# disturbing Japanese anime' (hiroshima 1945)



## Trebor (Mar 23, 2009)

I've never seen anything like this before. this video terrified me to my very soul. 


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGrqq5woQiY_


----------



## comiso90 (Mar 23, 2009)

Certainly a dramatic moment in human history. Now lets see an anime about the rape of Nanking.


"Altitude 3600 feet"?
.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 23, 2009)

Mistranslation. Probably meant Angels 360 (flight level 360)


----------



## Trebor (Mar 23, 2009)

I just finished a little research. 

this is only one small scene from a movie called Barefoot Gen. this movie was released in 1983. I just finished watching the whoel thing on YT. it made me just absolutely horrified to see what heppened.

This movie was based on a manga comic and the real life experiences of Keiji Nazakawa


----------



## ToughOmbre (Mar 23, 2009)

comiso90 said:


> Certainly a dramatic moment in human history. Now lets see an anime about the rape of Nanking.



And after that, a video showing......

The Japanese slaughter of 250,000 Chinese civilians to punish the Chinese people for daring to aid the Doolittle Raiders.

The Bataan Death March, and the treatment of Allied POWs captured by the Japanese.

War is a dirty business but the Axis nations were killing tens of thousands of civilians long before the US ever heard of Hiroshima.

One more thing, the atomic raids saved millions of lives.

TO


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 23, 2009)

All the japanese cartoons/anime are disturbing....


----------



## Freebird (Mar 23, 2009)

ToughOmbre said:


> And after that, a video showing......
> 
> The Japanese slaughter of 250,000 Chinese civilians to punish the Chinese people for daring to aid the Doolittle Raiders.
> 
> ...




And some anime of the Allied POW's in the Philippines being fed excrement.

Or the Canadian nurses in Hong Kong being gang-raped and then bayoneted.

For a nation that blatently violated the Geneva Convention, they sure like to whine about it...


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Mar 23, 2009)

The clip was graphic, yes, but a lot of you guys are on the right track. I've never seen or heard of any anime or manga that depicts the atrocities the Japanese committed. Probably will never happen either.


----------



## Freebird (Mar 23, 2009)

Vassili Zaitzev said:


> I've never seen or heard of any anime or manga that depicts the atrocities the Japanese committed.




Because they never made any?  

Japanese textbooks make no mention of atrocities or Japanese aggression responsibility for the war. Only about how the  brutal Americans dropped a bomb on them


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Mar 23, 2009)

freebird said:


> Because they never made any?
> 
> Japanese textbooks make no mention of atrocities or Japanese aggression responsibility for the war. Only about how the  brutal Americans dropped a bomb on them



Ah revisionism, there's no better way making yourself look like the victim.


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (Mar 23, 2009)

Vassili Zaitzev said:


> Ah revisionism, there's no better way making yourself look like the victim.



Technically, I don't think one could call it revisionism, since that requires presenting a blatant falsehood to dimiss and replace a truth, like Holocaust denial. Rather, I'd call it selective memory, and I've even heard the phrase "historical deflection". It's the deliberate turning of the blind eye to avoid discussion of the cause which led to the consequence. Apparently the Chinese are very good at this as well.

As a footnote, on my last business trip to Japan, a companion and I were perusing through 4 or 5 Japanese textbooks, ranging from elementary through high school level, which he was translating for me. I do not recall that Pearl Harbour was ever mentioned in any of them. As a result, one gets the impression that Japan suddenly and inexplicably found itself at war with the US for reasons that were hazy and vague to explain, then all of a sudden the A-bomb. Truely bizarre.


----------



## Sweb (Mar 23, 2009)

Atrocity or Salvation? Nothing hurting in my soul.


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 23, 2009)

There's a small chance that they (the Japanese) would touch on the biological or chemical tests conducted on local civilians in Korea or Manchuria, either...


----------



## Bill G. (Mar 23, 2009)

It is sad to think that we are in an elite group in knowing the factual history of WWII.

And that 68+ years after the end of WWII, the great majority have little idea of a war in which 10s of millions died. They don't understand how it started or who started it. They only know that we dropped two atom bombs on Japan.

I have even heard (any comments from the UK most welcome) that British school children are not even being taught about PM Sir Winston Churchill.

Our own history text books are drifting away from what happened. What a huge disservice to the 10+ million Americans that served, and the 400,000 that died in this war.

Never forget .... It seems that the world is forgetting!

Bill G.


----------



## Shinpachi (Mar 24, 2009)

Please don't worry, everyone.

Chinese film productions made a lot of war movies which introduce cruel Japanese soldiers. Victim side watched everything very well. We don't deny anything as long as it is a fact.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2SUlORRcgM_

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M50CU78TX-o_

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kg8oHYybfnE_

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypcSkq9-82o_

Also, even if the Japanese Goverment do not want to teach the dark side of the history, we can know it at any book store or internet. There is no fool at least who doesn't know the Pearl Harbour and we are not liked by the Chinese and the Koreans and ........


----------



## imalko (Mar 24, 2009)

ToughOmbre said:


> The Japanese slaughter of 250,000 Chinese civilians to punish the Chinese people for daring to aid the Doolittle Raiders.
> 
> The Bataan Death March, and the treatment of Allied POWs captured by the Japanese.
> 
> ...



I'm refering to this and most of previous posts in this thread. You can not justify a crime by saying that opposing side commited war crimes as well. 

Don't get me wrong. Axis powers did comitted horrible war crimes, magnitude of which is unparallel in human history!! But in my oppinion bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaky (and Dresden for that matter) was also crime against humanity, more so becouse it couldn't be justified by military reasons. 

In august 1945 - with Soviet Union finally engaged in the war in Far east, with US and Royal Navies dominating the Pacific and entering unopposed in Japans teritorial waters, with Japanese cities and industry bombed to submition and with bulk of Japanese army isolated on numerous islands across Pacific or all but defeated in Burma and in China - final surrender of Japan was only matter of weeks if not days. Indeed only obstacle for imediate peace was the fate of their emperor. Japan's will to resist was allready broken by that time.

And then came bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaky, when they weren't needed any more. The only reason for this atomic raids was one of prestige and demonstration of military power of the United States. Atomic bombs haven't shortened the war which was already over and haven't saved millions of lives of American troops since those lives weren't in danger any more.

Hiroshima and Nagasaky will remain eternal remainders of the horrors of atomic war.


----------



## timshatz (Mar 24, 2009)

Boy Imalko, you've opened a hornet's nest now  

Rather than get into the ins and outs of the arguement, read the following books:

"Retribution" by Max Hastings
"Tenozan" by George Feifer

Both are very good reads that cover the subject. But to say the bombings of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Dresden were overkill is to miss the point of the evolution of total war. These books do a good job of covering it and will give a better perspective than you can find anywhere else.

To my mind, it is not amazing that the three cities were bombed as thoroughly as they were. Rather, it is amazing that more of cities, nations and groups weren't wiped out. It is amazing the war ended as it did, when it did.


----------



## comiso90 (Mar 24, 2009)

imalko said:


> And then came bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaky, when they weren'n needed any more. The only reason for this atomic raids was one of prestige and demonstration of military power of the United States. Atomic bombs haven't shortened the war which was allready over and haven't saved millions of lives of American troops since those lives weren't in danger any more.
> 
> Hiroshima and Nagasaky will remain eternal remainders of the horrors of atomic war.



Wow... so you think they were about to surrender? Do you think the allies should have invaded?

wow? really?

I do agree that politics played a role in the dropping of the bomb but I also believe the Japanese weren't about to surrender. There were powerful factions who didnt want to surrender after the bombs were dropped!

True Hiroshima and Nagasaki are testimonials to the horror of atomic war - so? there are lots a horrors in war. The two bombs were only two mechanisms out of many. 
They are also symbols of how technology can save lives... those two bombs saved more lives than they took!


.


----------



## imalko (Mar 24, 2009)

timshatz said:


> Boy Imalko, you've opened a hornet's nest now



Well, we can allways agree that we disagree on some topic, but remain respectfull of eachother. I am just stating my oppinion.

Thanks for recomended reading. I don't believe I could find those books in Serbia, even if we have several good book stores with wide selection of books in English. Can this books be somehow found through the internet?


----------



## imalko (Mar 24, 2009)

Timshatz, I see what you ment with that hornet's nest remark.

I do think they were about to surrender, even if there was many faction within Japanese government opposing this. Some would say that the real reason as why Japan surrendered is USSR entering the war, but I think that wasn't only reason.


----------



## Bill G. (Mar 24, 2009)

imalko said:


> I'm refering to this and most of previous posts in this thread. You can not justify a crime by saying that opposing side commited war crimes as well.
> 
> Don't get me wrong. Axis powers did comitted horrible war crimes, magnitude of which is unparallel in human history!! But in my oppinion bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaky (and Dresden for that matter) was also crime against humanity, more so becouse it couldn't be justified by military reasons.
> 
> ...



You are looking at history. President Truman didn't have the huge advantage you do of 68 years of hindsight. The choice to use atomic weapons was based on what he knew then. If you was The President in August, 1945, I'll bet you would have used the bombs too. 

Japan was ready to fight as bloody of a ground war as possible if we had invaded. Okinawa showed that we were going to have huge casualities when we invaded. 

Using the atomic bombed ended Japan's will to fight. And even then it took almost a week before it did.

