50,000 mark 67th anniversary of Hiroshima atomic bombing

National Aug. 06, 2012 - 03:00PM JST ( 128 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Order by Time Order by Popularity

128 Comments

9

YubaruAug. 06, 2012 - 07:19AM JST

"Lest we forget".....While it is impossible to keep the political rhetoric out of the discussion I hope that the people who lost loved one's, from all sides in the war, can find peace.
-5

SchopenhauerAug. 06, 2012 - 07:24AM JST

Although in wars anything can happen, it was a crime against humanity.
-12

zichiAug. 06, 2012 - 07:31AM JST

The bombing of Pearl Harbor was a crime of war. The atomic bombing of civilians was a war crime.
10

YubaruAug. 06, 2012 - 07:33AM JST

Although in wars anything can happen, it was a crime against humanity.

Thank you for reaffirming my belief that people can not keep the political rhetoric out of the thread.

Memorials like this one are to remember those who died and to never forget that we all have a responsibility to never see or face this horror again. (And that includes the war too.)
-2

zichiAug. 06, 2012 - 08:07AM JST

There are an estimated 70,000 atomic bombs in the world, but it would only take a single 100 megaton to destroy it.
7

chinaserfAug. 06, 2012 - 08:48AM JST

Stuff like this will continue to happen as long as humans are still alive
4

YuriOtaniAug. 06, 2012 - 09:06AM JST

This is one of the reasons I am against Japan possessing these weapons. They would not really improve the defense of Japan. It is my wish the nations of the world will remember these two attacks and not use the weapons. If they are not used again then the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not die in vain.
-5

Akemi MokotoAug. 06, 2012 - 09:08AM JST

The nuclear bombing was unnecessary. I'm sure to get a lotta down votes for saying this but by all definitions, it was a terror attack. Nuking 2 populated civilian cities with the intent to make the Japan submit. Come on. A quarter million innocent people killed by a clear terror attack...whatever... :(
0

kwattAug. 06, 2012 - 09:21AM JST

I've ever heard that most all people who died of atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were all civilians such as women, children, elderly ones, hospital patients, farmers, etc, and not many soldiers there as they were far out of the mainland. America knew it at that time. I wonder, Did America need to drop them there to end the war?
13

TrevorPeace1Aug. 06, 2012 - 09:25AM JST

Let's not see it happen again, shall we?
-2

VespertoAug. 06, 2012 - 09:42AM JST

As usual Fukushima had to be mentioned, somehow neglecting the fact there's a huge difference between technology used for civilian good and technology used for military evil. Downvote me, whatever.

@YuriOtani

It's called M.A.D.. Kind of a mad principle, but if a nation has nuclear weapons, other nations - especially other nuclear weapons -, will think twice to attack it. It's a deterrent, most countries don't really equate its use.

@kwatt

Downvote take 2: "everyone knows" those bombs were unnecessary. Japan was about to surrender and even though i think it's absurd to apply rules to war (which, in itself, is absurd), no one can make sense of bombing millions of innocent civilians. Some say the purpose was twofold: to test the bomb and to scare off Russia.

I assume all those who demonize NPPs because of nuclear weapons post their comments under the candle light, since electricity can be used for electric chairs, so it should be banned.

Humans are animals, we just pretend to be civilized.
-4

kwattAug. 06, 2012 - 10:02AM JST

Are you saying Japan was a victim?

In general civilians can be victims if innocent people are killed because not soldiers. No one cares about soldiers kill soldiers.
2

CrazyJoeAug. 06, 2012 - 10:17AM JST

The atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima was codenamed "Little Boy" while the one dropped on Nagasaki was named "Fat Man"
-3

TSRnowAug. 06, 2012 - 10:58AM JST

This is one of the reasons I am against Japan possessing these weapons. They would not really improve the defense of Japan.

Who said Japan wants to possesse these weapons? I don't think they ever will.
3

lostrune2Aug. 06, 2012 - 11:23AM JST

With the power of the A-bomb, a military target would still kill a lot of civilians anyways. Heck, how many civilians have been killed by precision bombs nowadays? There will always be civilian collateral. Furthermore, everybody was bombing cities back in WW2 - it was regular war M.O. Hitler was bombing London and Stalingrad; Japan was bombing Asian cities; the Allies were bombing Dresden and Tokyo; Russia bombing Berlin. Cities were fair targets back then.
1

JDB829Aug. 06, 2012 - 11:24AM JST

I have never experienced a more moving experience than my couple days in Hiroshima. As a side note, I have read there were at least three people who survived the bombing of Hiroshima, moved on to Nagasaki, and survived the bombing there. Good post Trevor! Let's, shall we?
3

Jay QueAug. 06, 2012 - 11:33AM JST

Well stated, Yubaru. Let usyou Pray for the victims and their loved ones on all sides. "peace".
1

VespertoAug. 06, 2012 - 11:57AM JST

@lostrune2

Cities were fair targets back then.

Your point being what? If everybody was doing it then it was OK?
1

GWAug. 06, 2012 - 12:20PM JST

Akemi M

Dude you seriously need a better grasp of what was going on in the 1940s wrt war time Japan & what it did & was up to!
3

JimizoAug. 06, 2012 - 12:39PM JST

@TSRnow I wish I could share your optimism about Japan's future without nuclear weapons. There are many sober analysts who believe that the US will be unwilling and/or unable to maintain its huge military presence in Asia, leaving Japan with very difficult security questions in the future.
-2

RickyrabAug. 06, 2012 - 12:42PM JST

If Japan had the Bomb, then it would be a case of yet another country in East Asia having nukes, along with North Korea, China, and Russia. What would happen? Judging from past experience, they would just use saber-rattling with nukes as a form of trying to get their way with getting supplies or agreements done, and when they succeed, they'd then back down. If they don't succeed, they'd then probably engage in non-nuclear incidents and maybe even proxy warfare, but never get as far as blowing up cities with nukes, lest this lead to chain reactions that lead to full scale nuclear war. However, there are always exceptions to the rule, Adolf Hitlers and Josef Stalins and other lunatics who just want to take over everything and don't care what others think. Folks like the Joker of the Colorado Batman massacre or whomever shot up that Sikh temple in Wisconsin. Those are the people we need to watch out for and ensure that they be kept away from nuclear arms, lest they "perform a magnificent arpeggio" (as one science-fiction author described it in a novel) on a nuclear weapons firing board and ruin the planet.
0

RickyrabAug. 06, 2012 - 12:47PM JST

That author would be Joe Haldeman, the book in question would be Worlds, and here's the complete sentence: "The same madman who had tried to kill the Worlds sat at a console under a mountain in Colorado. He turned forty keys and played a magnificent arpeggio on the buttons beneath them."
0

RickyrabAug. 06, 2012 - 12:49PM JST

The result of that performance was a nuclear and biological war that proved deadly to the adults of the Earth. \
-4

Consume my painAug. 06, 2012 - 12:55PM JST

All the victims bodies were mutilated. They were victims of the time and nation they lived in not just the A Bomb.

It was a time that lacked humanity.
-4

BertieWoosterAug. 06, 2012 - 01:01PM JST

Some scientists wanted to try out some new toys and so they chose Hiroshima and Nagasaki to do it.

The PR campaign that followed was that this act helped Japan by ending the war for them.

It was a crime against humanity.

It did no good.

It caused immense misery.

No one learned from it.

After that point in time, everybody had to have nuclear weapons.
6

YubaruAug. 06, 2012 - 01:12PM JST

It was a crime against humanity.

It did no good.

It caused immense misery.

No one learned from it.

Using your argument here then all wars are crimes against humanity and all nation-states are guilty.

All wars cause misery, no one learns anything from them because they are repeated over, and over and over.

The point of remembering the dead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is to remind the world of the horrors of using weapons like these. Don't ever kid yourself, or anyone for that matter, that any of the combatants in WWII, either the Allies or Axis, would not have used them "first" if they had them at their disposal.
7

Vast Right-Wing ConspiratorAug. 06, 2012 - 01:24PM JST

To Bertie and all the anti-bomb folks;

What was the alternative?

Japan wasn't ready to surrender at that point, rather the Army and Navy were gathering forces to defend the Home Islands. There were no negotiations happening. PoWs and innocent civilians alike were dying by the thousands every month in Japanese concentration camps. The hard core element in the Imperial Cabinet was prepared to sacrifice 10 million lives.
-1

CrazyJoeAug. 06, 2012 - 01:27PM JST

@Yubaru

"would not have used them "first" if they had them at their disposal"

Didn't the U.S use them first?
11

CletusAug. 06, 2012 - 01:28PM JST

The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki where by no means good events but to call them war crimes l think is perhaps going a bit far. In a war where all sides committed gross actions the bombings where just another in a long line of such actions.

I find it disturbing to think of a Japanese person sitting there pointing the finger at the US saying "oh they committed a war crime against us" when the same Japanese refuse to acknowledge the very war crimes they themselves committed.

And as other posters have mentioned, if Japan or Germany had developed the A Bomb first do you think that they would have not used it against the allies? Remember Japan for example had plans to use chemical weapons against mainland US, and they did use them elsewhere. It was a terrible war with terrible events taking place by all sides every day.

And to those who say comments like "they were civilian targets not military ones" please do some research.

