Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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
- Thread starter stratovani
- Start date
Why ask? Are you so surprised that an American would enjoy a Japanese WW2 movie?
It's an argument by analogy. If the Japanese have been reluctant to accurately document the atrocities which they committed in China, then would it be really be that surprising to suggest that other nations have similarly avoided painting themselves in a negative light?
Oh brother....
I understood your point but I think might have missed my subtle clue that I'm done arguing the point...
But, if you want a response - here in the States, we love to question and second guess ourselves. It's part of the culture and why people like Michael Moore for example even exist. So I submit that you really do not understand America as much as you think you might? Japanese culture is a bit different I'd wager (I dont know for sure I'm not Japanese so I cannot make the absolute statement that all Japanese feel that they are the good guys..) but my guess would be that you would not see the same questioning of oneself and one's history as you would in America.
Oh brother....
I understood your point but I think might have missed my subtle clue that I'm done arguing the point...
Actually, I figured that, but wanted to ensure that the point was made clearly.
The above is an example of out-group homogeneity bias, suggesting that the another group does not have the same diversity of opinions as one's own group. It serves to illustrate my point.
I dont know for sure I'm not Japanese so I cannot make the absolute statement that all Japanese feel that they are the good guys.
I thought that was fairly clear but maybe not. At any rate, this is going in circles and I bid ye a good day, sir!
Wow - long thread (and I'm late to the party). I remember reading somewhere (I know - very vague) that questioning the participants in a struggle such as WWII do not particularly lead to useful results. If there is a "group bias" now, imagine how much stronger it must have been then.
As my father and all his siblings fought in this war, I certainly heard the US bias in my upbringing. This seemed to be particularly strong for those in the Pacific Theater as those that were in the Bataan Death March or Japanese POW camps held their distaste of the Japanese til the day they died (in these cases, I am talking about friends, not relatives).
All of World history is colored by wars and the generally accepted accounts tend to be from the victor's point of view. This makes sense, but it of course contains a bias. Was the nuking of cities a horrible act? Sure. Was it the best choice? I don't know. I do believe that HST and his advisers thought long and hard on this and chose what they perceived to be the best option. I doubt they knew the full ramifications of nuclear fallout, but if they did, I do am not so sure that they would have held off the nuking.
Was Japan (the government) aware of the possibility of such destruction on their homeland? Most likely. Yet they (the government) proceeded to act as they did. I suspect that they could easily play the game of guessing what their enemies would do, yet they still put their population at tremendous risk.
Assigning right or wrong may not help clarify the situation. People tend to act according to their own ethic and cultural bias. Instead (to me), the more useful question is the what if we had tried another approach - what difference would there be in the world today? BTW, I found the answers to this question to be quite interesting.
As my father and all his siblings fought in this war, I certainly heard the US bias in my upbringing. This seemed to be particularly strong for those in the Pacific Theater as those that were in the Bataan Death March or Japanese POW camps held their distaste of the Japanese til the day they died (in these cases, I am talking about friends, not relatives).
All of World history is colored by wars and the generally accepted accounts tend to be from the victor's point of view. This makes sense, but it of course contains a bias. Was the nuking of cities a horrible act? Sure. Was it the best choice? I don't know. I do believe that HST and his advisers thought long and hard on this and chose what they perceived to be the best option. I doubt they knew the full ramifications of nuclear fallout, but if they did, I do am not so sure that they would have held off the nuking.
Was Japan (the government) aware of the possibility of such destruction on their homeland? Most likely. Yet they (the government) proceeded to act as they did. I suspect that they could easily play the game of guessing what their enemies would do, yet they still put their population at tremendous risk.
Assigning right or wrong may not help clarify the situation. People tend to act according to their own ethic and cultural bias. Instead (to me), the more useful question is the what if we had tried another approach - what difference would there be in the world today? BTW, I found the answers to this question to be quite interesting.
