Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum

View Poll Results: The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was

Voters
31. You may not vote on this poll
  • The ultimate crime against humanity

    11 35.48%
  • A serious war crime because US had other options

    5 16.13%
  • An unethical act of war although US needed to check USSR

    0 0%
  • An inferior choice although US had few other options

    1 3.23%
  • Justified because it saved many US & Japanese lives

    7 22.58%
  • Entirely justified because Japan would not surrender without it

    7 22.58%
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 101

Thread: Dropping the Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki:

  1. #1
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    ippolito's Avatar
    Join Date
    07-10-03
    Location
    rome italy
    Age
    65
    Posts
    33


    Country: Italy



    Dropping the Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki:

    Yesterday I saw in tv a history program that for 90 minutes
    there were all the steps before the us airforce aircraft
    left usa and straight to some targets that were differents in case of
    fog and bad weather....
    the reportage was in color and the pilot cannot image what kind
    of power had that bomb.
    It is my opinion that no one in 1945 in usa could image what kind of bomb
    was that exactly and how many people could kil or leave radiations for years and years creating baby monsters.
    There were 100.000 killed among the civil population women children
    in less than a minute in Hiroshima.
    Many bodies had dissapeard completaly.
    I think that was a very dark moment for the us white house
    the decision to send in japan 2 bombs it is my opinion was a big mistake of truman and hiw entourage.
    Till today 2004 fortunanly us has been the only country in this world
    to use such dark death weapon....and all we hope that will reamin the only one for the rest of the history of the world.
    What is your opinions?
    Which are the japanese' of this forum opinions?

  2. #2
    Banned Achievements:
    Recommendation Second Class1 year registered

    Join Date
    22-04-04
    Posts
    1,720


    Country: United States



    There is no doubt in my mind that the A-bomb was a horrific "dark death weapon." It's effects and the toll was terrible and terrifying. I am glad that it has never been used again, and I hope it never will.

    As a high school history teacher, I have argued both sides- that it was justified and that it was not. I have struggled with this for years, but I believe the decision to use the bomb, and to use it on civilians was the only decision Truman could have made. The battles of Saipan, Iwo Jima and Okinawa demonstrated that the Japanese would continue to fight, and that civillians would continue to die in mass numbers. Hundreds of thousands of Japanese civillians were bombed, burned, strafed and starved before the Atomic bomb was dropped. Yet the government and the emperor did not surrender. The larger parts of the Japanese economy and military lay in ruins- with hundreds of thousands of soldiers and civillians stranded on islands and in China, the Japanese Navy at the bottom of the ocean and the Airforce reduced to suicide attack. Japan was defeated, but would continue to fight on and on and on. There was no sign of giving in, no sign that the slaughter would end. Projections of a million US casualties were made.

    As president, what other decision could be made? There were only two bombs-- and so the attack was really a bluff-- the bomb had little tactical value- it would not ease the number of casualties an invasion would cause... and should we have kept firebombing the population night after night until there was nothing left and no one left to surrender? He had to hope that something this aweful would force a surrender. (And remember that the surrender almost didn't happen, a last minute coup by junior officers against the emperor was only unsuccessful by dumb luck)

    And I hate this answer because it basically says the end justifies the means- I think this is a poor foundation for ethical reasoning.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered

    Join Date
    27-10-04
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    16


    Country: United States



    I think the A-bombs were not necessary. I do believe however, that it was definatley a better solution than invading japan. Not just better for less american casulaties, but there would have been an enormous amount of japanese casualties as well if the USA invaded japan, and japan woud look nothing like it does now. Most of the temples, historical atrifacts, etc of japan would have been destroyed, and all of the cultural heratige that japan still has today would be all but gone. Most major cities would have lied in ruin when everything would be over and done with (not just hiroshima and nagasaki), and it would have been complete chaos. With japan's suicidal fighting style in WWII, it would have been a absolute real hell on earth. I know that a projection of over a million american casualties was made if the USA decided to invade japan, but i guarantee that over 10x that number (even higher) of japanese casualties would have resulted if the USA invaded japan.

