Pearl Harbor

Remove all ads!

You just don't get it do you zaknafein??? By that post i think you're one of those complete idiots who thinks the USA is better than everywhere else just because they are currently the wealthiest nation. In the 30s, most of Europe had a better economy than the USA, America couldn't have 'blasted their asses' because all their army had involved was some horses and a few pistols. Sure they'd already started preparing, but they wer'nt ready.

 

Ex, you mean Milosevic, right?!?

 

I recall reading somewhere that leaflets were dropped either several hours or several days before the dropping of the first bomb, to warn people of what was going to happen. Of course, most didn't believe or heed them. I'm not making an excuse to justify the use of the bomb, just stating a fact that I recall.

Another thing I had also read somewhere was that Japan was willing to defend their island down to the last man, woman, and child. Do you think an invasion would have had fewer civilian losses than the two bombs caused? Their "divine wind" of pilots proved that they were willing to throw their lives away to defeat us...why would that mindset be limited only to their pilots, or their military in general?

No, admittedly, the US did *not* make a formal declaration of war. But damn near everyone knew it was going to happen. No one but the Japanese knew what was going to happen at Pearl. We didn't hide the preparations for going into Afghanistan, and anyone who can think knew we were going in there. The Taliban had enough warning, and the Afghan civilians would have as well, if the Taliban hadn't been controlling what they heard on the news.

As I stated above, they were warned. Did Bin Laden warn us? Civilians were killed a year ago, in case you hadn't heard. Also, civilians were killed at Pearl. For that matter, more civs were killed last year than civilian *and* miltary combined at Pearl. You said yourself that war is seldom noble. By that statement alone, you make a justification for everything we are discussing.

There is no such thing as a war where no civilians were killed. Hehehe...I can just see the disclaimer: "No civilians were harmed in the making of this war." Again, I'm not trying to justify the killing of innocents - it's just a fact that it happens. War is not perfect, smart bombs or not. We try not to kill civilians, hence the development of more accurate weapons, but it happens. Usually because they happen to live near the target, or possible work at the facility that is being targeted. Speaking of which, are those civs that work at the bomb factory, or the comm center any less of a threat than the military personnel that use what the civs make? Go to any US Air Force base in the world and you will find a civilian population, either working or living there.

Z-Layrex - your response to zaknafein is pretty right on, except that our military was a bit more developed than what you state. I'll assume you were just trying to make a point with that.

 

ok maybe some horses and pistols was a teeny bit exagerated. But the army couldn't have gone to war, they were barley able to liberate Africa at first because of the poor quality of soldiers.

 

The Ukranian(sp) version of the FBI did!

 

Erm, your missing the point, they did blow there asses halfway across the pacific, and they might have done so earlier if Japan had have declared war openly.
Making war is rather stupid, but making war against people with nukes is even more stupid. Other chemical weapons would not have done any more damage than two nukes could have done. Using my sig as fuel for that attack on what I said is pretty lame, maybe you should keep you attacks topic related.

 

Um....zaknafein, just so you know, no one had any nuclear devices in 1941. The Germans and the Allies were in a race to develop one.

The first testing of an atomic weapon was on July 16, 1945. The argument that the Japanese attacked without warning because the US could have blown Japan out of the water is entirely false. Not only was there no usable nuclear weapon in the world, let alone in the US, but at that time in history Japan had a far superior navy and military. The two greatest military powers of that time were the Axis: Germany and Japan (Italy was a member of the so-called Axis powers, but was no where as near as powerful). The Allies (all of Great Britain (the UK, Australia, and Canada), Russia, the US and the remains of the French forces then stationed in Britain) were very much overpowered, and continued to be up until the later years of the wars.

In late 1942 and early 1943, the Allies were on the verge of being defeated when a few key events occured: the Japanese code was cracked, which gave the US the edge it needed against Japan in the Pacific; the defeat of Rommel in North Africa by the British; the defeat of the German Sixth Army at Stalingrad. Up until those events the US had already surrendered the Phillipines and Japan was preparing to invade Australia and Hawaii; Rommel had continually stimmied the Brits in Africa and Germany controlled virtually all of Europe and Africa; Russia had been decimated by the German advance, and was making a last stand in Stalingrad after a devastating retreat across it's own homeland.

And a clarification of a few other things.

On the casualty estimates of an invasion of Japan, something that might shed a little perspective:

About the destructiveness of the A-Bombs, up until they were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagaski, no one had a very realistic idea of just how destructive they would be. It was a huge eye-opener for everyone, including the scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project.

At Hiroshima, almost 130,000 people were killed, injured, or missing, and 90% of the city was leveled.

