Wars and ConflictsΜύ permalink
Hiroshima a war crime?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Μύ
Posted by faran1 (U2570961) on Monday, 10th April 2006
I thought to my self if the atomic bombs on both Hirishimv and Nagasaky were to war crimes that the americans did to the japanse?
-
Message 2
Posted by MaiJap (U3735907) on Monday, 10th April 2006
As a Japanese, I think the atomic bombs damaged my country terribly, caused desructions and continue to damege the lives of people in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. The U.S. deserves to the war crimes.(and americans often make counteraruguments saying about Pearl Harbor when we say so.)But what is the definition of war crimes? I could grasp a little about it in my Japanese dictionary and it is difficult to judge. Did you check about that?
-
Message 3
Posted by Mark (U1347077) on Monday, 10th April 2006
As I understand it, there was no regulation prohibiting the use of Atomic weapons as they were developed during the war. Of course, the bombing of civilian targets is against the Geneva Convention and every nation did that; the Axis nations before 1939.
-
Message 4
Posted by MB (U177470) on Monday, 10th April 2006
As a Japanese, I think the atomic bombs damaged my country terribly, caused desructions and continue to damege the lives of people in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. The U.S. deserves to the war crimes.(and americans often make counteraruguments saying about Pearl Harbor when we say so.)But what is the definition of war crimes? I could grasp a little about it in my Japanese dictionary and it is difficult to judge. Did you check about that?Μύ
It has been discussed numerous times previously.
If the Allied had to invade Japan then the destruction and loss of life would have been much heavier. Conventional bombing raids were killing more people in a single raid that the two atomic bombs did.
The Japanese of course were guilty of far more war crimes during WWII (and the period before it) so are always keen to suggest that the Americans and other forces also committed some crimes. They probably killed more people in the Rape of Nanking than died in Hiroshima or Nagasaki - was that OK because it was done with sword, fire etc?
The important thing was to get the war ended and unfortunately the two atomic bombs were a very effective way of doing that. Often there will be comments from ex-servicement that they would not be alive today but for the atomic bombs because they were being got ready for the invasion of Japan.
MB -
Message 5
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 10th April 2006
Raids in Germany had as primarily civilian targets (buildings and infrastacture) and though one may argue they had also military one thing is for sure: they had no industrial targets at all. From that bombing only 5% of industrial capacity was affected which is amazing considering the amount of bombing though we have to name it 'collateral loses', and again considering the amoung of bombing we can imagine that they took special care not to hit industries.
Industries meant more than civilian lives of course but then again so what? Nazis were nazis, Japanese were Japanese, it was the enemy and they were intitled to do whatever. One may note apart from USSR, countries that suffered so much from the horrible occupation of Germans and Japanese did not have the chance to take so much "revenge" but countries like US and UK that did not suffer much they took it to total bombing as if representing all the others... not that this may hold as an argument, it does not says anything but it is just an interesting note.
Of course all the above is incomprehensible but once one starts to realise what it was all about then he gets the point.
The atomic bombs in Hirosima and Nagashaki can be seen as war crimes or not... above all they were an experiment. As simple as that. -
Message 6
Posted by faran1 (U2570961) on Monday, 10th April 2006
i agree with you.
But I also think that the atomic bombs were exelent revenge for the americans.
Lets not forget that the jaoanese killed many US pilots and also british soldiers,but I also think that the US could continue to transfer forces from europe to the pacific to engage the japanese on other front.
i think that for the british this situation wasn't good because after the war there were many gurrillas fighting between british forces and for exemple burmesee.
So the only explainsion that sound semse to me why were the atomic bombs crucial is that they shorted the war.Because the americans considered the first losses in invasion to japan could reach to million dead and more 3 million injuries. As a Japanese, I think the atomic bombs damaged my country terribly, caused desructions and continue to damege the lives of people in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. The U.S. deserves to the war crimes.(and americans often make counteraruguments saying about Pearl Harbor when we say so.)But what is the definition of war crimes? I could grasp a little about it in my Japanese dictionary and it is difficult to judge. Did you check about that?Μύ
It has been discussed numerous times previously.
If the Allied had to invade Japan then the destruction and loss of life would have been much heavier. Conventional bombing raids were killing more people in a single raid that the two atomic bombs did.
The Japanese of course were guilty of far more war crimes during WWII (and the period before it) so are always keen to suggest that the Americans and other forces also committed some crimes. They probably killed more people in the Rape of Nanking than died in Hiroshima or Nagasaki - was that OK because it was done with sword, fire etc?
The important thing was to get the war ended and unfortunately the two atomic bombs were a very effective way of doing that. Often there will be comments from ex-servicement that they would not be alive today but for the atomic bombs because they were being got ready for the invasion of Japan.
²Ρ΅ώΜύ -
Message 7
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Monday, 10th April 2006
Raids in Germany had as primarily civilian targets (buildings and infrastacture) and though one may argue they had also military one thing is for sure: they had no industrial targets at all. From that bombing only 5% of industrial capacity was affected which is amazing considering the amount of bombing though we have to name it 'collateral loses', and again considering the amoung of bombing we can imagine that they took special care not to hit industries.
Industries meant more than civilian lives of course but then again so what? Nazis were nazis, Japanese were Japanese, it was the enemy and they were intitled to do whatever. One may note apart from USSR, countries that suffered so much from the horrible occupation of Germans and Japanese did not have the chance to take so much "revenge" but countries like US and UK that did not suffer much they took it to total bombing as if representing all the others... not that this may hold as an argument, it does not says anything but it is just an interesting note.
Of course all the above is incomprehensible but once one starts to realise what it was all about then he gets the point.
The atomic bombs in Hirosima and Nagashaki can be seen as war crimes or not... above all they were an experiment. As simple as that.Μύ
E_Nikolaos_E,
You do yourself no favours with posts like this.
So "Raids in Germany had as primarily civilian targets (buildings and infrastacture) and though one may argue they had also military one thing is for sure: they had no industrial targets at all. From that bombing only 5% of industrial capacity was affected which is amazing considering the amount of bombing though we have to name it 'collateral loses', and again considering the amoung of bombing we can imagine that they took special care not to hit industries."