My best guess is that if we had not used the atomic bombs on Japan, either the USSR or America would have used them in Korea. But because of the public horror/fear of these weapons, they have not been used in battle since August 9, 1945. So their use on Hiroshima and Nagasaki has kept the nukes "in the holster" for 68+ years. Let us hope that continues.

Bill G.


----------



## imalko (Mar 24, 2009)

Bill G. said:


> My best guess is that if we had not used the atomic bombs on Japan, either the USSR or America would have used them in Korea. But because of the public horror/fear of these weapons, they have not been used in battle since August 9, 1945. So their use on Hiroshima and Nagasaki has kept the nukes "in the holster" for 68+ years. Let us hope that continues.
> 
> Bill G.



I agree on that one 100%. That would be the only "good" thing that came out of this two raids.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Mar 24, 2009)

imalko said:


> You can not justify a crime by saying that opposing side commited war crimes as well.



You have a distorted view of what a constitutes a "war crime". 



imalko said:


> In august 1945 - with Soviet Union finally engaged in the war in Far east.....



The Soviet Union entered the war against Japan on August 8, two days *AFTER* Hiroshima. 



imalko said:


> Japans will to resist was allready broken by that time.



Then why did the Japanese refuse to surrender after the August 6 raid on Hiroshima? 

Also, after the August 9 raid on Nagasaki, the Japanese refused to surrender on August 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14. Only when the emporer spoke to the people on the 15th did Japan finally agree to unconditional surrender.



imalko said:


> And then came bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaky, when they weren'n needed any more.



Have you ever heard of the *Potsdam Declaration*?



imalko said:


> The only reason for this atomic raids was one of prestige and demonstration of military power of the United States.



That was an inevitable fringe benefit of the raids, not the "only reason".



imalko said:


> Atomic bombs haven't shortened the war which was allready over and haven't saved millions of lives of American troops since those lives weren't in danger any more.



Your "facts" are the classic arguments that revisionist historians have been putting forth for 60 years. And they are no more accurate today than they were in 1945.

TO


----------



## imalko (Mar 24, 2009)

Please continue with stating the "facts" and you might persuade me that atomic raids on Japan were absolutely necessary and inevitable. 8) 

I was just stating my opinion and speaking from standpoint of humanity. What urged me to join this thread in the first place is the way that in some earlier posts people automatically started to justify atomic raids with crimes that were commited by the Japanese. (Issue of some kind of collective pricks of conscience maybe?) That's the reason for my "you can't justify crime with a crime" statement.

You have pointed on some historical facts that clarify the situation in the Pacific theatre in august 1945 so I can grant you that atomic raids were perhaps war ending, but crimes against humanity none the less. Call me naive, but that is my opinion as a human being and not as a "revisionist historian" which I am not.

What would be your standpoint about Dresden raid? Could that too be justified, when there was no war industry or German troops in the city and when even a number of allied prisoners of war which happened to be there perished?


----------



## ToughOmbre (Mar 24, 2009)

imalko said:


> What would be your standpoint about Dresden raid? Could that too be justified, when even a number of allied prisoners of war which happened to be there perished?



War is hell imalko. And no part of it is pretty.

And for the record, I do not believe that the atomic raids were payback for the many Japanese atrocities that occurred during the war. They were meant to spare us from having to invade the Japanese home islands and thereby save countless American lives, pure and simple. 

Actually the bombing of civilian population centers was status quo, even an accepted strategy, back in the 30s and 40s, ever since the bombing of Guernica during the Spanish Civil War. 

TO


----------



## imalko (Mar 24, 2009)

ToughOmbre said:


> You have a distorted view of what a constitutes a "war crime".



For me the deliberately bombing of civilian targets is a war crime. And that goes for German raids on Guernica, Warsaw, London, Belgrade... same as for Allied bombing of Dresden, Tokio and other cities.

And for the record I did heard about Potsdam declaration.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Mar 24, 2009)

imalko said:


> For me the deliberately bombing of civilian targets is a crime. And that goes for German raids on Guernica, Warsaw, London, Belgrade... same as for Allied bombing of Dresden and other cities.



By today's standards yes. But as I previously posted, the mindset was different during WW II. 

War itself is a crime, but many times a necessary evil.

TO


----------



## imalko (Mar 24, 2009)

"For a smart man every war is lost!"
(Đorđe Balašević)


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 24, 2009)

Actually, Hiroshima was a huge army embarkation and depot center and Nagasaki was a strategic naval and seaport complex. So both were very much active military/industrial targets. On the otherhand, the fire-bombings of Tokyo were a "conventional" bombing and accounted for over 100,000 deaths, over 125,000 wounded and over 1,000,000 displaced from thier homes.

Make no mistake about it, Japan was not going to surrender and was prepared to resist an invasion at any cost. Even after the first bomb was dropped, Japan refused to surrender. The Japanese military command had been preparing for invasion by not only stockpiling weapons throughout the homeland, but they had over 10,000 fighter aircraft and other assets saved for the invasion. Additionally, they had massed a good number of army divisions into strategic areas on Kyushu that were well fortified, numbering close to 900,000 men in 14 divisions, 3 tank brigades and a number of smaller specialized units. The Japanese had over 65 divisions in the homeland by August of 1945.

Also, the civilian population was prepared to fight alongside thier military and the Allied command was aware of this fact. The Japanese defense plan was called Operation Ketsugo and was accurately predicting the areas the Allies were to invade, mainly because of the geography of the islands.

The Allied commanders were projecting that at least 1,000,000 Allied casualties would result from the invasion, starting with "Operation Downfall", set to commence in October 1945. This was just the southern island of Kyushu...and that was*if* the initial invasion went well. The second invasion, "Coronet" was set for spring 1946 targeting the area near Tokyo. The Allied commanders also estimated a Japanese casualty figure of well over 10,000,000 deaths.

All one has to do, is look at the savage battle for Okinawa and see just how prepared the Japanese were to defend thier native soil.

The fact that the A-bombs stopped all this from happening served a purpose, and while they may have been a horrific method, consider just how hideous the alternative would have been...


----------



## Shinpachi (Mar 24, 2009)

Hi, imalko. Thank you very much for your so educational and thoughtful comments.

I believe that your opinion and wisdom come from many war experiences for thousands of years in European history. Japan has also long history but had only a few countable war experiences outside the islands as we are isolated from the continent.

We were so hysteric about the international war with no cool judgment and less experience that our leader was unable to decide when we should withdraw or compromise with the opponents. It was a lack of diplomacy.

How Japan would have been if no atomic bombs were dropped?
I know the allies were planning their land invasion in November, 1945. The war would continue till the end of the year or early 1946 when our headquarters evacuated into the deep shelters of mid-mountains area to controll guerrilla warfare. But it would have made no sense any longer because Japan would have been devided into the North and the South sooner or later. The longer we fought, the deeper the former Soviet Union would have invaded into the islands from the north.

Please don't misunderstand. I can never say 'Thank you very much for dropping the atomic bombs on us'. They were too much.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Mar 24, 2009)

Sorry Imalko, but I have to disagree with you. By today's standards yes, the deliberate bombings of civilians is frowned upon, but the mindset of 1945 was different. Condemning the bombings today would be like condeming the colonialism back in the 18th and 19th centuries, different times. I firmly believed that the atomic bombings saved more lives then they took. The projected casulties for the invasion were higher then the casulties sustained from the bombings. Besides, to my knowledge the fire bombings of Tokyo had more casulties.


----------



## comiso90 (Mar 24, 2009)

Vassili Zaitzev said:


> Sorry Imalko, but I have to disagree with you. By today's standards yes, the deliberate bombings of civilians is frowned upon, but the mindset of 1945 was different.




I think you mean in the context of all out war where nations are fighting for their very survival instead of referencing 1945 / 2009?

If anything, I think we're less civilized.

It was equally abhorrent back then. We shouldn't minimize civilian casualties by thinking it was somehow more acceptable in the '40's. We're not above it now... the weapons are even more efficient for incinerating civilians. The next time we have an all out war, it will happen again.

If it seems less palatable in 2009 it's cause of all the video and communication we ingest.

.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Mar 24, 2009)

I guess, sorry if I'm being confusing. I forgot that it was total war by 1945.


----------



## Konigstiger205 (Mar 25, 2009)

Honestly, the whole WW2 was a bloody war crime. There were killings everywhere, some justified, others no so justified. I was horrified by the atrocities committed by the Japanese army, but also horrified by the atomic bombs. In every war civilians get caught in the middle of it and suffer the most, because politicians...War and politics are dirty because we make them dirty! Its like Iraqi civilians taking revenge on American civilians for the bombing of the US Air Force...its a vicious circle...One thing is for sure, aliens won't invade and kill us, or some natural cataclysm, the human race will kill itself, its what we do best...


----------



## timshatz (Mar 25, 2009)

imalko said:


> Well, we can allways agree that we disagree on some topic, but remain respectfull of eachother. I am just stating my oppinion.
> 
> Thanks for recomended reading. I don't believe I could find those books in Serbia, even if we have several good book stores with wide selection of books in English. Can this books be somehow found through the internet?



Imalko, you can definitely get "Retribution" on the net. Here's a link to it at Amazon:

Amazon.com: Retribution: The Battle for Japan, 1944-45 (Vintage): Max Hastings: Books

Tenozan is a harder book to find. But it is also at Amazon. Link:

Amazon.com: Tennozan: The Battle of Okinawa and the Atomic Bomb: George Feifer: Books

Both books are well written and cover the topic of the last year of the war in the Pacific very well. Retribution is more recent and has more work on the CBI (China-Burma-India) theatre in it (a side of the war that is pretty much forgotten these days). Tenozan covers the American invasion of Okinawa and the dropping of the bomb. Okinawa is covered more closely, the Atom bomb details are almost an afterthought but they do give some perspective on it, in terms of the battle of Okinawa. 

