[Eynstyn]

PBS - American Experience - "Victory in the Pacific"
Check local TV listings for show times and dates.

The website has much info regarding the final months of the Pacific Theater of WWII. I understand there are some people here who don't think the A-bombs on Japan were necessary or that they saved many lives...maybe as many as a million on both sides. Here is detailed info that supports

U.S. Plans for Invading Japan, May 1945 View Animated Map

In hard-fought battles during early 1945, American forces take Iwo Jima and Okinawa, obtaining the close staging bases the U.S. needs for an invasion of Japan. General Curtis LeMay continues air assaults on five other Japanese cities with his devastating low-altitude firebombing strategy. Army Chief of Staff General George Marshall is convinced that ground forces need to move in. The invasion plan will continue to evolve in mid-1945, as intelligence reports convey new information about Japanese troop movements.

Map of Kyushu with nine Allied military divisions indicated offshore. On May 25 1945, less than three weeks after Germany's unconditional surrender in Europe, President Harry Truman meets with advisors to discuss strategy against Japan. In cooperation with the Navy and the Air Force, General Marshall presents a plan to invade Kyushu with nine military divisions -- roughly 760,000 soldiers -- and establish air and naval bases for a larger invasion.


Map of Kyushu depicting nine American military divisions and six defending Japanese divisions inland. American intelligence predicts six Japanese divisions will be required to defend the entire coastline of Kyushu. In this scenario, American troops will outnumber Japanese by three to one on Kyushu's southern beaches.


Map depicting Kyushu secured by American forces and an aerial assault launched towards Tokyo. The second phase of Marshall's plan will utilize the newly established Kyushu bases to launch an assault on the Tokyo plain in March 1946.


Map depicting an American aerial attack on Tokyo, supported by nine military divisions. Hoping to avoid what he calls an "Okinawa from one end of Japan to the other," Truman approves only the Kyushu landing -- and only after all the military branches endorse it. He postpones deciding about further invasion plans.

================================================== =========

The Costs of War

The Costs of War In 1943, Allied forces began a long series of Pacific battles against the Japanese. Month after month, on islands like Tarawa, the Marshalls, the Marianas, Leyte, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa, the enemies fought with fierce determination. Surviving soldiers and civilians would describe horrifying bloodshed, and staggering numbers of people killed and wounded.

As American forces won territory ever nearer to Japan, military planners on both sides used casualty figures to construct their strategies. The Japanese intended to resist at all costs, deploying pilots as suicide missiles and expecting civilians to face invaders with sharpened bamboo sticks. Numerous Japanese citizens would be sacrificed, in this plan, to achieve better terms for peace.

On the U.S. side, President Harry Truman and his war advisers hotly discussed casualty estimates for a projected invasion. Congress and the public were solidly behind the war, but the president's advisers disagreed over the proposal's level of risk to human life, based on the number of Americans who had already been killed or wounded in the Pacific theater.

The Costs of War
Explore casualty figures for major battles and events during the final year of the war, from Saipan in June 1944 to the two atomic bombs dropped in August 1945.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/pacific/

http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomfr...x%2Fpacific%2F

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Eynstyn

I understand there are some people here who don't think the A-bombs on Japan were necessary or that they saved many lives...maybe as many as a million on both sides.

It wasn't "the A-bomb"; it was two of them. Hiroshima might have shortened the war and therefore saved lives. You can argue like that. But Nagasaki was a senseless massacre.

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

It wasn't "the A-bomb"; it was two of them. Hiroshima might have shortened the war and therefore saved lives. You can argue like that. But Nagasaki was a senseless massacre.

In your bazaro world mebbe. But not according to the PBS film. Hahaha! Bone up before you come at me with your tired bs. I gave you the link. Read it, remember it and then like it, liberal.

[MilkmanDan]

Yeah, think what you want about what happened. Going to the a-bomb memorial in Hiroshima is probably more depressing then anything else I've ever been to. More so then the holocaust museum.

Oh, and despite what PBS says Japan was willing to surrender to the US after the first bomb.

Its been argued that blowing up the a-bomb in Tokyo bay would have sufficient to scare the Japanese into doing anything.

Even more depressing is how the firebombing of Tokyo killed far more people then Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. This after the US had stopped firebombing in Europe because it was too brutal.

The US had a very different approach to thinking and dealing with the Japanese then they did with Germany. A lot of the rhetoric mirrors stuff being said today about terrorists. They were animals and couldn't be trusted, which is why so few were taken prisoner (the japanese felt the same way and were told that the US would kill them or torture them if taken prisoner).

US doctors were told not to treat radiation victims in Japan, but to collect data instead.

Believe me, half the reason for dropping the bombs was to show Russia that we had them and we would use them. Its kind of my area of study.

And people wonder why Japan has it in their constitution that they can't deploy troops outside japan (ok, so we wrote it for them, but they have never changed it). The people don't like war, and culturally war is a very big evil.

[idjeff]

I'll say it here....

[clears throat]...It doesn't matter if it was 2 bombs or 2 million bombs...

The results would have been the same for the Japanese--if not worse--whether or not the "Atomic Bomb" had or had not been dropped on Japan. I'm thankful that it was...if they hadn't been dropped, the US would've lost 10's-100's of thousands of GI lives trying to destroy the fanatical-to the death Japanese empire....by the way...the Japanese started it.

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by MilkmanDan

Yeah, think what you want about what happened. Going to the a-bomb memorial in Hiroshima is probably more depressing then anything else I've ever been to. More so then the holocaust museum.

Oh, and despite what PBS says Japan was willing to surrender to the US after the first bomb.

