Friday, March 30, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(17)
-
►
April
(12)
- STAR CH.17 COLD WAR SEC.2
- STAR CH.17 COLD WAR SEC.5
- STAR CH.17 COLD WAR SEC.4
- STAR CH.17 COLD WAR SEC.3
- STAR CH.17 COLD WAR SEC.1
- Per.5 Group 4 Bystanders Play
- CLASS WORK TUESDAY 4/24
- Mr.Ballou has the flu:-(
- Per. 5 Research Project H.W.
- Per. 4 Research Project H.W.
- Example of Annotated Research
- WWII INTERNET ASSIGNMENT
-
►
April
(12)
79 comments:
greg is cool
-U.S. warned Japan and gave them an untimatum
-Needed to keep Japan off their homeland
-Wanted to end the war quickly
-Japan had already showed their dicipline and determination, so the U.S. knew that they had to do something drastic to end the war
After okinawa was the deadliest Pacific war battle, americans had lost nearly 500,000 soldiers, so they needed a way to destroy Japan and end the war with out losing any more american soldiers
Yet, after two atomic bombings, massive conventional bombings, and the Soviet invasion, the Japanese government still refused to surrender. the japs wouldn't of surrendered any way
said teddy
Shannon and Monica said...
Without the bombing, the war would have lasted much longer and there would have been more casualties.
The United States gave Japan the option to surrender, but they repeatedly refused, even when threatened with the atomic bombings. Secondly, the U.S passed over the possible targets of Tokyo and Osaka, two very important cities to the country, choosing instead to bomb Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Far more people could have died if Truman had decided to bomb the major cities.
More people would have been lost in the long run had the a bombs not been dropped. The U.S. also needed to be able to devote forces to one front ie. Germany, and ending the war with Japan was a away of doing that, the a bomb being the most efficient.
the atomc bombs saved not only american but also japanese lives that would have been lost had we been forced to a land invasion
In order to get Japan to surrender, the other option for the United States besides bombing was to invade the Japanese territory. By invading, not only would the Japanese lose an imense amount of people, but the Americans would lose more people as well. By bombing, the Americans didn't lose nearly as many as they would have by invading.
-Alex
Robi Keenan
Japan was looking for a better peace deal from Russia after we warned them.
The bombing in Japan helped end World War II and prevented furthur killing of soldiers and innocent civilians.
To keep American soldiers from invading Japan in a suicidal frontal invasion we dropped two atomic bombs and ended the war quickly. America had already lost hundreds of thousands of soldiers and we weren't keen on losing anymore.
-Colby
the brutality of the japanese in battle and their decisions shocked many americans. the japanese slaughtered millions of chinese civilians, among other crimes of war. this helped make the decision to end the war asap by dropping the atomic bomb.
-- Miller
the brutality of the japanese in battle and their decisions shocked many americans. the japanese slaughtered millions of chinese civilians, among other crimes of war. this helped make the decision to end the war asap by dropping the atomic bomb.
-- Miller
It was right for the Americans to bomb Japan. The Japanese had done great atrocities during their creation of their Empire. They had forced many civilians to do what they wanted. Many had died, over hundred and thousands, under the Japanese rule. Rather than leave alone their prisoners that they had captured from war, they tortured them in gruesome ways.
For example from the passage from this page:
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/6991/usmc.htm
It tells that of how American pilots were captured, they were tortured to death.
[More to Come]
Robyn Winz: Japan had proved themselves to be fiercly loyal to their emperor, whom they revered as a god, and every soldier in the Japanese army would die willingly to uphold the emporer's honor. Due to this, any sort of negotionations would have had very little effectiveness, if any. By knocking Japan out of the war so totally and completely, the Allied force was able to end WWII, one of the most horrific and devastating wars in human history.
THe atomic bomb was a necessary conclusion to the war. The Japanese had proven that a battle to take Japan would be long and bloody and as devastating as the bomb. They did not mind taking huge losses as long as they preserved honor as in the Battle of Midway where they lost 3,500 because of their refusal to surrender. Even after the bombs were dropped they still debated over whether to surrender only at last bowing to the will of the Emperor.
