Were the atomic bombs necessary

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Orm

My point was Europeans did not enter WWII, or any war in the past 300 years I can think of (tell me if I'm wrong), in the same or similar way the US entered WWII.

I am not sure that I understand this. I would appreciate it if someone could explain to me why this is so unique. Preferably in a calm and nice manner.

I hope I didn't offend by asking this.

warspite1

More to the point is why it is even relevant to the discussion?

There are - judging by this unrepresentative sample - as many Americans that do/do not believe that the dropping of the bomb was necessary/justified/sensible as there are Europeans.

The Pacific War was, to all intents and purposes, the US vs Japan. Sure there were notable contributions from others - particularly the Commonwealth countries in Burma/PNG etc or the Dutch in NEI (and I do not in anyway belittle those that fought and died) - but it was the US that got that theatre won.

Equally, the Commonwealth forces earmarked for the invasion of the Home Islands was negligible in comparison to the US.

So in a discussion about America's choices and what she would do re a decision to end, what was essentially America's war, constant references to Churchill and "Europeans" is pointless. America, quite rightly, would have done (and did) what her President considered was best for her.

Suggesting any Europeans have never been subject to war without an official declaration is absurd - but equally not relevant.

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Orm

My point was Europeans did not enter WWII, or any war in the past 300 years I can think of (tell me if I'm wrong), in the same or similar way the US entered WWII.

I am not sure that I understand this. I would appreciate it if someone could explain to me why this is so unique. Preferably in a calm and nice manner.

I hope I didn't offend by asking this.

warspite1

More to the point is why it is even relevant to the discussion?

There are - judging by this unrepresentative sample - as many Americans that do/do not believe that the dropping of the bomb was necessary/justified/sensible as there are Europeans.

The Pacific War was, to all intents and purposes, the US vs Japan. Sure there were notable contributions from others - particularly the Commonwealth countries in Burma/PNG etc or the Dutch in NEI (and I do not in anyway belittle those that fought and died) - but it was the US that got that theatre won.

Equally, the Commonwealth forces earmarked for the invasion of the Home Islands was negligible in comparison to the US.

So in a discussion about America's choices and what she would do re a decision to end, what was essentially America's war, constant references to Churchill and "Europeans" is pointless. America, quite rightly, would have done (and did) what her President considered was best for her.

Suggesting any Europeans have never been subject to war without an official declaration is absurd - but equally not relevant.

+1. Well stated, Warspite1.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Wuffer

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


My point was Europeans did not enter WWII, or any war in the past 300 years I can think of (tell me if I'm wrong), in the same or similar way the US entered WWII.

Port Arthur in 1904, what a surprise...


for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Port_Arthur

You could draw your own conclusions about similarities one(!) generation later (and wether the US government did this or did this not).

About 200 casualties and no major ships sunk. No civilians. And whether Russia was a European power at that time is debatable. In no way was this action comparable to Pearl Harbor.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Not assuming that everyone fits in the basket I lump them in but;

Europe has an immensly long history of warfare, most conflict ended in a Treaty which took land from the loser and added to the victor. Future generations would be back at war to regain their heritage or to get some more land. They are more accepting to peace treaties as they have to live with their neighbours (and plan revenge)

The USA does not have this background, even its Civil War was fought with a ferocity which had not been seen in Europe at that stage, victory didnt involve capturing the CSA Capital, but when its main army was finally made ineffective.

Europe may have seen 7/12 & 11/9 as a case of "getting in first" wheras the USA saw it more as a case of Rape, and therefore its reaction was more of getting revenge rather than "just another of those wars which happen every second generation. IMVHO, the mindset in the USA is more Black & White whereas Europe see a lot more shades of gray.

Therefore we get different views about the same event, what one groups sees as "the government attempting to surrender" is also seen as "an ineffective group offering something it cannot deliver"

In the end, I see it that the million odd American, Indian, Australian, British, Chinese, Filipino etc Servicemen were far happier at an immediate end to hostilities rather than a drawn out campaign waiting for politicians to sign a piece of paper.

End result was a beatan & compliant Japan instead of a "Weimar in the Pacific"

Good summary. Always dangerous to speak in national generalities, but anyone who has spent time in both the USA and Europe can tell we're wired differently. Oz a third way.

I had to re-read your dates three times. [:)] Wracking my brain for European dates that fit "July 12th" and "November 9th."[:'(]

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

ORIGINAL: Wuffer

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


My point was Europeans did not enter WWII, or any war in the past 300 years I can think of (tell me if I'm wrong), in the same or similar way the US entered WWII.

Port Arthur in 1904, what a surprise...


for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Port_Arthur

You could draw your own conclusions about similarities one(!) generation later (and wether the US government did this or did this not).