If we hadn't have dropped the bomb I presume a few options could've happened.
First we could've continued doing what we did and just beat japan into submission slowly taking few casualties by fire bombing every last thing we could. My favored option for America because of vast air superiority. A bloody ending and long one for the Japanese, estimated death toll in the hundred thousands.
Second, a ground invasion from sea on Japan, a very stupid idea (in my opinion). There is no way we could've won that without HEAVY casualties to both side. I'm talking at least a million on both sides. It would still end in our victory, once again in my opinion.
Third, we agree to their terms and sign a peace treaty. Japan keeps it's conquered regions, becomes a complete militaristic country because of the need to repress rebellions. They eventually go to war with the USSR. Because of the weakened army due to the campaign to Berlin, they are forced to use their nukes and were a lot quicker to launch everyone they had and take out centers of population and government than we were. Due to both of these countries losing so much the cold war never starts, USSR disbands in the 1970's. US becomes biggest winner in this situation.
First we could've continued doing what we did and just beat japan into submission slowly taking few casualties by fire bombing every last thing we could. My favored option for America because of vast air superiority. A bloody ending and long one for the Japanese, estimated death toll in the hundred thousands.
Second, a ground invasion from sea on Japan, a very stupid idea (in my opinion). There is no way we could've won that without HEAVY casualties to both side. I'm talking at least a million on both sides. It would still end in our victory, once again in my opinion.
Third, we agree to their terms and sign a peace treaty. Japan keeps it's conquered regions, becomes a complete militaristic country because of the need to repress rebellions. They eventually go to war with the USSR. Because of the weakened army due to the campaign to Berlin, they are forced to use their nukes and were a lot quicker to launch everyone they had and take out centers of population and government than we were. Due to both of these countries losing so much the cold war never starts, USSR disbands in the 1970's. US becomes biggest winner in this situation.
This is absurd. Look at a topographical map of Japan. You can't blitzkrieg Japan. It's not Poland, Holland, Belgium and France. It's mountains - ideal for defense. Like Italy. Italy was the first european soil the western allies invaded in WWII, in 1943, and we were still fighting Germans in Italy when Germany surrendured on German soil in 1945. The Germans were able to maul the allies for over two years in Italy with just a few divisions. Ideal terrain for defense.
By summer 1945 Japan had lost it's navy and much of its air power but it still had an enormous army and loads of artillery, which inflicts the vast majority of death and injury in ground war. Japan was a spent force? That's a crazy joke. Have you heard of the battles of Okinawa and Iwo Jima? Those battles were at the end. The closer the US got to the Japanese mainland, the tougher and more committed and fanatical the Japanes forces fought.
Operation Downfall would have been a disaster for both nations. The Joint Chiefs freaked out when they saw the plan, its scope and commitment and what was arrayed against them. The US had a tiger by the tail. The men in positions of responsibility were in no mood for anything short of the most expedient end to the disgusting carnage and waste. The US was sick of war and president Truman did what he swore an oath to do - the only thing he could do.
The atomic bombings were the best atrocities to end the atrocity.
I can tell you all those Americans who had been doing the filthiest business imaginable fighting Japanese in the Pacific and Nazis in Europe and who were then being assembled for something much bigger, longer, grimmer and nastier on the Japanese mainland had about zero ambiguity about what was done.
By summer 1945 Japan had lost it's navy and much of its air power but it still had an enormous army and loads of artillery, which inflicts the vast majority of death and injury in ground war. Japan was a spent force? That's a crazy joke. Have you heard of the battles of Okinawa and Iwo Jima? Those battles were at the end. The closer the US got to the Japanese mainland, the tougher and more committed and fanatical the Japanes forces fought.
Operation Downfall would have been a disaster for both nations. The Joint Chiefs freaked out when they saw the plan, its scope and commitment and what was arrayed against them. The US had a tiger by the tail. The men in positions of responsibility were in no mood for anything short of the most expedient end to the disgusting carnage and waste. The US was sick of war and president Truman did what he swore an oath to do - the only thing he could do.