Its been argued that blowing up the a-bomb in Tokyo bay would have sufficient to scare the Japanese into doing anything.

Even more depressing is how the firebombing of Tokyo killed far more people then Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. This after the US had stopped firebombing in Europe because it was too brutal.

The US had a very different approach to thinking and dealing with the Japanese then they did with Germany. A lot of the rhetoric mirrors stuff being said today about terrorists. They were animals and couldn't be trusted, which is why so few were taken prisoner (the japanese felt the same way and were told that the US would kill them or torture them if taken prisoner).

US doctors were told not to treat radiation victims in Japan, but to collect data instead.

Believe me, half the reason for dropping the bombs was to show Russia that we had them and we would use them. Its kind of my area of study.

And people wonder why Japan has it in their constitution that they can't deploy troops outside japan (ok, so we wrote it for them, but they have never changed it). The people don't like war, and culturally war is a very big evil.

As it is your area of study, please inform the readers how Russia and the A-bombs (together) brought about Japan's surrender? Then elaborate on what the Japanese war ministers thought after the first bomb fell. Then tell us all what kind of training (physical and attitudinal) the old men, women and children on the Japanese mainland received after the fall of Saipan. And give us a little of the story about the Emporer's radio message and why it almost wasn't heard.

You went to the well of knowledge in Hiroshima but you didn't drink from the refreshing facts it contained. Perhaps you were preoccupied planning your next happy vacation destination...the site of the Inquisition or the fun Salem Witch Trial museum maybe?

Boyz n girlz, Japan wasn't a surrendering kind of people at that point in the war. They wanted to make the US pay and pay. They realized they couldn't win the war UNLESS there were some divine intervention and they wanted to drag it out and take as many round eyes with them as possible while awaiting their deity to save their bacon.

They told the people of Okinawa that we would rape and torture then kill the women and children and so the civilians began employing terrorist tactics against our troops and that doesn't begin to scratch the surface of the brutality and degradation of the Japanese in WWII.

It is astounding how effective the subliminal messages have proven to be in the Japanese anime you kids devour. The Japs (as they were called then) were bad dudes. Many of us would probably not be here if the A bombs hadn't been used. Our fathers wouldn't have lived through the invasion of Japan.

Thank God Truman gave the order. (Although it wasn't an issue that would have had many detractors at the time. It's only in your liberal revisionist nirvana that the rightness of dropping the bombs comes into question.)

[idjeff]

Originally Posted by MilkmanDan

Yeah, think what you want about what happened. Going to the a-bomb memorial in Hiroshima is probably more depressing then anything else I've ever been to. More so then the holocaust museum.

Oh, and despite what PBS says Japan was willing to surrender to the US after the first bomb.

Its been argued that blowing up the a-bomb in Tokyo bay would have sufficient to scare the Japanese into doing anything.

Even more depressing is how the firebombing of Tokyo killed far more people then Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. This after the US had stopped firebombing in Europe because it was too brutal.

The US had a very different approach to thinking and dealing with the Japanese then they did with Germany. A lot of the rhetoric mirrors stuff being said today about terrorists. They were animals and couldn't be trusted, which is why so few were taken prisoner (the japanese felt the same way and were told that the US would kill them or torture them if taken prisoner).

US doctors were told not to treat radiation victims in Japan, but to collect data instead.

Believe me, half the reason for dropping the bombs was to show Russia that we had them and we would use them. Its kind of my area of study.

And people wonder why Japan has it in their constitution that they can't deploy troops outside japan (ok, so we wrote it for them, but they have never changed it). The people don't like war, and culturally war is a very big evil.

My friend...you understanding of Japanese history during WW2 seems to be "made up". When you say "believe me", it sounds as though you are speaking from a WW2 Japanese mind--if you are an elderly Japanese person from WW2, I apologize. You state many historical "things" as fact, yet you provide no evidence....Are you aware of the war crimes committed by the Japanese during WW2? Don't you remember about 2 weeks ago when the Chinese were up in arms against the Japanese getting a permanent seat at the UN!!?? Read up my friend. The people don't like war???????? Good grief!! Saying that the Japanese don't like war is probably accurate in the current generation. But saying that the Japanese didn't like war during WW2, is like saying that the Germans loved Jews during WW2.

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by idjeff

My friend...you understanding of Japanese history during WW2 seems to be "made up". When you say "believe me", it sounds as though you are speaking from a WW2 Japanese mind--if you are an elderly Japanese person from WW2, I apologize. You state many historical "things" as fact, yet you provide no evidence....Are you aware of the war crimes committed by the Japanese during WW2? Don't you remember about 2 weeks ago when the Chinese were up in arms against the Japanese getting a permanent seat at the UN!!?? Read up my friend. The people don't like war???????? Good grief!! Saying that the Japanese don't like war is probably accurate in the current generation. But saying that the Japanese didn't like war during WW2, is like saying that the Germans loved Jews during WW2.

[Randman]

I think the general attitude of many Japanese is what more people should have. They don't forget what happened but they prefer to think about how the US rebuilt the Japanese infrastructure in the years following the war.

[Taliesin]

Truman made Byrnes his Sec. of State on July 3, 1945. With that appointment, Byrnes held, and still holds, the distinction of being the only person to have held positions in all three branches of the Federal government: the legislative (having been a member of both the House and the Senate), the judicial (he had been a Supreme Court justice), and now the executive. No longer just an unofficial advisor, handling foreign relations was now Byrnes' job.

Byrnes was also one of Truman's advisors on the atomic bomb. He was Truman's representative on the Interim Committee, a group formed to study post-war nuclear issues but which also briefly discussed how the a-bomb should be used on Japan.

