World War II

@anna - In reply to your comment to mine about we needing to declare war on Japan: sure, good idea. As stated in my last long comment, I believe that we incited Japan to attack. I don't think we should have just sat there after Pearl Harbor and done nothing. But there was behind the scene work going on that made it possible for us to enter the war.

And yes, I really should write that paper sometime about FDR and Pearl Harbor, and then you guys could give me feedback. Don't think I like all this stuff that went on in our government. I just want to show you guys that this stuff is all out there for anyone's disposal as well.

OK. This is definitely something I would like to study some more. I'm kind of busy with getting my official high school credits in right now, though, so it will be awhile before I'll be able to study WWII extensively. But I am certainly open to seeing the Allies/America wrong (not that I want them to be wrong, though).

That's all well and good, but I did some research on the book Day of Deceit, and it's really not a trustworthy book. I still need to do more research, but one source says that while Stinnett claims that all eight points were carried, only one of them actually was. Stinnett's "evidence" that Roosevelt was in on the plot, so to speak, may have been simply made up. (I would say "is" fabricated, but I need to do more research.)
Here's a review of the book that I'd like to read if I get time: http://www.artbarninc.org/REY/Stinnett.pdf
And it's not the only one that is against the book. The general scholarly consensus seems to be that Stinnett's main claims are unfounded, and he ignores real information - that he's just yet another conspiracy theorist.

So while I look forward to looking through this book, I'm definitely not going to put much faith in it. If this is your sole source of information (which it may or may not be), you might want to find others.

EDIT: I'm currently skimming that review. One can make anything sound right if he leaves out information and makes up some of his own. (Of course, I'll have to do checking on the review as well, but that shouldn't be so hard. Citations everywhere.)

REEDIT: Here's another negative review: http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/parameters/Articles/01spring/spr-rev.htm (you'll need to scroll down)
I know that I keep beating on this one book, but seriously - as the above review says, "This is a dangerous book that will dupe unsuspecting readers who misinterpret the author's earnestness and technical explanations as signs of balance and accuracy, and it will perpetuate myths that should have long been forgotten."

I am fully aware of that review. But I have info based on many other books that have agreed with what I have said. And I think there are always going to be haters on any subjects. I am not discrediting the review, though there wpuld have to be many other books proved wrong, not just that one.

I guess I'll deal with those books as they present themselves. And I shouldn't forget that I haven't actually read Stinnett's book for myself. :P
There are always going to be conspiracy theories on any subject, too. Most of them are laughable. Some aren't, because there definitely have been a few conspiracies over the years. Most of the theories, even the ridiculous ones, have found a way to sound slightly credible. To the point that history becomes muddled, and even credible people reference the incredible. The same can be said of government propaganda, and the fact that winners write history.
So there is a sense in which we simply can't know all the answers. We can't prove your side or mine, because we never know how much "evidence" is simply made up, for either side.
And just because lots of books think one thing, doesn't make it right. If even more books think the opposite thing, that doesn't mean it is right. Someone is wrong, in whole or part. I'll just go with those who seem the most credible.
Too bad my truckload of books isn't here yet. :P

I would like someone to explain to me how our using atomic bombs on Japan was different from Sherman's march to the sea in the Civil War. At least until then, I side with Bethany.

You have a problem with Sherman?
We would have had to kill all the Japanese one by one anyway. Not so Sherman.
Sherman's actions may have resulted in the death of innocent people forced to support the Confed. Not so the Bomb.
Both made their respective wars much shorter.

Edit: People lived to spread their hate for Sherman. The Japanese got over it so they could hate the Chines Communists.

Something interesting that I thought I'd just throw in here more for fun than for anything else…

Hilter persecuted the Jews by calling them communists (and rightfully, when you think about it), and basically making others scared of them. Then you head over to Communist Russia, and there they are, persecuting the Jews as well.

