Was United 93 an inspirational movie?

[kirottu]

My teacher, a brilliant man by the way (Keep him away from candles though...burned his room down last time.  :D ), said the same thing that Kirottu's did. He's never Sugar-coated anything, and time and time again, I've researched what he's said and found truth behind it. To my knowledge, the Japansese didn't necessarily want their emperor to retain military power. It was more of a public position than anything else. A figurehead of their culture. Why not allow them to keep that?

 

And in the end, after the bombs were dropped...not one, but two (Can you say "Overkill"?) we still let them keep their emperor anyway. This is pretty black and white, no purple to be found here. The Japanese weren't the United State's primary concern, or reason for dropping the bombs. We would not have lost a million soldiers. Peace talks were already well under way and going quite well, or so the Japanese thought.

 

Have any justification for Nagasaki? Or was that just to assure ourselves that, yes, the bombs really did erradicate entire cities?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If you sign a peace treaty have you won? From my point of view Finland didn

[~Di]

You're still missing my point Di, the Germans got tried for a lot of that horrible crap they did. Yet the allies got off clean, as if they were somehow the innocent angels who did nothing wrong. (you even try to make it sound like Dresden, Berlin the nuking of Japan... whichever, was 'okay' as opposed to what the Germans did)

 

I most certainly did not. I put your own criteria in context. You said Dresden was a war crime because of the number of civilians killed. I pointed out the fallacy of that definition. I then went on to say, in a nutshell, that I didn't believe the Germans should have been tried for war crimes, because the whole damned war was a crime. I understand there is a translation thing going on here, but please try to read what I am saying and not shove words into my mouth.

 

As for China, well I honestly don't know the first thing about what took place there. Never heard about it. But if what you write is true, then I honestly don't get why they weren't tried. Perhaps the Allies cared as little about what went on in China as the Danish school system.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You never heard of the Japanese invasion of China? My God, that was the entire reason for the USA embargo, which clearly you've heard about, and the reason Japan attacked Pearl Harbor to keep the USA fleet from interfering in their plans to take over east Asia. If the Danish school system missed the entire atrocity leading up the war in the pacific theatre, then I truly think you owe it to yourself to not only fill in that gap in your knowledge but realize that there may be other significant gaps in your understanding of that era as well. Not trying to be obnoxious here, but to say that your educational system omitted something so historic in the overall scheme of that disaster is... shocking, to say the least.

[Lucius]

You are in fact a bit condescending I think, which was why I got a little annoyed earlier.

 

You even use condescending smiley " "... (ok this part is just for fun... or is it? :ph34r:)

[Llyranor]

I think they're making a movie about the Rape of Nanking or something.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

The invasion of China flared up again pretty recently in how it was being "covered up".

[~Di]

You are in fact a bit condescending I think, which was why I got a little annoyed earlier.

 

You even use condescending smiley " "... (ok this part is just for fun... or is it?  :ph34r:)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Lots of people use that smiley. Sorry you don't like it, and sorry you felt I was being condescending. Actually, I was just plain annoyed by seeing mistatements and opinions being tossed out as facts. I have basically tried to stay on issue without tossing out personal stuff. If y'all want me to toss out the words "arrogant know-it-all" on occasion to posters it might suit... not you, of course!... I can certainly do so if it will make me seem less condescending.

 

Oops, I mean... :ph34r:

 

See? A cool smilie! *struts*

[Llyranor]

This one is cooler.

 

[Lucius]

I most certainly did not.  I put your own criteria in context.  You said Dresden was a war crime because of the number of civilians killed.  I pointed out the fallacy of that definition.  I then went on to say, in a nutshell, that I didn't believe the Germans should have been tried for war crimes, because the whole damned war was a crime.  I understand there is a translation thing going on here, but please try to read what I am saying and not shove words into my mouth.