For example Hiroshima was the headquarters of the Japanese 2nd army (Hiroshima castle), it was the HQ, supply and logistics base for the armies fighting in the SW Pacific area, it was the HQ for the army defending Kyushu area, it had many military camps located there, and it had large industrial complexes involved in the war manufacturing. A large part of the civilian population of Hiroshima had been evacuated prior to the bombing by the Japanese government, and the city was warned of the bombing in advance. Many of the "children" killed in the bombing were actually conscripted to work for the Japanese military in their communications or civil defense roles. And yes while horrible that these children where killed it must be remembered that as soon as these people started working in military roles they ceased being civilians and became combatants (according to the Hague convention of which Japan was a signitory) so to throw around the "civilian" casualty figures is inaccurate as many many (even according to Japanese records) where employed by the military. And we are talking kids as young as 14yo.

Likewise in Nagasaki people complain it was a civilian target yet the fact remains Nagasaki was a major arms manufacturing city, a city that warships were built and repaired and was home to the massive Mitsubishi steel and arms works. And like Hiroshima, Nagasaki had been evacuated of many civilians leaving those that where involved in the war effort hence under the rules of war signed by Japan where in effect enemy combatants.

While the bombs where terrible things and we can debate for ever the need to use them it should be remembered that rather than us this day as a finger pointing exercise we should us it as a day to remember the evil that was WW2 and the losses not just of Japanese but of all people on all sides. And if we did that then maybe some good could come from it
0

Thomas AndersonAug. 06, 2012 - 01:44PM JST

It goes nowhere when either countries try to justify their own and vilify the other. Sadly that's what the right excel at. Blame the others but they themselves are not to be blamed. It's just a way to shirk their responsibilities and rid themselves of their guilt.

It's also rather inconsistent and hypocritical when they accuse the other of committing war crimes but their own war crimes are to be ignored or brushed off as insignificant. If you want to accuse the other of war crimes, then you must also accuse your own war crimes as well. That means bearing the consequences and responsibilities of your actions, which sadly, these type of people who blame others will lack.
-1

DisillusionedAug. 06, 2012 - 01:48PM JST

Vesperto - You are wrong! Japan was not about to surrender at all! The emperor had given orders for everyone to commit suicide and/or fight to the death. And, had the bombs not have been dropped we would be speaking Russian now because there were two million Russian troops lined up in the north ready to come in through hokkaido and wipe out the Japanese race entirely. Check your history mate.

This bombing was a travesty and should never be forgotten, but let's not forget what the Japanese had done to the rest of asia for the forty years prior to the end of WW2.
-7

Thomas AndersonAug. 06, 2012 - 01:56PM JST

It goes like this...The Japanese can only feel good about themselves and feel justified by playing the victim/martyr role (but conveniently ignore everything else that they had done)... and the American can only do the same by saying that dropping of the a-bomb was to end the war. Well it's no wonder that they tenaciously hold on to their positions, because that's the ONLY way to NOT spiral into self-doubt and be amassed by guilt feelings, or that their own country has failed to do the right thing, and were in fact, acting pretty horribly during the war.
5

SuperLibAug. 06, 2012 - 02:09PM JST

Any way you slice it, a lot of people were going to die. It's a bad situation that hopefully will never be repeated. The real lesson that can be learned is the good relationships Japan and Germany have with the world at large. Even with terrible atrocities, people can still forgive and move on.
6

lostrune2Aug. 06, 2012 - 02:10PM JST

Cities were fair targets back then.

Your point being what? If everybody was doing it then it was OK?

One can only judge their decisions at the times they were in.

In WWI, militaries were using chemical warfare. Now that's not allowed. But back then, it was fair game.

In the 18th Century, it was considered ungentlemanly and cowardly to specifically target the enemy commanding officer - in battles, forces were supposed to duke it out on the open field till the last man standing or flees. Now, enemy commanders are considered fair game, particularly if it'll shorten the battle and save lives of your soldiers.

What's considered fair game in war changes thru the ages. Check any historical great generals --from Alexander the Great to Sun Tzu to Saladin to Nobunaga-- and see how many of their battle tactics aren't considered fair game anymore.
5

Mike DeJongAug. 06, 2012 - 03:04PM JST

Zhichi said: "The bombing of Pearl Harbor was a crime of war. The atomic bombing of civilians was a war crime."

What are you talking about? Civilians were killed in both attacks. It would be nice to see the victims of Pearl Harbor honored in Japan too.
-2

JimizoAug. 06, 2012 - 03:05PM JST

@Disillusioned Let's keep the debate sober. I'm not sure what history you 'checked' when you said that the Soviets planned to 'wipe out the Japanese race entirely'.
3

BurakuminDesAug. 06, 2012 - 03:14PM JST

Rest in Peace to all the civilian victims of these bombs.
3

CrazyJoeAug. 06, 2012 - 03:26PM JST

It's a sad fact that innocent civilians and non combatants are killed in wars.
-6

KariHarukaAug. 06, 2012 - 03:26PM JST

Along with the firebombing that burned alive thousands of innocent citizens these were atrocious attacks against populated areas where many women, children and older people died in horrific ways that violated internationally accepted principles of war with respect to destruction of populated areas. The cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were previously undamaged from previous bombings (Kyoto was also short listed) and the reasons they were picked were so that the Americans could get accurate data on nuclear caused damage. How nice is that using the Japanese as test subjects.... People might not agree with me but I do believe that along with the firebombing these were war crimes by America because they were directed towards populated areas killing thousands and thousands of innocent people while the risk of genetic complications was high for the future generations of survivors. What if it was the other way round and it was the Japanese who dropped these bombs on say Chicago or LA. Would the Americans be calling it war crimes against Americans on American soil?

But anyway may we never forget the scores of innocent people killed in these bombings and may the suffering never be forgotten.
4

Dell_1957Aug. 06, 2012 - 03:50PM JST

If Japan did nothing wrong during WWII, except suffer the ignominy of defeat, and if Japanese leaders such as Koizumi can only offer a generalized apology while avoiding the fact that Japan committed unspeakable atrocities, then certainly, from the Japanese perspective, it might be acceptable for Japan to engage in identical actions in the future.

Will Korea, Nanking and other Asian cities be raped yet again?

It has been estimated that nearly 80,000 women were raped in Nanking. Many were tortured, bayoneted, beheaded, set on fire, or gang raped to death

The crimes of the Japanese were so horrific that they almost made their German allies look civilized in comparison. Shooting someone is a terrible act. However, stabbing someone is truly horrific and takes a lot of effort. The victim is screaming and bleeding on the perpetrator who must push the blade in and out, over and over again. These are called" crimes of passion" and are generally motivated by extreme hatred and rage. And yet the Japanese soldiers committing these crimes did not feel rage but pleasure. They tortured people for fun, using their swords and knives like some gleaming steal phallus.

Despite overwhelming evidence of the nightmarish crimes committed by the Japanese Emperial Army, nationalistic Japanese politicians, textbooks, and newspapers, continue to deny that the Japanese committed atrocities against millions of innocent men, women and children. These lies constitute the second Rape of Nanking, and they come with a price: Those who do not learn from the past, are condemned to repeat it.
7

AlphaapeAug. 06, 2012 - 04:12PM JST

How nice is that using the Japanese as test subjects....

@ KariHaruka: The reason why Japan was bombed was because the war was over in Europe. If there would have still been as strong as a resistance in Europe as could have been expected in the invasion of mainland Japan, as well as if the bombs would have been developed a year before, I imagine that the bomb would have been used in Germany also.

As some have posted, the IJA was still relatively intact on mainland Japan, and would have been very difficult to defeat. If as you and other say, Japan was ready to surrender, did why did it take so much loss of life just to take Okinawa? If as you and others say, the moment when the Americans landed in Okinawa, the locals would have started doing what the people of Germany did and started surrendering to advancing forces instead of fighting to the death and committing suicide, then I think you would have a point.

Like it or not, Truman made the right decision. He was President of the USA. And his main concern was the safeguarding of American lives sent to fight a war. If he had a way that could end the war quickly, and save as many lives of his soldiera as possible, then he should take that chance. Sorry to say, but the US was at war with Japan, and if that meant that placing US lives over Japanese was a choice, then he made the right choice in my opinon.

If he wouldn't have used the bomb and invaded mainland Japan, they were estimating at least 1 million Japanese dead, and at least 300,000 US/allied killed, and if it would have been revealed that he could have prevented that much killing, then he would have gone down as the worst man in history.
-1

MrsT1Aug. 06, 2012 - 04:12PM JST

These articles always generate such heated opinions, and judging from this JT has a lot of American (and/or anti-Japan) posters who still feel a strong need to blame/justify/excuse whatever happened.

As a much more enlightened society, none of us personally responsible for ANY of the decisions or atrocities committed in this war, can we look back at the event and agree that nuclear weapons are not for the good of humankind, and should never ever be used again? That's all the survivors want to see.
6

NessieAug. 06, 2012 - 04:23PM JST

If he wouldn't have used the bomb and invaded mainland Japan, they were estimating at least 1 million Japanese dead, and at least 300,000 US/allied killed

Let's not forget the thousands of Chinese and other colonials who were dying in great numbers.
5

Vienna1sausageAug. 06, 2012 - 04:30PM JST

Sochi So if the United Staes carpet bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki instead of nuked them, would you still consider it a "war crime"? And while you're at it, do you consider anything the Japanese did during the war a "war crime"? Just curios.
-4

JeffLeeAug. 06, 2012 - 04:34PM JST

No one cares about soldiers kill soldiers.

