Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Crimes or Reasonable Use of Force?

[Sdaeriji]

I know, but I bet you're going to offer up some absurdly one-sided explanation, and I'd like a good chuckle, so let's hear what you have to say.

Japan first of all sent a letter saying something and if we didn't comply or what ever then they would bomb pearl harbor. Unfortunantly that letter never arrived and since japan never got a responce they automatically assumed that we did not want to comply and they bombed pearl harbor trying to take out our aircraft carriers. Hence forth the reason we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Before that though (I hate my memory.) someone in japan said to the emperor or leader "I fear we have awakened a sleeping giant..."

Admiral Yamamoto, but that quote is apocryphal.

[Mavorpen]

Again, no. The Japanese were more afraid of the Soviets than the bombs.

Then how come the Japs surrendered after the bombs?

Which was also after the Russians invaded.

[Mikland]

The first bomb may have been justifiable.
The second was not.

This. It only really takes one super weapon like that to show your strength, not to mention that atom bombs had just been invented.

[Stattr]

Japan first of all sent a letter saying something and if we didn't comply or what ever then they would bomb pearl harbor. Unfortunantly that letter never arrived and since japan never got a responce they automatically assumed that we did not want to comply and they bombed pearl harbor trying to take out our aircraft carriers. Hence forth the reason we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Before that though (I hate my memory.) someone in japan said to the emperor or leader "I fear we have awakened a sleeping giant..."

Admiral Yamamoto, but that quote is apocryphal.

As in...

[Alowwvia]

And Germany still had no right to attack a neutral vessel, they did it to be assholes. What's your point.

smuggling arms to help one side in a war.... definitely neutral

That happens all the time. The Germans were being huge crybabies.

America was still neutral, and it was also civilian vessels.

[Len Hyet]

You heard it here first folks.

WWII's Eastern Theater? All America's fault.

Yes we sent arms on passenger ships to support Great Britain, then Germany blows up an American Passenger ship, and we point are finger to get into the war.

... Not even close.

German high command was furious with Japan for dragging America into the war. There was honest debate whether or not to go to Japan's defense. It was only Hitler's interference that started American Involvement in Europe.

And besides. The Lusitania, according to all reports, did not have weapons of any kind on it. It was a cruise ship. Innocent passengers just cruising the Atlantic.

[New England and The Maritimes]

Admiral Yamamoto, but that quote is apocryphal.

As in...

Stattr, that's one way of saying it. When you look at Japan's history of undeclared warfare and surprise attacks, however, you see a pattern that carries through to make it reasonable to assume no intent to give the US any kind of warning of their intentions.

[Sdaeriji]

Admiral Yamamoto, but that quote is apocryphal.

As in...

As in he never actually said it. It was made up for Tora! Tora! Tora!.

[Patheon Global Security]

Then how come the Japs surrendered after the bombs?

Which was also after the Russians invaded.

The Japs already had problems with the Soviets in 1939, according to your logic they should have surrendered back then.

[Akadia North]

A complete US invasion would have killed more on both sides.

[Sdaeriji]

Yes we sent arms on passenger ships to support Great Britain, then Germany blows up an American Passenger ship, and we point are finger to get into the war.

... Not even close.

German high command was furious with Japan for dragging America into the war. There was honest debate whether or not to go to Japan's defense. It was only Hitler's interference that started American Involvement in Europe.

And besides. The Lusitania, according to all reports, did not have weapons of any kind on it. It was a cruise ship. Innocent passengers just cruising the Atlantic.

The Lusitania was also WWI and not WWII.

[Mkuki]

No. Japan was given French Indochina by the Vichy Government. Japan invaded much of SE Asia because FDR cut off shipments of oil and rubber to Japan. Which was, itself, a protest to Japan's invasion of China.


You try and successfully run an industrial, 1940s economy without oil and rubber. Especially when conducting a war.

To be clear, I'm just saying that FDR did provoke the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor, the Philippines, Burma and Indonesia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_o ... _Indochina

And what provoked FDR to provoke the Japanese? The Invasion of China and the seizing of French Indochina.

I stand corrected on that, but my point still stands. FDR did provoke Japan into invading the rest of SE Asia by cutting off oil and rubber shipments.

[Len Hyet]

... Not even close.

German high command was furious with Japan for dragging America into the war. There was honest debate whether or not to go to Japan's defense. It was only Hitler's interference that started American Involvement in Europe.

And besides. The Lusitania, according to all reports, did not have weapons of any kind on it. It was a cruise ship. Innocent passengers just cruising the Atlantic.

The Lusitania was also WWI and not WWII.

Ah. My mistake. Some other passenger ship then.

[Mavorpen]

Which was also after the Russians invaded.

The Japs already had problems with the Soviets in 1939, according to your logic they should have surrendered back then.

You should try reading my posts.

Except the Japanese were already going to give up when the Soviets broke their Neutrality Pact and due to our successful dismantling of their Navy force. The Japanese COULDN'T fight the war any longer.