    Also, the USA didn't need to drop the A-bombs over major cities. If they dropped them in a much less densley-populated area, I think it might have still got the message across, without all the unneeded casualties.

    EDIT: also... a quick question Ive always wondered. Is WWII covered in depth in school in japan like it is in the USA? What about Germany? I would imagine that it might hurt national pride if this topic was covered extensivley in school in japan and germany, so Im really curious...

    Anyone know?

  4. #4
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    ippolito's Avatar
    Join Date
    07-10-03
    Location
    rome italy
    Age
    65
    Posts
    33


    Country: Italy



    Well if you thinkkthat was the only way to stop the war they could
    bomb military bases or the pacific sea fleet....but not 2 towns...with civilians
    they could demostrate such superior destructive bomb and convince th jp
    imperor to finish thre war before to attach jp main cities.
    All the story it something that they (the project managers) were loosing the control of the situation a want to try how powerfuls was that bomb without calculating how many people they were going to kill.
    Sorry but i would (if Truman) never use such black death bomb on towns.

  5. #5
    Banned Achievements:
    Recommendation Second Class1 year registered

    Join Date
    22-04-04
    Posts
    1,720


    Country: United States



    The US military chose populated cities that were large and untouched to show difinitively the power of the devices. Planners wanted a high number of casualties. A less populated area would not do. Cities of higher military and economic importance had already been bombed. The pacific sea fleet was for the most part either sunk or scattered. And a single military target would have been too small.

    The Russians had also declared war a few weeks earlier and were looking to grab as much territory as possible. So it may have also been important to demonstrate to Moscow how powerful a weapon we had in our arsenal.

    There was a (minor) military target in Hiroshima- The Army southern command. It was destroyed.

    The reasoning is "the ends justifies the means." I am still uncomfortable saying that because it ended WWII and the killing all around the pacific, that it was a good thing and it was justified. At least we can take solice in that the sacrifice of two cities and their people may have saved the lives of countless others.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    ippolito's Avatar
    Join Date
    07-10-03
    Location
    rome italy
    Age
    65
    Posts
    33


    Country: Italy



    Sorry I am not agree, even I respect your point of view I still think
    that a such powerful governement could find another solution
    as skared them bombing an empty island in the pacific with japanese observer and give them an ultimatum or you decleare defetad or we bomb some of your
    main towns and refusing this offer you will be the responsable of the death 100s
    thousend of civilitians....
    Don't you think that this could convince jp to be surrended...and won...
    They belived in the bushido but not stupid...the Emperor in front of a such distructive weapon would (perhaps) his country won...
    Do not forget all the deaseas and baby monsters that fo years and years came
    as for the radiations and people died after years with cancer etc.....
    Anyway this history and you will continue to teach as the school books require
    about Vietnam there were many films that were a mile stone of a stranage war loosed in which milions of vietnamises died and also many us soldiers
    As I saw a lot of films about the pacific war..and european field against hitler.
    But it seems that noone could talk or produce a film in that forgotten part of world history. Do you have your opinion about this?
    It is look strange no one there would make a critics by a film like many did for Vietnam...
    have a nice day

  7. #7
    Banned Achievements:
    Recommendation Second Class1 year registered

    Join Date
    22-04-04
    Posts
    1,720


    Country: United States



    Japan had already been given ultimatums and had refused to surrender in spite of hundreds of thousands of civillian deaths. The potsdam declaration, leaflet drops and radio broadcasts calling for surrender were all ignored-- and dozens of Japanese cities were firebombed- killing far more civillians than the atomic bomb. If burning Tokyo to the ground didn't work, then why would bombing some deserted island work?

