http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-27/abbott-introduces-100m-wwi-educational-centre/6423286

$100 million!

I was so close to putting my hand up, because it was quiet for around 10 seconds with no one stepping up. Would have done the 2nd verse, plus hummed the intro, and everything. Not to be though :lol:

Nagasaki was only chosen because heavy fog obscured the original target city of Kokura.

I've been going to the same dawn service for the last 6 years, and I can safely say there were double if not triple the usual crowd at this one.

The guy playing the bugle buggered up one note, noticably, as he does every other year - it's tradition now :lol:

Also the setup they had for the national anthem didn't work, so they asked the audience if there was anyone in the crowd who was a singer and would be keen to sing into the microphone and do it. Some lady did, and she was unreal, and everyone joined in with her which was great to see - talk about Australian spirit, that was it for me.

Singing the national anthem also reminded me of the last time I sung it, at the Asian Cup, and that put a smile on my face because far out that was a great month of my life :lol:

I then spent the rest of the day helping the father-in-law pick up trees and stuff that had fallen due to the storms. So overall I had a great day!

The older generation of today will have their sook, but they're ironically carrying on the ANZAC generation's tradition.





Kodak specifically marketed to the soldier selfie market during WW1, with the slogan: "Make your own picture record of the War."

Edited by paladisious: 27/4/2015 02:57:04 AM

Anzac Day selfies :lol: quality

Looking at it from a utilitarian perspective, the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima saved many lives.

America also handed out tonnes of fliers telling people to gtfo of those cities.

A mainland invasion of Japan would have cost millions more lives of soldiers and civilians.

i can read...and you're 100% contradicting yourself

you believe (B) didn't achieve (C), but USA should have started at (A) to achieve (C) but if (A) didn't achieve (C) then USA can then move to(B) in the hope of (B) achieving (C)..but you say (B) didn't achieve (C)

that what you said


Edited by adrtho: 26/4/2015 11:36:46 PM

Correct. (If English is your second language I apologise. If English is your first language I most definitely do not.)



Incorrect. There's no contradiction. Learn to read.



Edited by MUNRUBENMUZ: 26/4/2015 11:05:02 PM

you say. USA should have nuke a Japanese harbour 1st , yes? before bombing Hiroshima and Nagasak, yes?

but then you say, bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasak had no effects on japan surrender, yes?

is my English good enough for you to comprehend those questions

you attacking my English skills , doesn't make you right, doesn't make you smart, doesn't make any of your posts, any less contradictory then they are

Edited by adrtho: 26/4/2015 10:57:48 PM

Edited by adrtho: 26/4/2015 10:53:39 PM

You're beyond hope.

At least Russ makes sense. I have no idea what you're on about.

You can't spell, your command of the English language is sub-par with regards to punctuation and you obviously cannot read.

On the plus side you can look forward to an exciting time when you start high school next year.

my real world comprehension is just fine .. as i'm not the one who says the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasak didn't make japan surrender, but US should have bomb a harbour 1st

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html (muz selected extracts below. But others should feel free to read the entire article.)

On the night of March 9-10, 1945, a wave of 300 American bombers struck Tokyo, killing 100,000 people. Dropping nearly 1,700 tons of bombs, the war planes ravaged much of the capital city, completely burning out 16 square miles and destroying a quarter of a million structures. A million residents were left homeless.

On May 23, eleven weeks later, came the greatest air raid of the Pacific War, when 520 giant B-29 "Superfortress" bombers unleashed 4,500 tons of incendiary bombs on the heart of the already battered Japanese capital. Generating gale-force winds, the exploding incendiaries obliterated Tokyo's commercial center and railway yards, and consumed the Ginza entertainment district. Two days later, on May 25, a second strike of 502 "Superfortress" planes roared low over Tokyo, raining down some 4,000 tons of explosives. Together these two B-29 raids destroyed 56 square miles of the Japanese capital.

Even before the Hiroshima attack, American air force General Curtis LeMay boasted that American bombers were "driving them [Japanese] back to the stone age." Henry H . (" Hap " ) Arnold, commanding General of the Army air forces, declared in his 1949 memoirs: "It always appeared to us, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse." This was confirmed by former Japanese prime minister Fumimaro Konoye, who said: "Fundamentally, the thing that brought about the determination to make peace was the prolonged bombing by the B-29s

It was only after the war that the American public learned about Japan's efforts to bring the conflict to an end. Chicago Tribune reporter Walter Trohan, for example, was obliged by wartime censorship to withhold for seven months one of the most important stories of the war.

