It's Hiroshima Day

[Nessus]

The concentration camp at Auschwitz was specifically constructed to be a death camp where millions would be sent to die/exterminated over the course of years, where-as Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not constructed as cities populated to be hit with an atom bomb. Auschwitz had a very specific purpose related to its inclusion, Hiroshima and Nagasaki do not.

Actually!

Auschwitz was a special camp in many ways, and in hind-sight it's somewhat erroneous to say it was constructed to be a death camp; Sobibor, Treblinka etc. were originally intended to be strictly annihilation camps for the simple purpose of killing, whereas Auschwitz began its existence as a concentration camp. What is interesting is how Auschwitz changed over the course of the War and how it mirrored the evolution of the Final Solution. The purpose of Auschwitz was always multi-faceted, and kept changing as the world around it did.

[Supermarioman]

The concentration camp at Auschwitz was specifically constructed to be a death camp where millions would be sent to die/exterminated over the course of years, where-as Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not constructed as cities populated to be hit with an atom bomb. Auschwitz had a very specific purpose related to its inclusion, Hiroshima and Nagasaki do not.

Auschwitz and the Hiroshima Peace Memorial are on the list under the same criterion.
That should be all I need to say.

[Illusions]

Auschwitz and the Hiroshima Peace Memorial are on the list under the same criterion.
That should be all I need to say.

Well it does indeed seem that it was shoe-horned in there. Congratulations. Your continued lack of perspective is staggering though.

Actually!

Auschwitz was a special camp in many ways, and in hind-sight it's somewhat erroneous to say it was constructed to be a death camp; Sobibor, Treblinka etc. were originally intended to be strictly annihilation camps for the simple purpose of killing, whereas Auschwitz began its existence as a concentration camp. What is interesting is how Auschwitz changed over the course of the War and how it mirrored the evolution of the Final Solution. The purpose of Auschwitz was always multi-faceted, and kept changing as the world around it did.

thanks...I knew I probably screwed up somehow...

[Nessus]

thanks...I knew I probably screwed up somehow...

I had to vent my passions, your reasoning vis a vis Mario's problem is sound insofar as I can see

[Supermarioman]

Congratulations. Your continued lack of perspective is staggering though.

I would say the same thing about you.

[Illusions]

I would say the same thing about you.

The only thing that makes Hiroshima and Nagasaki special are that we used an atomic bomb instead of regular bombs. I don't have enough historical knowledge of the events, but the firebombing of Tokyo appears to at least be on par on a subjective level of horribleness with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, however it seems Tokyo isn't as special because we didn't use nuclear weapons to kill them.

[Supermarioman]

The only thing that makes Hiroshima and Nagasaki special are that we used an atomic bomb instead of regular bombs. I don't have enough historical knowledge of the events, but the firebombing of Tokyo appears to at least be on par on a subjective level of horribleness with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, however it seems Tokyo isn't as special because we didn't use nuclear weapons to kill them.

It took hundreds of planes to destroy half of Tokyo.
It only took one to totally level Hiroshima.
That totally changed the way countries thought about warfare, because it meant that mankind now had weapons so powerful that it had a very real chance of destroying itself.
In my opinion, the site of such a turning point in history should be marked.
Feel free to disagree, but understand that anything you say about it's unimportance in your opinion won't change mine.

[Illusions]

It took hundreds of planes to destroy half of Tokyo.
It only took one to totally level Hiroshima.
That totally changed the way countries thought about warfare, because it meant that mankind now had weapons so powerful that it had a very real chance of destroying itself.
In my opinion, the site of such a turning point in history should be marked.

You're making a case as to why the facilities that actually produced the atom bomb, or the actual first device itself should be on the list, more-so than a case for why Hiroshima should be.

[Supermarioman]

You're making a case as to why the facilities that actually produced the atom bomb, or the actual first device itself should be on the list, more-so than a case for why Hiroshima should be.

Because Hiroshima happens to have a convenient peace memorial?
That's a lot more accessible then a patch in the middle of the desert.

