Funny as hell! Yoinked it for my own blog!

This is a cheap shot.

Hitler asked the Japanese leaders to invade the Eastern front of the Soviet Union. Then, meet at Moscow for the celebration of the death of communism.

Instead, the Japanese bombed the Pearl Harbor as they were not interested in ruling Russia but they were interested in ruling Asia. The Japanese war slogan was "Asia for Asians".

Hitler reluctantly declared the war against the Americans because of the treaty between Germany and Japan. That was the start of his downfall.

Had Japanese listened to Hitler's advice and invaded the Eastern front of the Soviet Union in November 1941, the humanity would have avoided many tragedies involving fanatic communists.

Funny?

Uhh... not only was Germany a fantastically efficient war machine hindered by some of Adolf's decisions, the USA has actually emulated 1930's Germany in many respects. The only thing we haven't done is call the USA "the Fatherland".

Just how is the stupidity of people funny?

Every generation thinks they are smarter than their forebears - and they are frequently shown to be wrong about that.

Had Japanese listened to Hitler's advice and invaded the Eastern front of the Soviet Union in November 1941, the humanity would have avoided many tragedies involving fanatic communists.

More likey humanity would have traded "tragedies involving fanatic communists" for more tragedies involving fanatic fascists.

"More likey humanity would have traded "tragedies involving fanatic communists" for more tragedies involving fanatic fascists."

You are forgetting that the Japanese Americans were rounded up for prison camps and the black Americans were not able to use the same bathrooms with the whites in 1941. Just about everybody were fascists at that time. You are blaming Hitler for not knowing how to use internet. The humanity would have eventually grown out of fascism.

The reason why Japanese Americans were not gassed liked Jews was because the Americans were winning the war. Had Japanese were closing in Washington D.C. it would have been a different story.

The many known tragedies of this modern world have something to do with fanatic communists and creation of Israel in the Middle East.
The victorious Axis of Evils in 1945 would have prevented all of those tragedies.

Chang,

The reason why Japanese Americans were not gassed liked Jews was because the Americans were winning the war.

This is so insulting to read this I don't know where to start. Maybe you chose to ignore it but the Nazis were Hell-Bent on turning Anti-Semitism into an art form since the '30. I fail to see a parallel between the treatment of Japanese-American descent and the actions the Nazis took against the German Jews. Have you seen an American equivalent of the "Kristallnacht" against Japanese interests even AFTER 1940?

What you have written in your last post was, at best, a whitewash of the crimes of humanity caused by Fascist government under the pale excuse of "Well, they were all fascist anyway".

May I kindly suggest that you read a good history book about World War Two and get your moral compass fixed? Post-Modernism editing of history is one sacrilege I just can't endure, so be kind, okay?

"I fail to see a parallel between the treatment of Japanese-American descent and the actions the Nazis took against the German Jews."

I was not comparing the actual events. You have to use a little imagination.

Pretend that the Japanese just nuked the entire New York City in 1941. Also, they blocked off our entire coast line, so we have no access to oils. So, the farmers could not harvest corns or wheat. Not only had we trouble in feeding ourselves but also sending foods for the soldiers fighting in Pacific. Also, Americans were losing the war and we blamed the Japanese Americans for espionage.

Under that circumstance do you think Japanese Americans would stay alive in prison camps in America in 1941?

The point I am trying to make is that we were capable of doing what the Germans did to Jews. If you don't believe me, just look at what happened to Japanese civilians in Hiroshima in 1945.

Chang -

Pray that we never meet in real life.

I was not comparing the actual events. You have to use a little imagination.

I was talking about HISTORICAL FACTS existing simultaneously in two different countries. Of course, Historical Revisionism and blanket statements (like your "Everybody were Faschists" two posts higher) need little facts and lots of imagination.

Under that circumstance do you think Japanese Americans would stay alive in prison camps in America in 1941?

Can't say. It never happened in real-life, right? In that case, my guess is that the American troops would had sung "Kum-ba-ya" and let the prisoners go. You want to know the fun part in this? My bet is as good as yours since it is based on pure fiction. This being said, unlike you, I don't search solace for the Nazis in petty fictional re-edition of recorded history.

The point I am trying to make is that we were capable of doing what the Germans did to Jews. If you don't believe me, just look at what happened to Japanese civilians in Hiroshima in 1945.

Yes, we all have the potential to act like savages. The Rwandan genocide is a pure example. This being said, we dint. Your example of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima got one flaws; Hiroshima was a military target. The port of Hiroshima was a logistical center for the Japanese Imperial Navy. There's a reason why the bomb wasn't dropped on the Imperial Palace in the middle of Tokyo.

Until you got your moral compass fixed, be sure that I politely share Brian's sentiments towards you.

"Hiroshima was a military target. The port of Hiroshima was a logistical center for the Japanese Imperial Navy.

I think you are being desperate. So you telling me to kill a rat, you rather burn the entire house with everybody in it. Right?

"Chang -
Pray that we never meet in real life."

