The definition of terrorism, that so many Ameicans like to use, is involving civilians in acts of war - like those at the World Trade Center. What greater act of terrorism than dropping an atomic bomb on a city full of civilians? Oh, they were only Japanese. That's different.
shareUm, it's not terrorism when you're engaged in war with that country, it's WAR. I've never heard anyone use the definition of terrorism that you propose. There has never been a war in the history of the world in which civilians did not die.
saucybetty.blogspot.com
Oh sure there was. War used to be a very civilized activity, with most of the fighting and dying done by the armies. For example, the US Civil War had very few civilian casualties. It was with the advent of the airplane (and bombs dropped from airplanes) that the mass slaughter of civilians (to "terrorize" the civilian population) became possible. Thus the Geneva Convention in the 1920s as an attempt to put some civilization back into warfare. Civilians are supposed to be exempt from the killing.
shareRight, so when the Greeks sieged Troy, a city which had been attacked numerous times, yet had never fallen, and was thought by most to be impregnable...all that died were military. Especially when they came out of the trojan horse in the middle of the night, somehow they didn't kill any civilians...
Of course civilians are supposed to be exempt from killing. I refuse to believe that the US pursues war without any regard for civilians. People die. That's the unfortunate nature of war. That doesn't make the US military terrorists. You yourself just gave the example that somehow, in a civil war on our own land, there were minimal civilian casualties. How could that be if we were terrorists? Of course I am sad that all those Japanese died when the A-bombs were dropped, but I'm not sorry we did it, because in the end we saved more lives by ending the war.
saucybetty.blogspot.com
thatsnumberwang - I'm so happy you were the 1st to respond to this gibberish.
To the O.P.:
Also, if I might add, the Japanese were known to fight to the last person standing. Of course the war would have been well over before this point was reached but the point is that Japan would not have surrenderd without this extrodinary measure being taken. It would have taken our men landing on their shores figthing hand to hand until the population was devastated - more than likely more civilian casualties than occurred on these 2 dates. Break it down to a 'one to one' local event. 'Just because you are crazy enough to get yourself killed doesn't mean I'm going to let you take me with you' if you get my point ! Japan decided how they were going to conduct their war against the civilized world. They were crazed. We put 'them' out of their misery and spared as many innocent by standers as possible.Maybe you could have came up with a better plan as thousands were being killed on a daily basis ?? Lets hear it !
The attack on Pearl Harbor on the other hand WAS an act of terrorism as far as I'm concerned. Were no civilians killed during the attack on 12/07/41 ?
Did they care ? You'd have to show me hoe they knew where every civilian was located at the time of the attack, how they could be sure of the civilians location(s) and what was their plan for ensuring no civilians were going to be killed when the Japanese war planes dropped their bombs - often 'randomly' (as bombing was no where near as precise in '41 as with today's 'smart bombs') to convince me the Japanese were so noble as they would not attack/kill civilians !! Or are you on here posting just to provoke ?? If so, you did a good job of it 'cause you have me seething here - rambling all over the place. Enough.
Every one has a right to their opinion. As long as its an informed one I can listen to anybodies opinion - but, in this case, you clearly are just trying to be provocative or you have not read nearly enough about the US' war with Japan
to have an informed opinion. There were 2 choices - our 'suicide' in effect or our victory. If you feel it's better to die than take a life, well then I understand (but don't agree) with your opinion. Just as long as you realize that these were the only 2 options for the US of A to take (with what was known
at the time) and my guess is most folks would agree with preserving as many lives as possible (via victory). Or maybe you've thought of an option heretofore never contemplated ?? Do tell !!
contimplated
Oops, let me dissolve your entire "regurgitation".
All the bomb lovers like to point out the saving of lives by dropping the bomb instead of invading Japan.
Here's a concept for ya, How about not invading Japan at all? OR dropping a bomb?
Japan was beaten militarily, industrially, and socially at that point. Left alone, they weren't going to be a threat to the U.S. at that point.
They NEVER had the capability to attack, much less invade mainland America, EVER.
Of course the opportunity to police the world, particularly the far east, would have been lost for awhile, but then again, 80,000 Japanese would not have been wiped out in the blink of an eye either. I think the morality of one instant massacre vs. long-term policies of the Japanese is a lot more complex than most people are willing to put effort into thinking about.
