why does the usa hate fidel

[Baruch]

130.000 entrenched soldiers with limited mobility and no naval capabilities. Mainland America was shaking in its boots.

What actual, immediate threat did Japan pose and what means to produce an actual threat did they possess?

Knives and stones, while scary as an individual, do not so much frighten someone in an American cruiser or bomber.

I like how you never surrender, Shiranu ... very Japanese of you ;-))

[Mike Cl]

"They did terrible things, so we did them as well." is hardly a convincing argument. It's eerily similar to what the villains always seem to say.

I'm sorry, but justifying immoral actions is what the immoral do. It's one thing to admit it was wrong and regret it, another to say it was wrong BUT...

It is easy to pronounce what is moral and what is not.  As has been discussed on this forum many times, what is 'morality' and who gets to define it.  Is it moral or immoral to defend yourself?  From my point of view no war is moral or just.  But when you find yourself in a war, then the view of what is moral and what is not shifts.  Personally, don't kill is one of my morals.  But I would do so in self defense if I needed to.  I can only imagine what I'd do in a foxhole in WWII--or Nam.  I would consider it moral to protect myself and my buddies in any fashion I had to.  I may regret it later, but that would be later and not now.  Our nation had been attacked.  The Japanese were cruel beyond belief to the Chinese and others.  We had no crystal ball; what other weapons did they possess?  We did not have TV cameras all over the world and this war was fought in a deep fog of war.  We could surmise that they were on the verge of surrender; but what if we were wrong?  I don't see Truman really having much choice.  And I think the Japanese need to accept blame for the use of the bombs, as well as us.  Do I regret they were used?  Yes.  Do I understand why they were used?  Yes.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

And what army do you propose the non- surrendering Japan would have thrown at us? The utterly untrained peasants who were starving or burning? Or maybe the occupiers of China now being decimated by the Soviets.

The entire population of male Japanese between 15 and 60 were declared combatants, same as the females between 14 and 45. They would have been sent into battle as bullet sponges with the professional soldiers behind them.

What pile of ruble would they have made the sufficient supplies of weapons in? Where would they have gotten the iron to make the machinery capable of posing a threat to us?

The Japanese had saved 10,000 suicide craft for the invasion. Do you think they didn't see it coming and were stupidly expending their material that would be needed to defend their homeland? They weren't idiots.

The Japanese were done for and they knew it. You don't think the Japanese were the first people to ever tell their people the war is going swell, while plotting an end to it behind their back, do you?

There are several books that study the actual facts of the matter, I can list them for you if you want to catch up with the reality of the situation.

[GrinningYMIR]

I support the nukes. Horrible weapons I wish had never been invented. But good for ending the war with the maximum amount of lives. Its all well and good to assume that the Japanese were ready to surrender (or commit suicide as the Okinawans were demonstrating) but what, a million US deaths were expected for the Japanese land invasion? Many many more millions of Japanese were to die, 400000 needless deaths, but better than tens of millions of needless deaths

be a conscientious objector, do that and I respect you and your opinion on it. I agree with the "damned if you do, damned if you don't statement" and I truly sympathize with Truman, what was going through his mind was two horrible decisions. And he picked the one that felt right to him, killing 400000 so 10 million could live.

[Shiranu]

The Japanese had saved 10,000 suicide craft for the invasion. Do you think they didn't see it coming and were stupidly expending their material that would be needed to defend their homeland? They weren't idiots.

And how would these craft reach mainland America? Or even Hawai'i for that matter?

Where would the aircraft launch from? What boats they had... how would they sneak past the entire American navy?

You are yet again talking about Japan which is irrelevant. The Japanese had no way to threaten America's holdings, only defend against our aggression. When that becomes the case we simply cannot pretend taking the most extreme measure is justified and moral.

There are several books that study the actual facts of the matter, I can list them for you if you want to catch up with the reality of the situation.

I certainly wouldn't mind reading them. But from what you are implying... the Japanese did not pose a threat to mainland America. The Japanese government knew this as well and was torn between peace and war. We just had to sit back and let them ask for peace or tear themselves apart. At least if that happened the blood would be on their hands and not ours.

It is easy to pronounce what is moral and what is not.  As has been discussed on this forum many times, what is 'morality' and who gets to define it.  Is it moral or immoral to defend yourself?

If it is... then the Japanese were in the moral right and we were in the wrong as the aggressor... particularly the aggressor attacking a target already decimated and whom the Soviets were assfucking in Mainland Asia.