[Nessus]

Auschwitz is kinda in the boonies too, why couldn't the site remembering Holocaust be more conveniently in Berlin

[Draco]

In my opinion, the site of such a turning point in history should be marked.

I haven't been following the discussion, but i agree with you. In a time where such intelligent people devised a way to harness the power of the atom..that's an incredible feat of the human mind. And for it to have been put to use against an actual city shows just how great this creation was.

[LittleFuzzy]

You're making a case as to why the facilities that actually produced the atom bomb, or the actual first device itself should be on the list, more-so than a case for why Hiroshima should be.

It's not Hiroshima that would be a World Heritage site though, it's the Genbaku Dome.

[Illusions]

It's not Hiroshima that would be a World Heritage site though, it's the Genbaku Dome.

The Genbaku Dome was still something that was bombed, not the device itself, or the place that manufactured it.

[LittleFuzzy]

The Genbaku Dome was still something that was bombed, not the device itself, or the place that manufactured it.

But also very evocative of why the bomb is important. The device itself was destroyed, and the place it was manufactured does not provide tangible association with its impact. Genbaku does.

[agamemnus]

#1 America has a nasty habit of burying the shameful bits of it's history under the rug. That goes for it's corporations as well.
I think they should have run a picture today, but they won't because they don't like talking about it.

Automatic TRIPLE FAIL. -1000 points.

You have bad grammar, and I think you're either trolling or you may be an idiot. Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not a shameful act. I don't know anyone who thinks so besides you.

Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended the war against Japan and saved millions of civilian and soldiers' lives. But you don't like reading history books, so continue with your revisionist idiot parroting librulz conversation.

[Supermarioman]

Automatic TRIPLE FAIL. -1000 points.

You have bad grammar, and I think you're either trolling or you may be an idiot. Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not a shameful act. I don't know anyone who thinks so besides you.

Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended the war against Japan and saved millions of civilian and soldiers' lives. But you don't like reading history books, so continue with your revisionist idiot parroting librulz conversation.

[Wraith]

Automatic TRIPLE FAIL. -1000 points.

You have bad grammar, and I think you're either trolling or you may be an idiot. Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not a shameful act. I don't know anyone who thinks so besides you.

Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended the war against Japan and saved millions of civilian and soldiers' lives. But you don't like reading history books, so continue with your revisionist idiot parroting librulz conversation.

<mod hat>

Dial it back a few notches please, Agamemnus. No need to get this personal and hostile on your entry into the discussion.

</mod hat>

[Veldan Rath]

<mod hat>

Dial it back a few notches please, Agamemnus. No need to get this personal and hostile on your entry into the discussion.

</mod hat>

All invective aside, he is correct however.

[termite]

#1 America has a nasty habit of burying the shameful bits of it's history under the rug. That goes for it's corporations as well.
I think they should have run a picture today, but they won't because they don't like talking about it.

While you were throwing around the "shameful" word did you deliberately choose to ignore the fact that the Japanese had made it entirely clear throughout the Pacific campaign that surrender was not an option for not only its fighting men but its women and children?

Did you perhaps consider the fact that Japan attacked the United States (Pearl Harbour) while pretending to take part in negotiations? Was there no shameful behaviour in this? Or was it simply a tactical decision?

While you were accusing the US of being shameful did you also fail to consider the already great sacrifice made by countless Americans on foreign shores throughout not just the Pacific campaign but also in Europe?

Was it really so shameful to deliver the Potsdam declaration to give the Emperor of Japan one last chance to save his people from a misery unimagined before in human conflict? This was no sneaking attack in the dead of night while pretending to do otherwise, Truman insisted on giving them an opportunity to see they had no hope of victory and the Japanese chose their fate.

Did Truman act so shamefully when given the option of killing 10's of thousands more of his citizens (perhaps more) in a ground offensive on Japanese soil or alternatively dropping a couple of prototype bombs (by most standards that is what they were) on a couple of key targets?

Perhaps the most shameful act in the entire Pacific campaign was that of the Japanese leaders (including the Emperor) that when faced with the prospect of seeing their men, women and children having to defend themselves on their own soil rather than surrender they chose fucking "Banzai".