  8. #8
    ohayo otaku:) Achievements:
    1 year registered
    babar-san's Avatar
    Join Date
    15-08-04
    Location
    the astral plane
    Age
    40
    Posts
    43


    Ethnic group
    caucasian
    Country: United States



    i too have struggled with this unfortunate decision made by the united states administration at the time. in the end, i feel that japan got the short end of the stick. there is a question of morality that is rarely taken into consideration on this subject. in 1940 hitler held repeated meetings with the japanese military, you can find documentation on these talks in the writings of adolf eikman, hitlers chief of command to the ss party. hitler had persuaded japan to tackle the us, while he concentrated on the whole of europe. at the time, both parties thought this to be a good strategy, little did japan know what unearthly power the united states had uncovered in the years leading up to the monstrous show of force in question. japan made a decisive mistake. against hitlers advice, japan attacked the us, (pearl harbor) 10 months ahead of schedule. a criticle mistake. its an ironic story, because it was hitlers own scientists that developed the bomb. 3 years prior, hitler had refused continued funding for the research of the atom bomb. upon this decision, the 2 scientists responsible defected to the uk for further research, they in turn, were handed over to the united states, who gave them unlimited funding for research. the critical error was that originally, the 2 german scientists thought that it would take over a ton of enriched uranium to produce the weapon, material that was hard to find and incredibly expensive to refine at the time. litttle did they realize that it would take less than a pound. upon discovery of this miscalculation, research zoomed forward at an unpresedented rate, and soon, the world saw the first example of the a bomb. the reason i feel that japan in some ways did not deserve such horror is that at the time, it would have been impossible to bomb germany, with our allies bordering the country. japan on the other hand, was geographically isolated, and fallout posed no threat to our allies. arguably, hitler deserved to be bombed far more than the japanese, but that was just not possible.
    i have spoken to many japanese on this matter, being american and wanting to have a strong relationship with japans ppl. nearly every japanese i talked to admitted that the attack was provoked, being that they attacked the united states first. i was very supprised to hear this. of course, no one beleaves it was the right thing to do, but as has been stated, there was no other alternative. the war had raged on for nearly a decade, and it had to end. i do not think it was right, i do not think we should have used such a horrible device on civilians, it just goes to show how tenacious the japanese are when it comes to war, alongside the germans. the united states and great britain wanted that war to end. with the death of 20 million russians and 6 million jews, countless american, british, and french casualties, along with massive loss of life for the japanese and the germans, the death toll would continue to rise beyond those experienced with the bomb. it was a quik and simple way out. as horrible and in-humane as it was. but japanese history is no stranger to in-humanity, just look at the rape of nanking, absolutely barberous. but then again, whitch world power can claim that they are humane?

  9. #9
    Banned Achievements:
    Recommendation Second Class1 year registered

    Join Date
    22-04-04
    Posts
    1,720


    Country: United States



    Well said. The Japanese people got the short end of the stick. As did the German people, the Russian people and the Chinese people. In war, it is the innocents that pay the greatest price and bear the greatest burden. In WWII millions of civillians were targeted, and suffered arial bombardment, loss of property, dispossesion,starvation, torture, deprivation, rape, and murder.War is all hell, and most of its victims are innocent. No one deserves to be burned alive or irradiated.

    Today, people are returning to what's left of their homes in parts of Fallujah. They probably don't deserve what they will find.

    I'm interested to hear other opinions. (Esp. from Japan) Can you make this a poll?
    Last edited by No-name; 27-11-04 at 21:35. Reason: typo

  10. #10
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    ippolito's Avatar
    Join Date
    07-10-03
    Location
    rome italy
    Age
    65
    Posts
    33


    Country: Italy



    To see and fill the traditional bombs could not change th jp position
    to assist to the distruction that an a-bomb could do I think there were perhpas 50% of possibilities to let them understand that the story was over..
    But us gov wanted to try anyway that bomb
    If there were no other solutions...why 2 and not one?
    The destruction of Hiroshima and 100.000 died I think was a very strong message to the imperor....
    What I wish with this dialog is to undestand if they did (truman &co)
    all the best to not bombing with atomic one.

  11. #11
    Banned Achievements:
    Recommendation Second Class1 year registered

    Join Date
    22-04-04
    Posts
    1,720


    Country: United States



    The "traditional" bombs used in Tokyo in other large cities were nothing like any that had been used before. The incidiaries were clustered in large canisters which were slowed and burst open above the city releasing little time delayed tubes of napalm. These tubes landed and then burst spewing gooey burning jelly for a dozen yards.