Also... I find it interesting that yall apparently think I am arguing against using the nukes. I'm not. I am arguing against the idea we needed to invade mainland Japan at all when their supplies had been obliterated. So what if the Okinawans wanted to fight to the last man? If they cannot pose a threat to our interests further than 15 miles off their own shores... who gives a shit if it was 130 thousand or 130 million?

Without carriers... no navy... no factories and no supplies... the Japanese were a dead ship floating in the Pacific. We had intelligence that they were looking for a peaceful solution that we intentionally hid from our own populace. It would be one thing if we didn't know. It would even be one thing if we knew and were honest about it. But when the military and the politicians lied through their teeth that there was no peace until we proved we could murder every last one of them... I simply cannot support that.

That is not "the inevitable evil of war"... that is just cold blooded murder. There is no strategy or reason to it other than for our own ideal vengeance. Well... perhaps there was a bit of strategy in that it let us try out our new toy on living test subjects.

[Shiranu]

And he picked the one that felt right to him, killing 400000 so 10 million could live.

Only if you support the idea that invasion was the only possible way to end the war. I don't buy that. Strip them of their holdings on the mainland... destroy their infrastructure (preferably by more humane means than firebombing) and very small supplies... and let them surrender or tear themselves apart and clean up then.

[GrinningYMIR]

Only if you support the idea that invasion was the only possible way to end the war. I don't buy that. Strip them of their holdings on the mainland... destroy their infrastructure (preferably by more humane means than firebombing) and very small supplies... and let them surrender or tear themselves apart and clean up then.

their infrastructure was gone, their holdings in Asia served really only to divert resources away from the American campaign seeing as how they couldn't move the troops there anymore, they were already surviving off of food no American would eat.

Nah, it was the only way, nukes or invasion. they had no intention of surrendering, you can think otherwise if you want, but blood was going to flow one way or another, only was it a river or an ocean.

[Shiranu]

their infrastructure was gone, their holdings in Asia served really only to divert resources away from the American campaign seeing as how they couldn't move the troops there anymore, they were already surviving off of food no American would eat.

So what threat did they pose to us?

Nah, it was the only way, nukes or invasion. they had no intention of surrendering, you can think otherwise if you want, but blood was going to flow one way or another, only was it a river or an ocean.

You just contradicted what you said a sentence earlier. They had no means to shed blood. That river or ocean would only be shed if we sat foot on their land. If they wanted to sit on their island and starve to the very last person while we sat back and made sure they posed no threat... then that was their choice. Let that blood be on their hands and not ours.  But I can and will think otherwise because their government was fractured and falling apart. We could afford to sit there until the end of days if we wanted to. Hungry people will eventually sell their god for food for their plate and the Japanese people would eventually sell their divine ruler for a day without a family member starving to death. But the point is that was their choice to make... not ours.


And ultimately I am not interested in changing the past because that will never happen. But neither the general American and certainly not the Japanese people (with a 17% approval rating of the nukes today) think it was the right thing to do... and so our language should shift from justifying it to admitting it was wrong.



There is no shame in admitting you fucked up... only in refusing to admit your fuck up was wrong.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I see we have a "Okay, Americans aren't dying so who cares who else is" fan here.

[Baruch]

Only if you support the idea that invasion was the only possible way to end the war. I don't buy that. Strip them of their holdings on the mainland... destroy their infrastructure (preferably by more humane means than firebombing) and very small supplies... and let them surrender or tear themselves apart and clean up then.

Japan still occupied Korea and most of China with enormous armies.  Stalin was ready to role.  We could have stood back, and let Stalin occupy all of W Europe ... and occupy all of E Asia.  We acted in a way that allowed us to occupy all of Japan, and half of Korea.  We also gave the Chinese Republic a chance against Mao (but they still failed).  If Stalin had fought his way across China, the Chinese Republic would have had no chance at all.  Are you saying that you are basically an Isolationist?  Let all the brown people fight it out, with America nobly standing aside like Gandhi?

Basically these kinds of discussions are ... I want a time machine, go back in time and replace the President, or the King, or the Emperor ... and show that I am a better autocrat than the historical one.  Alternative history buffs like this too, like the Confederacy winning the Civil War ... well that would have worked out well ;-(

"admitting it was wrong" ... King George commenting on the American Revolution.  See countless other examples.  Ape men are wrong, get over it.  And forget about morality ... ape men don't have it.

