"Some find peace park agreement offensive" Topic

Survivors of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima have reacted angrily to an agreement that links the city's peace park with a memorial in Pearl Harbor…

The Guardian: link

‘Some' will always be offended by something. Even burying the past for a better future.

Two ironies:

1. They point out that one is a military target while the other civilian, but ignore that one was on a neutral unsuspecting nation and the other an aggressor who had vowed to fight to the end.

2. Our government should make the same efforts to seek peace between the ancestors of both sides of slavery rather than fan flames and label people.

I meant Descendants*

Deucy, +1.

Well, they were warned and it still took two atomic bombings before they surrendered. Countless lives were saved by taking out Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I'm glad our leadership at that time made such a gutsy call.

How about a three way with Nanking….

Countless lives were saved by taking out Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

It's unknowable how much fight the Japanese had left in them at that point. Certainly the leadership were determined to fight on.

"It's unknowable how much fight the Japanese had left in them at that point. Certainly the leadership were determined to fight on."

Based on all information we have post war, (documentation, references, government records, and even interviews with all ranks, and even the civilian populace), they still had plenty of fight in them had an invasion occurred.
The bombs killed less people than the Dresden Air Raids, but the impact of it was enough to stop millions more from dying due to the impending invasion.

How much fight was expected? Here's a clue, we have not yet run out of Purple Heart medals from the lot created for the invasion of Japan.

I have observed endless debates over the propriety of using the bomb against Japan. I must confess myself perplexed over the impulse to try to sanitize War into a lawn sport with rigid rules of engagement, definable fouls, JAG consultants subbing in as referees, and the like.

Wars are won in the will. No war can ever be won if one side knows in advance the Red lines the other won't cross, and then ignores the rulebook themselves.

There are valid arguments pro and con over the use of the bomb. For my own part, if the use of the bomb shortened the War enough to insure the survival of 1 US POW languishing in Japanese custody, then I am content its' use was justified.

I would, however, very much like to peek behind the fabric of reality to see if the Russians overrunning Manchuria in 2 days might have been enuf to break Japanese resolve on its' own.

It is well that war is so terrible, otherwise we should grow too fond of it.

+1 HMS Exeter. US and Allied POWs were dying every day in Japanese custody.
Japanese officers attempted a coup to avoid the surrender.
Russians in Manchuria could never invade Japan. The invasion of a large island nation is a complex operation and the Russians could never have done it in 1945 or even for years later.
Iwo Jima is actually considered part of Japan itself and the Japanese did not surrender when it was captured.
Don't put munitions factories, and army headquarters, supply storage and troop shipping areas in cities if you don't want them bombed.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek

Saved my Dad's life and by extension mine & my younger brother. I'm OK with the bombing.

I would argue that if the world had not seen proof of how truly terrible atomic warfare is, it might have been much more willing to use it on a far wider scale later.

Imagine a Cuban Missile crisis if the effects of the atom bomb were not well established. Or Korea, or Vietnam, or the Indo China wars of the 60s, or other conflicts in the wake of WW2.

I agree with the traditional argument that the invasion would have happened and killed far more Japanese soldiers and civilians, not to mention allied lives- but the thought of a world possessing such an un-demonstrated weapon in the wake of the war fills me with ‘what-if?' dread.

To echo something my older brother once said to a German lady complaining about treatment after the war:
It's best not to start wars