| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/07/2005 11:08:24 PM · #26 |
Fire and Ice
Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.
--Robert Frost
|
|
|
|
06/07/2005 11:19:05 PM · #27 |
Eisenhower told Truman in July 1945 that Japan was beaten, and there was no need to use the bomb.
MacArthur (supreme commander of allied forces in the pacific) wasn't told until 48 hours before that the bomb would be dropped on Japan. He had been on record as being against that option.
Leahy (admiral and chairman of the joint chiefs of staff) advised Truman to allow a Japan surrender without the bomb being a factor.
The professional soldiers had their experience in war, and wanted a less dramatic resolution to the war. The politicians had wanted to make a point. There was a new weapon. There was an expendable population. There was a potential new enemy in Russia, and one that needed to be shown America's strength. There was a POLITICAL decision made.
Why does it surprise us that the political decision cost lives? Such decisions are being made today.
Everytime the US government (which is mine) and its politicians (most of them NOT mine) talk about non proliferation, weapons of mass destruction and other countries becoming nuclear powers, I have to laugh.
America was the only country in the history of this world to have felt the need to drop THE bomb, and actually gone and done it. I'd say that strips us of the right to preach about the dangers of weapons of mass destruction.
Message edited by author 2005-06-07 23:24:47.
|
|
|
|
06/08/2005 12:12:45 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by dhare:
August 6th is my birthday :-/ |
mine too!
great story and photos. |
|
|
|
06/08/2005 02:06:29 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by rgo:
Eisenhower told Truman in July 1945 that Japan was beaten, and there was no need to use the bomb.
MacArthur (supreme commander of allied forces in the pacific) wasn't told until 48 hours before that the bomb would be dropped on Japan. He had been on record as being against that option.
Leahy (admiral and chairman of the joint chiefs of staff) advised Truman to allow a Japan surrender without the bomb being a factor.
The professional soldiers had their experience in war, and wanted a less dramatic resolution to the war. The politicians had wanted to make a point. There was a new weapon. There was an expendable population. There was a potential new enemy in Russia, and one that needed to be shown America's strength. There was a POLITICAL decision made.
Why does it surprise us that the political decision cost lives? Such decisions are being made today.
Everytime the US government (which is mine) and its politicians (most of them NOT mine) talk about non proliferation, weapons of mass destruction and other countries becoming nuclear powers, I have to laugh.
America was the only country in the history of this world to have felt the need to drop THE bomb, and actually gone and done it. I'd say that strips us of the right to preach about the dangers of weapons of mass destruction. |
You are missing a few facts...america and her allies lost a great many men in the invasion of europe on D-Day. We lost many many more percentage wise taking Iwo Jima. On Iwo the japanese fought to the last man. Japan had said it would do the same on the main islands. There would have been terrible massive HUGE loss of life on the Allies side had a traditional invasion taken place.
If anyone thought japan would surrender before a bomb was dropped, then explain why they did not surrender after the first one...so we had to drop another.
|
|
|
|
06/08/2005 02:08:57 AM · #30 |
Can anyone explain this to me please:
radiation is bad, yes. the area around chernobyl is still very radioactive. Things that get taht way are so for 10,000 years i have read. If there were a nuclear holocaust the radiation would make the planet unliveable for thousands of years.
So how can Hiroshima and Nagasaki be inhabited cities? Since Mazda cars are made in hiroshima, why are they not in some way radioative?
|
|
|
|
06/08/2005 02:17:59 AM · #31 |
Because the original bombs were relatively crude, and their radioactive byproducts less devastating and long-lived (amazingly enough). There have been great advances (????) in nuclear technology since. Irony intended.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
06/08/2005 02:35:16 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
You are missing a few facts...america and her allies lost a great many men in the invasion of europe on D-Day. We lost many many more percentage wise taking Iwo Jima. On Iwo the japanese fought to the last man. Japan had said it would do the same on the main islands. There would have been terrible massive HUGE loss of life on the Allies side had a traditional invasion taken place.
If anyone thought japan would surrender before a bomb was dropped, then explain why they did not surrender after the first one...so we had to drop another. |
Sorry...I'll disagree again.