With conscript armies, "soldiers" are really civilians in uniforms. All lives are precious.
-3

zichiAug. 06, 2012 - 05:58PM JST

America had planned to drop a third atomic bomb on Niigata but couldn't ready it on time. The targets for the atomic bombings were decided even before the mass fire bombing of most cities. Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Niigata weren't fire bombed because America wanted to have accurate DATA from the affects of the atomic bombings.
-1

CosAug. 06, 2012 - 06:06PM JST

I imagine that the bomb would have been used in Germany also.

No. The developers of the bombs were German, and so were many in American military commandment. They would not have done it on their cousins. Colored people were traditionally used as guinea pigs. That was the mentality of that time. Japan testing stuff on the Chinese. European and Americans testing on their slaves and colonies.
2

TSRnowAug. 06, 2012 - 06:20PM JST

There are many sober analysts who believe that the US will be unwilling and/or unable to maintain its huge military presence in Asia, leaving Japan with very difficult security questions in the future.

Jimizo, that is probably true, but there are many things Japan must overcome to be able to possese nuclear weapons. One is Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan, and if that's not enough, the people. You say it's optimism, but I would say no politician in Japan today is that stupid.
2

AlphaapeAug. 06, 2012 - 06:23PM JST

No. The developers of the bombs were German, and so were many in American military commandment. They would not have done it on their cousins. Colored people were traditionally used as guinea pigs. That was the mentality of that time. Japan testing stuff on the Chinese. European and Americans testing on their slaves and colonies.

@ Cos: You discredit your own argument bystating the fact that the Japanese did experiment on Chinese. They both are colored (non white). Also, Japanese did experiments on captured American and Europeans.

The Russians lost 500,000 men just for the batle of Berlin alone, when Germany was in total ruins. If Germany would have still had enough fight in them by the time the first test bomb went off in July, there probably would have been a bomb dropped on Germany. However, I will admit, they probably would not have, not becuase of the color of their skin, but for the fact that too many allied troops were all over Germany. Had Berlin still been figthing, the decision to use it would have been on the table.
-4

voiceofokinawaAug. 06, 2012 - 06:35PM JST

When the Imperial Japanese Combined Fleet advanced toward the Hawaiian Islands to attack U.S. Naval Base at Pearl Harbor, the Tokyo government tried hard to officially declare war against the U.S. before the fleet reached there and attacks began so that they could at least say afterwards that they acted according to the rule of war. But even if the declaration of war was made in time, I do not think war against the U.S. could ever have been condoned.

At any rate, Japan's surprise attack on Pearl Harbor was a violation of the rule of war and so must be condemned to that extent.

On the other hand, atomic bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where citizens were about to start their daily life in Hiroshima or in the middle of being engaged in daily work in Nagasaki, cannot be simply dubbed as a violation of the rule of war. Rather, it was an offense against human ethics and therefore a flagrant challenge to all humanity.

In this sense, zichi (Aug. 06, 2012 - 07:31AM JST) is right in saying that the bombing of Pearl Harbor was "a crime of war" and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were "a war crime." So it's not enough for the U.S. to apologize to atomic bomb victims in Hiroshima and Nagasaki but it must confess its sins to the world for having used such evil weapons of mass destruction against civilians.
0

kwattAug. 06, 2012 - 08:09PM JST

the bombing of Pearl Harbor was "a crime of war" and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were "a war crime."

It seems to be very difficult for Americans to accept this, and It also seems that some Americans feel a little guilty about atomic bombs had killed much more civilians rather than destroying many military bases. Probably something guilty still remains in their mind for 67 years.
0

Open MindedAug. 06, 2012 - 08:34PM JST

A-bomb power was not really known before Hiroshima. To test and impress Japan - and the world - there was absolutely no need to drop it right above the middle of 2 significantly populated towns. I am definitely not validating the A-bombing done, but US could have at least try it above the sea to a reasonable distance to civilians. IMAO.
2

AwatemonoAug. 06, 2012 - 08:37PM JST

If the bombing of Hiroshima was "to accelerate the end of the war" (a moot point), the bombing of Nagasaki WAS a war crime. The first was a uranium bomb, the second a plutonium bomb. The latter was a scientific experiment using the Japanese people as 'guinea pigs'. But what about the 100 000 almost entirely non-combatants that were incinerated in the ten months before, in and around Tokyo? Incendiary bombs, bamboo and rice-paper walls are not a good combination with human flesh - less so with the frail elderly and pre-schoolers.
1

bill-sanAug. 06, 2012 - 09:39PM JST

The US bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki to stop the war the Japanese started at Pearl Harbor and continued at Bataan and Corrigador and Tarawa and Guadalcanal and Iwo Jima and Okinawa and Saipan .

Yamamoto warned his superiors not to start a war with the US and look what happened.
2

FadamorAug. 06, 2012 - 10:58PM JST

The atomic weapons were initially developed to counter what was believed to be a German program to develop them. (It was subsequently found that the Germans hadn't really gotten anything started in regards to nuclear weapons.)

As the war in Europe wound down, the Americans had ALREADY shifted plans for the weapon and started planning for their use in Japan. Specific cities that had not yet been a part of the firebombing campaign were intentionally left alone so that bomb damage assessment could get a clear picture of the damage one bomb would cause. The cities were chosen not for their military value, but for the number of buildings and civilian population - again, to determine bomb damage assessment.

While ALL of the scientists involved with the Manhattan Project were interested in what the bomb would do, there were some who wanted the bomb used in a non-lethal manner to bring home the point without massive deaths. They suggested that a message be sent to Japan to clear an insignificant island of people and monitor the island from a safe distance on a certain day. This request was ignored by the military - probably because they were afraid of being embarrased if the bomb failed to go critical.

The deliberate targeting of civilians is a crime against humanity. By firebombing major cities in Germany and Japan, and by detonating of two nuclear weapons on other Japanese cities, my country perpetrated war crimes that cannot be excused. My country's actions made Americans no better than the Japanese who forced those prisoners of war on the Bataan Death March. The only reason my country wasn't taken before a war crimes court was because we were the victors, and the victors dictate who goes to trial.

I'd like to think that the acknowledgement of these facts is one reason why we don't do the "scorched earth" thing anymore, though we certainly could if we wanted to. It makes us look weaker than we really are when we try to avoid civilian casualties, but the alternative is to return to the days of WWII where any city was a target regardless of its military value.
-2

DenonAug. 06, 2012 - 10:59PM JST

Of course it is understandable, though not excusable, that someone would obfuscate to try and justify their own wrongs. But its strange that people obfuscate with such vigor to try and justify a decision made by a handful of other people. None of us ever got a vote on the decision to drop nukes and firebombs. So why all the thumbs down and untenable excuses? Many of you were born in America. So what? Taking issue with Truman, Tibits and LeMay wont change anything. It wont make you less American. It wont shame you personally. But I think defending them against all justice does make you less American and shames you personally.

Come on. Its nothing to do with you. And its quite simple. If the indiscriminate bombing of civilians is not a war crime, then truly nothing is. If you can justify this, you can justify anything. Nanking and Guernica become reasonable actions.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki should not be called bombings. They should be referred to as massacres. But just as it took decades to see Wounded Knee as a massacre, so it will take more time for people to come to grips with the truth of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If you dont know about the Wounded Knee Massacre, look it up. The U.S government actually handed out 20 Medals of Honor for this instance of slaughtering mostly women and children after surrounding their encampment, all because one deaf Lakota warrior did not understand the order to disarm. They chased down for miles children that escaped and murdered them in cold blood!. But that is nothing to do with you either. So why fight the painfully obvious? Intentionally killing unarmed men, women and children is wrong and evil. There are no excuses for it. You dont kill a man's wife and kids to get back at him, no matter what he did. Its very easy to understand if you just let go of the idea that you are somehow responsible. You arent. There are bad Americans. We all know this. You arent one of them, are you? You dont excuse other criminals because they are Americans, do you? No difference here.
0

nigelboyAug. 06, 2012 - 11:03PM JST

Common misconception among the American educated is that they are fed with the notion that atomic bombs ended the war when in fact, it was was the Soviet's entrance to the conflict that finally sealed the deal.

The decision to surrender(Imperial council) subject to condition on 国体護持 was decided at early Augusut 10th (meeting concluded 2:30 am) The vague report on Hiroshima(which indicate it was either an atomic bomb or new weapon) was relayed to the government at 10:00 am.(Please also recall that Nagasaki has been bombed already) The confirmation that it was actually a nuclear bomb was relayed on August 15th from the August 10th investigation conducted by the six experts from Kyoto University as per request of the Navy.

Hence, the two atomic bombings were just an overkill and was not factor in the decision to surrender. Having said that, hindsight is 20/20 since U.S. weren't 100% sure that Japan will surrender. This is evidenced by the fact that there were eight aerial bombings continued after Nagasaki until the final bombing of August 15, 1945.(Tsujizaki Aerial Bombing).

It's also rather inconsistent and hypocritical when they accuse the other of committing war crimes but their own war crimes are to be ignored or brushed off as insignificant. If you want to accuse the other of war crimes, then you must also accuse your own war crimes as well. That means bearing the consequences and responsibilities of your actions, which sadly, these type of people who blame others will lack.

Thomas.