Yeah, right. Can I direct you to the memoirs of Albert Speer? He had a different view, and if I may say so was in a better position to know? I will fully admit that Bomber Command and the USAAF 8th efforts were not well used in WW2.
You seem to forget that it was war. "War is Hell, you cannot refine it" as some one (okay W. T. Sherman) once said.
The A Bombs as war crimes, well damn me to Hell for eternity, but no. An experiment, well you'll have to produce a lot of evidence for me to believe that, and yes, I've seen it all before and stick to my view.
You seem to forget that there are people alive today who wouldn't be without the decision to drop the A Bombs. You seem to deny them the right to life with a stroke of the keyboard.
It happened, there are always (at least) two sides. I know which I'm on.
All the Best AA. -
Message 8
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Tuesday, 11th April 2006
In that war there were many things that both sides did that were war crimes, on side lost, they had men hung, the other won and didnβt.
Was the dropping of the Atomic bombs any worse than any other bombings? No, one raid on Tokyo and Hamburg caused more civilian deathsβ¦.
Itβs war, itβs not nice, but what happened brought the war to an end. -
Message 9
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Tuesday, 11th April 2006
There is something that no one seems to be thinking of.
The people of Japan in 1945 were being trained to act as suicide attackers. Not just the troops, ALL of them. Had the Allies not used the bomb, the loss of life on BOTH sides would have been horrific. Imagine the scenario, the Allies have just invaded Japan, and the troops are being attacked by men, women and children wearing back-pack bombs, who had been trained to throw themselves under tanks, to die and blow up the tank. What happens? After a few days, the Allied troops give up trying to differentiate between unarmed civilian, and armed guerrilla kamikaze. They simply shoot everyone on sight, it's safer for them that way. Tens of millions of Japanese die, along with the couple of million Allied troops.
The bomb was the quickest way to end the war, end of chat. To judge actions in World War 2 by today's moral standards is unfair, ignorant and downright silly. They used the bomb because they had it, and thought it might end the war. War crime? By today's standards yes, by 1945 standards no. The Japanese were preparing to fight to the death, this is well documented. How else do you stop this from happening, by convincing them that they will die an inglorious death if they don't stop? I'd say yes.
You also have to ask yourself what the Japanese would have done if they had developed the bomb. Answer? Nuked us all back to the stone age and then had a big party, not accuse those who helped win the worst war in history (which incidentally they started) of being criminals. They saved our asses to put it bluntly, so get off your moral "Stop the war" high horse and view things objectively. They did what they thought was right at the time, and they did it to save this planet from a horrendous fate, and I for one and glad they did. -
Message 10
Posted by Scottish Librarian (U1772828) on Tuesday, 11th April 2006
I could give a long answer but cant really be bothered. Basically, DL is right.
cheers,
Paul -
Message 11
Posted by faran1 (U2570961) on Tuesday, 11th April 2006
Basicly you are right about the reasons.
but don't forget that Hiroshima and Nagasaky were civil targets and not military.
And secend I think that the main reason for using the atomic bomb that time is becuse of Pearl harbour and their lastes action in Iwo jima and Okinawa.I think that the americans were suprised from the japanese scrifice on these islands.
So the americans made coclusions and the thought that if they had to invade japan the losses would have been bigger then the losses on Iwo jima and Okinawa together.
Don't you agree with me? There is something that no one seems to be thinking of.
The people of Japan in 1945 were being trained to act as suicide attackers. Not just the troops, ALL of them. Had the Allies not used the bomb, the loss of life on BOTH sides would have been horrific. Imagine the scenario, the Allies have just invaded Japan, and the troops are being attacked by men, women and children wearing back-pack bombs, who had been trained to throw themselves under tanks, to die and blow up the tank. What happens? After a few days, the Allied troops give up trying to differentiate between unarmed civilian, and armed guerrilla kamikaze. They simply shoot everyone on sight, it's safer for them that way. Tens of millions of Japanese die, along with the couple of million Allied troops.
The bomb was the quickest way to end the war, end of chat. To judge actions in World War 2 by today's moral standards is unfair, ignorant and downright silly. They used the bomb because they had it, and thought it might end the war. War crime? By today's standards yes, by 1945 standards no. The Japanese were preparing to fight to the death, this is well documented. How else do you stop this from happening, by convincing them that they will die an inglorious death if they don't stop? I'd say yes.
You also have to ask yourself what the Japanese would have done if they had developed the bomb. Answer? Nuked us all back to the stone age and then had a big party, not accuse those who helped win the worst war in history (which incidentally they started) of being criminals. They saved our asses to put it bluntly, so get off your moral "Stop the war" high horse and view things objectively. They did what they thought was right at the time, and they did it to save this planet from a horrendous fate, and I for one and glad they did.
Μύ -
Message 12
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Tuesday, 11th April 2006
I can't honestly say I agree with you.
Hiroshima had plenty of war industry, as did Nagasaki, so by the standards of that time, they were legitimate military targets. We are talking about the most destructive war this planet has ever seen, and they weren't too fussy about "collateral damage" back then. You have to bear in mind that the majority of bombs dropped on industrial targets didn't get within a mile of their intended target, they didn't have smart munitions, guided missiles and the like. They simply flew (in the RAF's case in pitch darkness) along a compass bearing until they figured they were about where the target was, then dropped their bombs. For comparison, over 100,000 died on one air raid on Tokyo alone, more that the atomic bombs killed.
The facts are, no matter how horrific the atomic bombings were (which they truly were), the fact remains that many MILLIONS of people, whether American, British, Japanese or whatever, many MILLIONS were alive at the end of the war who would have died if the bombs hadn't been dropped. That is a fact.
I'm surprised you haven't brought up blockading the Japanese home islands in order to force them to surrender as an alternative. That's the usual one. Well, the results would have been almost as horrific as with an all-out invasion. The conventional bombing with thermite incendiaries of Japanese cities would have continued unabated, with tens of thousands more dying in every raid (Japanese cities back then were mostly of wood construction, and they burned very well), and add the slow death by starvation of millions more civilians while the blockade bit, and the fact that the Japanese may still not have surrendered, that would be equally barbaric. No matter how you view the bombings, the use of nuclear weapons to force the Japanese to surrender was the least costly method in terms of lives, and not just American lives, all lives.
