# A Question



## Unkotare (Aug 10, 2012)

There were some interesting responses to this question - and it's a tough one.

Do you consider the A-bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to be war crimes? ? Japan Today: Japan News and Discussion


----------



## mememe (Aug 10, 2012)

Yes!


----------



## whitehall (Aug 10, 2012)

Mass killing of civilians to force the surrender of a crazy regime might seem crazy today but in retrospect it  seems to be an accepted concept as long as you were on the winning side.


----------



## Mr. H. (Aug 10, 2012)

If the A-bombs hadn't been used back then, demonstrating their truly destructive power and  ability to annihilate, they would more likely be used today. It was a one-off of sorts. 

Conventional bombings during WWII were no less of a "war crime". 

Nope. They asked for it, they got it.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 10, 2012)

It was war alright.  A bitter, hard-fought war. But did those many, many tens of thousands of civilians "ask for it"? It's a fair question no matter where you stand on the decision.


----------



## Mr. H. (Aug 10, 2012)

Litterally, no. As citizens ruled by their leader, yes.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 10, 2012)

Mr. H. said:


> Litterally, no. As citizens ruled by their leader, yes.



So, the systematic execution of every civilian in the country would have been ok with you (if such a thing were pracitcally possible).


----------



## Mr. H. (Aug 11, 2012)

That wasn't the intent nor the objective of dropping those big badda bombs.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 11, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> There were some interesting responses to this question - and it's a tough one.
> 
> Do you consider the A-bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to be war crimes? ? Japan Today: Japan News and Discussion



Without the dropping of the bomb, the emperor and the 'peace faction' would not have been able to overcome the military's government strength, and negotiate an end to the war.



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2AhV-QU1_M]Prager University: Hiroshima -- Why America Dropped the Bomb - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## mememe (Aug 11, 2012)

whitehall said:


> Mass killing of civilians to force the surrender of a crazy regime might seem crazy today but in retrospect it  seems to be an accepted concept as long as you were on the winning side.



So, mass murder of civilians by Nazis is an "accepted concept"? And if Nazi would've won, you would see nothing wrong with their mass murder and genocide policies?

Interesting...


----------



## mememe (Aug 11, 2012)

Mr. H. said:


> If the A-bombs hadn't been used back then, demonstrating their truly destructive power and  ability to annihilate, they would more likely be used today. It was a one-off of sorts.
> 
> Conventional bombings during WWII were no less of a "war crime".
> 
> Nope. They asked for it, they got it.



Anything to justify crimes against humanity perpetrated by the US!

Then why did you, Americans, got outraged by 9/11? After all, it was a "one-off of sorts". Or do you have different moral boundaries for yourselves and for the rest of the world?


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 11, 2012)

Very good question.
The bombs certainly were not necessary. The war was over. The Japanese 'rulers' just had to realize it. If the bombs had not been dropped and the US had not invaded (which also was not necessary), more Japanese citizens probably would have died from starvation due to the idiocy of the regime before it finally surrendered, but then the deaths would have been on them. 
As it is, the US owns the onus of being the first to use the 'weapons', and on civilians to boot. 
Some think it was done to show Joe Stalin that the bomb worked and would be used.
Some think is was used when and where it was because the victims were just 'little yellow people'.
Whatever the final decision was based on, we could have done better.


----------



## mememe (Aug 11, 2012)

there4eyeM said:


> Very good question.
> The bombs certainly were not necessary. The war was over. The Japanese 'rulers' just had to realize it. If the bombs had not been dropped and the US had not invaded (which also was not necessary), more Japanese citizens probably would have died from starvation due to the idiocy of the regime before it finally surrendered, but then the deaths would have been on them.
> As it is, the US owns the onus of being the first to use the 'weapons', and on civilians to boot.
> Some think it was done to show Joe Stalin that the bomb worked and would be used.
> ...



Two points:

1. It was suppose to be JOINT US/USSR war against Japan!
2. You can't play Mystic Meg with history -- "...more Japanese citizens probably would have died from..."


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 11, 2012)

?


----------



## Mr. H. (Aug 11, 2012)

mememe said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > If the A-bombs hadn't been used back then, demonstrating their truly destructive power and  ability to annihilate, they would more likely be used today. It was a one-off of sorts.
> ...



I dunno, do we? The U.S. is the humitarian to the world. We've proven that countless times.


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 11, 2012)

"The U.S. is the humitarian to the world. We've proven that countless times."

The American people, perhaps. Various administrations have not demonstrated that.


----------



## mememe (Aug 11, 2012)

Mr. H. said:


> mememe said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...





I love your sense of humour!


----------



## mememe (Aug 11, 2012)

there4eyeM said:


> "The U.S. is the humitarian to the world. We've proven that countless times."
> 
> The American people, perhaps. Various administrations have not demonstrated that.



If American people genuinely believe they live in democracy and choose their government that acts on their behalf and with their permission, it means American people are as guilty of atrocities committed by various US governments, as the US governments/ruling elites.


----------



## signelect (Aug 11, 2012)

When you start a world war don't complain because I have a bigger bader bomb.  He was a horrible tradgey and in retrospect I wish it had never been invented but it has prevented another world war for the past 70 years.  I saw some pictuers of the two cities a few days ago and compared to Detroit it is miraculous.


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 11, 2012)

mememe said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > "The U.S. is the humitarian to the world. We've proven that countless times."
> ...



