| routsounmanman said: Seeing as how the Japanese were almost forced to enter the war, and the millions of casualties (innocent, unarmed mostly casualties), I can't say I'm too happy about them. |
Wait, how were they forced into war? Huh?
Unless you meant the Japanese people by their government.
Tag (Courtesy of Fkusumot) "If I'm posting in this thread then it's probally a spam thread."
| arcane_chaos said: correct me if I'm wrong, but after Japan surrendered, didn't the U.S. send aid and help rebuild?(just like they did for Germany in both world wars?...again correct if I'm wrong on this too) |
No after the war both Germany and Japan were devasted and for several years people continued to starve, both countries alors had been condamned to pay a fine of several million dollars to the Allied. The US was a force of occupation in Japan and didn't help rebuild it, its role was just to insure the strict governance of the country until it had a stable government that pleased them. But the US started to use Japan according to its self interests in the Cold War and stationed more troops in Japan to establish its own Self defence force, despite the fact Japan had an anti-war article in its constituion. That led to protests and critics and ended the occupation in 1952, when a peace treaty was signed.
The Japanese, as well as the German rebuilt their countries and their economies alone.
Videogirl said:
No after the war both Germany and Japan were devasted and for several years people continued to starve, both countries alors had been condamned to pay a fine of several million dollars to the Allied. The US was a force of occupation in Japan and didn't help rebuild it, its role was just to insure the strict governance of the country until it had a stable government that pleased them. But the US started to use Japan according to its self interests in the Cold War and stationed more troops in Japan to establish its own Self defence force, despite the fact Japan had an anti-war article in its constituion. That led to protests and critics and ended the occupation in 1952, when a peace treaty was signed. The Japanese, as well as the German rebuilt their countries and their economies alone. |
well okay, thanks for the info, though I could've have sworn that U.S. atleast sent money or set up bonds for Germany in WW I after they were given a debt to repay because of their part in the war, and least sent aid for to the western side of germany(and other european countires) during the "iron curtain"/cold war stage(again correct me if I'm wrong...history is not my best subject..lol)
Videogirl said:
No after the war both Germany and Japan were devasted and for several years people continued to starve, both countries alors had been condamned to pay a fine of several million dollars to the Allied. The US was a force of occupation in Japan and didn't help rebuild it, its role was just to insure the strict governance of the country until it had a stable government that pleased them. But the US started to use Japan according to its self interests in the Cold War and stationed more troops in Japan to establish its own Self defence force, despite the fact Japan had an anti-war article in its constituion. That led to protests and critics and ended the occupation in 1952, when a peace treaty was signed. The Japanese, as well as the German rebuilt their countries and their economies alone. |
Huh?
The U.S supplied tons of economic aid to Western Europe after WWII - including West Germany.
I don't know about Japan, though.
Edit- Actually, no, The U.S did help Japan while it was under it's control, albeit not a lot. But I agree after that point Japan had a boom on it's on, without anyone's help.
Tag (Courtesy of Fkusumot) "If I'm posting in this thread then it's probally a spam thread."
c03n3nj0 said:
Wait, how were they forced into war? Huh? Unless you meant the Japanese people by their government. |
My bad, I meant to say they were forced to clash with the US specifically, as they were already at war with the Chinese (from Wikipedia):
"German successes in Europe encouraged Japan to increase pressure on European governments in south-east Asia. The Dutch government agreed to provide Japan oil supplies from the Dutch East Indies, while refusing to hand over political control of the colonies. Vichy France, by contrast, agreed to a Japanese occupation of French Indochina.[115] The United States, United Kingdom, and other Western governments reacted to the seizure of Indochina with a freeze on Japanese assets, while the United States (which supplied 80 percent of Japan's oil[116]) responded by placing a complete oil embargo.[117] That meant Japan was essentially forced to choose between abandoning its ambitions in Asia and the prosecution of the war against China, or seizing the natural resources it needed by force; the Japanese military did not consider the former an option, and many officers considered the oil embargo an unspoken declaration of war.[118] "
Basically, the oil embargo, forced Japan to either back out of China, or assault the US directly.
My themeforest portfolio:
routsounmanman said:
"German successes in Europe encouraged Japan to increase pressure on European governments in south-east Asia. The Dutch government agreed to provide Japan oil supplies from the Dutch East Indies, while refusing to hand over political control of the colonies. Vichy France, by contrast, agreed to a Japanese occupation of French Indochina.[115] The United States, United Kingdom, and other Western governments reacted to the seizure of Indochina with a freeze on Japanese assets, while the United States (which supplied 80 percent of Japan's oil[116]) responded by placing a complete oil embargo.[117] That meant Japan was essentially forced to choose between abandoning its ambitions in Asia and the prosecution of the war against China, or seizing the natural resources it needed by force; the Japanese military did not consider the former an option, and many officers considered the oil embargo an unspoken declaration of war.[118] " Basically, the oil embargo, forced Japan to either back out of China, or assault the US directly. |
Oh I see.
Well, the U.S' oil embargo was a reaction to Japan's threat. They were taking over China and were getting ready to take over southeast Asia. I don't think that should have gone un-cheked...
Tag (Courtesy of Fkusumot) "If I'm posting in this thread then it's probally a spam thread."
| raptors11 said: No civilian casualties can be considered anything but a tragedy; but with that said 200,000 lives lost which ended WWII (at least in the pacific) sounds a lot better than the inhumane slaughter of literally millions of innocent Chinese by the Japanese. The American reason for dropping the bomb was to end the war, the Japanese had no excuse to kill all those people. |
It's probably around 300'000 and it's a low estimate since we don't know for sure how many were blown right away by the explosion in Hiroshima, since many have been litteraly cremated and have only left a shadow imprinted on the concrete. in Hiroshima about 80'000 died from the blast, and another 80'000-100'000 in the follwing years because of the radiations. In Nagasaki about 40'000 died in the initial blast, about 10'000 in the following days probably 50'000 more in the following 5 years due to radiation.
And you have to add to that the thousands of people who developped cancers and the miscarriages you can attribute to those same radiations.
Here's a little read : http://www.wtj.com/archives/hiroshima.htm
Videogirl said:
It's probably around 300'000 and it's a low estimate since we don't know for sure how many were blown right away by the explosion in Hiroshima, since many have been litteraly cremated and have only left a shadow imprinted on the concrete. in Hiroshima about 80'000 died from the blast, and another 80'000-100'000 in the follwing years because of the radiations. In Nagasaki about 40'000 died in the initial blast, about 10'000 in the following days probably 50'000 more in the following 5 years due to radiation. And you have to add to that the thousands of people who developped cancers and the miscarriages you can attribute to those same radiations. Here's a little read : http://www.wtj.com/archives/hiroshima.htm |
Yeah the cancer and diseases after the explosion due to radiation was pretty bad. That's the worst thing about nukes I think. It it was just a huge blast then it wouldn't be THAT big of a deal but it makes everything radiated forever.
It ended the war, the best possible outcome. And Japan shouldnt have ever bombed us in the first place, they had it coming.... killing the innocents is bad but war is hell
I believe Hiroshima may have been an understandable evil given the context it was in. Nagasaki on the other hand was not necessary and was a tremendous mistake.
However in relation to a few earlier posts, neither are genocide. The aim was to end the war, the deaths of the civilians was an obvious consequence - but not the actual purpose.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