You wrote "So the americans made coclusions and the thought that if they had to invade japan the losses would have been bigger then the losses on Iwo jima and Okinawa together." That's a serious understatement. I'd suggest multiplying the US casualties by 50, and the Japanese casualties (both military and civilian) by 300 or so.
Just to clarify a point, the recent TV docudrama shown a few months ago about Hiroshima had one of the survivors giving his story. He was a Japanese army officer based in Hiroshima, who commented on the horror of using nuclear weapons, yet in his testimony, he mentioned (very glibly) that he had spent the previous day training HOSPITAL NURSES how to carry out suicide attacks (with strapped on bombs) on enemy tanks! Nurses for Gods sake!!! The Japanese then were a militaristic culture, who believed that the highest honour a human being could have was to die in the name of their emperor, who they believed to be a living god. That statement alone made me even more convinced that no matter how horrific, bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the RIGHT THING TO DO. For all parties concerned (except of course, the people in those poor cities). -
Message 13
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 11th April 2006
Arnald, I am not saying that the bombs were war crimes of US people against Japanese people, it were war crimes of those that moved the marionettes of war again all humanity.
If the marionette players wanted to save some million lives they would not have aided Germany (cos still everyone wonders were did they find the money to built their war machine in only 10 years) and they would strive to find a compromise with Japan in the Pacific - not push Japan to attack in the Perl Harbour (sorry but these are nowsadays well established - the Japs were first provoked), in order to start an imperialistic war in the Pacific - not that Japanese were better but then the Pacific around their islands would be normally their playground not US one.
Now if that was war as you define it Arnald then nowadays Germany should be worse than Ukraine and Japan should be worse than Vietnam. Instead what did we see? Selective bombing in Germany leaving all the industry intact and working to aid them in their rebuilding, and similar things in Japan (though here I have no case yet but I guess they followed the same example as Japan was already producing in early 50s!).
War my sss Arnalrd. In wars the loser is condamned for life in misery for at least 1-2-3 generations. Germany was getting away with it in both wars and especially in the second while normally it would not have existed as a state, it would be broken in the states it was formed that would become colonies of England and France, what it does not make sense for you? Ha! Now it does not make sense for the international capitalists (said here not in the communist sense at all!) they pushed and paid the whole war. These two were no conventional wars and that is why they were global. They were prefabricated and well-guided.
People nowadays are slowly waking up (understandably). But there is already a large number who has at least a vague understanding of why all that really happened (like me, I do not claim to be a specialist). Of course, history will only describe the events which is of highly minor importance in front of the question "enough with the battles, who financed all that? How did Germany managed to built an industry extra-fast in less than 10 years?". However, when I expressed part of such views back in England when I was studying, in an essay prepared for another student of European studies (I am in the enginering field) more or less openly talking about a prefabricated war (saying verything around it but the name!) and it gets 75% (personal record for that lecturer as I was informed) it seems that it is not only me that has similar views. -
Message 14
Posted by williamewart (U1959124) on Tuesday, 11th April 2006
Nikolaos
Germany's industrial machinery wasn't destroyed in the Great war. As to how Germany was able to rearm mightily in ten years, well it was only really six or seven years and they didnt rearam as hugely as you might think.they only had nine months aeroplane fuel in 1939 and fewer and weaker tanks than France, as to where they got the money, well once they stopped paying reparations the nazis still had a large slice of the budget of a substantial economy to draw on, also the theft of the prosperous jewish communities wealth as well as the seizure of the treasure of wealthy Czechoslovakia and Austria helped. The Czech tanks, being superior to many of the germans were confiscated and the advanced heavy industry of the czechs, such as the skoda works, added top the industrial base, it's not such a mystery is it? -
Message 15
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Tuesday, 11th April 2006
Nik,
You are having a laugh mate!
Selective bombing in Germany? Half the time they couldn't even hit the right town, let alone selectively "miss" industrial targets!!!!
Sorry mate, but that is one of your sillier posts!
Just remember that when Bomber Command did an analysis on how "selective" their bombing was, they found something along the lines of only 5% of bombs dropped landed within 3 miles of the target!!! They didn't have the technology to "selectively" miss industrial targets!!!
Silly sausage of the day award goes to Nik... -
Message 16
Posted by faran1 (U2570961) on Tuesday, 11th April 2006
Yes I know that japan planed to continue the fighting aginst the americans.And I also think that it was good decision to use it.
But actully I have never heard about raid on Tokyo that killed more than the atomic bombs killed.
But think your self that the US planed to drop atomic bombs until the japanese would sureneder what could it make.the distruction of the global world.
But in the other hand an invasion to japan could take to the americans at least 4 years to do that.
And the losses were high on both soldiers and civilans.
One more thing I have also never heard that Hiroshima was a military area in some parts.
If there is tell me about it I would like to know about it. I can't honestly say I agree with you.
Hiroshima had plenty of war industry, as did Nagasaki, so by the standards of that time, they were legitimate military targets. We are talking about the most destructive war this planet has ever seen, and they weren't too fussy about "collateral damage" back then. You have to bear in mind that the majority of bombs dropped on industrial targets didn't get within a mile of their intended target, they didn't have smart munitions, guided missiles and the like. They simply flew (in the RAF's case in pitch darkness) along a compass bearing until they figured they were about where the target was, then dropped their bombs. For comparison, over 100,000 died on one air raid on Tokyo alone, more that the atomic bombs killed.
The facts are, no matter how horrific the atomic bombings were (which they truly were), the fact remains that many MILLIONS of people, whether American, British, Japanese or whatever, many MILLIONS were alive at the end of the war who would have died if the bombs hadn't been dropped. That is a fact.
I'm surprised you haven't brought up blockading the Japanese home islands in order to force them to surrender as an alternative. That's the usual one. Well, the results would have been almost as horrific as with an all-out invasion. The conventional bombing with thermite incendiaries of Japanese cities would have continued unabated, with tens of thousands more dying in every raid (Japanese cities back then were mostly of wood construction, and they burned very well), and add the slow death by starvation of millions more civilians while the blockade bit, and the fact that the Japanese may still not have surrendered, that would be equally barbaric. No matter how you view the bombings, the use of nuclear weapons to force the Japanese to surrender was the least costly method in terms of lives, and not just American lives, all lives.