(and rightfully, when you think about it)

..? I missed something.
^it wasn't his only technique, you know.^

(and rightfully, when you think about it)

..? I missed something. ^it wasn't his only technique, you know.^

I know, but it's kind of funny. Here Hitler is killing 'the communists', and then, Stalin is killing 'the communists'.

Uh, not the killing part, by the way. That's not funny.

Sherman's actions may have resulted in the death of innocent people forced to support the Confederacy. Not so the Bomb.

Are you saying that the atomic bomb didn't kill any innocent people? Because if you are, I disagree (I would add a smiley, except that this is a very serious subject). Or am I misunderstanding what you said?

@Caleb - I definitely don't want to take a side and believe it without looking closely at sources, etc. I spoke with my older brother yesterday regarding this very topic, after you brought up your concern. You should meet my older brother one day, he's pretty cool. ;) I don't think you could find anyone who likes history more than my brother. Believe me. =) As I asked him about the topic of FDR, he definitely thinks that he was involved in the plot of Pearl Harbor. Though, just because he says it doesn't mean it's true, but he has studied history SO MUCH MORE than I have. He also thinks that there are going to be conspiracy theorists on basically any historical thing.

History can be murky waters though, because of disagreements, conspiracies, etc. Though, I'm not ready to throw the book out, because I've read so many others that agree with the topic. And a question that I thought of before is - why isn't this in our history textbooks, at least in high-school? Honestly, when I was a freshman through junior age, I strongly believed we should drop the bomb, enter the war, fight Germany and were completely right in being the victors. Why did I think that? I was only given one side of the story (and in those years, I did bunches of BJU text-books) Though, as I looked at the other side of the story, in my senior year, it made sense to me why none of this story was put in the books. Because, honestly, it would made our government and FDR look really bad. So why tell it?

So yeah, read those books, and then tell me what you think. Can they all be wrong? Another book I just came across that again presents the view I have stated is Events that Shaped the Nation. It's not all about FDR, but several chapters cover it, and again, it agrees with what I have put forward. And yeah, I'm dying for my truckload of books to arrive at our library as well. =p

Sherman's actions may have resulted in the death of innocent people forced to support the Confederacy. Not so the Bomb.

Are you saying that the atomic bomb _didn't_ kill any innocent people? Because if you are, I disagree (I would add a smiley, except that this is a very serious subject). Or am I misunderstanding what you said?

yep, that's what I meant. but I guess it depends on how you categorize someone as innocent.

I do have a problem with Sherman, but that's another topic.

I'm not very familiar with the history of it all, but why would we have had to kill ALL the Japanese? Why not just all the warriors? Didn't dropping atomic bombs on them destroy civilians?

There are always civilian casualties in war. Always. Should we try to avoid it? Yes. But, dropping that bomb sent a message: "See how much damage we can cause? See how much of your people we can kill? This is what we could do to you if you do not stop." It wasn't the nicest way, but it was the most efficient way to get the point across.

We really should have programmed the bombs to only kill soldiers, but I guess that part was overlooked by the Manhattan Project. (Okay, I know that's not what you mean. :P)
If we had invaded, we wouldn't only be killing the Japanese warriors - because American soldiers would be sent to their death as well. In order to avoid the deaths of Americans, the American government dropped the bombs. We have a responsibility to our own people that we simply don't have to other peoples. However, in the end, the bombs surely saved more Japanese lives than they took.
[2020 edit: Again, while this isn't completely wrong (after all, American lives were still being lost in the Pacific theater), I probably thought when I wrote this that the only alternative to dropping atomic bombs was an actual invasion of Japan. This is a false dichotomy.]

I do have a problem with Sherman, but that's another topic. I'm not very familiar with the history of it all, but why would we have had to kill ALL the Japanese? Why not just all the warriors? *Didn't dropping atomic bombs on them destroy civilians?*

You assume that Japan's culture is like the US. It's not. ALL the Japanese would have been fighting us. (that's woman, children, and elderly people) they didn't care about living, Just killing and not surrendering. I'm sure you've heard about Kamikaze tactics. they weren't just pilots.

