Excellent watch given the media hype about Obama's visit to Hiroshima

[cqcn88]

I'm sure some of you are familiar with Bill Whittle. I remembered this video from a few years ago after seeing all the media hype lately and some of the arguments for or against the atomic bombing of Japan. Very much worth the watch.

https://vimeo.com/71774851

 

[spec4]

Stewart is a ditz. I never watched him longer than it took me to change the channel. Wonder how he would have felt had he been a G-1 waiting to invade Japan.

 

[cqcn88]

I just like how well he articulates the audacity of trying to criticize that decision now 70 something years later. As though it were simply a matter of should we have either wiped out an entire city with one bomb or should we have not wiped out an entire city with one bomb.

 

[Jludo]

I absolutely can't stand the one sidedness, of either side on this issue. makes you want to bash your head against the wall when someone acts like their position is so clearly the right one.

It's not about criticising a decision that was 70 years ago, there was plenty of dissent and differing opinions at the time so it's disingenuous to act like any criticism today is invalid.

 

[Jludo]

Stewart is a ditz. I never watched him longer than it took me to change the channel. Wonder how he would have felt had he been a G-1 waiting to invade Japan.

I love Dan Carlins position on this 'argument' imagine it was you, your son, your brother, etc.

That's a false dichotomy, that the way we went about it and an invasion of the mainland were the only two options.

 

[jve153]

these two cities saw most technoligically advanced weaponry of the time, however, the loss of life and the amount of destruction was not as bad as other cities we traditionally bombed. wiping cities off the map was something we were doing pretty well in japan, and these would have happened either way, with 1 bomb or 1,000.

 

[Jludo]

these two cities saw most technoligically advanced weaponry of the time, however, the loss of life and the amount of destruction was not as bad as other cities we traditionally bombed. wiping cities off the map was something we were doing pretty well in japan, and these would have happened either way, with 1 bomb or 1,000.

That's the best argument for using the bomb, it's true we were just demolishing entire cities conventionally/firebombing.

 

[cqcn88]

I absolutely can't stand the one sidedness, of either side on this issue. makes you want to bash your head against the wall when someone acts like their position is so clearly the right one.

It's not about criticising a decision that was 70 years ago, there was plenty of dissent and differing opinions at the time so it's disingenuous to act like any criticism today is invalid.

Maybe you can clarify, by one sidedness do you mean you take issue with people agreeing with one side of this issue? I'd like to hear whatever point you're trying to make about a middle ground? As in both options, to drop or not to drop, are valid? Or both invalid? I truly don't understand what you mean when you say you can't stand people being one sided on this issue.

 

[Cameramonkey]

these two cities saw most technoligically advanced weaponry of the time, however, the loss of life and the amount of destruction was not as bad as other cities we traditionally bombed. wiping cities off the map was something we were doing pretty well in japan, and these would have happened either way, with 1 bomb or 1,000.

That's the best argument for using the bomb, it's true we were just demolishing entire cities conventionally/firebombing.

This! When you build your structures out of essentially matchbooks, (wood frames, paper walls, and some volatile stuff inside) firebombs are awesome. And the few modern structures would be (were) overcome and incinerated as well with the traditional houses acting like kindling.

But we wanted to try out a new toy. And it worked. Spectacularly.

It does pretty much boil down to two basic approaches: (OK, three)

1: Send in your ground troops, expecting so much resistance that you will have to fight to the death with no real option of their surrender. (imagine how you would treat an armed intruder in your family's home... Every able bodied person is going to kill the intruders or die trying). Expect millions of american casualties on the mainland alone.
2: Continue to firebomb, and maybe they just might surrender. But you would likely have to level all the cities, and there would still be the chance of resistance in the countryside, possibly causing even MORE "innocent" deaths because they only saw each city's fall as a singular attack, and may not truly grasp the losses, resulting in even more losses than option 3. (think of how a gambler loses lots of money a little at a time, not realizing just how much was lost in total until its too late)
3: Drop a nuke or two and although tens of thousands of "innocent" lives were lost, your troops were spared.

I guess the bottom line is this: What is more important, millions of american soldiers' lives and possibly months to years of struggle, or a couple thousand civilians to make it stop in its tracks. Considering they started it, I dont think the decision was the wrong one for America. And considering how much aid we gave them post-war, and how they grew from it, I think we can call it good. I mean, do you think they would be where they are today without the help we gave them?

On a related note, have the Japanese ever officially apologized for Pearl Harbor? If they have, I wouldnt necessarily be upset at our leader apologizing. I mean, sometimes both sides saying "sorry about being a jerk" after the instigator starts it, isnt necessarily bad. Its called being civilized. But if they never apologized, ours is wholly unwarranted.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I love Dan Carlins position on this 'argument' imagine it was you, your son, your brother, etc.