As I said, both are good reads. Well researched and written. Good luck!

PS- It's been my experience that used books are just as good as new books. Unless you are building a library, why bother paying for the new stuff?


----------



## timshatz (Mar 25, 2009)

imalko said:


> Timshatz, I see what you ment with that hornet's nest remark.
> QUOTE]
> 
> Yeah Man! This is a topic where the only opinions are strong ones


----------



## Njaco (Mar 25, 2009)

Thats 10 minutes I won't get back.


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 25, 2009)

Njaco said:


> Thats 10 minutes I won't get back.



Yep, I didn't think it was anything special or particularly disturbing.

Certainly the is the reasons for the event itself but that is pretty self explanatory and has already been covered in this thread very well by others.


----------



## comiso90 (Mar 25, 2009)

imalko

_ 

>>I do think they were about to surrender, even if there was many faction within Japanese government opposing this. _

You think they were about to surrender?.... read:





*Japanese leader thought his country "weak" for surrendering after Hiroshima *



By Julian Ryall in Tokyo
Last Updated: 11:37PM BST 12 Aug 2008

General Hideki Tojo lashed out at his countrymen in his journal even after atomic bombs had been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The journal, found in the National Archives of Japan, covers the two-week period from Aug 10, 1945, a day after the second atomic bomb had struck Nagasaki.

"The Japanese government has accepted the notion that Japan is the loser and it appears to be going to accept unconditional surrender," Tojo wrote. "Such a position frustrates the officers and soldiers of the imperial armed forces.

"Without fully employing its abilities even at the final moment, the imperial nation is surrendering to the enemies' propaganda," he wrote. "I never imagined such torpor in the nation's leaders and its people."

Tojo ordered the 1941 bombing of Pearl Harbor that brought the United States into the Second World War. But he was forced out as premier in 1944 as the tide of the conflict turned.

He was hanged in December 1948 as a Class-A war criminal after being found guilty at the Tokyo war crimes tribunal.

The journal, published in the Nikkei newspaper in the run-up to Friday's 63rd anniversary of Japan's surrender, provoked a strong reaction in Japan. Professor Tsuyoshi Amemiya, a military historian, said that Tojo's bitterness at the people and leaders aware that there was no hope of withstanding the Allies' onslaught was misplaced.

"His feelings towards the Japanese people were completely wrong," said Prof Amemiya, 73. "I was a militaristic 10-year-old when I heard the emperor announce the surrender and I cried and cried because I never thought Japan would be defeated.

"But Japanese people, in their real hearts, were exhausted by the war," he said. "We had no guts left to fight. We were poor, hungry, tired from working so hard, the cities were burned to ashes and every day we were attacked from the air."

In the diaries, Tojo is critical of Japanese leaders' acceptance of the 1945 Potsdam Declaration, which called for Tokyo to surrender unconditionally, lambasting them as being "frightened by new types of bombs and scared of the Soviet Union entering the war" in the Pacific theatre.

Tojo anticipated a "humiliating surrender" but refused to criticise the emperor when the capitulation was announced over the radio.

"Now that the government has decided to proceed to diplomatic processes after gaining the emperor's judgment, I have decided to refrain from making any comments about it, although I have maintained a separate view," he wrote.



Japanese leader thought his country "weak" for surrendering after Hiroshima - Telegraph

Japan



Japanese leader thought his country "weak" for surrendering after Hiroshima - Telegraph


----------



## imalko (Mar 25, 2009)

Hi comiso90!
I have read your post carefully and here are some of my observations.



comiso90 said:


> Professor Tsuyoshi Amemiya, a military historian, said that Tojo's bitterness at the people and leaders aware that there was no hope of withstanding the Allies' onslaught was misplaced.
> 
> "His feelings towards the Japanese people were completely wrong," said Prof Amemiya, 73. "I was a militaristic 10-year-old when I heard the emperor announce the surrender and I cried and cried because I never thought Japan would be defeated.
> 
> "But Japanese people, in their real hearts, were exhausted by the war," he said. "*We had no guts left to fight.* We were poor, hungry, tired from working so hard, the cities were burned to ashes and every day we were attacked from the air."



Will of Japanese people to resist broken?



comiso90 said:


> In the diaries, Tojo is critical of Japanese leaders' acceptance of the 1945 Potsdam Declaration, which called for Tokyo to surrender unconditionally, lambasting them as being *"frightened by new types of bombs and scared of the Soviet Union entering the war"* in the Pacific theatre.



Atomic raids are not the only reason for surrender of Japan. Soviet Union entering the war was also a major factor.



comiso90 said:


> Tojo anticipated a "humiliating surrender" but refused to criticise the emperor when the capitulation was announced over the radio.
> 
> "Now that the government has decided to proceed to diplomatic processes *after gaining the emperor's judgment, **I have decided to refrain from making any comments about it, although I have maintained a separate view*," he wrote.



Even the hard militarists were prepared to accept the surrender upon emperor's judgment?

*So, I believe that crucial question is this - were Japanese people ready to accept surrender upon their emperor's judgment even without atomic raids, or not?*

I believe they were. But I admit that I'm no expert about Japanese culture or mentality of their people, so I might be wrong. The real person to answer this question for us is Mr. Shinpachi to whom I send my regards.

One other remark. I think (by some of previous posts in this thread) that battle for Okinawa was exeptionaly traumatic for Americans. Would you agree that this was perhaps one of the major reasons for final decision on using the atomic bombs?


----------



## ToughOmbre (Mar 25, 2009)

imalko said:


> One other remark. I think (by some of previous posts in this thread) that battle for Okinawa was exeptionaly traumatic for Americans. Would you agree that this was perhaps one of the major reasons for final decision on using the atomic bombs?



Absolutely imalko. 50,000 casualties (12,500 dead) against 100,000 Japanese troops on the island. Do the math if we invaded the home islands. As stated before, the reason for the use of the A-bombs was to save American lives. The residual benefit was that it saved many Japanese lives as well.

TO


----------



## comiso90 (Mar 25, 2009)

imalko said:


> gards.
> 
> One other remark. I think (by some of previous posts in this thread) that battle for Okinawa was exeptionaly traumatic for Americans. Would you agree that this was perhaps one of the major reasons for final decision on using the atomic bombs?



I don't think the decisions to drop bombs was an emotional decision. The entire Pacific campaign was traumatic. The bomb was dropped because we were convinced that the Japanese would not surrender w/o invading their home islands. True, they knew that they could no longer win the war but they were hoping for a honorable (relatively) and conditional armistice.

Even if they didn't "fight to the last man", I believe *they wouldn't have surrendered until we invaded and destroyed several cities "the old fashioned way" and the emperor was dead.* Post-war Japan needed the Emperor!

I do agree that politics (the soviet union). was a big factor but the fear of committing a million+ man army to an invasion was the deciding factor... 

Can you imagine the reconstruction? I'm sorry, but I'm convinced the Japanese are lucky we dropped the bombs! Instead of leveling a couple dozen cities with conventional warfare... they lost 2 with atomic.


We will never agree as long as you feel surrender was eminent and i do not.....

.


----------



## Njaco (Mar 25, 2009)

Maybe if the Japanese leaders had understood that little video back in '31 /'32 there never would have been a bomb or a PTO. Sorry but whoever throws the stick first better make sure its not a boomerang.


----------



## imalko (Mar 25, 2009)

comiso90 said:


> Even if they didn't "fight to the last man", I believe *they wouldn't have surrendered until we invaded and destroyed several cities "the old fashioned way" and the emperor was dead.* Post-war Japan needed the Emperor!



So, you do believe that they (Japanese people) would actually overthrow their emperor or even kill him(!) if he had declared himself in favor of surrender, without so horrible threat such is total destruction by atomic weapons? 

I'm not so sure. But as I said, to correctly answer to this interesting question one would really have to be an expert about mentality of Japanese people, their tradition and importance of emperor in their culture.


----------



## comiso90 (Mar 25, 2009)

imalko said:


> So, you do believe that they (Japanese people) would actually overthrow their emperor or even kill him(!) if he had declared himself in favor of surrender, without so horrible threat such is total destruction by atomic weapons? I'm not so sure. But as I said, to corectly answer this question one would really have to be expert about mentality of Japanese people, their tradition and importance of emperor in their culture.



No... he was a supreme deity. I don't believe they would have overthrown him. 


when I said "the emperor was dead" I meant by allied hands or suicide. Sure, there is a chance that one minority faction may have assassinated him but I dont think that would happen.

The Japanese Army and Navy were in a power struggle but they both revered the Emperor...

also i didnt say "or" the emperor was dead... it was AND: _until we invaded and destroyed several cities "the old fashioned way" and the emperor was dead. _

That still means invasion which justifys the big bangs.

.


----------



## imalko (Mar 25, 2009)

comiso90 said:


> No... he was a supreme deity. I don't believe they would have overthrown him.



I that case, can we agree on the fallowing: If emperor had declared himself in favor of surrender earlier (but still in 1945, let say after the end of fighting in Okinawa), then Japanese people would have submitted to his wishes and Japan would have indeed surrender, thus making atomic raids unnecessary?