As for not talking about "it", you must have no concept of what a lack of freedom of speech or free press would be like if you think it is as simple as they don't "like" to talk about "it".

The TRUTH is that it is all long past history now for most places in the world and the USA has sullied its reputation in the decades since by getting caught up in "dirty political wars" but no matter how you try to cut it in the years from 1941-1945 the USA and its actions in conflict could only be described as truly heroic.

So don't let the actions of the USA or its corporations in the years since the end of the war muddy the reality of what happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, only a fool thinks he can apply the reasoning of today's society to that of one in the midst of global chaos 65 years ago - that would indeed be shameful.

[Supermarioman]

All three of you seem to forget that something being the lesser of two evils doesn't make it any less evil.
A necessary evil? Probably. But claiming that bombing a civilian city flat is "heroic" borders on laughable.

[Veldan Rath]

Okay, so now we down to it being a necessary evil..note the first word of that phrase.

This was a world war, with morals and ethics of our society over 60 years ago...a totally different...everything! Thought process, tech, communications, etc.

So how was it shameful and how were we covering it up again?

[Nessus]

Okay, so now we down to it being a necessary evil..note the first word of that phrase.

This was a world war, with morals and ethics of our society over 60 years ago...a totally different...everything! Thought process, tech, communications, etc.

So how was it shameful and how were we covering it up again?

I'm confused. Are you arguing that 60 years ago US society was for burning thousands of children alive? Ethically.

I mean no disrespect to termite's very emotional post, but to me it seems rather myopic to say "things were different then, deal with it" when discussing complex moral issues, especially when a mountain of historical evidence shows that contemporaries who were very involved with the decision making process were fantastically unsure, in the dark and downright playing by the seat of their pants when it came to the use of the A-bomb. The myriad of geo-political consequences alone gave any thinking soul privy to the knowledge at the time some pause.

The idea that the Allies had some kind of moral high ground is rather dubious in hind-sight. Which does not excuse the Axis, of course, but the dipolarization of the conversation is somewhat simplistic.

[Veldan Rath]

This is the real discussion that was needed Ness. Thank you for putting in the shades of gray that was lacking from the discussion.

No, I'm not arguing that the US was all for burning thousands of nip kids (as they would have been called back then), however, nor were they against it as we were carpet bombing Japan's and Germany's cities anyway.

It may be myopic to say "things were different then, deal with it". But it does need to be pointed out that things were different and thus you need to figure it into the equation.

Again, mario is saying it was shameful.

What the F in War is not?

[Nessus]

Yeah, pretty much.

The carpet bombing is indeed the crux issue; since it was deemed necessary, the use of the atom bomb per se isn't any more or less horrific. Except for the fallout damage, which is unique to this kind of warfare.

The real moral dilemma, in my eyes, is whether the use of the nukes was necessary in the atmosphere directly before the Cold War. Many historians have argued that Soviet Russia cooled relations and started the Cold War due to perceived hostile acts from the West; whether that is hogwash or not, it is an interesting question whether or not it was necessary to kill all those Nips just to show Russia that this is the shape of things to come. The Allies had already committed to mass murder in the name of freedom, so one technique over another is somewhat irrelevant; the geo-political climate that came after is the true heritage of the atom bomb.

It was discussed in the days before the bombing of Japan whether it'd be sufficient to simply stage a show-bombing of a deserted island, in view of diplomats from Nippon, Russia and so on. The political climate of the War didn't allow for that, but it's an interesting dilemma nonetheless. Certainly Stalin didn't care one whit about the dead Nips, the display of force (of which he was cognizant beforehand) was what pushed the Soviets into the arms race.

[agamemnus]

A "what if...?" scenario is left to writers of fiction. They could have dropped it on some deserted islands, and the Japanese might not have surrendered; thus, it would have prolonged the war and cost even more lives, since they needed time to build more bombs, I think.