I must say I agree with you completely on this.
3

DenonAug. 06, 2012 - 11:22PM JST

My country's actions made Americans no better than the Japanese

An excellent post except for this. Every American and every Japanese is only responsible for their own actions and their own mouths. The Americans here who shamelessly defend the massacre of civilians is nothing to do with me. They only shame themselves. The Americans who made the shameful decisions and carried out the shameful orders are also nothing to do with me.

The son is not responsible for the sins of the father unless he goes defending them. And the country is not responsible for the sins of the government when the country got no direct vote on the sins. The only Americans who bear shame are the ones who ordered and did it, and the ones who support it with their mouths still. Even the pathetic fence-sitters, such as Truman's grandson, bear some shame. This American bears none at all. My conscience is clear and I still have many reasons to be more proud of being American than I would have pride in being Japanese if I were, frankly.
4

CrazyJoeAug. 06, 2012 - 11:26PM JST

Actually Nagasaki was not the second target after Hiroshima. Kokura in Kyushu was the intended target. As some of you are aware, Japan was making balloon bombs and set them afloat towards the U.S. Japan did construct around 9,000 of them and almost a thousand made it to the U.S. Japan was making these balloon bombs in Kokura. Inclement weather prevented the dropping of the atomic bomb there.
0

arrestpaulAug. 07, 2012 - 12:01AM JST

“Such weapons have no legitimate place in our world. Their elimination is both morally right and a practical necessity in protecting humanity.”

The Allied powers have long argued that the bombings brought a quick end to the war by speeding up Japan’s surrender, preventing millions more casualties from a land invasion planned for later in the year

The longer WWII continued, the more lives would have been lost. That's pretty simple to understand. The quicker the war ended, the quicker the killing would end, and the sooner the world could begin rebuilding. Prolonging the war would have added several million more deaths to the already incredibly high death count.

If you don't want Hiroshima - don't start Pearl Harbor. If you don't want an economic embargo - don't invade China. That's pretty simple to understand also.

Many countries had started atomic bomb programs. Germany, England, Russia, and the U.S., Japan was attempting to import yellowcake from the Nazis. Whoever developed the bomb first was going to use it.

A spy had informed Stalin that the U.S. was working on several potentially successful atomic bomb models. Stalin didn't invade the northern islands until he was sure that the U.S. bomb actually worked. He knew, everyone familiar with the power of the weapon knew, that the war was essentially over. Stalin wanted a share of the spoils with little risk to his onw military.

Honoring those who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki is an honorable thing to do.

Blaming the U.S. for using whatever weapon it had available FIRST, is absurd. Millions more would have lost their lives if the atomic bombs had not been used. WWII would have continued on for, maybe, another two years. Millions of prisoners, civilians, and soldiers would have died so someone could look back in hindsight and say, "But at least they didn't use an attomic bomb".
-1

zichiAug. 07, 2012 - 12:14AM JST

Th e tragets for the atomic bombing were, Kyoto (AA target), Hiroshima (AA target), Kokura Arsenal (A target), Yokohama (A target), Niigata (B target).

http://www.dannen.com/decision/targets.html
-3

DenonAug. 07, 2012 - 12:21AM JST

Stalin didn't invade the northern islands until he was sure that the U.S. bomb actually worked.

Stalin invaded exactly on schedule as determined at Yalta, months before. Come on, this is basic, undisputed, well known history. And just the tip of the iceberg of what is wrong in your post.

Nobody blames America for using the bomb first. They blame America for having boxed his opponent into a corner, having victory at hand, and then going psycho-killer on his wife and kids.
1

OlegekAug. 07, 2012 - 12:39AM JST

arrestpaul

The longer WWII continued, the more lives would have been lost. That's pretty simple to understand. The quicker the war ended, the quicker the killing would end, and the sooner the world could begin rebuilding. Prolonging the war would have added several million more deaths to the already incredibly high death count

what a touching concern about millions future deaths ... How many peoples lost US ?

Compare with Japan , Germany and USSR ?

In August 45 - Japan was totally beaten - NO navy NO airforce NO oil factories and cities were burned down And Russian troops begining rush in Manchuria ...

Situation was totally hopeless for Japan...

Millions more would have lost their lives if the atomic bombs had not been used. WWII would have continued on for, maybe, another two years

. As I said before in August 45 Japan was totally beaten - it has no resourses at all...
surrounded, burned, starved, completely cut off from the outside world And Josef Stalin coming... 2 years ? - fairy tale

If you don't want Hiroshima - don't start Pearl Harbor.

So it was not military op - it was punishment for future friends...
1

OlegekAug. 07, 2012 - 12:49AM JST

@bill-san The US bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki to stop the war the Japanese started at Pearl Harbor and continued at Bataan and Corrigador

The war come to the END without A -bombs...

The game was over long time before

It was not military operation.
-1

MrsT1Aug. 07, 2012 - 12:52AM JST

Of course it is understandable, though not excusable, that someone would obfuscate to try and justify their own wrongs. But its strange that people obfuscate with such vigor to try and justify a decision made by a handful of other people. None of us ever got a vote on the decision to drop nukes and firebombs. So why all the thumbs down and untenable excuses? Many of you were born in America. So what? Taking issue with Truman, Tibits and LeMay wont change anything. It wont make you less American. It wont shame you personally. But I think defending them against all justice does make you less American and shames you personally.

Flawless post, this is what I was trying to say
-2

arrestpaulAug. 07, 2012 - 12:54AM JST

Denon - Stalin invaded exactly on schedule as determined at Yalta, months before. Come on, this is basic, undisputed, well known history. And just the tip of the iceberg of what is wrong in your post.

Nobody blames America for using the bomb first. They blame America for having boxed his opponent into a corner, having victory at hand, and then going psycho-killer on his wife and kids.

It's also undisputed that Stalin invaded Poland two weeks after Hitler did. Stalin took advantage of whatever conquests he believed he could get away with. The same can be said of his invasion of Japan.

WWII ended when Japan made the decision to surrender. There would be no victory until one side surrendered. That's also undisputed. Imperial forces had proven that they had no intention of surrendering and civilians were being trained to defend to the death.
0

techallAug. 07, 2012 - 12:57AM JST

Blah, blah, blah, blah........same posters as last week about Truman's grandson visiting Hiroshima.......same posters every year at this time......blah,blah blah blah.
-1

OlegekAug. 07, 2012 - 12:59AM JST

WWII ended when Japan made the decision to surrender. There would be no victory until one side surrendered.

Try to beat Mike Tyson - and NEVER surrender.....

stand up to the end !!
-2

zichiAug. 07, 2012 - 01:05AM JST

techall

Blah, blah, blah, blah........same posters as last week about Truman's grandson visiting Hiroshima.......same posters every year at this time......blah,blah blah blah.

and it will be debated for the next 100 years and beyond or until there are no more atomic weapons.
3

Open MindedAug. 07, 2012 - 01:18AM JST

Looks live mots poster in JT are US people. And I am shocked how blind and nationalistic they are with this atrocity against civilians while blaming the Japanese NPP accident. Japan started nuclear civilian usage under US coaching and underplaying of the bombing effect. Have a deep look at history, this is not really brilliant!
0

sochguruAug. 07, 2012 - 01:28AM JST

How come there is no mention of the atom bomb on cnn.com or bbc.com, today? Shame. US & UK don't have guts to accept their mistake.
1

arrestpaulAug. 07, 2012 - 01:31AM JST

Olegek - In August 45 - Japan was totally beaten - NO navy NO airforce NO oil factories and cities were burned down And Russian troops begining rush in Manchuria ...

Situation was totally hopeless for Japan...

And still they fought on!!!! The island-hopping campain had proven that surrender was not an option. The Imperial Japanese military still had ships, submarines, and suicide craft. Fighter planes, including jet aircraft, were being hidden in mountain caves. 55 Army Divisions were stationed to defend Japan. In June of 1945, the Cabinet created the civilian militia units Volunteer Fighting Corps, Kokumin Giyū Sentōtai, as a second defense line in the intended "war of attrition" against any invaders. Japan had closed all schools and mobilized its school children, was arming its civilian population and was fortifying caves and building underground defenses.

Unlike you, Imperial Japan didn't believe they were totally beaten in 1945.

Ending WWII quickly saved lives.
-1

sochguruAug. 07, 2012 - 01:36AM JST

So if my wife (Japan) starts a verbal fight I (US) beat her, & justify that she started the fight and so she is to blame!?

Gandhi: "An eye for an eye makes the world blind".

But the problem is our (US) govt., takes couple of limbs in return, too, whether it be Japan, Afghanistan or Iraq.
0

arrestpaulAug. 07, 2012 - 01:45AM JST

Olegek - The war come to the END without A -bombs...

The game was over long time before

It was not military operation.

The war ended when Japan "actually" surrendered. It was Japan's decision to make.
-3

BertieWoosterAug. 07, 2012 - 02:31AM JST

Denon-san,

Nobody blames America for using the bomb first. They blame America for having boxed his opponent into a corner, having victory at hand, and then going psycho-killer on his wife and kids.

Boy, ain't that the truth!

There's another word for it.

A bit of a buzz word in Japan today.

BULLY!
0

BessonovYanAug. 07, 2012 - 02:34AM JST

Clifton Truman Daniel not told that was very bad!
2

FadamorAug. 07, 2012 - 02:35AM JST

An excellent post except for this. Every American and every Japanese is only responsible for their own actions and their own mouths.

