The passing of another American Hero

[BM2]

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j39OJuUeidv4xY1x-oCvSUwjPtbQD8SL8SHG0
I got to met him three times over the years . I thanked him that I and my sons were here because of his service to our country.
My father was in the 27th Army Division, and was one of thirteen men out of 330 that wasn't killed between the Battle of Saipan and the Battle of Okinawa. He had a bronze arrow head on his service ribbon for the initial assault landing on Saipan and Okinawa . He told me that the landing on Okinawa had been uncontested, the Japanese were waiting inland and opened up on them with artillery and mortars. They all expected the assault of the home islands that was planned to take place in 1946 to be even more horrible.

[Black Jack II]

Yeah,

With today's climate he most certain did not get the coverage that he should of.

[1bad65]

He was a great guy. He said he always slept just fine at night too. And that if he had to do it all over again he would still drop the bomb.

[BM2]

I commissioned a painting of the Enola Gay and had the surviving crew members of the Enola Gay, two crewmen of the U.S.S. Indianapolis which delivered the two atomic bombs, a crewman of the second atomic mission and who also piloted The Great Artiste, a plane which conducted scientific measurements that flew with the Enola Gay on the Hiroshima bomb run.

[WinterPalm]

Funny that we celebrate such atrocities like the atomic bomb and the horrible lingering effects they've had and all the hundreds of thousands of people who have had their lives destroyed by it.

In the pilot's defense, he was just following orders like all soldiers.

[Mr Punch]

Another heroic pawn dies.

[sanjuro_ronin]

He was a great guy. He said he always slept just fine at night too. And that if he had to do it all over again he would still drop the bomb.

Really?
Even knowing now what wasn't known then?

[1bad65]

Really?
Even knowing now what wasn't known then?


Yup.

Speaking of dying, the winter of 1946 in Japan was quite severe. The entire nation was blockaded at that time. Many more would have starved to death than died in the bombings if the war had not been ended.

Also, Japan started the war. The Japanese were warned of dire consequences if they did not surrender in the weeks leading up to the bombings. Remember; if you mess with the bull, you get the horns.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Yup.

Speaking of dying, the winter of 1946 in Japan was quite severe. The entire nation was blockaded at that time. Many more would have starved to death than died in the bombings if the war had not been ended.

Also, Japan started the war. The Japanese were warned of dire consequences if they did not surrender in the weeks leading up to the bombings. Remember; if you mess with the bull, you get the horns.

Hindsight is 20-20 I guess.

[lkfmdc]

when all was said and done, the two bombs killed about 500,000 people (day of attacks, and later on cancer, complications, etc)

conservative military estimates on BOHT sides said that a land invasion of Japan would have killed 4 to 5 million, US military, Japanese military and of course Japanese civilians

something to think about

[sanjuro_ronin]

when all was said and done, the two bombs killed about 500,000 people (day of attacks, and later on cancer, complications, etc)

conservative military estimates on BOHT sides said that a land invasion of Japan would have killed 4 to 5 million, US military, Japanese military and of course Japanese civilians

something to think about

I think the biggest issue most people have is the choice of targets.
Also. its not at all conclusive that Japan would have indeed, "fought to the last man".

But again, this is now, then was then.

[Drake]

I think the biggest issue most people have is the choice of targets.
Also. its not at all conclusive that Japan would have indeed, "fought to the last man".

But again, this is now, then was then.

This is why Hiroshima was targeted;

Why did the US choose Hiroshima as the first target for the atomic bomb?

Answer

The Target Committee at Los Alamos on May 10?11, 1945, recommended Kyoto, Hiroshima, Yokohama and the arsenal at Kokura as possible targets. The committee rejected the use of the weapon against a strictly military objective due to the chance of missing a small target not surrounded by a larger urban area. The psychological effects on Japan were of great importance to the committee members. They also agreed that the initial use of the weapon should be sufficiently spectacular for its importance to be internationally recognized. The committee felt Kyoto, as an intellectual center of Japan, had a population "better able to appreciate the significance of the weapon." Hiroshima was chosen due to its large size, its being "an important army depot" and the potential that the bomb would cause greater destruction due to its being surrounded by hills which would have a "focusing effect".

Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson struck Kyoto from the list because of its cultural significance, over the objections of Gen. Leslie Groves, head of the Manhattan Project. According to Professor Edwin O. Reischauer, Stimson "had known and admired Kyoto ever since his honeymoon there several decades earlier." On July 25 General Carl Spaatz was ordered to bomb one of the targets: Hiroshima, Kokura, Niigata or Nagasaki as soon after August 3 as weather permitted, and the remaining cities as additional weapons became available.




At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of considerable industrial and military significance. Even some military camps were located nearby, such as the headquarters of the Fifth Division and Field Marshal Shunroku Hata's 2nd General Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. Hiroshima was a minor supply and logistics base for the Japanese military. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops. It was one of several Japanese cities left deliberately untouched by American bombing, allowing an ideal environment to measure the damage caused by the atomic bomb. Another account stresses that after General Spaatz reported that Hiroshima was the only targeted city without POW-camps, Washington decided to assign it highest priority.



The center of the city contained a number of reinforced concrete buildings and lighter structures. Outside the center, the area was congested by a dense collection of small wooden workshops set among Japanese houses. A few larger industrial plants lay near the outskirts of the city. The houses were of wooden construction with tile roofs, and many of the industrial buildings also were of wood frame construction. The city as a whole was highly susceptible to fire damage.



The population of Hiroshima had reached a peak of over 381,000 earlier in the war, but prior to the atomic bombing the population had steadily decreased because of a systematic evacuation ordered by the Japanese government. At the time of the attack the population was approximately 255,000. This figure is based on the registered population used by the Japanese in computing ration quantities, and the estimates of additional workers and troops who were brought into the city may be inaccurate.



Hiroshima was the primary target of the first U.S. nuclear attack mission, on August 6, 1945. The B-29 Enola Gay, piloted and commanded by Colonel Paul Tibbets, was launched from Tinian airbase in the West Pacific, approximately 6 hours' flight time away from Japan. The drop date of the 6th was chosen because there had previously been a cloud formation over the target. At the time of launch, the weather was good, and the crew and equipment functioned properly. Navy Captain William Parsons armed the bomb during the flight, since it had been left unarmed to minimize the risks during takeoff. In every detail, the attack was carried out exactly as planned, and the gravity bomb, a gun-type fission weapon, with 60 kg (130 pounds) of uranium-235, performed precisely as expected.