You might Be asking 'what about infants?' They would have been utilized or killed killed or abandoned if necessary. We're talking about a religion that doesn't care.

I do have a problem with Sherman, but that's another topic. I'm not very familiar with the history of it all, but why would we have had to kill ALL the Japanese? Why not just all the warriors? *Didn't dropping atomic bombs on them destroy civilians?*

You assume that Japan's culture is like the US. It's not. ALL the Japanese would have been fighting us. (that's woman, children, and elderly people) they didn't care about living, Just killing and not surrendering. I'm sure you've heard about Kamikaze tactics. they weren't just pilots. You might Be asking 'what about infants?' They would have been utilized or killed killed or abandoned if necessary. We're talking about a religion that doesn't care.

Agreed. Emperor was sovereign then. To die in service to the Emperor was one of the highest (if not the highest) honors.

To be clear: I don't like the idea of dropping bombs on people any more than you do, Nathan. But sometimes, you have to do what you have to do.

I do have a problem with Sherman, but that's another topic. I'm not very familiar with the history of it all, but why would we have had to kill ALL the Japanese? Why not just all the warriors? *Didn't dropping atomic bombs on them destroy civilians?*

You assume that Japan's culture is like the US. It's not. ALL the Japanese would have been fighting us. (that's woman, children, and elderly people) they didn't care about living, Just killing and not surrendering. I'm sure you've heard about Kamikaze tactics. they weren't just pilots. You might Be asking 'what about infants?' They would have been utilized or killed killed or abandoned if necessary. We're talking about a religion that doesn't care.

Wait, does that mean you approve of punishment before committed crime? :P

I do have a problem with Sherman, but that's another topic. I'm not very familiar with the history of it all, but why would we have had to kill ALL the Japanese? Why not just all the warriors? *Didn't dropping atomic bombs on them destroy civilians?*

You assume that Japan's culture is like the US. It's not. ALL the Japanese would have been fighting us. (that's woman, children, and elderly people) they didn't care about living, Just killing and not surrendering. I'm sure you've heard about Kamikaze tactics. they weren't just pilots. You might Be asking 'what about infants?' They would have been utilized or killed killed or abandoned if necessary. We're talking about a religion that doesn't care.

Wait, does that mean you approve of punishment before committed crime? :P

Guilty by association. Its like bombing a Boot camp. (Unlike Sherman )

^ What Sam just said. Cruel weapons are vary serious.

And remember, we're not really trying to punish people at all. It's about ending a war, averting a costly invasion, and saving our lives. What would you be saying if we hadn't dropped the bomb(s), and lost several hundred thousand troops in an invasion, when most of those deaths could have been averted?
[2020 edit: Again, it must be noted that the idea that we would have had to invade if we hadn't dropped nukes is wrong.]

Sherman's actions may have resulted in the death of innocent people forced to support the Confederacy. Not so the Bomb.

Are you saying that the atomic bomb _didn't_ kill any innocent people? Because if you are, I disagree (I would add a smiley, except that this is a very serious subject). Or am I misunderstanding what you said?

yep, that's what I meant. but I guess it depends on how you categorize someone as innocent.

Normally, I would classify someone as innocent if they are perfect, blameless, and have never sinned. Thus, Christ would be the only innocent one. However, on this thread when I use the word innocent or something that means innocent, I mean innocent regarding the war. Or I may even mean people that didn't want to be involved in the war.

You see, Japan had a more dictator-type leadership than we do, so some of the Japanese would have been forced to go along with the war, even if they didn't like what was going on. Of course, they could have resisted, but then they probably would have been killed or punished harshly. And even if all the adults agreed with Japan's decisions, think of all the children and babies killed who didn't even understand what was going on, and wouldn't have cared (at least at the time) if the Axis lost the war just as long as they had their family and all their wishes met. There are always going to be some innocent people killed in war, but the atomic bomb seemed to kill far more than what is understandable.