The American people are in the same situation as you and your country. What the government does is not a reflection of majority will. Changing things is difficult due to the vast resources of 'the powers that be' to obfuscate, change topics and impose new problems before old ones are settled. People have personal lives to live and cannot keep up the energy to investigate, organize and act.
In an absolute sense, it is correct that they would be included in the guilt. If reasoning wants to be so unmerciful, have a field day.

And, yes, Dresden was just as bad.


----------



## whitehall (Aug 11, 2012)

mememe said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > Mass killing of civilians to force the surrender of a crazy regime might seem crazy today but in retrospect it  seems to be an accepted concept as long as you were on the winning side.
> ...



Your logic is skewed.


----------



## IGetItAlready (Aug 11, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> There were some interesting responses to this question - and it's a tough one.
> 
> Do you consider the A-bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to be war crimes? ? Japan Today: Japan News and Discussion



As some have pointed out, the Japanese were getting their collective ass kicked all over the Pacific and were doomed to defeat. 
The only problem was that their man/god leader refused to admit the obvious. 

His insistence on continuing the fighting and his peoples' belief that he was more than a man was enough to ensure the carnage would continue until the allied forces were forced to invade. 

Had that happened the casualties would have been astronomic. 

No one but the feel gooders dispute the fact that using the bombs saved countless lives on both sides of the lines. 

Had Hirohito surrendered after the first bomb was dropped, there may be a case to be made for overkill. The fact that we were forced to use both of our bombs illustrates the civilian losses and devastation Japan was willing to accept had we been forced to invade. 

Many of us are only here today thanks to the use of the bombs and a much quicker end to the war.


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 11, 2012)

Invading was unnecessary.


----------



## whitehall (Aug 11, 2012)

For some reason there was a disconnect between the eggheads who created the Bomb and the military that used it. The scientists may have had an idea of the hazards of radiation but either the military disregarded the warnings or they were intentionally kept in the dark. Well after the war in atomic tests on Bikini Island in the Pacific the US Navy illustrated their profound ignorance or disregard for radiation sickness when they ordered Sailors to board ships a day after they were radiated in a Atomic bomb blast. The Navy apparently thought that they could merely hose down the ships with seawater and they would be safe but the seawater was irradiated. Likewise the Soldiers apparently ordered into craters made by Atomic land tests. The original number for Korean War fatalities (1950-1953) was around 50,000 and and later revised by the DOD to 35-38,000 to indicate only the Troops actually killed in combat but that leaves an astounding 15,000 Military killed in non combat situations. Did they die from the effects of Atomic Bomb tests?


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 11, 2012)

Mr. H. said:


> That wasn't the intent nor the objective of dropping those big badda bombs.




That wasn't my question. Answer the question.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 11, 2012)

mememe said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > "The U.S. is the humitarian to the world. We've proven that countless times."
> ...




That is correct.


----------



## mememe (Aug 11, 2012)

signelect said:


> When you start a world war don't complain because I have a bigger bader bomb.  He was a horrible tradgey and in retrospect I wish it had never been invented but it has prevented another world war for the past 70 years.



It's not atomic bomb, but US strong belief that the Soviet Union will use it on US provocation, that kept the world relatively safe. Until 1090-s.

With the USSR gone, the US started WW3.
In a light of your words "When you start a world war don't complain because I have a bigger bader bomb", does it mean Americans will take it with grace when the war they started will be brought to their home?


----------



## mememe (Aug 11, 2012)

there4eyeM said:


> mememe said:
> 
> 
> > there4eyeM said:
> ...



If you mean UK, then yes. But unlike Americans, British are a lot more sceptical about the whole "democracy" thing, and at least attempted to stop the war on Iraq and are not overjoyed at UK elites following US on its adventures.

Read any forum: absolute majority of US posters are supportive of US government actions abroad!


----------



## mememe (Aug 11, 2012)

whitehall said:


> mememe said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



No, it isn't!

If mass murder of civilians is OK' when US does it, then why it is not OK' when Hitler did it?


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 11, 2012)

there4eyeM said:


> [ What the government does is not a reflection of majority will.




It is in America.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 11, 2012)

IGetItAlready said:


> [
> 
> No one but the feel gooders dispute the fact that using the bombs saved countless lives on both sides of the lines.





That is just one of the over-simplified positions that some people cling to regarding this subject. Easier than considering the reality of it, I guess.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 11, 2012)

mememe said:


> With the USSR gone, the US started WW3.





Really? When?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Aug 11, 2012)

there4eyeM said:


> Invading was unnecessary.



We didn't actually invade mainland Japan. And the reason for it was the two bombs. Had we been forced to attack their mainland it would have cost many more lives and took many more years to rebuild........


----------



## IGetItAlready (Aug 11, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > Invading was unnecessary.
> ...



And virtually NO ONE aside from those looking for a reason to hate on the US disputes those facts.


----------



## williepete (Aug 11, 2012)

I see this revisionist history question come up year after year. 

I recommend three books to frame this question properly in its historic context so as to understand the decision to drop the bombs.