----------



## BombTaxi (Mar 25, 2009)

I don't think anyone can ever say that the Japanese were 'lucky' to have nuclear weapons used against them. It's a bit like saying that the people of Cologne were 'lucky' that the RAF only sent 1000 bombers against them, or the British were 'lucky' that they took fewer casualties on the Somme than the Germans did. 

A conventional invasion of Japan would have been horrendously bloody, and I wonder how well American public opinion would have coped with Verdun-like casualty figures over an extended period. While I do not think for a second that America would have even considered giving up the fight, I am certain that the course of post-war history would be very different with a more war-weary US less willing to seek confrontation with the USSR immediately post WWII. 

As for historical deflection (good phrase that, I like it!), ALL nations are guilty of it to a greater or lesser degree. We Brits tend to downplay parts of our history, like putting Boer civilians into concentration camps in 1900 or firebombing Dresden four and a half decades later. The Russians probably don't teach much about the systematic campaign of looting and rape carried out by the Red Army as it moved across Germany in 1945. The difference is that Britain and Russia were on the 'winning' side of those respective conflicts, and are therefore able to ignore those items of history which reflect less credibly upon them. The Japanese, being upon the losing side, will never allow themselves to forget their crimes, nor will the 'winners' let them forget.

That is not to say, in any way, that what the Japanese did was not absolutely evil. But is it not an act of historical deflection in it's own right for you guys to criticize Japan for making anime about Hiroshima but not Nanking? Or put another way, (and making no direct moral comparison at all) how many US cartoon series deal with the conquest of the native American population by the USA? If there are very few, is that not historical deflection also? Every country has dark places in it's history, and very few go there willingly...


----------



## imalko (Mar 25, 2009)

Excellent post BombTaxi! And good points. I couldn't agree with you more. That was exactly my point through this entire discussion! (Allthoug I couldn't say that so eloquently as you did.)


----------



## ToughOmbre (Mar 25, 2009)

BombTaxi said:


> Every country has dark places in it's history, and very few go there willingly...



Very true BT. But as far as the US in WW II is concerned, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are *NOT* "dark places" in our history. Not when you consider the alternative, and that's exactly why Truman made the decision he did. What would truly have been a "crime" was if we did not use the A-bombs we possessed, and instead invaded Japan and suffered hundreds of thousands of needless American casualties. I think HST would have a tough time explaining that one to the mothers, wives and sweethearts of the men who were lost.

TO


----------



## Freebird (Mar 25, 2009)

ToughOmbre said:


> Absolutely imalko. 50,000 casualties (12,500 dead) against 100,000 Japanese troops on the island. Do the math if we invaded the home islands. As stated before, the reason for the use of the A-bombs was to save American lives. The residual benefit was that it saved many Japanese lives as well.
> 
> TO





comiso90 said:


> I don't think the decisions to drop bombs was an emotional decision. The entire Pacific campaign was traumatic. The bomb was dropped because we were convinced that the Japanese would not surrender w/o invading their home islands. True, they knew that they could no longer win the war but they were hoping for a honorable (relatively) and conditional armistice.
> 
> .



I don't agree that there were only two options. A complete Allied blockade combined with continuing air strikes would have eliminated the Japanese ability to mount any hostile action, as they would not have the industry to build ships or aircraft, nor would they have the fuel to run it. 

I suspect that this may have been the outcome if there were not a bomb, as Truman was painfully aware of the US Military Chief's prediction of 1 - 2 million casualties, with perhaps even a half-million killed.

With the availability of the bomb, Truman decided to put a quick end to the war.

Some people think that it would have been more "moral" to blockade Japan into submission, after disease starvation had eliminated the governments control, rather than dropping the bomb. And the paradox of this is that 100's of thousand more civilians would have died than actually did from the bombs.


----------



## Njaco (Mar 25, 2009)

I understand your point BT but why do discussions always have to move to a 'general' topic. I know members compared Nanking and others but staying on topic for Hiroshima, I think the video is pulling strings. The US airmen aren't exactly 'colorful' as the other characters in the movie. Its like they're dark demons or something.

and as far as movies. I think the US does reflect itself very well. Just for Native Americans you have "Dances With Wolves', 'Little Big Man', 'Billy Jack', 'Outlaw Josey Wales' and even 'One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest'. I don't think anything escapes Hollywood much.


----------



## comiso90 (Mar 25, 2009)

BombTaxi said:


> Every country has dark places in it's history, and very few go there willingly...



Dark? The use of the A bomb was a triumph that saved more than it killed!

My father was in ww2 Europe. He was being reassigned to the pacific after the VE day. 


.


----------



## Bill G. (Mar 26, 2009)

In both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were small machine assembly shops in residential areas. The shops were making parts for various war needs. Are these valid tagets? Is a civilian working in these factories a combatant? Is a farmer producing food used by the military a combatant? Both are supporting the needs of the military.

The civilians were being trained to fight the Allied forces during the invation. Does this now make them as a home guard a combatant? Barracks are valid targets. So does this make their home and barracks?

I was a National Guardsman. When I was not at drill, am I a non-combatant or a combatant? What about where I live? What about where I work, shop, play?

Now I am part of the Individual Ready Reserve. I could, though not very likely, be called up. So am I still a combatant?

I am part of the Company's Family Readiness Group. So does this make me a Combatant?

The point is, it is very hard to draw a line to say who is and who is not a combatant at times.

The other point is those that we are now fighting in the War on Terror have declared EVERYONE a Combatant. To them none of what I have typed above matters. To Bin Laden, every American, Brit, Aussie, and more are valid targets.

Bill G.


----------



## comiso90 (Mar 26, 2009)

imalko said:


> I that case, can we agree on the fallowing: If emperor had declared himself in favor of surrender earlier (but still in 1945, let say after the end of fighting in Okinawa), then Japanese people would have submitted to his wishes and Japan would have indeed surrender, thus making atomic raids unnecessary?



Possibly.. I don't know but it is conjecture that he would have capitulated and conjecture that he wouldn't. The difference is that waiting for the Japanese to surrender has detrimental consequences.

To wait for the emperor and military to surrender wait while the Japanese built up their home defenses would be a colossal military blunder. Massive supply depots for the invasion were already in place and growing larger by the day. The *first *invasion was planned for November after the hurricane season and that wasn't far away.The invasion was going to happen and fortunately, two tools of war prevented that from happening.




.


----------



## imalko (Mar 26, 2009)

comiso90 said:


> We will never agree as long as you feel surrender was eminent and i do not.....



You see, we can agree on something after all.  

Maybe surrender wasn't eminent, but is it so hard to believe it was possible without atomic raids and without an invasion?

Cheers!


----------



## comiso90 (Mar 26, 2009)

Damn... you win!


----------



## Marcel (Mar 26, 2009)

BombTaxi said:


> That is not to say, in any way, that what the Japanese did was not absolutely evil. But is it not an act of historical deflection in it's own right for you guys to criticize Japan for making anime about Hiroshima but not Nanking? Or put another way, (and making no direct moral comparison at all) how many US cartoon series deal with the conquest of the native American population by the USA? If there are very few, is that not historical deflection also? Every country has dark places in it's history, and very few go there willingly...



I just saw "Dances with wolves", which is an American movie IIRC. That one does deal with the indians and also does not deny the bad things, done by the white people. This is an example of the US not denying their history (I know there are examples of denying, too).


----------



## comiso90 (Mar 26, 2009)

Marcel said:


> I just saw "Dances with wolves", which is an American movie IIRC. That one does deal with the indians and also does not deny the bad things, done by the white people. This is an example of the US not denying their history (I know there are examples of denying, too).



Yes Marcel.. now they take the white man's money with legal casinos!

One thing it left out, which I have yet to see in a movie about the American West, is the extreme violence committed by opposing native American tribes against each other. For centuries, many of the tribes practiced brutal, savage warfare that resulted in displacement and total war.

I certainly dont excuse the white mans heinous crimes against the Indians but we have to remember that murder, violence and butchery is a trait of the human animal and not exclusive, as many want to think, to whites against people of color.

.


----------



## BombTaxi (Mar 26, 2009)

My intention wasn't to suggest that all racial violence is committed by white men, and thanks everyone for filling in my knowledge of films about the West 8) 

I was simply trying to illustrate (albeit a bit clumsily) that 'historical deflection' is a universal pastime, and before giving the Japanese too much stick for it, we should each consider the less glorious events in our own countries pasts. Every nation has things that they simply cannot talk about...


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 26, 2009)

comiso90 said:


> ...One thing it left out, which I have yet to see in a movie about the American West, is the extreme violence committed by opposing native American tribes against each other. For centuries, many of the tribes practiced brutal, savage warfare that resulted in displacement and total war.



Comiso, if you want to see a good Native American movie set in "pre-white" times, check out "Windwalker". It came out in '81 and starred Trevor Howard and Nick Ramus to name a few. It covers the struggle of a family who has just lost thier Grandfather and has come under attack from a rival tribe. The enemy looks like members of the Crow nation, and it is a fantastic example of how brutal the American Indians could be to one another (there's more to the movie, but I don't want to give it away!).

I always thought they should have made a sequel to this movie...it's a great one. I highly recommend it!


----------



## Njaco (Mar 26, 2009)

No worries BT, I just get alittle miffed when one starts a discussion about one subject and everything else gets thrown in. This was a vignette about an event and should be looked at objectively. But it wasn't. Its as if life was wonderful and suddenly big bad meanies ruined it. Theres a backstory to this event and it was totally skipped - just to draw out sympathy. There is no need to talk about the Indians, or Vietnam or how brutal the Klingons an be. The focus was the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and I can't understand why it can't stay on track or be objective.