Sherman's actions may have resulted in the death of innocent people forced to support the Confederacy. Not so the Bomb.

Are you saying that the atomic bomb _didn't_ kill any innocent people? Because if you are, I disagree (I would add a smiley, except that this is a very serious subject). Or am I misunderstanding what you said?

yep, that's what I meant. but I guess it depends on how you categorize someone as innocent.

Normally, I would classify someone as innocent if they are perfect, blameless, and have never sinned. Thus, Christ would be the only innocent one. However, on this thread when I use the word innocent or something that means innocent, I mean innocent regarding the war. Or I may even mean people that didn't _want_ to be involved in the war. You see, Japan had a more dictator-type leadership than we do, so some of the Japanese would have been forced to go along with the war, even if they didn't like what was going on. Of course, they could have resisted, but then they probably would have been killed or punished harshly. And even if all the adults agreed with Japan's decisions, think of all the children and babies killed who didn't even understand what was going on, and wouldn't have cared (at least at the time) if the Axis lost the war just as long as they had their family and all their wishes met. There are always going to be _some_ innocent people killed in war, but the atomic bomb seemed to kill far more than what is understandable.

Well there will always be some Civilian casualties.
But as I said in an earlier post I disagree. Yes it was an empire, but thats what they all lived for. It was what they're ancestors had had and they wanted it. Had we been forced to take japan on foot we would have had to annihilate the entire Island as Everyone and everything would have been weaponized and thrown at us (in including Infants). Fortunately Doolittle's Raid and The Atomic Bombs broke the Emperors resolve and he surrendered.

Also they agreed not to bomb the capitals because of civilians and Hiroshima was a strategic military target. (Nagasaki was a secondary alternative target)

Wikipedia has this: Truman noted in his diary that:

_This weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10th. I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop that terrible bomb on the old capital [Kyoto] or the new [Tokyo]. He and I are in accord. The target will be a purely military one._

@Caleb - I hope you like reading thick books, because I just got in The New Dealer's War and And I was There, and man, those books are super long. =/ And yeah, I'm looking forward to reading them on our trip to TX next week. =)

I haven't studied WW2 since high school. But I am going to add my two cents.

1) I think that the US should have stayed out of WW2.

2) I think that the US dropping the atomic bomb on Japan was wrong plain and simple.

3) No, I am not anti - US, but I do think that we have done some pretty awful things to other countries (take Vietnam for example).

Edit: Whoops I meant high school and college.

Oh boy, now we're going to have to start a Vietnam War topic, too. XD

Not that that's a bad thing, though, because I know next to nothing about that war…

1) I assume you have some reasoning to support that.

2) What should we have done?

3) Things, Such as…? Vietnam? Have you ever heard of the Vietcong? ^the communist regime that almost took over…^

Just to let you know, I will be very busy for the next week and probably won't respond to your post for awhile.

Oh. My. I'm so looking forward to discussing to this topic more with you, since it appears that we hold to a lot of the same thing. =)

And yeah… I have some other views about the Vietnam War and other things happening in the modern world - regarding US involvement in other countries.

Sorry if I opened a can of worms! :( Let me tell you, i don't know much about it either, what I have heard is that the US broke some promises to Vietnam. I have some Vietnamese friends though, so how accurate that information is….

I officially agree my bro now.

Thanks to everyone who made the few simple clarifications. xD

Of course I have heard of the Vietcong (if I hadn't my college Profs. would be in big trouble!)

But why does the US see the need to go into almost every country to spread its influence? I have been to some other countries. And they have great culture, great food, great people. And they are unique countries. Wouldn't it be boring if the whole world was the same?

