What do you all make of this?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jonnycat26 @ Dec 10 2006, 02:49 PM) [snapback]360144[/snapback]</div>

So you're saying that the Japanese atrocities were so bad that, at the end of the war, we needed to kill a whole bunch of Japanese civilians in order to punish them.

I guess we disagree on that point.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Dec 11 2006, 11:29 AM) [snapback]360325[/snapback]</div>

I guess I'm saying that bombing civilian targets became a legitimate tactic after the millions of civilians killed by the Japanese.

 

Personally, I think both sides are a little correct.

Dropping the bomb on Hiroshima was horrible, there's no question about that. However, I also believe it greatly hastened the end of the war, so the good outweighed the bad (however, we should not forget the bad).

After Hiroshima, Japan was getting ready to surrender anyway; dropping the bomb on Nagasaki was just evil.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Dec 11 2006, 12:29 PM) [snapback]360325[/snapback]</div>

Being only 40, I didn't live through that era, but from what I've read, the Japanese soldiers and civilians didn't exactly make a habit out of surrendering.

On island after island, the Japanese would fight to the death or launch suicide attacks. Look up the history of Saipan and it's "Sucide Cliffs" and "Banzi Cliffs" where Japanese soldiers and civilians threw themselves and their children off the cliffs rather than being captured by the Americans.

To think that the Japanese would have surrendered when the US sailed into their ports is simply foolishness.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Dec 11 2006, 12:09 PM) [snapback]360334[/snapback]</div>

There certainly were some elements of the Japanese government ready to surrender. It's just too bad the Army declared martial law in order to stop anyone suing for peace.