Lankester Merrin
Striker
A small handful doesn't really prove the stereotype wrong does it? There are only a tiny number of authenticated cases
Why?
75 years since the bomb
- Thread starter Football Dinosaur
- Start date
A small handful doesn't really prove the stereotype wrong does it? There are only a tiny number of authenticated cases
Why?
E M P I R E
Central Defender
No, it doesn't. But there were also thousands of kamikaze pilots which are the very definition of fanatical Japanese fighting to the death. I think it's inaccurate to say it's a western stereotype based on racism though it may not have been the way of thinking among the majority of Japanese. Though there was no doubt a whole load of racism around in Pacific WWII (from all sides) and that shows in the propaganda but I don't think it's a racial stereotype here as it is backed up by the actions of the Japanese.
Lankester Merrin
Striker
You're still only talking about a few thousand out of a massive armed forces. Pop history of WW2 in the Pacific is full of crazy stereotypes that bear no relation to actual Japanese people
I would say however that seeing a Kamikaze in real life is a very spooky experience
Lord Potts
Striker
Still no specific references I see just vague generalisations regarding "academic historians". Come on give me the name of just two who substantiate your view.
Looking at recently published work on the Pacific War against Japan I can't find any departure from the fact that Japanese troops had a tendency to fight to that last man. They did so at Guadalcanal Tarawa Saipan the Solomon Islands Iwo Jima the Marianas and Okinawa to name a few. I don't believe that this was due to any obsession or fanaticism but fear. Fear of their own officers who brutalised them- fear of what they were told the Americans would do to them (which they readily believed because of the way they treated their own POW.s) and fear of what their families and others would think of them when news got out they had surrendered.
Lankester Merrin
Striker
Do I have to list all specialist academic historians of Japanese history or the war in the Pacific?
Just the UK? Or the US too?
Or maybe you stop being such a silly sealion.
E M P I R E
Central Defender
Compared to their entire armed forces, a few thousand Kamikaze is of course a minority. But still a good few thousand suggests it wasn't a mere stereotype and the entire pacific theatre is full of instances of Japanese fanaticism - from blind obedience to suicide missions.
".. the Battle of Milne Bay on the southeastern tip of Papua New Guinea and at the Battle of Tenaru on Guadalcanal Island were in effect suicide missions. Those who did not die in a death charge would often shoot themselves in preference to surrender, which was strictly forbidden in the Japanese soldiers’ code. At the Battle of Tarawa, the first Central Pacific island battle, soldiers were found with their heads blown off as they triggered their Arisaka rifles with their toes. Of the 2,700 Japanese combatants at Tarawa, just 17 were taken alive – a 99.4 per cent kill ratio."
- https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03068374.2015.1128682?needAccess=true&
Again, no doubt there were plenty of Japanese who didn't buy in to the fanaticism, but the militant government certainly encouraged it - kids were indoctrinated in to it at school.
Zidane
Striker
My view was that on balance it has worked out for the best.
Other nations would have invented them anyway. Obviously the Germans were close themselves in WWII and the Russians had stolen the designs.
So the fact 2 were used and it created a shock factor to the world was a good thing in my opinion.
Other nations would have invented them anyway. Obviously the Germans were close themselves in WWII and the Russians had stolen the designs.
So the fact 2 were used and it created a shock factor to the world was a good thing in my opinion.
dangermows
Striker
Even though people got melted.
E M P I R E
Central Defender
People had been murdered for years through Japanese brutality. Allied soldiers had gone through years of war In Europe and were then sent east to fight an arguably more ruthless and fanatical enemy. There was no foreseeable outcome that didn’t cost thousands and thousands of lives.
Unfortunately, however callous it sounds to say, people were going to die and they needed a method they believed would save the most allied lives.
An indirect ‘benefit’ of using the bomb was that the Soviets had to be somewhat restrained afterwards and could be made to uphold their promises at Yalta. Stalin even called it atomic blackmail. It has become the ultimate deterrent.
dangermows
Striker
The latter point is valid.
PinzaC55
Striker
The only argument is from Japanese far right nationalists and it isn't massive. Those with sense have realised they tried to take on the world and got decisively beaten, then they have moved on.
Zidane
Striker
If they hadn't used it possibly 5+ times as many would have died in the continuation of the war anyway,
but my main point was that had it not been used then when only USA had them and that horror of the aftermath not actually been seen, the world might not have seen the need for non-proliferation treaties and it's possible the first one would have been used in anger further down the line when USA had 500, USSR 400, UK 25, France 45 and lots of other far more dangerous countries that non proliferation stopped. I.e rather than being 2 on Japan it could of been worse.
So overall I think the 2 dropped on Japan has been a good thing to keep relative M.A.D peace since.
D
Deleted member 35145
Guest
Robert McNamara’s view on it is interesting. He’d classify himself as a war criminal for what happened:
McNamara: I think the issue is not so much incendiary bombs. I think the issue is: in order to win a war should you kill 100,000 people in one night, by firebombing or any other way? LeMay's answer would be clearly "Yes."
"McNamara, do you mean to say that instead of killing 100,000, burning to death 100,000 Japanese civilians in that one night, we should have burned to death a lesser number or none? And then had our soldiers cross the beaches in Tokyo and been slaughtered in the tens of thousands? Is that what you're proposing? Is that moral? Is that wise?"