Or course I am anti - communist, don't get me wrong. But some of the wealthiest countries that I have been to the people are unhappy, the children are stressed out, and the obesity rates are high. In other very poor countries where the people are literally living on the streets their joy is very evident.

Me too!

Alright. :) When you have time I would love to hear your views!

Those professor sure can put an interestingly twisted spin on things, But Please, Support your views.

Since when has America's end goal been conquest?
….great culture (including cannibalism?), great food (are we talking about cannibalism?), great people (Umm…cannibalism). please don't bring up witch doctors… :P

Hmm… so have I. and I know Joy has little to do with money(did you ever figure out why?). But would'int It be boring if a group of gorilla troops walked into your village grabbed the leader,beat him, gutted him, pound stakes into him, and then turned to you and say "You'll support us." demonstrate what they'er guns can do and leave. ^(yeah I think he is dead now)^

I will. I have a bunch of things going on right now, but I promise I will get back to you on evidence/support. And as I have said, these are my views. They may not be right. Oh, and my professor was pretty good. Thank you.

Last time I was in a foreign country I saw no cannibals. Humans were never on the menu. And the people were very nice for the most part. Your answer (particularly the second part) seemed a bit naive and culture bound. Other countries have so much to offer us! And we have a lot to offer other countries too!

You do realize that cannibalism is exceedingly rare today and only a few tribes, such as the Korowai practice it? When I was talking about the other countries that I visited that have great food, I wasn't talking about the Korowai tribe. And there are still things that we can learn from the Korowai. They are an egalitarian ( they believe that all people are equal and that all people deserve equal rights and opportunities) group. They will share with each other to make sure everyone has the same amount of goods. Do the rich millionaires that live in Hawaii or Beverly Hills CA share their homes, wealth, and food with homeless people on the streets to make sure everyone has a chance to food and a safe place to sleep? No, they do not. Or at least the majority don't.

For example, look at some of the European and Asian countries, Finland, Singapore, Korea. There children are scoring much higher than the children in the United States in school (on average). Even the Canadians do better than us. We could learn something about teaching our children from them.

As people, and especially as Christians, we should not be ethnocentric (which is the belief that a particular race is superior to all others people groups and all other races and ethnic groups are to be measured in relation to that race).
Proof?

All men and women are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27, 9:6).
God shows no partiality. Acts 10:34
By Christ's blood we were ransomed from every tribe, language, people, and nation. Revelation 5:9
God shows no partiality. Deuteronomy 10:17
We are all one in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3:28
" Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment." John 7:24
Partiality is a sin. James 2:9
God is not partial. Romans 2:11

I'm sorry if I come across as strong, but it really makes my blood boil when I have people say that "America is the land of dreams" and we are the "best in the world" and all that nonsense. We are one of the most privileged, for sure, but we don't need to have a air of superiority.

Sam's only popping in to address the school debate. I believe that work ethic is a large part of why kids in other countries outscore most American kids, especially in Asian countries. The kids are taught to work hard, and they're expected to work hard from their parents, their teachers, and their society as a whole. Over here in America, a lot of people don't seem to care, and the students certainly don't. Kids are pushed through grade after grade, even if they don't do the work. There are literally kids in 8th grade who can't even read. My parents came from Nigeria, and for my dad, the only way to escape poverty was through education. He worked hard to get through school, and he worked hard to get here, to America, because it is the land of dreams. It is a land of opportunity. Why do we have the immigration crisis that we have, if America is so bad? If we were so horrible wouldn't we have a problem of people trying to leave our borders? :P Do we have a lot of problems? Heck yes. But America is not the worst nation in the world. And we can get better, by God's grace.

Wow. That is a once-in-a-rare-blue-moon inspirational quote from Sam if I ever saw one. XD

The US is the land of dreams because we have built it up to be the land of dreams. But you are right. Education in America is a lot better than the education in a lot of other countries! Of course it isn't the best either. Why are so many Americans giving up their citizenship and becoming expats? The number of expats coming from America going to other countries are growing - not shrinking.