As for destructiveness, the fire bombing of Dresden, Germany in Feb. of 1945 completely decimated the city (ranked as one of the world's most beautiful cities before World War II) with deaths estimated between 35,000 and 135,000. The fire bombing was carried out using conventional weapons. Dresden was not a military city (other than some prisoners of war kept there) nor even a major industrial centre and had virtually no military significance. I use this comparison simply to point out that, while use of the atomic bombs on Japan had devastating and horrific effects, the fire bombing of Dresden is often completely forgotten - the effect of the fire bombing *was* known, and was entirely uncalled for. The fire bombing of Dresden was unnecessary, un-called for, and often forgotten.

 

You forget years of children mutations and cancer expansion in area where the nuke was dropped. I'm unsure that you've added that number in statistics.

"Conventional" bombing is just as bad when it happens, however it can't be felt by generations after it.
No, I don't mean the rebuilding here. Both types of bombings need the rebuilding. But both types are not the same and can't be the same. When we talk about consequences.

But bombing of any kind I take as a crime (because there is NO WAY you'll avoid civil victims unless you drop the bomb in a desert, but even there you could kill an accidental tourist). And all of those who can't say "No." to their superiors when asked to kill civilians should be "electrified". Oh, "electrified" before their superiors who should watch the process of the "barbecue".
And afterwards those superiors should get a medical treatment on inquisition machines.

[ September 09, 2002, 17:43: Message edited by: Extremist ]

 

Yes, the U.S. forced open Japanese harbors, a resentment that was no doubt still felt at the time of WW2. But a more immediate sting was that Americans were unofficially fighting on behalf of the Chinese well before Pearl Harbor, most notably as fighter pilots. Japan knew we would enter on the side of the Allies, as that was where our sympathies clearly were.

Regardless of the "American lives saved" argument, the bombings of Dresden (even more horrific than Gnolyn has described), Hiroshima, and Nagasaki were inexcusable. Those were civilian centers. There were no doubt thousands of people who did not wish to be in a war against the Allies and were just trying to live their lives as best they could.

It is simply amazing that Japan and the U.S. are such friends now. I look at the culture and history of Japan and think it's one of the few other countries I could stand to live in. Even if they wouldn't allow me a gun, they have cool katanas.

 

Japan's a lovely place (as is America and Canada). cutest girls in the world. Video game crazy. Little crime. No litter (or very little anyway) nice government. Only downside i can think of is the earthquakes. I say it's the best country in the world. but i guess it depends what you like. You want a high-tec lifestyle go to Japan (if you could, they rarley allow immigrants) if you want to make a ton of money go live in America. If you want a simpler life, try Canada or western (and a few countrys in the East) Europe. Japan was alot different to how it is now in the 40s, they saw their Emporer as a god

 

No, the casualty estimates given for Hiroshima only take into account the immediate effects, and usually (though I can't say for sure from that source) include deaths from radiation sickness up to a few months after the incident. As you say Extremist, they don't include the longer term effects of cancer, genetic mutations and death suffered years and even decades later.

The other main difference is that that the destruction of Dresden took several hours of bombing, while the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagaski took mere minutes from a single bomb. There's a very powerful quote from one of the crew members of Engola Gay (the plane that dropped the bomb) when he saw the bomb explosion, but I can't remember it off-hand, and haven't been able to find it.

The reason I gave Dresden for comparison wasn't really for the casualty numbers but to give a comparison of targets. There were military reasons for choosing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. First, to demonstrate that they could utterly annihilate any part of Japan. Second, the bomb was dropped days later on Nagasaki to emphasize the point that Japan could not win. The Allies (and the US in particular) had asked for complete, unconditional surrender from Japan, which until that moment was the sticking point - Japan was prepared to make a limited surrender only. Nagasaki was to make sure that there was no argument about the surrender. Dresden had no significance whatsoever. Again, I'm not justifying the bombings, just raising the point. I personally think that such destruction is utterly horrific.

P.S. No I didn't give the 'full' horror of Dresden. I don't think that I can, really. But "Slaughterhouse-Five" by Kurt Vonnegut will give you a chilling idea.

[ September 09, 2002, 18:25: Message edited by: Gnolyn Lochbreaker ]

 

Gnolyn Lochbreaker,
as for the long term effects of conventionally annihilating a city, a few thoughts:

I live in the city of cologne, the only major city close enough to england to allow early large scale bombings, so they had the priviledge to be the first city in history *hosting* a 1000-bomber raid. We have parks here with extensive hills, built of the rubble of our ruined city. In this parks the trees grew surprisingly fast, a result of the amount of phosphorous dropped in cologne to induce firestorms. When I go through Colognes city centre I always notice the slots in the rows of the buildings, indicating a house not yet rebuilt, just like the large number of 1950s style houses in some areas and the total absence of anything older there. Large areas of Dresden's city centre aren't rebuilt even now, some 50+ years later - in a developed country. And there are still the memories of the children and people hiding in the shelters during the bombings. The terrible events of 9/11 are a weak joke compared to that.