It seemed to me that you were simply in a hurry to rid the allies of having committed any war crimes, by covering the place with civilian casualties statistics, most of which I've seen before, but it still didn't affect the point I was trying to make. I think the reason I didn't get your point was... well that I didn't think it possible that one could not want anyone tried for war crimes simple because everyone did it at one point or another.

 

You never heard of the Japanese invasion of China?  My God, that was the entire reason for the USA embargo, which clearly you've heard about, and the reason Japan attacked Pearl Harbor to keep the USA fleet from interfering in their plans to take over east Asia.  If the Danish school system missed the entire atrocity leading up the war in the pacific theatre, then I truly think you owe it to yourself to not only fill in that gap in your knowledge but realize that there may be other significant gaps in your understanding of that era as well.  Not trying to be obnoxious here, but to say that your educational system omitted something so historic in the overall scheme of that disaster is... shocking, to say the least.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No I never heard about it. Not in elementary school nor in high school, not from movies or TV either, not even from my dad who is an expert military historian and 40 year navy veteran. Perhaps the European theater just covers most of the WW2 history part, as we actually do share a border with Germany, our only border to boot. Hell if I know, just tellin' ya the facts.

[Lucius]

I'm just kiddin' ya with the smiley because someone once called it the condescending smiley, I just can't remember who did it!

[LoneWolf16]

Civility is not condescention.   I was discussing issues, not personalties.  Then again, I haven't broad brushed the entire populace of this country as "not the brightest stars in the sky", as you did in another topic, so I tend to deal with everyone in a fairly straightforward, and I hope adult, manner!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry, it was just what I got from "tone". Then again, text isn't the best medium of expression in that regard. And I stand by my earlier "broad-brushing of our country's populace", from what I've seen, in both statistics and personal experience, a large number of people here aren't the most intelligent on Earth, myself included. Though the same can be said of other countries as well.

 

Lots of brilliant men would disagree with your teacher's position.  And there are lots of opposing thoughts on the matter.  It's one thing to support one's own position; it's quite another to pretend that it's the only truth out there.  I've given you several links that would answer your questions and offer alternative perspectives.  Here's another link.   It shows the timeline of negotiations between Japan and the USA prior to the decision to drop the atomic bomb.  It shows the indecisiveness of a weak Emperor unable to control the fighting factions of pacism and militarism, which promised to never give up the struggle no matter what.

 

The Allies had agreed early on to insist on Unconditional Surrender. Period.  Unconditional.  That's what was expected of Germany; that's what was expected with Japan.  It wasn't keeping the Emperor that was the problem, as I've repeatedly explained (but maybe you'll believe this website... or not. ).  It was that Japan refused to accept Unconditional surrender, and wanted to keep its military in tact.  The allies did not allow that of Germany; it would not allow that of Japan.  If you are interested in the timeline and the details, this site will give it to you.  It answers your questions about why two bombs were dropped, why the surrender had to be unconditional, what the USA knew and didn't know when basic decisions were made, all kinds of information that, when taken in context of the times, may help you understand what took place.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm looking at the website right now...and sorry if I gave the impression that my view is "right no matter what". Far from it, actually. Any new information is appreciated so I can gain a better understanding of the situation in its entirety.

 

No, I don't think I'll disregard it because it was rude and uncalled for.  I've not ridiculed or belittled you.  I've debated with you on a civil, adult level.  I expect the same in return. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Apologies. I've a tendency toward...ahem...less than tactful approaches when I feel I'm being patronized.

 

You are no doubt correct in regards to some schools not only in this country but around the world.  However, you are once again broad-brushing 290 million folks without considering that your experiences in your schools may not mirror the experiences of others in their schools.   

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

All right, you've got me there, I'm generalizing a bit too much for my own good. Just that I've spoken to a large number of people over the years from different states, and found that my experiences with this sort of thing were mirrored by their own. Perhaps not the best way to gain an informed idea and perhaps I'm completely wrong. It's happened before. Frequently.