Well, first of all @RoyPhillips asked me

"2) What should we have DONE?" regarding the A-bomb after I said dropping the bomb was wrong. Here is my reasoning.

First of all, the bomb killed (murdered), over a hundred thousand innocent civilians. Probably closer to 200,000. That is an incredible tragedy, a huge waste of human life. If those civilians hadn't died how many might have gotten saved? How many other Japanese people were impacted by the bomb? Many other people got very sick from radiation. A countless number of people lost loved ones or friends. The numbers are too horrific and mind boggling to even imagine.

The bomb was only made for defensive purposes, not offensive. The beginnings of the Manhattan project go back to the 1930's when Leo Szilard became aware of the ability to use nuclear chain reactions to create powerful and deadly bombs.
Szilard was scared that Germany was trying to create an A-bomb while the US was doing nothing. WW2 had not yet started, but Germany was obviously a threat. If the Germans were the only ones to have an A-bomb it had the potential to be a huge problem for the US. The bomb was build as a discouragement, the US wanted Germany and other nations to think twice before creating or using an A-bomb against the US. Ever since WW2 the A-bombs have only been used as a deterrent.

The use of the bomb was also illegal. In the late 1930's the League of Nations issued a resolution that outlawed the intentional bombing of the civilian populations, especially against bombing from the air.
Some bomb supporters say that since the US was not a member of the LON the law did not apply.

There was clear racism towards the Japanese people. Many of the Japanese Americans were put into concentration camps even though they were loyal citizens to the US. In the US the Japanese were caricatured as having thick monstrous glasses, buck teeth, and squinty eyes. They were depicted as being cockroaches and rats. Their entire culture was mocked, their language, their customs, and their religious practices. Anti Japanese sentiments were everywhere. From postcards to children's toys. THe racism against Japan may have had more to do with the bombing than a real reason.

There were alternatives to dropping the bomb! According to Truman and his supporters it was either plan A or plan B: either the American boys or the Japanese people.

The US could have had a demonstration of the bomb. If parts of the Japanese government could have seen the bomb they may have been convinced of their foolishness of continued fighting. With a demonstration the Japanese may have given up. And if they had NOT given up the US at least could have said that they had tried to take the "high road."

They US could have waited for the Russians to enter the war against the Japanese.

The Japanese could have also let the Japanese keep their emperor. If the US had been willing to compromise their demand for unconditional surrender and allow the Japanese to keep their emperor. If they had done this it may have saved hundreds of thousands of innocent lives.

Thanks for reading.

Sorry to jump in here, but I think I should say a word on behalf of the bomb dropping decision. :) You mentioned that the bomb killed thousands of civilians. The question seems to be whether it was acceptable to drop the bomb knowing that civilians were in those cities. This is a question faced during all bombing missions of every kind in war. There is always the chance, even the high probability, that civilians will die. Some things, though, you have to do in order to end the war. This then brings up the whole "end justifies means" question. You cannot claim that the ends never justify the means unless you are a complete pacifist. Inherent in every war is the idea that there is something worth fighting for. There is no escaping an answer to that question in war. Whatever of the options you choose, you claim that the ends justify the means (if you back away from the conflict all together, for instance, you are saying that allowing thousands in China and millions to die in Russian invasion to die is worth the price of us not dropping). The allies never said to themselves, "let's kill civilians because we can; let's drop the atom bomb and kill innocents." If they had, I would be inclined to agree with you. This, though, is not what they did. They purposefully did not bomb the more populous, more easy to attack city of Tokyo because it was almost strictly people by civilians. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were major centers of the Japanese war effort. The atom bomb was not intended to kill civilians, but it was a sacrifice the American leaders made to save more lives in the future. For this reason it was also not, strictly speaking, illegal. And anyway, that law was passed long before the largest war in history, during a time we thought we had moved past all war. Most resolution of that kind became quickly discarded after 1940, replaced by Just War Theory.