    You may be right, maybe one would have been enough. The emperial government gave no indication in the days before Nagasaki. Maybe a demonstration would have worked. I don't think Truman seriously considered either of these options.

  12. #12
    ohayo otaku:) Achievements:
    1 year registered
    babar-san's Avatar
    Join Date
    15-08-04
    Location
    the astral plane
    Age
    40
    Posts
    43


    Ethnic group
    caucasian
    Country: United States



    just wanted to add a few things i had forggoten last time i replied to this post. the reason it is hard to find either side (us or japan) at fault is that because of economic pressure put on japan by the united states in 1931, before america joined the war. at the time, japan relied heavily on the united states for steel, oil, minerals, and petrol. because of japans involvement with germany and italy, the united states placed embargo's on these resources, without them, japan could not fight a war.
    may i say also that no one in washington at the time wanted any part of this war, except for president roosevelt. he saw the war as an opportunity for america to become a world super-power. how right he was. without resources, japan was "forced" to fight. so they attacked pearl harbor, a plan that hitler thought would keep us out of the war for at least another year, having a chunk of our navy destroyed. like i said before, this was a critical mistake of enormous proportions. after having declared war on the united states, italy and germany were obligated to join a head-on war campaign
    . agree'ing to aid the cause of the other two, should they plunge into full-fledged war. this sealed the 3 nations into an unbreakable agreement. so when japan declared war on the united states, italy and germany were obliged to join the war.
    so you see, in my eyes, we sort of "forced" japan to fight. they of course attacked the united states first "physically", but they really had no other choice. roosevelt knew this, and used this knowledge to his advantage, to show the world that america, was a dominant force in the world. that is why i feel japan got the short end of the stick, they had no chance.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    cicatriz esp's Avatar
    Join Date
    21-08-04
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Age
    15
    Posts
    47


    Ethnic group
    welsh/english
    Country: United_States



    Quote Originally Posted by zeroyon


    EDIT: also... a quick question Ive always wondered. Is WWII covered in depth in school in japan like it is in the USA? What about Germany? I would imagine that it might hurt national pride if this topic was covered extensivley in school in japan and germany, so Im really curious...

    Anyone know?
    Either it's not covered, or no one pays attention in class. My girlfriend who grew up in Osaka had only a faint idea of what the holocaust was. She knew it had to do with jews and not much else. I would also bet that the Pacific war is not given an in depth treatment.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    bossel's Avatar
    Join Date
    28-09-03
    Location
    germany
    Posts
    790


    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by babar-san
    italy and germany were obliged to join the war.
    Not really, AFAIK.

    they really had no other choice.
    They had. Eg. they could have stopped attacking China.

  15. #15
    ohayo otaku:) Achievements:
    1 year registered
    babar-san's Avatar
    Join Date
    15-08-04
    Location
    the astral plane
    Age
    40
    Posts
    43


    Ethnic group
    caucasian
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by bossel
    Not really, AFAIK.


    They had. Eg. they could have stopped attacking China.
    according to the trilateral agreement between gemany, italy, and japan, the italians and the germans were obligated to fight america, this was a document signed by all three countries, and by signing it, they were "required to fight".
    this is the essence of the axis powers.

    no one "has" to do anything. but by not adhearing to their own policies, japan would be going against its very own tradition of "saving face".

  16. #16
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    bossel's Avatar
    Join Date
    28-09-03
    Location
    germany
    Posts
    790


    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by babar-san
    according to the trilateral agreement between gemany, italy, and japan, the italians and the germans were obligated to fight america, this was a document signed by all three countries, and by signing it, they were "required to fight".
    this is the essence of the axis powers.
    Not really.
    The pact says: "to assist one another with all political, economic and military means when one of the three contracting powers is attacked"
    Japan was not attacked, it attacked 1st.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    ippolito's Avatar
    Join Date
    07-10-03
    Location
    rome italy
    Age
    65
    Posts
    33


    Country: Italy



    Now after many years and thks to Gorbaciov many old secrets documents came out from underground.
    Few knew that there were an agreement betwen hitler an stalin...germany lost
    most for the russia campaign ....in which a lot of german soldiers were killed or captured...or died for the cold.
    If russia were taking the war against uk and france with germany italy and japan
    the war was winned perhaps who knows?