----------



## Shinpachi (Mar 26, 2009)

I have found out a comic which handles the Nanjing Massacre by Hiroshi Motomiya who is one of the leading comic creators in Japan. However, this comic 'Kuni ga moeru(Nation burns)' was obliged to stop publication in 2004 because a local politician group protested his work saying it was based on some wrong photos which were forged.

flickr/photos/[email protected]/2037658943/
geocities/nankin1937jp/page070.html
mangazenkan/item/105.html

In my feeling, this historical incident seems still too 'fresh' for us to view with cool eye.


----------



## Freebird (Mar 27, 2009)

Shinpachi said:


> In my feeling, this historical incident seems still too 'fresh' for us to view with cool eye.




I think that was one of the excuses given for opposition to Congress condemning the Ottoman Empire's genocide against the Armenians.

The President expressed dipleasure at Congress doing this, but didn't mention the genocide. {Dead Armenians don't vote}


----------



## proton45 (Mar 27, 2009)

g


----------



## proton45 (Aug 18, 2009)

imalko said:


> Timshatz, I see what you ment with that hornet's nest remark.
> 
> I do think they were about to surrender, even if there was many faction within Japanese government opposing this. Some would say that the real reason as why Japan surrendered is USSR entering the war, but I think that wasn't only reason.



I don't think you are the one who opened the "hornets nest"...I think it was "comiso90" and his Nanking statement. The topic of the thread was about a Japanese cartoon that showed the human impact of the atomic bombings. I don't know why people always have to justify the action of the atomic bombing by bringing up China (the bombing wasn't suppose to be vengeance it was suppose to end the war...right?). For some reason Americans always want to "gloss over" the horrible impact these bombings had on civilians. Weather or not the atom bomb shortened the war is only part of the reality...it still had a devastating effect on the civilians (and their children) of these citys.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 18, 2009)

proton45 said:


> I don't think you are the one who opened the "hornets nest"...I think it was "comiso90" and his Nanking statement. The topic of the thread was about a Japanese cartoon that showed the human impact of the atomic bombings. I don't know why people always have to justify the action of the atomic bombing by bringing up China (the bombing wasn't suppose to be vengeance it was suppose to end the war...right?). For some reason Americans always want to "gloss over" the horrible impact these bombings had on civilians. Weather or not the atom bomb shortened the war is only part of the reality...it still had a devastating effect on the civilians (and their children) of these citys.


And this comment brings up the question of why do people always slam Americans over the atom bombs?

The Japanese were not prepared to surrender, any student of military history can easily tell you this. The fire bombing of Tokyo and other large cities were horrific and accounted for a tremendous amount of deaths, injuries and displaced civilians that can easily rival both atomic bombs.

And this conventional bombing campaign was going to continue for at least another year. The Allied strategists and Japanese strategists were working on plans that continued well into 1946. (There's been a few threads here that have covered this in depth.)

While the weapons were terrible in thier own right, how terrible would it have been to have seen the casualties of a protracted defense the Japanese had in store for the Allies?

_*"*the bombing wasn't suppose to be vengeance it was suppose to end the war...right?*"*_
Yes, and it took dropping a second one to finally get them to come to terms of unconditional surrender.


----------



## proton45 (Aug 18, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> And this comment brings up the question of why do people always slam Americans over the atom bombs?
> 
> The Japanese were not prepared to surrender, any student of military history can easily tell you this. The fire bombing of Tokyo and other large cities were horrific and accounted for a tremendous amount of deaths, injuries and displaced civilians that can easily rival both atomic bombs.
> 
> ...



again..."off topic". No one was slamming the USA.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 18, 2009)

proton45 said:


> again..."off topic". No one was slamming the USA.





proton45 said:


> ...For some reason Americans always want to "gloss over" the horrible impact these bombings had on civilians...


My comment was about as off topic as yours was


----------



## proton45 (Aug 18, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> My comment was about as off topic as yours was



Perhaps...my comment was mostly aimed at the immediate reactions of a couple posts on this thread. Their where a couple of people posting here who's first reaction to the cartoon clip was to bring up Nanking. I found it interesting that some people can't just acknowledge the horrendous nature of the atomic bombing without having to justifie it (as vengence?). And yet I have seen interviews of crew men who where involved in dropping the bomb, who them selfs have commented on how horrible the devastation was.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 18, 2009)

proton45 said:


> Perhaps...my comment was mostly aimed at the immediate reactions of a couple posts on this thread. Their where a couple of people posting here who's first reaction to the cartoon clip was to bring up Nanking. I found it interesting that some people can't just acknowledge the horrendous nature of the atomic bombing without having to justifie it (as vengence?). And yet I have seen interviews of crew men who where involved in dropping the bomb, who them selfs have commented on how horrible the devastation was.



Well personally I feel it was justified and make no apologies what my country did - I have relatives who fought and were captured by the Japanese Army and seen the end result of their handiwork. My wife's grandfather actually testified against his captors who were later hung for war crimes. 

Was the atomic bombings horrendous? Yes. Were they justified? In August 1945 they were.

Additionally I had other relatives who were on their way to Japan at the time of the bombings. They probably would not have been alive today (although very old) if it wasn't for those bombings.

I'll quote Adolf Hitler but will omit two words - "Whoever lights the torch of war can wish for nothing but chaos"

Perhaps the Japanese military should of thought of that in 1941.

BTW you mention some of the crews - Paul Tibbets up until the day he died never had any regrets of what he did and always stated if he was serving in the US military in today's and was faced with the same situation, he wouldn't hesitate to do the same mission as he did August 6, 1945.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 18, 2009)

There will always be a "cause and effect" whenever subjects like this come up.

The mindset about "well, they ripped China a new one so they needed it" really isn't as valid of a discussion as the one is about _why_ the bombs were dropped. I would agree that an atomic weapon is "over kill", but this was new technology and it was a global war that had seen force escalation on a tremendous scale between it's start in the 30's and the time that the bombs were dropped.

The moral issue is a tough one, but because of unique circumstances, they were used as a tool to actually stop killing. As far as paradoxes go, this is probably at the top of the list. Create suffering to stop suffering.

The destruction that the bombs produced was horriffic, but in any war, there is always scenes of total devestation (London, Dresden, Tokyo, Hamburg, Stalingrad and so on). Just not in a single flash. Typically, it takes weeks on end of countless bombs falling to acheive the same results. And there is perhaps more of an inner fear of the "flash bang" devestation than there is of a slow, drawn-out ruin. Something like: "maybe I have a chance to get missed this time around" way of thinking. An atom bomb doesn't give you that, it just sweeps the table clean in one shot.

I just hope that people remember why they were used, and use that knowledge as a deterrent from ever letting it happen again.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 18, 2009)

Justify? It was war. I've seen quotes of up to 50 million people died during WW2 whereas approx 250k people died from the 2 atomic blasts. How are their deaths any more horrific then the other 49.75 million people that died?


----------



## proton45 (Aug 19, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Well personally I feel it was justified and make no apologies what my country did - I have relatives who fought and were captured by the Japanese Army and seen the end result of their handiwork. My wife's grandfather actually testified against his captors who were later hung for war crimes.
> 
> Was the atomic bombings horrendous? Yes. Were they justified? In August 1945 they were.
> 
> ...



I don't think its really an issue of apologizing... I too feel that it was probably the logical thing for us to do. I just don't understand why people always get so defensive when a Japanese filmmaker puts a human face on the suffering the civilian population endured. 

It could be that I'm reacting to a series of "on-line" conversations I've had in the past few months... I was on another forum talking to a couple of guys (I assume they where guys) who loved the movie "Stalingrad" ( Das Boot). Their view was that these movies "showed it as it was". I brought up a resent Japanese movie I liked called, "For those we love", and their first reaction was that it had some cool airplane combat, but it seemed like propaganda. To cut to the chase of our conversation...they felt that the Germans in their preferred movies were NOT Nazi's so they seemed more sympathetic, while they assumed that ALL Japanese soldiers should he held responsible for the crimes of the military (in fact, they felt ALL Japanese citizens should be held responsible) because of their group mentality (loyalty to the Emperor). To be fair these guys admitted that their view could have been a little "uninformed"...and in fact they admitted that they had not given the issue much thought. 

Justified bombing or not? This question is not really relevant for us today (thank God)... I had family on the American side the Japanese side. I have relatives who where held prisoner by the German the Japanese...and killed by the Allies. 

As far as the bomber crew goes...I don't think you have to voice regret to admit the horrible power and suffering the bombs inflicted. I also don't think its "un-American" or hypocritical to empathize with the suffering of civilians...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 19, 2009)

proton45 said:


> I don't think its really an issue of apologizing... I too feel that it was probably the logical thing for us to do. I just don't understand why people always get so defensive when a Japanese filmmaker puts a human face on the suffering the civilian population endured.


It's real simple - for years they denied what that did to civilians and prisoners. As my wife grandfather put it - "what was endured at Hiroshima to many lasted seconds - the suffering at the march will continue for eternity." He survived the Bataan Death March - another event some Japanese denied ever happened.



proton45 said:


> As far as the bomber crew goes...I don't think you have to voice regret to admit the horrible power and suffering the bombs inflicted. I also don't think its "un-American" or hypocritical to empathize with the suffering of civilians...


Its not - but also consider the atrocities committed to unarmed civilians and POWs by the Japanese because the accepted culture at the time allowed them to do so. Accept their suffering when they truly "fess up" to what they did, at that point it you will not look "un-American."