Why was it necessary to drop the nuclear bomb if LeMay was burning up Japan? And he went on from Tokyo to firebomb other cities. 58% of Yokohama. Yokohama is roughly the size of Cleveland. 58% of Cleveland destroyed. Tokyo is roughly the size of New York. 51% percent of New York destroyed. 99% of the equivalent of Chattanooga, which was Toyama. 40% of the equivalent of Los Angeles, which was Nagoya. This was all done before the dropping of the nuclear bomb, which by the way was dropped by LeMay's command.
Proportionality should be a guideline in war. Killing 50% to 90% of the people of 67 Japanese cities and then bombing them with two nuclear bombs is not proportional, in the minds of some people, to the objectives we were trying to achieve.
I don't fault Truman for dropping the nuclear bomb. The U.S.—Japanese War was one of the most brutal wars in all of human history ? kamikaze pilots, suicide, unbelievable. What one can criticize is that the human race prior to that time ? and today ? has not really grappled with what are, I'll call it, "the rules of war." Was there a rule then that said you shouldn't bomb, shouldn't kill, shouldn't burn to death 100,000 civilians in one night?
LeMay said, "If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals." And I think he's right. He, and I'd say I, were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?
McNamara: I think the issue is not so much incendiary bombs. I think the issue is: in order to win a war should you kill 100,000 people in one night, by firebombing or any other way? LeMay's answer would be clearly "Yes."
"McNamara, do you mean to say that instead of killing 100,000, burning to death 100,000 Japanese civilians in that one night, we should have burned to death a lesser number or none? And then had our soldiers cross the beaches in Tokyo and been slaughtered in the tens of thousands? Is that what you're proposing? Is that moral? Is that wise?"
Why was it necessary to drop the nuclear bomb if LeMay was burning up Japan? And he went on from Tokyo to firebomb other cities. 58% of Yokohama. Yokohama is roughly the size of Cleveland. 58% of Cleveland destroyed. Tokyo is roughly the size of New York. 51% percent of New York destroyed. 99% of the equivalent of Chattanooga, which was Toyama. 40% of the equivalent of Los Angeles, which was Nagoya. This was all done before the dropping of the nuclear bomb, which by the way was dropped by LeMay's command.
Proportionality should be a guideline in war. Killing 50% to 90% of the people of 67 Japanese cities and then bombing them with two nuclear bombs is not proportional, in the minds of some people, to the objectives we were trying to achieve.
I don't fault Truman for dropping the nuclear bomb. The U.S.—Japanese War was one of the most brutal wars in all of human history ? kamikaze pilots, suicide, unbelievable. What one can criticize is that the human race prior to that time ? and today ? has not really grappled with what are, I'll call it, "the rules of war." Was there a rule then that said you shouldn't bomb, shouldn't kill, shouldn't burn to death 100,000 civilians in one night?
LeMay said, "If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals." And I think he's right. He, and I'd say I, were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?
Errol Morris: Film
www.errolmorris.com
Last edited by a moderator:
Lord Potts
Striker
No only two as I had asked. Still being just as evasive I see.
Lankester Merrin
Striker
I am sure there are plenty of examples like this.
But the troops that Japan had left to defend Tokyo in 1945 weren't these soliders. They were scared kids and old men. With nothing to fight with.
I'm not being evasive, daftie
I'm just not playing along with your silly sea lioning.
I don't understand why you are so angry about this. The split between pop history/internet and academic history in this subject is huge
In fact it's one of the best examples of how pop history and the internet continue to promote a view of history that academic historians gave up on a generation ago
Last edited:
Kent_Mackem
Striker
Or, more likely, due to some some sort of mistake or malfunction.
When there are so many missiles aimed at cities, activated in effect by hair-trigger switches, that cannot be stopped once launched, given sufficient time it is inevitable.
As a species we must get rid of them to survive. It’s insane that we still have them loaded, live and ready.
When you think about all the other situations that we manage worldwide (e.g. safety around cars, regulations around flying aircraft, the care we take in developing drugs) the thought that we have the ability to destroy every major city and all the people in it, yet we in effect arepointing a loaded gun at everybody’s head with a finger on the trigger for decades.
Crackers man!
so a lot more than the 10 you claimed earlier in the thread
Lankester Merrin
Striker
No, because you are comparing different numbers
You honestly have no idea what you are talking about.
Firstly, Lemay did'nt operate in a vacuum - their was always the chain of command. Higher powers could have ordered him to stop but probably didn't for the same reason that no-one really reined in Bomber Harris
Secondly, your'e sending over 200+ B29's, firebombing a Japanese city, killing 100K people - then someone says 'we have this new bomb, you dont need 200 bombers, we can do it with one' - same end result but instead of risking 2000 crew a night you've reduced that risk to about 30
D
Deleted member 35145
Guest
Yeah, agree - Truman said he didn’t lose any sleep at all. Why would he? The threshold for inflicting that level of destruction had already been passed, probably at Dresden, and then again with the fire bombing of Japanese cities. As you said - they achieved the same result with one bomb and one plane that they’d already been achieving with a load of them creating firestorms.
The “should they have dropped the bomb?” question is an ethical question that people ask now, but I don’t get the impression there was any moralising about it at all at the time.
