disturbing Japanese anime' (hiroshima 1945)

[ToughOmbre]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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.]

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]

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]

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]

Damn... you win!

 

[Marcel]

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]

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]

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]

...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!