The first is "Truman" by David McCullough. After reading this book, you'll see Truman would have been run out of town on a rail had he not used the bomb. At that time, it was just another weapon. Radiation, as an above post alludes to, was not understood until many years after the war.  No one was sure if the bomb would work or bring the desired results. What was known was they had this weapon, had spent unprecedented treasure producing it and had an enemy who didn't consider surrender. The experience in the Okinawa invasion when projected to an invasion of mainland Japan foretold of casualties of over 1 million allied soldiers and sailors. This number needs to be kept in perspective when viewing the atom bomb deaths. 

As a side note, the fire bombing of Tokyo on the night of 9 March, 1945 was more destructive in lives and property than Hiroshima or Nagasaki. (Hiroshima: 66,000 estimated killed. Nagasaki 39,000 estimated killed. Tokyo:  100,000 to 130,000 estimated killed.) 

The second and third books are "The Last 100 Days" and "The Rising Sun" by John Toland. These books clearly show through interviews with former Japanese officers and diplomats that there was a strong and influential faction in the Japanese government and military who thought it far better to go down fighting than suffer the disgrace of surrender. As unbelievable as the words are to Western readers, the books put you in the minds of those who preferred death to dishonor. 

The Allies were in a hurry to end the war. Everyone at all levels of command were under pressure to end the severe cost in blood and treasure that each minute of war brought. This aspect seems to completely evade modern revisionist historians.   

The use of the bomb saved more lives than it took and made a strong statement to Stalin's post war ambitions. Saving millions from battlefield deaths hardly constitutes a war crime but I understand the ongoing need to cast the U.S. as criminal in any way possible.


----------



## mememe (Aug 11, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> mememe said:
> 
> 
> > With the USSR gone, the US started WW3.
> ...



When a series of civil wars broke out in Yugoslavia -- the first victim of coloured revolutions...


----------



## mememe (Aug 11, 2012)

williepete said:


> The use of the bomb saved more lives than it took and made a strong statement to Stalin's post war ambitions.



Two questions:

1. What were Stalin's "post war ambitions", and how do we know about them?

2. How many lives did the use of atomic bombs save, and how do we know that?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 11, 2012)

The United States used its nuclear weapons on Japan in good faith, in the context of a war it neither sought nor started, authorized by the doctrine of Total War where civilians were legitimate military targets, as they participated in their respective nations war efforts. 

In essence the Japanese realized the ultimate consequence for the illegal war they began against an enemy that posed no threat to the Empire. Japan thus forfeited any claim to being victims of war crimes.


----------



## mememe (Aug 11, 2012)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The United States used its nuclear weapons on Japan in good faith, in the context of a war it neither sought nor started, authorized by the doctrine of Total War where civilians were legitimate military targets, as they participated in their respective nations war efforts.



The desire to conduct live experiment on a mass of civilians and to establish a foothold in Pacific against the USSR you call a "good faith"???!!!

Where and when a "doctrine of Total War" that authorised mass murder of civilians was pronounced???!!!!!
And if that so, why the US denounced Nazi crimes?!


----------



## courseofhistory (Aug 11, 2012)

Do you speak Japanese?


----------



## williepete (Aug 11, 2012)

mememe said:


> Two questions:
> 
> 1. What were Stalin's "post war ambitions", and how do we know about them?
> 
> 2. How many lives did the use of atomic bombs save, and how do we know that?







Hi Mememe,

The short answer to both questions is to read the 3 books in my post. They are written by historians far better than I'll ever be. 

I'll try to be very brief:

*What were Stalin's "post war ambitions", and how do we know about them?* Stalin's post war ambitions were:  1. To create a ring of communist-controlled countries around the Soviet Union to act as a buffer between the USSR and what he considered to be the aggressive imperialistic Western countries. The Soviet Union had just survived a brutal war which left millions dead and a devastated land. In building a buffer, the Soviets intended to protect themselves from ever being invaded again. 2. Advance international communist interests by ultimately overthrowing every democratic nation and incorporating them into the communist sphere. We know about the international communist agenda by their often-stated goals, written directives and actions in the Cold War. We know about Stalin's paranoia by documents recently (post 1989) revealed by the fall of the USSR. I recommend the dozens of new books out since the fall of the USSR which have used interior Soviet documents as source material. We know about Soviet global strategy from the history of the 60-year-long Cold War. There is no end to books, records, interviews and living persons with first hand knowledge of the Cold War. (Your humble servant being one of them).


*2. How many lives did the use of atomic bombs save, and how do we know that?* The short answer is we'll never know since we have only one outcome. You'll drive yourself crazy in a fruitless pursuit trying to chase alternative historical outcomes. As I stated in my post, by projecting the smaller scale losses at Okinawa to the proposed larger scale invasion of the Japanese mainland, the figure of 1 million dead Allied soldiers and sailors was reached. With a kill ratio of 1 to 5 or 1 to 10 or 1 to you-make-up-the-number, you're looking at combined Allied and Japanese losses well into the millions. Given the Japanese preference to kill themselves rather than surrender as evidenced on Saipan and Okinawa, the Allied war leaders were faced with a potential tally sheet that was off the scale. Just for our discussion, let's pick the low kill ratio of 1 to 3. One million dead Allied men plus 3 million dead Japanese equals 4 million dead. Mind you, this is a very low estimate. The difference between 4 million and the 110,000 estimated dead from the two atomic bombs would be the estimated number of lives saved. Those were the kind of numbers driving the decision makers in 1945.


I hope this helped but please read the books if you find this topic interesting.  