Em Schuster in the pro said that the killing of civilians was inexcusable. Not only had the Japanese already murdered millions of Chinese civilians, but based on the structure of their country and principles Japanese civilians would have fought the invading American soldiers.
The Japanese loyalty to the Emperor was extrememly strong as they believed he was a god. In the event of his death which would have been likely in the invasion of Japan, the Japanese people would become enraged and fight to the death with all those responsible.
-Katerina Siefkas
Remember that this is an academic debate and that in such an exercise we use proper language with no racial slurs...such as "Japs". Thank you. I am enjoying your comments.
Invading Japan would be sending our troops and Japans troops/people into a long and bloody battle with massive casualties on both sides. The casualties of the invasion would not have been worth it in the end and although the devastation caused by atomic weapons is horrific; dropping the two bombs stopped a larger loss of life in the long run.
a huge number of people would've been killed in a war that could've lasted for a very long time. better japan than the US
The Japanese were totally barbaric in war waging and deserved to be put in their place. Over 200,000 Chinese died in a single battle, the Rape of Nanking, and 20,000 women were raped. That's about every woman in Novato. The Japanese invasion of Manchuria has had repercussions to this day. Some 2,000 Chinese students were killed by a government crackdown on the June 4th Tiananmen Square proetesters, a direct result of the May 4th protests commemorating the 70 year anniversary of the May 4th 1919 protests that were triggered in response to the Japanese invasion.
In conclusion, the Japanese invasion of Manchuria created longer lasting effects than the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Bombing these two cities was definitely the lesser of two evils.
America owns and if we didnt bomb them more american lives wouldve been lost, so we prevented that by nuking them accordingly. The Japanese had a no surrender policy that we happened to change by dropping fat man and little boy.
The Japanese were extremely loyal to their emperor. They would do anything to keep the emperor's throne. They were willing to fight to the last man. The two atomic bombs were the right brutality and cruelty that the Japanese needed to surrender. Even thought hundreds of thousands of people died in thes two nuclear attacks, an invasion would have resulted in the loss of every Japanese soldier and citizen. In terms of numbers, the atomic bombs saved millions of lives.
Jean Piere Salendres
- The U.S. did not want to be involved in a long war and wanted immediate closure.
- Long term effects were most likely better then a continual war.
- Th arguement is: what is justification? If Japan was justified to bomb Pearl Harbour, why would the U.S. not be justified to drop two bombs?
-After several warnings and threats from the U.S., Japan refused to surrender.
---------JACOB DAVIS #18-----------
It ended the war without the US troops having to attack mainland China. Also, in the long run, more people were probabally saved because the war would go on for much, much, muuuuuuuch longer because everyone refused to surrender.
after the surrender of the Bataan, there were many U.S. and Filipino soldiers that died in the Death March. And after the march many more were killed by disease or murder in Japanese camps. Japan had then showed that they would not give in, so in order to keep soldiers alive they had to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The Japanese subjected their POW's to torture, starvation, execution, and other atrocious acts. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not just retaliation for Pearl Harbor; it was also retaliation for the many murdered and tortured men. In retrospect, Pearl Harbor was actually much less brutal than what the POW's in the Philipinnes and in other places faced on a daily basis.
The Japanese, to this day, have not apologized nor acknowledged what their military did to soldiers and innocent civilians in Southeast Asia and the South Pacific. The Japanese only surrendered after the bombings on the request of Emperor Hirohito.
Though the atomic bombs dropped on Japan caused a massive amount of casualties in a matter of seconds, the Japanese did have a chance to surrender beforehand. They did not take that chance because it would have been considered extremely dishonorable.
Many of the Japanese in power did not even bother to consider their own citizens who would be killed by the bombs, or the other long-lasting effects.
The devastation of the bombs is horrifying, but the damage done by the Japanese on thousands of helpless prisoners is also just as devastating. The U.S. did not want to have to subject any more of their soldiers to the possibility of captured and put in a POW camp, so they used the atomic bombs, which did end up being an effecient way of ending the war.
Yeah, that last really long comment was by Madeleine (forgot to put that)
Here are the numbers and supporting facts to go with my previous post:
-approximately 24,000 Americans and 64,000 Filipinos died or were killed in the Philippines (this includes battles and prison camps)
-2 out 3 prisoners died in prison camps.