True enough. What I left out was "the" Americans, indicating the ones who decided on this course of action and those who condoned it. I did not intend to imply the entire nation's population was/is at fault for the decisions of the government in 1945.
0

FadamorAug. 07, 2012 - 03:15AM JST

And still they fought on!!!! The island-hopping campain had proven that surrender was not an option. The Imperial Japanese military still had ships, submarines, and suicide craft. Fighter planes, including jet aircraft, were being hidden in mountain caves. 55 Army Divisions were stationed to defend Japan. In June of 1945, the Cabinet created the civilian militia units Volunteer Fighting Corps, Kokumin Giyū Sentōtai, as a second defense line in the intended "war of attrition" against any invaders. Japan had closed all schools and mobilized its school children, was arming its civilian population and was fortifying caves and building underground defenses.

Ask the crew of the Yamato (Japan's largest battleship) how many battle-worthy ships they had on August 1st. Oh wait, they wouldn't know because they were gone almost four months earlier. Their final orders were to take their task force to Okinawa and beach the ships because there wasn't enough fuel to make the round-trip. They never made it. Japan had no effective naval force by August 1st. They had no effective air power by August 1st. Their kamikaze pilots had no combat experience and were just taught to operate human-guided bombs. All Japan's expeienced pilots had long been dead or captured. America KNEW there was virtually no air corps left in Japan. Why do you think they sent in the most important bomber of the day with only two other B-29's as escort? It's because they knew there would be little resistance (if any) by Japan's fighters. After the onslaught at Okinawa only their army reserves were left on Hokkaido, Honshu and KyuuShu. While I have no doubt they would have fought as long as their Emperor told them to, it would have been a slaughter. They had nothing to fight WITH. America knew all this and went ahead with the bombings anyway, but the question that has been asked since then is WHY? If I were to guess, it would be MONEY. Developing the bomb was extraordinarily expensive for those days, and to have nothing to show for it would have ruined the careers of those politicians who had authorized the expenditure. All that cash for no "Boom" would have been political suicide. Therefore, the bomb WOULD be used, the question was "Where?"
-1

FadamorAug. 07, 2012 - 03:32AM JST

Unlike you, Imperial Japan didn't believe they were totally beaten in 1945.

Ending WWII quickly saved lives.

There is actually convincing evidence that Japan's surrender had more to do with the Soviet Union's entry into the Pacific War on August 9th, than the atomic bombs. The Soviet forces swept through the Japanese forces on the mainland - virtually eliminating them by the time Japan surrendered on August 15th. The Soviet Union continued the fighting (and gaining more territory) until September 2nd, when Japan actually signed the surrender documents.
2

Dell_1957Aug. 07, 2012 - 04:03AM JST

The Japanese army’s killing spree at Nanjing… has become the other emblematic massacre of the Pacific War, and it remains the epitome of the cruelty and aggression that the Japanese military unleashed. The Nanjing rampage seems all the more atrocious in that it involved not what has seemed so horrifying about the Holocaust – its bureaucratized planning and mechanized execution – but the often gleeful killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians by individual soldiers using sword and bayonet as well as bullet. The killings were all the more appalling in that they were unnecessary for the military objective, continued after the victory was secured, and apparently involved such joyful or at least indifferent murder.

Some soldiers who took part in beheadings took photos of their ‘prize’ as souvenirs. Some of these photos were also used as postcards by the troops to send news home. Sometimes, these decapitated heads were also deliberately and prominently displayed as a means of intimidating the local populace. Young girls, elderly women, children and even pregnant women were raped. After which, their bellies were sometimes slashed open and foetuses disgorged.

Captured civilians and soldiers were also used as live targets for bayonet practice. According to testimonies by Japanese soldiers, this was done to desensitize the soldiers and to accustom them to the horrors of killing.

For example, a soldier named Tajima recounts how his commanding officer Liutenant Ono said to him, "You have never killed anyone yet, so today we shall have some killing practice. You must not consider the Chinese as a human being, but only of something less value than a dog or cat. Be brave!..."

Another soldier named Tominaga Shozo also recounts how at a Chinese detention centre, him and fellow officers are taught to cut off heads and bayonet live prisoners. Of his wartime experience, he says: "We made them like this... Human beings turned into murdering demons. Everyone became a demon within three months."

Soldiers who became desensitized no longer viewed the Chinese they had conquered as deserving of mercy. As such, various atrocities were committed, and in the most cruel and unnecessary ways.

For example, in Nagatomi Hakudo's account: "I remember being driven along a path that had been cleared through piles of thousands and thousands of slaughtered bodies... ...we stopped and pulled a group of Chinese prisoners out of the back. Then the Japanese officer proposed a test of my courage. He unsheathed his sword, spat on it, and with a sudden mighty swing, he brought it down on the neck of a Chinese boy cowering before us... The officer suggested I take the head home as a souvenir. I remember smiling proudly as I took his sword and began killing people."

All this evidence of atrocities by Japan and some posters post that the Americans didn't have to go as far as to drop the bombs....

Denying these atrocities were done by Japan are along the same lines of denying the Holocaust. It was a war crime against humanity
2

sfjp330Aug. 07, 2012 - 04:14AM JST

Japan continue to look at themselve as a victim. Every August 6th, the Hiroshima ceremony never mentions about the victims of their neighboring countries. Only themselves. During the rape of Nanking--just that incident alone--the number of deaths that resulted surpasses the death toll, the immediate death toll, of the victims of Nagasaki and Hiroshima combined. That's just one incident. And the rape of Nanking was not a unique and isolated incident. There were so many similar atrocities that occurred all throughout China. So few people even know about them.
-5

techallAug. 07, 2012 - 04:19AM JST

The steel blade of the sword flashed in the bright sunshine. Second Lieutenant Toshiaki Mukai clutched the handle in both hands. He raised the weapon high towards the sky and took a deep breath. And then, with a powerful strike, He slashed the head of the young Chinese man kneeling before him. He smiled. Did Second Lieutenant Tsuyoshi Noda win or lose? On route to Nanjing, the two officers Of the Japanese Imperial Army were Competing with each other for being the first To behead 100 people. The competition was not a war crime, they said, But in the Samurai spirit of kiri sute gomen, The ancient feudal era custom That authorized the Samurai to execute by sword anyone From the lower classes who compromised the warrior's honor. The Japanese media liked the idea of the beheading contest. Newspapers celebrated it with enthusiastic reports. They explained that cutting heads strengthened military character, Increased patriotism and public support, as well as army moral. The Tokyo Nichi-Nichi Shimbun covered the contest Of cutting 100 heads with a series of articles. "incredible Record", announced the newspaper In its December 13,1937 headline: "Mukai beheaded 106, Noda 105". The Tokyo paper also claimed that the two officers decided To start another competition with the aim being 150 severed heads. During the Fascist invasion of China and in World War II Soldiers of the Japanese Imperial Army treated people In the occupied territories as inferior lower classes and slaves. Beheading by sword became a common war crime in the Asian theatre. Yet Japanese officers saw it not only as an antidote to faintheartedness But as a grand act of heroism. By the end of the Second World War an estimated four million soldiers And perhaps up to sixteen million civilians lost their lives in China.

The U.S. should NOT have nuked Japan into submission, they should have bombed all military installation and then let China invade.
2

Dell_1957Aug. 07, 2012 - 04:24AM JST

The U.S. should NOT have nuked Japan into submission, they should have bombed all military installation and then let China invade.

You just don't get it.....
2

sfjp330Aug. 07, 2012 - 04:29AM JST

techall Aug. 07, 2012 - 04:19AM JST The U.S. should NOT have nuked Japan into submission, they should have bombed all military installation and then let China invade.

U.S. was more concerned with the Russian advancement. If the war prolonged for another few months, U.S. knew that Russians would've occupied Hokkaido and if it wasn't for the A-bomb in Hiroshima and Nagaski, todays map might've shown as Hokkaido as a Russian Territory.
3

techallAug. 07, 2012 - 04:40AM JST

Dell_1957 and sfjp330:: I do get it. My point is that Japan could have been much worse off had the war not ended abruptly as Russia actually wanted a part in the occupation but MacArthur told them to "f*** Off". China wanted retribution too. The British wanted the Emperor hanged for the atrocities committed on the "Death Railway". In the end, Japan got off easy.
1

Dell_1957Aug. 07, 2012 - 04:49AM JST

Dell_1957 and sfjp330:: I do get it. My point is that Japan could have been much worse off had the war not ended abruptly as Russia actually wanted a part in the occupation but MacArthur told them to "f*** Off". China wanted retribution too. The British wanted the Emperor hanged for the atrocities committed on the "Death Railway". In the end, Japan got off easy.

I misunderstood your previous post.....my bad
0

IshiwaraAug. 07, 2012 - 06:03AM JST

The nukes were unnecessary; Japan was ready to negotiate, but the US only wanted unconditional surrender. That was an American political choice, it was not written in the stars that Japan should surrender.

The bombs were warcrimes: 1) killing civilians in order to stop military resistance is illegal, obviously. Germans were tried at Nurenberg for doing this. 2) Hiroshima was a civilian target (the Kure naval base was not touched by the bomb).

