Posted on 08/03/2005 10:49:43 PM PDT by manny613
But the series on the Last Days of WW2 is good in giving out some historical context of that day.
Who feels guilty.
I feel proud.
So who feels guilty?
After the atrocities that the Japanese had committed by that late date, I am astonished that anyone would repeat that question, and include the word "moral" in it.
How long did it take to send a message of unconditional surrender?
I certainly think both Iran and Syria must be given ultimatums in the strongest possible terms, followed by their total destruction as military powers if they do not disband all their terrorist activities (which they are very unlikely to walk away from as long as they think they can get away with it). I remain astonished and outraged that apparently Colin Powell did not manage to convey to them both in 2003 that it would be serious whoop-ass on them if they aided attacks on US forces in any way. One reason the onslaught of the political left and the Demagogic Party is so harmful is that by reducing public support for the mission they reduce (which is THEIR pathetic intention) the likelihood that we will feel able to do what needs to be done to Iran and Syria.
I don't really think we need to contemplate nukes because we certainly have the 'conventional' means (if we have the will) via cruise missiles and aerial bombardment to destroy just about every military and strategic installation in those two countries. The issue of underground nuclear facilities is a huge one, of course, but if we "took over" one of those countries in the air and made it impossible for them to move sizable forces on the ground then I'd think we could do special forces raids to enter and destroy underground facilities. I wouldn't have any problems with using some "bunker busting" nukes if we have them or will have them soon enough, but I think the political "fall out" would be pretty severe and we might find it counter-productive.
Whatever means we use, I think we have to put an end to Iran and Syria as state sponsors of terrorism and developers of WMDs, etc. Then there's N. Korea, but there I think there's still a good chance to push them back into submission with all of the neighboring countries insisting on "no nukes" - but diplomacy can only go on so long....
Why feel guilty?
Why, because the libs and a bunch of whining Europeans tell you to feel that way!
It’s simple; many “want” to turn the dropping of the A-bomb into a pseudo-holocaust in order to demonstrate that it’s all “relative.” See, we kill 6,000,000 innocent Jews in a planned, systematic, scientific way using all the powers of modern transportation, communication and industry; you drop the bomb on Hiroshima. “We didn’t do anything that you wouldn’t have done so don’t pull some moral card on me”, is the reasoning.
Red6
No regrets.
15 million Chinese civilians dead.
Unit 731.
Vivisection of prisoners.
Cannibalism.
The Rape of Naking.
Not a speck of guilt here.
Guilty about Hiroshima? Not me. Firebombing Dresden a few weeks before the war ended was questionable, but A-bombing the Japanese when they refused to surrender was a blessing for both sides. Military planners estimated casualties for an invasion of Japan to run into the millions on both sides. Since my Dad was on Okinawa at that time, I'm very happy the japs surrendered.
Unfortunately we sowed the seeds of the Korean War back then by giving the Russians North Korea.
I dont..
those eho feel guilty or opposse the use of teh A-bomb have never never ever come up with an alternate ending for the war that results in fewer than the 200,000 dead from both A-bombs
If anybody feels guilty, it should be the Japanese who were the initial aggressors and who prolonged the war to the point that dropping atomic bombs became necessary. I'm of Japanese descent, and I think that dropping those bombs was the absolute right thing to do.
Japan surrendered because, ultimately, the Emporer was convinced that the only way to keep his position, and to my mind, avoid responsibility for the 14 years of carnage Imperial Japan had wreaked on AsiaPac, was to accept the latest conditions for peace offered by the US.
However, had he chosen to do so, General Korechika Anami, the Minister of War, could have resigned, forced the dissolution of the Suzuki Cabinet, and effectively checkmated the Emporer's move to surrender. For reasons known only to him, Anami chose not to, and committed ritual suicide much to the dismay of many in the upper echelons of the Army (The Navy at this point being an empty shell).
Had Anami resigned, no surrender would have taken place. And US intelligence had discovered that Kyushu was much more heavily defended than previously realized. Operation Majestic (the renamed Operation Olympic), the invasion of Kyushu set for 11/45, had it taken place (there is doubt since King and Nimitz both opposed it) would have been the biggest bloodbath in modern history, most likely surpassing the engagements between the Red Army and Wehrmacht in casualties and utter human depravity.
And the biggest casualties would have been suffered by Japanese soldiers and civilians, as was shown from the battle for Okinawa.
The question is really what would have caused Japan to unconditionally surrender had Little Boy and Fat Man not been dropped. Nothing short of invasion is the only answer I can come up with from what I have read. So the next question would have to be what kind of invasion, or what kind of surrender would have ultimately resulted in the termination of the Pacific War.
I think the bomb was a fine moral answer to the people who gave the Bataan Death march to the world.
It is not. It is giving out it's own opinions on what happend.
I never see very much on the I hate Germany because they killed Jews History Channel except that.
The Holocaust was bad.....but was it as bad as what Stalin did?
What about Mao?
What about Communism?
Never hear much about that. All I see on the History Channel is how bad Germany was.
Nothing on Pol Pot. Nothing.
The History Channel cannot be trusted to tell the truth.
They have lied and cannot be trusted to give the truth.
The History Channel is the messenger not the message...we can't get enough true information about what our government and others are doing today, so what makes you think the passage of 60 years would make things any clearer or objective ?
thanks for an interesting post
Well, I guess that means you will not be watching the show tonight.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.