Byrnes had his own ideas about the a-bomb. In addition to defeating Japan, he wanted to keep Russia from expanding their influence in Asia; he also wanted to restrain them in Europe. Manhattan Project scientist Leo Szilard met with Byrnes on May 28, 1945. Szilard later wrote of the meeting,

"[Byrnes] was concerned about Russia's postwar behavior. Russian troops had moved into Hungary and Rumania, and Byrnes thought it would be very difficult to persuade Russia to withdraw her troops from these countries, that Russia might be more manageable if impressed by American military might, and that a demonstration of the bomb might impress Russia." (Spencer Weart and Gertrud Szilard, Leo Szilard: His version of the Facts, pg. 184).

From July 17 to Aug. 2, Harry Truman, Joseph Stalin, and Winston Churchill (who was replaced by Clement Attlee midway thru the conference) met in Potsdam, a suburb of Berlin. Their purpose was to discuss the end of the war and post-war issues. Sec. of State Byrnes was a key negotiator at the Potsdam Conference. With the defeat of Germany in May, the main element which had held the U.S., Britain, and Russia together was gone. And the imminent arrival of the post-war era presented a new set of problems. The result of this changing situation was an increasing number of disagreements between the Big 3. One of the disagreements was over reparations - how much Germany would pay the Allies for war damage. Former U.S. Ambassador to Moscow Joseph Davies wrote in his diary on July 28, 1945:

"[Byrnes] was still having a hard time over Reparations. The details as to the success of the Atomic Bomb, which he had just received, gave him confidence that the Soviets would agree as to these difficulties." (Gar Alperovitz, The Decision To Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 281).

Davies continued in his diary that night,

"Byrnes' attitude that the atomic bomb assured ultimate success in negotiations disturbed me more than his description of its success amazed me. I told him the threat wouldn't work, and might do irreparable harm." (Alperovitz, pg. 282).

Byrnes never openly threatened the Soviets with the atomic bomb. But his feelings about covert atomic diplomacy were noticed shortly after the war by Sec. of War Henry Stimson, Assistant Sec. of War John McCloy, and Manhattan Project scientific director J. Robert Oppenheimer, all of whom were worried that even an implied nuclear threat could backfire into a nuclear arms race.

As the end of the Pacific War approached, Byrnes was walking a tightrope. On one hand, he wanted to end the war before Russia could enter it and gain more control in Asia. Walter Brown, who was Byrnes' assistant, wrote in his diary on July 24, 1945 that Byrnes told him he believed:

"after atomic bomb Japan will surrender and Russia will not get in so much on the kill". (Robert Messer, The End of an Alliance, pg. 105).

Later Byrnes told an interviewer:

"we wanted to get through with the Japanese phase of the war before the Russians came in." (U.S. News and World Report, Aug. 15, 1960, We Were Anxious To Get the War Over, pg. 66).

But on the other hand, Byrnes did not want to publicly offer Japan their main peace condition: retention of their emperor, whom the Japanese believed to be a god. He was worried about the administration's public popularity if Truman allowed Japan to keep their emperor in return for Japan's surrender. So contrary to the recommendations of the top U.S. expert on Japan, Joseph Grew, and of Sec. of War Stimson, Byrnes helped convince President Truman to remove any assurances on keeping the emperor from the surrender demand that was issued to Japan from the Potsdam Conference.

When Japan agreed to surrender on Aug. 10, they asked to keep their emperor. Byrnes still did not want to accept this surrender condition; he wanted to hold out for unconditional surrender. Sec. of the Navy James Forrestal broke the log-jam by suggesting they should agree to the condition by way of a counter-offer with a wording more acceptable to the U.S. (Walter Millis, editor, The Forrestal Diaries, pg. 82-83). The final wording was vague enough to be acceptable to Allied proponents of unconditional surrender and also to the Japanese, who would not surrender unless they could keep their emperor.

On Aug. 14, Japan agreed to the counter-offer surrender proposal. The emperor remained, under the jurisdiction of the Allied Supreme Commander over Japan, General Douglas MacArthur.

Source: http://www.doug-long.com/byrnes.htm

So it wasn't the idea of convincing Japan to surrender, they would have eventually done anyway though probably not until a few more weeks. The decision to use the a-bombs was made in order to accelerate the surrender of Japan before the Soviet-Union could invade Japan.

The secret-service of the US brought up the intelligence that the Soviets would break the non-attacking-pact with Japan and invade it in order to gain control over Asia, and the US didn't want that so the nukes were used. Further support for that view is the fact that one day before the second use of the a-bomb on Japan, the Soviet-Union declared war against Japan:

Did the bombings of Hiroshima on Aug. 6 and Nagasaki on Aug. 9 break the Japanese will? They may not have been the decisive factor. Just before midnight on Aug. 8, the Soviet Union declared war on Japan. The prospect of Stalin's armies invading the homeland may have been as powerful an incentive to surrender as the prospect of additional incineration.

On Aug. 14, Hirohito drew up a surrender message, and the next day at noon Japanese citizens heard something they'd never heard before: their emperor's voice. He told his subjects that "things didn't quite go our way." That, Drea says, was one of the "classic understatements in world history."

Source: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/s...orts-headlines

One doesn't have to forget though that Japan's culture made it impossible to think of the americans or any westerner for that matter as anything other than barbarians, and so the japanese population and even more its leadership wanted to fight to death in order to prevent the invasion by barbarians, and even more so as their emperor, of which the population thought to be a god, but who was actually instrumentalised by the secular military leadership, told the japanese to fight to death against the invaders, in order to make the invasion too bloody for the americans, so that Japan could have a better standing in the surrender-negotiations.