You wrote "So the americans made coclusions and the thought that if they had to invade japan the losses would have been bigger then the losses on Iwo jima and Okinawa together." That's a serious understatement. I'd suggest multiplying the US casualties by 50, and the Japanese casualties (both military and civilian) by 300 or so.
Just to clarify a point, the recent TV docudrama shown a few months ago about Hiroshima had one of the survivors giving his story. He was a Japanese army officer based in Hiroshima, who commented on the horror of using nuclear weapons, yet in his testimony, he mentioned (very glibly) that he had spent the previous day training HOSPITAL NURSES how to carry out suicide attacks (with strapped on bombs) on enemy tanks! Nurses for Gods sake!!! The Japanese then were a militaristic culture, who believed that the highest honour a human being could have was to die in the name of their emperor, who they believed to be a living god. That statement alone made me even more convinced that no matter how horrific, bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the RIGHT THING TO DO. For all parties concerned (except of course, the people in those poor cities).
Μύ -
Message 17
Posted by MB (U177470) on Tuesday, 11th April 2006
As has been said the Japanese were prepared to fight for every inch of ground using civilians, children ... anyone.
I think the Americans would have just flattened every village and town before they advanced into it so the destruction and loss of life would have been much higher than the two atomic bombs.
I have never given much credibility to the "Americans wanting to test the atomic bomb on a city" theory. It just seems anti-Americans conspiracy theory rubbish.
I don't think either that it was simple revenge for Pearl Harbour. By that time the American military had experience of how ruthless the Japanese military could be - was it Okinawa where they "persuaded" women and children to jump off cliffs or commit suicide in caves? Also stories were starting to emerge about Japanese attrocities against PoWs and others - most of which is still hidden from modern Japanese unlike the Germans who tried ensure that their schoolchildren were fully aware of what the Nazis had done during WWII.
I think I have read in the past that Japanese industry was very dispersed with lots of small workshops spread around the towns and cities. So it was not possible to bomb industrial targets without also attacking civilians.
MB -
Message 18
Posted by faran1 (U2570961) on Tuesday, 11th April 2006
JMB rply to your last message.
I do think that the atomic bombs gave the american revenge on pearl harbour.
But lets not forget that pearl hearbour was a military camp and Hiroshima was a civil city with number of japanese military facilities.
I also think that the americans wanted to revenge about the war crimes that the japanese did.And also their coopration with nazi germany.
But I won't accept Japan's attack on pearl harbour but also I wont accept the atomic bombs.I can only understand that it was a part of the american war aginst japan. As has been said the Japanese were prepared to fight for every inch of ground using civilians, children ... anyone.
I think the Americans would have just flattened every village and town before they advanced into it so the destruction and loss of life would have been much higher than the two atomic bombs.
I have never given much credibility to the "Americans wanting to test the atomic bomb on a city" theory. It just seems anti-Americans conspiracy theory rubbish.
I don't think either that it was simple revenge for Pearl Harbour. By that time the American military had experience of how ruthless the Japanese military could be - was it Okinawa where they "persuaded" women and children to jump off cliffs or commit suicide in caves? Also stories were starting to emerge about Japanese attrocities against PoWs and others - most of which is still hidden from modern Japanese unlike the Germans who tried ensure that their schoolchildren were fully aware of what the Nazis had done during WWII.
I think I have read in the past that Japanese industry was very dispersed with lots of small workshops spread around the towns and cities. So it was not possible to bomb industrial targets without also attacking civilians.
²Ρ΅ώΜύ -
Message 19
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Tuesday, 11th April 2006
Faran,
Talk of revenge over the dropping of one bomb seems pointless when considering the deaths tat occured in one night of bombing over Tokyo? -
Message 20
Posted by faran1 (U2570961) on Tuesday, 11th April 2006
I also don't undserstand that how one raid had cost more that the atomic bomb did can you explain that?
for you Mani -
Message 21
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Tuesday, 11th April 2006
E_Nikolaos_E, reply to #13
As I said earlier Albert Speer was in a position to know. Seeing as you haven't looked him up I'll quote him directly.
"I shall never forget the date May 12 (1944), four days later. On that day the technological war was decided. ....... But with the attack of nine hundred and thirty five daylight bombers of the American 8th Air Force upon several fuel plants in central and eastern Germany, a new era in the air war began."
He goes on,
"On June 22, nine tenths of the production of airplane fuel was knocked out, only 632 metric tons produced daily". "But on July 21.... we were down to 120 tons daily production - virtually done for." He goes on to quote production figures for August - 10%, September 5.5%, October 10%, November 28%.
Efforts to restore fuel production had a knock on effect on arms production as 350,000 workers were transferred from armaments production to restoring the fuel plants.
Now onto the economics. How did the Germans manage to rebuild their industry after the 1st World War and finance WW2. Well, let's talk about inflation. If you have savings it's horrible, if you owe money it's great!! At the start of the rampant inflation in Germany the German industrialists had borrowed huge sums in order to re-equip their plants. Inflation effectively wiped out these debts. (Most manufacturing businesses don't actually have much cash in the bank, they're using their profits to reinvest).
Secondly, German Government Bonds proved very attractive to overseas investors after 1924. This brought in an influx of foreign currency, (mainly US$). Germany is a country that has many natural resources to export, example the Ruhr coal, had (and still does) one of the worlds biggest and best chemical industries. These managed to ensure that Germanys economy was in a very healthy position when Hitler came into power. Also, the average German citizen was heavily taxed, this money went into the treasury coffers to be able to be spent by Hitler et al.
Hitler then proceeded to implement his great civil and military works by a simple expedient of robbing the German Treasury and backing it up by printing money. Normally a short route to economic suicide, however his acquisitions and annexations provided enough capital and revenue to see him through this crisis.
Now with a war economy the rules change dramitically. Hitler et al. solved the problem of balancing imports v exports by utilising what was effectively slave labour. GB solved the problem by spending reserves and borrowing from the USA. The Soviets solved the problem by utilising the vast resources the Soviet Union has and borrowing from the USA.
So, I'm sorry, I don't "still wonder" where Germany got the cash from.
Hope that helps, AA. -
Message 22
Posted by Turnwrest (U2188092) on Tuesday, 11th April 2006
Look it up yourself - the fire bombing campaign on Tokyo is well enough documented.