About an hour before the bombing, the Japanese early warning radar net detected the approach of some American aircraft headed for the southern part of Japan. The alert had been given and radio broadcasting stopped in many cities, among them Hiroshima. The planes approached the coast at a very high altitude. At nearly 08:00, the radar operator in Hiroshima determined that the number of planes coming in was very small?probably not more than three?and the air raid alert was lifted. (To save gasoline, the Japanese had decided not to intercept small formations, which were assumed to be weather planes.) The three planes present were the Enola Gay (named after Colonel Tibbets' mother), The Great Artiste (a recording and surveying craft), and a then-nameless plane later called Necessary Evil (the photographing plane). The normal radio broadcast warning was given to the people that it might be advisable to go to air-raid shelters if B-29s were actually sighted, but no raid was expected beyond some sort of reconnaissance. At 08:15, the Enola Gay dropped the nuclear bomb called "Little Boy" over the center of Hiroshima. It exploded about 600 meters (2,000 feet) above the city with a blast equivalent to 13 kilotons of TNT, killing an estimated 70,000?80,000 people. At least 11 U.S. POWs also died. Infrastructure damage was estimated at 90% of Hiroshima's buildings being either damaged or completely destroyed.

And while you can't say for 100% if Japan would've fought to the last man, you cannot possibly argue that the odds were leaning strongly in favor of that happening.

edit: I took everything except the last sentence from Wiki Answer

[1bad65]

its not at all conclusive that Japan would have indeed, "fought to the last man".

Odds are very high they indeed would have. Look at these Japanese causalty lists from major battles late in the war:

Saipan:
24,000 killed
921 prisoners
5,000 suicides- Many of these were civilians who jumped off 'Banzai Cliff' rather than surrender to US force. Many would throw their own children over first or jump while holding their children

Iwo Jima:
20,703 dead
216 captured

Okinawa:
66,000 dead or missing
17,000 wounded
7,455 captured
150,000 civilians dead or missing

[Mr Punch]

Odds are very high they indeed would have. Look at these Japanese causalty lists from major battles late in the war:

Saipan:
24,000 killed
921 prisoners
5,000 suicides- Many of these were civilians who jumped off 'Banzai Cliff' rather than surrender to US force. Many would throw their own children over first or jump while holding their children

Iwo Jima:
20,703 dead
216 captured

Okinawa:
66,000 dead or missing
17,000 wounded
7,455 captured
150,000 civilians dead or missing Many of the civilians in Saipan were military families and were subject to the same indoctrination as the army. Iwo Jima was all army. The dead civilians in Okinawa were largely killed by or forced suicides by the Japanese army. Don't forget Okinawa was not considered part of Japan proper and Okinawans were not considered really Japanese: therefore expnedable. You'll note I'm not justifying any of their actions, nor am I completely condemning the theory that they would have fought to the last with this hindsight.

However, Japan had been at war since the 1931 and on and off since the turn of the century. Many military families were opposed to the War (Yamamoto among many many others), as were many civilians. They had seen their heritage melted down for munitions and were on iron rations far worse than their Western counterparts. If you look at the speed in which the US returned power to the Japanese govt after the war to counter all the revolutionary movements you'll begin to understand just how tenuous the govt's control of the populace was in the war. Their propaganda was all that was keeping the Japanese people going and for many that wasn't enough. There was also a huge communist sympathy in Japan that even continues to some extent till today. There much less faith in the emperor than many westerners would have had you believe.

In largely civilian areas such as Tokyo, Yokohama and Kobe (where hundreds of thousands had been killed in firebombing), morale was very very low and they would have probably crumbled before the odd crazy batstard hanging out in the depths of the mountains.

All of which is irrelevant...

[Mr Punch]

Very informative cut and paste sir.
The Target Committee at Los Alamos on May 10?11, 1945, recommended Kyoto, Hiroshima, Yokohama and the arsenal at Kokura as possible targets.The answer depends on what question you're asking though.

That question was 'Why Hiroshima (as opposed to any other city)?'

If the question was 'Why did the US and UK military choose to drop A-bombs?' (the UK military were as much involved in the initial decision making and some of the strategic planning).

The answers:

1) To justify the millions of dollars research budget to the cash-starved American people
2) To test the effects of a plutonium bomb and a uranium one specifically on a built-up civilian area
3) To warn off the Russians

These hard facts are documented in black and white in letters between Stimson and the gang (inc Churchill etc) on display in the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum. Ironically, the relevant parts are not translated into Japanese, and are generally a chore to read (small handwriting behind glass), and don't seem to be in any books or net articles I've read.

The targets had been planned since two years or so before (the bit that Drake's article mentions is the final decision out of a shortlist of a few more).

They were going to drop the bombs anyway. The emperor, the fight till the end, the saving lives... were all excuses. Again, the dialog is very clear in the letters: let's choose this reason to justify it etc etc.

In light of that fact I think the first two reasons are unjustifiable, and the third pretty dubious too.

[David Jamieson]

Hard truths are doubly hard to swallow, and triple hard for those who have never faced anything even close to the horrors of global conflict.

The a-bomb is both saving and shameful. It killed on a vast scale, but it also saved many lives through it's use.

If nothing else it has shown us our own face. It is important that each of us look at our face and accept it.

The Japanese, like many nations then and now, had atrocities all their own.

War brings much loss of innocence and even greater understanding of the truth of who and what we really are.

[Mr Punch]

Agreed. The US has gone so much further in terms of honesty over Hiroshima (and things like Vietnam) than the Japanese ever have over their actions.

But I would still like people to see that the reasons they dropped the bomb were not the ones they'd stated. Why? Because I can't stand govt propoganda of any colour, and it p!sses me off to think that people accept this rewriting of history.

[kwaichang]

The Japanese here in America during that time were put in internment camps how many germans were treated the same way none that I know of. America knew of the bombing at Pearl Harbor we just needed new ships and allowed it to happen to help us through an old depression to rebuilt our society as a power.
I often wonder if the Japanese did not look different from the stereotype American if they would have been bombed why didnt they bomb Germany ??? Because they LOOK LIKE "US". thats why. Do some more research. Its all about the cold war in Europe post WWII they didnt want to contaminate the area and destroy the heritage of alot of Americans. Down right Prejudice. KC:mad:

[David Jamieson]

Reasons as printed and dolled to us are not the reasons why things occur.