Apparently, you don't have a real life. If you did, speculation about wargames based on a contest already decided wouldn't set you off.

In real life, you'd do what? Prove yourself the greater savage, or explain the points you raise instead?

Try not to let your head explode at this idea: if you left the house, you passed people with his views today. They're hiding from you. Get them!

Bah. (Dogbert waves paw.)

I think you are being desperate. So you telling me to kill a rat, you rather burn the entire house with everybody in it. Right?

If you knew the crude methods used during bombardment in World War Two, you wouldn't pass that comment. Guided munition was in a state of infancy and it sometimes took an entire night of bombardment to destroy a single objective. Since those said objectives were build in or around city, you can imagine the level of carnage conventional bombs have left.

On the other side, you are putting two military bombardment using nuclear bombs on par with a 15 years-long plan of exterminating 11 MILLIONS of human because they were Jews, Homosexuals, Non-Violent, Handicapped and the like? You really think both are equal in their cruelty?

"On the other side, you are putting two military bombardment using nuclear bombs on par with a 15 years-long plan of exterminating 11 MILLIONS of human because they were Jews, Homosexuals, Non-Violent, Handicapped and the like? You really think both are equal in their cruelty?"

Why don't I ask you this question. Do you think who is prettier? Miss America or Miss Germany?

As I said before, Chang, go get your moral compass checked and then we MIGHT have a decent conversation together.

"As I said before, Chang, go get your moral compass checked and then we MIGHT have a decent conversation together."

Toubrouk, I find you boring and I am going to stop. At least Brian is funny and Conan knows what the hell is talking about.

You remind of people like this.
It tastes sweet. = Good.
It tastes terrible. = Bad.

The hell that Japan let loose in China is another thing to consider, it may have been "Asia for Asians" but the Japanese considered themselves the "Asian Master Race" and abused the people of Korea, China, India, etc...far worse than what had been done before. Rather than drop the bomb on Hiroshima and then Nagasaki could have been avoided with 2 other plans...Carpet bombing the Japanese home islands and send firefighters as the invasion force or invade with allies, giving a quadrant of Japan to Russia (both would have resulted in the deaths of far more Japanese civilians than the 150,000 in those cities), it didn't work to well for those in East Berlin since they had to be kept behind a wall to keep all of the poor West Berliners from coming over and enjoying the fruits of communism...

Regardless, there is nuance. What COULD have happened and what DID happen.

Japan deserved far worse than what she got.

Chang - I assure you that I have more exposure to real humans that you do.

In my world, one does not "speculate" about things such as "what if we were just as bad as the Nazis" because it is first of all unreasonable to assume, and second of all because it is morally repugnant.

However, that's not what set me off. This is:

Pretend that the Japanese just nuked the entire New York City in 1941. Also, they blocked off our entire coast line, so we have no access to oils. So, the farmers could not harvest corns or wheat. Not only had we trouble in feeding ourselves but also sending foods for the soldiers fighting in Pacific. Also, Americans were losing the war and we blamed the Japanese Americans for espionage.

Now, you're trying to say that the Americans would have done to the Japanese what Hitler did to the Jews in this circumstance. We call that "moral equivalence".

You're equating self defense (attacking a fifth-column within your homeland) with the holocaust.

Hitler tapped into ancient hatreds to justify what he did. There was no rational person who believed that the Jews were damaging Germany. There was only Judenhass.

There was no such hatred towards Japanese people in this country to tap into. No, that didn't come into being until AFTER Pearl.

And even then, we didn't round up and gas all the Japanese.

Chang, you need to spend some quality time with the History Channel, and probably some real historical books instead of that PC crap they fed you in high school.

Then maybe you'll get an idea of why I would feel compelled to "adjust" the thinking of anyone who would trivialize the holocaust in such a way. I have the same regard for 9/11 truthers, by the way. So wear your "9/11 was an inside job" shirt when you come see me for an extra special beat down.

Japan deserved far worse than what she got.

That's as may be. And it did take two nukes to get them to surrender. Imagine that. You've just had an entire city annihilated with a single bomb -- AND YOU DON'T SURRENDER!

The thing that has to concern Japan is the fact that China now has nuclear weapons, as does North Korea. Memories are long in that part of the world, and so are grudges.

You think it was an accident that the first test of the No Dong (North Korean ballistic missile) overflew Japan?

Just about everybody were fascists at that time.

There was widespread racism. That ain't fascism.

The humanity would have eventually grown out of fascism.

Really? I don't think so. The name Francisco Franco ring a bell? Augusto Pinochet? Vladimir Putin?

Humanity will always be susceptible to charismatic leaders who promise the world and lay the blame for all the troubles on the "others." Ring a bell?

Just as the boarder in Cabaret longs for the days of the Kaiser when Germany "had order," many in Russia are longing for the days of Stalin when Russia had an empire and was respected (and feared) in the world.

The reason why Japanese Americans were not gassed liked Jews was because the Americans were winning the war. Had Japanese were closing in Washington D.C. it would have been a different story.