-
Message 23
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Wednesday, 12th April 2006
faran1,
βI also don't undserstand that how one raid had cost more that the atomic bomb did can you explain that?
for you Maniβ
Itβs pretty easy to understand, Tokyo was a bigger City with many wooden structures. The Firestorms that we saw in Dresden and Hamburg occurred in Tokyo but with more intensity and more deaths.
Itβs well documented and information is easy to find. -
Message 24
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 12th April 2006
Germany by no means they had the money to build up their industrial capacity they built in 1933-1939. (yes I know they had worse weaponry than French, I am the first that says so).
DL, it is more than well known that 95% of German industrial capacity was not bombed. Go read some sources and do not sit down to analyse how accurate bombs were. Bombers bombed cities not industries. -
Message 25
Posted by faran1 (U2570961) on Wednesday, 12th April 2006
As far as I know the Tokyo bombing had a military target and it also had military facilities.
But Hiroshima was a civil city with only numbers of stategy locations.
If hiroshima was bombed by atomic bomb what military target she had accept of fast the japanese surrender? faran1,
βI also don't undserstand that how one raid had cost more that the atomic bomb did can you explain that?
for you Maniβ
Itβs pretty easy to understand, Tokyo was a bigger City with many wooden structures. The Firestorms that we saw in Dresden and Hamburg occurred in Tokyo but with more intensity and more deaths.
Itβs well documented and information is easy to find.
Μύ -
Message 26
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Wednesday, 12th April 2006
Faran, by this point in the war, japanese industry was effectivly a cottage industry..
"As far as I know the Tokyo bombing had a military target and it also had military facilities." The fire storm was deliberate and took out whole areas of Tokyo...
Hirroshima was selected as the target as she hadn't sustained significant damage from previous air raids... -
Message 27
Posted by faran1 (U2570961) on Wednesday, 12th April 2006
So why didn't the allies choose Tokyo for the atomic bomb and the choosed Hiroshima? Faran, by this point in the war, japanese industry was effectivly a cottage industry..
"As far as I know the Tokyo bombing had a military target and it also had military facilities." The fire storm was deliberate and took out whole areas of Tokyo...
Hirroshima was selected as the target as she hadn't sustained significant damage from previous air raids...
Μύ -
Message 28
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Wednesday, 12th April 2006
Tokyo wasn't chosen because it was the seat of government and if the Allies had killed Hirohito - really the only person that could have stopped the war machine (and that was only just) then the war would have raged on....
Hiroshima was picked because it was an industrial target and Nagasaki was the reserve target for the 2nd mission - the primary target was Kokura - you must be sleeping better if you lived there knowing that.
There is something to be said even now for not blasting a capital city with a nuke - the fact that you'd knocked out all the country's infrastructure (especially if you do it in a 2nd strike) means there's no one to call of "the war". -
Message 29
Posted by Turnwrest (U2188092) on Wednesday, 12th April 2006
I think there's some evidence that Tokyo was so heavily damaged by the fire raids that there wasn't enough target area left to find out how destructive the atom bomb was. Certainly the fire raids stopped, not for any moral reason, but because it isn't worth trying to set fire to ashes.
-
Message 30
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Wednesday, 12th April 2006
I thought to my self if the atomic bombs on both Hirishimv and Nagasaky were to war crimes that the americans did to the japanse?Μύ
Are they warcrimes??
Simple answer is no. They were a military weapon designed for maximum effect on a population.
By this stage of the 20th Century warfare had long ago since passed to be about two armies meeting on a field of battle.
War was about the hearts and minds. Destroy the peoples will to fight and the enemy will lose.
Also you have the military rational of the two sites. Hirosima was a target with military subjects. I beleive that Nagasaki was less so, but was still a major port. -
Message 31
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Friday, 14th April 2006
There is something that no one seems to be thinking of.
The people of Japan in 1945 were being trained to act as suicide attackers. Not just the troops, ALL of them. Had the Allies not used the bomb, the loss of life on BOTH sides would have been horrific. Imagine the scenario, the Allies have just invaded Japan, and the troops are being attacked by men, women and children wearing back-pack bombs, who had been trained to throw themselves under tanks, to die and blow up the tank. What happens? After a few days, the Allied troops give up trying to differentiate between unarmed civilian, and armed guerrilla kamikaze. They simply shoot everyone on sight, it's safer for them that way. Tens of millions of Japanese die, along with the couple of million Allied troops.
The bomb was the quickest way to end the war, end of chat. To judge actions in World War 2 by today's moral standards is unfair, ignorant and downright silly. They used the bomb because they had it, and thought it might end the war. War crime? By today's standards yes, by 1945 standards no. The Japanese were preparing to fight to the death, this is well documented. How else do you stop this from happening, by convincing them that they will die an inglorious death if they don't stop? I'd say yes.
You also have to ask yourself what the Japanese would have done if they had developed the bomb. Answer? Nuked us all back to the stone age and then had a big party, not accuse those who helped win the worst war in history (which incidentally they started) of being criminals. They saved our asses to put it bluntly, so get off your moral "Stop the war" high horse and view things objectively. They did what they thought was right at the time, and they did it to save this planet from a horrendous fate, and I for one and glad they did.
Μύ
Hi DL,
As usual, a well thought out and informed post that is full of fact and common sense. You set a high standard for the rest of us.
Cheers, Matt.
PS. One more silly sausage and Nicko hits 300lbs on the bathroom scales. -
Message 32
Posted by cmedog47 (U3614178) on Friday, 14th April 2006
Nanking was a war crime. The killing spree that occured after the fall of the city had no military purpose. The atomic bombing clearly had a military purpose which was in fact accomplished--it shocked the Japanese government, heretofore unable to effect a decision to surrender despite military defeat, into "considering the unthinkable" and surrendering thereby ending the war. The atomic bomb was a great blessing to Japan for without it, it would almost certainly have suffered the devastation that Okinawa suffered with the civilian population brainwashed to sacrifice themselves in total war. Even worse, the land war for the home islands would almost certainly have resulted in a large part of the surviving population falling under the yoke of the genocidal slave-master Stalin. Instead, the abrupt end of the war with a weapon unique in it's shocking qualities but no more lethal than the air raids already being conducted gave them MacArthur, whose constructive occupation of Japan was almost certainly the greastest peacetime accomplishment of the American military profession. WW2 brought pointless death to many tens of millions of innocent souls. The conscripts being as innocent as the children. At least those who died in those two searing moments brought their nation peace by their death. The unfortunate consequence has been the it also gave Japan a sense of victimhood on which to center it's memories of the war, that has perhaps contributed to a failure of reconciliation between her and her Asian victims.
