Tweet
Stopped over to pay my respects....after the protest went inside and took a few pics...
-
-
They did it in order to show their military might to Soviet Union.Nothing more..nothing less. -
I found this article to be quite interesting
Comment
-
I'm sure getting Japan to surrender without having to invade had nothing to do with it.Originally posted by Red BrigadeComment
-
Big brother is watching.Originally posted by loseyournameComment
-
In hindsight certainly dropping the bomb(s) was wrong - but the issue was/is a complicated one - many facotrs went into the decision and it wasn't an easy one. Were some of the motivations/justifications perhaps spurious - much like Iraq of recent - perhaps/likely - but if you place yourself into Truman's shoes of the time and consider the (human) cost of the war - the tenacity of the Japanese in defending the Islands of approach and the preperations to defend Japan - and consider the likely loss of (American) life - when Japan was clearly the aggressor and was a nation that was comiting wartime atrocities - well all these must factor in - including the issue of the Russians/Soviets comming in - and it was already becoming aparent how they were dismantling the infrustructure of Eastern Europe that they controled and carting it off and it was aparent how they were imposing their politics on Europe with an iron fist - considering that the war against Japan was largely an American effort (with Chinese and some other involvemtn as well) - it didn;t make sense to let the Russians just waltz in and take over. Yes the nuclear bombings were terrible - as were the conventional carpet bombings - but obviously the radiation and death and destruction were fierce and overwhelming and those people should never had had to suffer as they did. But - when one looks at all the factors (and there are more then what I discussed) we can see why it was done - even if we can be against the decision and condemn it - which I do. One thing that we should consider is what if Japan or Germany had nuclear weapons - does anyone think they would have hesitated for a moment to use them...in fact Hitler declared that he was ready to employ such weapons as soon as they were to become available. Anyway we can't change the past - but just the same we shouldn't forget and we shouldn't just take knee jerk positions without considering all the circumstances.Comment
-
You can say that to yourself, if it is making you feel better.Originally posted by loseyournameComment
-
Why on earth would I feel either bad or good about something that happened 35 years before I was born? I suppose you believe that, if not for the Soviet Union, the US would have preferred another several months of war and hundreds of thousands of additional American deaths and more damage to Naval infrastructure?Originally posted by Red BrigadeComment
-
It is superfluous to put ourselves in Truman's shoes. Why not put ourselves in Talaat's shoes? He also did what he thought was best for his nation right?Originally posted by winoman
Nowadays the use of an a-bomb would be considered genocide and rightly so. As would the rape of Nanking, firebombing of Dresden and the annihilation of Japanese cities. Wars are fought like that and they still are, let's not kid ourselves. Grozny and Fallujah are a case in point. "Smart" bombs and "precision bombing" have put a sanitized and hallowed face on warfare these days. War has become a perfectly acceptable form of entertainment for American households now.Comment
-
Will we take opportunity to reflect?
By Marianna Torgovnick
Posted August 5 2005
This Saturday, Americans will be reminded by the media of the 60th anniversary of the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. Most likely, we will miss once again the true impact of this event, not just for the Japanese who experienced it, but also on us and on how we now live.
It's not, of course, that we don't know that Americans flew the planes that killed at least 60,000 Japanese, most of them civilians, in Hiroshima and, three days later, 40,000 more in Nagasaki. It's not that Americans don't know that the United States remains the only nation ever to have used atomic weapons against civilian populations.
It's that the events, unlike D-Day, say, or the liberation of the concentration camps, place Americans in ambiguous, unpleasant or even guilty roles.
It seems natural that, as a culture, we prefer to look away. It seems natural that we prefer to emphasize events that reflect how we like to think of ourselves, that show a face we like to show to the world.
So don't expect to see Aug. 6, 2005, marked by day-long ceremonies like June 6, 2005, the 60th anniversary of D-Day. Don't expect to see President Bush fly to Hiroshima to make a policy speech there in the way that he and other presidents, most notably Ronald Reagan, have flown to Normandy.
The anniversary is likely to be mentioned, but quickly, almost as a kind of stealth event, under the radar screen and under the claim -- always controversial and often inflated -- that the bombings prevented an invasion and saved, and were designed to save, millions of American and Japanese lives.
And yet I would claim that the bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki have marked us strongly as a nation ever since 1945 and continue to do so in many ways.
The Cold War, the bogeyman of my childhood and most likely of yours, was driven by the fear that the Soviets would have nuclear weapons -- as they did by 1949 -- and would use them. In fact, some historians believe, and documents support the belief, that fear of the Soviets helped motivate the bombings, that our display of atomic power was designed as a warning to our likely future enemy as World War II came to an end.
Since 2003, U.S. foreign policy has been driven by the need to prevent Iraq, Iran and North Korea -- the so-called axis of evil -- not just from deploying but also from developing nuclear weapons. That need proved specious in Iraq, but it ushered in a controversial and costly war.
And developing nations could only learn from Iran and from North Korea that, although nuclear capacity draws strong and potent disapproval from the United States, it does tend to ward off the kind of invasion Iraq experienced, and its ongoing, messy aftermath.
So, my fellow Americans, in this summer of World War II anniversaries, enjoy films like War of the Worlds, with their disruption of ordinary families and domestic life plot lines. Watch civilization disappear around American characters once again in what has become an annual summer ritual.
But be aware that maybe, just maybe, the anniversaries that pass quickly each August are re-enacted, in disguised and distorted terms, in our annual summer disaster films. Remember, too, that Japan actually experienced the devastation of cities and the willful creation of a nightmare-world, and that the giants in the machines were, on that occasion, us.
The impulse to think about the atomic bombings in terms of public and foreign policy issues like deterrence and disarmament -- a notable tendency of American writing about nuclear weapons -- evades the reality of what occurred in Japan 60 years ago.
But that impulse may point to a useful truth for the present day. Bombs, like terrorists, are here, and likely to be here, to stay for our lifetimes. They are likely to condition our lives, but need not control them. Sixtieth-year anniversaries can be a time to revisit and rethink. Will we take it?
Marianna Torgovnick is professor of English at Duke University and author of the new book "The War Complex: World War II in Our Time." (Chicago, 2005)Comment
Comment