-Bataan Death March: prisoners forced to march 60 miles over a 5-10 day period without food or water; they had to drink from bateria-infested puddles on the side of the road
-43% of POWs died in camps as opposed to the 4 % that died in Europe.
- Certain types of tortures: putting a cloth over the person's mouth and nose and dripping water until on it until they suffocated
-running water through a hose in person's throat until they'd bloat, then jumping on them until they exploded from the water pressure
-forced to dig own graves
-137 POWs told to get into a ditch, then covered in gasoline and set afire, along with grenades thrown in after them (only 6 men survived)
These facts were part of the reason for the dropping of the atomic bombs.
--Madeleine
*cough* Cite your sources like me *uncough*
~Travis
Dropping the nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Na... might have killed less Japenese than continued bombing. It is hard to imagine what it would have taken to make the Japanese surrender if two dropped nukes and the threat of more was barely enough, said one of the few, the proud, the brave, a Conservative in a California Classroom. - Jeremy
In regard to Madeline's post about the POWs:
Do not forget that many Japenese generals and leaders were convicted of war crimes and executed.
I would like to say that I am slightly disgusted by some of the people in the "pro" section. They are posting that the lives of Japenese civilians are lesser in value than American soldiers "...better japenese than US" - Caley I would also like to point out that out of what I have read I have not seen one person with a non biased view of these events.
Dear anonymous above me-
Don't call out your peers and say that they slightly disgust you.
It's very uncool, unnessascary, and unethical.
from anonymous
and most of theses actually are non biased
The us bombing ended the war very rapidly. It spared many lives because it prevented a land invasion that would have resulted in many more battles which would have resulted in many more casualties on both sides
The devastating affects of the bombing caused Japan to be knocked out of the war completely
The brutality of the japanes in and out of battle was part of the major factors in making the decision to bomb japan
-shannon
wil's hot
look doggs, this is supposed to be biased. dont be disgusted, this is a school assignment on facts. FACTS. if you are feeling bad about this assignment then go find something better to do with your hippie-activist loser mindset
By dropping the bomb, we are saving the world by keeping the world from overpopulating.
Nico,
You spelled my name wrong. And the person who posted about his/her slightly disgusted feelings. Take it up with Ballou. He ASSIGNED us our positions.
By dropping the bomb Truman saved millions and millions of dollars that would have been used on ammunition and supplies that would have gone towards a frontal assault.
colby
After the first bomb was dropped Truman broadcasted over the radio that the Americans were going to start bombing industrial cities,aka Hiroshima and Nagasaki, he warned the people to leave these industrial cities.
colby
after we dropped the first atomic bomb we gave Japan several days to surrender before we dropped the 2nd bomb; but they didn't.
colby
after we dropped the first atomic bomb we gave Japan several days to surrender before we dropped the 2nd bomb; but they didn't.
colby
after we dropped the first atomic bomb we gave Japan several days to surrender before we dropped the 2nd bomb; but they didn't.
colby
after we dropped the first atomic bomb we gave Japan several days to surrender before we dropped the 2nd bomb; but they didn't.
colby
after we dropped the first atomic bomb we gave Japan several days to surrender before we dropped the 2nd bomb; but they didn't.
colby
by dropping the bombs we also showed Stalin we had superior waeponry and that they couldn't take us on. so Stalin backed off of Japan.
colby
the people of nagasaki were warneed of the bombs
Truman gave the option to surrender, but it's possible he also dropped the bombs in retaliation for the Bataan Death March imposed by the Japanese. Being buried alive is a fate of almost equal horror to dying of radiation poisoning. "approximately 600-650 American and 5,000-10,000 Filipino prisoners of war died" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bataan_Death_March) in the Death March, and though there were far more casualties and more horiffic deaths, we can't forgive the fact that prisoners of war were cruelly murdered.
The United States warned Japan about these bombs, and yet they still didn't surrender. We even told them that we would bomb the industrial cities. The Japanese had it coming if they wouldn't compromise
The opposition talked about how our posts were implying that american lives are better than japanese lives, well during war that's true the lives of your own people are worth more than the lives of your enemies
an invasion of japan would have caused casualities on both sides that could easilyhave exceeded the toll at hiroshima & nagaski. it is estimated that invading japan would have taken uo to 1 million american lives alone.
colby
It took two bombs for the Japanese to surrender. Meaning that they had no intention of surrendering before.