But I think most of us understand that...hence our discussion here. :)

[David Jamieson]

The Japanese here in America during that time were put in internment camps how many germans were treated the same way none that I know of. America knew of the bombing at Pearl Harbor we just needed new ships and allowed it to happen to help us through an old depression to rebuilt our society as a power.
I often wonder if the Japanese did not look different from the stereotype American if they would have been bombed why didnt they bomb Germany ??? Because they LOOK LIKE "US". thats why. Do some more research. Its all about the cold war in Europe post WWII they didnt want to contaminate the area and destroy the heritage of alot of Americans. Down right Prejudice. KC:mad:

Uh, you have heard of Dresden right? Berlin? Dusseldorf? Frankfurt?

You do realize that Germany was bombed into dust and that they had already surrendered while the war in the pacific was still raging for almost another year?

It's probably important that one reads a timeline of history at least on this subject.

as for the interment camps, we did that in Canada as well and yes it had everything to do with what people looked like. But do you think the interment camps were the horror stories that the eastern euro jewery had to endure under the ss in their camps?

anyway, that's a whole other argument.

[kwaichang]

Conventional Bombs are Local A Bombs are not the cities in Europe though innocent were killed not to the level in Japan. There is no comparison to Nagasaki and Hiroshima I have met those that were there and in Germany no comparison. The timeline was irrevelant and has nothing to do with internment camps in america. It was because they looked different good ole PREJUDICE. The American way. Bomb those who look different or think different
Get a JOB KC

[kwaichang]

May 8, 1945 - V-E (Victory in Europe) Day
Bombing of Japan Aug 6 1945 whew so much time so few to try a new bomb on .
KC

[David Jamieson]

Conventional Bombs are Local A Bombs are not the cities in Europe though innocent were killed not to the level in Japan. There is no comparison to Nagasaki and Hiroshima I have met those that were there and in Germany no comparison. The timeline was irrevelant and has nothing to do with internment camps in america. It was because they looked different good ole PREJUDICE. The American way. Bomb those who look different or think different
Get a JOB KC

Conventional bombing started firestorms that wreaked more damage than any a-bomb. Again, I would say that you have fallen short on your own understanding. Really, you should at least read about Dresden.

And yes Prejudice, and the fact that the Japanese had affirmed spies embedded in the North American populace led to the internment camps.

I would ask that you perhaps read up on how those camps were run as compared to how the nazis ran theirs. Your eyes may open a little wider.

As for the levels of people killed in europe weighed against those in the pacific wars...I am not sure what you are getting at. Millions died on a global scale from virtually all nations.

Do you think the Japanese let anyone but Japanese roam about their territories? Do you think the Japanese were right in their actions during world war 2?

The fact is, the A-bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and nagasaki ended the conflict that could've ended us all had they not been used. they had to be used. It is a sad truth of humanity. That's the lesson, not the reflecting on who said what or did what. It is simple enough that it was done and that for the generation then and the next couple that followed there was understanding.

My concern is when we do not remember and discuss these things and we allow our apathy to become complacency. It is this other nature of being human that lets me say with some fair certainty that there will be another great war and it will be the most devestating. It will occur because in only one or two generations, there will be no more memory from true experience. All the experiential memory will be gone with teh people who die and take it with them.

[kwaichang]

The Japanese were starving I dont think those who are weak and starving can fight too well but what the He// lets destroy them anyway. 6 months and the war would have been over in the pacific no Bomb necessary I think you should open your eyes You said Timeline earlier I thought I would post one for you see last post by me. 3 months in case you cant count not a year. as amatter of fact the place for the bomb was discussed while at war with both Germany to my knowledge was never mentioned.
Also we are not comparing SS camps to free america and also there were many german spies as well or did you choose to ignore that info. KC

[David Jamieson]

The Japanese were starving I dont think those who are weak and starving can fight too well but what the He// lets destroy them anyway. 6 months and the war would have been over in the pacific no Bomb necessary I think you should open your eyes You said Timeline earlier I thought I would post one for you see last post by me. 3 months in case you cant count not a year. as amatter of fact the place for the bomb was discussed while at war with both Germany to my knowledge was never mentioned.
Also we are not comparing SS camps to free america and also there were many german spies as well or did you choose to ignore that info. KC

ok...then...*backs away avoiding eye contact*

I can see there is not much point in discussing this with ya.
cheers.

[Mr Punch]

KC, you're ranting. And what a fine rant it is too! :D

While you may be right about one of the reasons the Japanese were bombed was because they look different I very much doubt it. If you want to sensibly discuss racial factors it would be more pertinent to point out:

1) German Americans have been the biggest ethnic group in the States since before the wars: to round them up would have been impossible. Plus, where do you think guys like Eisenhower got his name?
2) Some of the monied German-American families still had close links to Germany and Nazi money so there's no way the internment would have taken place.

The reasons why Japan was chosen over Germany were:

1) The Germans were already working on nukes. Given that there was no guarantee the bombs would go off, the US didn't want to leave such an important piece of ordnance in the hands of German scientists in the case of failure.
2) There were no cities left unbombed of the size required to complete a significant scientific test of the bombs in Germany.
3) Although the effects of fallout weren't known the potential effect on surrounding countries was a concern. Japan is an island.
4) There had been way more PoWs in Germany.
5) It was suspected the Germans would surrender/be beaten earlier, so the window of opportunity would close, as would the chance to use the 'fight-till-the-last-man' excuse they had with the 'fanatic' Japanese.

Do carry on.

[1bad65]

Conventional bombing started firestorms that wreaked more damage than any a-bomb. Again, I would say that you have fallen short on your own understanding. Really, you should at least read about Dresden.

Tokyo was firebombed in 1944. More people were killed, wounded, and rendered homeless there than either of the A-bombs did.

[1bad65]

Agreed. The US has gone so much further in terms of honesty over Hiroshima (and things like Vietnam) than the Japanese ever have over their actions.

