VJ day

The short answer that is, in my opinion, No! Reason, as I see it, there is a big difference between a country who however crudely is attempting to protect its citizens and the wider world, to a country that conducted a relentless reign of government sponsored terror involving a slash and burn policy of conquest and subjugation of other people's countries over a period of several years, with a cruelty to all and sundry that beggars belief. I don't think the Japanese saw any of this as keeping their civilians safe from enemies who wished them harm, any more than the Germans did on their exploits round Europe!!
As you say rose, it's time this thread was put to bed, particularly as we now seem to be deviating onto a completely different issue.

Isn't it time this thread was laid quietly to rest?

Then if the end justifies the means for the UK and America then it does for the Japanese army actions surely ?

I do not think you'll find any country in the world that doesn't have it's dark secrets. At least we are all aware of a bit of what goes in our own sphere, horrible though it is. I dread to think what goes in in Dictatorships and Communist countries as any challenge would be swiftly 'dealt with'! The one answer you would probably get for all, if you got an answer at all, is that the end justifies the means!! None of us can create a perfect world, all we can do is try, while at the same time try to keep ourselves safe from people who almost certainly wish us extreme harm.

nigglynellie 'some country's are more savage than others which perhaps makes us who are hopefully not savage, more horrified at their behaviour" .
How does that reflect on a country (the USA)which practices water boarding and other forms of torture and another country (ours) which is complicit with this and in fact helps with the transportation of prisoners who are going to be tortured?

The reason they were unwilling to surrender was because the allies wanted unconditional.
When they did surrender after the Nagasaki bomb, it was conditional that they could keep their emperor.

As I understand it the Japanese were still unwilling to surrender even after this catastrophe, believing that the Americans had only one bomb at their disposal. Dropping the second one proved that this was not the case and fearing more attacks the war came to a swift end. I think, unbeknown to the Japanese military, there were in fact only two, and no more could have been dropped, but I could be wrong, it's only what I've read.

So why 2 bombs nigglynellie? One would have stopped the war.

Apologies for my previous muddly post!! That's what happens when a cat jumps on the bed and you're typing on a kindle!! This is a very emotive subject that for most of us has no clear answers. Germany for certain was on the brink of making an atomic bomb as their scientists after the war made clear when they continued that work in America. Plutonium was being exported to Japan as that sunken submarine has subsequently proved. I can't imagine that either countries were planning this for peaceful purposes!! But I could be wrong, as there is no way of knowing. At the time decisions had to be made virtually on the hoof, and hindsight is a wonderful thing so I really don't think that we can possibly judge a right or wrong decision that had so much at stake on so many fronts concerning the outcome of this terrible period of time. It could well have been quite wrong, but so many episodes at this time were appallingly wrong with devastating long term affects on so many different people from China to Australia over many years, mostly civilians, but others who were desperately trying to help and protect these persecuted people. As has been said some country's are more savage than others which perhaps makes us who are hopefully not savage, more horrified at their behaviour . For me that war had to come to an end sooner rather than later. No one has or had the crystal ball, so no one can say whether the bomb was a necessary evil, as evil it was, or whether there would have been much worse evils had the war gone on for who knows how long with its inevitable accompanying horrors. The USA did not start this war, but unhappily it was left almost entirely up to them to end it. How? well, there was the question, and one that had to be answered pretty darned quickly.

Agree, Trisher.

I have been reading two different articles today. The first one claims that compassion is more important than liberty.
The second one was about Tibet, and the oppression that has been there since China annexed it in 1950 at a cost of more than a million Tibetan lives.
However, because China has forbidden foreign journalists to go into Tibet, not much is known about what is happening there.

I think compassion and liberty are as important as each other. I agree with Trisher about the US torturing prisoners; the UK goes along with it. How can we criticise others when we are just as guilty?

First of all the issue of if the bombs stopped the war. There has always been an opinion that the Japanese would have surrendered very quickly anyway without them. But if we take the idea that perhaps they wouldn't have done so, perhaps dropping a bomb was necessary-but 2 bombs? The devastation caused by one would have been enough. One possibility is that the Americans were conducting an enormous experiment. One bomb dropped would give data but 2 would give comparable data. At the time a nuclear war at some time was anticipated and the Americans would have wanted details about where bunkers should be built to withstand such an attack. Not a pleasant idea then. The terrible things done by the Japanese in WW2 are well recorded. But we shouldn't forget that there are still states which practice torture, and Japan isn't one of them, but the USA is. I find those waterboarding prisoners and other forms of torture whilst pretending to stand up for freedom and human rights totally repugnant.

Pettiness? How could anyone begin to treat this with pettiness?

soon I don't understand that post.

welcome to Gransnet.

Please don't take that last sentence as any kind of apology for the feelings I have. I was, of course, being sarcastic.

How can it make any difference whether the Japanese would have used such weapons or not? Totally irrelevant in my view. We are discussing what actually happened. Not might haves.

And the oxygen where I am is just fine, thank you.

So sorry that I have very strong feelings on this subject, and that I have done actually dared to air them on Gransnet.

Thank you, haporthrosie

Sorry, I spelt your name incorrectly!! My Kindle has a habbit of correcting itself! I obviously let that one through by mistake!

Good post haporthrosie.

Some people, if others dont agree with them, think the worst of other people.
Which then causes themselves to feel apprehensive, angry, and scared.

Good post haporthrosie

I echo that. Yours was an excellent thtead apotheosis. I totally agree with you about the reduction of the Ghurkas.
, and th

I totally agree with your excellent post hapothrosie especially your comments regarding the Ghurkas. I too regard the rise of IS with deep concern and just pray that someone somewhere will be able.to do something positive about this scourge. War inevitably creates many horrors, on all fronts, it has never been otherwise throughout history and all I have been trying to do is strike a balance about this particular conflict. I was personally affected in a comparatively minor way, which has probably coloured my opinion, but war is very terrible, I think we all.agree that.

Very well said, haporthrosie.

haporthrosie

Well said.

'Or rather, not to. To - hopefully - make sure the sufferings of everyone involved in the War weren't in vain. That their children, grandchildren, and greats have a safe and decent world to live in. And that it doesn't happen again. We can go beyond pettiness. We really have to. Cheers everyone'
Lovely post rosie.