Try again, but this time, read.

[New England and The Maritimes]

A complete US invasion would have killed more on both sides.

A complete US invasion was already about to be carried out. The surrender stopped the invasion, not the bombing. The bombing was just an attack in advance of the invasion.

[Stattr]

As in...

As in he never actually said it. It was made up for Tora! Tora! Tora!.

History says other wise and WWII video's of the actual WWII.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

We can take that line of reasoning as far back as it needs to go.

If the Europeans hadn't constructed imperialism as the only viable route to being considered a modern, industralised power, then the Japanese wouldn't have been pushed toward empire building.

And so on. It's all irrelevant, though.

Because considering the embargo in the plainest context, it was a provocation. Not one without justification, but a provocation nonetheless.

I don't mean to be a little annoying, but when we look at the embargo placed on Japan, we should take a look at the actions that caused the embargo placed in the first place, which were Japan provoking the embargo with their very long invasion of China and the seizure of French Indochina.

So, Japan made their own provocations, of course not entirely without justifications as well.

That's what I meant when I said the "plainest context". We can reasonably argue that Japanese provocations begot Western provocations begot Japanese provocations, and so on.

But we are isolating one example. The example of the American trade embargo against Japan, and saying that it provoked them, or even influenced their decision, to instigate the Pacific War.

Which it did. The context does not change the implications, you see.

[The Emerald Dawn]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_o ... _Indochina

And what provoked FDR to provoke the Japanese? The Invasion of China and the seizing of French Indochina.

I stand corrected on that, but my point still stands. FDR did provoke Japan into invading the rest of SE Asia by cutting off oil and rubber shipments.

"Stop invading shit"
"No."
"Fine, we'll embargo you so you stop invading shit."
"Imma invade more shit now, fuck you."

The onus is still on the Japanese here. FDR's defense of the region isn't provocation, it's expected to happen when an allies territorial sovereignty is threatened.

[Patheon Global Security]

The Japs already had problems with the Soviets in 1939, according to your logic they should have surrendered back then.

You should try reading my posts.

Except the Japanese were already going to give up when the Soviets broke their Neutrality Pact and due to our successful dismantling of their Navy force. The Japanese COULDN'T fight the war any longer.

Try again, but this time, read.

The US had way more navy capicity than the Soviets, again, how did the Soviets change the thinking of the Japs?

[United States of Peace]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_o ... _Indochina

And what provoked FDR to provoke the Japanese? The Invasion of China and the seizing of French Indochina.

I stand corrected on that, but my point still stands. FDR did provoke Japan into invading the rest of SE Asia by cutting off oil and rubber shipments.

I never stated that I doubted that FDR provoked Japan, just that Japan has its own share of the blame for starting the general war in the Pacific.

[Sdaeriji]

As in he never actually said it. It was made up for Tora! Tora! Tora!.

History says other wise and WWII video's of the actual WWII.

What is this I don't even.

[Mavorpen]

The US had way more navy capicity than the Soviets, again, how did the Soviets change the thinking of the Japs?

You're...you're not reading my posts, are you? I said that the Japanese Navy was already essentially dismantled at this point in time. Nowhere did I say anything about Japanese v. Soviet Navy warfare. Once Japans Kwantung Army was rapidly defeated by the Soviets and the conquest of Manchuria and southern Sakhalin, the Japanese had zero incentive to continue.

[Stattr]

You should try reading my posts.

Try again, but this time, read.

The US had way more navy capicity than the Soviets, again, how did the Soviets change the thinking of the Japs?

I beleive it was the germans.

History says other wise and WWII video's of the actual WWII.

What is this I don't even.

Told you. My dad has footage of the WWII and WWI videos, that he never took but their was a video made for both wars not fake hollywood ones. He also has the real strory of the civil war but that's not related to this topic.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Again, no. The Japanese were more afraid of the Soviets than the bombs.

Then how come the Japs surrendered after the bombs?

6 August: First bomb dropped
9-20 August: Soviet Invasion of Manchuria, Sakhalin and Northern Japanese Islands.
9 August: Second Bomb dropped.

Oh i don't know, maybe it was because they happened at the same time, and the soviet invasion lasted longer. They were really close to invading the mainland, and the Japanese knew this, as well as the fact that more of their people would die due to the invasion than more of the bombs being dropped. Also the bomb was dropped after the invasion began and Kwantung army units were already getting their teeth kicked in by the soviet army in the hours before it. As soon as the fighting beganThey knew they would not last long and they were ready to accept defeat and surrender, then the second bomb fell.

[The Emerald Dawn]

The US had way more navy capicity than the Soviets, again, how did the Soviets change the thinking of the Japs?

I beleive it was the germans.

What is this I don't even.

Told you. My dad has footage of the WWII and WWI videos, that he never took but their was a video made for both wars not fake hollywood ones. He also has the real strory of the civil war but that's not related to this topic.

If your father has video footage of the Civil War, you had better be watching the Ducks and Beavers.