That Japan would eventually surrender was clear before the use of the a-bombs, but Japan wanted to have some conditions in order to "save face".

Regardless the US didn't want that the Soviet-Union expands to Japan, and on the other hand didn't want to have many casualties during the invasion among its soldiers but also not among the japanese civilians. So the decision, which was eased by the fact that the US thought of japanese as pagans, was made to use the a-bombs on civilian towns.

The US had in total only three atom-bombs, so that it could use up to two against Japan with the last one staying in the US for unexpected events. Possible that the use of the atom-bombs in unpopulated areas could have convinced Japan to surrender, too. But the US didn't want to take any risks, considering the rarity of the bombs, and so it used them on populated towns, which also offered the possibility for examinations of the effects of a-bombs and its radiation and fallout on humans, and at the same time should shock Russia regarding the resolve of the US to win even with unfair methods (understatement, I know)...

With the use of the atom-bombs the US wanted to underline its world-leadership after the european mights basically destroyed themselfs in the two worldwars. Did it work out? Not really, and only for a short while as Stalin's Soviet-Union already was in the phase of developing nukes of their own and a handful of other countries, too, all drawing from the nuke-programm and scientists of Germany, just like the US did, but also from spied information from the US.

Taliesin

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

It wasn't "the A-bomb"; it was two of them. Hiroshima might have shortened the war and therefore saved lives. You can argue like that. But Nagasaki was a senseless massacre.

Did the japanese surrender after bomb # 1 ?

ANSWER = NO

Did the japanese surrender after bomb # 2 ?

ANSWER = YES

We should've dropped a third one even (yeah, I know we only had those 2 at the time), if they had not surrendered after #2.

Japan was working on a bomb, Germany was and so were we. We got there first. That's the breaks.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

It wasn't "the A-bomb"; it was two of them. Hiroshima might have shortened the war and therefore saved lives. You can argue like that. But Nagasaki was a senseless massacre.

So that is why they didn't concede till AFTER Nagasaki.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by MilkmanDan

Oh, and despite what PBS says Japan was willing to surrender to the US after the first bomb.

Got anything to back that up?

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Eynstyn

In your bazaro world mebbe. But not according to the PBS film. Hahaha! Bone up before you come at me with your tired bs. I gave you the link. Read it, remember it and then like it, liberal.

bazaro?

[Randman]

mebbe?

[Zimphire]

I think he meant "Bizzarro "

And that isn't a word either. It's slang.

[budster101]

Believe me when I say, Japan was diligently working on an atomic weapon even after Hiroshima, and other weapons of mass destruction to be delivered even if they were destroyed as they were being allegedly delivered via submarine with arial bombs at the West Coast. Fortunately for us they were intercepted and sunk. It's a little known story, but it was by pure accident, much like that which almost alerted the US to the Pearl Harbor Attack. Unfortunately the use of radar was in it's infancy and the out post stationed in Hawaii was not taken seriously. I could go into detail, but I won't.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Eynstyn

In your bazaro world mebbe. But not according to the PBS film. Hahaha! Bone up before you come at me with your tired bs. I gave you the link. Read it, remember it and then like it, liberal.

Hey, Why is your English perfect all of a sudden, even using American slang properly? Who are you really?

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Got anything to back that up?

I'll bet there isn't anything to back that up. Other than some revisionista wishful thinking.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Hey, Why is your English perfect all of a sudden, even using American slang properly? Who are you really?

SANDURZ: He's an Asshole, sir.

HELMET: I know that. What's his name?

SANDURZ: That is his name, sir. Asshole, Major Asshole.

[zigzag]

Originally Posted by Eynstyn

PBS - American Experience - "Victory in the Pacific"
Check local TV listings for show times and dates.

The website has much info regarding the final months of the Pacific Theater of WWII. I understand there are some people here who don't think the A-bombs on Japan were necessary or that they saved many lives...maybe as many as a million on both sides.

If you're referring to me, I would point out that I'm inclined to believe that Truman's decision was the correct one and that it probably saved more lives than it cost. My point was not that his decision was incorrect, but that the rhetoric used to justify it might have been a bit loose.

Actually, I probably did Truman a disservice - it appears that he didn't refer to saving "millions" of lives until many years later. He might even have been right - we'll never know.

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by Randman

I think the general attitude of many Japanese is what more people should have. They don't forget what happened but they prefer to think about how the US rebuilt the Japanese infrastructure in the years following the war.

I bear no 悪意, 憎悪, 敵意 or animosity toward todays Japanese.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Randman

I think the general attitude of many Japanese is what more people should have. They don't forget what happened but they prefer to think about how the US rebuilt the Japanese infrastructure in the years following the war.

How can that be the general attitude of the Japanese when even today Japanese war museums talk about how the US forced Japan unwillingly into the war?

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

How can that be the general attitude of the Japanese when even today Japanese war museums talk about how the US forced Japan unwillingly into the war?

Mebbe it's because we denied them access to natural resources like oil. If they felt compelled to get it any way they could, war might be justified. Without oil any industrialized country will die.

If a man can't get a job he will steal to feed his family. Who is to blame? What is the story you would hear from the man? What is the story you'd hear from the merchant? What story would the cop tell you? What about the man's wife and children? And what would the company hiring manager say?

All of the stories would reflect truth but from a different perspective.

As for the necessity of the A-bombs, the consensus is that the bombs helped speed up Japan's surrender and untold numbers of men, women and children who otherwise might have perished in an invasion of Japan, instead, lived.

My point is made.

