoidable consequence of carpet bombing. The atomic bombs were merely much BIGGER.
Was it morally wrong? Of course. But it was WWII, it was standard practice, and to judge the act, you must judge the whole time period.
Well from what I understand most of japan was burned to the ground, and they still refused to surrender, the nuke saved millions of American lives, I wouldn't want to invade the Japanese mainland prior to a nuke, they would have fought as hard if not harder than they did while in the chain islands.
Before you vote, I would just like to say that this question has been in my mind for a while now and I have done some (albeit not a lot) of research, so I would be interested in hearing others people's opinions, hopefully based on facts.
So far, I have come to the conclusion that they shouldn't have been, and from reading different sources seem to think that the Americans did it to...prove a point or maybe revenge...that's all I have really.
Here are some of the things I have learner recently:
-The Japanese had virtually no Navy or Air-force to speak of.
-The Americans had blockaded Japan, meaning they couldn't get any imported resources, which is nearly everything. lol
-The Japanese were terrified by the thought of the Russians coming, due to the fact they had lost to them before and that they would probably take over the country and install communism.
-Many high ranking officials were against the attack saying it was unnecessary and that the Japanese were ready to surrender anyway.
-Winston Churchill in his book ("The Second World War") said that the bombs did not play any part in the defeat of Japan.
-The only reason people think that the bombs won the war in the Pacific is due to American Propaganda.
Now, I'm not trying to force your vote by saying these things, I would like some insight into your thoughts not just on the bombing but the points I have listen above.
Happy Posting. :-D
EDIT: Someone has asked for a pros and cons list. Here is a link to basic bullet points for each if anyone is interested.
No Airforce? Maybe not at that point, but the Bomb was our way of payback and to show them that we would either kill them all or they would surrender. They attacked Pearl Harbor, while America was not yet at War with them. They would never have surrendered and many more would have died.
I'm hearing alot of "it saved lives". I realy don't think the total of deaths that would have happened if it didn't could ever have surpassed the total deaths from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and thats not including the deaths from radiation.
As far as the moral argument that we killed a bunch of civilians, I'm not exactly sure what the point of that statement is. I know we'd like to believe that only military is involved in big wars (presumably none of us are old enough to have remembered WWII) but pretty much the only country heavily involved in WWII that didn't see massive civilian casualties was the U.S., everyone else was bombed and/or invaded and suffered heavy loss of life and infrastructure. I can understand an argument on whether or not something as powerful as the atomic bombs should have been used (especially without fair warning), but through this big-ass thread a lot of people have posted the thought that all civilian casualties are wrong and unjustifiable. Maybe in a perfect world, but a perfect world wouldn't have war in the first place.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
