Its like saying what if we let germany and hitler stay in power after all their army groups were destroyed and worked out a armistance, would things have worked out better? I dont know, but mabye the states wanted to bring the japanese military command to justice and that wouldnt be possible without an invasion...
Hiroshima and Nagasaki
- Thread starter MapleOne
- Start date
How does that relate to anything? Even the most primitive cultures can understand basic concepts of justice or they'd never have survived this long.
How it relates is Japan was a warrior society ... and guess what: They survived for hundreds of years that way.
Hitler came to power promising to avenge the Treaty of Versailles and bring back pride (which to the Nazis I suppose meant building an empire, the idea being that if the British and French were allowed one, then so were the German people allowed one) to the German people.
A total defeat outside Germany's borders after all the economic resources spent on the war would have left Germany in economic ruin, shattered all illusions the German people had of their Fuehrer, and so it would not have taken long before either the Nazi regime would have collapsed or at least gradually fade away as it would then be forced to turn its attention inward in trying to protect its power against the German people. Either way, once Germany was defeated beyond its borders, the fate of its government was essentially sealed.
Define warrior society. Japan had not been at constant war for hundreds of years. In fact, prior to Japan's discovery of the West, many Japanese students studied in China to acquire its knowledge. It had been influenced by Chinese Confucianism and Buddhism, both of which taught morals and ethics. Many Chinese works had been translated into Japanese. And Japan traded extensively with Korea, which in turn traded with China, which in its turn was linked to the Silk Route. Japan was not exactly a rabid and closed-minded society throughout its existence. The fact that it did allow itself to be so influenced from abroad, including the West, shows how open a society it was. Just read up on Nitobe Inazo, Hasegawa Teru, the Oomoto religion, etc. to see how Japan had progressive influences even in modern times, just prior to, even during, and still after WWII.
Through industrialization, progress and material advancement got the best of the Japanese ego, unfortunately, as it thought of itself as suddenly superior to its neighbours who were previously more advanced than Japan, and so felt that it needed an empire of its own to match the others world empires.
But to portray Japanese culture as intrinsically militaristic seems false, looking at the history of its openness to outside influences.
So you think Hitler could have survived a complete military defeat beyond German borders after having raised his people's hopes so high for a military victory?
You don't think their hopes would have been more than a little shattered?
Then back on topic. There is enough evidence to suggest Japanese culture was far richer than just some Spartan military culture Hell-bent on total destruction. Heck, there were even a few Japanese who'd opposed the regime even at the height of its power. So clearly Japanese culture was not just some monolithic military culture.
Let's consider too that the Japanese regime felt it necessary to hide its atrocities from its people and the military was extremely irate at the fact that the Chinese had provided Hasegawa Teru with a radio station from which she could broadcast the truth about what her compatriots were doing in China.
If Japanese culture were truly that militaristic, they would have been proud of their raping and looting and not tried so hard to hide it.
Let's consider too that the Japanese regime felt it necessary to hide its atrocities from its people and the military was extremely irate at the fact that the Chinese had provided Hasegawa Teru with a radio station from which she could broadcast the truth about what her compatriots were doing in China.
If Japanese culture were truly that militaristic, they would have been proud of their raping and looting and not tried so hard to hide it.
Why didn't Marconi produce digital FM on a palm-sized receiver right from the start ... as has already been pointed out to you?
Y'know, if you aren't interested in a topic, you don't have to headgame it into oblivion
Exactly. Why didn't we produce laptops right away instead of a computer that needed a warehouse to fit it in?
Why didn't we mass produce Flat Screen TV's right away instead of the monstrosity TV's we had in the 60's and 70's?
Last edited:
Fine. Then we could have produced bombs the same size but with a smaller yield. I'm sure the technology existed to produce a less effective bomb, no?
Machjo...you've been around here a long time but please...think of what you are saying. It was a war. To say..."ok, we destroyed your Navy...we win." is complete foolishness.
Do you actually believe that if the allies announced on Japanese radio that we sunk their Navy that the Japanese would believe us and surrender? C'mon...think man!
So we sink their navy and simply go home? What an utter defeat that would have been for the allies. In military terms it is called a retreat.
Why would you want to produce a less effective bomb? Kill 20K instead of 60K? Like that?
The atomic bomb was what it was and it was made to act exactly as it intended to act. It was made to be a terrible weapon to which there was no defense and to end this war once and for all.
It did it's purpose.
Yes.... From nothing, you get nothing. How could technology exist if the technology was completely new and still being developed?
The Art of War, Chapter 1, paragraph 3:
"The Moral Law causes the people to be in complete accord with their ruler, so that they will follow him regardless of their lives, undismayed by any danger. Heaven signifies night and day, cold and heat, times and seasons. Earth comprises distances, great and small; danger and security; open ground and narrow passes; the chances of life and death. The Commander stands for the virtues of wisdom, sincerity, benevolence, courage and strictness. By method and discipline are to be understood the marshaling of the army in its proper subdivisions, the graduations of rank among the officers, the maintenance of roads by which supplies may reach the army, and the control of military expenditure. These five heads should be familiar to every general: he who knows them will be victorious; he who knows them not will fail."
Certainly we cast doubts in the Japanese mind via radio by pointin out the attrocities of their army, the unprovoked nature of their attack etc. which the Japanese were likely unaware of owing to censurship of their media.
WW2 was brutal, but ultimately it comes down to us or them in a war, especially a wicked war like the 2nd world war. And if i were in the position of the allies especially a Canadian brigadier general who had to decide whether it will be us or them that eats the most lead, i would choose them.....
War is hell -William Tecumseh Sherman
Americans bringing the war to the civilian population to end the war is nothing new to them. They did it to their own countrymen in the American civil war, especially in industrial era of warfare.... The civilian sector is a major part of war
War is hell -William Tecumseh Sherman
Americans bringing the war to the civilian population to end the war is nothing new to them. They did it to their own countrymen in the American civil war, especially in industrial era of warfare.... The civilian sector is a major part of war
What you say makes perfect sense if we know how to define 'us' and 'them'. For instance, does that brigadier general consider non-combatants as part of 'us', 'them', or a third party. How he defines 'them' will determine whom he'll attack. For example, if he hold classify non-combatants as third-party, he might choose not to involve them and instead focus on Japanese combatants only.As for the third-party, he might even try to recruit them onto his side if possible and, failing that, ensure they remain a third-party. Should any of them become combatants, then they'd become part of 'them'.
On the other hand, if non-combatants are considered part of the enemy by virtue of their citizenship, then we need to kill every one of the whenever the opportunity arises.
It really depends on who 'them' is.
By the way, I think we face the same problem of clear understanding of who the enemy is in our current wards too.
Thats true but i think in WW2, there wasnt that gray zone between black and white and the mindset was different. Both sides were ****ed up
Like Tokyo Rose was doing to us? How did that work.
On Saipan no matter how much Japanese interpeters called out to civillians that they will be safe and not be harmed, they jumped off the cliffs like lemmings to their deaths.
If you believe that, you don't understand their culture.
Honor, Loyalty and Spectacle: Death and Suicide In the Japanese Warrior Class
http://www.cs.arizona.edu/~kpavlou/PersonalEssays/SamuraiDeath.pdf