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

SANDURZ: He's an Asshole, sir.

HELMET: I know that. What's his name?

SANDURZ: That is his name, sir. Asshole, Major Asshole.

There once was a popular puppeteer named Weyland Flowers whose drag queen puppett was called, Madame. Is that you?

Many people share computer. If you stop watching cartoons and use powerful intellect for good maybe you find answer for thousands mystery, no?

For dcmcdaddy, I am the daddy!

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Source: http://www.doug-long.com/byrnes.htm

So it wasn't the idea of convincing Japan to surrender, they would have eventually done anyway though probably not until a few more weeks. The decision to use the a-bombs was made in order to accelerate the surrender of Japan before the Soviet-Union could invade Japan.

The secret-service of the US brought up the intelligence that the Soviets would break the non-attacking-pact with Japan and invade it in order to gain control over Asia, and the US didn't want that so the nukes were used. Further support for that view is the fact that one day before the second use of the a-bomb on Japan, the Soviet-Union declared war against Japan:



Source: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/s...orts-headlines

One doesn't have to forget though that Japan's culture made it impossible to think of the americans or any westerner for that matter as anything other than barbarians, and so the japanese population and even more its leadership wanted to fight to death in order to prevent the invasion by barbarians, and even more so as their emperor, of which the population thought to be a god, but who was actually instrumentalised by the secular military leadership, told the japanese to fight to death against the invaders, in order to make the invasion too bloody for the americans, so that Japan could have a better standing in the surrender-negotiations.

That Japan would eventually surrender was clear before the use of the a-bombs, but Japan wanted to have some conditions in order to "save face".

Regardless the US didn't want that the Soviet-Union expands to Japan, and on the other hand didn't want to have many casualties during the invasion among its soldiers but also not among the japanese civilians. So the decision, which was eased by the fact that the US thought of japanese as pagans, was made to use the a-bombs on civilian towns.

The US had in total only three atom-bombs, so that it could use up to two against Japan with the last one staying in the US for unexpected events. Possible that the use of the atom-bombs in unpopulated areas could have convinced Japan to surrender, too. But the US didn't want to take any risks, considering the rarity of the bombs, and so it used them on populated towns, which also offered the possibility for examinations of the effects of a-bombs and its radiation and fallout on humans, and at the same time should shock Russia regarding the resolve of the US to win even with unfair methods (understatement, I know)...

With the use of the atom-bombs the US wanted to underline its world-leadership after the european mights basically destroyed themselfs in the two worldwars. Did it work out? Not really, and only for a short while as Stalin's Soviet-Union already was in the phase of developing nukes of their own and a handful of other countries, too, all drawing from the nuke-programm and scientists of Germany, just like the US did, but also from spied information from the US.

Taliesin

Your conclusions might come up a bit short in my opinion, but the fact remains you have rendered a valuable service to some of the ignorant readers here, because of your research.

For them I thank you.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Eynstyn

There once was a popular puppeteer named Weyland Flowers whose drag queen puppett was called, Madame. Is that you?

Many people share computer. If you stop watching cartoons and use powerful intellect for good maybe you find answer for thousands mystery, no?

For dcmcdaddy, I am the daddy!

There are such things as drag queen puppets?

[Wiskedjak]

There is absolutely no doubt that the a-bombs helped end the war. Terrorism can be a very effective tool.

ter·ror·ism
the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

The US used the terror of the effects of a the atomic bomb as a tool to coerce Japan into surrendering

[budster101]

Uhm, they attacked us first... PEARL HARBOR. Talk about terrorist acts...

[nonhuman]

Pearl Harbor was a military target. Act of war? Yes. Surprise attack? Yes. Underhanded bastardly thing to do? Yes. Terrorism? No.

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

There is absolutely no doubt that the a-bombs helped end the war. Terrorism can be a very effective tool.

ter·ror·ism
the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

The US used the terror of the effects of a the atomic bomb as a tool to coerce Japan into surrendering

Yes, is formula for war. Use great violence to make peace. Enough to violence to kill all or change enemy thinking. A little war for long time is bad for everybody. Need great violence very fast. Mr. Bush maybe to nice. Study Alexandr the great. Use great violence very fast.

[James L]

Interesting how so much of history is perspective and interpretation. These are just thoughts based on comments in this thread, and how they can be interpreted. They are NOT necessarily how I or anyone else in this thread feels, so before anyone throws a temper tantrum take a deep breath and count to 10!!!

Originally Posted by Eynstyn

Mebbe it's because we denied them access to natural resources like oil. If they felt compelled to get it any way they could, war might be justified. Without oil any industrialized country will die.

A lot of people think this is exactly the reason the US invaded Iraq, and why many people think the US is turning their eyes on Iran. An industrial country, bent on securing the needs of its people, concocts a myth (WMD) to invade and occupy another country, prop up a sympathetic government, and secure access to oil.

How many people have argued this?

Now, next observation:

ter·ror·ism
the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

The US used the terror of the effects of a the atomic bomb as a tool to coerce Japan into surrendering

Interesting thought. In order to speed up the end of the war, and to save the lives of MILITARY personnel, the US purposes attacked predominantly CIVILIAN targets, to the tune of 100,000 or so dead.

Why were people so much more enraged when the towers were attacked on Sept 11th 2001 than when the USS Cole was attacked? My guess is that it was a far away military target, versus a civilian target on home soil.

In that regard using the term terrorism to describe the dropping of the bombs on predominantly civilian targets is almost appropriate, if we are to apply the same term (terrorism) to other attacks on civilian targets throughout the world.