----------



## proton45 (Aug 19, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> It's real simple - for years they denied what that did to civilians and prisoners. As my wife grandfather put it - "what was endured at Hiroshima to many lasted seconds - the suffering at the march will continue for eternity." He survived the Bataan Death March - another event some Japanese denied ever happened.
> 
> Its not - but also consider the atrocities committed to unarmed civilians and POWs by the Japanese because the accepted culture at the time allowed them to do so. Accept their suffering when they truly "fess up" to what they did, at that point it you will not look "un-American."




alright i get it, you have bad feelings about japanese, thats your right. i don't see things as "black white".


----------



## magnocain (Aug 19, 2009)

The video got removed.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 19, 2009)

proton45 said:


> alright i get it, you have bad feelings about japanese, thats your right. i don't see things as "black white".



I actually don't have bad feelings about the Japanese (people). I've been to Japan including Okinawa several times and its one of my favorite countries to visit. I have bad feelings about those who wish to diminish Japanese WW2 atrocities while trying to demonize the US for using the atomic bomb. I've actually met Japanese who totally understood our reasoning for using the bomb. I could be more sympathetic toward the civilian Japanese WW2 population if POWs (that includes civilians) weren't slaughtered just because they captured. In the end I view it as poetic justice.


----------



## GaryMcL (Aug 20, 2009)

Njaco said:


> .... This was a vignette about an event and should be looked at objectively. But it wasn't. Its as if life was wonderful and suddenly big bad meanies ruined it. Theres a backstory to this event and it was totally skipped - just to draw out sympathy. ...



I probably shouldn't, but here goes anyway.

Whether or not a post in this thread is on- or off-topic depends to me on whether or not the topic is the anime and its historical accuracy or the event itself. I don't know that that really got clearly defined but it was almost preordained that there would be a swerve into the event itself.

To look objectively at the anime itself, other than the technical quality of the graphics and sound and whether it accurately portrayed the visual horror of being nuked the only other areas to consider are its context and historical accuracy since it deals with a historical event. Since the technical aspects haven't received much comment that leaves only context and accuracy.

Any discussion of the bombings that portrays them as stand-alone events is at best slanted and totally removes the context. The bombings were the end of the road Japan chose to go down in 1941 and to ignore that is to expose the underlying agenda to portray the U.S. as the aggressors and for that reason it does in fact slam the U.S.. No big surprise that Americans would take offense. To point out what was omitted speaks directly to context and historical accuracy which is appropriate to a discussion of the anime. Had the anime at least in general terms acknowledged that there was a long, brutal war preceding the bombing it would have at least provided a minimally accurate context.

That Americans on the forum get their backs up after seeing the U.S. portrayed as maniacal demons who nuked a peace loving Japan just because it could shouldn't be that difficult for anyone to understand. It's got nothing to do with hating Japan or most of the other reasons posited here. It's got everything to do with selective memory or agenda ignoring the history leading up to the bombings and the patently anti-American slant.

It's maybe a bit of a stretch but think in terms of the Brits being portrayed as hateful, bloodthirsty, vicious sods who gleefully pounded Bismarck to the bottom of the Atlantic with massive loss of life in retribution for Hood instead of steaming alongside and capturing him (taking huge losses in ships and men), waiting for him to surrender (since he was clearly going to lose the battle anyway) or just make a big circle of ships around him to contain him and eventually starve him into surrendering. I suspect you'd get much the same reaction from the Brits to being portrayed this way in the face of the military necessity and impracticality of the other options as you have from Americans in this case. 

Well, that's enough (and probably too much). I'll quit before I get into any more trouble.

Gary


----------



## proton45 (Aug 20, 2009)

GaryMcL said:


> I probably shouldn't, but here goes anyway.
> 
> Whether or not a post in this thread is on- or off-topic depends to me on whether or not the topic is the anime and its historical accuracy or the event itself. I don't know that that really got clearly defined but it was almost preordained that there would be a swerve into the event itself.
> 
> ...



The story is the childlike recollections of a real person...how do you expect a child to see things? 

FYI, the author of the Manga , Keiji Nakazawa, that this cartoon is based on was extremely critical of the militarization of Japan. Here is a quote from an interview:

"NAKAZAWA: Well, I spent a lot of time thinking about why it happened. And if you think it through, the answer clearly lies with the militarists and the imperial system. And as a young kid, of course, I'd heard my father criticizing them too." 

This was his response to a question about WHY THE BOMB WAS DROPPED...

What bothers me is that people watch a little 5 minute clip of a full length movie and they think they know the whole story...I think its dangerous thinking to lump all people into "fixed" categorizes (or nationality's). Some people watch a little Japanese film clip and they immediately assume its expressing anti-American feelings...The world is a complicated place and experiences are never black and white. From the point of view of a little kid the bombing must have seemed a scary and horrible experience, but the author makes it clear who is to blame. 

America may have wielded the hammer that struck the blow but the die was cast by Japan's own military complex...


[Edit]: Here is a link to the interview I mentioned. http://www.tcj.com/256/i_nakazawa.html


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 20, 2009)

GaryMcL said:


> That Americans on the forum get their backs up after seeing the U.S. portrayed as maniacal demons who nuked a peace loving Japan just because it could shouldn't be that difficult for anyone to understand. It's got nothing to do with hating Japan or most of the other reasons posited here. It's got everything to do with selective memory or agenda ignoring the history leading up to the bombings and the patently anti-American slant.


Very well said Gary. I actually wrote to the mayor of Nagasaki over the anti-American slant in some of his speeches made about the subject and he was un-yielding in his feelings that the Japanese were totally victimized by US brutality. When presented with facts about the behavior of the Japanese military during WW2, his response was "we tend to remember history in the manner that suits our individual needs."


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 20, 2009)

Some people can rationalize anything, regardless of reality.


----------



## proton45 (Aug 21, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Very well said Gary. I actually wrote to the mayor of Nagasaki over the anti-American slant in some of his speeches made about the subject and he was un-yielding in his feelings that the Japanese were totally victimized by US brutality. When presented with facts about the behavior of the Japanese military during WW2, his response was "we tend to remember history in the manner that suits our individual needs."



politicians tend to say whatever gets them elected...


----------



## trackend (Aug 21, 2009)

This is a quote from my fathers war time experience " when we heard of the dropping of the Atomic bombs we all cheered as it meant we would be going home and we also new it saved huge losses that would have been endured had a ground offensive taken place. Its easy to be an outraged armchair historian 60 years after the event, when you have lost friends and seen the treatment the POWs etc recieved at the hands of the Japanese you may well have had a different view of things. There is nothing glorious about war, its butchery and the quicker its over the better.the bomb did just that"


----------



## timshatz (Aug 21, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> "we tend to remember history in the manner that suits our individual needs." QUOTE]
> 
> That's not quite accurate.
> 
> ...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 21, 2009)

timshatz said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > "we tend to remember history in the manner that suits our individual needs." QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## timshatz (Aug 21, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> timshatz said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks Tim - BTW just for the record, several years later this mayor was murdered by a mobster.
> ...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 21, 2009)

timshatz said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > Sounds like he was from Jersey. 8)


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 21, 2009)

You know, oddly enough, if we hadn't caused the last Tokugawa Shogun to lose face publicly by forcing open Japanese ports, the Meiji Restoration might never have happened and the Japanese Empire might never have modernized. WWII might have found Japan still an isolationist backwater controlled by samurai with swords.


----------



## proton45 (Aug 21, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> You know, oddly enough, if we hadn't caused the last Tokugawa Shogun to lose face publicly by forcing open Japanese ports, the Meiji Restoration might never have happened and the Japanese Empire might never have modernized. WWII might have found Japan still an isolationist backwater controlled by samurai with swords.



This is the view most frequently given by the more conservative branches of Japanese society. They claim that Japan just wanted t be left alone and that the American's + international pressures caused Japan to militarize quickly. After Admiral Perry showed up with his guns and forced japan to open her ports, Japan felt very vulnerable was afraid that they would end up like China (pulled apart by international concerns). Most conservatives feet that this was the bedrock that actually led to the "showdown" between Japan the USA...


----------



## GaryMcL (Aug 21, 2009)

proton45 said:


> The story is the childlike recollections of a real person...how do you expect a child to see things?
> 
> FYI, the author of the Manga , Keiji Nakazawa, that this cartoon is based on was extremely critical of the militarization of Japan. Here is a quote from an interview:
> 
> ...



Good information to have as it speaks to Mr. Nakazawa's consideration of historical context. But it is information that a viewer of the clip as a stand-alone does not have.

If the original writing clearly articulated his position then I'd ascribe no anti-American agenda to Mr. Nakazawa in the original writing and would actually applaud his recognition of the reality. Similarly, if the anime was faithful to the original (which does't often happen in Hollywood when a writing is adapted to film) and also clearly articulated his message I'd also have no major issue with the movie as a whole as having an agenda. The stylized depiction of U.S. airman, particularly in the context of a child's vision, would be typical of anime in general.

However, the entire movie was not presented, nor was the background or overall message of the original. Five minutes was chosen for posting and thereby taken out of the context of the entirety. The question must then be asked why was this particular five minutes chosen, which depicted the actual bombing, as opposed to five minutes from later in the movie that would still depict the horror of the aftermath, assuming that depiction was the intent of the posting? Why choose a clip that can be viewed as slamming the U.S. by its depiction of the U.S. airmen contained within it with no reference to who's eyes it is being seen? I suspect that it was chosen precisely because of the light in which it would be viewed and would thereby create a big anti-American buzz on YouTube. Many on YouTube will take any opportunity, in or out of context, to post something anti-American whether related to WWII or present times and just as many are more than happy to join in on the slamming.