There were a HELL of a lot MORE than TWO measly choices. Try to form some new ideas with your own mind and consider the real possibilities, rather than just burping up the few things you see repeated by unimaginative writers.
I don't think that we knew exactly what the Japanese were capable of in August of 1945. I know that we could have spent billions of American dollars beefing up our navy to establish a blockade of Japan. Japan is a huge country to try to blockade and I'm not sure it could be done. If this were at all feasible, I suppose it would be preferable to dropping two A bombs. On the other hand, we could have just continued our B-29 bombing raids on other key Japanese cities, incinerating civilians like we did in Tokyo.
Either way, it made sense to try to end the war as soon as possible. If more people would die as a result of conducting conventional warfare, why not try to get it over with pronto?
As a comparison, in Europe when Germany was invaded in 1945, both by the Russians in the East, and the British and Americans in the West, Germany had lost the capability to conduct full-scale war. Its Air Force and Navy were a shambles. We could have just sat on the sidelines and blockaded the entire country. I think this would be easier than trying to blockade Japan. Mass starvation would probably have occurred. Instead, it made sense to get the war over with as soon as possible. This is the philosophy followed by the Russians, who conducted a powerful offensive to take Berlin by sending in thousands of tanks and infantry personnel. How many civilians died as a result? Probably less than if the city had been blockaded and people starved.
Prolonging a war unnecessarily wreaks more misery on civilians than if the war were brought to a close as quickly as possible.
Terrorism??? What about December 7, 1941, what the hell was that?? We were trying to end the war and we did. It's tragic what happened in Japan in 1945. But, as the General said, "They awakened a sleeping giant." (on DEC 7, 1941) Don't ever forget about Pearl Harbor!
shareOh, I forgot about the Alamo, too. Damn! Comparing Pearl Harbor with Hiroshima & Nagasaki? I think Pearl Harbor was a military target and even though it was a surprise attack on a country not at war, I don't think that incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians is a suitable revenge. Unless of course you consider the Japanese to be non-humans.
If I'm not mistaken, Pearl Harbor was a military base.
shareThe dropping of the A bombs has been labeled as despicable, yet nobody says anything about the civilian casualties caused by U.S. conventional bombing of Tokyo nor of the slaughter of Chinese civilians by the Japanese.
As a result of the Japanese waging war against China that started in 1937, the following casualty statistics were recorded:
3,220,000 military (including wounded, killed and missing)
17,530,000 civilians
When the United States bombed Tokyo using conventional bombs before the A bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the following damages were recorded:
19 February 1945: 119 B-29s hit port and urban area
25 February 1945: 174 B-29s dropping incendiaries destroy ~28,000 buildings
4 March 1945: 159 B-29s hit urban area[1]
10 March 1945: 334 B-29s dropping incendiaries destroy ~267,000 buildings; ~25% of city[1] (Operation Meetinghouse) killing some 100,000 civilians
2 April 1945: >100 B-29s bomb the Nakajima aircraft factory
3 April 1945: 68 B-29s bomb the Koizumi aircraft factory and urban areas in Tokyo
7 April 1945: 101 B-29s bomb the Nakajima aircraft factory.
13 April 1945: 327 B-29s bomb the arsenal area
15 April 1945: 109 B-29s hit urban area
24 May 1945: 520 B-29s bomb urban-industrial area south of the Imperial Palace
26 May 1945: 464 B-29s bomb urban area immediately south of the Imperial Palace
20 July 1945: 1 B-29 drops a Pumpkin bomb (bomb with same ballistics as nuclear bomb) through overcast aiming at but missing the Imperial Palace[5]
8 August 1945: ~60 B-29s bomb the aircraft factory and arsenal
10 August 1945: 70 B-29s bomb the arsenal complex
It has been estimated that more civilians lost their lives during these missions than those that died as a result of the A bombs.