In early 1942, when Executive Order 9066 was signed, America and the Allies WERE losing the war. The US lost Guam, Wake Island, and the Phillipines in quick succession. The UK lost Singapore (losing the HMS Repulse and the HMS Prince of Wales in the process). Rommel was running wild in North Africa. The Wermacht was easily destroying the Red Army in Russia. U-Boat wolf packs were feasting on Allied shipping (including shipping in American territorial waters).

The US military could not match the Japanese in battle. The American aircraft available at that time were obsolete against the Japanese Zero.

While random violence was done to Japanese-Americans and their property, it was nothing like the Nazi pogrom against the Jews.

There was no such hatred towards Japanese people in this country to tap into.

Actually, California has a much more racist history than it would like to admit. Anti-Asian sentiment was strong in California for a long time. In 1906, the city of San Francisco passed a law requiring Japanese-American children to attend racially-segregated schools.

But at no time did American hatred turn into an organized national genocide like it did in Nazi Germany.

Could it have? Perhaps. But Americas who spoke out against the internment or who argued that blacks should be equal citizens did not find the Gestapo at their door. Even in the middle of a war - which America was losing at the time - there was the voice of the loyal opposition.

The reason why Japanese Americans were not gassed liked Jews was because the Americans were winning the war.

Germany was not losing the war when they started "gassing" the Jews. The SS moved in quickly behind the victorious Wermacht and immediately began rounding up the undesirables for deportation the camps.

That's as may be. And it did take two nukes to get them to surrender. Imagine that. You've just had an entire city annihilated with a single bomb -- AND YOU DON'T SURRENDER!

Actually, they were pretty well ready to surrender before the first bomb was dropped, they just weren't yet open to unconditional surrender. And after Hiroshima was bombed, they were ready for unconditional surrender.

Germany was not losing the war when they started "gassing" the Jews. The SS moved in quickly behind the victorious Wermacht and immediately began rounding up the undesirables for deportation the camps.

Hells, the Germans were rounding up the Jews before the war started.

Chang -

Yup, there were a whole lot of fascists around in the U.S. Indeed it was considered rather un-American by many, not to support the fascist rebels in the Spanish civil war. It is even true that there was a powerful streak of Antisemitism throughout the U.S. and Europe, in the lead-up to WWII.

But that does not equate to even the most cursory acceptance or tendency toward genocide in any but the most fringe nuts of the U.S. While the gathering and imprisonment of Japanese Americans was an atrocity, it wasn't anything close to a holocaust and playing fantasy hypotheticals doesn't come close to getting us there.

Toubrouk: Your puny facts are no match for Chang's superior imagination of what might have happened if only people had acted completely differently than they had actually acted. So just give it up. Besides: never wrestle with a pig. You just get dirty and the pig likes it. Also, get in line: I'm particularly angry at Chang, because he's made me agree with Brian.

I'm particularly angry at Chang, because he's made me agree with Brian.

It hurts the first few times, but then you begin to like it.

"Actually, they were pretty well ready to surrender before the first bomb was dropped, they just weren't yet open to unconditional surrender. And after Hiroshima was bombed, they were ready for unconditional surrender."

That is an interesting point. To get that unconditional surrender terms, over 200,000 innocent Japanese civilians had to be wasted.

The below is the part of Hirohito's surrender speech.

"Should we continue to fight, it would not only result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization."

Hirohito regarded the use of Atomic bomb against anyone as the end of human civilization. He felt that Japanese should surrender to save the humanity. And I think he was right about that. Since then, the great efforts have been made by everyone to make sure no one use atomic bombs again for any reasons.

However, I find it is ironic that the U.S.A, the only country used the atomic bombs against humanity, is in charge of making sure that no other nations (North Korea, Iran) to develop atomic bombs. It seems to me that it should be the other way around. It is like we have Neo Nazi Party to be in charge of Jewish resettlement program.

Quizzical,

Thank you for the kind words. I know what they say about fools; they drag you to their level and beat you with experience. Normally I let it go but History revisionism is one of the little things that makes my blood boils.

I hope your agreement with Brian's arguments will leave you no long-term ill effects. ;)

The stolen car version is good too!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8dl4faCpJE

Crashed motorcycle version:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukAhlxl4hmM&feature=related

Also used when The Watercolor Artist Formerly Known As Schickelgruber got banned from World of Warcraft, X-Box Live, Wikipedia, Silentwulf, Lineage 2, Poker, Urban 75, iSketch, Runescape, and (gasp) school.

I never knew a scene could be so versatile!

Chang -

Don't take my comment as a defense of the use of the atom bombs. I most certainly don't think it was necessary, rather I believe it was the very worse atrocity that my country ever committed.

However, it was what it was. It happened and we move on.

It is not an excuse to say that we shouldn't be fighting nuclear proliferation. And like it or not, the U.S. is well positioned to be a leader in keeping nukes out of the hands of nations such as N Korea and Iran.

And your idiot notion of trying to compare the U.S. to Nazi Germany is just not going to get you anywhere. Where I come from, such comparisons just relegate the user to mockery for such juvenile stupidity. No one of consequence takes people like you seriously. There are a great many things to criticize about the U.S., many of which are fairly horrible.