In some ways the Japanese were worse than the Germans. A German diplomat who saw the 'Rape of Nanking' was stunned. The Japanese were known to use POWs, women and children for bayonet practice. They also used Chinese civilians for testing chemical and biological weapons on them. The Japanese also used POWs as guinea pigs for surgeons in training. They would wound the POW to give the surgeon actual experience treating battle wounds without anasthetic. And don't forget the 'comfort women' either. If you were a Nazi prisoner of war from Britain, America, Australia, New Zealand or Canada (but not Russia) you faced a 4% chance of not surviving the war; [by comparison] the death rate for Allied POWs held by the Japanese was nearly 30%. To be honest, the A-bomb was humane compared to those animals' atrocities.

Bottom line, had they not bombed Pearl Harbor they would not have been nuked. You mess with the bull, you get the horns.

[Mr Punch]

Tokyo was firebombed in 1944. More people were killed, wounded, and rendered homeless there than either of the A-bombs did.Actually, estimates of the numbers vary, but the descriptions are as hellish, and in some cases more so given the slower deaths. But what's your point? The guy in charge (forget his name) said that had we lost the war he'd have been hung as a war criminal, so it obviously wasn't sitting very well with him.

But anyway, that's beside the point. I don't see the bomb-droppersas heroes, barely any more than any other guy following unconscionable orders. OTOH I don't blame them either.

I just want it recognised for what it was:

1) To justify the millions of dollars research budget to the cash-starved American people. A cynical financial gimmick and fireshow.
2) To test the effects of a plutonium bomb and a uranium one specifically on a built-up civilian area. An inhuman cynical scientific experiment.
3) To warn off the Russians
Empire building (empire defending? Fair enough but at what price...?)

[Mr Punch]

In some ways the Japanese were worse than the Germans. A German diplomat who saw the 'Rape of Nanking' was stunned. The Japanese were known to use POWs, women and children for bayonet practice. They also used Chinese civilians for testing chemical and biological weapons on them. The Japanese also used POWs as guinea pigs for surgeons in training. They would wound the POW to give the surgeon actual experience treating battle wounds without anasthetic. And don't forget the 'comfort women' either. If you were a Nazi prisoner of war from Britain, America, Australia, New Zealand or Canada (but not Russia) you faced a 4% chance of not surviving the war; [by comparison] the death rate for Allied POWs held by the Japanese was nearly 30%. To be honest, the A-bomb was humane compared to those animals' atrocities.This is all irrelevant. Sure, if somebody wanted to be honest and say one of the reasons for the live A-bomb tests was revenge for atrocities - that's all very human, and far more condonable. It wasn't. It was a cold calculated scientific atrocity on a largely civilian population.


Bottom line, had they not bombed Pearl Harbor they would not have been nuked. You mess with the bull, you get the horns.Nah, that's only the bottom line for people with hindsight who don't want to accept that the real reasons were way more inhuman.

[1bad65]

1) To justify the millions of dollars research budget to the cash-starved American people. A cynical financial gimmick and fireshow.
2) To test the effects of a plutonium bomb and a uranium one specifically on a built-up civilian area. An inhuman cynical scientific experiment.
3) To warn off the Russians
Empire building (empire defending? Fair enough but at what price...?)

That's so sad you think that way. The Japanese and Germans were vile, evil 'people' bent on world domination. While I do feel for civilians, the Japanese started that war and committed a TON of atrocities.

Your level of ignorance is as high as the Japanese level of barbarism was back then.

Next time you an old man who was a POW of the Japanese, you tell him how horrible OUR government was.

[lkfmdc]

Another point often forgotten, no one had ever used the A bomb before, they didn't know just how terrible it really was, they had very little idea about the long term effects. In context, at the time it was viewed like every other weapon, just like the firebombs we dropped on white, western civilized Germany.

Any talk about inhumanity, cruelty, etc and you're gonna have to address the fact that 60 plus years later Japan as a society still has not come to terms with it's war crimes (in stark contrast to German society!)

It's worse than that, they still DENY them!

The biological and chemical warfare, the mass ra pe, the forced prosti tution, the attempt to eradicate entire cultures, the prisoner abuse, the list is very LONG

[1bad65]

Also, Truman's relatives said that until the day he died it was common for men to come up to him crying saying they were in Japanese POW camps and thanking him. They would thank him for shortening the war and saving their lives.

If you have read about or seen pictures of these men, it's easy to see that a few days could mean the difference between life and death. To be honest, if it is just pictures, POWs held by Japan look in about the same shape as concentration camp survivors.

[Lucas]

IMO:

Its a tough call guys. We werent there. Sure we can read what was written, see what was filmed, but we werent the men in charge of making decisions.

You HAVE to do something, and often times force is much easier to respond with.

You also have to remember WWII was very unique in the sense that the US was never in that sort of position before. No one was.

Then you also have to factor in the aspect of Government testing, funding, etc.

For me the bottom line is;

It was a great atrocity, from all angles, but it was what happend, how it happened, and thats just how it happened. We can certainly learn from the past, but we can never change it, and rarely can we truly understand what was going on in the mens minds who were making the decisions.

[Drake]

Um, excuse me, but at what point did war become something nice, friendly, and humane?

It's easy to be delusional about how war is or should be when the closest thing you've come to it is watching Saving Private Ryan on HDTV.

[Mr Punch]

You obviously haven't read my posts and don't understand what 'way' it is I think.
That's so sad you think that way. The Japanese and Germans were vile, evil 'people' bent on world domination. While I do feel for civilians, the Japanese started that war and committed a TON of atrocities.

Your level of ignorance is as high as the Japanese level of barbarism was back then.

Next time you an old man who was a POW of the Japanese, you tell him how horrible OUR government was. I said that if the US govt had used the Japanese atrocities as a reason to drop the bombs it would be perfectly human and forgivable. They didn't. They used bullsh!t excuses which are still accepted world over (and in Japan!) for an evil scientific experiment and cynical financial reasons (and to provide a show for the US people - which is pretty much directly paraphrasing one of the letters in the Hiroshima museum. It is flippant, and obviously didn't factor in there, but the reason of showing the American people something new for their millions of dollars spent is very clearly stated).

The three reasons I've stated are from American High Command's own letters with the UK govt and among themselves. When you accuse me of being ignorant or supporting the Japanese in some way, or even being an apologist, you're being as emotional and subjective as anyone who says the A-bombs were wrong outright - which I've nowhere stated. Fair enough, it's an emotional subject, but please stick with the plot.


Any talk about inhumanity, cruelty, etc and you're gonna have to address the fact that 60 plus years later Japan as a society still has not come to terms with it's war crimes (in stark contrast to German society!)