Cheers,


----------



## mememe (Aug 11, 2012)

williepete said:


> I
> *What were Stalin's "post war ambitions", and how do we know about them?* Stalin's post war ambitions were:  1. To create a ring of communist-controlled countries around the Soviet Union to act as a buffer between the USSR and what he considered to be the aggressive imperialistic Western countries. The Soviet Union had just survived a brutal war which left millions dead and a devastated land. In building a buffer, the Soviets intended to protect themselves from ever being invaded again.
> 
> 2. Advance international communist interests by ultimately overthrowing every democratic nation and incorporating them into the communist sphere.
> ...



I
1. In other words, nothing that was not already agreed prior to the end of WW2 between the USSR, UK and US! Then, how did murdering civilians with atomic bomb could have influenced this prior three-way arrangement?!

2. Name me one attempt by the USSR to overthrow "every democratic nation and incorporating them into the communist sphere"! On the other hand, post WW2 world history is full of examples of USA orchestrated coups on all continents!

3. Please, name me these "directives".

4. I am not interested in "books", but I am very much interested in the documents. Please, NAME me at least some of them.

II
And that's the bottom line: claim about atomic bombs "saving civilian lives" is utter nonsense.
As for "saved military", then it's no different from Nazis mass murdering civilians to "save" their military from possible hostilities on occupied territories.


----------



## Ernie S. (Aug 11, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > Litterally, no. As citizens ruled by their leader, yes.
> ...



No, and it wouldn't have been necessary either. The demonstration of our capabilities was all that was needed for Japan to be demoralized.

Killing armies is pretty ineffective as we've seen in every conflict since WWII.
Only by demoralizing the enemy and removing their will to fight can war be won and peace achieved.
Dropping atomic bombs on Japan may have taken a quarter million lives, but likely saved 4 times as many in a land invasion.


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 11, 2012)

"Had we been forced to attack their mainland it would have cost many more lives........"

Who could have forced the US to invade? Why would invading have been necessary? Japan could not produce enough to eat and had no significant industrial capacity remaining. The US military skipped many Japanese occupied islands and areas because they were cut off and meaningless. On the big scale, so were the main islands by August '45. It only remained to sit and wait for the white flag to rise. No one needed to die.

But of course the wonderful Soviet allies had just joined in the fight against Japan a couple of weeks before the bomb and were gobbling up big areas of ex-Japanese holdings. Some think this was another reason Truman used the bomb; end it faster so that some control over Russian occupation could be achieved.

In retrospect, it is no more forgivable than, say, slavery. Yes, it conformed to the thinking of the time and, yes, it was morally and humanly reprehensible. All the 'strategic' and 'carpet' bombing was the same, as it was in Vietnam as well.


----------



## Ernie S. (Aug 11, 2012)

mememe said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > If the A-bombs hadn't been used back then, demonstrating their truly destructive power and  ability to annihilate, they would more likely be used today. It was a one-off of sorts.
> ...


There is a vast difference between starting a war and ending one.
Where is your home anyway, mememe?


----------



## mememe (Aug 11, 2012)

Ernie S. said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...



In other words, since the US got away with mass slaughter of civilians in Japan, in every other war US used the same tactic: it TARGETS CIVILIANS to force the government into surrender!

You are correct. The US did it in Vietnam (be it unsuccessful); it did it in Serbia, in Iraq, in Libya ...


----------



## mememe (Aug 11, 2012)

Ernie S. said:


> mememe said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...



Japan did not start the war!
And if to follow your logic, would you welcome the use of WMD on US cities for starting scores of wars around the world?


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 11, 2012)

"Japan did not start the war!"

Gracious, I've made a serious mistake with all my posts. Sorry, I thought we were talking about the Japan of about 1937 to 1945.
What war did the US have with Japan that the US started? I didn't know about it.


----------



## Publius1787 (Aug 11, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> There were some interesting responses to this question - and it's a tough one.
> 
> Do you consider the A-bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to be war crimes? ? Japan Today: Japan News and Discussion





mememe said:


> In other words, since the US got away with mass slaughter of civilians in Japan, in every other war US used the same tactic: it TARGETS CIVILIANS to force the government into surrender!
> 
> You are correct. The US did it in Vietnam (be it unsuccessful); it did it in Serbia, in Iraq, in Libya ...





Why would it be a war crime? More civilians died in the battle of Okinawa than almost both bombs over Heroshima and Nagasaki combined. Did you know that? Why, you ask? Because to the Naval bombardment, the fact that the Japanese were pressing Japanese civilins in to service, and the thousands of Japanese civilians shot for seeking food and water from American forces. Japanese culture dictates that submission is dishoner and death is preferd even if it means to murder your fellow countrymen. Can you imagine how many Okinawa's we would have had if it were not for those two bombs!? make no mistake about it. those bombs saved waaaay more Japanese than American lives. Consider it an act of compassion.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Aug 11, 2012)

mememe said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



You are extremely misguided. Or ignorant of facts.......


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 11, 2012)

History does not view it as humanitarian.


----------



## Publius1787 (Aug 11, 2012)

there4eyeM said:


> History does not view it as humanitarian.



Yeah, because how something is viewed always outweighs what it actually was?


----------



## mememe (Aug 11, 2012)

there4eyeM said:


> "Japan did not start the war!"
> 
> Gracious, I've made a serious mistake with all my posts. Sorry, I thought we were talking about the Japan of about 1937 to 1945.
> What war did the US have with Japan that the US started? I didn't know about it.