-
Message 33
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Saturday, 15th April 2006
Nanking was a war crime. The killing spree that occured after the fall of the city had no military purpose. The atomic bombing clearly had a military purpose which was in fact accomplished--it shocked the Japanese government, heretofore unable to effect a decision to surrender despite military defeat, into "considering the unthinkable" and surrendering thereby ending the war. The atomic bomb was a great blessing to Japan for without it, it would almost certainly have suffered the devastation that Okinawa suffered with the civilian population brainwashed to sacrifice themselves in total war. Even worse, the land war for the home islands would almost certainly have resulted in a large part of the surviving population falling under the yoke of the genocidal slave-master Stalin. Instead, the abrupt end of the war with a weapon unique in it's shocking qualities but no more lethal than the air raids already being conducted gave them MacArthur, whose constructive occupation of Japan was almost certainly the greastest peacetime accomplishment of the American military profession. WW2 brought pointless death to many tens of millions of innocent souls. The conscripts being as innocent as the children. At least those who died in those two searing moments brought their nation peace by their death. The unfortunate consequence has been the it also gave Japan a sense of victimhood on which to center it's memories of the war, that has perhaps contributed to a failure of reconciliation between her and her Asian victims.Μύ
Good point well made Kurt - the paralell in Europe IMO is the German exodus from East Prussia at the fag end of the war in 1945. The population that escaped just ended getting moved deeper and deeper into the Greater Reich and by the end of it all still ended up being raped, mutilated and tortued in Berlin - might have well just stayed in E. Prussia...then after the end of the war much of the remaining German populace was forcibly moved under severe duress to Eastern Germany from Poland, Czechoslovakia and Kallingrad (East Prussia) or as many did seeing the writing on the wall - they fled to Western Germany - smart people. -
Message 34
Posted by henrylee100 (U536041) on Monday, 17th April 2006
Even worse, the land war for the home islands would almost certainly have resulted in a large part of the surviving population falling under the yoke of the genocidal slave-master Stalin
Μύ
The whole of Japan was in the US occupation zone so no genocidal yokes were ever in the works for them it was at one of the later allied conferences where Stalin and his western pals agreed on who would be getting what.
And if you thinking that being occupied by the Americans was somehow better than being occupied by the Russians, then you're wrong, it was better in the long run but right after the war it sucked being on either side. Think about all the Germans that fought like crazy to break through the Russian lines to surrender to the Americans only to be handed over back to the Russians a few weeks later. Or read the memoirs of German soldiers and officers that were detained at POW camps run by the US MP's, it was little better than Abu Graib, they were treated like animals. -
Message 35
Posted by Eliza6Beth (U2637732) on Monday, 17th April 2006
Coming late to this debate, but has anyone yet made the suggestion that the most 'decent' option for the Americans would have been to have done a demo of the atomic bomb on some uninhabited island, and then given the Japs enough time to decide to surrender in the face of such 'divine' wrath against them?
I believe one argument against the above suggestion is that the Yanks simply didn't have enough atom bombs to spare for a demo, in case the demo wasn't effective in inducing a Jap surrender.
Eliza -
Message 36
Posted by MB (U177470) on Monday, 17th April 2006
Even worse, the land war for the home islands would almost certainly have resulted in a large part of the surviving population falling under the yoke of the genocidal slave-master Stalin
Μύ
The whole of Japan was in the US occupation zone so no genocidal yokes were ever in the works for them it was at one of the later allied conferences where Stalin and his western pals agreed on who would be getting what.
And if you thinking that being occupied by the Americans was somehow better than being occupied by the Russians, then you're wrong, it was better in the long run but right after the war it sucked being on either side. Think about all the Germans that fought like crazy to break through the Russian lines to surrender to the Americans only to be handed over back to the Russians a few weeks later. Or read the memoirs of German soldiers and officers that were detained at POW camps run by the US MP's, it was little better than Abu Graib, they were treated like animals.Μύ
The British also handed over Russian ex-PoWs to the Russians only to have them often killed almost immediately. It was a combination of being tied down by agreements made during the war, higher authorities not understanding what the Russians were like and probably basically having more important things on their mind at the time (at least in their opinion).
German PoWs were certainly not always well treated but I think the figures who died have been exaggerated in some accounts. It was only for a short time whereas the Russians mistreated and killed German PoWs on a much bigger scale for many years after the war.
MB -
Message 37
Posted by MB (U177470) on Monday, 17th April 2006
Coming late to this debate, but has anyone yet made the suggestion that the most 'decent' option for the Americans would have been to have done a demo of the atomic bomb on some uninhabited island, and then given the Japs enough time to decide to surrender in the face of such 'divine' wrath against them?
I believe one argument against the above suggestion is that the Yanks simply didn't have enough atom bombs to spare for a demo, in case the demo wasn't effective in inducing a Jap surrender.
ElizaΜύ
What if the demonstration failed? They had only tested one bomb and never actually dropped on from an aircraft.
A demonstration on an uninhabited island might not be believed and put down to trickery.
MB -
Message 38
Posted by faran1 (U2570961) on Monday, 17th April 2006
If I'm not mistaken the americans did a test for the atomic bomb before they dropped it on Japan.
But in Hiroshima the bomb was stronger then the bomb on the test. Coming late to this debate, but has anyone yet made the suggestion that the most 'decent' option for the Americans would have been to have done a demo of the atomic bomb on some uninhabited island, and then given the Japs enough time to decide to surrender in the face of such 'divine' wrath against them?
I believe one argument against the above suggestion is that the Yanks simply didn't have enough atom bombs to spare for a demo, in case the demo wasn't effective in inducing a Jap surrender.
ElizaΜύ
What if the demonstration failed? They had only tested one bomb and never actually dropped on from an aircraft.
A demonstration on an uninhabited island might not be believed and put down to trickery.