The Japanese were trying to keep peace with USSR, but they refused to surrender to the U.S. Also, the U.S. intercepted a telegram from the Japanese that said they would fight to the end against the U.S. The Americans didn't want to subject their military to any of the cruel acts of the Japanese, and so they warned the Japanese that they would drop an extremely destructive bomb on them. The Japanese thought it was a bluff, and they were wrong.
Also, to address the issue of the U.S. thinking that their military personnel's lives were worth more, from the president's point of view, they were. Especially since the Japanese thought that the POWs were less than human, and treated them inhumanely.
--Madeleine
Japan would have lost more people if the United States had bombed Japan's big industrial cities.
the japanese had demonstrated near-fanatical resistance, fighting to the last man on the pacific islands, committing mass suicide, and kamakazi attacks on the allies. fire bombing had killed more than 100,000 in tokyo w/no political effect. only TWO atomic bombs could jolt the japanese gov.
colby
The japanese were a ruthless fighting force ie. bataan death march, and had to be taught a lesson so htat a travesty like this wouldn't happen again.
According to the con side there were innocent Japanese being stuck in the middle of the actrocious war. Yes it's true that there were innocent people being killed but there were some Japanese who committed serious war crimes such as torturing prisoners in the most brutal ways. They (not including innocent Japanese) attacked China, killed many Chinese and raped Chinese women. When the A-bombs dropped it prevented further of these crimes.
greg is not cool
First thing first.
Anonymous said...
"I would like to say that I am slightly disgusted by some of the people in the "pro" section. They are posting that the lives of Japenese civilians are lesser in value than American soldiers "...better japenese than US" - Caley I would also like to point out that out of what I have read I have not seen one person with a non biased view of these events."
To whom that had post this, these comments are SUPPOSED to be biased. Referring to Madaline, if you have problems, Take this issue of yours to Mr. Ballou. This is an assignment assigned to the class. :P
Anyway, back to track. Nina commented to my post on the Con side. Yes, I agree that helpless and innocent lives of elders, women, and children were caught in it. That is the cost of war. Who said no one would die in war. This is a sacrifice for the Japanese for what they had done to China and the other innocent people that they took over in their reign for an Empire. Plus, it would end the war quicker saving other and more lives.
The U.S. had just come off the battle of Okinawa, the fiercest island battle of the entire war. It cost thousands of Anerican lives, hundreds of thousands of Japanese and Tremendous amounts of resources and machines were poured into this battle.
The Japanese held grenades against their bodies rather than be captured. Soldiers killed civilians so that they would not surrender. Over a thousand kamikaze flights were launched. Civilians would leap off of cliffs to their deaths. Some were handed a gun and told to shoot as many Americans as possible.
The U.S. knew that to take all of Japan would mean at least a tripling of all the lives lost and resources used to take just this one island. The atomic bomb was a better alternative.
-Katerina S.
"all's fair in love and war."
colby
on the con someone mentioned that dropping the a-bombs was acrime against humanity and truman should have been put on trial, but what about the japanese emporer who ordered his people to put the POW's in concentration camps and ordered the kamakazi pilots. i think that this also qualifies as crimes against humanities. Not to mention the innocent americans who killed at Pearl harbor.
colby
i agree with ^ sounds like somethn a nieve hippy would say
i was also goin to say all's fair in love and war
the japanese were given warning to evacuate industrial cities because we would start dropping bombs.
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/RdLeaflet.asp?sLeafletID=33&j=1
website about WWII war crimes- summerizes details in beginning of page, goes into good detail about topics on page.
Christina said:
In Europe, only four percent of pprisoners didn't come back from the POW camps because they were killed or went missing. In Japan, fourty-three percent of prisoners didn't come back. The cruelty of Japan in these extreme cases justifies the dropping of the atomic bomb to end their torture and slaughter of innocent people.
the japanese had invaded china and raped and murdered many innocent people.