    Japan was not attacked, it attacked 1st.
    Yes it is true they attacked a militare force the navy and they bombed
    ships not houses....it was an attack without a war declaration and a big mistake by the jp.

  18. #18
    ohayo otaku:) Achievements:
    1 year registered
    babar-san's Avatar
    Join Date
    15-08-04
    Location
    the astral plane
    Age
    40
    Posts
    43


    Ethnic group
    caucasian
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by bossel
    Not really.
    The pact says: "to assist one another with all political, economic and military means when one of the three contracting powers is attacked"
    Japan was not attacked, it attacked 1st.

    yes, but japan had already signed the document, meaning they were supporters of the cause, and intended to enter the war, but, they could not because of the us opposition and embargo's, so, what were they supposed to do? tell germany "ahh, we cant enter the war because the united states, a country who hasnt even entered the war, embargoed all of our resources"? in a sense, they were attacked, economically. to "assist" germany, they had to have these resourses, so yes, they attacked the us, but the united states provoked the attack. im not saying it was right, but japan had no idea we had the bomb, and as said before, the japanese never back down from a fight.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    bossel's Avatar
    Join Date
    28-09-03
    Location
    germany
    Posts
    790


    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by babar-san
    yes, but japan had already signed the document, meaning they were supporters of the cause, and intended to enter the war, but, they could not because of the us opposition and embargo's, so, what were they supposed to do? tell germany "ahh, we cant enter the war because the united states, a country who hasnt even entered the war, embargoed all of our resources"? in a sense, they were attacked, economically. to "assist" germany, they had to have these resourses, so yes, they attacked the us, but the united states provoked the attack. im not saying it was right, but japan had no idea we had the bomb, and as said before, the japanese never back down from a fight.
    Well, Japan started it all by attacking China. The US embargo was a reaction to Japan's imperialist war. Can't really see how any blame can be laid upon the US.

    The Tripartite Pact was not so much about joint war efforts but about spheres of interest & mutual support. That doesn't mean that all pact members had to fight (or declare war on) the same enemies.

    Whether the Japanese knew if the US had the bomb (which they didn't have in 1941) doesn't really matter.

    Anyway, the A-bomb was originally intended to hit Germany. Japan was unlucky to hold out long enough to let the US finish the development.

  20. #20
    ohayo otaku:) Achievements:
    1 year registered
    babar-san's Avatar
    Join Date
    15-08-04
    Location
    the astral plane
    Age
    40
    Posts
    43


    Ethnic group
    caucasian
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by bossel
    Well, Japan started it all by attacking China. The US embargo was a reaction to Japan's imperialist war. Can't really see how any blame can be laid upon the US.

    The Tripartite Pact was not so much about joint war efforts but about spheres of interest & mutual support. That doesn't mean that all pact members had to fight (or declare war on) the same enemies.

    Whether the Japanese knew if the US had the bomb (which they didn't have in 1941) doesn't really matter.

    Anyway, the A-bomb was originally intended to hit Germany. Japan was unlucky to hold out long enough to let the US finish the development.