It's worse than that, they still DENY them!

The biological and chemical warfare, the mass ra pe, the forced prosti tution, the attempt to eradicate entire cultures, the prisoner abuse, the list is very LONGI know and I did address that. Don't forget you guys, I'm the one that lives over here, works in a conservative countryside junior high school and encounters racism and these attitudes of denial EVERY ****ING DAY. It's wearing fighting it all the time, bit by bit, to change attitudes.

My opinion for you, 1bad, since you seem to have trouble following the argument:

1) The Japanese Imperial Army were unbelievably and unforgivably evil during the war.
2) The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, in hindsight and in balance, probably the right things to do.
3) The Japanese govt should apologize and offer reparations until they all die and their children should too.
4) The reasons given for the bombings were wrong and are part of a great whitewash revisionist job to cover the real reasons.
5) It is therefore as dishonest as the Japanese lying about their atrocities (note - I'm not saying the bombings are equal to the atrocities - I'm saying the level of dishonesty, emotional and intellectual, is equal).
6) The real reasons should be documented irrefutably before the evidence is lost or forgotten (which it already pretty well is).
7) Point 6 is not connected with any moral judgment about the Japanese actions. They are not the same issue.

BTW, a couple of other random facts;

1) I checked that my wife's relatives had not been in the Imperial Army before I would marry her, fair or not.
2) I can't talk to my one relative (that I know about) who was in the Japanese camps: he was shot in back after the war had ended.
3) I would get fired if any of the people I work with read this.

[Mr Punch]

Um, excuse me, but at what point did war become something nice, friendly, and humane?

It's easy to be delusional about how war is or should be when the closest thing you've come to it is watching Saving Private Ryan on HDTV.I take it you're not talking to me either, since you're not addressing any of my points, or contradicting anything I said.

I'm not saying war is ever humane. I'm not even saying that lying on behalf of the state is always uncalled-for or unforgivable. I am saying that this continued lie by historians is wrong in this case, because it clearly shows a continuum of bull from successive govts to justify acts that they don't want to take responsibility for and think the public can't handle.

[Drake]

I take it you're not talking to me either, since you're not addressing any of my points, or contradicting anything I said.

I'm not saying war is ever humane. I'm not even saying that lying on behalf of the state is always uncalled-for or unforgivable. I am saying that this continued lie by historians is wrong in this case, because it clearly shows a continuum of bull from successive govts to justify acts that they don't want to take responsibility for and think the public can't handle.


But it really is true... the Japanese would've fought tooth and nail if we hadn't dropped 2 A-bombs. Note, two. The first one was dropped and they still stood their ground. What does THAT tell you?

[Mr Punch]

But it really is true... the Japanese would've fought tooth and nail if we hadn't dropped 2 A-bombs. Note, two. The first one was dropped and they still stood their ground. What does THAT tell you?That tells me you can't follow an argument either! :D :p

There's no way of knowing what they would have done, just as there's no way of knowing as you rightly pointed out, about the horrors of war by watching Saving Private Ryan! It's all speculation. I've given you some well supported reasons why they wouldn't have fought on, and you've just repeated 'But they would have!'! Repetition is not an argument!

And as for them fighting on after the first bomb was dropped, there had been a strict media blackout over Japan for a year - ALL news was government sanctioned, which is why NONE of the foreign complaints and reports on Nanking didn't make the Japanese press and one of the reasons why still now, a lot of people here can shield themselves from the fact that it happened and its magnitude.

Plus it was six days later - what, would you suddenly expect the whole army to just give up without orders!?

[Drake]

That tells me you can't follow an argument either! :D :p

There's no way of knowing what they would have done, just as there's no way of knowing as you rightly pointed out, about the horrors of war by watching Saving Private Ryan! It's all speculation. I've given you some well supported reasons why they wouldn't have fought on, and you've just repeated 'But they would have!'! Repetition is not an argument!

And as for them fighting on after the first bomb was dropped, there had been a strict media blackout over Japan for a year - ALL news was government sanctioned, which is why NONE of the foreign complaints and reports on Nanking didn't make the Japanese press and one of the reasons why still now, a lot of people here can shield themselves from the fact that it happened and its magnitude.

Plus it was six days later - what, would you suddenly expect the whole army to just give up without orders!?

Actually, I'm intimately familiar with the horrors of war, thank you.

Sorry, but when we dropped the most devastating single weapon ever seen by mankind on them, and they even had to think about whether or not to give up, that should say something.

[bawang]

does anyone know what feelings japanese people have at americans? i don't understand why they imitate western culture when they were enemies only 60 years ago.
i don't know how a warrior culture in half a century turns into a hedonistic cesspool. i don't understand how they could have transformed so fast.

[1bad65]

But it really is true... the Japanese would've fought tooth and nail if we hadn't dropped 2 A-bombs. Note, two. The first one was dropped and they still stood their ground. What does THAT tell you?

Exactly. And there were still men high up in the government who did not want to surrender even then! Had we not guaranteed not to try Hirohito for war crimes, they would have not surrendered.

Look at the civilian suicides on Saipan. The Japanese Army was preparing civilians to fight to the death or commit suicide if Japan was invaded in the same way they did on Saipan.

By dropping those bombs we not only saved Japanese lives, but more importantly we saved (by most RELIABLE estimates) one million American lives that would have been lost in an invasion of Japan.

[Drake]

does anyone know what feelings japanese people have at americans? i don't understand why they imitate western culture when they were enemies only 60 years ago.
i don't know how a warrior culture in half a century turns into a hedonistic cesspool. i don't understand how they could have transformed so fast.

Because they got blowed up.

[1bad65]

Plus it was six days later - what, would you suddenly expect the whole army to just give up without orders!?

They surrendered 6 days after Nagasaki was bombed! The reason we waited 3 days between bombings was to give them time to surrender OR begin negotiations. They refused, despite being told by their own experts in Hiroshima that we had a new weapon they did not completely understand and that could easily ravage EVERY city in Japan. It was after we did it again, and made it clear we were not going to stop that they opened negotiations and announced their surrender 6 days after the 2nd A-bomb was dropped.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Interesting discussion....

A few "facts" that most would agree with is that the bombs were dropped not only to end the war, put to make a statement to the Russians and to "teach" Japan ( and anyone else listening) a very valuable lesson about waking up a sleeping dragon.