Domo arigato gozaimasu

James

[lurkalot]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

How can that be the general attitude of the Japanese when even today Japanese war museums talk about how the US forced Japan unwillingly into the war?

Yushukan is not representative of the opinion of all Japanese. Unfortunately there are still some who hold such views. It is never useful to generalize, however, so don't think that the quote and link below show the opinion of all Japanese either. Perhaps knowledge of statements and actions from people like these will show that in spite of the image Japan is not a country where all people share one mind and one opinion either. I doubt that will come as a surprise or if it does, it should not. Nuance is useful.

That doesn't mean that even one history distorting museum should be allowed or that even one history text for school use should be printed. Anywhere.
There are Japanese people actively working to achieve more accurate reflections on history. These are representatives of some of them expressing solidarity with like minded representatives from other countries. Are they judged by their actions or by their nationality? Does their common goal not transcend borders?

"Statement on problems relating to Japanese History Textbook and Prime Minister's Yasukuni Shrine Visit

Working together for the abolition of nuclear weapons and firmly standing for peace, mutual understanding and friendship between Asian countries and Japan, we express our deep concern and strong indignation over the Japanese government's approval of the "New History Textbook" and the Japanese Prime Minister's plan to visit Yasukuni Shrine.

We cannot tolerate any attempt to distort or gloss over the historical fact of the war of aggression and of colonial domination by Japanese militarism because it only helps undermine good neighborly relations and mutual understanding between Japan and the rest of Asia and seriously threaten Asian peace. If Japanese government continues this attitude, it can not but be isolated in Asia and deepen the contradiction.

As an expression of solidarity with the Japanese peace movement which is pressing its government to truly reflect on the past war of aggression in Asia, representatives of peace movements in Asian countries, including China, Korea, the Philippines and Vietnam, which were invaded and colonized by Japanese militarism, call on the Japanese government to:

- Sincerely listen to Asian nations strongly criticizing the Japanese government, revoke its approval of the history textbook directed by the "Japanese Society of History Textbook Reform" which glorifies the Japanese war of aggression and not repeat the same mistake in the future.

- Cancel the plan of the Prime Minister's official visit to Yasukuni Shrine, which was used to mobilize the Japanese people to the war of aggression and which enshrines war criminals even today.


Hiroshima, August 5, 2001

Niu Qiang / Chinese People's Association for Peace and Disarmament
Lee Yu Jin / Green Korea United
Corazon Fabros / Nuclear-Free Philippines Coalition
Duy Thuy Quach / Vietnam Peace Committee

Resolve of Japanese Peace Movement on the Statement by Four Representatives of Peace Movements in Asia

We welcome and fully support the statement.

The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was unjustifiable by any standard. At the same time, we recognize that it has close connections with the war of aggression by Japanese militarism. The Japanese Movement against A and H Bombs therefore has demanded that the Japanese government, while criticizing the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, fundamentally reflect
on its past war of aggression against and colonization of Asian countries.

There are planned actions on the occasion of the war termination, August 15th 2001. We would like to reiterate our determination to do our utmost in order to successfully organize them.

Kouichi Akamatsu / Japan Council against A and H Bombs (Gensuikyo)
Tomoyasu Kawai / Japan Scientists Association
Mitsuo Sato / Japan Council against A and H Bombs (Gensuikyo)
Hiroshi Suda / Japan Peace Committee
-----------------------------------------------
*Simultaneous actions in Asia and the world are suggested on August 15th 2001, the 56th anniversary of the defeat of Japanese militarism in the WWII and the planned date of Japanese prime minister's visit to Yasukuni Shrine. Various forms of protest actions are expected towards Japanese government, embassies and consulates in respective countries, such as mass rallies and performances, sending messages by fax, e-mail, postcard, etc.
-----------------------------------------------
Link

Now some thoughts of my own.
Are people in the United States aware that the Pacific war can be called a colonialist war and that the United States was a colonial power of sorts in that war, or is that notion rejected completely? Do people ever wonder why an attack on a Hawaiian Island was an act of war against the United States of America? How aware are US citizens of for example the Taft-Katsura agreement? What was USS Panay doing on the river close to Nanking in 1937?
People know that France was never actually invaded by Japanese troops, right? No siege of Paris and all that. Unless French Indochina can today -in retrospect- still be seen as historically legitimate French soil. Britain? Blitz and Banzai up the Thames? Dutch East Indies? Are those not primarily the countries on which the Japanese Empire declared war, an act that turned the Asian wars and annexations into the Pacific theatre of World War 2? Well you get the picture. Did the great game end August 15/September 2 1945?

To recognize that the western powers were colonial powers does not mean that the Imperial Japanese government was justified in its own acts of war and oppression. It definitely does not mean that particularly the atrocities committed by imperial troops for the mistaken policy of establishing the greater east asian coprosperity sphere were justified. The Nanking and Manilla Massacres can never be justified. There is no justification for Unit 731 experiments.

So how does the use of the atomic bombs fit into that whole picture? Is it possible to call it an atrocity in spite of the ends -arguably- achieved by it? Is it necessary to evaluate it as more than an historical event in its own time and context? Is the exhibit of Enola Gay in a museum of flight satisfactory? Does Bock's car's display show all it should about the missions of that plane?
If the Pacific war is to be linked with the atomic bombings how far back do we go to explain events that led up to that end? Is a black and white image of victor and vanquished all that matters. Can we take stock of lives saved and lives lost by honestly looking at methods employed on both sides? Can the entire war be seen as a string of atrocities regardless of who lost or who started it? Is the image of Japan forced into war anymore accurate than the image of an unaware sleeping giant awoken on December 7, 1941? Is that not an image held dear and truthful by some?