    hmmm..... good point, i dont know that much about the japan-chinese conflicts pre-ww2. most of what i know about japan and chinese conflict happened throughout the 14-18th centuries, not much knowledge about warfare between them in modern history. but, i think the point i was trying to make is that the united states eagerly intervened by placing such pressure on japan. i mean, why else would america care about an imperialistic country, attacking a communist country? if it wasnt for hitler, we would have been rootin for japan, not squeezing their economy. and while the trilateral agreement didnt in fact "impose" an ultimatum to commit forces to the war effort, it happened anyway.
    im definatley not placing a blame on the united states, but the reason i feel that japan did not deserve such a blow, is that like you said, "originally", the target was germany. but you and i both know, that not in 1000 years, would america drop nuclear weapons on germany. the reason for this is plain and simple. our allies bordered germany. we had interests at stake that could not put our allies in harms way, so, we turned instead to the georgaphically isolated japan, a perfect place to show our strength. my point is, germany arguably deserved it more than japan. the united states has forever now had a hard-on for communist countries, more so than imperialist countries. imperialist countries, in the eyes of the american government, do not pose a fraction of a threat to our way of life the way communism does, or rather did.
    and that is because communism is an idealistic form of government, or at least thats how congress saw it, fearing a spread of communist ideals to other countries like your own. japan never really posed a significant threat to the united states militarily, but they were the scapegoats for a war that had to end, and there was no way in hell that america was going to drop a bomb on western europe.

  21. #21
    Banned Achievements:
    Recommendation Second Class1 year registered

    Join Date
    22-04-04
    Posts
    1,720


    Country: United States



    I would like to believe that Japan had no choice. That the US or China or the Phillipines had somehow provoked the orgy of blood that was visited upon them. I would like to believe that Japan really did not conduct the war in the manner that it did. I would like to believe that the US had no other choice but to target population centers and bomb the country into the stone age and finally vaporize two populated cities. It would be nice if the greatest jump in technological knowledge was not motivated by our desire to kill one another. Unfortunately this is our history. We have to deal with it as humans and hope that we learned something.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    bossel's Avatar
    Join Date
    28-09-03
    Location
    germany
    Posts
    790


    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by babar-san
    why else would america care about an imperialistic country, attacking a communist country?
    Err..., I see that you don't know much about pre-WWII affairs. China was not Communist. Chiang Kai-Shek was a nationalist. If Japan had not attacked China again (after 1931) in 1937 it most probably would never have become Communist. Just before the Japanese attacked, the Communists were almost finished.

    but you and i both know, that not in 1000 years, would america drop nuclear weapons on germany.
    I disagree. Germany was lucky to be beaten in the beginning of 1945. If the war had developed differently, probably (one of) the bombs would have been dropped on Germany.
    What's more, carpet bombing on cities in Germany had pretty much the same effect as dropping A-bombs. Eg. the victim numbers in Dresden even may have been bigger than those in Hiroshima. Probably at least 35,000 victims, though estimates for the total number of dead range from 25,000 up to 200,000 (some even higher).

    my point is, germany arguably deserved it more than japan.
    Not really. What the Japanese did in China was not much better than what Germans did in Eastern Europe.

    japan never really posed a significant threat to the united states militarily, but they were the scapegoats for a war that had to end
    Neither did Germany pose much of a threat to the US. But it all depends how you define "significant threat".

    I'm surely no supporter of dropping A-bombs on Japan. I see it as a warcrime. Yet you cannot really say that the Japanese were lured into that war & that there was some big conspiracy against Japan. Fact is, Japan started the war in China & it started the war against the US. Bad choices.

  23. #23
    ohayo otaku:) Achievements:
    1 year registered
    babar-san's Avatar
    Join Date
    15-08-04
    Location
    the astral plane
    Age
    40
    Posts
    43


    Ethnic group
    caucasian
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by bossel
    Err..., I see that you don't know much about pre-WWII affairs. China was not Communist. Chiang Kai-Shek was a nationalist. If Japan had not attacked China again (after 1931) in 1937 it most probably would never have become Communist. Just before the Japanese attacked, the Communists were almost finished.