Japan started WW2? Or, maybe it was a special US/Japanese war? Or why did US and USSR agree to JOINTLY FINISH WW2 with military action against Japan?


----------



## regent (Aug 11, 2012)

Another side of the Hiroshima story. 
I was on my way home in July and August of that year, a passenger on the navy hospital ship _Bountiful._ The ship's cargo was mostly marines and army from Okinawa and a few of us from Luzon.
The ships speakers and our bed earphones kept us up to date on the news of the dropping of the bombs. Finally the news came that the Japanese had surrendered. When the announcement was made of the surrender there was no cheering, no heroic phrases, no clapping, no laughing, nothing, nothing but silence.


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 11, 2012)

"Why would it be a war crime? More civilians died in the battle of Okinawa than almost both bombs over Heroshima and Nagasaki combined. Did you know that? Why, you ask? Because to the Naval bombardment, the fact that the Japanese were pressing Japanese civilins in to service, and the thousands of Japanese civilians shot for seeking food and water from American forces. Japanese culture dictates that submission is dishoner and death is preferd even if it means to murder your fellow countrymen. Can you imagine how many Okinawa's we would have had if it were not for those two bombs!? make no mistake about it. those bombs saved waaaay more Japanese than American lives. Consider it an act of compassion."

Sorry, but this argument by itself does not separate the bombings from possibly being war crimes. Japanese actions are their fault. Yes, as I said earlier, probably more Japanese would have died by the US waiting for surrender. That would be their choice and their crime. Americans and the world would like to think America stands for more than murder as expedient.


----------



## mememe (Aug 11, 2012)

Publius1787 said:


> Why would it be a war crime?



Because US DELIBERATELY TARGETED CIVILIANS FOR MASS EXTERMINATION.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 11, 2012)

williepete said:


> there was a strong and influential faction in the Japanese government and military who thought it far better to go down fighting than suffer the disgrace of surrender. As unbelievable as the words are to Western readers, the books put you in the minds of those who preferred death to dishonor.





Why would those words be "unbelievable" to Western readers? The concept is not foreign to the West at all. 

What's unbelievable is that an exhausted, starving, demoralized public who had long since realized the war wasn't going to turn out well would have shared that sentiment enough to take to hand-to-hand fighting with an overwhelming and unstoppable military force. People in America wanted the war to end quickly, but not nearly as badly as people in Japan did.


----------



## mememe (Aug 11, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> You are extremely misguided. Or ignorant of facts.......



Are you telling me US did not deliberately target civilians in Dresden, Japan, Vietnam, Serbia, Iraq and Libya?


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 11, 2012)

mememe said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > mememe said:
> ...




That hardly constitutes WWIII.


----------



## Publius1787 (Aug 11, 2012)

mememe said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > "Japan did not start the war!"
> ...



No, liberal academia dictates that America wanted to dominate and exploit the Japanese monopoly on hello kitty and pokemon merchandise. That started WWII.


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 11, 2012)

mememe said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > "Japan did not start the war!"
> ...



Clearly, English is a bit of a challenge, so let's back up.
WWII started when? It could be easily argued that it started November 11, 1918.

When did the US become engaged fully in WWII? December 8, 1941.

When did Japan begin the belligerent actions that led to their war with the US? No later than 1937.

Which country attacked which on December 7, 1941?

Who started that war, and brought the US into WWII?


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 11, 2012)

Publius1787 said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > History does not view it as humanitarian.
> ...



How humans view anything IS the way it is. What other 'is' could there be? What outside observer is there?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Aug 11, 2012)

mememe said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > You are extremely misguided. Or ignorant of facts.......
> ...



Please show me where it was US policy to attack civilians in Iraq, I know you don't know enough about Libya.

Fact is that civilians were targets in WW2. Too fucking bad about that. But Another point you seem to forget is that Russia never declared war on Japan until after we dropped the first bomb...

And no matter how you try to spin it those bombs did save lives, on both sides....


----------



## Publius1787 (Aug 11, 2012)

mememe said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > Why would it be a war crime?
> ...



Funny that you responded to nothing else that I posted. Just the first sentence, completely avoiding the facts that follow. We targeted their war making ability. Both were military targets. Both would have been shelled to the ground by artillery/air and naval bombardment. Both would have ended up with Japanese military impressment and the murder of civilians for receiving aid from the Americans. Both would have had to be taken as Okinawa was with far more civilian deaths than either of the bombs. In context, two Atomic bombs sounds humane!


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 11, 2012)

mememe said:


> You are correct. The US did it in Vietnam (be it unsuccessful); it did it in Serbia, in Iraq, in Libya ...






That is an absurdly hyperbolic degree of equivalency.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Aug 11, 2012)

Nothing about war is humane, necessary maybe but not really humane....


----------



## AnonymousIV (Aug 11, 2012)

It's sad, where I live there is a freedom bell, it's a gong.  It's almost frightening to stand and hear the bell.  It was in defense of our county.  We would not have bombed Japan, had not it invaded our county.  Thoughts of the A-Bomb exploding, somber, pain, and deep remorse.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 11, 2012)

Publius1787 said:


> Consider it an act of compassion.





Some people just can't discuss this issue without indulging in ridiculous extremes.