The bombs were a scientific experiment: 1) they chose Hiroshima because it was the only city still standing (next to Kyoto) and they wanted to see the effects, 2) the US sent a medical team to Hiroshima to do research on the victims. They collected body parts without consent of the families. And they refused to give medical help.
-1

shortsightedAug. 07, 2012 - 06:21AM JST

Nukes are not evil in itself. Objects do decide what they can do to others. It is the exploitaion of man on those objects to use them to their own advantage that's the root of all evil.
1

sfjp330Aug. 07, 2012 - 06:32AM JST

Ishiwara Aug. 07, 2012 - 06:03AM JST The nukes were unnecessary; Japan was ready to negotiate, but the US only wanted unconditional surrender. That was an American political choice, it was not written in the stars that Japan should surrender. The bombs were warcrimes: 1) killing civilians in order to stop military resistance is illegal, obviously. Germans were tried at Nurenberg for doing this. 2) Hiroshima was a civilian target (the Kure naval base was not touched by the bomb).

The tragedy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is all about the innocent Japanese women and children that died in a flash. But you missed over decade of slow, methodical torture, rape, theft and pillaging that IJA committed in Chin, Korea, Philippines and other parts of Southeast Asia. Japan is still looking at themselves as a victim. When you speak of cowards, IJA beat and tortured Allied prisoners and civilians of war, as if they have no conscience for the things they did in the name of their Emperor. And of course so many more killed themselves rather than face the tribunal of world judgment for their crimes against the innocent. You state that dropping the bombs did nothing to speed up the end. When upon viewing the destruction of the city of Hiroshima, and learning that the Soviets had declared war on Japan, Hirohito began publically stating to his cabinet that "We must end this war". The Emperor ended it, not anyone else. Not the people of Japan only, he ended it when he spoke via radio declaring and end to all. Up until then, he held out for a negotiated peace that would have allowed the IJA and J-Goverment of 1945 to escape any responsibilty for the millions of deaths, rapes and tortures committed in all the years since early 1930's. Tell me that military men of Japan in the 1940's were a civilized, humanitarian like group of people when in fact its acts of violence against her neighbors is only exceeded by the Germans and the Nazi party. I don't blame the current generation and their parents for the actions of the grandparents. But I feel sorry for this generation for not getting the opportunity to learn truth of their countries actions in the past, they can learn from them. All they seemed to have learned is nuclear bombs are bad and they were victims.
-6

DenonAug. 07, 2012 - 09:19AM JST

The tragedy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is all about the innocent Japanese women and children that died in a flash. But you missed over decade of slow, methodical torture, rape, theft and pillaging that IJA committed in Chin, Korea, Philippines and other parts of Southeast Asia. Japan is still looking at themselves as a victim.

The women and children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not the IJA. The IJA was not the women and children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And neither group is Japan. Charles Manson killed people, so we went after Charles Manson, NOT his mother, and not all people named Manson either. We are not complaining about the sinking of Japanese war vessels, or shooting war planes out of the sky, or dropping bombs on military bases. Nobody has a problem with that. The problem is nuking women and children in their own homes. They didnt do anything. Why is that so hard to understand?
2

sfjp330Aug. 07, 2012 - 09:25AM JST

Denon Aug. 07, 2012 - 09:19AM JST. The women and children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not the IJA

Then you can say women and children of Nanking were not the Chinese military either. It's a fair game.
-4

voiceofokinawaAug. 07, 2012 - 10:47AM JST

Dell_1957 (Aug. 07, 2012 - 04:03AM JST),

War makes individual soldiers insane, demoniac and atrocious. They lose their soul and mind completely as human beings and act accordingly like cogs of a killing machine. That's what happened in the Rape of Nanjing and that's what happened during the Vietnam War in such incidents as represented by the My Lai Massacre.

Can the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki be discussed in the same context? Weren't the bombings a calculated massacre officially executed by the U.S. government?
2

arrestpaulAug. 07, 2012 - 11:15AM JST

Denon - The women and children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not the IJA. The IJA was not the women and children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And neither group is Japan. .....The problem is nuking women and children in their own homes. They didnt do anything. Why is that so hard to understand?

Ask the civilian women and children being held, beaten, starved, and murdered in Imperial prison camps. Some of those camps had been liberated. The Allies knew exactly what the Imperial military was capable of.

The U.S. did not treat defeated Japan as the Imperial forces had treated the people it had defeated.
-2

Tiger_In_The_HermitageAug. 07, 2012 - 11:39AM JST

The bombing was not necessary at all, Japan was contemplating surrender anyway but the Americans wanted to test out the bomb and its impact in a live scenario. Thats a crime against humanity!
-3

OlegekAug. 07, 2012 - 04:00PM JST

arrestpaul

And still they fought on!!!! The island-hopping campain had proven that surrender was not an option.

For Japan the game was over in Oktober 1944 ....Second Battle of the Philippine Sea....

The problem of taking little or not so little islands (with total superiority in forces ) was problem of legendary US Marine Corps and not so legendary but still good equipped and prepared US Army

Sea and air was totally in american hands in the end of 1944...

Low combat capability and categorical unwillingness to suffer losses

Here is the source of legends about two years and millions of possible casualties
-1

OlegekAug. 07, 2012 - 04:15PM JST

arrestpaul

The war ended when Japan "actually" surrendered. It was Japan's decision to make.

in August 1945 Japan can't realize any serious military operations..

Japan was no longer presented slightest threat at that time..

Year 1945 - was year of Japanese agony

But the Americans did not want to bear any losses and they wanted absolute victory
-4

JeffLeeAug. 07, 2012 - 06:09PM JST

in August 1945 Japan can't realize any serious military operations.

And when was the Battle of Okinawa? Ah, JUNE of 1945. Well, Japan "realized" the mother of all fights then, and that wasn't even the homeland. Post August fighting on Honshu would have been a horrid bloodbath for everybody. We can all be thankful that never happened.
3

lostrune2Aug. 07, 2012 - 06:15PM JST

But the Americans did not want to bear any losses and they wanted absolute victory

With the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor blowing a raging hole on the American psyche, it's not a surprise that they were seeking nothing short of unconditional surrender.

Yet, the American people didn't have it in them to continue the war much longer. Especially after the defeat of Hitler, the American people was by then, 4 years on, really tired of the war - and they were fighting 2 wars. They just wanted their soldiers, fathers and sons, home. Continuing the war longer would have no political support back home (like what happened with the Vietnam War); the restless population would demand otherwise. While European allies were even more tired of the war they wouldn't be expected to send replacement troops to help out in the Pacific front. And don't underestimate back then Japan's will to suffer thru sacrifices - they'd rather die than surrender and lose honor, especially when they thought they'd lose their divine Emperor (it took super extraordinary circumstances for Japan to surrender), so it's not guaranteed. And the USSR would rather invade, conquer, and occupy rather than sit back and wait, so if the Allies won't do it, the USSR would.
0

Vast Right-Wing ConspiratorAug. 07, 2012 - 06:16PM JST

August 1945. The IJA had nearly one million troops in Kyushu alone. Ten thousand aircraft were available for use as kamikaze attack weapons. Civilians from 15 to 60 were training with backpack bombs and bamboo spears to fight the invaders.

It would have been a slaughter unlike any in human history, on both sides.
0

FadamorAug. 07, 2012 - 09:17PM JST

I have no doubt the Nanking Massacre actually happened, so I believe the Chinese people have every right to hold a memorial service for those who died. In the cases of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki massacres (let's call it what it really was), why would you deny the Japanese the right to hold a memorial service for those victims? Irregardless of what other Japanese did during their wars, the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were for the most part completely removed from the atrocities. So anytime someone tries to argue that the Japanese shouldn't remember those lost at Hiroshima and Nagasaki because of what the IJA did at Nanking, all I can think of is that phrase about "comparing apples to oranges". What do the two events have to do with each other?
-2

OlegekAug. 07, 2012 - 09:26PM JST

@Jeff

And when was the Battle of Okinawa? Ah, JUNE of 1945. Well, Japan "realized" the mother of all fights then, and that wasn't even the homeland.

"The attack on Okinawa had taken a heavy toll on both sides. The Americans lost 7,373 men killed and 32,056 wounded on land. At sea, the Americans lost 5,000 killed and 4,600 wounded. The Japanese lost 107,000 killed and 7,400 men taken prisoner. It is possible that the Japanese lost another 20,000 dead as a result of American tactics whereby Japanese troops were incinerated where they fought.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/battleofokinawa.htm

The ratio of losses : about 1:10

It was not a battle ... it was beating....

Well, Japan "realized" the mother of all fights then

may be for US it was a mother of all fights but for Russian/Germans it was something ordinary... dozens of such "mothers" were realized on East front

And this " mother "was realised not by Japan but by US

Japan was able only for passive resistance.
0

FadamorAug. 07, 2012 - 09:31PM JST

August 1945. The IJA had nearly one million troops in Kyushu alone. Ten thousand aircraft were available for use as kamikaze attack weapons. Civilians from 15 to 60 were training with backpack bombs and bamboo spears to fight the invaders.

