Tango01 | 13 May 2016 10:38 p.m. PST |
"Later this month, President Obama will make a historic visit to Hiroshima, becoming the first sitting American president to visit either of the two sites on which the United States dropped an atomic bomb at the close of World War II. Mr. Obama's visit, to be accompanied by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, will highlight the maturity and depth of the U.S.-Japan alliance. Despite the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, the Bataan Death March, the brutal combat on Iwo Jima and elsewhere, the fire bombings, and the atomic bombings on the home islands, the U.S. and Japan have since forged an enduring partnership—one that has greatly benefited both countries and the rest of Asia. Even so, the Hiroshima visit is a mistake, not because the president will apologize (he won't) or because of how it will be viewed in Japan or elsewhere in Asia, but because of how it may be received at home. According to the White House, Mr. Obama will go to Hiroshima "to highlight his continued commitment to pursuing the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons." This implies that the U.S. bombings played a role in ushering in a world that has become less peaceful and less secure. That's the wrong lesson to draw. The correct lesson is that it is sometimes necessary to employ great violence to root out great evil. Debating the ethics of the bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki today makes for an interesting and important thought exercise, but this discussion is beside the point. Japan's crushing defeat was necessary to end the war in the Pacific. It was also needed to expunge the country's racist and militaristic strain, which enabled systematic atrocities and nearly brought about Japan's own destruction. Whether by atomic bombings or invasion of the home islands, achieving an ultimate victory was bound to be bloody…" Full article here link Amicalement Armand |
surdu2005 | 14 May 2016 3:18 a.m. PST |
Amen, brother. Very tired of the apologists. |
Dynaman8789 | 14 May 2016 4:43 a.m. PST |
Can I add this topic to the list of those that result in lots of dawghowsing? (time will tell I suppose) |
15th Hussar | 14 May 2016 5:00 a.m. PST |
I agree w/Dynaman…this should be Blue Fez material. |
Zargon | 14 May 2016 5:50 a.m. PST |
Sometimes ya wish ya waz in Dixie witout a radio. |
nazrat | 14 May 2016 6:22 a.m. PST |
A lot of implications being inferred and lessons being drawn from an action that is doing none of the things the article is claiming. |
jpattern2 | 14 May 2016 6:43 a.m. PST |
Agreed, , belongs on the Blue Fez. Very tired of the apologists. Very tired of this blinkered attitude. |
Great War Ace | 14 May 2016 6:59 a.m. PST |
Tango strikes again! This is a crossover: over ten years ago, and CACA. "Danger, Will Robinson!" |
RavenscraftCybernetics | 14 May 2016 7:13 a.m. PST |
No one goes to war expecting to lose. No apology is necessary. We were provoked, w/o warning. |
Joes Shop | 14 May 2016 8:00 a.m. PST |
The wrong lesson is to judge military decisions without placing them in the context of the time period in which they were made. |
RebelPaul | 14 May 2016 8:18 a.m. PST |
I don't see the Japanese government apologize for all the very real atrocities committed by the Japanese armed forces. |
rmaker | 14 May 2016 8:50 a.m. PST |
I don't see the Japanese government apologize for all the very real atrocities committed by the Japanese armed forces. Apologize? They don't even admit them! |
darthfozzywig | 14 May 2016 9:59 a.m. PST |
Apologize? For what? Those Korean ladies were all volunteers, no doubt. And all those citizens of Nanjing accidentally fell on the bayonets of peacefully visiting Japanese soldiers. |
Tango01 | 14 May 2016 10:01 a.m. PST |
Hope not my friend!…. (smile) Agree with Joes Shop! Amicalement Armand |
Editor in Chief Bill | 14 May 2016 10:33 a.m. PST |
belongs on the Blue Fez. Discussion of Hiroshima is appropriate for the WWII Discussion board. Discussion of current American politics should adjourn to the Blue Fez, our sister site: thebluefez.com |
john lacour | 14 May 2016 10:38 a.m. PST |
As my long past great uncle bob(a pacific war vet) offten said "It was them or us. I wanted to come home. WE WERE THE VICTIMS." |
Martin Rapier | 14 May 2016 12:27 p.m. PST |
"It was them or us. I wanted to come home. WE WERE THE VICTIMS." Too right. My grandfather never got to come home, although he did survive just over two years of Japanese hospitality. |
ROUWetPatchBehindTheSofa | 14 May 2016 12:30 p.m. PST |
So Japan has the dubious distinction of being the first (and so far only) country to be on the recieving end of the a nuclear weapon and America has the dubious distinction of first user. But invsding the home islands would have been an horrific business and even more so if the Japanese civilian populous had engaged in total resistance as their political leaders wanted. The seige of Leningrad seems to have killed in the order of fifth of its civilian population. The population of Japan was in the order of 70 million at the time. The Japanese themselves estimated 20 million casualities from an invasion. Upper estimates for casualities from the bombings 250K. Its unpleasant maths, but the answers pretty clear. (And thats without getting into what an invasion would have done to civil society etc, etc) |
charared | 14 May 2016 8:32 p.m. PST |
Very tired of this blinkered attitude. Lotsa "tired" folks here! |
Retiarius9 | 15 May 2016 5:59 a.m. PST |
|
Rudysnelson | 15 May 2016 6:59 a.m. PST |
Nobody was looking for a lesson in the war. Using the bomb was both a tactical and strategic move. Useing it saved American, British, Australian and other Allies lives. That was the bottom line and the only lesson. Revisionist history is pathetic. |
wizbangs | 15 May 2016 8:54 a.m. PST |
|
Weasel | 15 May 2016 12:58 p.m. PST |
I'm not going to get into all the rabble rousing you guys have going. All I know is at the time, plenty of well-informed decision makers thought the bomb was needed and plenty thought it was not needed. Given that the people in charge at various levels of government and the military were likely competent and educated people, the fact that they had doubts and disagreements should indicate to a reasonable person that there's more than a simple, thought-terminating one-line answer to consider. Likewise, I will point out that "The bomb was needed to end the war" and "The bomb was dropped for geo-political purposes" are not actually mutually exclusive answers.
Both can be true or false at the same time. Heck, I am inclined to believe that both are indeed true. |
Tango01 | 16 May 2016 10:41 a.m. PST |
|
COL Scott ret | 16 May 2016 9:46 p.m. PST |
71 years ago (so long past the 10 year rule) Leaders took a long thoughtful process to decide between the possible courses of action. They at the time believed that it was the lesser of evils. I cannot second guess them but my math leads me to the same conclusion. |