    whoa, whoa, whoa.....Chiang Kai-Shek never seized complete control of china. i may not know that much about pre-ww2 chinese, japanese conflict, but i do know this much-The Chinese Communist Party ultimately began with the intellectual ferment of the May Fourth Movement, or the New Culture Movement, which began in 1911. Frustrated by the Qing court's resistance to reform and by China's weakness, young officials, military officers, and students\inspired by the revolutionary ideas of Sun Yat-Sen\began to advocate the overthrow of the Qing dynasty and creation of a republic. A revolutionary military uprising, the Wuchang Uprising, began on October 10, 1911 in Wuhan. The provisional government of the Republic of China was formed in Nanjing on March 12, 1912 with Sun Yat-Sen as President, but Sun was forced to turn over power to Yuan Shikai who commanded the New Army and was Prime Minister under the Qing government, as part of the agreement to let the last Qing monarch abdicate. Yuan Shikai proceeded in the next few years to abolish the national and provincial assemblies and declared himself emperor in 1915. Yuan's imperial ambitions were fiercely opposed by his subordinates and faced with the prospect of rebellion. Yuan broke down and died shortly after in 1916, leaving a power vacuum in China. His death left the republican government all but shattered, ushering in the era of the "warlords" during which China was ruled and ravaged by shifting coalitions of competing provincial military leaders.
    A little noticed event (outside of China) in 1919 would have long term repercussions for the rest of Chinese history in the 20th century. This was the May Fourth Movement. The discrediting of liberal Western philosophy amongst Chinese intellectuals was followed by the adoptation of more radical lines of thought. This in turn planted the seeds for the irreconcilable conflict between the left and right in China that would dominate Chinese history for the rest of the century.
    In the 1920s, Sun Yat-Sen established a revolutionary base in south China and set out to unite the fragmented nation. With Soviet assistance, he entered into an alliance with the fledgling Communist Party of China (CPC). After Sun's death in 1925, one of his protégés, Chiang Kai-shek, seized control of the Kuomintang (Nationalist Party or KMT) and succeeded in bringing most of south and central China under its rule in a military campaign known as the Northern Expedition. Having defeated the warlords in south and central China by military force, Chiang was able to secure the nominal allegiance of the warlords in the North. In 1927, Chiang turned on the CPC and relentlessly chased the CPC armies and its leaders out of their bases in southern and eastern China. In 1934, driven out of their mountain bases (as the Chinese Soviet Republic), the CPC forces embarked on the Long March across China's most desolate terrain to the northwest, where they established a guerrilla base at Yan'an in Shaanxi Province.
    During the Long March, the communists reorganized under a new leader, Mao Zedong.The bitter struggle between the KMT and the CPC continued openly or clandestinely through the 14-year long Japanese invasion 1931-1945, even though the two parties nominally formed a united front to oppose the Japanese invaders in 1937, during the Sino-Japanese War 1937-1945 portion of World War II. The war between the two parties resumed after the Japanese defeat in 1945. By 1949, the CPC occupied most of the country. In 1938, the Soviet Union recognized Mao as the leader of the CCP, and in 1945, he was elected the Chairman of the CCP Central Committee, Chairman of the Politburo, Chairman of the Secretariat, and Chairman of the Military Commission. Mao was the CCP.
    so you see, it's not acurate to call pre-mao china "nationalist", because it was considered illegitimate by the ccp, and the soviet union, and Chiang Kai-Shek's KMT was never recognized as a ruling governmental structure for all of china. certainly, the united states would have liked to see him in complete control, but this never happened, obviously, as Shek was overthrown by Moa's peasant armies, and exiled to taiwan, where he proclaimed taipei as "the capitol of the republic of china", claiming to retake the mainland, whitch never happened. and lets not forget, the founders of the Chinese Communist Party were a prominent leader in the New Culture Movement, Li Ta-cha'o and Ch'en Tu-hsiu. Iconoclastic and brilliant, he fundamentally disagreed with the ideas of the other major leader of the New Culture Movement, Hu Shih, who believed that Chinese society should be changed gradually, "drop by drop." Ch'en, however, believed that Chinese society should be changed all at once in a revolution modelled after the Bolshevik Revolution. In 1921, he formed the Chinese Communist Party, which came under the supervision of Gregory Voitinsky, a Soviet representative of the Comintern (Communist International). On July 20, 1921, the CCP held its first congress with twelve Chinese and two Russians present. Li Ta-ch'ao could not make it, but those in attendance including the later leader of the Communist revolution and Communist China, Mao Tse-tung. it seems to me that communism was the recognized governmental structure even during the divided nations strife between the KMT and the CCP. the KMT collapsed after Shek was displaced, and his "nationalist" ideals went with him.