POV ... if Japan was my enemy, as it once was ... then I get to kill Japan.  See Soviet Union during the Cold War.  If Japan is on the ropes, then it is even better to kill Japan ... are you expecting a Marquis of Queensbury fight?  Wars are won by being unfair, immoral, yet smart.  Being vicious like the Axis is counter productive.  Fortunately it was unnecessary to kill Japan, by killing all of the Japanese.  That is what the nukes provided (given that they did surrender).  If they still hadn't surrendered, then the use of only two would have been a failure.  Plans were, to produce one nuke a month and keep nuking Japan until it did surrender, or they were all dead.  Some at the time disliked this, Jewish scientists for example, because they had a vested interest in nuking Germany until all the Germans were dead ... but Stalin prevented this from being necessary.  Germans should be thankful to Stalin ... that and in his area of occupation, while many Germans were viciously raped and killed, he didn't kill all of them.

[Baruch]

I see we have a "Okay, Americans aren't dying so who cares who else is" fan here.

Even though the Chinese Republic was originally allied with Hitler, as soon as he switched to Japan, the US provided Flying Tigers without declaration of war against Japan ... because it isn't right to not care about other people's wars, because that disinterest has a way of coming back and biting you.  We gave plenty of opportunity to Japan, to back down, before Pearl Harbor.  They declined to listen.

Americans also volunteered to fight in the Spanish Civil War against Hitler, and in England during the Blitz against Hitler ... both before Pearl Harbor.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Even though the Chinese Republic was originally allied with Hitler, as soon as he switched to Japan, the US provided Flying Tigers without declaration of war against Japan ... because it isn't right to not care about other people's wars, because that disinterest has a way of coming back and biting you.  We gave plenty of opportunity to Japan, to back down, before Pearl Harbor.  They declined to listen.

Americans also volunteered to fight in the Spanish Civil War against Hitler, and in England during the Blitz against Hitler ... both before Pearl Harbor.

Exactly. The mission Truman had to stop the war, which would stop the killing. To end the war the Japanese militarist had to be made to understand they were in a no-win situation and that Yamato* was in danger.


"Yamato", the spirit or essence of Japan, the "soul" of the nation.

[Baruch]

Exactly. The mission Truman had to stop the war, which would stop the killing. To end the war the Japanese militarist had to be made to understand they were in a no-win situation and that Yamato* was in danger.


"Yamato", the spirit or essence of Japan, the "soul" of the nation.

Surrender was primarily a Shinto problem ... do they keep the Emperor?  We let it be unclear how that would work out, but at least didn't say at the get go, that the Emperor had to go.  McArthur decided that on the spot, as the American vice-roy in occupied Japan.  Fortunately the Japanese Emperor was a more reasonable man (in defeat) than his generals and admirals, who were suicidal fanatics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNli51tGCPA

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Not all of the military were die-hard fanatics. I think it was Yonai that first broke with the "no surrender" faction. Of course the Navy was more pragmatic about the post war than the Army. At any rate, the fact that the Liaison Conference couldn't come up with a unified position, for the first time ever, meant that the Cabinet had to go to the Imperial Conference and say they needed a decision from Showa*. This meant the Emperor made the call, and that call was final, insofar as the Cabinet was concerned.



*"Showa", or "Peace", was the name Hirohito chose as the formal name for his era. I'm always reminded of "Peace", the killer, from the movie "Wizards". Same leopard, but new spots!

[Baruch]

Not all of the military were die-hard fanatics. I think it was Yonai that first broke with the "no surrender" faction. Of course the Navy was more pragmatic about the post war than the Army. At any rate, the fact that the Liaison Conference couldn't come up with a unified position, for the first time ever, meant that the Cabinet had to go to the Imperial Conference and say they needed a decision from Showa*. This meant the Emperor made the call, and that call was final, insofar as the Cabinet was concerned.



*"Showa", or "Peace", was the name Hirohito chose as the formal name for his era. I'm always reminded of "Peace", the killer, from the movie "Wizards". Same leopard, but new spots!

Yes, the Emperor was both the captive and the final authority ... giving him plausible deniability.  Prior to the war, and during, Hirohito was a war criminal, because the buck stops with him.  He carried a terrible responsibility, and didn't handle it as smartly as a marine biologist (his education) should have.  The Navy was more defeated than the Army ... and they hated each other (to our advantage.  Had the war continued, Stalin would have had to defeat the Japanese Army in China and Korea, and he would have.