Right or wrong was irrelevant, it just was.

[Lucas]

continued lie by historians

Gentlemans History will never change.

[Mr Punch]

They surrendered 6 days after Nagasaki was bombed! The reason we waited 3 days between bombings was to give them time to surrender OR begin negotiations. They refused, despite being told by their own experts in Hiroshima that we had a new weapon they did not completely understand and that could easily ravage EVERY city in Japan. It was after we did it again, and made it clear we were not going to stop that they opened negotiations and announced their surrender 6 days after the 2nd A-bomb was dropped.You are obviously unaware that the Japanese offered themselves up under the same surrender terms to the US that they eventually were held to BEFORE the Hiroshima bombing. And you accused me of ignorance. This is old news. The US literally ignored it and prevented the story getting out, so that they could continue with their scientific experiment.

Again, you refuse to believe that your own govt at the time could stoop as low as experimenting on a foreign population. Because you're allowed to by your country's rewriting of history. Sound familiar?

[1bad65]

You are obviously a wingnut, and an ignorant one at that. The terms were NOT the same, the major issue was whether Hirohito could be tried as a war criminal. Once we agreed he would not be tried, the Japanese gov't agreed to surrender. Many people feel (myself included) he should have faced a war crimes tribunal.

Get your facts right before you spout your conspiracy theory drivel.

[Mr Punch]

You are obviously a wingnut, and an ignorant one at that. The terms were NOT the same, the major issue was whether Hirohito could be tried as a war criminal. Once we agreed he would not be tried, the Japanese gov't agreed to surrender. Many people feel (myself included) he should have faced a war crimes tribunal.

Get your facts right before you spout your conspiracy theory drivel.

You are further showing your irrationality by ignoring any specific points in my posts and resorting to insults again. And failing to follow a logical argument. I think I'll make this my last post on this thread. BTW, FWIW I think Hirohito was a war criminal too.

But the terms were the same. We offered them unconditional surrender; they said no. They offered us conditional terms. Truman said no (against the better judgment of Churchill and many of his own generals). We dropped the bombs. We offered them conditional surrender. These were the same conditions that we’d previously refused. Therefore the terms were the same. What is your breakdown? :D

I assume btw, that you are also calling the following people wingnuts, ignorant and conspiracy theorists.
Under the present circumstances I have concluded that our only alternative is to accept the Potsdam Proclamation and terminate the war.Please note the time.


Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." (Bernstein, ed., The Atomic Bomb, pg. 52-56).


It is possible, in the light of the final surrender, that a clearer and earlier exposition of American willingness to retain the Emperor would have produced an earlier ending to the war… Only on the question of the Emperor did Stimson take, in 1945, a conciliatory view; only on this question did he later believe that history might find that the United States, by its delay in stating its position, had prolonged the war…In the State Department there developed a tendency to think of the bomb as a diplomatic weapon. Outraged by constant evidence of Russian perfidy, some of the men in charge of foreign policy were eager to carry the bomb for a while as their ace-in-the-hole... American statesmen were eager for their country to browbeat the Russians with the bomb held rather ostentatiously on our hip…

Also among your list of wingnuts, ignorant people and conspiracy theorists are: Supreme Allied Commander General Eisenhower, the well-known “hawk,” and Commander of the famous Pacific 21st Fleet General Curtis LeMay, and Truman’s friend and Chief of Staff, five star Admiral William D. Leahy among many many others. On the pro side, you have Truman and Stimson, and General George C. Marshall who stated it had been necessary but wanted the bomb dropped on a purely military target, and if that failed then to warn a civilian population before using it on a city.

And then there are the letters from Stimson, the generals, Churchill, Truman etc in the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum that categorically state that the reasons the bombs were to be dropped were:

1) To justify the millions of dollars research budget to the cash-starved American people
2) To test the effects of a plutonium bomb and a uranium one specifically on a built-up civilian area
3) To warn off the Russians

Did I mention them?

But wait, think I’ll take your opinion over all those wingnuts. :rolleyes:
My sides are aching. :D

[1bad65]

You still are a wingnut. It is a FACT the Japanese would not surrender until they were promised Hirohito could stay in power and not be tried for war crimes. PERIOD.

You mention these 3 things below as CAUSES for us dropping the A-bombs:



1) To justify the millions of dollars research budget to the cash-starved American people
2) To test the effects of a plutonium bomb and a uranium one specifically on a built-up civilian area
3) To warn off the Russians

I honestly believe they were EFFECTS of it, yes. And I agree some people knew the 3 things would indeed be EFFECTS. But the bottom line was that the need to end the war without the US losing millions more lives was the CAUSE for dropping them.

Do you see my position now?

[1bad65]

Keep in mind this Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum you say came up with these 'reasons' is in the same country that you admit REFUSES to accept and admit that their own country committed horrible atrocities on a massive scale.

I'll believe a man like Harry Truman over any Japanese museum any day of the week. It's pathetic you won't.

[Mr Punch]

Keep in mind this Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum you say came up with these 'reasons' is in the same country that you admit REFUSES to accept and admit that their own country committed horrible atrocities on a massive scale.They are not effects, they were the reasons. The museum did not come up with these reasons, they are written in Stimson's own hand, Truman's own hand, Churchill's own hand, etc etc. These are first hand evidence letters. As I said in about three posts before they are not even translated into Japanese, they are just on display: most of the Japanese believe the official American line.

I am believing Eisenhower, Nimitz, Leahy, Churchill, LeMay, all of them experienced Generals, over Truman, a self-confessed inexperienced President thrust suddenly into a job he wasn't prepared for with a well-documented hatred of the Japanese people, yes. (Though even he said he wanted the targets to be military: it was the scientific advisors and Stimson who chose the civilian options).

It's pathetic how you're doing the same as the Japanese and hiding from the reality of what happened.

[1bad65]

They are not effects, they were the reasons.

We will never agree there.



The museum did not come up with these reasons, they are written in Stimson's own hand, Truman's own hand, Churchill's own hand, etc etc. These are first hand evidence letters. As I said in about three posts before they are not even translated into Japanese, they are just on display: most of the Japanese believe the official American line.

Most of the Japanese do not know the war crimes their own country committed either. Do you also believe all the 'authentic' letters that show FDR knew about Pearl Harbor before it happened?