If you are bent on actual criticism, the waters are rife with legitimate targets. Going all fascist may get you some hippie pussy, but it isn't going to get you very far in adult conversations. Especially when you try for historical revisions. And as you get a little older and uglier, you'll even lose the hippie pussy it got you in your teens and early twenties - then they'll just consider you a creepy "old" man.

Don't take my comment as a defense of the use of the atom bombs. I most certainly don't think it was necessary, rather I believe it was the very worse atrocity that my country ever committed.

History would tend to disagree with you, DuWayne.

We destroyed their Air Force. They were reduced to using their planes as ammo, and ran out.

We destroyed their navy. Nearly all their ships were sunk or rendered unusable.

And yet they still would not surrender. In fact, they were bracing themselves for the last defense of the homeland. And it was this last defense that convinced the US to use the bomb. U.S. Casualty estimates were in the million range.

I know there were those who argued that we should have bombed an empty place to show them we meant business. It would not have worked.

After we eradicated Hiroshima, the Emperor was willing to surrender, the military were not. They thought we'd blown our wad, so to speak, and couldn't do anything further to them.

It was only after we destroyed Nagasaki that the Japanese military lost the will to fight. Then and only then were they willing to subject themselves to the unconditional surrender we rightly demanded.

Chang -

It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.

Read Paul Fussell's "Thank God for the Atomic Bomb" to get some perspective before you roundly condemn the use of the atomic bomb.

http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfib/courses/Fussell.pdf

"It is not an excuse to say that we shouldn't be fighting nuclear proliferation. And like it or not, the U.S. is well positioned to be a leader in keeping nukes out of the hands of nations such as N Korea and Iran."

Pretend you are a leader of N. Korea, Iran and Iraq. And the leader of nation, which possess thousands of atomic bombs and used those bombs in Japan previously, labeled your nations as an "Axis of Evil". Then he invaded the Iraq.

As a leader of N. Korea and Iran, what would you do to protect the best interests of your nation and people? The peace comes through the barrel of a gun. It will be crazy for them not to arm themselves with atomic bombs.

In a perfect world, the United Nations should send inspection team every year to U.S. to make sure we do not own a single atomic bomb in our arsenal.

"And yet they still would not surrender. In fact, they were bracing themselves for the last defense of the homeland. And it was this last defense that convinced the US to use the bomb. U.S. Casualty estimates were in the million range."

Did you not read DuWayne's comment earlier? The Japanese were ready to surrender with conditions before Hiroshima.

The key condition Japanese demanded was the integrity of imperial system, so that the emperor would not be subject to charges for the war crimes. And the allies denied it and bombed the Hiroshima for the unconditional surrender.

Here is the irony. MacArthur decided that none of the Imperial families would be subject to trials for the war crimes after all. Had the Allies accepted the conditional surrender, they would have gotten the exact same actual results except the 200,000 plus dead Japanese civilians.

The thing bothered me the most is that not a single person went to prison for this clear breach of Geneva Convention.

brian -

After we eradicated Hiroshima, the Emperor was willing to surrender, the military were not. They thought we'd blown our wad, so to speak, and couldn't do anything further to them.

Wrong. The military would not have committed a coup against their emperor. Had he categorically pushed for surrender, surrender would have happened. The only reason he didn't, was because he wanted to keep the position of emperor intact, though as a figurehead position, because he didn't want to see the spirit of the Japanese people broken.

And as Chang points out, that was the only point of contention - the only condition desired to move forward with surrender.

Chang -

The problem with your hypothetical is that we live in the real world and the leader of N Korea isn't fucking stupid (not so sure I can say the same about Iran).

I would make a lot of noise, very quietly, about developing a nuclear arsenal, putting myself in a slightly stronger position than before. Then I would get the concessions I could, before agreeing to dismantle the program, prefferrably before too much money has been spent on it. I.e., pretty much what the actual leaders in N Korea did.

Iran OTOH, I would use it as a catalyst to drum up support from other countries and basically do the same thing. Only because I'm Iran, I'm also going to do everything possible to make the U.S. look like bullies.

What I'm not going to do as a leader of either country, is give the least consideration to what the U.S. did more than fifty years ago, in a very different political climate, both at home and abroad.

While I question the sanity of the leaders of Iran, I know that everyone involved in both the countries in question are not that fucking stupid. They all know that actually producing nuclear weapons is tantamount to suicide. We wouldn't let it happen and if there was clear intelligence that programs were even close, we would be far from alone in stopping them.

Everyone know this is the case and everyone knows that everyone knows this is the case. It is a big game of really high stakes chicken - nothing more, nothing less.

cHere is the irony. MacArthur decided that none of the Imperial families would be subject to trials for the war crimes after all. Had the Allies accepted the conditional surrender, they would have gotten the exact same actual results except the 200,000 plus dead Japanese civilians

No. With unconditional surrender came more than the destruction of the Imperial system. With unconditional surrender the Allies got a Japanese population that knew it was defeated. WIthout it, they got a Japan that believed it had escaped defeat and would travel down the same path again.