----------



## Publius1787 (Aug 11, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> mememe said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Yeah, that shocked me as well since I've served in the "USMC grunt" capacity in Iraq. I have no idea of what he's talking about. However, I think, like most antiwar nuts, they exploit what they can because their ideology is so absolute that there is no extent of which they will not go through in order to lie to the world and make people like myself out to be horrendous baby killers.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 11, 2012)

Who has called you a "baby killer"?


----------



## Ernie S. (Aug 11, 2012)

mememe said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...


Mostly false. While civilians inevitably die in war, US policy has been to limit civilian casualties since Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

You failed to answer my question. Where do you live?


----------



## Ernie S. (Aug 11, 2012)

mememe said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > mememe said:
> ...


Seems to me there was a little to do at Pearl Harbor that got us pissed off at Japan.


----------



## mememe (Aug 11, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> mememe said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



It was the beginning of what we see now: a slow but sure merger of local wars into one big chaos of destabilised world where US will be seen as the only island of calm and stability fit for investments...


----------



## Publius1787 (Aug 11, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Who has called you a "baby killer"?



I never said anyone has, however since you mentioned it, I was once called a baby killer by a British sounding guy in SanFrancisco only to see my Arab taxi driver hop out and make a fool out of him in a hotel lobby. I never had to say a word. It was great!


----------



## AnonymousIV (Aug 11, 2012)

gong - sound effect - YouTube


----------



## mememe (Aug 11, 2012)

there4eyeM said:


> WWII started when? It could be easily argued that it started November 11, 1918.
> 
> When did the US become engaged fully in WWII? December 8, 1941.
> 
> ...



No, it did not start in 1918. WW2 started as a series of localised conflicts after the rise to power of Nazis  and Fascists. It became a full blown WORLD war in 1941. Attack on Pearl Harbour was just one in a chain of other attacks and wars that were already consuming Africa, Asia and Europe.


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 11, 2012)

Your interpretation. Many historians date WWII to the Rape of Nanking by Japan in 1937.


----------



## Publius1787 (Aug 11, 2012)

there4eyeM said:


> Your interpretation. Many historians date WWII to the Rape of Nanking by Japan in 1937.



Yet another great reason we used the bomb against such a culture. I forgot about the second Sino-Japanses War.


----------



## mememe (Aug 11, 2012)

SFC Ollie said:


> mememe said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



I'm sorry, but what other purpose is for the use of white phosphorus in a heavily populated cities?! And I know plenty about "civilised" air strikes on civilian infrastructure and other targets in Libya.

Yes, civilians were the targets in WW2, for that Nazis stood NUREMBERG TRIAL! 

It must be according to some special US calendar. Because according to a conventional one, US dropped the bombs on the 6 and 9 of August 1945; while in February of 1945 during the Yalta conference the Soviet Union "commits itself to enter the war with Japan, not later than three months after Germany's defeat". 
On April the 5-th the Soviet Union denounces a neutrality pact between the USSR and Japan.
And on August the 2-nd the USSR reaffirms its commitment to enter into a war with Japan no later then three month after German capitulation.
That's why US rushed through their bombing of Japan: they did not want the Soviets there.

Are you going to be happy for WMD to be used on US cities to "save lives on both sides"?


----------



## mememe (Aug 11, 2012)

Publius1787 said:


> mememe said:
> 
> 
> > Publius1787 said:
> ...



There were NO "military ability" in neither cities! The US forced Japanese government to capitulate by exterminating civilians on a mass scale! Same US did in Vietnam, Serbia and Libya! Same it is doing now in Syria, only instead of WMD or carpet bombing of civilians, US uses terrorists and gangs of international rubble...


----------



## mememe (Aug 11, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> mememe said:
> 
> 
> > You are correct. The US did it in Vietnam (be it unsuccessful); it did it in Serbia, in Iraq, in Libya ...
> ...



No, it isn't!
For example, in Serbia only massive campaign of carpet bombing civilian targets (Serbian military was practically intact) made Milosevich to surrender.


----------



## mememe (Aug 11, 2012)

Ernie S. said:


> Mostly false. While civilians inevitably die in war, US policy has been to limit civilian casualties since Hiroshima and Nagasaki.



Lie!

Against what targets US was using napalm and agent orange in Vietnam?!

And the results of US/NATO bombing campaign of Serbia left Serbian military almost intact, while led to heavy civilian casualties; especially with US use of depleted uranium!


----------



## Publius1787 (Aug 11, 2012)

mememe said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > mememe said:
> ...



I dont like to use Wiki anything but I will make an exception in this case. Since its common knowlege to everyone but you.

At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of both industrial and military significance. A number of military camps were located nearby, including the headquarters of Field Marshal Shunroku Hata's 2nd General Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan.[54] His command consisted of some 400,000 men, most of whom were on Kyushu where an Allied invasion was correctly expected.[55] Also present in Hiroshima was the headquarters of the Fifty-Ninth Army, and most of the 224th Division, a recently formed mobile unit.[56] The city's air defenses comprised five batteries of 7-and-8-centimetre (2.8 and 3.1 in) anti-aircraft guns.[57]


Hiroshima was a minor supply and logistics base for the Japanese military. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops. It was one of several Japanese cities left deliberately untouched by American bombing, allowing a pristine environment to measure the damage caused by the atomic bomb.[58]

The center of the city contained several reinforced concrete buildings and lighter structures. Outside the center, the area was congested by a dense collection of small wooden workshops set among Japanese houses. A few larger industrial plants lay near the outskirts of the city. The houses were constructed of wood with tile roofs, and many of the industrial buildings were also built around wood frames. The city as a whole was highly susceptible to fire damage.[59]

The population of Hiroshima had reached a peak of over 381,000 earlier in the war, but prior to the atomic bombing the population had steadily decreased because of a systematic evacuation ordered by the Japanese government. At the time of the attack, the population was approximately 340,000&#8211;350,000.[1]


----------



## mememe (Aug 11, 2012)

Ernie S. said:


> Seems to me there was a little to do at Pearl Harbor that got us pissed off at Japan.



