Happy Victory Over Japan Day!

Dumb.

Dumb because we're celebrating the deaths of thousands of Japanese civilians; that's not something to celebrate, generally.

http://www.worldclass.net/toolbox/worldwar/pres/propo9.gif

Ian, are you really that ignorant?

my point: the ratios of pop interest in, and actual weight of American contributions to victories in, the two theaters of wwII is backwards = "dude wtf, we nuked them and they weren't even played by Alec Guinness in a movie later, what's with that??"

amst: is your first pic a dr. seuss??

Truly, truly strange.

Apparently.

Bombing two cities to prove a point (that point being that we could destroy the entire nation, so just fucking surrender already and stop killing our invading soldiers) is hardly justifiable. Justifying a single demonstration is a stretch, but I refuse to believe that people are okay with the idea of leveling large portions of two cities to show off.

this is one issue where i agree 100% with the right-wingers -- though i don't really think it's a "right-wing" issue.

fwiw, i don't get all bleary-eyed over Dresden either. pre-WWII Dresden was a nice city -- but so was pre-WWII Warsaw. having family who were killed by or thrown into deathcamps by the countrymen of the Dresdeners will do that to a boy, it will.

Just playing devils avocado here, mind... dont really have an actual opinion on this.

Only a couple of problems here. You underestimate casualties by about 150,000, that's not counting the maimed and otherwise injured who didn't die. Doesn't change the argument much - if one doesn't care about 100k dead, 250k dead isn't going to phase them - but I think it's only fair that we at least account for all the people who got slaughtered.

The other problem, of course, is that no invasion would have been necessary. Thus "ours" were in no danger of fighting on the Japanese mainland.

I have to question your last statement, also. The people we nuked were mostly non-combatants, POWs and people who were forced-laborers. How did these people "attack" Pearl Harbor? Did they have any say over the conduct of their government and military?

a replay of the other thread, but it has to be said - this opinion is *not* universally agreed upon. I still don't understand how Milo thinks he can be so sure of this.

But every bit of the historical record I've seen - and I've asked for any sort of evidence that an invasion would have been necessary - points to the conclusion that no invasion was necessary.

Godzilla! Duh.

Primarily to end the Pacific war days before the Soviets would enter (and thus have a bargaining chip in post-war negotiations), as well as to show the Soviets (and the rest of the world) what we had and were willing to use on a populace.

To paraphrase the Simpsons:

"Dad, you destroyed the evil Japanese empire!"
"It was evil?"

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0141001461/qid=1060720427/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/104-0886577-4740701

Frankly, even if the only (or the major) reason why the US dropped the bomb was to deter the Soviets from invading Japan, then i'd still say that it was OK. it was bad enough that they were able to gain control over eastern europe.

There were no plans, so far as I know, for the USSR to "invade" Japan. No invasion was necessary, of course, with or without the USSR.

We've got Ike and Adm. Leahy's words, the USSBS report, Japanese surrender offers pre-bombing that were identical to post-war terms, Truman's own words (not posted by me) that he was using the bomb to pre-empt the Soviets, etc..

and weren't there soviet troops in some of the northern japanese islands? (i may be wrong about that, though)
If they were, they were probably tied to the territorial disputes that went back to Tsarist Russia and continued through the 20th century. (Perhaps even today - do the Russians still occupy/Japanese claim Hokkaido?)

Milo, if that's what you understood from the Truman quotes on the 'Hiroshima: Necessary?' thread, then you are retarded.

Oh, sorry. I thought by "you keep saying" you were referring to that thread. My bad.

Milo, if that's what you understood from the Truman quotes on the 'Hiroshima: Necessary?' thread, then you are retarded.
Except for this part:
"Stalin had told P.M. of telegram from Jap Emperor asking for peace. Stalin also read his answer to me. It was satisfactory. Believe Japs will fold up before Russia comes in. I am sure they will when Manhattan appears over their homeland. I shall inform Stalin about it at an opportune time."

Having been informed by the Joint Chiefs that the Japanese were on the verge of capitulation, and having previously written in said diary that the Russian entry into the war will bring it to an end (not Russian invasion or attack, merely the declaration), he now chooses to attack "before Russia comes in."

i have a hard enough time swallowing the concept of "collataral damage", my issue here is "collataral damage" becoming the primary objective/target. when the civilian population at large becomes the enemy (i believe somebody used the term "possibly fanatic" in the other thread), when the people under rule become interchangable with the leaders and soldiers (as tad does with his "fry all them japs" ramboism upthread), that is where i object.

i'm horrible with hypotheticals, but had the warships in pearl harbor been residential los angeles or san francisco, a one time "total war" retaliation perhaps might be justifiable, but as is it seems cowardly, inexcusable, and completely unnecessary to kill that many innocent people uninvolved, uninvested, not to mention unaware of the pacific theater at large.

did you know: nagasaki was chosen as a last-minute replacement for the secret originally targeted city because of a sudden storm and the weather over nagasaki was clearer.

did you know: nagasaki was chosen as a last-minute replacement for the secret originally targeted city because of a sudden storm and the weather over nagasaki was clearer.
I saw this mentioned somewhere, and the original city had an even greater civilian population. But I don't recall the name.

What about residential Nanking?

Also, Milo, I'm sorry I called you retarded. You're not, but I have to tell you that I draw an utterly different conclusion from the same text - such is history, no?

The one time I have come close to feeling true soul-quivering horror and nausea in recent times was looking briefly through a just returned library book about what happened in Nanking. I had to put the book down so I wouldn't faint.