History doesn't happen in a vaccuum, Chang.

Germany was defeated in World War I, but no allied soldiers set foot on German soil. With the Armistice, Germany was assessed penalties for starting the war and reduced in territory, but the average German, not seeing Allied forces on the streets of Berlin or Munich, was ready to believe Hitler's claim that the country was sold out, not defeated. Thirty years after defeating Germany without defeating Germany, the Allies had to do it all over again. They avoided that in World War II by demanding unconditional surrender...and getting it. Most of our political leaders at that time remembered the horror and mistakes of World War I. Some, like Truman, from direct experience in the trenches.

"Thirty years after defeating Germany without defeating Germany, the Allies had to do it all over again. They avoided that in World War II by demanding unconditional surrender...and getting it."

You are correct in saying something like this "if you strike a king, you must kill him". Maybe the Allies should have killed the spirit of Germans in World War I to prevent World War II. Maybe the Americans should have nuked Chinese to avoid Korean War stale mate. Maybe the French should have genocided the Vietnamese to avoid Vietnam War. Where do we stop?

You are making a dangerous assumption that the Allies in World War I (including Japanese) represented the direction for the future of humanity. The truth is that none of us know that at least for another hundred years. That is for the future generation to decide.

I am not Japanese. I am a Korean American and I will tell you that most of Koreans hate (at least dislike) the Japanese for the colonial experience. As Brian mentioned it, "Memories are long in that part of the world, and so are grudges."

I am trying to rise above it.

Wrong. The military would not have committed a coup against their emperor. Had he categorically pushed for surrender, surrender would have happened. The only reason he didn't, was because he wanted to keep the position of emperor intact, though as a figurehead position, because he didn't want to see the spirit of the Japanese people broken.

Anything short of unconditional surrender would have resulted in a reassertion of Japanese aggression within thirty years.

Would you have wanted to have another war with a still-armed Japan in a post-nuclear world? We saw how much regard they had for civilian casualties in Nanking, among others.

Anything short of unconditional surrender would have resulted in a reassertion of Japanese aggression within thirty years.

Remember Iraq? They got re-invaded only 12 years later. I believe 30 years of embargo would had turned Japan into a sorry, messy and costly mess.

As far as Nanking goes, please remember who you are chatting with. Under Chang's twisted view of the world, everybody was a fascist in the '40, ergo everybody is guilty.

That's because Chang is either an imbecile or a troll.

In any event, Chang demonstrates the kind of historical ignorance that Santayana was on about.

You are correct in saying something like this "if you strike a king, you must kill him".

No. I am saying the Allied political and military leaders in World War II were sending their sons to re-fight a war many of them had already fought in their youth.

They didn't want to send their grandsons to fight the same war in another thirty years.

Maybe the Allies should have killed the spirit of Germans in World War I to prevent World War II. Maybe the Americans should have nuked Chinese to avoid Korean War stale mate. Maybe the French should have genocided the Vietnamese to avoid Vietnam War. Where do we stop?

Now you're just being silly...or obtuse.

That's because Chang is either an imbecile or a troll.

I believe it is the description of a "Progressivist", right?

This being said, living in LaLaLand where everybody is nice is much more dangerous than forgetting the past. Bear cubs are such nice creatures but mother bear tend to digress if your intentions are pure or not.

brian -

Who said anything about a still armed Japan? AFAIK, the only sticking point was keeping the emperor as a figurehead. Beyond that, surrender would have looked exactly the same. The allies would have still installed a provisional government. The Japanese would still have been disarmed. The only difference is that they would have maintained the ceremonial post of Emperor, which as I understand it, is basically what the Emperor was before WWII.

Now it could be argued that even as a ceremonial position, the Emperor could be used as a rallying point for insurgents. But the Emperor would not have been willingly used this way and with the population disarmed, it is unlikely it would have gone anywhere.

I am not trying to say that it is cut and dry. There are many factors that aren't available to us from a historical perspective. But I have not seen compelling evidence that dropping the bombs was a necessity, while I have seen evidence that it might have been avoided without significant allied casualties.

"No. I am saying the Allied political and military leaders in World War II were sending their sons to re-fight a war many of them had already fought in their youth.

They didn't want to send their grandsons to fight the same war in another thirty years."

So, you are telling me that to prevent possible another imaginative war in 30 years, WWIII, the Japanese had to be nuked.

That is a quite hypothetical reasoning at work with some imagination even better than mine. Why don't we kill the all of the inmates in our prison just in case they might commit crimes in 30 years?

And you are making fun of me for imagining a situation where Japanese Americans might be gassed.

That's because Chang is either an imbecile or a troll.

I think he's just a little stupid/deluded and really wants to get the hippie chicks in bed.