 

And I'm simply asking that you, since you are obviously an intelligent and articulate person, take a look at evidence which may not fully support the position you now take before you glue yourself irrevocably to something which may not be entirely as you had perceived it to be.  It certainly couldn't hurt to read somebody else's version of what happened and why, now could it?  Especially when that version is basically the official records... which you may or may not believe to be accurate for a variety of reasons.  Still, you really should know what they say.  Doesn't mean you have to agree with the decisions made, only that you should at least have a good understanding of why they were made and the circumstances under which they were made.

 

I hope that made sense to you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Made perfect sense. Almost too perfect...

 

I will, and am looking into it further, if only to give myself a better understanding. Thank you for taking my ignorance on the subject as lightly as you have.

[~Di]

No I never heard about it. Not in elementary school nor in high school, not from movies or TV either, not even from my dad who is an expert military historian and 40 year navy veteran. Perhaps the European theater just covers most of the WW2 history part, as we actually do share a border with Germany, our only border to boot. Hell if I know, just tellin' ya the facts. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

*boggle*

 

So you were taught what, that the USA just tossed an embargo on Japan because we don't like little brown people, and that's why Japan was justified in blowing up Pearl Harbor?

 

Ten million dead Chinese, one of the worst atrocities of the century, and a direct contributor to the entire war in the Pacific. To say I am shocked is an understatement. Do me a favor. Google the words "Japan China World War 2" and pick a site, any site. You really need to know what happened there.

[~Di]

@LoneWolf16: Thank you. That's all I ask! Regardless of whether anything you learn changes your mind, it will give you greater depth of understanding. And basically that's what we all strive for, yes? Thanks for the discussion. I've enjoyed it! Well, mostly I have. LOL. (Crap, almost used a winking smilie! *shudder*)

[Lucius]

I'm too tired to wrap my head around 10 million dead chinese tonight, but let me just say we've had plenty of wars in Europe to learn about. Now that I think about it the entire Pacific theater has gotten surprisingly little coverage in my 13 years of schooling, and so I've never really had any interest in it either.

 

Night night.

Edited May 6, 2006 by Lucius

[LoneWolf16]

Thank you too, ~Di. Been enlightening, to say the least. And again, sorry for my earlier bout of unnecessary defensiveness. ^_^

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Europes old and gets a kick out of infighting. There is a lot to cover. I learned more about the penisular war than the Japanise invasion. That was a footnote.

[metadigital]

My teacher, a brilliant man by the way (Keep him away from candles though...burned his room down last time.  :D ), said the same thing that Kirottu's did. He's never Sugar-coated anything, and time and time again, I've researched what he's said and found truth behind it. To my knowledge, the Japansese didn't necessarily want their emperor to retain military power. It was more of a public position than anything else. A figurehead of their culture. Why not allow them to keep that?

 

And in the end, after the bombs were dropped...not one, but two (Can you say "Overkill"?) we still let them keep their emperor anyway. This is pretty black and white, no purple to be found here. The Japanese weren't the United State's primary concern, or reason for dropping the bombs. We would not have lost a million soldiers. Peace talks were already well under way and going quite well, or so the Japanese thought.

 

Have any justification for Nagasaki? Or was that just to assure ourselves that, yes, the bombs really did erradicate entire cities?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you sign a peace treaty have you won? From my point of view Finland didn

[LoneWolf16]

IMHO...the first bomb was enough.

 

50,000+ dead, in one fell swoop, does wonders for moving negotiations forward in the direction you want.

 

Nagasaki was an excessive use of force.

Edited May 6, 2006 by LoneWolf16

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

IMHO...the first bomb was enough.

 

50,000+ dead, in one fell swoop, does wonders for moving negotiations forward in the direction you want.

 

Nagasaki was an excessive use of force.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Unless of course they think it's a prototype.

 

It's very easy to say excessive use of force 50 years on. But everyone was war weary and they wanted an end to it like in Europe.

[~Di]

Has it occurred to anyone that the second bomb was used, quite simply, because Japan still refused to an unconditional surrender after the first? Just wondering.