In an article that finally appeared August 19, 1945, on the front pages of the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald, Trohan revealed that on January 20, 1945, two days prior to his departure for the Yalta meeting with Stalin and Churchill, President Roosevelt received a 40-page memorandum from General Douglas MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from high-level Japanese officials. (The complete text of Trohan's article is in the Winter 1985-86 Journal, pp. 508-512.)

This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 -- that is, complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor. Specifically, the terms of these peace overtures included:

Complete surrender of all Japanese forces and arms, at home, on island possessions, and in occupied countries.
Occupation of Japan and its possessions by Allied troops under American direction.
Japanese relinquishment of all territory seized during the war, as well as Manchuria, Korea and Taiwan.
Regulation of Japanese industry to halt production of any weapons and other tools of war.
Release of all prisoners of war and internees.
Surrender of designated war criminals.

On July 12, Hirohito summoned Fumimaro Konoye, who had served as prime minister in 1940-41. Explaining that "it will be necessary to terminate the war without delay," the Emperor said that he wished Konoye to secure peace with the Americans and British through the Soviets. As Prince Konoye later recalled, the Emperor instructed him "to secure peace at any price, notwithstanding its severity."

The next day, July 13, Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo wired ambassador Naotake Sato in Moscow: "See [Soviet foreign minister] Molotov before his departure for Potsdam ... Convey His Majesty's strong desire to secure a termination of the war ... Unconditional surrender is the only obstacle to peace ..."

On July 17, another intercepted Japanese message revealed that although Japan's leaders felt that the unconditional surrender formula involved an unacceptable dishonor, they were convinced that "the demands of the times" made Soviet mediation to terminate the war absolutely essential. Further diplomatic messages indicated that the only condition asked by the Japanese was preservation of "our form of government." The only "difficult point," a July 25 message disclosed, "is the ... formality of unconditional surrender."

America's leaders understood Japan's desperate position: the Japanese were willing to end the war on any terms, as long as the Emperor was not molested. If the US leadership had not insisted on unconditional surrender -- that is, if they had made clear a willingness to permit the Emperor to remain in place -- the Japanese very likely would have surrendered immediately, thus saving many thousands of lives.

Justifications

President Truman steadfastly defended his use of the atomic bomb, claiming that it "saved millions of lives" by bringing the war to a quick end. Justifying his decision, he went so far as to declare: "The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians."

This was a preposterous statement. In fact, almost all of the victims were civilians, and the United States Strategic Bombing Survey (issued in 1946) stated in its official report: "Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen as targets because of their concentration of activities and population."

If the atomic bomb was dropped to impress the Japanese leaders with the immense destructive power of a new weapon, this could have been accomplished by deploying it on an isolated military base. It was not necessary to destroy a large city. And whatever the justification for the Hiroshima blast, it is much more difficult to defend the second bombing of Nagasaki.


General Douglas MacArthur, Commander of US Army forces in the Pacific, stated on numerous occasions before his death that the atomic bomb was completely unnecessary from a military point of view: "My staff was unanimous in believing that Japan was on the point of collapse and surrender."

General Curtis LeMay, who had pioneered precision bombing of Germany and Japan (and who later headed the Strategic Air Command and served as Air Force chief of staff), put it most succinctly: "The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war."


-----------------------------//---------------------

And on and on.





Edited by MUNRUBENMUZ: 26/4/2015 10:50:49 PM

I'm not sure if you have a comprehension problem or whether you are just being silly.

As I said above.



They could have easily dropped one in an unpopulated area first and if that didn't work then they could have gone bananas after.

They didn't.

the only, only reason for the attack, was to ensure US-UK victory ...it didn't matter if they killed no Japanese, or 1 million, that was the only main goal....if they was able to gain other insights, then great

if you believe the Japanese didn't surrender because of the Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, then bombing a harbour would of been a waste of a nuke bomb , yes?

That's right Russ. Once again you have bested me.

I should just believe these attacks were necessary and ignore all the contrary evidence. (Including those pesky first hand accounts from members of the Japanese government and war cabinet.)

There is no widespread belief among historians that the Soviet invasion alone forced Japan to surrender. Posting lots and lots of internet links doesn't prove otherwise, the traditional, time tested narrative still stands as far as I'm concerned. Even the Emperor of Japan in his surrender speech cited the atomic bombs as being majorly influential in his decision to surrender. A smoking gun if you ask me, no mention of the Soviets at all. That's not to say that the Soviet involvement didn't hasten or influence Japans surrender, but to pin it all on the Soviets and completely dismiss the most devastating weapon ever created is a bit naive.

You sure seem to readily believe anything that challenges conventional understanding of things.