The atomic bombings were the best atrocities to end the atrocity.
I can tell you all those Americans who had been doing the filthiest business imaginable fighting Japanese in the Pacific and Nazis in Europe and who were then being assembled for something much bigger, longer, grimmer and nastier on the Japanese mainland had about zero ambiguity about what was done.
Where do you get this figure from?
Unless you're using statistics that have been long since proven exaggerated (anything in a Conquest book) or counting famines (which weren't anyone's fault in Russia).
I'm not saying 20 million people hadn't died, but the blame lying on Stalin. Well, I'm curious as to justification.
This is not true. Now, not all of the famines may not really have been anyone's fault, but there were some that most definitely were the fault of Stalin and some of his policies. The Ukranian famine of 32-33 in particular jumps to the forefront of my mind.
Yes, the Holodomor was a terrible famine ordered by Stalin. 10 million Ukrainians starved to death.
http://www.holodomorct.org/index.html
http://www.holodomorct.org/index.html
That's been proved categorically false be Steven Wheatcroft. Especially out-dated notions of the famine being 'ordered' by Stalin were addressed, and entirely dismissed in his book with R.W Davies "The Years of Hunger". Attempts to argue Stalin ordered that famine are simply and objectively wrong.
Conquest (the original proponent of that thesis) and the Ukranians have also backed entirely off the 'Stalin cause it' approach. Instead opting for a 'he could have done more' argument.
Wheatcroft is the leading authority on Soviet Economics, famine and politics. He could arguably be categorized as the leading Russian and Soviet historian in the world, but that's more contentious.
There are, of course, a few policies that could have been made different so the 32-33 famine was less severe. The wanton use of bumper crops in previous season jumps the mind. Beyond that the tremendously (unforeseeable) terrible weather was perhaps the biggest factor in generating that famine.
Conquest (the original proponent of that thesis) and the Ukranians have also backed entirely off the 'Stalin cause it' approach. Instead opting for a 'he could have done more' argument.
Wheatcroft is the leading authority on Soviet Economics, famine and politics. He could arguably be categorized as the leading Russian and Soviet historian in the world, but that's more contentious.
There are, of course, a few policies that could have been made different so the 32-33 famine was less severe. The wanton use of bumper crops in previous season jumps the mind. Beyond that the tremendously (unforeseeable) terrible weather was perhaps the biggest factor in generating that famine.
That is not the impression I got, or what I was told when I was in Kiev in '08. They very much feel they were startved to death purposely. And they will not forget what was done to their people.
It was a very solemn day, when I was told the many stories and was shown the sites of mass graves, and the memorial.
And here in Canada, our government officially recognizes the Holodomor as genocide. Maybe if we have a TB member from Ukraine they may wish to give us some further insight.
a quote from the website.
...."In recent years Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko had ordered the release of old KGB records on the Famine.
With this information it has become very apparent that this Famine was a deliberate act of Genocide, a method to ethnically cleanse Ukrainians from the territories of Ukraine and parts of Russia. At first only several thousand documents were released. Recently another batch of 25,000 documents is being declassified.
As more documents are released this event in Ukrainian history has taken on a very ominous tone.
On November 28th 2006, the Verkhovna Rada (Parliament of Ukraine) had passed a decree defining the Holodomor as a deliberate Act of Genocide."
Here are some photos from when I was there. One of Confederation Square. and a few from when we visited the Museum of the Patriotic War, and the Afghan war museum.
The MiG -24 Hind attack helicopter was very cool.
It was a very solemn day, when I was told the many stories and was shown the sites of mass graves, and the memorial.
And here in Canada, our government officially recognizes the Holodomor as genocide. Maybe if we have a TB member from Ukraine they may wish to give us some further insight.
a quote from the website.