Remember, Russia was planning to invade Japan at the same time we were going to launch the A-bomb. They wanted to be the country that established a new government in Tokyo, a Communist/USSR-leaning government. It is not as though our backing off and not-bombing would have made a difference in that regard. An invasion would have taken place, and a corrupt, murderous government likely established. We had to end the war soon to eliminate that possibility, or else invade (which would have killed hundreds of thousands of more innocents). The question was whether we should allow millions of the Japanese to die in the process for the creation of a Communist government, allow them to die for a U.S. leaning government through American invasion, or drop a bomb that would cut the losses to an estimated 20% and save more civilians than would probably have died in an invasion. The Japanese were not going to surrender unless they knew that they could gain no honor through refusing surrender. A bomb dropped from so high they could do nothing about it gave them the ability to surrender, more so than any invasion would have done.

Regarding the original purpose of the bomb. it is important to note a few important things: first, the atomic bomb was a bomb, and as such it was designed to be detonated; second, we only chose to use the bomb because we felt it was the only viable option left to save the most lives, not out of some sense of cruelty; third, no one really knew the destructive capacity the bomb could have had on an actual city. We did countless test in the desert beforehand, but we did underestimate the actual effect. Also, just because something has traditionally been used as a deterrent does not inherently make it a wrong thing to use; it makes it dangerous, surely, but not necessarily wrong in certain situations.

Regarding racism, I agree that racism and fear of the Japanese was rampant in some parts of the United States. The Supreme Court decision in Korematsu v. United States to send Japanese to camps was horrifying and, in my opinion, inexcusable. This wrong action, though, does not automatically nullify the decision to drop the bomb. The goal was to save lives in the long run through forcing surrender, not to kill innocents. As far as I know, no governmental documents in direct connection to the bombing have racist comments that lead to the conclusion that the bombing runs were inspired out of racism. It just doesn't seem to fit with the evidence.

Regarding the other options, I agree we had other options, but in comparison to the bomb, not very good ones for anyone (look really quickly at my post on page 6 or 7 in this thread. I mention the different options and the potential problems with each). You specifically mentioned a demonstration of the bomb, though. This is an interesting option, and might possibly have had an effect. However, the U.S. already had done demonstrations dozens of times, both in the desert and in the south Pacific. The incredibly powerful atom bomb was in the news everywhere and everyone knew it was a force to be reckoned with. The Japanese were aware of the bomb; they were not unaware of its presence. When we threatened destruction, they knew the weapon to which we were referring. Taking the fact that it took dropping 2 bombs days apart before they surrendered (they didn't surrender after the first bomb destroyed an entire city!) it would seem to indicate that a mere demonstration would not have altered the resolve of the Japanese people, all of whom were ready to fight to the death, if it was possible to maintain their honor.

One more thing, the Americans did allow the Japanese to keep their emperor. That was part of the terms of surrender. In fact, Japan still has an emperor to this day. His name is Emperor Tsugu Akihito.

You bring up good points, and I am still not entirely convinced that the bomb was the best option. Still, I feel that some lines of reasoning against the bomb miss important points that should be clarified in order to progress further in discussion. :)

[ I have yet to read Jimmy's answer, he may say some of the same things I do. :P ]
[ Yup. He did. :) ]