²Ρ΅ώΜύ -
Message 39
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Monday, 17th April 2006
Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were pretty good demos.This was the people that raped and murdered in every country they came into. They started the war and what they did to allied POW's was disgraceful. It's very comportable to be sitting here discussing the finer moral points of defeating a dishonerable enemy. I'm sure our surviving POW's were happy to see it end any way possible. If the Japanese or the Germans had the bomb we were all toast. Lets keep it real.
Cheers, Matt. -
Message 40
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Monday, 17th April 2006
And if you thinking that being occupied by the Americans was somehow better than being occupied by the Russians, then you're wrong, it was better in the long run but right after the war it sucked being on either side. Think about all the Germans that fought like crazy to break through the Russian lines to surrender to the Americans only to be handed over back to the Russians a few weeks later. Or read the memoirs of German soldiers and officers that were detained at POW camps run by the US MP's, it was little better than Abu Graib, they were treated like animals.Μύ
Thatβs right Henry,
Lets forget that about 85% of Soviet captured German POWs never made it back to Germany. Or that dear Ivan had the right to rape any German woman he felt like. American and British captured POWs did suffer. That is because there was little food for them. The civilians of the freed occupied countries also need attention and supplies. What the Germans did makes Abu Graib look like a Butlins vacation resort. I have been watching you for a few months now, and you never fail to take any cheap anti American shot you can. What's the deal Henry, did Bubba snatch your girlfriend from out under your nose.
Matt. -
Message 41
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Monday, 17th April 2006
Well, I think it was as much a demonstration to the USSR that had decded to declare against Japan in 1945 and invaded Manchuria. The Japenese had put forward tentative peace feelers to the US in late July. As it stands the Russians then withdrew but not before carrying off what remained of the industrial infrastructure the Japenese had set up after they colonised the area and leaving Manchuria to be divided between competing Chinese warlords.
-
Message 42
Posted by MB (U177470) on Monday, 17th April 2006
People always have to look for all sorts of ulterior motives behind the use of the atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki but I think the Allies just wanted the war over as soon as possible.
MB -
Message 43
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Monday, 17th April 2006
There is nothing inconsistent with ending the war early by forcing Japanese peace moves and forstalling Soviet intervention in Northern China and thus strengthening their Pacific influence. The conflict had started over mastery of the Pacific.
-
Message 44
Posted by henrylee100 (U536041) on Tuesday, 18th April 2006
And if you thinking that being occupied by the Americans was somehow better than being occupied by the Russians, then you're wrong, it was better in the long run but right after the war it sucked being on either side. Think about all the Germans that fought like crazy to break through the Russian lines to surrender to the Americans only to be handed over back to the Russians a few weeks later. Or read the memoirs of German soldiers and officers that were detained at POW camps run by the US MP's, it was little better than Abu Graib, they were treated like animals.Μύ
Thatβs right Henry,
Lets forget that about 85% of Soviet captured German POWs never made it back to Germany. Or that dear Ivan had the right to rape any German woman he felt like. American and British captured POWs did suffer. That is because there was little food for them. The civilians of the freed occupied countries also need attention and supplies. What the Germans did makes Abu Graib look like a Butlins vacation resort. I have been watching you for a few months now, and you never fail to take any cheap anti American shot you can. What's the deal Henry, did Bubba snatch your girlfriend from out under your nose.
Matt.
Μύ
And where exactly did you get that figure 85%. Regarding the rapes, you shouldn't forget they weren'te exactly limited to the soviet occupied territory either.
now to your question, imho the US, especially in the last couple of decades, has become too damn self rightious and these days there are too many americans, to my liking, posting in sundry forums all over the internet who are too eager to justify practically anything their country has ever done, even the most horrendous crimes, such as the genocide of the native Americans or the criminal carpet bombings of Japanese cities culminating in the dropping of A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And as they do so they come up with all sorts of reasons why this or that autrocity had to be committed and how it was actually beneficial to those it was committed against and in the process they never fail to mention that at the heart of all US actions there's always good intentions. (they say the road to hell is paved with good intentions) So imho somebody has to counterbalance this self rightious psuedo patriotic bull crap. Somebody has to sew the seed of doubt in their brainwashed minds. -
Message 45
Posted by henrylee100 (U536041) on Tuesday, 18th April 2006
Well, I think it was as much a demonstration to the USSR that had decded to declare against Japan in 1945 and invaded Manchuria. The Japenese had put forward tentative peace feelers to the US in late July. As it stands the Russians then withdrew but not before carrying off what remained of the industrial infrastructure the Japenese had set up after they colonised the area and leaving Manchuria to be divided between competing Chinese warlords.Μύ
The USSR did not decide to invade Manchuria on their own, it was a joint decision made during, if I'm not mistaken, the Yalta conference in 1945. In fact one draft proposal considered at the conference included the USSR occupying the whole of Korea (not just north of the 38th latitude) and the Japanese island of Hokaido. And according to what I read it was the soviets who declined that one. -
Message 46
Posted by henrylee100 (U536041) on Tuesday, 18th April 2006
The British also handed over Russian ex-PoWs to the Russians only to have them often killed almost immediately. It was a combination of being tied down by agreements made during the war, higher authorities not understanding what the Russians were like and probably basically having more important things on their mind at the time (at least in their opinion).
German PoWs were certainly not always well treated but I think the figures who died have been exaggerated in some accounts. It was only for a short time whereas the Russians mistreated and killed German PoWs on a much bigger scale for many years after the war.
MB
Μύ
for one for PC's sake I'd suggest you call them the soviets rather than the Russians, after all Stalin's real name was Jesef Dzhuagshvili and he was an ethnic Georgian and his most feared butcher Lavrentyin Beria too came from Georgia.
Now foremr soviet POW's were hardly ever killed immediately after the soviet officials got their hands on them, they were usually put through a series of harsh interrogations aimed at establishing their identity and the circumstances under which they were taken prisoner, quite a few ended up serving time in labor camps but equally large numbers were allowed to go back home. Who were killed almost immediately were the members of the Russian Liberating Army, these were basically former soviet POW's primarily ethnic Russians who were taken prisoner at different times of the war and who for different reaons opted to join the German army. By the end of the war they were gathered into a separate division and ended the war not far from Prague. In the final days of the war they actually prevented a German SS unit from entering Prague and wreaking havoc there. After that they managed to escape to the west where they surrendered to the Americans and in a matter of days were handed over back to the Soviets. Practically all of these people were executed.