How do participants in this thread evaluate the opinions expressed by Herbert Bix in the Q&A section of the PBS program which apparently sparked this thread?
"Q: Considering that there are 2,000 operational U.S. warheads on hair trigger alert, ready to be launched on 15 minutes' warning, with a destructive power 20 times that of the one dropped on Hiroshima, according to Robert McNamara's article in Foreign Policy, May/June 2005, does the history of the decision to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki inform current U.S. nuclear weapons decision making policy? Can we learn anything that would help us step back from the brink?

D.P.
Boston, MA


Answered by Herbert Bix
I do not think hagiographic television documentaries that celebrate the B-29 and "patriot heroes" who waged incendiary warfare deliberately targeting civilians, like General Curtis LeMay did, have much educational value. Victory in the Pacific failed to state that even under international law such as it existed in 1945, the strategic bombing of non-combatant civilians and the atomic bombings were war crimes. The PBS program offered the traditional, one-sided view of U.S. actions. By placing all blame for Hiroshima and Nagasaki on Japanese intransigence, viewers were confirmed in their prejudices and inhibited from thinking critically about the past and how it connects with the present. The Victory certainly raised no questions about our flawed policy of continued reliance on nuclear weapons to impose our will."

Makes sense to me.

His and other expert opinions can be found in the Forum section of the PBS page for "Victory in the Pacific"
Link

What about the ideas of people like Akiko Seitelbach. Are they off topic here?
"The next day the enormity of the Atomic Bomb attack dawned on us as we tried to catch a train for Isahaya, 20 miles north of Nagasaki where we lived. Train after train stopped at our station, filled with wounded and burned victims. Those who could speak gave us a horrifying picture of the disaster that the war had inflicted upon them: the blast, the incinerating heat, the fire, "black rain" that will bring the lingering death to those not visibly wounded. Finally, later in the afternoon, Yoshi and I found standing room on the train and made it back to Isahaya to reunite with our remaining family.

After August 9th, American planes came every day to circle over Nagasaki. For the first time in the war I was in a panic whenever I heard the drone of a plane. A few days after the Atomic Bomb attack, I heard heavy footsteps before the door abruptly opened. A grim faced soldier in a Kempei Tai uniform (secret military police) glared at me angrily and shouted "Woman! The invasion of Japan will soon take place. You and your family know what to do. One hundred million of us will die together. But when you die, you must take at least one enemy with you." As quickly as he came, he left. I looked at my small hands and thought how impossible it is for me to kill another human being.

On August l5th, a morning newscast reported that the Emperor himself would speak to us personally for the first time. At one minute before twelve o'clock the radio played the "Kimigayo (Japanese national anthem)" and the voice of the Emperor came over the radio. His voice was high pitched, almost unnatural, and mingled with the crackle of the radio we could barely understand. But as we listened to the strange court language spoken by the Emperor, it was evident that he was telling us that all was lost. "We must bear the unbearable," he said.

I thought that I should weep, as my aunt and cousin were, but my eyes were dry as a tremendous sense of relief swept over me. The terrible burden of war, death and destruction was at last over. There would be no invasion. The Japanese people were spared the extinction foretold by the military authorities.

But what, I wondered, would the new life hold for us? "Link

Did Akiko Seitelbach think that her thoughts about the immediate past and the future would mean that one day she would write about her experiences on August 9, 1945, or that she would feel compelled to appear on a stage at an event like this in 2005?
Link

I know her thoughts are shared by at least 2 Japanese people. I don't know exactly what it says about the Japanese in general but I respectfully submit that thoughts like these are taken into account when reviewing complicated issues.

[macintologist]

I thought PBS was part of the elitist liberal media

[budster101]

They were..... muuuaaahahahahahahahah..... but not for long.

I hope they have their funding CUT TO SHREDS.

[vmarks]

No, PBS is fair and balanced, because they have Tucker Carlson on now.

http://www.pbs.org/tuckercarlson/aboutshow/buzz.html

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by macintologist

I thought PBS was part of the elitist liberal media

PBS has to appeal to the elitist conservative government for funding ... especially after the whole "Postcards From Buster" fiasco

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

PBS has to appeal to the elitist conservative government for funding ... especially after the whole "Postcards From Buster" fiasco

I was unaware of even the name of the show, much less any controversy regarding it, until I read your post. Here is an article which outlines the 'fiasco.'

In a word (or two) it boils down to GAY PARENTS.

washingtonpost.com
PBS's 'Buster' Gets An Education

By Lisa de Moraes

Thursday, January 27, 2005; Page C01

PBS was surprised to receive a letter from new Education Secretary Margaret Spellings, warning the public TV network against airing an upcoming episode of the kids show "Postcards From Buster," because PBS had already informed her office it would not send the episode to its stations, programming co-chief John Wilson says.

"We made the decision . . . [Tuesday] afternoon, a couple of hours before we received the letter from the secretary of education," Wilson told The TV Column yesterday.

"It came at the end of many days, maybe even a few weeks, of looking at rough cuts of the program and deliberating."

Spellings, who has been charged with the difficult task of fixing the nation's troubled public education system, took time out on her second day on the job to fire off a letter to PBS CEO Pat Mitchell expressing "strong and very serious concerns" about the "Postcards From Buster" episode. Specifically that, in the episode, called "Sugartime!," the animated asthmatic little bunny visits Vermont and meets actual, real-live, not make-believe children there who have gay parents.