I would also note that I have done little in the way of scholarly study of WWII - Roman history is more my forte. I have had Thank God for the Atomic Bomb on my (exceptionally long) to read list for some time now. I'll see about picking it up from the library after I finish The Day of the Barbarians by Barbero, a very interesting descriptive of the battle that is considered the pivotal point that harbinged the death throws of the empire. (though I would argue that the real harbinger was when Christianity went from being the official religion of Rome, to being declared the only acceptable religion, by Theodisius I - Howver the empire was in disarray before either, so it's hard to say)

"I think he's just a little stupid/deluded and really wants to get the hippie chicks in bed."

No, she does not have to be hippie. All I ask is that she does not outweigh me for the safety reason.

A lot of this is Monday morning quarterbacking. While Japanese records post-surrender did demonstrate that they were on the brink of collapse and would likely (but not certainly, as people have phrased it here) have surrendered, we didn't have that information at the time. There was equally plausible intelligence, based upon the US invasion of Okinawa, that Japan would have fought to the last man, with large numbers of suicides also, and cost Americans far more lives than the number of Japanese who would be killed by the atomic bombs. The issue was debatable, and was hotly debated at the time, not casually decided, and with huge losses of life in the balance. Even supposing the invasion of the home islands wouldn't have cost nearly as many American lives (estimate; 1 million): it's entirely unreasonable to think the U.S. should lose only 100,000 more men in order to save 200,000 Japanese, even though that seems like a good tradeoff from our comfy couches and warm relations with a peaceful, friendly nation, and with no guns pointed at our heads, or at the heads of those we love.

Another consideration is how people privilege Hiroshima and Nagasaki as particularly egregious. Far more Japanese civilians died by air raids on Tokyo, equally or more horribly. In fact, an air raid on Tokyo was going on while the Japanese were surrendering--an officer wanted to get in his last licks. I think 50,000 people died in that attack. THAT was clearly unnecessary. And one also has a stronger case that Nagasaki was unnecessary as opposed to some pretty strong arguments in favor of dropping the Hiroshima bomb--the few days between Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hardly enough time for the Japanese to respond. They didn't even KNOW it was a nuclear bomb, or the extent of the attack, for a day--it was chaos! Think how chaotic 9/11 was, with its much more limited scope and our much better communications. According to Hiroshima's history museum, the first indication that it was a nuclear attack occurred when techs at the hospital tried to do some x-rays of the wounded and found that all of the x-ray film was already exposed. Had Nagasaki been delayed by a day or two, it might have proven unnecessary. We'll never know.

It's also certain that Truman really did believe that Japan was going to fight to the last man and cost a million American lives. His private records from Potsdam (July 18, 1945) confirm this. Three weeks before he dropped the bombs, two days after the Trinity bomb tests, he still sincerely wanted the Russians to help with the fight in Japan. No one scheming ahead of time or thinking the Japanese were on the verge of collapse would have wanted the Russians to have any piece of Japan, as the Soviets ended up having when they declared war on Japan on August 8th and grabbed Sakhalin.

Chang, you are looking at this issue fifty years later. It's easy to have some historical perspective on it now. Back then? Yes, the leaders in charge knew they had to defeat Japan (and Germany) decisively in order to rebuild them into less war-like societies - based upon their own experience and the recent history they studied (and many lived through).

Just like the protestors who protested the war in Iraq saying it would be another Vietnam. They based their fears and beliefs upon recent history. People tend to do that.

Some data on the last days of the war:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirohito#Last_days_of_the_war

Even after Germany's surrender and the USSR's entrance into the war against Japan, the Japanese leadership was not contemplating surrender but resistance to the Allied invasion (including a fight "to the last man"). The atomic bomb let them know that the Allies could fight to the last man without sacrificing their own men. And that Japan would lose that fight. After Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Japanese leadership finally understood the war was over and they had lost.

The Japanese military believed in the "great victory" and were holding out for one. Their strategy throughout the war, the Kamikaze attacks late in the war, the Yamato's suicide attack in the Phillipine Sea - all were predicated on the idea that the fortunes of war could be turned by one significant victory. The Allies' relentless pressure and the idea of total war were new to them. Even after four years of fighting, they didn't entirely understand how the Allies went to war and thought that with one great victory the Allies could be defeated (or at least Japan's position at the negotiating table would be an equal one).

...without significant allied casualties.

Would you be first in line to volunteer to be an "insignificant" Allied casualty? Or would you expect your military and political leaders to do everything they could to reduce Allied casulaties while inflicting maximum damage on the enemy?

Allied casualties between the last battle and the Japanese surrender were running at around 7,000 per week. It's easy to say "let's wait" when you won't be one of the 7,000.

The military would not have committed a coup against their emperor.

There was an attempted military coup against the Emperor ... after he announced the surrender.

"Chang, you are looking at this issue fifty years later. It's easy to have some historical perspective on it now."

That is precisely my point. We can argue to death about the details of events in August 1945 and it will not change a thing. What I am interested in is what can we learn from this?

In my opinion, it will not be long before Muslim fanatics to have their hands on Atomic bombs, which can be launched on their shoulder pad.