Do you have any idea just how many people around the world are "pissed off" with US? Will you welcome the use of WMD on US cities?


----------



## Publius1787 (Aug 11, 2012)

mememe said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > mememe said:
> ...



I know a purpose for WP! Its impossible to stop it from burning! Great stuff. Really effective.


----------



## mememe (Aug 11, 2012)

there4eyeM said:


> Your interpretation. Many historians date WWII to the Rape of Nanking by Japan in 1937.



How can a WORLD war be without the participation of the main players of three out of five (by some account -- six) continents?!


----------



## ItsjustmeIthink (Aug 11, 2012)

In comparison to the tokyo firebombings and other similar air raids which result in firestorms, no.

Did America commit war crimes by dropping specially designed firebombs on Japan's wooden cities? Probably.


----------



## Publius1787 (Aug 11, 2012)

mememe said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Mostly false. While civilians inevitably die in war, US policy has been to limit civilian casualties since Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
> ...



Napalm! good stuff! Hard to miss your target with napalm! Depleated uranium? Never hurt me when I was fireing those grey tipped .50 cal rounds in Iraq.


----------



## mememe (Aug 11, 2012)

Publius1787 said:


> mememe said:
> 
> 
> > Publius1787 said:
> ...



In other words, even according to YOUR source, Hiroshima was a MINOR supply and logistics base, while Nagasaki is not mentioned at all!
As for your "near", -- in Japan everything is "near" -- it's a small country. And to use WMD on two largest CIVILIAN cities (not military bases) is a crime against humanity, especially after putting Nazis on trial for the same crimes!


----------



## Publius1787 (Aug 11, 2012)

mememe said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > Your interpretation. Many historians date WWII to the Rape of Nanking by Japan in 1937.
> ...



Antartica, Narnia, and Liberal fantasy land do not count as continets for participation in WWII.


----------



## mememe (Aug 11, 2012)

Publius1787 said:


> mememe said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Would you be happy to use it on US cities?


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 11, 2012)

mememe said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > mememe said:
> ...




This is the History forum. You are looking for the Conspiracy Theory forum. Take a sharp left turn and keep going, you can't miss it.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 11, 2012)

there4eyeM said:


> Your interpretation. Many historians date WWII to the Rape of Nanking by Japan in 1937.




Got a link to a prominent historian who does so?


----------



## Publius1787 (Aug 11, 2012)

mememe said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > mememe said:
> ...



Yep. We ended the war and saved millions of Japanses lives. Dont get me wrong, I feel your pain (not really) and understand that your hatred for the US and feelings toward how we are viewd in the world surpass that line between right and wrong. To be honest, I didnt think to include common knowlege and prefer not to debate it. In my view, your argument isnt worth my time or effort. Your crying about something that saved more Japanese lives than American. I dont see what all the fuss is about. And your Nazi comparison is so out of this world its funny.


----------



## mememe (Aug 11, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> mememe said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



Try to understand that US mantra of "conspiracy theory" doesn't work outside of US.

That aside, are you about to tell me that US did not set alight central Europe, Africa, ME and is about to move onto central Asia?! What do you think is happening around your "big island" USA? Are you really buying into "spreading democracy" and "bombing into freedom" of so many countries in just the past 20 years?


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 11, 2012)

Publius1787 said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > Your interpretation. Many historians date WWII to the Rape of Nanking by Japan in 1937.
> ...




You're saying the atomic bombs were dropped in revenge on behalf of China? And the goal was to bomb a "culture"?


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 11, 2012)

mememe said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > mememe said:
> ...




Try to understand that I, and most of my fellow countrymen, do not give a shit what "works" for asinine conspiracy theorists outside the US. You have just typed your way to utter irrelevancy.


----------



## mememe (Aug 11, 2012)

Publius1787 said:


> Yep. We ended the war and saved millions of Japanses lives.


----------



## Publius1787 (Aug 11, 2012)

mememe said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > mememe said:
> ...



Of course not. I wasn't happy shooting insurgents in iraq. I thought I would be, but what can I say; its a nasty business. Why would I be happy about using WP? If we were to fight wars as we would want one fought against us we would be in the field with nerf guns and our enemies with Ak 47's. Perhaps that your fantasy but I live in the world of reality.


----------



## Ernie S. (Aug 11, 2012)

mememe said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Mostly false. While civilians inevitably die in war, US policy has been to limit civilian casualties since Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
> ...


Against military targets hiding in a jungle. Sure, civilians got killed because of their proximity to valid military targets, but That was mostly due to the Viet Cong hiding among the civilians for cover. Ugly shit happens in war, but when you are unsure of just who is civilian and who isn't, people die. Are you comfortable waiting to get shot at before you take steps to stay alive? I'm not.