For those of you unfamiliar with the spinoff of the popular children's series "Arthur," which combines animation and live action, each week, 8-year-old animated Buster and his animated dad travel to another locale, where Buster, armed with his video camera, meets actual, non-animated people, who introduce him to the local scene -- clogging in Whitesburg, Ky.; rodeo barrel racing in Houston; monoskiing in Park City, Utah; doing the Arapaho Grass Dance at the Wind River Reservation in Wyoming. Additionally, Buster meets a family from a different cultural background.

In the episode that knotted Spellings's knickers, Buster goes to Vermont and meets children from two families, who show him how maple syrup and cheese are made.

At one of the homes, Buster is introduced to all of the children and to the two moms. One girl explains that one of the women is her "stepmom," whom she says she loves a lot.

One of the women asks the kids to get some maple syrup and some cheese for dinner, and to stop by the other home to borrow a big lasagna pan. In the other home, Buster is introduced to the whole family, including two more moms. Then the kids head off to get the ingredients, and Buster learns where syrup and cheese come from.

In her letter, Spellings reminded Mitchell that the show is being funded in part by the Education Department and that a principal focus of the law authorizing such "Ready-to-Learn" programming is "facilitating student academic achievement."

In the conference committee report for fiscal year 2005 appropriations, Spellings continues, Congress reiterated that the unique mission of Ready-to-Learn is: "to use the television medium to help prepare preschool age children for school. The television programs that must fulfill this mission are to be specifically designed for this purpose, with the highest attention to production quality and validity of research-based educational objectives, content and materials."

"You should also know," Spellings says, "that two years ago the Senate Appropriations Committee raised questions about the accountability of funds appropriated for Ready-To-Learn programs." A bit ominous, we think.

"We believe the 'Sugartime!' episode does not come within these purposes or within the intent of Congress and would undermine the overall objective of the Ready-To-Learn program -- to produce programming that reaches as many children and families as possible," Spellings wrote.

Why, you might wonder, given that preschoolers who watch the episode learn how maple syrup and cheese are made, not to mention useful English-language phrases (the series is also designed to help children for whom English is a second language).

Because, Spellings explained in her letter, "many parents would not want their young children exposed to the life-styles portrayed in this episode." She did not say how many is "many," or cite a source for that information.

Congress's point in funding this programming "certainly was not to introduce this kind of subject matter to children," she added.

Au contraire, says WGBH, which produces "Postcards." The Boston public TV station says it will air the episode and has offered it to any station willing to defy the Education Department, which, in fairness, did shovel out major bucks for this series and, therefore, understandably feels it has the right to get in its two conservative cents' worth.

According to Brigid Sullivan, WGBH's vice president of children's programming, the RFP -- that's government-speak for request for proposals -- on the show said Ready-to-Learn was looking for a program that would "appeal to all of America's children by providing them with content and or characters with which they can identify. Diversity will be incorporated into the fabric of the series to help children understand and respect differences and learn to live in a multicultural society. The series will avoid stereotypical images of all kinds and show modern multi-ethnic/lingual/cultural families and children."

Except, it would seem, children who have two mothers.

"We have produced 40 episodes," Sullivan said. "We have tried to reach across as many cultures, as many religions, as many family structures as we can. We gave it our best-faith effort. We have received hate mail for doing [an episode] about a Muslim girl. We've also received mail from Muslims saying thank you."

Buster, Sullivan said, has visited "Mormons in Utah, the Hmong in Wisconsin, the Gullah culture in South Carolina, Orthodox Jewish families, a Pentecostal Christian family -- we are trying to do a broad reach and we are trying to do it without judgment."

According to Sullivan, the "Buster" brouhaha started in December when, during a routine meeting of representatives from WGBH, PBS and the Education Department to discuss upcoming episodes, a WGBH rep mentioned that there might be some "buzz" on "Sugartime!" PBS insists that although it made its decision not to distribute the episode on the very same day that the newly appointed Spellings decided to fire off her letter, the decision had nothing to do with the kerfuffle brewing at Education over the episode.

Which, we've said before in similar situations, sounds great if you were born yesterday; otherwise, not so much.

"Ultimately we came to the conclusion that what was meant to be the background or backdrop of two families that happened to be headed by two mothers continued to find its way into the foreground," Wilson said.

"It's too sensitive to raise in a children's program," he added. "We know we have a number of kids . . . who don't have a parent or caregiver in with them watching to put it in context. At the end of the day what was meant to be a sort of background context of who this family is and who the parents are, overshadowed what the episode was really about, which was going to this part of America and learning about things that are uniquely Vermont.

"Yesterday afternoon we literally decided that it was an issue best left for parents and children to address together at a time and manner of their own choosing."

We asked all parties involved what they would say to the children who were filmed for this episode, and who expected to be seen on national TV and are now being told by the federal government that their families are not fit for other children to see on national TV -- at least not on any show that has received federal funding.

"That's a difficult question," Sullivan responded. "I guess I'd have to say from the producers' standing . . . it was our intention to include, not to exclude, anyone who is part of our society, and that for children to see a reflection of themselves on TV is an important part of their development."

"I've been thinking about that today," Wilson said. "Honestly, I feel for these families because they're real people, not actors cast and paid to do this, and I do feel bad that through no fault of their own and ultimately no fault of the producers they have been put in a situation they never imagined themselves in. To that end, I'm sorry for that."

An Education Department spokeswoman responded in a statement: "The episode is inappropriate for preschoolers. We are funding an education program for preschoolers, and one would be hard-pressed to explain how this serves as educational material for preschoolers. It's up to parents to decide for their children, not the government in a taxpayer-funded video for preschoolers."

We asked her to clarify what it was the department felt should be left to parents. She explained: "To decide when they want their kids to know about the lifestyles depicted in the film."