 

(No, neither defending or attacking the use of the Atomic bomb. Just point out what the situation was at that time . They didn't have the benefit of history to help them make the decisions.)

[Fenghuang]

My teacher, a brilliant man by the way (Keep him away from candles though...burned his room down last time.  :D ), said the same thing that Kirottu's did. He's never Sugar-coated anything, and time and time again, I've researched what he's said and found truth behind it. To my knowledge, the Japansese didn't necessarily want their emperor to retain military power. It was more of a public position than anything else. A figurehead of their culture. Why not allow them to keep that?

 

And in the end, after the bombs were dropped...not one, but two (Can you say "Overkill"?) we still let them keep their emperor anyway. This is pretty black and white, no purple to be found here. The Japanese weren't the United State's primary concern, or reason for dropping the bombs. We would not have lost a million soldiers. Peace talks were already well under way and going quite well, or so the Japanese thought.

 

Have any justification for Nagasaki? Or was that just to assure ourselves that, yes, the bombs really did erradicate entire cities?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you sign a peace treaty have you won? From my point of view Finland didn

[LoneWolf16]

Unless of course they think it's a prototype.

 

It's very easy to say excessive use of force 50 years on. But everyone was war weary and they wanted an end to it like in Europe.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good point, but that makes for another argument. Why drop the second on another city? Why not out where no people are? In the ocean or something. Or hell, just explode one out in the desert and film it!

 

Killing that many people because you're tired of war is definitely not an excuse.

 

Has it occurred to anyone that the second bomb was used, quite simply, because Japan still refused to an unconditional surrender after the first?  Just wondering.

 

(No, neither defending or attacking the use of the Atomic bomb.  Just point out what the situation was at that time .  They didn't have the benefit of history to help them make the decisions.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They were given what, a few days to come to a decision? We couldn't have waited a bit to avoid extinguishing so many more lives?

 

 

Look, I'm really hoping nobody here disagrees with my assumption that everyone thinks it would have been better to end the war without killing all those civilians. There were other ways, if we'd had a little patience. Being war weary isn't an excuse. It was so many people...not relative to the war as a whole, of course, but they do matter, right?

Edited May 7, 2006 by LoneWolf16

[Calax]

THe onion archives....

 

Bright flash of light just americas top scientists capming.

all of the brightest minds in science are "just camping" near los alamos says the government after a Brilliant flash of light lit the sky last night. Oppenheimer states "oh that was just george accidnently messing with the Barbeque...."

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Good point, but that makes for another argument. Why drop the second on another city? Why not out where no people are? In the ocean or something. Or hell, just explode one out in the desert and film it!

 

Killing that many people because you're tired of war is definitely not an excuse.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That may work today. But your talking about a time when few even knew what the bomb was.

 

Never said it was. I see no need to excuse their actions. It is however a reason. No one wanted to ship to Japan for the next phase when there was an alternative.Although a lot of people died. It was still comparitively few to the predicted worst case scenerio.

[LoneWolf16]

Good point, but that makes for another argument. Why drop the second on another city? Why not out where no people are? In the ocean or something. Or hell, just explode one out in the desert and film it!

 

Killing that many people because you're tired of war is definitely not an excuse.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That may work today. But your talking about a time when few even knew what the bomb was.

 

Never said it was. I see no need to excuse their actions. It is however a reason. No one wanted to ship to Japan for the next phase when there was an alternative.Although a lot of people died. It was still comparitively few to the predicted worst case scenerio.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So why not film a test?

 

And I know it must have seemed like a quick, easy solution...but...damn it, why couldn't they have been patient a few weeks longer, then there's a huge chance it would have ended peacefully?

Edited May 7, 2006 by LoneWolf16

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

So why not film a test?

 

And I know it must have seemed like a quick, easy solution...but...damn it, why couldn't they have been patient a few weeks longer, then there's a huge chance it would have ended peacefully?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

A better question would be why not surrender after the first bomb ?