Log in

View Full Version : Considering.


Will.
May 11th, 2009, 05:40 PM
Alright, I was talking to this japanese guy, (confirmed because I accidentally said he was chinese, on another note, don't call japanese chinese, and vice versa) He brought up the bombing of Pearl harbour, and the dropping of the A bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and how the brutish Americans didn't need to do that?
Well, I'm not pro american or anything, but isn't the moral of the story, if you love your country don't bomb america after a really long war? Casualties were high in World War 2, both sides the allies and reik alike, the tensions were high...Very high, even after the war, Norway houses, proceeded to mistreat the hitler youth, non-abiding the treaties signed...Which raised the tension even higher. I don't condone the use of Atomic weaponry, but I don't see why he didn't have to do that? Harry Truman seen an easy end to the war and took it. If he hadn't who knows how long it could've dragged on..

heh heh... Reik Alike.
Anyways, he explained how it was atrocious of them to react the way they did.
... Any thoughts?

rzm61
May 11th, 2009, 05:46 PM
Ummm, shut the fuck up?

Will.
May 11th, 2009, 05:58 PM
Ummm, shut the fuck up?

Um, maybe when you try it?

Tsar Phalanxia
May 11th, 2009, 06:10 PM
Well, it ended the war early, which meant that Russians didn't gain full control of the Korean Penninsula, meaning that we now have a "free" South Korea, rather than one whole big "Democratic People's Republic". However, it was a terrible, terrible weapon, and certainly the mass amount of civilian casualties is unjustifiable, in any circumstance. On the other hand, we're just arguing semantics, and "What ifs". The best solution would have been for the Japanese to surrender as soon as the Soviets declared War on them, as there was no way they could have won after that, atomic bomb or not.

Will.
May 11th, 2009, 06:18 PM
So... That said, what' yer saying is, even though the horizon looked bleak, it probably would've ended with a surrender by japan anyways, though to whom is a big question.

Tsar Phalanxia
May 11th, 2009, 06:22 PM
Kind of. But the bombs were more of the fault of the Japanese government to acept a surrender. Although they couldn't have predicted the bombs, you reap what you sow.

Yiuel
May 11th, 2009, 07:09 PM
Ah! Ze goud olde question.

Despite being called by most people I know the Mislocated Japanese, I don't share their ire about the Bombing. We cannot repair history, so I won't go into the emotions. Theses bombs were shocking, but I don't think anyone would have prefered a sea of fire all over Japonesia, which was about to occur.

About people, civilians dying. Now we should all overcome that. We don't live in a world where we care much about the locals. In the past, when a hoard of barbarians would cross a land, they didn't kill all the flock because they were needed to take care of the land. You only got rid of the defences. Today, since WWI, we learned how to have the whole people work for the countries' wars, so everyone is pretty much involved. This is called Total War. Not everyone supported the government, I am fully aware of one of the most popular cases in Japan.

Yet, the line between the soldiers and flocks has long been erased. And in Japan, they had fully gone that way. There is almost no excuse today, except one. If someone was really going to oppose the wars in our modern countries, he'd probably loose everything he has in life and be a beggar on streets and do exactly what a lot of our fellow citizens despise the most, so he's in a choice of life and death, really. And that is the biggest problem : individual people are paying for the silliness of leaders.

Because it really goes down to the silliness of leaders, which are the result of the silliness of the politics of our times (even in the past). And let us say it : they're all assholes. And the Japanese government was just as assholish as anyone else in the field. So was mine (Canadian), and so were all the other governments. So, if anyone has anything to blame, it's on those sillinesses. All this is about the morality of the act, it basically means what Tsar said, with some elaboration : you reap what you sow. Sow silliness, and you will reap silliness. Sow friendship, and you will reap friendship. Japan sew invasion. I rept it. The Very Hard Way.

Were the bombs necessary? Nothing is, anything could have done anything, and nothing is necessary. But one bomb instead of two would have been enough to stop everything the same way. Three days, in a country destroyed by constant warfare? Hard to get images through and give an answer. But this is where I will stop speculations.

The US as well got silly at that point : they sew stubbornness (no condition), they rept stubbornness.

In circles very high, there were already discussions about surrendering. These are well know among academics (got a full course about the world wars). What does "No condition" mean? Who knows? Anything is possible in such a situation. You won't stop fighting if there is a fear you'll loose everything you have. An end to the war without a Europe-like bloodshed was probably possible, without the bombs.

So, basically, Tsar is right. You reap what you sow. But it goes all ways, and we're all paying.

Tsar Phalanxia
May 11th, 2009, 07:26 PM
Yeah. Tbh, If I was Japanese, I would certainly be angry at the atomic bombs, but I would hold that anger with the likes of Tojo rather than thr Americans, and the possibility of an invasion of Japan is too horrifying to think about,

rzm61
May 11th, 2009, 08:01 PM
Um, maybe when you try it?


Oh man, you got me there!

Will.
May 11th, 2009, 10:57 PM
NOW, Unless your comments have anything to do with either, the reaction of Japan or the American Bombing, please, pm rzm, I'm sure he'll want to know.

Dayve
May 12th, 2009, 02:44 AM
It was all a big hypocrisy. The USA didn't drop the bombs to end the war early, they dropped them because the entire west was terrified of Russia declaring war on them once Germany had been defeated, and with the millions and millions of battle hardened Russian soldiers along the new border with east and west, they would have steamrolled the allies all the way to the channel in under half a year. Dropping two atom bombs on Japan was nothing more than a way of showing Russia that it would be quite foolish to do what the west was scared they would do.