The justifications you are making for nuking Japanese in 1945 can be exactly used against us by the fanatics for nuking NYC someday.

Even if you are Truman himself, it is time to condemn and denounce what we did to Japanese in 1945. Anything less than that could be used against you. The sword is double edged.

In my opinion, it will not be long before Muslim fanatics to have their hands on Atomic bombs, which can be launched on their shoulder pad.

Your opinion, however, is subordinate to nuclear physics. There's no way someone could carry a critical mass on his shoulder. Which is why the idea of a "suitcase nuke" was always so preposterous to me. We're talking about 30 pounds of U238, plus all the explosives required to make it go critical in a fashion that it does more than fizzle.

Needless to say, even if Ahmed could carry such a thing, it would have to be lacking in radiation shielding, and would probably kill him before he could launch it.

The justifications you are making for nuking Japanese in 1945 can be exactly used against us by the fanatics for nuking NYC someday.

Really? When was it that we initiated a surprise attack while faking a peace accord? When was it that we engaged in the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians?

Oh, right. That would be never.

What we did to Japan was not only right and proper, they deserved it. Name one thing we've done to the Islamic world that justifies any kind of retaliation.

Remember that we have been at war with Islam since 1796. For 212 years, they have refused to back down, and we have refused to beat them the way we beat Japan. This cannot continue indefinitely.

...it is time to condemn and denounce what we did to Japanese in 1945. Anything less than that could be used against you.

NO. Dropping the atomic bomb on Japan was, by the understandings then available, a legal act of war against a country that had attacked the US. The US has nothing for which to apologize.

Once it was theorized that the atom could be split, nuclear weapons started existing. The US developing and using them did not cause them to come into being out of whole cloth and the US does not need to apologize for the fact that nuclear weapons exist. Nor for using them to end a terrible war when their full impact was only a theory and was not yet fully known.

When the terrible impact of nuclear weapons became known (through being used), even the US stopped using them (although Acheson would threaten to use them a few times more). One of the reasons Truman fired MacArthur is he publicly advocated the use of nuclear weapons against China during the Korean War.

The fanatics (Islamic or otherwise) can use any rationalization they want to use in attacking the US. And they're going to. We should not huddle in caves and apologize for everything our ancestors ever did in the hopes that they won't attack us.

We can apologize 'til the cows come home and if they want to attack, they're going to. That's why they're called fanatics. They don't observe the niceties of international relations. They don't seek peace. They don't seek redress of old wrongs. They revel in causing death, mayhem, and destruction. They seek power and dominion over all.

They are not to be appeased. They are to be defeated.

You can use reason with them, but don't be surprised if the hand you reach out to them in friendship comes back a bloody stump.

"When the terrible impact of nuclear weapons became known (through being used), even the US stopped using them (although Acheson would threaten to use them a few times more)."

No, we stopped using them when we were not the only nation armed with atomic bombs.

"We should not huddle in caves and apologize for everything our ancestors ever did in the hopes that they won't attack us."

Now, you are being silly. All we demand is that the fanatics do not attack us with atomic bombs as they surely will be retaliated with atomic bombs. And we both know that that will be the end of human civilization and the cockroaches will be soon taking over.

Read your comment one more time. You sound like fanatics or you believe in Armagedon. That is damn shame.

No, we stopped using them when we were not the only nation armed with atomic bombs.

The US was presented several situations for use of atomic bombs before the Soviets developed a credible (and deliverable) atomic threat.

Truman refused to escalate the Berlin Crisis, despite considerable political pressure.

He fired MacArthur during the Korean War, partially because MacArthur demanded autonomy to use nuclear weapons against the People's Republic of China.

All we demand is that the fanatics do not attack us with atomic bombs as they surely will be retaliated with atomic bombs.

Really? Let's say al Qaeda explodes a bomb in Times Square. Against whom do we retaliate? Which country do we flatten? The country that supplied the terrorists with materials? The country that harbored the bomb builders? The country that provided money? All of them?

There is no nuclear retaliation against multi-national terrorist organizations. And they know it.

Besides, MAD only works when the other guy wants to live - or doesn't want the retaliatory bombs to land on his family. These guys don't care! Nuclear retaliation is not a threat to them.

And you think I'm a fanatic?

Chang is about 15 I'm guessing. I guess this because he's clearly got no clue about even recent history.

If things had gone a little differently in 1962, I wouldn't be here because my father would have been vaporized. By nuclear weapons.

And your point about MAD is something that a great many people haven't thought about.

It is said that war is diplomacy by other means. But any form of diplomacy requires that both sides have reasonable goals, and both have things they are willing to give up in exchange for getting something they want.

At the end of World War II, the United States wanted the complete surrender and disarmament of Japan, and the dismantling of both the empire and its military. We had fought Japan to the point where a reasonable person would conclude that they had no chance, and surrender in order to preserve what was left of their country. Japan, however was not reasonable, and we had to show them that we were willing to kill every single person in their country to ensure peace.

The Islamists against which we currently fight have made their demands perfectly clear: convert, submit, or die. They have no point of negotiation, they aren't interested in peaceful coexistence. They are, in a word, irrational.