The Japanese government lobbied the Soviets for mediation assistance with the aim of ending the war beginning June 1945. The naval blockade of the entire Japanese island chain, and the constant aerial bombing by allied forces against Japan's industrial centers had pretty much destroyed its capacity to resist an invasion. The Japanese leadership, or at least all but the very few hawks, realized this and frantically worked behind the scene for an end to the war long before the bombs.
If there is one potential strongest reason that the war status was still in effect by early August 1945, it would have been the allied forces' insistence on "unconditional surrender," including as termed in the Potsdam Proclamation of July 26. Many historians would argue that had the allied forces considered Japan's surrender terms (AND yes, there were surrender terms forwarded by the Japanese BEFORE the bombs were dropped) primarily of the maintenance of the emperor's office, then the surrender would have taken place earlier than August.
Japan didn't surrender in such a hurry either after the bombs (on the 6th and 9th), and it was only done on the emperor's order on the 14th of August.
Here's where it got interesting. Throughout July 1945, the American forces intercepted numerous communication between different Japanese politicians and commanders, some of which spelled out in very clear terms that Japan wants a "swift termination" of the war. The communications also clearly documented that the only sticking factor that would prevent Japanese surrender is the protection of the emperor's office.
At the same time, Truman's advisers, including a number of officials who had extensive experience and knowledge of Japan, advocated that surrender demands include the single assurance that a constitutional monarchy would be preserved in Japan. The sense was that this would have been accepted by the Japanese, and the war would have ended.
Truman, however, opted to listen to his hawks, who wanted to test the bombs and to display American power at a time when the Soviets were also emerging as a contender against America.
The second bomb, on the 9th, coincidentally was dropped as Soviet troops poured into Manchuria, and there are those who would argue that the bomb was a direct message to the Soviets, not the Japanese.
|
|
|
|
06/08/2005 02:49:29 AM · #33 |
Someone please move this to rant... as we are not discussing photos any more.
Again, I agree to disagree with some of the posts... the 1945 was far less of a fight against the axis powers, it was the beginning of the race between USA and USSR to colonialize the world in a modern sense. Germany was beaten, it overextended and was not able to maintain troops anywhere they were. The D-Day in 1944 and the rest of the advance towards Berlin was just a race to cover more territory than the Russians. USSR had its own share of irrational (???) advances from the east - they were also not interested in freeing poland, czechoslovakia, ex-eastern germany etc. from the 3rd reich, but rather trying to cover and occupy as much land as possible.
Marshal's plan for the reconstruction of western europe after WWII was not a humanitarian effort people. We live in a much harsher world then you may want to believe.
Again, believe what you want - it sure can add a couple of years to your life expectancy if you go with the 'official' explanations...
Good night. My score isn't going anywhere - nobody is voting inculding me. We are contributing to rants...
Edit: I've just received a '3' vote. Thank you!
Message edited by author 2005-06-08 02:51:14.
|
|
|
|
06/08/2005 04:30:02 AM · #34 |
War has been resposible for many photographic advances. Lenses of high quality and fine grain films were developed for aireal survalence work.
PS not condoning war in any way, just trying to lighten this thread a bit. |
|
|
|
06/08/2005 05:22:05 AM · #35 |
| I don't know a whole lot about the war, but I think the bombs were supposed to be more of a message - whether to the Japanese or the Russians, I don't know. From what I've heard, the Japanese were already planning to surrender before the bombs were dropped though. But Nagasaki and Hiroshima were picked because they had less cultural value than other cities - especially Kyoto. The US government had scholars advising them on which cities would be least culturally destructive to lose. |
|
|
|
06/08/2005 05:56:23 AM · #36 |
| The park has a powerful impression on all who visit, I was there 2 years ago and my images cant do it justice. the fellings remain in my head from that visit. It is the most powerful statement for peasce I have ever experienced. |
|
|
|
06/08/2005 05:58:24 AM · #37 |
I am glad that rgo has stated a few salient points and saved me the trouble. I am shocked at the lack of knowledge, combined with the nationalistic & supremacist language being used here by some. A chilling example of a generation forgetting the lessons of its forefathers.