But, to be honest, after some of the shit Japan did to every country it occupied and invaded before and during WW2, it deserved what it got. Japan's war crimes made Auschwitz look like a 3 star hotel with decent room service, but not very many people know about that, because the USA agreed to help them cover up their horrific crimes in exchange for the data they accumulated from a decades worth of mass human experiments, and even went as far as letting the men who planned and carried out the experiments keep their businesses and go on to lead very rich and successful lives.

Will.
May 12th, 2009, 02:55 AM
O.o... It was a quick end.
When 165000 people disappear over night, people notice.

The Good Reverend Roger
May 12th, 2009, 04:12 AM
However, it was a terrible, terrible weapon, and certainly the mass amount of civilian casualties is unjustifiable, in any circumstance.


Tell it to Nanking.

Tsar Phalanxia
May 12th, 2009, 09:23 AM
Tell it to Nanking.

Eye for an eye, eh? Yeah, that always works out great. And I'm not justifying the Japanese's actions, as stuff like Nanking and Unit 731 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731)were absolutely monstrous.

winwun
May 12th, 2009, 12:02 PM
What's wrong with a little revenge ? ?

Remember Dresden ?

Admittedly, it's a guy thing, but one of the best feelings there can be is to knock your adversary's dong in the dust, and put the boots to him while he's down . . .

Tsar Phalanxia
May 12th, 2009, 12:10 PM
Revenge of Versaille = Stabbed in the back myth = Rise of Nazi Germany + Holocaust

Cain
May 12th, 2009, 12:34 PM
It was unnecessary, as well.

Japanese records show the High Command decided to relent not because of the nukes, but because of Stalin (who terrified them more than any weapon, and whose neutrality had become a cornerstone of their grand strategy) had turned on them and overran Manchuria. Ever since the pasting the Japanese took at Khalkin-Gol, they had esteemed the Soviet Union far above other great powers, and believed that if their neutrality could be assured, then they would come out ahead in the war, no matter what.

It was irrational, but that's how it was.

And if you remove necessity from the equation, then there is no excuse for using the weapons at all. None. Revenge is done in a court, on war crimes charges, for the world to see, not meted out by whoever happens to have the biggest stick at the time and with disregard as to the loss of innocent life.

Because at one point, it was very nearly the Third Reich which had the biggest stick.

Dr. Drilling_Teeth
May 12th, 2009, 04:57 PM
It was unnecessary, as well.

Japanese records show the High Command decided to relent not because of the nukes, but because of Stalin (who terrified them more than any weapon, and whose neutrality had become a cornerstone of their grand strategy) had turned on them and overran Manchuria. Ever since the pasting the Japanese took at Khalkin-Gol, they had esteemed the Soviet Union far above other great powers, and believed that if their neutrality could be assured, then they would come out ahead in the war, no matter what.

It was irrational, but that's how it was.

And if you remove necessity from the equation, then there is no excuse for using the weapons at all. None. Revenge is done in a court, on war crimes charges, for the world to see, not meted out by whoever happens to have the biggest stick at the time and with disregard as to the loss of innocent life.

Because at one point, it was very nearly the Third Reich which had the biggest stick.

BINGO!

The Good Reverend Roger
May 13th, 2009, 03:56 AM
Eye for an eye, eh? Yeah, that always works out great. And I'm not justifying the Japanese's actions, as stuff like Nanking and Unit 731 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731)were absolutely monstrous.


Damn straight, an eye for an eye.

Also, the lesson of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is this: Don't wage total war and lose.

It's really just that simple.

The Good Reverend Roger
May 13th, 2009, 03:57 AM
Revenge of Versaille = Stabbed in the back myth = Rise of Nazi Germany + Holocaust


Which is why Japan invaded France in 1966. :\

djura
May 13th, 2009, 08:44 AM
this is like soooooo racist...

Tsar Phalanxia
May 13th, 2009, 10:27 AM
Also, the lesson of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is this: Don't wage total war and lose.
It's really just that simple.
Exactly. I you can't take, don't deal it out.
Although Italy never waged Total; War; e.g. it's armament production levels remained at peace time levels until 1943, by which time they'd lost the war.
Which is why Japan invaded France in 1966. :\
Um. I was using it as an example of why revenge always sucks.
this is like soooooo racist...
How?

The Good Reverend Roger
May 14th, 2009, 04:59 AM
Exactly. I you can't take, don't deal it out.
Although Italy never waged Total; War; e.g. it's armament production levels remained at peace time levels until 1943, by which time they'd lost the war.

Italy won the war. Seriously. This is provable fact.


Um. I was using it as an example of why revenge always sucks.

Sucks for the French. They always wind up signing embarassing documents in rail cars. It works for me, though. I will never be a good Buddhist.

The Good Reverend Roger
May 14th, 2009, 04:59 AM
this is like soooooo racist...


:\

Tsar Phalanxia
May 14th, 2009, 11:33 AM
Italy won the war. Seriously. This is provable fact.

Well yeah, but the Fascist regime controlling Italy didn't.

thats it your on ignore too
wat

Djura is awesome, and certainly not a troll.

The Good Reverend Roger
May 15th, 2009, 04:31 AM
Well yeah, but the Fascist regime controlling Italy didn't.


Who cares about the bald old bastard. I was talking about the country.

Oh, yeah, and Il Duce's grand daughter is in their parliament, and is likely going to be their leader before long.

And she makes the old bastard look all touchy-feelie.

Tsar Phalanxia
May 15th, 2009, 09:01 AM
I thought she was an MEP.