I don't believe that the anti-American feel to the clip is the result of any preconceived assumption by anyone here who viewed it. It was simply a reaction to the content of the clip as presented. There can be no reasonable expectation that a clip will be considered in the context of the whole if that context is not presented with the clip. This clip as presented as a stand-alone and does nothing to "make it clear who is to blame". How else, then, could it be expected to be viewed and reacted to except on its own? Had context been presented I believe there would have been a completely different reaction here.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 21, 2009)

proton45 said:


> This is the view most frequently given by the more conservative branches of Japanese society. They claim that Japan just wanted t be left alone and that the American's + international pressures caused Japan to militarize quickly. After Admiral Perry showed up with his guns and forced japan to open her ports, Japan felt very vulnerable was afraid that they would end up like China (pulled apart by international concerns). Most conservatives feet that this was the bedrock that actually led to the "showdown" between Japan the USA...


There was a small, wealthy, maniacal element in Japanese society who had extreme nationalist and imperialist agendas and who seized the opportunity to create a fascist government and a ruthless and sadistic military. The Japanese weren't forced to become Imperial Japan any more than the French and British forced the German people to accept the Nazis. The power vacuum created by losses those countries suffered allowed people like Nazis, Fascists and Imperialists to come to power, but the people bear some responsibility for allowing it to happen and supporting it.


----------



## proton45 (Aug 21, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> There was a small, wealthy, maniacal element in Japanese society who had extreme nationalist and imperialist agendas and who seized the opportunity to create a fascist government and a ruthless and sadistic military. The Japanese weren't forced to become Imperial Japan any more than the French and British forced the German people to accept the Nazis. The power vacuum created by losses those countries suffered allowed people like Nazis, Fascists and Imperialists to come to power, but the people bear some responsibility for allowing it to happen and supporting it.



Well, your right of course...no one was making the Japanese people adapt a militarized government (did they really have a choice?). But I would say that the American government supplied the excuse and the context to push the agenda. Think about it for a minute...The United States only cared about its own agenda when they delivered their ultimatum to japan..."Open your ports to us or we will return with more guns and bigger boats". Any Government that was faced with this ultimatum would ultimately choose to strengthen their own military...The message of international diplomacy that was being delivered to Japan at this time was "might makes right".


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 21, 2009)

proton45 said:


> Well, your right of course...no one was making the Japanese people adapt a militarized government (did they really have a choice?). But I would say that the American government supplied the excuse and the context to push the agenda. Think about it for a minute...The United States only cared about its own agenda when they delivered their ultimatum to japan..."Open your ports to us or we will return with more guns and bigger boats". Any Government that was faced with this ultimatum would ultimately choose to strengthen their own military...The message of international diplomacy that was being delivered to Japan at this time was "might makes right".


All that happened in the 1850s. I think by the 1930s things changed just a little....


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 22, 2009)

proton45 said:


> Well, your right of course...no one was making the Japanese people adapt a militarized government (did they really have a choice?). But I would say that the American government supplied the excuse and the context to push the agenda. Think about it for a minute...The United States only cared about its own agenda when they delivered their ultimatum to japan..."Open your ports to us or we will return with more guns and bigger boats". Any Government that was faced with this ultimatum would ultimately choose to strengthen their own military...The message of international diplomacy that was being delivered to Japan at this time was "might makes right".


There is a difference between strengthening ones military (the way we did when extorted by Barbary Coast Pirates under Thomas Jefferson) and putting rape and genocide on the agenda as standard operating procedure. I'd fully support them consolidating their power and building a Navy etc. It's when they decide to start conquering all of Asia and committing unspeakable atrocities that I draw the line.


----------



## Ferdinand Foch (Aug 25, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> All that happened in the 1850s. I think by the 1930s things changed just a little....



True Flyboy. By the 1930's, I think that people's rights became more of an issue for the western world than they did during the 19th century. I mean, Japan was kinda like a 19th Century power in the 20th Century world, trying to catch up with the rest of the world (least politically). 
Anybody who wants to read about this kind of thinking should check out Winston Groom's 1942. It was a great book, couldn't put it down.


----------



## ppopsie (Aug 30, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> ..... the behavior of the Japanese military during WW2,



No. Its people, from top through bottom, between 1935 and August 1945. I am horrified to learn that. Am now to find out why that happened.


----------



## proton45 (Aug 30, 2009)

Ferdinand Foch said:


> True Flyboy. By the 1930's, I think that people's rights became more of an issue for the western world than they did during the 19th century. I mean, Japan was kinda like a 19th Century power in the 20th Century world, trying to catch up with the rest of the world (least politically).
> Anybody who wants to read about this kind of thinking should check out Winston Groom's 1942. It was a great book, couldn't put it down.



America pretty much lost its appetite for war and such after WW1... it wasn't so much a concern for human rights (or equal rights) as it was a distaste for warfare and the things that happen during "all out war". Just look at the things that where happening and accepted in the USA (lynchings and burnings) in the 1930's.

Japan never participated in WW1, and they never experienced the horror (and logistics) of "all out trench warfare)...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 30, 2009)

proton45 said:


> America pretty much lost its appetite for war and such after WW1... it wasn't so much a concern for human rights (or equal rights) as it was a distaste for warfare and the things that happen during "all out war". Just look at the things that where happening and accepted in the USA (lynchings and burnings) in the 1930's.
> 
> * Japan never participated in WW1*, and they never experienced the horror (and logistics) of "all out trench warfare)...



Although Japan did not participate in Europe and see the horrors of trench warfare, they did participate in the First World War.

Japan during World War I - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 30, 2009)

proton45 said:


> ...Just look at the things that where happening and accepted in the USA (lynchings and burnings) in the 1930's.


That was far from being accepted. It was an issue that permeated throughout the south for the most part, and while it was a despicable part of America's past, it wasn't even close to the scale of the slaughter on the European battlefields.


proton45 said:


> Japan never participated in WW1, and they never experienced the horror (and logistics) of "all out trench warfare)...


Joe already commented on the WWI part, and I might add that warfare between the nations of the Orient have been historically brutal, and in many cases, moreso than European wars.


----------



## proton45 (Aug 31, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> That was far from being accepted. It was an issue that permeated throughout the south for the most part, and while it was a despicable part of America's past, it wasn't even close to the scale of the slaughter on the European battlefields.
> 
> Joe already commented on the WWI part, and I might add that warfare between the nations of the Orient have been historically brutal, and in many cases, moreso than European wars.




So your saying the violence against African Americans in the USA was not as bad as what happened in China(?)... your not African American are you? Violence and brutality of that nature is unacceptable on any scale. Their are some estimates that claim that between 5000 and 8000 American Blacks where lynched in America between the years of 1880 and the 1930's (the years that some claim a rise in "Human Rights"), most of these where in the "south" but not all. I'm not sure why its so important to separate the notion of the "south" from the rest of the USA, but I guess it helps Americans feel better about the truth.

FYI; their are people in Japan who claim the violence in China was unacceptable at the time (people who where alive in the 1930's)...


Rape and pillage happened in WW1 and in European WW2...and easy example would be the Russians against Germany. But Americans where known for looting Europe of "souvenirs"...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 31, 2009)

proton45 said:


> So your saying the violence against African Americans in the USA was not as bad as what happened in China(?)... your not African American are you? Violence and brutality of that nature is unacceptable on any scale. Their are some estimates that claim that between 5000 and 8000 American Blacks where lynched in America between the years of 1880 and the 1930's (the years that some claim a rise in "Human Rights"), most of these where in the "south" but not all. I'm not sure why its so important to separate the notion of the "south" from the rest of the USA, but I guess it helps Americans feel better about the truth.
> 
> FYI; their are people in Japan who claim the violence in China was unacceptable at the time (people who where alive in the 1930's)...
> 
> ...


There were atrocities committed by all sides during WW2 - that's a given, but please, done even try to compare US "souvenir" hunting to what Germany, Japan and the Soviet Union did during WW2 and into the post war years.


----------



## proton45 (Aug 31, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> There were atrocities committed by all sides during WW2 - that's a given, but please, done even try to compare US "souvenir" hunting to what Germany, Japan and the Soviet Union did during WW2 and into the post war years.



I was not making a judgment...just stating fact.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 31, 2009)

proton45 said:


> I was not making a judgment...just stating fact.


Well the fact is while we did have a few soldiers behaving badly, there were also some identified and eventually prosecuted for their crimes. Not that it’s made right but as we know during the war you had wide scale plunder sanctioned by the axis powers. After the war the Soviet Union did the same in Eastern Europe and it was done on a scale that would make anything done by the west look like "child's play."


----------



## proton45 (Aug 31, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Well the fact is while we did have a few soldiers behaving badly, there were also some identified and eventually prosecuted for their crimes. Not that it’s made right but as we know during the war you had wide scale plunder sanctioned by the axis powers. After the war the Soviet Union did the same in Eastern Europe and it was done on a scale that would make anything done by the west look like "child's play."