I am believing Eisenhower, Nimitz, Leahy, Churchill, LeMay, all of them experienced Generals, over Truman, a self-confessed inexperienced President thrust suddenly into a job he wasn't prepared for with a well-documented hatred of the Japanese people, yes. (Though even he said he wanted the targets to be military: it was the scientific advisors and Stimson who chose the civilian options).

Truman had a long-standing hatred of the Japanese?!?! Whatever. Civilian options? Your a moron. You saw how Hiroshima had a legit military value as well as the ONLY city without a POW population.

Are you Oliver Stone or Alex Jones by chance? And you teach our kids?!?! No wonder our educational system is a friggin joke.

[Mr Punch]

We will never agree there. Guess not. You have your unshakable opinion. I saw the letters written by the people making the decision.


Most of the Japanese do not know the war crimes their own country committed either.No disagreement there. Your point being?
Do you also believe all the 'authentic' letters that show FDR knew about Pearl Harbor before it happened? Don't know anything about that. But if you're suggesting that somebody fabricated all of those letters in that museum you're deranged.


Truman had a long-standing hatred of the Japanese?!?! Whatever. Dude, it's no secret, it's never been denied. He stated many times that they were 'savages', 'barbarians' etc. There are countless quotes, from his own writings and interviews. Just look it up on google: I'm not going to spoonfeed you with all the quotes. Despite that he wanted to hit military options first.
Civilian options? Your a moron. You saw how Hiroshima had a legit military value as well as the ONLY city without a POW population. Interesting. Again, you're calling me a moron when all of the ****ing generals had come up with other more military options... what, you with your intimate knowledge of wartime Japanese geography have deemed that there weren't any more purely military options than a city of up to 350,000 people? I bow down to your greater knowledge :rolleyes:


And you teach our kids?!?! No wonder our educational system is a friggin joke.Once again you show your lack of reading understanding. I teach junior high school in Japan.

Niceties over, as are my answers: you're a ****ing idiot. End of chat.

[Drake]

Why does this always break down to name-calling? Truman did have an issue with the Japanese as a race, that's a certainty. Regardless of the motivations for the dropping of the a-bomb, it did save lives in the end. I think it also made the world a bit more hesitant to use them later on as well.

[Mr Punch]

Why does this always break down to name-calling?He started it! :p :rolleyes: :D


Truman did have an issue with the Japanese as a race, that's a certaintyWhich was quite justified in light of their atrocities. However, I come close to agreeing with I think it was Leahy's assessment that dropping the bomb sank the US to the level of barbarians also. Of course I don't think that, because I don't agree with any blanket statements about a race, among other things.


Regardless of the motivations for the dropping of the a-bomb, it did save lives in the end. I think it also made the world a bit more hesitant to use them later on as well.Yep, quite right.

[1bad65]

No disagreement there. Your point being?Don't know anything about that. But if you're suggesting that somebody fabricated all of those letters in that museum you're deranged.

If they are so legit then it would be pretty obvious the bombings were done for the wrong reasons then. Interesting this is the first I've heard of them.



Once again you show your lack of reading understanding. I teach junior high school in Japan.

There's a real shock. :rolleyes:

[1bad65]

Which was quite justified in light of their atrocities. However, I come close to agreeing with I think it was Leahy's assessment that dropping the bomb sank the US to the level of barbarians also. Of course I don't think that, because I don't agree with any blanket statements about a race, among other things.

Did Truman make these anti-Japanese statements before or after Pearl Harbor? Before or after the Japanese invaded China? You said they were 'long-standing'.

[BM2]

Well...ummmm....Doesn't appear as if KC and Punch watched The History Channel's story on how many in the military didn't want to surrender even after the second bomb. There was several that were planning a coup.
Oh, 1Bad65, no use in presenting your points to them. They most likely believe in a 9/11 cover up too:rolleyes: Hey, I'm being serious.

[1bad65]

Well...ummmm....Doesn't appear as if KC and Punch watched The History Channel's story on how many in the military didn't want to surrender even after the second bomb. There was several that were planning a coup.
Oh, 1Bad65, no use in presenting your points to them. They most likely believe in a 9/11 cover up too:rolleyes: Hey, I'm being serious.


Totally correct. On August 14th there was an attempted coup in order to prevent the surrender. He is a wingnut for sure. It's why I asked if he believed the FDR-Pearl Harbor conspiracy theory. I don't think he answered that. :rolleyes:

Honestly, the guy is a Japanophile who loves it over there so much that he actually hates what his own country did to those 'nice people'. :rolleyes:

[Mr Punch]

If they are so legit then it would be pretty obvious the bombings were done for the wrong reasons then. Interesting this is the first I've heard of them.Oh what, the curators forgot to run their legitimacy past you did they?


There's a real shock. :rolleyes:What's that supposed to mean? I'm supposed to be embarrassed about being a teacher in a Japanese junior high? Nah, sounds like you're passing the buck for being called on not reading anything properly.


Did Truman make these anti-Japanese statements before or after Pearl Harbor? Before or after the Japanese invaded China? You said they were 'long-standing'.FFS look up any page on Truman talking about Hiroshima/the Japanese. And I've even said in light of the atrocities he was justified in saying these things, so I don't even know wtf you're disagreeing with now.


Well...ummmm....Doesn't appear as if KC and Punch watched The History Channel's story on how many in the military didn't want to surrender even after the second bomb. There was several that were planning a coup.
Oh, 1Bad65, no use in presenting your points to them. Oh good, just when I thought the thread couldn't degenerate any further. No, I didnt see that one documentary on a controversial subject with both sides accusing each other of revisionism that would have completely changed my view of the opinions of the Allies' top wartime generals... your relevance is? Yes, there were some people who opposed surrender, just as there are still some people with close connections to the Japanese govt now who want to get rid of all the foreigners out of Japan. I don't worry about those nuts either. It's a matter of fact that these people existed, as it's a matter of fact that people who opposed Pearl Harbour, or people who opposed the War or people who wanted to surrender existed close to and within the Japanese army and government... it's a matter of opinion as to which factions were dominant.

They most likely believe in a 9/11 cover up too:rolleyes: Hey, I'm being serious.Right, so someone who disagrees on one subject with you automatically believes in the tooth fairy? Can we say ad hominem?

Totally correct. On August 14th there was an attempted coup in order to prevent the surrender.Attempted.