10,000 aircraft with no fuel to take off is 10,000 museum pieces waiting for the museums to be built. Saying "civilians aged 15 to 60" is a bit misleading because from age 18 and older all the boys had already been shipped off to war (most of them probably made up your "one million troops in Kyuushu"). What was left in Japan were the women, children, elderly and physically infirm. I have no doubt those women were training, but it's not like the "backpack bomb ploy" was going to work past the first day of battle. Finally, let's be honest, a single Browning .50 Cal machine gun could decimate a batallion of civilians armed with bamboo spears.
0

FadamorAug. 07, 2012 - 09:44PM JST

Let's not forget the logistics situation in Japan during WWII. Civilians had been having to resort to the black market for basic sustenance since even BEFORE Dec 7 1941. By 1945 the civilians were malnourished and had entered a state resembling PTSD. They had resigned themselves that they were going to die and were basically just going through the motions of day to day life. Their combat "training" consisted of nothing more than trying to be a ground-based kamikaze - giving up their lives to delay the inevitable defeat by a few more minutes. There wasn't a single civilian who had any delusions that their actions would change the outcome for Japan.
0

OlegekAug. 07, 2012 - 09:58PM JST

Vast Right-Wing Conspirator August 1945. The IJA had nearly one million troops in Kyushu alone. Ten thousand aircraft were available for use as kamikaze attack weapons. Civilians from 15 to 60 were training with backpack bombs and bamboo spears to fight the invaders.

Ten thousand aircrafts and bamboo spears - this combination looks really dangerous ...

IJA - no tanks no modern artillery no sub machine guns

and in August 1945 - little ammo no fuel little food ...

Really dangerous !!

Kwantung army - about 1 million , was defeated by Red Army in 8 days.....

1 year 2 years 3 years ....
2

SerranoAug. 07, 2012 - 10:05PM JST

I can't believe another year has already passed since the 66th anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing and the end of the war and Japan's prancing all over Asia.
0

OlegekAug. 07, 2012 - 10:08PM JST

@ lostrune

Yet, the American people didn't have it in them to continue the war much longer. Especially after the defeat of Hitler, the American people was by then, 4 years on, really tired of the war - and they were fighting 2 wars. They just wanted their soldiers, fathers and sons, home.

Yes sorry - I totally forget - US has defeat A Hitler ... It was not so easy to beat Wermacht without landing in Europe in full scale

until 1944 June

it was easy war for Germany & Russia& UK& Japan but real disaster for US ...

to understand this - just compare the loses ..
0

arrestpaulAug. 08, 2012 - 01:43AM JST

Olegek - "The attack on Okinawa had taken a heavy toll on both sides. The Americans lost 7,373 men killed and 32,056 wounded on land. At sea, the Americans lost 5,000 killed and 4,600 wounded. The Japanese lost 107,000 killed and 7,400 men taken prisoner. It is possible that the Japanese lost another 20,000 dead as a result of American tactics whereby Japanese troops were incinerated where they fought.

The ratio of losses : about 1:10 It was not a battle ... it was beating.... may be for US it was a mother of all fights but for Russian/Germans it was something ordinary... dozens of such "mothers" were realized on East front And this " mother "was realised not by Japan but by US Japan was able only for passive resistance.

And still the Imperial military refused to surrender.

The war continued because Japan refused to surrender.

Japan prepared a defense and the Allies prepared an invasion. Japan could have surrendered at any time. It was their choice. Until Japan surrendered, the war would continue.

WWII ended when Japan surrendered.
-1

arrestpaulAug. 08, 2012 - 02:07AM JST

Olegek - For Japan the game was over in Oktober 1944 ....Second Battle of the Philippine Sea....

The problem of taking little or not so little islands (with total superiority in forces ) was problem of legendary US Marine Corps and not so legendary but still good equipped and prepared US Army Sea and air was totally in american hands in the end of 1944... Low combat capability and categorical unwillingness to suffer losses

Here is the source of legends about two years and millions of possible casualties

Hahahaha. What you call "legends" was actually part of the preparations for the invasion of Japan. The allies made assumptions based on the actions of Imperial forces during the island hopping campaign. There was no reason to believe that Imperial Japan would surrender but they would fight to the last man. Combat would continue from the beachheads to the city streets. Casualties were expected to be very high. Japan could surrender at any time of their choosing.

Until then, the war would continue.
1

Vast Right-Wing ConspiratorAug. 08, 2012 - 02:11AM JST

Fadamor;

Actually, if you actually read the documents and study the history, you will find out that the commonly held idea that Japan was finished militarily is wrong. That may be true in terms of offensive capability, but not in terms of defending their home islands. For example, the Japanese had been hoarding supplies and fuel to repel the invasion for months. There was enough avgas for the 10000 kamikaze airplanes, and enough ammunition for the soldiers to fight a 1-2 month battle. Divisions had been pulled back from China and the Soviet border to defend the Homeland. Plus, I forgot, the IJN had prepared around 1500 suicide attack boats.

Casualty estimates for the Allies ranged upwards of one million. For the Japanese? Unimaginable.

The only other option available (if you discount atomic weapons or invasion) was a starvation blockade. This could take a long time, and those who would have suffered the most were the civilians. The military would have taken what little food was available. Also, the firebombing campaign would have continued unabated during this time. Again, untold casualties. Not to mention the continued suffering of those captured by the IJA and living in occupied lands.

I can't see any other alternatives. Of course, hindsight is 20/20. At the time, at the end of a long and gruelling war, facing an enemy that had shown no fear of death, an enemy that forced their own civilians to commit suicide, I understand why Truman decided to do what he did.
-1

IshiwaraAug. 08, 2012 - 02:57AM JST

@ Vast Right-Wing Conspirator

The Japanese indeed still had good defensive capabilities. But the problem was that the US insisted on "unconditional surrender," something unprecedented in history. In most previous wars (including the Russo-Japanese war for example), the losing side gives up territory and perhaps pays an indemnity. In 1945 it was an American choice too to continue the war, and perhaps invade Japan. They US was not forced to choose between dropping nukes and invading. They could have responded to negotiation offers with the Japanese, as was normal practice.
2

Andrew BrooksAug. 08, 2012 - 05:11AM JST

I will probably get a lot of thumbs down for this but i will say it anyway..... I like how on JT and other sights that have a vote button, people state " I will probably get a lot of bad votes for this but..." LOL This usually means that even the person stating it knows thier statement isnt entirely true or, there is room for argument, but will never admit it! That being said. Whats done is done, honor the dead and pray this never happens again.
-4

YuriOtaniAug. 08, 2012 - 05:51AM JST

Vast Right-Wing Conspirator, there were no trailed pilots to make the strikes. A lot of the kamikaze crashed on takeoff or soon in the flight. Will say one thing do not think President Truman knew what he was doing. The atomic bomb was just a large bomb to him. Nobody knew what it would do to a city. What about the pictures? Well they were poor and did not reflect the reality of the attack. One thing for sure, these were the only attacks with these bombs. So when we call the Americans war criminals it is with the knowledge of today. What did they know about the attacks? My prayer is they are never used again. The past is the past, we can only control today and influence tomorrow.
-7

JeffLeeAug. 08, 2012 - 10:32AM JST

This usually means that even the person stating it knows thier statement isnt entirely true or, there is room for argument

Wrong. In Japan, certain views are relentlessly reinforced by the system, through schools, the media., etc., to the point where people who question the validity of the views are instantly branded "anti-Japanese." Truth is not the issue. The people hitting "bad" are often the indoctrinated ones or those who have been affected by this narrow pro-Japan view of the world.
0

arrestpaulAug. 08, 2012 - 02:24PM JST

Ishiwara - The Japanese indeed still had good defensive capabilities. But the problem was that the US insisted on "unconditional surrender," something unprecedented in history.

The U.S., G.B., and Russia insisted on "unconditional" surrender just had been demanded of Nazi Germany. Hardly "unprecedented".

What was "unprecedented" was that the victors actually helped rebuild the countries of their former enemies. There would be none of the draconian territory seizures that crippled the losers economy after WWI. Nations learned that they didn't need to create new, improve, and larger militaries and could work together with their neighbors instead of attacking them.

Unlike other nations, the U.S. had reduced it's military after WWI in the belief that it would never be involved in another world war. Surprise, 20 years later the world was at war again and the U.S. was woefully unprepared. The U.S. would not let that happen again. Keeping a strong military would not be enough. All nations had to have the opportunity to work together thru trade not combat. Militaries should no longer be the major influence in a government. World governments changed for the better after WWII.

However, Japan could have surrendered at anytime and ended WWII. It was their choice to keep fighting.
1

arrestpaulAug. 08, 2012 - 02:42PM JST

YuriOtani - So when we call the Americans war criminals it is with the knowledge of today.

That sounds like you support a revisionist history. What were the options in 1945 based on what was known in 1945. Imperial Japan would not surrender and the fight would be to the death. Imperial Japan had proven to be a cruel conqueror. People were dying on battlefields, in prison camps, and in their homes. More people would die until the war actually ended. You object to the use of the atomic bombs. I applaud the end of the war.

Honoring the dead at Hiroshima reminds people that war is a terrible thing. Attempting to blame the U.S. for attempting to end the war quickly is absurd. "No war" is certainly better than "war".
-1

OlegekAug. 08, 2012 - 08:12PM JST

arrestpaul

Ishiwara - The Japanese indeed still had good defensive capabilities. But the problem was that the US insisted on "unconditional surrender," something unprecedented in history. The U.S., G.B., and Russia insisted on "unconditional" surrender just had been demanded of Nazi Germany. Hardly "unprecedented"

I don't know on which surrender insisted US&GB But Russian troops simply took German capital ( Berlin) by assault , Hitler committed suicide, this was the end of NAZI Germany

This was a "precedent"

But I must say that after that US&GB have signed some strange document at the FRENCH territory.... With some German generals about "unconditional" surrender

8 th of May ....

Surprise, 20 years later the world was at war again and the U.S. was woefully unprepared.

