• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Hiroshima, August 6, 1945

#221
::::BASSIST:::: said:
Actually, the reason Japan attacked Pearl Harbour and started the whole thing is quite interesting. They knew before they even started that they would lose the war. The US had many, many more resources and there was no doubt that the US could outlast them and would win. So why did the Japanese do it then? Because the US had a vastly unfair stranglehold on Pacific trade and because of it Japan's economy was in peril. Japan bombed Pearl Harbour not because they thought they had a chance of winning the war, but because the Japanese thought (and rightly so) that the US would review their trade policy with Japan and changes would be made in favour of Japan *if* the US took Japan more seriously. How to get them to take Japan more seriously? Start a war. This is the rationale. It was sort of like a chess gambit. Sacrifice the Queen to win the game. Japan is a much stronger nation today because of that move.
Click to expand...



The Mouse that Roared

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mouse_That_Roared

Invalid Link Removed
 
#222
Jim Campbell said:
questioning to me implies that answers are being sought.....and if that's the case i would assume that the real events of the times would yield them better than some
armchair philosophy sixty years after the fact......the atrocities committed in nanking by japanese forces alone would suggest to me that the enemy was totally ruthless....

but let's assume for a moment that you are right and that victory was possible by other methods.....after years of brutal warfare,would it have been reasonable to expect american troops to continue sacrificing their lives to that end,if a quicker alternative was available.....i think not.....
Click to expand...

Perhaps it isn't obvious from some points of view, however, in reading the above, I'm seeing vilification of "the enemy" and a reluctance to consider the atrocities committed by Allied forces. I'm also seeing the suggestion that the lives of the people of one nation are worth less than the lives of those of another. That's an example of negative out-group bias. As I see it, neither side was without blood on their hands.
 
#223
12bass said:
Perhaps it isn't obvious from some points of view, however, in reading the above, I'm seeing vilification of "the enemy" and a reluctance to consider the atrocities committed by Allied forces. I'm also seeing the suggestion that the lives of the people of one nation are worth less than the lives of those of another. That's an example of negative out-group bias. As I see it, neither side was without blood on their hands.
Click to expand...
when aircraft carriers from one nation launch airborne assaults on another nation it is quite reasonable to assume that the offended nation will vilify the other.....it is also reasonable for the offended nation to retaliate,and do so in a manner that ensures that the other will not be able to regroup over time and try again....japanese expansionism is the root cause of it's ultimate humiliation,and america did what had to be done.....

japan was allowed to keep it's emperor,and aided by the u.s. to become an economic powerhouse.....
 
#225
i_got_a_mohawk said:
What about the brave Russian and Chinease soldiers, who often had no real choice? They also account for another huge proportion of the casualities.
Click to expand...
The "Great Patriotic War". The Russian soldiers and airmen and airwomen were amazingly brave. Stalin was a monster.
i_got_a_mohawk said:
So much happened that it's understandable why they don't go into individual stories of heroics and sacrafice as much when there were so many huge events that happened during those years.
Click to expand...
It's a gigantic undertaking to study this war.
 
#226
12bass said:
Perhaps it isn't obvious from some points of view, however, in reading the above, I'm seeing vilification of "the enemy" and a reluctance to consider the atrocities committed by Allied forces. I'm also seeing the suggestion that the lives of the people of one nation are worth less than the lives of those of another. That's an example of negative out-group bias. As I see it, neither side was without blood on their hands.
Click to expand...
The Japanese were villainous in their behavior. That's a point of fact.

The Allied forces did commit atrocities, nobody is denying this. See my earlier mention of the firebombings and General LeMay's commentary.

There is no suggestion of the lives of any nation being worth more than any other. When you're at war, the idea is to kill as many of the enemy as you can and have the least number of people on your side die. That is what war is.