I have heard (perhaps urban myths) that there are several US school history texts that omit to mention the Nagasaki bomb (history books and victors). Whether Hiroshima allowed for the early determination of the war in the East and/or the preservation of life is debateable and we will never know for sure. There is little doubt that Nagasaki was overkill.
It is also worth bearing in mind that the targetting of civilians in this manner would probably now be a war crime.
The memorials that Jesuispeure has well-captured are there for a reason.
Message edited by author 2005-06-08 05:59:02.
|
|
|
|
06/08/2005 06:41:00 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by pfellner:
Great pictures. How lucky of you to be able to visit there. I'm not sure if it was Hiroshima or Nagasaki (sp?) but about 700m from ground zero there was an American made (imagine that?) bank vault which survived the blast intact. American ingenuity that defied American ingenuity. Just a little worthless trivia thanks to the History Channel. |
When I was there three years ago visiting Hiroshima Castle, I saw an Australian eucalyptus tree that had survived the bomb (as well as numerous typhoons). It's only about a kilometre from where the bomb detonated.
|
|
|
|
06/20/2005 07:31:24 AM · #39 |
| Everyone is crying about the lives lost in the nuclear strikes on Japan, and we rightfully should be. War truly reveals the extents of suffering human beings can inflict on each other. But why is no one crying over the up to 160 000 civilians that died in the Allied invasion of Okinowa? This is around the same number of casualties as Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined (100'000-180'000 and 50'000-100'000 respectively). What about the estimated 1 million Allied casualties if the Allies had invaded mainland Japan? (Maybe cos they didn't die? Duh?) But the bombs weren't dropped to merely end the war, they were dropped to win it. The USSR invaded Manchuria on 8th August 1945 (Hiroshima was 6th, Nagasaki 9th) and America could have let the Red Army absorb the fighting. But America wanted to occupy JApan, they had to surrender to America. There wasa political motivation. But the bombs did provide a pretext for Japan the peaceful members of JApan to surrendor; the militarily dominated Japanese government would have otherwise had none of it without such a brutal show of force. Just my 3 cents |
|
|
|
06/20/2005 08:14:26 AM · #40 |
Amanda,
I like the photos but I like your commentary even more. You've added to your photography in this instance with personal context and that's good in this post.
As an American I'm no more ashamed of the use of the Atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki than I think a Japanese citizen should be that their country invaded China and committed crimes against civilians on the mainland. I don't expect that anyone of German descent today should be apologetic for the war crimes committed over a half-century ago by grandfathers or great-grandfathers.
Bombs, whether conventional, atomic or hydrogen, are tools of destruction. There is nothing inherently moral about their use. Before saying that the bomb was used on civilians I think it appropriate to remember that before the US employed such a weapon against civilians both Japan and Germany committed attrocities against Koreans, Chinese, Belgians and French civilians respectively. Its a matter of degrees and its fun to point at Truman (a WWI veteran who didn't even know about the Manhatten Project) or any other decision-maker or influence wielder back in 1945. I don't know why they made the decisions that they did but I think it worthwhile to note that Truman was a veteran and still made the decision he did.
I'm much more concerned about my current responsibilities and what I perceive as a lack of response from my Congressman when I wrote and called his office requesting before our troops invaded Iraq, that the President's office provide solid proof of active threats and not speculations as a basis for my support. Over the last several years I've gotten little response from some of my elected officials because they seem to be riding a wave of national-partyism that causes Republicans to say that no Republican in office has done anything wrong and Democrats take the same stance on their own party. I'm not ashamed because some of my relatives fought in World War II or because someone I don't personally know chose to use the atomic bomb when he had been voted into office by the people of his day. I'm more ashamed that I cannot seem to influence enough people around me to vote out of office some current politicians who seem to be riding a wave of fear or "righteous" indignation in America today.
Kev
|
|
|
|
08/06/2021 05:30:41 PM · #41 |
Hiroshima Day Photographs
The only photos taken on 8/6/1945 ... photos and discussion with someone who interviewed the photographer ... |
|
|
|
08/06/2021 06:29:35 PM · #42 |
| thanks for the reminder to remember. - is that what a photograph is? |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/25/2024 01:18:04 PM EDT.