...."In recent years Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko had ordered the release of old KGB records on the Famine.
With this information it has become very apparent that this Famine was a deliberate act of Genocide, a method to ethnically cleanse Ukrainians from the territories of Ukraine and parts of Russia. At first only several thousand documents were released. Recently another batch of 25,000 documents is being declassified.
As more documents are released this event in Ukrainian history has taken on a very ominous tone.
On November 28th 2006, the Verkhovna Rada (Parliament of Ukraine) had passed a decree defining the Holodomor as a deliberate Act of Genocide."
Here are some photos from when I was there. One of Confederation Square. and a few from when we visited the Museum of the Patriotic War, and the Afghan war museum.
The MiG -24 Hind attack helicopter was very cool.
As I understand it, the position of the Ukranian nationals has changed recently, as in the past 9-12 months. I could be paraphrasing wrongly.
Certianly, Conquest's position changed dramatically.
..What evidence have they of purposeful starvation? I supposed the millions that died in Russia due to lack of food were also 'purposely targeted' ?
Examine the evidence. Don't rest of the stories of people without food. I offered a book, and several historians to look at. Don't ignore them. As I said, they objectively and categorically proved any acceptance of that famine as genocidal is a position based entirely on ignorance. Their evidence has been strong enough to demolish that movement significantly.
Of Wheatcroft, Davies and Yuschenko which individual has not been to the Soviet archives and looked into this period in detail?
Which one hasn't quoted, cited, examined, scanned and written extensively on this period from a non-biased, objective position?
Who hasn't (apparently) taken into account the suffering in Russia and the implication the farming crisis had in all of Russia?
As a politician Yuschenko has a platform to prove a realistic and tangible position to maintain. This discussion has mainly centered around Japan and America, and how events have been manipulated, in many ways, to reflect a national bias. That national bias is not news for anyone, it's a fact many governments and populations chose to alter, ignore or half-tell certain events.
Much of the propaganda revolves around food requisitioning in Ukraine in a time of famine. What that logic often fails to examine is other regions that suffered the same fate. The lack of nationality/cultural specificity means there's no genocide.
Again, I encourage you to read the evidence. It IS evidence, don't be dissuaded. Stephen and Davies utilise complex agricultural and economic data, combined with policies directed in the Ukraine.
One of Stephen's students told me that the only way there could be a genocide in the Ukraine would be if the oppression of culture was considered genocidal (different issue to the famine). He said while it fits under the UN's definition he didn't think the documents of the Soviet leadership supported that claim.
I'm sorry I don't take a one off figure of 20 million from a political speech very seriously. Especially when that politician's platform rests significantly on this event.
Especially when the other sources IN THAT ARTICLE offer more substantive, and significantly less inflated figures.
Especially when no one (including those purporting this view, Yuschenko himself) offer any realistic evidence for their view.
I will stick to my beliefs that it was a genocidal starvation of the Ukrainian people.
I will trust my own research. And my own experience to form my belief.
I will trust my own research. And my own experience to form my belief.
None of which addresses the two historians I directed to you.
None of which answers the multiple questions I directed to you.
This article is so lacking it's revolting. There was no famine that was confined to the Ukraine. The term Ukranian famine implies that that region was only affected, or affected in a unique way. Such an assertion is demonstrably false.
You can rest on your laurels all you want, but while there's a major part of your 'research' missing (Wheatcroft being as influential, if not more than Conquest, Davies equally so) then it's not really 'research' at all.
Especially since your sources are tenuous at best. Citing Yuschenko as saying the genocide exists is as fair as citing Stalin as saying the famine didn't happen.
Hmm...
Interesting. This is the first time I've ever heard someone deny Stalin's responsibility for the famines in the Ukraine. I'll have to research this a bit more because this is a bit shocking to me.
I would think that regardless of the actual causes and intentions, a nation's leader is nonetheless responsible to prevent such things from happening is this not true?