The nazis build concentration camps to kill millions because of insane reasons and to burn them in crematories. The allieds were more generous and simply turned cities in crematories - to kill people because of being german. Where is the major difference? I couldn't care less if it takes a minute to drop a nuke or a week to fuel the fires of a burning city? Actually the firebomb raids on the wooden japanese cities killed more civilians than the nuclear bombs, just the fancy mushroom cloud and the radiation symptoms missed. Either way, it is just another atrocity - mass murder.

And as for Pearl Harbor:

The US knew what would happen but they had a nation not yet ready for war. Pearl Harbor had to happen to allow the US to enter WW-II. And the oil embargo against japan was the tool to drive the japanese to become even more agressive than they have been already. Eventually they had tried to conquer china since 1935, killing millions and doing atrocities like the use of biological weapons and the Nanking massacre ... but of course, it needed Pearl Harbor, the death of a few hundred US soldiers and a few burning battleships, to bring the US in the right state of mind.

[ September 10, 2002, 14:18: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Shostakovitch string quartet #8 will also give you an idea of the tragedy of the bombing of Dresden.

 

This reminds me of something our history rteacher told us a few weeks ago... She said that there has been found evidence that it was the Americans who shot first. Apparently, they sunk a Japanese submarine that has now been found near Pearl Harbour. I canät remember the details, though.

Ara
(Dentists are bad... very, very bad)

 

Yeah, I also heard that one about the Americans shooting first.
Well, it doesn't matter. USA is too powerful, no American is ever gonna end up in Haag. They did the ultimate evil (atom bomb, kids in Hiroshima are even today born with 3 arms, one leg, etc.) and nobody got punished.
The English invaded Falkland islands and nobody got punished. But if it's some of the smaller countries in a fight they're bound to get punished, cos only America has heroes and all the others MUST have used criminal tactics to win a fight, right?

(btw, that is irony, sarcasm... The Americans think too much of themselves. They watch too many movies.)

[ September 12, 2002, 09:23: Message edited by: Corr Raven ]

 

Corr Raven,
the english invaded the Falklands, yes, in 1833. After that they had maintained a constant presence there. Sure, the argentinians disagreed at the time of occupation but at that time the things were handled much different. No one can seriously doubt that the Falklands were actually a little more british han argentinian, not to mention that the people living there were mainly english too.

Now, when Argentina invaded the Falklands in this century (1981 iirc) the Falklands were under british control for approx 150 years. That was an attempt to gain nationalistic support for a sinking government.

But on the other hands there are people around who claim they have home-rights on some soil even after 2000 years. Hey, I have to remember to free west- and east prussia, posen and salesia from polish and russian ocupation soon ... we just had to leave some 80 to 55 years ago - that *right* is almost fresh compared to the argentinian one ... Your point of view is a little twisted.

[ September 12, 2002, 10:48: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Maybe, Ragusa, but I just mentioned the Falklands to emphesize the point I was making about the USA (seems I took up the wrong thing to emphesize it).
However, about the English... They had been oppressing Ireland and Scotland (especially catholics) for centuries. It is not over yet, IRA will not stop nor will the English goverment. They brought it on themselves.
Anyway, the thread is about USA, and who are they to play world police and name countries of evil, when they have a history of about 200 years. Everybody knows Iraq is a potent threat with Saddam, but you cannot just decide to attack Iraq when you do not have support from NATO. And they do not. Wouldn't that make the USA the agressor again (like Vietnam)?

As far as I'm concerned, everything was fine til Bush became president. His politics are redicilous (especially asking that an American citizen cannot be tried in Haag simply because he's an American. Does that mean they are higher beings? Do Irish, Croat, Serb or German lives worth less?

(ok, I got a bit overdramatic, but you know what I mean...)

[ September 12, 2002, 11:29: Message edited by: Corr Raven ]

 

Ara, here's a link to an article about the Japanese sub that was found.

 

Uh. The Brits always had a claim to the Falklands. (Interesting that you call them that when, if your claim that they were Argentinian were true, everyone should be calling them by the Argentian name.) They just bitch-slapped Argentina when they tried to take 'em over.

Your claim that kids today, almost 60 years later, are still born with 3 legs or one arm because of a relatively small nuclear blast are stunningly ridiculous.

 

i think morgoth is right. supposedly roosevelt wanted to be at war with hitler on moral grounds, but the US at the time had a laiser-faire attitude to the goings-on in other countries. what a great man. imagine having to make that decision!

saying that though, the US have been trying to play catch-up on wars based on principles ever since (vietnam?).