I seem to be the only one who has mentioned this, and many have suggested that we dropped the bomb primarily in order to intimidate Stalin. It bears repeating, and someone who knows more about the subject than I may be able to comment:
Dropping the bomb was a favor to Stalin. The USSR had very little desire to go to war with Japan. They had lost devastating numbers in their brutal fight with Hitler, and did not want to continue with war. They were bound by treaty to war with Japan once Hitler was defeated, and they would have, had it been necessary, but they had no particular beef with Japan. They hadn't been invaded, Japanese forces had not sought conflict with Russia. Dropping the bomb and ending the war quickly was very much in Stalin's best interest. This is why when Truman told Stalin that they had the bomb*, Stalin replied "then use it!".

* The exact timing is unknown, but some believe that Stalin knew about the successful Trinity experiment before Truman did. His spies were so highly placed in the Manhattan Project that he knew full details about the progress and deployment of the weapons.
Click to expand...
It's possible that you have decided that the dropping of the bombs was somehow a worse atrocity than non-nuclear bomb events such as the Nanjing Massacre or the firebombing of Tokyo. I do not share this singling out of the atomic blasts as somehow "worse". But then again I have studied nuclear technology closely and do not share the common fear of anything "nuclear" or "radioactive" that many people have.
 
#227
Philbiker said:
The "Great Patriotic War". The Russian soldiers and airmen and airwomen were amazingly brave. Stalin was a monster.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. One of the truely horrific things is, who killed more Russians, the Germans or higher ranking Russian officers :scowl:


Philbiker said:
It's a gigantic undertaking to study this war.
Click to expand...

Aye, just what I was getting at. I just couldn't see why the poster I quoted seemed to be annoyed that classes seemed to cover a lot of the Holocaust. Lets be honest, there isn't exactly a great deal of content and depth taught in high school!
 
#235
12bass said:
Hmm.... historically, imperialism has hardly been restricted to Japan. Some would say that the bombs were used as a tool to set up a new order, this time with a different nation holding the balance of power. Again, I'm seeing one-sided criticism of Japan which doesn't seem to take into account that one's own nation has also long been involved in imperialist endeavors. That seems more myopic to me....
Click to expand...

Please, point - specifically - to where I stated that the United States of America, or ANY OTHER player in this "game" was innocent of empire building.

I'll wait....still waiting.....you still trying to find it?

I'd very much like you to accuse me of saying things I actually said, instead of putting words in my mouth to support your argument, in the future.

Thanks.

:)

Now, to address the fact of empire-building in relation to all other players:

The US was indeed taking control of vast areas of the Pacific, but can you show me where they did it by brute force and annihilation? Where they used torture, rape, rampant murder (beheading non-combatants in the street for fun!), and various other versions of brutality on civilian populations?

Neither side is lillly-white, but there are definitely different shades of color from slightly brown/amber to black as a coal mine with the lights out.

I think it's pretty clear who was a bit brown and who was in the dark coal mine at the time, isn't it?
 
#239
Gard said:
Please, point - specifically - to where I stated that the United States of America, or ANY OTHER player in this "game" was innocent of empire building.

I'll wait....still waiting.....you still trying to find it?

I'd very much like you to accuse me of saying things I actually said, instead of putting words in my mouth to support your argument, in the future.
Click to expand...

Don't recall saying that anyone was proclaiming innocence. If I did, I must have wrote something different than what I was thinking. What I see is evidence of absence. There is plenty of evidence of brutal aggression by Western powers since WWII, however....
 
#240
12bass said:
Don't recall saying that anyone proclaiming innocence. If I did, I must have wrote something different than what I was thinking. What I see is evidence of absence. There is plenty of evidence of brutal aggression by Western powers since WWII, however....
Click to expand...

Your implication was clear, your point of argument was "but they were bad too!". You then tried using quotes from other posters to bolster your position.

It was a fallacious argument to begin with, then you attempted to misquote others to support it.

As for "brutal aggression by Western powers since WWII", THIS DISCUSSION WAS ABOUT THE USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS TO END WWII. What the Sam Hell does what happened AFTERWARD have to do with it?

:confused:
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back