What's so special about the way the US was dragged into the war? I would think countries like Poland, Norway, Greece, Belgium, The Netherlands or the Soviet Union would have more to complain about. Although the USSR was no angel either before they were invaded and nearly destroyed by Germany. The US got off pretty light. I mean, as an American I'd like to agree with how special our circumstance was but as someone who doesn't like to delude himself I can't really figure out what was somehow more special about Pearl Harbor than, say, being physically invaded and crushed without mercy (as the countries listed above were). [&:]

Just pointing out...

Sorry you can't see the difference between a declared war after massing on the border and Pearl Harbor.

And if Japan had possessed the means the Hawaiian Islands and the West Coast would have been treated exactly as Poland was.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

ORIGINAL: Wuffer




Port Arthur in 1904, what a surprise...


for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Port_Arthur

You could draw your own conclusions about similarities one(!) generation later (and wether the US government did this or did this not).

What's so special about the way the US was dragged into the war? I would think countries like Poland, Norway, Greece, Belgium, The Netherlands or the Soviet Union would have more to complain about. Although the USSR was no angel either before they were invaded and nearly destroyed by Germany. The US got off pretty light. I mean, as an American I'd like to agree with how special our circumstance was but as someone who doesn't like to delude himself I can't really figure out what was somehow more special about Pearl Harbor than, say, being physically invaded and crushed without mercy (as the countries listed above were). [&:]

Just pointing out...

Sorry you can't see the difference between a declared war after massing on the border and Pearl Harbor.

And if Japan had possessed the means the Hawaiian Islands and the West Coast would have been treated exactly as Poland was.

warspite1

Mmmm so you asked for examples of similar situations to Pearl Harbor, namely an undeclared war, and then reject them all because the ones mentioned did not involve six carriers sneaking up on an island

[BattleMoose]

Sorry you can't see the difference between a declared war after massing on the border and Pearl Harbor.

If my history serves me correctly, none of those examples given were declared.

[warspite1]

Clearly Winkle is rather childishly ignoring my posts (how grown up - but hardly unexpected) so for the purposes of trying to have a sensible debate, could someone please tell me why any of the last few posts are in any way shape or form relevant to the discussion at hand??

Namely, how "Europeans" (as if we are one homogeneous group??) settled previous wars and how the US settled previous wars (plenty of which were by treaty) and what this has to do with the dropping of two atomic bombs on Japan, a decision as I said earlier, that was rightfully Truman's to make.

Many thanks.

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

ORIGINAL: Wuffer




Port Arthur in 1904, what a surprise...


for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Port_Arthur

You could draw your own conclusions about similarities one(!) generation later (and wether the US government did this or did this not).

What's so special about the way the US was dragged into the war? I would think countries like Poland, Norway, Greece, Belgium, The Netherlands or the Soviet Union would have more to complain about. Although the USSR was no angel either before they were invaded and nearly destroyed by Germany. The US got off pretty light. I mean, as an American I'd like to agree with how special our circumstance was but as someone who doesn't like to delude himself I can't really figure out what was somehow more special about Pearl Harbor than, say, being physically invaded and crushed without mercy (as the countries listed above were). [&:]

Just pointing out...

Sorry you can't see the difference between a declared war after massing on the border and Pearl Harbor.

And if Japan had possessed the means the Hawaiian Islands and the West Coast would have been treated exactly as Poland was.

I'm just saying that I don't see what is somehow so uniquely special about PH. A lot of other countries got screwed worse in WW2, and yet it seems to be thought that somehow our circumstance was so much more special and that Europeans therefore can't possibly know what trauma we went through? That's all I'm questioning at this point. I would think many Europeans have plenty of understanding of what it means to be dragged into a war without asking for it and a very intimate understanding of just how nasty and brutish war can be. So, based on that, if they want to comment on whether or not the A-Bomb was necessary, they seem to have as much right to an opinion as anyone else as far as I can see.

[Coach Zuck]

Those of you who argue the Atomic Bombs were unnecessary I wonder if you have read JAPAN'S LONGEST DAY.
It is the account of an attempted coup by members of the Imperial Japanese Army who attacked the Imperial Palace trying to kidnap the Emperor to
prevent any surrender.

[GaryChildress]

Here's a handy dandy chart on how various countries ended up in WW2 for anyone interested.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaratio ... rld_War_II

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress



What's so special about the way the US was dragged into the war? I would think countries like Poland, Norway, Greece, Belgium, The Netherlands or the Soviet Union would have more to complain about. Although the USSR was no angel either before they were invaded and nearly destroyed by Germany. The US got off pretty light. I mean, as an American I'd like to agree with how special our circumstance was but as someone who doesn't like to delude himself I can't really figure out what was somehow more special about Pearl Harbor than, say, being physically invaded and crushed without mercy (as the countries listed above were). [&:]

Just pointing out...

Sorry you can't see the difference between a declared war after massing on the border and Pearl Harbor.