That's a false dichotomy, that the way we went about it and an invasion of the mainland were the only two options.

Name different options, then, and back them up with historic data, please.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

This! When you build your structures out of essentially matchbooks, (wood frames, paper walls, and some volatile stuff inside) firebombs are awesome. And the few modern structures would be (were) overcome and incinerated as well with the traditional houses acting like kindling.

But we wanted to try out a new toy. And it worked. Spectacularly.

It does pretty much boil down to two basic approaches: (OK, three)

1: Send in your ground troops, expecting so much resistance that you will have to fight to the death with no real option of their surrender. (imagine how you would treat an armed intruder in your family's home... Every able bodied person is going to kill the intruders or die trying). Expect millions of american casualties on the mainland alone.
2: Continue to firebomb, and maybe they just might surrender. But you would likely have to level all the cities, and there would still be the chance of resistance in the countryside, possibly causing even MORE "innocent" deaths because they only saw each city's fall as a singular attack, and may not truly grasp the losses, resulting in even more losses than option 3. (think of how a gambler loses lots of money a little at a time, not realizing just how much was lost in total until its too late)
3: Drop a nuke or two and although tens of thousands of "innocent" lives were lost, your troops were spared.

I guess the bottom line is this: What is more important, millions of american soldiers' lives and possibly months to years of struggle, or a couple thousand civilians to make it stop in its tracks. Considering they started it, I dont think the decision was the wrong one for America. And considering how much aid we gave them post-war, and how they grew from it, I think we can call it good. I mean, do you think they would be where they are today without the help we gave them?

On a related note, have the Japanese ever officially apologized for Pearl Harbor? If they have, I wouldnt necessarily be upset at our leader apologizing. I mean, sometimes both sides saying "sorry about being a jerk" after the instigator starts it, isnt necessarily bad. Its called being civilized. But if they never apologized, ours is wholly unwarranted.

As far as I know, the closest the Japanese ever came to "apologizing" for Pearl Harbor, was their contention that they intended to deliver their declaration of war prior to the actual attack, but they were delayed. We shouldn't need to apologize to Japan for beating them - however we did it - especially after we spent billions rebuilding their country afterwards. Oh, and by-the-way, I'm not sure the Japanese ever "apologized" to the Chinese and Koreans for their atrocities in those countries, nor did they apologize for the Bataan Death March, or their occupation of the Philippines or . . .

 

[OutdoorDad]

After the first BOMB, Japan didn't sue for peace.

After the second BOMB, it still took several days and a proclamation from the Emperor, to cease hostilities.

There are many who believe that Japan would have sacrificed every able bodied soul to defend the main island. If the Imperial Navy had the opportunity, I believe they would have set in motion a plan to expend every Japanese life at the highest cost for every Allied life. Imagine kamikaze strategy with suicide bomber tactics. Again, just my belief, it would have been horrific.

Well, maybe not just my belief. My understanding is that there have been no Purple Heart medals manufactured since before 1945. The implication being that we planned for the death or wounding of every US serviceman from 1945 to date- as a casualty of the invasion of Japan. And we still have a bunch left over.




At the end of the day, I suspect that it wasn't the Allied ability to destroy a city at will. That capacity had been there for years previously. Dresden etc.

The "eye opener" was that the destruction of a city could be effected at any time in any location with minimal risk to Allied lives or material.

No waves of Allied planes dodging flack or fighters in an hours long attack.

A single plane. A handful of men. The destruction of a city. At will.
They didn't know the second BOMB was our last.

 

[cobber]

Ground campaign plus fire-bombing the major cities, plus a likely Soviet intervention. There probably wouldn't be a Japan today.

 

[actaeon277]

Japan went around punching other countries.
Gets punched back.

My parents and neighbors used to say, "If you play, don't cry".

As for atrocities. .
Rape of Nanking
Bataan death march
Medical research on prisoners and civilians.
Execution of teachers and other professions in occupied territories.
I'm pretty sure I can come up with more.


Seems pretty easy to sit here decades later, in a warm comfy house, being well fed, and second guess decisions made by a country that was involved in the largest war to date.

 

[spencer rifle]

Allied analysis for Operation Downfall gravely underestimated the number of Japanese troops on Kyushu and Honshu. Japanese planes were becoming a rarity - thousands were being stockpiled for kamikaze missions during the invasion. Schoolgirls were being issued awls and told to aim for the midsection. Civilians were drilling with sharpened bamboo poles. Okinawa was going to look like a picnic in comparison. Some Japanese military were planning to assassinate the emperor rather than let him announce a ceasefire. This was not going to end well for anyone. The result we got was about the best that could be expected.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Japan went around punching other countries.
Gets punched back.