Well if you have ever been on a military base you know they are staffed by a whole lot of civilians ! We don't use privates to check you out at the PX (post exchange - store for soldiers to shop) etc. Before you come on here making an a** out of yourself try reading and using your head. It's pretty obvious that you are just repeating a slogan you heard somewhere and have not invested a minute of your time to find out if the slogan was logical or intellectually honest. Don't just 'absorb', THINK ! My guess is that you're probably young and impressionable. Its not inexcusable that upon hearing 80,000 people or more where killed you want to criticize - initially. Anyone with a soul would naturally have this reaction initially. The point of this movie, if you actually watched it, was to show the thought process of the point man for this mission. He felt the same as you - until he thought it all out. He didn't make his decision to proceed based on his own selfish wants/needs. He realized that his own life and those of his wife and kids were almost a triviality in 'the big picture'. He risked his own life on this mission. We die alone, one at a time so to speak even id simultaneously with others. Every Japanese casualty, however sad and regrettable, was no more important than his life. He put his on the line and was spared death. I'm sure others on the ground, for one reason or the other were spared death that day too.The lottery of life and death.The moral point to be made is that this mission wasn't the equivalent of some punk walking into a liquor store with a pistol and robbing/shooting the clerk or a Nazi shooting Jews in a concentration camp. Had that bomb accidentally exploded prematurely he would have perished the same as any of those on the ground or had the shock waves been more severe or any a number of things which he was willing to chance so as to save thousands more an unnecessary death - pretty damn brave I say.Much like diving on a live grenade to save your buddies.
Anyhow, just put yourself in his position - if your still single make some substitutions using any loved ones in your sphere. If you were handed a pistol
loaded Russian Roulette style and told you have to point it at your head and pull the trigger or the others will die, what would you do ? The outcome of the war wasn't a certainty at that time. Had the Japanese developed their version of the bomb (which they were working on) and these missions never went down, there's reason to think he might loose his own family in a similar mushroom cloud. OK, the heck with this - you can look at it in a 100 different ways - just THINK and in thinking about this situation keep in mind that no one knew who was going to ultimately win the war.We have the advantage of 'Monday morning quarter backing' these events. You will appreciate just how terrifying the times were if you remember to keep in mind that victory wasn't a 'given' by any means and the odds changed day by day.Thinking you may soon be under the hammer of Germany or Japan if either had their way must have been incredibly frightening.
An amazing generation of men and woman- try giving them the benefit of the doubt.
ps - do you think Japan would be the country it is today had they won ?? In a way it was the best thing that could've happened to that country given what 'their' intentions were and what their legacy would be now if they had they won.
Personally, I would hope that if I ever 'lost it' and went on a killing rampage someone would stop me by any means necessary before I killed anymore - I'll sign a contract to that effect ! We ended the misery. Yeah I know, some died a long,slow,painful death due to radiation exposure - don't 'come back' with that one please...thanks.
after The United States conqured the Marianas, General Tojo resigned. Every drop of blood spilled after this point is on Japanese hands. The jig was up when we had secure bases for the B-29s. They should have sought terms then, but did not. Hard chesse.
shareLearn some history idiot. Nothing displays a person's lack of historical knowledge more than how they reference the atomic bombs. Put down the 3x5 index card of complete WW2 history & grab a real book sometime.
shareUhm, nice ad hominem attack, very well said. As far as those 3x5 cards go, I use them for recipes and a cheap Rolodex. And, as for books, I can show you some of those, too. Real ones.
share...For example, the US Civil War had very few civilian casualties...
That may be true, but General Sherman Burned Atlanta and did wholesale destruction on his march to the sea. Nothing 'civilized" about that.
It was clear the Japs weren't about to surrender or sue for peace, even though it was clear that they had lost the war. By dropping the bombs, millions of American's lives were saved by not having to launch an invasion on Japan. Even more Jap civilians would have been killed during such an invasion. The United States gave advance warning of the bombings, something Japan never did before the Pearl Harbor attack. Even after the first bomb, the Japan leadership refused to give in and gave the United States no choice but to drop the second bomb.
If I was President back then, I would have ordered the bomb dropped on Tokeyo!! I have no delusions the Japs (or even the Germans) wouldn't think twice about dropping the bomb on USA if they had the ability. The Atomic attacks were morally and legally justified.
###############################################################################
It's a tough universe...If you're going to survive, you've really got to know where your towel is.
###############################################################################
It was clear the Japs weren't about to surrender or sue for peace, even though it was clear that they had lost the war.That may or may not be true. The Japanese had put out peace feelers to the Soviets.
By dropping the bombs, millions of American's lives were saved by not having to launch an invasion on Japan. Even more Jap civilians would have been killed during such an invasion.Why not at least attempt a surrender agreement ? The Japanese balked at unconditional surrender with the greatest sticking point being leaving the emperor in place. The sad irony is that this was granted anyway, but after the bombs.