It was attack on US ?
1

arrestpaulAug. 09, 2012 - 01:34AM JST

Olegek - I don't know on which surrender insisted US&GB But Russian troops simply took German capital ( Berlin) by assault , Hitler committed suicide, this was the end of NAZI Germany

WWI ended November 11, 1918 when Germany signed an armistice. The Kaiser had abdicated Nov 9th and fled the country. Bulgaria signed an armistice Sept 30, Turkey had signed an armistice Oct 30, and Austria-Hungary signed an armistice on Nov 3. The "war" ended when Germany, the last participant on the losing side, signed an armistice.

World War II begin September 3, 1939, 7602 days later (20 years, 9 months, 24 days).

Nazi Germany surrendered on May 8, 1945. WWII ended Sept 2, 1945 when Imperial Japan officially surrendered. Both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan *surrendered unconditionally" only meaning that neither country had a say in how the victors would deal with the losers.

It was truely unprecedented that the Allies help the Axis rebuild their countries and the former enemies became equal trading partners, good neighbors, and ended the possibility of another World War.

Honoring the anniversary of Hiroshima is a reminder that "WAR" itself is not the answer.

Using it as a chance to point fingers at the participants doesn't suit its peaceful intent.
0

IshiwaraAug. 09, 2012 - 06:53AM JST

@ arrestpaul

"What was "unprecedented" was that the victors actually helped rebuild the countries of their former enemies"

I agree. It was unprecedented that the US actually helped their former enemies after defeat. However, the Japanese did not know this in August 1945. The US had just wiped out all major cities killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. Would you want to "surrender unconditionally" faced with such an enemy? What were the US going to do? Turn it into a colony? Give half to the Soviets? Execute the Emperor?

Again, the Americans insisting on unconditional surrender (not just signing an armistice and admitting defeat) was unprecedented and an extremely risky policy. Japan hesitated, sent feelers for negotiations (via the Soviets), and their civilians got nuked for it. Twice.
-2

arrestpaulAug. 09, 2012 - 12:35PM JST

Ishiwara - .....Again, the Americans insisting on unconditional surrender (not just signing an armistice and admitting defeat) was unprecedented and an extremely risky policy. Japan hesitated, sent feelers for negotiations (via the Soviets), and their civilians got nuked for it. Twice.

Again, G.B, Russia, along with the U.S., insisted on unconditional surrender. Imperial Japan chose to ignore that demand and never responded. Imperial Japan had to send feelers thru Russia because Russia was the only country in the area that wasn't at war with Imperial Japan. Imperial Japan had no friends at this point in time.

The Imperial Japanese continued with the plans to defend the island - to the death. And to take as many invaders as possible, with them.

Uncondititional surrender was not uncommon in the annals of history. The atomic bombs original targets were to be in Nazi Germany but they had surrendered, uncondititionally, before the bombs were needed to end the war in Europe. With or without the atomic bombs, Japan would also surrender uncondititionally or be destroyed. Again, it was their choice to fight on.
0

OlegekAug. 09, 2012 - 01:22PM JST

arrestpaul

WWI ended November 11, 1918 when Germany signed an armistice. The Kaiser had abdicated Nov 9th and fled the country. Bulgaria signed an armistice Sept 30, Turkey had signed an armistice Oct 30

History lessons -it's always very intresting... But situation in the end of WW 1 was totaly different from WW2

It was armistice.... In the end of WW1 Germans and their allies were not utterly defeated and their position was not completely hopeless....

And only when the Germany diisolve its army - armistice turned to the Treaty of Versailles....

But this was different war...

Nazi Germany surrendered on May 8, 1945

.And of course it would have surrendered even if the Russian did not took Berlin

Even if they were from it for a thousand miles

Anyway - May 8, Germany would have surrendered before the Allies....

It was much more easy to sign some papers with some Nazi generals sympathizing to the Allies

than to take Berlin...

To took Tokyo by assault was much more easy than Berlin .. But still impossible for US

So first carpet bombing than nukes ....
-1

arrestpaulAug. 10, 2012 - 03:13AM JST

Olegek - History lessons -it's always very intresting... But situation in the end of WW 1 was totaly different from WW2

Not different from the point that one side officially surrendered and the war ended.

The war in Europe ended when Nazi Germany finally and officially surrendered. The war in the Pacific ended when Imperial Japan finally and officially surrendered. WWII ended when Imperial Japnan finally and officially surrendered.

Over 70 million people died during WWII. How many more deaths would have been acceptable to you? How long do you believe WWII should have been allowed to continue? 1946? 1947? How much more devistation do you believe Japan should have accepted before it would be OK to officially surrender?

Using the atomic bombs ended the war in the Pacific and WWII quickly. Ending wars quickly actually saves lives.

Using the 67th anniversary of Hiroshima as a platform to attack the Allies for ending the war quickly is absurd. Especially after the U.S. prevented Stalin from taking half of Japan. North and South Japan? Just like East and West Germany? Damn those evil Americans for helping to rebuild Japan????
0

IshiwaraAug. 10, 2012 - 07:29AM JST

@arrestpaul

So if Germany would have dropped a nuke on Britain in order to stop resistance, that would have been OK?

What if the US would have dropped a bomb on Beijing during the Korean war. That might have saved lives. MacArthur thought this was a great idea. Kudos to the yanks they did not listen to him.

Justifying the A-bombs now sets a dangerous precedent for future conflicts.
0

arrestpaulAug. 10, 2012 - 11:34AM JST

Ishiwara - So if Germany would have dropped a nuke on Britain in order to stop resistance, that would have been OK?

What if the US would have dropped a bomb on Beijing during the Korean war. That might have saved lives. MacArthur thought this was a great idea. Kudos to the yanks they did not listen to him.

Justifying the A-bombs now sets a dangerous precedent for future conflicts.

No, it would not have been OK but it would have ended the war wouldn't it? Hitler would have used the atomic bomb to rule the world. Lucky for all of us the it was the U.S. that managed to develope the atomic bomb first.

Very little was known about the affects of the first atomic bombs. One thing that was learned was that atomic bombs shouldn't be used again. And they haven't been. For 67 years.
0

OlegekAug. 10, 2012 - 03:58PM JST

@arrestpaul

Not different from the point that one side officially surrendered and the war ended.

The war in Europe ended when Nazi Germany finally and officially surrendered. The war in the Pacific ended when Imperial Japan finally and officially surrendered.

Very good result ! But how to achieve it ? In WW 1 by cheating - Allies without Russia were unable to totally defeat Germany

Yes it was so !

So first armistice - NOT capitulation.

It was cheating !!

Without this it was totally impossible to achieve Versailles capitulation ...

The main result of this cheatting - A Hitler and NSDAP -The Germans felt himself cheated....

It was not honest victory .. and it does matter 20 years later for winners

In WW2 - as I said before - Russian just broke down Wermacht and took Berlin by assault...

In this situation some papers were only statement of fact ...

All German troops in Germany were defeated and whole Germany was occupied !

Without these papers - the result was the same !

Over 70 million people died during WWII. How many more deaths would have been acceptable to you? How long do you believe WWII should have been allowed to continue? 1946? 1947? How much more devistation do you believe Japan should have accepted before it would be OK to officially surrender?

Most of them were Russian and Chinese not American ! I doubt that Harry S. Truman wanted to take revenge for those Chinese killed by the Japanese and Russian killed not by Japanese....

30 mio Russians were killed by Nazi BUT J Stalin did not use chemical weapons against Berlin....

It was possible - to kill them all .. why not ? in May 1945 Germans were not able to respond....

US were unable to took Tokyo by assault ( for Russian in 1945 it was easy game)

So US use A bomb . But not speak to me about 2-3 years .

1 mio Kwantung army was defeated in 8 days... by Russian of cause....

Sometimes I think in which way Americans liberated Asia from IJA without the Bomb and the Red Army ....
1

arrestpaulAug. 11, 2012 - 12:46AM JST

Olegek - Most of them were Russian and Chinese not American ! I doubt that Harry S. Truman wanted to take revenge for those Chinese killed by the Japanese and Russian killed not by Japanese....

Truman authorised the use of the atomic bombs to END THE WAR QUICKLY. Ending wars quickly saves lives. The surrender terms of WWI created hardships and animosity that led to WWII. The surrender terms of WWII resulted in national friendships that have prevented another world war for 67 years.

But the bottomline is that WWII didn't end until Imperial Japan officially surrendered.
-3

IshiwaraAug. 11, 2012 - 03:11AM JST

@ arrestpaul

The surrender terms of WWII resulted in national friendships that have prevented another world war for 67 years.

The war turned the Pacific into an American lake, and Japan the west-coast of America
1

arrestpaulAug. 11, 2012 - 10:51AM JST

Ishiwara - The war turned the Pacific into an American lake, and Japan the west-coast of America

And Stalin came soooo close to controlling half of Japan. North Japan could have been a satellite of the U.S.S.R.. Ending wars quickly saves lives. (Damn those Americans. Why didn't they just stay home and mind their own business. Oh, wait a minute, they were - until somebody bombed Pearl Harbor.)
0

Alec HueJan. 07, 2013 - 11:21PM JST

The 'greatest' mistake Japan made was the bombing of Pearl Harbor ~ Amounting to disturb the hornet's nest and the rest was history ... Pointless crying over spilt milk ... Get over it and be done with it ... PEACE !! ...