True...Japan did very poor planning in the area of supply and this may have contributed to the compliance of (some) Japanese Generals who voiced personal feelings of contempt for the unacceptable behavior of their soldiers (this point was ment as an acknowledgment of Japanese limited involvement in WW1 and the lessons of supply and production that where learned by the western nations involved). Interestingly enough, General Yamashita is rarely remembered for the way in which he disciplined one of his own officers in the "Battle of Singapore"...Yamashita actually had one of his own officers executed for the unsanctioned killing of POW's in a hospital. Apparently Yamashita even apologized to the surviving POW's at the hospital. On another battle, their are some who say that the civilian casualties in Manila may have been much lower if Yamashita's original orders to stay out of the city had been followed. However once Yamashitas soldiers had left the city Rear Admiral Sanji Iwabuchi forces reoccupied the city with the intent of destroying "key" strategic points (it turned into a civilian blood bath in the end). My point being that these ideas where not unknown in the Japanese military...I should also point out that General Yamashita was somewhat unpopular with the "higher command" (maybe because of his thinking)...

The nature of warfare in the 18th,19th,20th and 21st century is a very interesting topic and its interesting to consider the ways in which the idea of chivalry and "fairplay" (fairplay might not be an accurate term for the idea of a civil / honorable war in which civilians are not used as pawns) have developed.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 1, 2009)

*In response to:*


proton45 said:


> America pretty much lost its appetite for war and such after WW1... it wasn't so much a concern for human rights (or equal rights) as it was a distaste for warfare and the things that happen during "all out war". Just look at the things that where happening and accepted in the USA (lynchings and burnings) in the 1930's.


*I posted:*
_That was far from being accepted. It was an issue that permeated throughout the south for the most part, and while it was a despicable part of America's past, it wasn't even close to the scale of the slaughter on the European battlefields._

*You replied:*


proton45 said:


> So your saying the violence against African Americans in the USA was not as bad as what happened in China(?) *Read my reply above, you may have missed it the first time*... your not African American are you? *No, I am an American, period.* Violence and brutality of that nature is unacceptable on any scale. Their are some estimates that claim that between 5000 and 8000 American Blacks where lynched in America between the years of 1880 and the 1930's (the years that some claim a rise in "Human Rights"), most of these where in the "south" but not all.* I can assure you that more unfortunate blacks and thier white sympathizers (oh yeah, friends of blacks mixed couples weren't immune) were lynched and worse, in places in the south like Alabama or Georgia, for example, than say, in Oregon or Wyoming.* I'm not sure why its so important to separate the notion of the "south" from the rest of the USA, but I guess it helps Americans feel better about the truth.


I'm trying to figure out how Black Americans work into the Hiroshima discussion, but I'll respond anyway.

How is there any "feeling better" about that truth? The fact that an estimated 5 to 8 thousand Americans were killed over the course of 50 years by fellow Americans is, like I said before, despicable and inexcusable. What I was getting at in my previous response, was that in Europe, people had just experianced a war who's battles saw slaughters of up to 18,800 Allied soldiers alone...in one single day. Those were just the British losses during the opening battle of the Somme, 1 July 1916. The Somme would go on to be a meat grinder consuming a staggering amount of men during it's course. It was only one of many bitter battles, as you may or may not know.

So perhaps the domestic issue of injustices against Black Americans back then is similiar to what we see in today's society and it's "great public outcry" against the former administration and it's "war for oil" instead of trying to do something about the 16,204 Americans that were murdered last year.


----------



## proton45 (Sep 1, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> *In response to:*
> 
> *I posted:*
> _That was far from being accepted. It was an issue that permeated throughout the south for the most part, and while it was a despicable part of America's past, it wasn't even close to the scale of the slaughter on the European battlefields._
> ...




I was commenting on why people always say "in the south" when they talk about the racial issues of the past...I did it too. Its an interesting qualifying statement that people always seem to make. I'm not sure that its really an important distinction to make when discussing the issue. It tends to suggest that the "south" has a greater culpability in the matter.

Some of my comments developed out of the "flow" of the thread...and perhaps I should have addressed some of your comments in a different context. 

Another thought I was trying to make was about how people "rank" horrific events by severity...The deaths of the African Americans and the campaign of terror launched against them was a horrible event in our history, and so was the trench warfare of WW1...but why compare them "on a scale"? Why a need to measure the tragedy? Does the number of deaths make one event worse then another? Again it suggests a value of culpability...

As far as the analogy you are drawing between the "war on oil" and all that...I can't really comment. But if you read the thread you will see that someone else brought up the topic of Americas changing views on the importance of "human rights" between the years of 1880 and 1930. I merely pointed out a fact on the topic...


----------



## razor1uk (Nov 2, 2010)

Well its certainly gotten hot in here (the topic), lets cool down abit before round 45...

War is always the worst imaginable to those at the time, the worst things will always happen in it because people are in it, and were all individual, with differing opinions, prejudices, upbringings/environments/mindsets (or 'brain washings' for looking from there own mindset) etc.

Just as Japan is still trying to reconcile itself to what happened, so to are other countries in their own way. We will never hear an apology for the Indian Massacre's nor should we expect for Nanking. 
Hell the Chinese Civil War before 36' was more blood thirsty and brutal than what Nhomahan Nanking, let alone post the 45' CCW, but because it was by non Chinese, its viewed as a 'polite'/'politically correct' way or morning and blaming someone else for something that happened during there own terrible time, that most likely will not ever be aknowledeged by the PPC because its easier to shift all the blame, emotion and social guilt to another. I'm not meaning what the IJA IJN hardliners did wasn't as bad as it was, but in our own national histories, have we done any less at one time?

I'm not meaning to say I condone or forgive what happened, but we all choose some things more than others to remember from the past cos' its easier, safer, commonly acceptable, more palatable, glosses over our own mistakes etc.

As for the Anime, I am an avid Anime fan, I have been watching for anime for 17 years, and I actually have a copy of Barefoot Gen (graphic book/manga). I agree with the earlier post that the clip was taken from the film/story for inflamatory purposes, like a 'sound-bite'. 
I have found anime to be very much more 'thoughtful' than other cartoon mediums, yes some come include kinkyness (Erro), demon, bestial or other porn (Hentai), but also there are many much more of love (Yaoi, Yuri, Shounen, Shoinen etc), relationship struggles, work relations, crime, fame, futuristic fantasy past fantasy plus more I don't know of. 

This is most likely why the clip was sourced from anime, because the beauty of anime, (and manga too) is that it is likely any human concieved story with events relating to life living, actions, reasons consiquences, interacting with other people/characters/deities/personalities including the grey areas (non black--white-only-plots) have in an analogeous way been produced in this medium. Yes anime can appear a little extreme or just plain 'wtf is that', but are we any different, and for that matter, why should we expect war to be any different, especally 65 years later with current info' avaialble, mindsets and learnings/teachings.


----------



## Njaco (Nov 2, 2010)

How long should we cool down? Its been a year already!


----------



## razor1uk (Nov 2, 2010)

Whoops, didn't notice the dates, got into reading too much. Sorry for unintentially bumping this thread (and again). I'd say things hsve cooled then...


----------



## Njaco (Nov 2, 2010)




----------



## TheMustangRider (Nov 3, 2010)

The video attached at the beginning of the thread is no longer available in Youtube and I didn't get to watch it. Talk about bad timing.


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 4, 2010)

Really? Must be a copyright "thing". The video was actually very well done. Not necessarily historic, but certainly graphically and emotionally compelling. As an American, I took no offense. Certainly the horrors of war are painted in many different mediums.


----------



## wheelsup_cavu (Nov 5, 2010)

Matt308 said:


> Really? Must be a copyright "thing". The video was actually very well done. Not necessarily historic, but certainly graphically and emotionally compelling. As an American, I took no offense. Certainly the horrors of war are painted in many different mediums.



It may not have been that video that was copyrighted Matt but the entire account was deleted due to copyright infringement.



> This video is no longer available because the YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated due to multiple third-party notifications of copyright infringement.



I must not have seen it the first time because I can't remember the video even after reading through the thread again.


Wheels


----------



## proton45 (Nov 6, 2010)

I dont mean to drag this whole topic through the mud...but certainly it must be noted that China's view on the issue changed after the communists took charge. At the end of WW2 reparations where paid by Japan and papers where signed...it was the communists who cried "foul" some years later (was it in the 1970's?). Thats when the issue 1st got heated...


----------



## Shinpachi (Nov 6, 2010)

Right. Japan was to have two negotiation partners in China - Republic of China and People's Republic China after the war.
The former once condemned Japan severely to forgive her finally.
The latter came next and began to condemn again.
It is endless at the moment when the generation has been changed twice.


----------



## tail end charlie (Nov 6, 2010)

China loses 6000 people per year in mining accidents and executes almost the same number for various offences, the idea of China getting upset about human rights is risible and that isnt in any way excusing nanking or the rest of it. The chinese invented the death by a thousand cuts which is basically cutting a man apart in places which wont kill him directly.


----------



## razor1uk (Nov 13, 2010)

Yep, to quote a film, "In Chinese culture we have many hells Jack..."


----------



## TheMustangRider (Nov 15, 2010)

Matt308 said:


> Really? Must be a copyright "thing". The video was actually very well done. Not necessarily historic, but certainly graphically and emotionally compelling. As an American, I took no offense. Certainly the horrors of war are painted in many different mediums.



The video and the whole account was deleted in fact but doing a little bit more extensive research in Youtube, I happened to find it on another account and as you put it; the images are certainly graphic and can potentially strike fear just by looking at them.
Those unfortunates living in those cities at the time of the attacks, certainly experienced a horrible death.


----------