Regarding the soviets mistreating German POW's, I met one such former POW in person, living in soviet labor camps was no suger but both him and all of his friends survived and went back to Germany in the 50's, they did their time in Europan russia, mostly doing construction work. On average Wermacht POW's served terms of around 10 years. The former SS men had it much tougher, they got at least 25 years and spent that time felling trees in Siberia in sub zero temperatures. Naturally quite a few of those that wound up in Siberia never saw Germany again. -
Message 47
Posted by Turnwrest (U2188092) on Tuesday, 18th April 2006
As I understand it, there was no regulation prohibiting the use of Atomic weapons as they were developed during the war. Of course, the bombing of civilian targets is against the Geneva Convention and every nation did that; the Axis nations before 1939.Μύ
Since Japan wasn't a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, a lawyer would probably argue that the Geneva Convention didn't apply to nations at war with Japan - though the Hague treaty certainly could be held to apply.
Interesting to compare Japanese treatment of Russian prisoners in 1905 with their behaviour in the 1940s, too. -
Message 48
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Tuesday, 18th April 2006
Henry Lee, interesting. I can only presume this was as much a case of expedience given that in February 1945 the US was engaged in island sweeps across the Pacific and were hard pushed to launch an invasion of Korea snd the Japanese mainland in 1945 given the losses on samller less occupied islands around the Pacific rim. As such the US seems to have wanted to preserve their own soldiers' lives by dividing the workload. The only reason Russia and Manchuria bacame an active field of conflict was due to the fact the Germans had been rolled back and the Japanese were in no position to defend themselves. You'll note Stalin was not stupid enough to purge the Eastern army in the 1930s given Japan's expansionist agenda. The cordinators of the Soviet fightback were primarily stationed in the East during the Winter War and the the opening weeks of Operation Barbarossa. A factor that seems to have given German planners a false sense of optimism about the whole Soviet invasion. I'm guessing after losing something like 20 million citizens in the previous four years the Soviets were rather reluctant to over commit themselves and at least gave the japanes a bolt hole to retreat to on the Southern Korean peninsular. They'd read Sun Tsu and didn't want to fight a desperate trapped enemy.
-
Message 49
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Tuesday, 18th April 2006
Hi Lee,
And where exactly did you get that figure 85%.Μύ
After the war millions of German and other prisoners of war died in the Gulags.
It is estimated that about 1.5 million German POW's died in Soviet labor camps (gulags), a good portion occuring after the end of the war in May,1945. Also many of the hundreds of thousands of German civilians (including women) deported to the Soviet Union as slave labor were never heard of again. Pawn of War. Schafer.
Now lets have a look at your stats and references.
Regarding the rapes, you shouldn't forget they weren'te exactly limited to the soviet occupied territory either.Μύ
Thatβs correct, only several hundred thousand of them were encouraged by the Soviet authorities in the Soviet zone.
now to your question, imho the US, especially in the last couple of decades, has become too damn self rightious and these days there are too many americans, to my liking, posting in sundry forums all over the internet who are too eager to justify practically anything their country has ever done, even the most horrendous crimes, such as the genocide of the native Americans or the criminal carpet bombings of Japanese cities culminating in the dropping of A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And as they do so they come up with all sorts of reasons why this or that autrocity had to be committed and how it was actually beneficial to those it was committed against and in the process they never fail to mention that at the heart of all US actions there's always good intentions. (they say the road to hell is paved with good intentions)Μύ
Well now, excuse us for making war on the Japanese after being attacked by them. Your lack of comment on the Dresden post is glaringly obvious by its absence. Was that also a war crime, or the RAF bombing of civilian targets all through the war? I guess you must think so. I guess you go along with the British love fest you had with the native Americans all the way up to 1776.
So imho somebody has to counterbalance this self rightious psuedo patriotic bull crap. Somebody has to sew the seed of doubt in their brainwashed minds.Μύ
Thatβs mighty decent of you Lee. I will sleep better tonite just knowing you are on the job. Thank you Mr Quixote.
Matt. -
Message 50
Posted by cmedog47 (U3614178) on Tuesday, 18th April 2006
Elizabeth:
A demonstration was considered but rejected by Truman. It was probably a good thing as they only had the two bombs. The decision process is well documented. The scientists from the Manhatten project were for a demonstration at an announced time and place. This was considered but rejected with the record showing sound reasons. The first was that, as there had been only one of the devices tested and that under controlled conditions, the risk that the bomb would be a dud was considered high, and such a failed demonstration would have had the opposite of the desired psychological effect. Another consideration was the very credible fear that the Japanese would move American POWβs to the demonstration point so that they would be the primary victims. A third concern was that the elements in the regieme who wished to continue the war to the death would insulate the population from an awareness of effects of the bomb, thus canceling the psychological shock effect which they felt was needed to enable the Japanese peace advocates to effect surrender
Allied intelligience acurately surmised the political situation in Japan, with elements seeking peace but still politically unable to act effectively on that without great personal danger. It was clear to all that Japan was militarily defeated, but that defeat had not been translated into surrender. What the allies did not want to do was to boil the frog slowly such that it would not jump out of the pot--they feared that just trying to bomb and starve Japan into submission conventionally would just crumble what was left of Japanese civilisation without bringing about a surrender. That was one reason that invasion was set for 1945 rather than later. They wanted to force a surrender decision on an intact society
The US war department gave consideration to the moral issue and decided that the decent thing to do was to end the war as quickly as possible with minimal loss of life-and that the use of the bomb would facilitate that. They calculated that even if the bomb performed as expected, continued conventional bombing would have killed more Japanese by November and would still have required land invasion to bring about surrender.
Fortunately for the allies, an American pilot, interrogated under torture regarding these new bombs being dropped, told his captors that we had 100 of them and the next was to be on Tokyo. (He actually knew nothing of the bombs). That information was reported as factual at the cabinet meeting where the decision to surrender was dicussed. The war minister who brought that information to the cabinet meeting even then opposed the decision to surrender! In retrospect, it is hard to imagine a demonstration to have been effective without following up with actual bombings.
I believe that it was paradoxically a blessing to Japan.
Kurt
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Μύto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ iD
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ links
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.