The Americans should have bombed the Japanese because at that point in the war, the japanese had control over most of the island and had complete control over the airways, and it was unlikely that the Americans would win and Japan would surrender. The americans were low on ammunition and fuel and weaponry, so the atomic bomb was their only solution to end the war positively without drawing the war out and killing more people in the end. the US gave fair warning to the Japanese before both droppings of the atomic bomb, so they did have a chance to surrender. SAID JUSTINE
the reason my comment is so late is because the first one said ERROR when i tried to post it ballou--said justine
i think that greg is cool too.
you all are hippies.
"all's fair in love and peace"
japan and america were both assholes and so are you all
to whom it may concern:
i would just like to let everyone know that this website is all personal opinion. it is not a reliable source. BUT! i would like to say that the bomb was deff un-necissary. it killed innocent people, and Japan was going to back out anyway. Truman was a moron in this situation. so yes...i just wanted to let you guys know.
The bombing showed the soviets and other powers how much the US was willing to take in order to recieve a fast victory. Killing millions of civilians showed the greed of power, better would have been to bomb the ones responsible.
We gave them a warning and they didnt listen. Also look at what they did at Pearl Harbor. If we didnt bomb the two cities then there would have been probabaly a lot more lifes lost overall. What about the Bataan Death March, they didnt care if they killed us or not. I mean we were at war.
Japanese ideology prevented acceptance of defeat and previously the emperor told his people to fight to the death, many of which had on islands in the island hopping stages of the pacific campaign. In destructiveness compared to the previous fire-bombing, the a-bomb, or both of them, had less casualties. The fire-bombing destroyed towns and areas much larger than both a-bombs combined. American treatment of POW's was the most docile of any major power; Germans swam across a river to escape the Russians in Berlin. The Japanese had also murdered, yes murdered, over 30000 Americans POW's in one camp alone with their death marches and executions. Atomic weapons were already in development by other countries such as the USSR before Japan was targeted and was not the impetus for nuclear proliferation. Atomic weapons are now being disassembled by major powers now due to both SALT-1 and SALT-2. The bombs were a demonstration to the Japanese of our might and even after the first bomb the Japanese were reluctant to surrender. If a land invasion was put into use millions upon millions of lives would be lost on both sides. Japanese soldiers began dressing as civilians so that in some areas the distinction was unobservable. Generals of the time estimated that at the least, 1 million US soldiers would die, others had said greater numbers. The Japanese were predicted to lose tens of millions. If that land invasion commenced you may not be here your grandfather could have been killed, now use some common sense which had less deaths? The A-bombs. Japan is the economic hotspot of the world; the atomic weapons haven’t prevented the Japanese success now have they? I have read that the areas are still too radioactive but that is not the case, in Japan, more people die of inhaling Radon-222 than from the leftover radiation from the bombs.
Japanese ideology prevented acceptance of defeat and previously the emperor told his people to fight to the death, many of which had on islands in the island hopping stages of the pacific campaign. In destructiveness compared to the previous fire-bombing, the a-bomb, or both of them, had less casualties. The fire-bombing destroyed towns and areas much larger than both a-bombs combined. American treatment of POW's was the most docile of any major power; Germans swam across a river to escape the Russians in Berlin. The Japanese had also murdered, yes murdered, over 30000 Americans POW's in one camp alone with their death marches and executions. Atomic weapons were already in development by other countries such as the USSR before Japan was targeted and was not the impetus for nuclear proliferation. Atomic weapons are now being disassembled by major powers now due to both SALT-1 and SALT-2. The bombs were a demonstration to the Japanese of our might and even after the first bomb the Japanese were reluctant to surrender. If a land invasion was put into use millions upon millions of lives would be lost on both sides. Japanese soldiers began dressing as civilians so that in some areas the distinction was unobservable. Generals of the time estimated that at the least, 1 million US soldiers would die, others had said greater numbers. The Japanese were predicted to lose tens of millions. If that land invasion commenced you may not be here your grandfather could have been killed, now use some common sense which had less deaths? The A-bombs. Japan is the economic hotspot of the world; the atomic weapons haven’t prevented the Japanese success now have they? I have read that the areas are still too radioactive but that is not the case, in Japan, more people die of inhaling Radon-222 than from the leftover radiation from the bombs.
Post a Comment