The Energon Pub

Professor Smooth wrote:

General Magnus wrote:

Professor Smooth wrote:I think that you're reading far too much into my beliefs.

Yes. Japan did horrible things during the war.
Yes. Japan targeted civilians of other countries.
Yes. Japan was guilty of MORE war crimes than the US.
MAYBE: Japan would have dropped the bomb on the US. Considering that Japan didn't bomb ANY US cities, I'm not entirely convinced of that.

However none of that leads me to the conclusion that "Because Japan's government did so many bad things, it's alright to kill half a million non-combatants."

The old cliche "two wrongs don't make a right" is in full force here. I have yet to see an argument that ends with "so it's alright to kill a half million civilians" that doesn't fall into "Well, those civilians' government did some bad things, so..."

There is no time, ever, when killing a half million innocent people is "the right thing to do."

Japan was not only wiling to drop boms in the US. They were developing two things:

A huge strategic six engined bomber capable of reaching the US.

And "Black Plague" bomb, that said bomber would carry. So had they developed the bomb, they would use it.

...so it was alright to kill half a million innocent civilians.

That's what you're saying, right? It was alright to kill those people because the government was trying to attack the US.

Basicly yes. Better them than us(while i´m not american, i am very pro USA). And between WWII USA or Japan, well, you know were is stand.

Oh and the Japanese viewed the emperor as a god. so any order was ok. So even if the emperor annoced what they were doing to other people, the japanese would not question him.

Professor Smooth wrote:HoosierDaddy: The "people like you" comment should be enough to issue a formal Mod warning.

Ummm, you bought that book and you quoted from it. It's people like you that promote and indulge in it. That is not an inaccurate statement. It is not an attack. Simply lumping you in with the other who share your opinions and agree with such a book. If I get a warning by making such an unprejudice and informal statement such as that then what does it prove? Why would the mods give me a warning for something so meaningless? Is that the way it is around here or are you trying to intimidate me because we have a differance in opinion?

If the Americans didn't drop two atomics, each on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, then the casualties will be much higher that it was supposed to be. Look at what your countrymen did in Iwo Jima when the US marines took over that island: they commited suicide, all of them, even though the US marines wouldn't kill all of them.

Alright. Assume that the Americans didn't drop the Little Boy and the Fat Man, then the US marines had to invade the coasts of Japan to throw the empire away from this world. And with the superiority they had, let's assume that the US marines would march into Tokyo, killing, raping, pillaging, and burning every Japanese left on the street. And, with victory came at its door, let's assume that the US marines would take over the Imperial Palace and install a new dictator in their favor.

The result would be:
1. Japan lost its imperial tradition.
2. Millions will die in many Japanese cities, either killed by the US marines or commited suicide.
3. Probably, the entire Asia would be taken over by the communists as the US marines fought on Japan.

Thanks for the bombing, Japan surrendered, and they could keep the imperial tradition intact. Many Japanese wouldn't have to die for their honor sake. Tokyo wouldn't be totally destroyed or militarily occupied by the US.

Yes! I know World War II was bad. Atomics were worse. But without atomics, there would be more people dying in both sides. The US would lost more of their men during combat on the mainland Japan. The Japanese would lost more of their "noble and honorable" souls, especially the imperial tradition.

Killing 100.000 people to end the war quickly, is better than leaving 100.000 people to alive, only to kill other 5 millions or more.

A neccessary sacrifice to bring back peace for our planet. Life is about risk. For everything, there will be a price to pay. In this case, we took an option which was better than another, although both choices were bad.

One thing that I think a lot of people on this thread are forgetting is that, in the case of the Japanese in WWII, a vast majority of the civilian population had been brainwashed by the militaristic regime that took over several decades before WWII. The entire Japanese nation was willing to kill and die for its emperor, so if we didn't use the bomb, not only would a good portion of the people in Hiroshim and Nagasaki die, but many more Japanese civilians in the entire nation would have died. To put it simply, we chose the route that would have cost fewer lives.

Senor Hugo wrote:But thats how wars work.

The winners of wars are the ones who show they are willing to do whatever it takes.....

There are no winners in war, Just the side that loses the least.

I beleive that in that particular war they choose to die rather than suffer the dishonour of defeat. And yeah, they beleived their emporer to be a living god and that he would send them the the promise land or something, I dont pay attention in history class but I remember a story of a woman who was sitting on a cliff or something like that and a US soldier aproached and she just threw herself off shouting something about the emporer. And stories of soldiers of Japan mortally wounded and still fighting.... there are no words for it. As I said, there are no winners in War, only the side that Loses the Least.