A couple things: The resolution by the League of Nations not only didn't apply to the United States, it was effectively obsolete. Germany bombed civilians, Britain bombed civilians - in fact, Americans were the most conscientious about not bombing civilians in the European theater, generally raiding in the day while the British raided at night. The Japanese actually sent bombs over the Pacific ocean in hot air balloons! They couldn't have had any hope that these would kill only soldiers.
The caricature of the Japanese people didn't just stem from racism, though I'm sure that was somewhat involved. During a war, it is often useful to portray the enemy in a bad light for morale, to get the public into the war effort. This was also done to Germany, even during World War I. But I don't think any such racism actually influenced the high authorities who were involved.
Nor do I think that Japan would have been convinced by a demonstration - not by a long shot. Though I certainly see your point that we could at least have tried. That's interesting to think about - but logistically, it would have been pretty hard.
And it wouldn't have been good for anyone, least of all the Japanese people, if Russia had been significantly involved in the war, it would be East Germany / West Germany all over again. Or we could have let Russia take it all, in which case Japan would probably have been forced to become entirely communist - though it's not our duty, per se, to prevent this. Though if we care about saving Japanese lives - preventing it would be the way to go.

But it was our war. We were fighting Japan, and we saw it through. Our targets were chosen because of their military significance, and the civilians who died were caught in the crossfire. When the Japanese could see the utter hopelessness of their situation, that they could indeed be promptly and utterly destroyed without even putting up any real fight, they surrendered. Some would say that the bombs were actually no significant influence, but in any case, that was our intent. We weren't trying to kill innocent members of an inferior race - or we could have chosen other targets, and dropped more bombs.

Thank you for disagreeing with me in a friendly way! :)

You do have a point regarding "the ends justify the means," however, I am still not convinced that the whole bombing affair was correct. :) That is still a huge debate.

However, in sprite of what happened in WW2, today relationships between the Japanese and the States are very good. Which is in my mind a miracle based on their WW2 history.

It doesn't seem so miraculous, at least in my mind, when you consider just how much we helped Japan after their surrender. Although that very fact might seem miraculous in and of itself… :)

Alright. You have some good points here! But I am still stuck in my ways. You can't teach an old dog new tricks and while I am not old I still (most likely) have a decade on you. :) I am impressed with how much you know about WW2.

Why do you think that it was our war?

I hope that we weren't trying to kill anyone of an "inferior" race, because we are all equal, ergo, no one is inferior.

Well we have a thread on patriotism, you might want to check out.
www.memverse.com/forums/general-chat-topics/topics/god-s-blessing-on-america-or-lack-there-of

When you said Other cultures I assumed you meant all cultures in they're rawest form(which includes their respective Godlessness and demon worship). I brought up cannibalism because It was so wide spread (India, China, Africa, Indonesia, North and South America) only ended because of western influence.

“They will share with each other to make sure everyone has the same amount of goods.”

If your thinking of what I'm thinking of… if a missionary puts a board on someones house and not his neighbors, his neighbor has the right to cut the board and take half of it. Culturally its not stealing, because they're equals.
Why would anyone work to better them self's if they're entitled to what their neighbor has? And why would I better myself if I'm forced to let you take half of it? That is one of the things that keeps many African nations in a third world environment.

Maybe we could discuses this more on the other thread.

When I said that it was our war, I simply meant that we were the ones fighting it. We had fought and bled, losing thousands - so not only would it be incredibly anticlimactic, it would almost seem bad policy to abandon the war to the Russians, especially since this would have been bad for all parties involved (except maybe the USSR proper). That's the way things seem to my fifteen-year-old self, anyway. :)

For me this really isn't about patriotism. It is about loving our neighbor as ourself. It is about respecting our fellow human beings even if we don't agree with them. It is about not being racist, ethnocentric, or culture bound. It is about not showing favoritism. I am not unpatriotic. I just believe that God loves us equally. However, we have been blessed with more resources than many other nations, but we are not "better" than anyone else.

All cultures have something to offer. Really. From the poorest cultures to the richest cultures.

OK. :) You certainly know a lot more about WW2 than I did at your age!

I get the feeling that some of you on this thread are very "Pro -America?" :) That was not meant as an insult. It was just an observation from me that could be very wrong. I don't think that there is anything wrong with that. I just want to stress that we are not better than any other people group! More privileged than many? Yes, but we are not these other countries "saviors" that are coming in to help the "poor natives." We can learn from other countries, just as they can learn from us.