The United States gave advance warning of the bombings, something Japan never did before the Pearl Harbor attack. Even after the first bomb, the Japan leadership refused to give in and gave the United States no choice but to drop the second bomb.No, the Americans did not give warning unless you count the notes dropped on August 8th and radio broadcasts that day. Too late by two days. Do you really think that after waiting only three days the US had no choice but to drop the second bomb? Good grief. I would have waited at least a month.
They are the Japanese. Your racism is showing. Yes, I think the Japanese or Germans would have used A bombs if they had them. But does that make it morally right ? International agreements prohibit bombing civilian targets. The targets were chosen to maximize civilian deaths. General LeMay told his assistant, Robert MacNamara that what they were doing throughout 1945 in Japan would be considered war crimes if the US lost the war.
If I was President back then, I would have ordered the bomb dropped on Tokeyo!! I have no delusions the Japs (or even the Germans) wouldn't think twice about dropping the bomb on USA if they had the ability. The Atomic attacks were morally and legally justified.
Yes, it is different. The Japanese were responsible for atrocities that made the Nazis and Soviets look like amateurs. Try asking a Manchurian, a Philippino or an Allied p.o.w. if the A-bombs were justified!
My father was training in Ceylon when the war ended, preparing to storm the beaches of Singapore in support of the Marines. It is likely that my entire extended family owes its existance to the Hiroshima & Nagasaki raids.
Japanese civilians supported their government and worked to sustain aggressive war. If my life was bought with their deaths then TOUGH. They reaped the whirlwind.
I think it's "Filippino"
shareAnd I think it's "Terrorism" not Terroism like your title.
saucybetty.blogspot.com
Definitions of terrorism did not become fashionable until the 1970s: Munich Olympics, then U.S. embassy held hostage: revisionist history is cute & sexy, but bombing Hiroshima, Nagasaki was war. Maybe we should recall that Japan from the 1920s thru 1945 was ferociously imperialist: by '45, Japanese forces occupied almost all of the continent of Asia & had murdered millions of civilians.
However, getting back to the movie, the character of Col. Tibbetts seemed to've embodied the remark attributed to Churchill, that he didn't want any field commanders that hadn't caused a stir. & America was desperate to end the war. We can also recall the stars Robert Taylor & Eleanor Parker were @the zenith of their popularity in 1952.
51depasser
There is no evidence that the Japanese were ready to surrender prior to the atomic attacks. I know of no credible facts that negotiating with Hirohito or Tojo would have produced a satisfactory ending to the conflict. (Unless surrender by the allies was an option.) The result of an allied invasion of Japan - the alternative - would have resulted in perhaps a million allied casualties. Who knows how many Japanese would have died. As far as Japanese civilian deaths, that is unfortunate but not unprecedented. The notion that the US is the war criminal here and the Japanese are the victims is absurd. Just ask the Chinese about how they feel about the Japanese as their masters.
The fire bombing of Japanese cities prior to the atomic bombs produced plenty of civilian deaths as well. Many of these civilians worked to produce war material that killed Americans. It's the fortunes of war and you don't fight wars with out losses.
Just saw the movie on TCM. Enjoyed it as mostly fiction set amid true events - like every war movie. Had the A bomb soft landed, there is no doubt the Japanese would have sent it on to San Francisco by sub and detonated it - sub included. I tend to believe it was the Soviets declaring war on Japan that actually forced their surrender. The Japanese had tried to use the Russians as an intermediary in their surrender talks for months, most Japanese cities of any size except Kyoto and Kokura was already raised - it made little difference to the Japanese leadership whether the cities were destroyed by one bomber or 500. It's interesting to note that in his surrender speech to his people, Hirohito cited the A bomb as the reason, but to spin his surrender speech to his troops overseas he cited the Soviet entry into the war. As for morality I think the fact the nobody else has ever used the A or H bomb in war again (especially in Korea) speaks volumes - there obviously remains some question as to its morality.
shareHere in Mozambique everyone considers this film to be a rotten comedy. More's the pity.
Nothing is more beautiful than nothing.
call it what you want, dropping it was not ok by me.
shareThe very character played by Robert Taylor says, near the end of the movie, in a letter to his mother, that he is worried because "OF THE TERROR WE ARE GOING TO DELIVER TOMORROW". At least, he was not hippocrit about it.
share