    and about germany posing a threat, i certainly think that if hitler had fortified austria, and not devided his forces, we would have had a much more difficult time in defeating him. his military was the best in the world at the time, and without the combined efforts of the british and french, i dont think it would have been so easy.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    bossel's Avatar
    Join Date
    28-09-03
    Location
    germany
    Posts
    790


    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by babar-san
    Chiang Kai-Shek never seized complete control of china.
    Are you trying to be funny? 1st you tell me that Japan was "an imperialistic country, attacking a communist country" while the Communists at the beginning of all-out-war in 1937 numbered maybe 100,000 people & were threatened with total extinction. Now you tell me that China wasn't nationalist because Chiang didn't control 100% of the country?

    but i do know this much
    You know, I think it's part of netiquette to name your sources, esp. when you cut & paste such lengthy pieces as you did. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, but I suppose they like to be mentioned as a source, anyway.

    it seems to me that communism was the recognized governmental structure even during the divided nations strife between the KMT and the CCP
    I can't see how anything in this article contradicts what I said before.
    In 1937 Chiang was in control of most of China & he was head of state. The Communists declared the "Chinese Soviet Republic" in Jiangxi province, which existed from 1931-34, but that was it. I wonder, if you could name some countries outside the Comintern which recognized any Communist leadership of 1930's China.

    it's not acurate to call pre-mao china "nationalist", because it was considered illegitimate by the ccp, and the soviet union
    Now you're really funny. Because the CCP says so, the Chinese government was illegitimate? Which legitimation would a Communist government have?
    Even the Soviet Union, which was in favour of the Chinese Communists, had to deal with Chiang as the head of the Chinese state.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered

    Join Date
    30-11-04
    Location
    Stockholm
    Posts
    34


    Country: Sweden



    Racism & the atom bombs

    The dropping of the atom bombs, as well as the fire bombings of japanese cities, should have been war crimes then and are definitely war crimes under current international law. IMO, those responsible should have been set on trial for crimes against humanity.

    Quote Originally Posted by ippolito
    It is my opinion that no one in 1945 in usa could image what kind of bomb
    I believe you underestimate the racism of western countries. A lot of people in the U.S. supported genocide, just as people in England, France or Spain did during colonialism. (Or, just as many people does today during the occupation of Iraq, one might add.)

    "John Dower's depiction of the hatred of America's leaders and people toward the Japanese during World War II shocked me. He mentions a December 1945 Fortune poll that found 23 percent of the respondents wished the U.S. had the chance to use "many more of them [atomic bombs] before Japan had a chance to surrender" (1986, 54). The poll results vividly reveal the depth of the hatred many Americans must have felt during the war."
    http://wgordon.web.wesleyan.edu/papers/hiroshim.htm

    "Unconditional surrender, as an ill-defined slogan, did not foreclose any possibility, no matter how horrendous. A quick glance at American speeches, opinion polls, and movies would not reassure Japan. Thirteen percent of the respondents wanted to "kill all Japanese"; another 33 percent wanted to destroy the Japanese state. Life magazine showed photos of American war trophies sent home to loved ones in the form of hollowed out Japanese skulls."
    http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resour...n/pearlman.asp

    http://www.eupedia.com/shop/showprod...1/cat/12/page/
    http://www.kosovo.com/sk/rastko-koso...ropaganda.html

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Which bombs are best for democratisation?
    By Anton, Bear's den in forum Opinions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 25-10-11, 17:38
  2. Belgium becomes first country to ban cluster bombs
    By Maciamo in forum European News & Hot Topics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-03-06, 12:41
  3. Bombs In London? Hope All Our English Members Are Ok !
    By Frank D. White in forum European News & Hot Topics
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 09-07-05, 02:25

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •