- This topic has 6 voices and 24 replies.
-
Posts
-
The problem is, (and dont get me wrong I know somethings are black and white, like Hitler) theirs always two sides to the story. our sense of right and wrong is in many cases different then theirs. The whole world thinks God is on their side when they go to war. I dont think the bombs dropped on Japan were warrented. They were on the verge of collapse as it was. It could be, sadly, that someone somewhere wanted to test that bomb for real and in the mean time tell the world ; “look what we have', And hundreds of thousands died.
It could be, sadly, that someone somewhere wanted to test that bomb for real and in the mean time tell the world ; “look what we have', And hundreds of thousands died.
I wouldn't be surprised if that were part of the political strategy. I think that there is a common morality that governs all people at all times. Our understanding of what is right and wrong, though, is not always clear-cut.
China has not forgotten what happened during WW II and raises a fuss over Japanese school history books covering the war.As for the Japanese people, they had been badly used by the ruling class and taught for generations that a pencil neck geek could be a god. Hope there is a heaven so there can be a hell.
China has not forgotten what happened during WW II and raises a fuss over Japanese school history books covering the war.
What exactly do Japanese history books say about the war?
I have never heard what the Japanese school history books say about WWII but the Chinese are very irritated about it.For the Chinese there are still a number of issues to be resolved.
I have never heard what the Japanese school history books say about WWII but the Chinese are very irritated about it.For the Chinese there are still a number of issues to be resolved.
Well it would be an interesting thing to look in to.
Debating the morality of the atomic bomb dropping is politically motivated. No one seems interested in debating the morality of the fire bombing of Tokyo which killed more and did more damage. I don't hear anyone complaining about the morality of the Jap. in the use of biological weapons in China, the effects of which are still present.In the '70s I told people opposed to nuclear weapons that there were other weapons just as bad, biological and chemical, they should be opposing them too. All I got was a stupid look back. These weapons did not have the dramatic visual effect of an atomic blast. In the '80's an anti-nuclear group placed a plack in Encanto Park in Phoenix AZ. describing and mapping the destruction that would happen if the location of the plack were ground zero. Well, Encanto Park would not be ground zero. They would aim for the intersection of the interstate highways with the interstate gas pipelines and railroad to the south and west. The plack was simple scare propaganda.
The bomb dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki can be looked at from a different perspective also.Approximately 214,000 people died from the dropping of what was called "little boy" on Hiroshima and "Fat man" on Nagasaki.It was a small percentage of the over 56,000,000 people killed in WWII. It was the catalyst that causes Japans surrender and helped to end the war.So it's easy to look at it from the standpoint of a massive amount of people killed by WMD, but how long would Japan have fought on if it weren't for those bombs, how many more than that number of people would have suffered and died. That would almost surely have been more than 214,000. Japan had lost 2,000,000 lives in WWII so although 240,000 is certainly a lot of people, its even a small percentage of their total losses.
Japan would have surrendered if we had given favorable terms. We wanted unconditional surrender, and so long as the conditions remained such, the Japanese would have fought to the bitter end hoping for better terms. I feel that Truman wanted to brush off Japanese overtures for conditional surrender because he wanted the moral justification to use the bomb in a show of force for other Allied powers (China and Russia) to see what would be in store for them if the war were to continue even after the Axis powers were eliminated from the struggle. Of course none of this can be absolutely proven, and it is probable that elements of the truth can be found in both arguments.
Debating the morality of the atomic bomb dropping is politically motivated.
For some maybe. But I think those of us debating it here are arguing the moral aspect of the bombing. And yes one can throw in a question or two as to why Truman acted the way he did. But for me when it comes to mass destruction in war I always ask; was it necessary? For the mass destruction of civilion areas I cant agree with.