There's no point in second-guessing, nor is there any real point in analyzing whether they should have bombed a deserted island or not, beyond historical interest. Unless, of course, the US is faced with the exact same situation again and could have learned from analyzing what it did... but, that is doubtful, barring various science-fiction-esque events.

[termite]

All three of you seem to forget that something being the lesser of two evils doesn't make it any less evil.
A necessary evil? Probably. But claiming that bombing a civilian city flat is "heroic" borders on laughable.

Actually, most of what you post borders on laughable.

You may want to check out the definition of "necessary".

And while you're at it you may want to question why You are completely abrogating the Japanese of any responsibility in this - which is either deceiptful or naive to the point of being competely gullible.

[Supermarioman]

Actually, most of what you post borders on laughable.

You may want to check out the definition of "necessary".

And while you're at it you may want to question why You are completely abrogating the Japanese of any responsibility in this - which is either deceiptful or naive to the point of being competely gullible.

1. Such as must be; impossible to be otherwise; not to be avoided; inevitable.

Death, a necessary end, Will come when it will come. Shak.</I>

2. Impossible to be otherwise, or to be dispensed with, without preventing the attainment of a desired result; indispensable; requiste; essential. 'T is necessary</I> he should die." Shak.</I>

A certain kind of temper is necessary to the pleasure and quiet of our minds. Tillotson.</I>

</B>3. Acting from necessity or compulsion; involuntary; -- opposed to free</I>; as, whether man is a necessary or a free agent is a question much discussed. </I></I>

I would have thought that saying that the bombing was a necessary evil implied the guilt of the Japanese government for starting the war and bringing it upon itself.
I'll try to state my meanings more clearly from now on.

[termite]

I would have thought that saying that the bombing was a necessary evil implied the guilt of the Japanese government for starting the war and bringing it upon itself.
I'll try to state my meanings more clearly from now on.

So it was shameful of the US to do something that you admit was necessary.

Thanks for coming....

[Aimless]

In light of Nessie's remarks, I just don't get that objection.

[termite]

I would have thought that saying that the bombing was a necessary evil implied the guilt of the Japanese government for starting the war and bringing it upon itself.
I'll try to state my meanings more clearly from now on.

Implied? You stand now a long way from where you stood when you claimed that the US acted shamefully (nevermind the guff about bodies Corporate) but that is the beauty of discussion is it not? One can evolve his/her viewpoint as the discussion evolves and hopefully gains wisdom (or pleasure) from the experience rather than bitter hatred of another soul trying to find a way through life.

In light of Nessie's remarks, I just don't get that objection.

In light of Nessies remarks (which were very timely as usual) I find Supermariomans original position just as objectionable - though he has expanded his shame-calling to the Japanese which indicates an expansion of his thought process and hopefully not just his "implication" claim being as revisionist as his original statement.

The arms race was inevitable and Nessie knows it. Of course the arms race began millennia ago when the first human knocked another human on his arse for stealing his bitch/food/cave and the second human picked up a rock and knocked the first human on his arse in retaliation and so it escalated. Rocks became clubs which became spears etc etc infinitum until some time in the future where we either blot out our existence altogether or learn to play nice.

Nessie even said in her post that Stalin cared little for the loss of Japanese lives but he clearly did care greatly about the weapon that did it - yes Nessus we got the nuclear arms race we deserved but once Pandora had opened the box was it ever going to be any other way? The Manhatten Project had happened and the next logical step was to bring it to fruition.

Does the fact that no other people have suffered the same fate as those of Hiroshima and Nagasaki not make it patently obvious that it was the right action at the right time?

In all the madness of the Cold War not one nuke was used against an enemy - even one not capable of picking up a bigger rock (so to speak)?

If not Hiroshima? Then who and where?

And Nessus, I wasn't going for emotional in that post before - I was simply trying to empathise with the reality that existed in 1945 and how things were rather than look at it through modern eyes. That it came across as "emotional" means perhaps I succeeded in doing so, perhaps too well.

It is all too easy to stand in judgement of those that came before us while we live in a world so far removed from theirs as to seem like another world altogether.