And if Japan had possessed the means the Hawaiian Islands and the West Coast would have been treated exactly as Poland was.

I'm just saying that I don't see what is somehow so uniquely special about PH. A lot of other countries got screwed worse in WW2, and yet it seems to be thought that somehow our circumstance was so much more special and that Europeans therefore can't possibly know what trauma we went through? That's all I'm questioning at this point. I would think many Europeans have plenty of understanding of what it means to be dragged into a war without asking for it and a very intimate understanding of just how nasty and brutish war can be. So, based on that, if they want to comment on whether or not the A-Bomb was necessary, they seem to have as much right to an opinion as anyone else as far as I can see.

warspite1

Gary I would not try and overthink it - he's making the rules up as he goes along. So Weserubung was a case of German troops amassing along that well known Norwegian/German border? And Germany declared war on Norway did they?[8|]

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

AW1Steve I am probably the only moderator following this thread. So if your respect has declined, put that completely on me.

I did almost lock this thread a few days ago, but the participants got more polite and it is about a period subject, though mostly tangential to the game. I've debated locking it every day though.

People can PM me privately if they want it locked. So far the only complaints I have seen have been public ones here.

Bill

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
Bill my biggest gripe/concern had been consistency. We've had a lot of threads locked that weren't even close to where this one went. When I look at the grounds , other than personal attacks , the biggest cause was current politics. Please go back to post #1 and tell me that there wasn't a question comparing the bomb dropping to a current political event (which was linked).

I'm not a wet blanket. In the past I've argued to keep threads like this alive. But can we get some definite guidance here? Where exactly are the lines? In the past it's been "don't even think of going close". Now?

I recognize that you are a new sheriff (OK, one that's been on the job a while). But can we have a definite policy? I've searched the forums for several days and can't find it in writing , other than comments from your predecessors. Where are they?

Sorry, I didn't read the original article that started this thread. A lot of people post links and I don't always go there. I see now that it was a current event, but the discussion since has largely been historical.

I can consult Joe and occasionally a Matrix employee, but mostly I'm working off precedent. Nobody gave me a rule book. Matrix does frown on modern political discussions and they would probably frown on religious ones too. I also assume they don't want anything on here that would anger the parents of minors on the forum (there have been some teens here in the past, I assume there are some now too). Generally all commercial sites avoid anything that can be considered "adult content" unless that is specifically their business.

In the past they have tolerated historical political discussions as long as they didn't devolve into a flame war. So I generally let them go unless they do.

Sorry if I seem inconsistent sometimes (a few threads have been locked by people other than me, but most of the time I'm the only one scanning every thread). Each case is different and I make my best call at the moment. Sometimes I err one way or the other.

Bill

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: Symon

Up on the hill; They’ve got time to burn;
There’s no return;
Double helix in the sky tonight;
Throw out the hardware, let’s do it right;
Aja;
When all my dime dancing is through:
I run to you..”mu”

Up on the hill; They think I’m ok;
Or so they say;
Chinese music always sets me free;
Angular banjoes; Sound good to me;
Aja;
When all my dime dancing is through:
I run to you..”mu”

Well first of all, he has every right to be just as incomprehensible as me. I'm thinking he's got a pretty good riff going on here. We should encourage him to produce more. Now I have with great difficulty deciphered that he has a fixation with the Greek letter mu and likes to bugger dairy cows, but that's just on the surface. He longs for the day when he could just stand in a glen speaking "mu, mu, muuuu" but that would not sufficiently serve his nefarious purposes.
I hate to be the one to break this for you, that dime dancing now costs three nickles.

[Wuffer]

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

Voltaire


Good discussion, great moderation imho so far.

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: Wuffer

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

Voltaire


Good discussion, great moderation imho so far.

Actually, just to be (anally) precise, Voltaire never said that, at least according to most Voltaire scholars I believe. But it's a nice quote. Kudos. [:)]

[geofflambert]

He also has nefarious porpoises, keep an eye out for them.

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

ORIGINAL: Wuffer

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

Voltaire


Good discussion, great moderation imho so far.

Actually, just to be (anally) precise, Voltaire never said that, at least according to most Voltaire scholars I believe. But it's a nice quote. Kudos. [:)]

That is correct, Voltaire actually said "I will forgo my buttered crumpet if it is shown that you are more correct than me.

[GaryChildress]

Voltaire never actually said “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Yet the persistence of the myth that associates this dictum with his name attests to the way that this invented statement captures well the spirit of his philosophy of liberty.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/voltaire/#Lib

Of course to prove that I'm not making that up... [:D]

[edit]Woops, I forgot to add the "I am right" dance...

[geofflambert]

We should remember that Voltaire advanced the Cartesian postulate "I think therefor I am" to its necessary conclusion "I eat therefor I'm fat".