My parents and neighbors used to say, "If you play, don't cry".

As for atrocities. .
Rape of Nanking
Bataan death march
Medical research on prisoners and civilians.
Execution of teachers and other professions in occupied territories.
I'm pretty sure I can come up with more.


Seems pretty easy to sit here decades later, in a warm comfy house, being well fed, and second guess decisions made by a country that was involved in the largest war to date.

Two that stood out to me were cutting the breasts off of nuns since, after all, they didn't need them, and throwing babies in the air and catching them on bayonets.

 

[Jludo]

Japan went around punching other countries.
Gets punched back.

My parents and neighbors used to say, "If you play, don't cry".

As for atrocities. .
Rape of Nanking
Bataan death march
Medical research on prisoners and civilians.
Execution of teachers and other professions in occupied territories.
I'm pretty sure I can come up with more.


Seems pretty easy to sit here decades later, in a warm comfy house, being well fed, and second guess decisions made by a country that was involved in the largest war to date.

I don't believe those are good arguments though. "They committed war crimes so X is justifiable". That's part of history, being able to learn from past actions. The supreme allied commander said, at the time of the bombing, that it was unnecessary. I don't think anyone would accuse Eisenhower of wanting to lose American lives, or not being in a position to criticize the decision The bomb or invasion is a false dichotomy.

 

[Kutnupe14]

After the first BOMB, Japan didn't sue for peace.

After the second BOMB, it still took several days and a proclamation from the Emperor, to cease hostilities.

There are many who believe that Japan would have sacrificed every able bodied soul to defend the main island. If the Imperial Navy had the opportunity, I believe they would have set in motion a plan to expend every Japanese life at the highest cost for every Allied life. Imagine kamikaze strategy with suicide bomber tactics. Again, just my belief, it would have been horrific.

Well, maybe not just my belief. My understanding is that there have been no Purple Heart medals manufactured since before 1945. The implication being that we planned for the death or wounding of every US serviceman from 1945 to date- as a casualty of the invasion of Japan. And we still have a bunch left over.




At the end of the day, I suspect that it wasn't the Allied ability to destroy a city at will. That capacity had been there for years previously. Dresden etc.

The "eye opener" was that the destruction of a city could be effected at any time in any location with minimal risk to Allied lives or material.

No waves of Allied planes dodging flack or fighters in an hours long attack.

A single plane. A handful of men. The destruction of a city. At will.
They didn't know the second BOMB was our last.

To piggyback on this, after the Emperor recorded the surrender message, there was an attempted coup, to place the Emperor under house arrest, seize the recording, and continue on with war. Even after Nagasaki, many were determined to fight to the bitter end.

 

[Cameramonkey]

To piggyback on this, after the Emperor recorded the surrender message, there was an attempted coup, to place the Emperor under house arrest, seize the recording, and continue on with war. Even after Nagasaki, many were determined to fight to the bitter end.

Exactly. THIS is the type of attitude we were fighting against. It took an act so brutal, that they had no choice but to surrender. More fire bombing would not likely have done that as it was just more status quo. Just like simply taking on a group of attackers hand to hand vs going to the weapon. Engaging in fisticuffs might let others in the gang hang around thinking they can get a piece of you because they are "better than the last guy you beat", whereas if you use a weapon to level the playing field the rest are likely to say "no thanks, Its not worth getting cut, shot, etc over" and they disperse.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I don't believe those are good arguments though. "They committed war crimes so X is justifiable". That's part of history, being able to learn from past actions. The supreme allied commander said, at the time of the bombing, that it was unnecessary. I don't think anyone would accuse Eisenhower of wanting to lose American lives, or not being in a position to criticize the decision The bomb or invasion is a false dichotomy.

I will agree that it is not a justification in the retributive sense, but we also have to consider that when dealing with people who are mean enough to be Assyrians and twice as dedicated to carnage, who have not been slowed down a bit by having already been beaten severely, playing by Marquis of Queensbury rules just isn't going to impress them into surrender until you kill almost all of them. Much as Cheney wrongly sounded off his foghorn about 'shock and awe' as if modern Moslems were 7th century barbarians who had never seen electricity, in this case, it really did work on enough people to tip the balance.

I would also point out that I don't see any other way an invasion could have been avoided while ending the war, and also have to point out that Eisenhower was a pogue--something that was demonstrated with the friction between himself and Patton over Eisenhower making decisions based on politics rather than efficient conduct of the war effort.