GENERAL DWIGHT EISENHOWER
(Supreme Commander of Allies Forces in Europe)

". . . the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63.

GENERAL DOUGLAS MacARTHUR
(Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers in Japan)

MacArthur biographer William Manchester has described MacArthur's reaction to the issuance by the Allies of the Potsdam Proclamation to Japan: ". . . the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction'. MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the general's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary."

William Manchester, "American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964", pg. 512.

ADMIRAL WILLIAM D LEAHY
(Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman)

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

William Leahy, "I Was There", pg. 441.

JOHN McCLOY
(Assistant Secretary of War)

"I have always felt that if, in our ultimatum to the Japanese government issued from Potsdam [in July 1945], we had referred to the retention of the emperor as a constitutional monarch and had made some reference to the reasonable accessibility of raw materials to the future Japanese government, it would have been accepted. Indeed, I believe that even in the form it was delivered, there was some disposition on the part of the Japanese to give it favourable consideration. When the war was over I arrived at this conclusion after talking with a number of Japanese officials who had been closely associated with the decision of the then Japanese government, to reject the ultimatum, as it was presented. I believe we missed the opportunity of effecting a Japanese surrender, completely satisfactory to us, without the necessity of dropping the bombs."

McCloy quoted in James Reston, "Deadline", pg. 500.

HERBERT HOOVER
(former President)

". . . the Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945 . . . up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped . . . if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs."

Quoted by Barton Bernstein in Philip Nobile, ed., "Judgment at the Smithsonian", pg. 142.

it was more of a metaphor, what the Australian government views would have been, if they new about the nuke bomb, I should have said, why not nuke the Imperial Palace :) ..but you're right about Tokyo been firebombed to the ground

One of the justifications for the attack was that it was a demonstration of how powerful these weapons were and Japan better surrender sharpish.

If that were the case there would have been no problem dropping one in the harbour or in a bit of empty countryside.

They deliberately left these cities untouched so they could see the effects of an atomic attack.

I'm not saying they shouldn't have done it by the way. I'm fairly ambivalent about it.

On the one hand poor bloody civilians in cities with no strategic or military importance got wiped off the face of the earth but then on the other hand the things the Japanese did to allied POW's (and the locals in Thailand, Burma, Philippines, Malaysia, China etc) defies belief.

I'm just saying that the reason for the surrender was Russia's declaration of war against Japan.

i did read , and you statement of I can only guess this is your own opinion , yes?

if the Japanese didn't surrender after bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, why start with bombing of the harbour ?

Yes Russ that is exactly it.

Up until that point they had only blown up empty islands and bits and pieces of the desert.

The bombing(s) provided a perfect opportunity to see the effects on a populace including blast radii, death zones, radiation effects, etc etc.

There's was a reason these cities were bypassed for months whilst cities all around them were blown to kingdom come.

Tokyo had already been firebombed to the ground, with more people killed there than Hiroshima, just like other cities all over Asia and Europe. Bombing cities full of civilians was old news, just the technology got an upgrade.

Correct.

I think McIntyre meant as America were our Allies we were somehow complicit.

Obviously an error on his part.

Can any of you blokes read?

Don't take my word for it. Read the links.

Go to bloody wikipedia or any proper historical website.

There's even a Fox news link there and they couldn't be more pro-American.

Your ignorance, and Russ's and adrtho and whoever else's doesn't make the facts wrong.

Read the links.

I'm not. (I assume you mean dropping not doping.)

Learn to read. The justification for 70 years has been that the US had no choice but to wipe out two whole cities of civilians to end the war.

If they were all about "shows of force" they could have easily dropped a bomb in the harbour or continued with their conventional air campaign which was actually claiming more lives than either atomic bomb attack.

Just because the truth is uncomfortable doesn't make the truth wrong.

I'm not sure if you are a genuine dill or just wilfully ignorant.

All the links are there for you to do your own reading. The Japanese war council did not even deem it important to convene after the first bomb was dropped.

Only after Russia decided they would invade Manchuria did Japan decide to surrender.

It's all diarised, noted, cross-checked and confirmed by those actually there.

Don't take my word for it Russ. Do your own reading. The links are all there. It's not my history, it's not tin foil hat history, it's actual proper history.

Perhaps you'd rather stick with the narrative because it's embarrassing to admit the wool has been pulled over your eyes.

Conventional bombing of the individual cities was actually killing more people per attack than either of the atomic bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima.


Edited by MUNRUBENMUZ: 26/4/2015 09:33:05 PM

if the doping of the 2 nuke bombs had no effects on Japanese surrender, then why are you calling for the yanks to drop the nukes in a Japanese harbour