And the only way you deal with irrational demands is you either beat them until they become rational, or you kill them.

The United States just wants to be left alone. However, other countries keep fucking with us. The only reason we fought to a stalemate in Korea and pretty much lost in Viet Nam is because the American people no longer had the stomach for protracted battle.

Continued Islamist aggression virtually assures the use of a nuclear weapon in my lifetime. The American people have already made it perfectly clear that they are unwilling to tolerate even 5,000 combat losses in a 6 year war. Since there is no way to get the Islamists to leave us alone except to convert (which isn't gonna happen), they will attack the United States again.

And when they do, the cry for blood will be so loud that even Barack Obama will not be able to ignore it. I fear for the world when that happens.

"The United States just wants to be left alone. However, other countries keep fucking with us."

Brian, this tops all of your other manic statements you made in terms of quality.

Maybe you want to explain to me why most of fanatic Muslims gets killed by the foreigners in their own back yard.

"Japan, however was not reasonable, and we had to show them that we were willing to kill every single person in their country to ensure peace."

This is why I think we were capable of doing what the Germans did to Jews if we were given the chance. History repeats it self over and over again. Man, humans are the slow learners.

This is why I think we were capable of doing what the Germans did to Jews if we were given the chance. History repeats it self over and over again. Man, humans are the slow learners.

We were given the chance to do just that in Japan. We didn't. That's one of the many reasons why we're such strong allies with Japan today. They expected rape and brutality, and they by and large got food, a constitution, a rebuilt infrastructure, and democracy.

I get to repeat myself.

Chang, you ignorant slut.

You might want to review history and see if you can figure out why I think you're as dumb as a sack of hammers.

And the idea of fanatic muslims being cut down in their own back yard is a relatively new phenomenon. From about 690 to roughly 1490 the muslims were killing everyone they could get their scimitars on. And they were doing it all over Africa, Asia and Europe.

And to your final statement - which I notice brings you back to your idiotic moral equivalence again. There is one significant difference between us and 1932 Germany. Germany (and indeed all of Europe and Russia) have always harbored an irrational distrust and hatred of Jews. The Russians went so far as to create the most published forgery in history - The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Hitler justified his power grab as taking the businesses back from the Jews for the German people.

No such fanatical hatred exists here. Didn't exist towards Japanese in 1940, doesn't exist towards muslims now.

The hatred that this country rightly feels towards muslims today is due to the fact that they just can't seem to stop killing people wherever they go. Flying planes into New York was kinda the last straw. And if the muslims ever decide to grow up and act normal, we'll be perfectly happy to let them be.

The same cannot be said of Germany. Judenhass is on the rise in Germany. Jews are being violently attacked throughout Europe - mostly by muslim immigrants, but also by various neo-fascist movements. And the general population is either ambivalent (eh, it's only Jews) or silently supportive (fuck the Jews.)

Humans aren't slow learners. The old world just isn't ready to give up their ancient hatreds. You, however, are likely beyond help.

"Chang, you ignorant slut."

I will give you this. You make me laugh.

"The old world just isn't ready to give up their ancient hatreds."

That is my point. How long are we going to keep doing this? If we end up with fanatic leaders in Pakistan and leaders, who think like you in America, we will be forcing the Armageddon to happen.

The first step to avoid Armageddon is to denounce the use of Atomic bombs for any reasons. We must condemn the use of atomic bombs in the past, present and future. Period.

Are you ready for Armageddon? I am not. But if it is going to happen for sure, I am going to be Muslims. I want to have a chance to be surrounded by 72 virgins. Personally, I would like to be surrounded by 72 experienced women than the virgins, who do not know what they are doing. But I am willing to settle at that stage of my life.

The first step to avoid Armageddon is to denounce the use of Atomic bombs for any reasons. We must condemn the use of atomic bombs in the past, present and future. Period.

This one paragraph shows the totality of your ignorance.

Do you honestly believe that if we give up our nuclear weapons that our enemies will too? Do you think that the muslims will magically stop wanting to kill all the infidels if we no longer have nuclear weapons?

Because you would be wrong.

Let me tell you how this works. We give up our nukes, the islamists see it as a gesture of capitulation, and they attack.

That's the reason why we never did the unilateral nuclear disarmament that the long-haired peace creeps demanded of us during the 60s and 70s. To do so would have invited the Soviets to attack at will.

I realize that Gandhi advised the Jews to volunteer to be slaughtered rather than fight back. But even without volunteering, they were nearly wiped out.

If my choices are convert or die, you can believe that I'm gonna take out as many muslims as I can before I go.

And to end this thread, a quote.

"You sleep soundly at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on your behalf."

The first step to avoid Armageddon is to denounce the use of Atomic bombs for any reasons. We must condemn the use of atomic bombs in the past, present and future. Period.

Wait, I recognize the problem now. "Chang" is Marty McFly's alias. He's just arrived here from 1985 in his DeLorean. Yo Marty! 1985 called--it wants its politics back!