He is a wingnut for sure. It's why I asked if he believed the FDR-Pearl Harbor conspiracy theory. I don't think he answered that. :rolleyes:I answered that. I said I don't know anything about it. I've heard of it, but I don't give it enough credence or importance to think it worth wasting time on investigating.


Honestly, the guy is a Japanophile who loves it over there so much that he actually hates what his own country did to those 'nice people'. :rolleyes:You're really a nasty presumptive little sh!t aren't you? Is my difference of opinion so frightening for you that you have to resort to more and more personal attacks and inventions? Diddums! :p :D

[Ben Gash]

Why is it so inconceivable that the US didn't know about Pearl Harbour in advance? We knew about the Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands well in advance and did nothing until after the fact.
The Japanese attacked the Pacific fleet in response to the financial and material assistance that the Americans were giving to Chiang Kai Shek (now THERE was a great humanitarian :rolleyes: ), in their eyes it was a legitimate military target and by siding with the Chinese the Americans were declaring themselves Japan's enemy.
Much of the problem early in the war was that the effectiveness of Japanese airpower was greatly underestimated, as illustrated by the sinking of the Prince of Wales, and an attack on Pearl may not have been considered a major threat.
I'm not going to speak too much about Hiroshima, but instead I'll look at the close parallels to Dresden, a bombing that many in Britain feel distinctly uncomfortable about. Dresden was firebombed in February 1945 by the RAF, leading to the deaths of 25-35000 civilians. Had the bombings occurred earlier in the war then there probably would be no controversy, there were after all several munitions factories there, but the Germans were already in full retreat on the Eastern front, and Dresden would have been overrun by the Red Army in less than a week anyway.
The principle reason given was that the attack would disrupt communications, and prevent a fighting retreat, but again the reality was that the German army in the east was a broken force, massively outnumbered by the advancing Soviets.
Many people feel that the principle reason for the bombing of Dresden was to say to the arriving Soviet troops "this could be your city".
Did the bombing of Dresden shorten the war? Probably not.
Did it save russian lives? Maybe a hundred or so, if that.
Is it justifiable to kill 30000 civilians to send out a message? Probably not.
When asked about the bombings in Easern Germany, Marshall Arthur "bomber" Harris stated that the lives of the entire German population were not worth that of one British soldier. Is that a defensible position? Almost certainly not :(

[1bad65]

FFS look up any page on Truman talking about Hiroshima/the Japanese. And I've even said in light of the atrocities he was justified in saying these things, so I don't even know wtf you're disagreeing with now.

Your own words:


...Truman, a self-confessed inexperienced President thrust suddenly into a job he wasn't prepared for with a well-documented hatred of the Japanese people, yes.

So if he only said anti-Japanese things AFTER the war was ongoing, then you can't use his anti-Japanese sentiment as a bogus excuse for dropping the bombs.



What's that supposed to mean? I'm supposed to be embarrassed about being a teacher in a Japanese junior high?

It means what I said. You seem to be upset at the US WHO WERE SURPRISE ATTACKED for the way they ended the war. I feel the fact you are a Japanophile is a rational reason why. If not, why do you take the 'evidence' of a Japanese museum over Truman's word?



No, I didnt see that one documentary on a controversial subject with both sides accusing each other of revisionism that would have completely changed my view of the opinions of the Allies' top wartime generals... your relevance is?

Read: unless it comes from a Japanese museum it is irrelevant. I don't look at or digest any other evidence.



You're really a nasty presumptive little sh!t aren't you? Is my difference of opinion so frightening for you that you have to resort to more and more personal attacks and inventions? Diddums! :p :D

You are a Japanophile. Deal with it. You are a conspiracy theorist. Deal with it.

The fact that you are defending a country which committed war crimes by the ton over your own country is frightening. Your correct there.

[sanjuro_ronin]

The fact that you are defending a country which committed war crimes by the ton over your own country is frightening. Your correct there.

Funny thing about war crimes, either they exist for everyone, or no one.
I don't know of any country at war that is NOT guilty of war crimes.

[1bad65]

Why is it so inconceivable that the US didn't know about Pearl Harbour in advance? We knew about the Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands well in advance and did nothing until after the fact.
The Japanese attacked the Pacific fleet in response to the financial and material assistance that the Americans were giving to Chiang Kai Shek (now THERE was a great humanitarian :rolleyes: ), in their eyes it was a legitimate military target and by siding with the Chinese the Americans were declaring themselves Japan's enemy.

Oh Jeez, another one.

You really believe FDR knew in advance? :eek: Ah, Argentina had said repeadedly the Falklands were their land and had threatened to attack them repeadedly. Plus, I think that our intellegence services and technology had improved in the ~40 years between the Falklands War and Pearl Harbor. ;)

No matter what you say about Chiang Kai-Shek, the Japanese invaded China on their own accord. PERIOD. We were China's ally BEFORE the Japanese invaded them. Seems the Japanese made quite a few errors in judgement and when they had to pay the piper, they (and their apologists) sure did alot of whining about it.

[Ben Gash]

Ally is stretching it a bit, exploitative psuedo imperialistic vested interest is probably more accurate. We all had imperial territories in Asia, why should Japan not have similar ambitions just because they have a different skin colour?
I have no opinion as to whether there was advance knowledge of Pearl Harbour, it's your complete refusal to discuss it at all that was the point of conversation.
I am in no way a Japanese apologist, the Japanese did many, many terrible things for which there can be no justification, but at the same time I am not blinkered to the historical and current failings of my own country and yours, and I certainly will not participate in the celebration of a man who killed thousands upon thousands of civilians as a hero.

[1bad65]

Ally is stretching it a bit, exploitative psuedo imperialistic vested interest is probably more accurate. We all had imperial territories in Asia, why should Japan not have similar ambitions just because they have a different skin colour?

Do what?! We had ONE territory, not colony, the Philippines. And we were not murdering the people there like the Japanese did. We granted them independence just after WWII ended also. The Japanese were attacking other nations to plunder the area's natuaral resources as Japan has NO oil or rubber deposits of her own for example. Look up the 'Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere' and educate yourself.



I have no opinion as to whether there was advance knowledge of Pearl Harbour, it's your complete refusal to discuss it at all that was the point of conversation.

Hello? I asked if Punch believed that. I NEVER refused to discuss it. I do think it's a load of BS though, I'll admit that beforehand.