You still are avoiding stating your location. I would like to know where you call home so I might learn something of your perspective and why it seems you hate my country so much.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 11, 2012)

Publius1787 said:


> I dont see what all the fuss is about.






Whatever your stance on the issue, it is disingenuous to claim not to know "what all the fuss is about."


----------



## mememe (Aug 11, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> mememe said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



You should "give a shit" about the world your country is destroying. And in that world people are accustomed to discuss such thing as GEOPOLITICS. It's YOU who are fed a diet of brainless mantras to preclude you from thinking and questioning the true motives behind your elites' global actions.


----------



## Publius1787 (Aug 11, 2012)

mememe said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > Yep. We ended the war and saved millions of Japanses lives.



Sure, more civilians died in the Battle of Okinawa than almost both atomic bombs combined. No amount of emotioncons that a person may use to display an emotion that they arent really having in order to gain a false sense of security in a losing argument will change the merits of the debate. Your response ranks right up there with "yawn" "lol" "lmao" and "roflmao." they may help you feel better about yourself but in the end they say more about the one who types them via their inability take emotion out of the argument and stick to the merits. You see, even when I get a non-response such as yours I am forced to ask myself why. What conclusion would you have come up with were you to receive a message such as the one you sent?


----------



## mememe (Aug 11, 2012)

Publius1787 said:


> mememe said:
> 
> 
> > Publius1787 said:
> ...



And in that world of reality US became world's number one terrorist state and mass murderer...

Btw, in Iraq you were shooting not "insurgents", but people who defended their country against an aggressor. Like people of all countries attacked by Nazis did  during WW2...


----------



## Ernie S. (Aug 11, 2012)

mememe said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Seems to me there was a little to do at Pearl Harbor that got us pissed off at Japan.
> ...



Of course not, though if the US is the aggressor, I will see the justification.

The US did not start WWII. They ended it.


----------



## mememe (Aug 11, 2012)

Publius1787 said:


> mememe said:
> 
> 
> > Publius1787 said:
> ...



A number of civilians who died during a battle of Okinawa (or any other) does not justify a DELIBERATE TARGETING OF CIVILIANS!!!!!!!!!! That's what TERRORISTS and MASS MURDERERS do!


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 11, 2012)

mememe said:


> As for your "near", -- in Japan everything is "near" -- it's a small country.





More exaggerration. It's not that small and not everything is near.


----------



## mememe (Aug 11, 2012)

Ernie S. said:


> mememe said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



... by committing the same crime Nazis committed...


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 11, 2012)

mememe said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > mememe said:
> ...






Conspiracy Theory Forum - thataway - headcase -


----------



## Publius1787 (Aug 11, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > there4eyeM said:
> ...



Oh, yes. Had not we had the inaccuracy of naval/aerial bombardment, or the Japanese in Okinawa impressing civilians in to service, shooting them if they refused, and murdering anyone accepting food, water, and first aid from the Americans, I would say hold off on the bombs. You see, more civilians died at the battle of Okinawa than almost both atomic bombings combined. How an Army fights dictates how your fight them back. And the culture of the Army dictates how they fight. The Japanese Army, whether it be China, the Philippines, or their home country of Japan, had no respect for human life and viewed surrender as the ultimate dishonor. Such a culture purposely warranted the killing of anyone who got in the way of the war effort or did not adhere to their strict standards of honor. The Japanese warrior culture at China, the Philippines, and Okinawa forever justified those Atomic bombs. The bombs of which saved way more Japanese civilian lives than American ones.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 11, 2012)

mememe said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > mememe said:
> ...





Do you realize that you are getting crazier and crazier as this thread goes on? Keep on like this and you won't have any shit left to lose.


----------



## Publius1787 (Aug 11, 2012)

mememe said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > mememe said:
> ...



Hmmmm, destroy two cities and end the war or fight for another two years and have millions in collateral damage. Is it really that hard of an option?


----------



## Publius1787 (Aug 11, 2012)

mememe said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > mememe said:
> ...




Oh if only you could have seen the tortured and decapitated heads of innocent families who's father sought employment as a janitor on a US military base. If only you could have been there with me as they wore civilian attire, shot at us from mosques/schools/hospitals, and blew up bombs as polling stations and crowded market places. If only you could have seen them force the population to use their back yards, grave yards, and homes as weapons cache's. If only you could have picked up the bodies of the people they executed before a mass audience or seen the torture rooms. But no, according to you, these are just people attempting to repel their illegal occupiers. Tell that to the people of Anbar who, with our help, overthrew the insurgent presence.


----------



## mememe (Aug 11, 2012)

Publius1787 said:


> Hmmmm, destroy two cities and end the war or fight for another two years and have millions in collateral damage. Is it really that hard of an option?



Your "millions in collateral damage" is no more then a speculation after a fact!

For starters, the Soviet Union beat Japan twice in 1930-s without any "millions in collateral damage".

For afters: DELIBERATE TARGETING OF CIVILIANS IS A CRIME!!!!! That's what terrorists and mass murderers do. Is terrorism a crime? Is mass murder a crime?


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 11, 2012)

Publius1787 said:


> The bombs of which saved way more Japanese civilian lives than American ones.




Some people like to refer to lives "saved" by the bomb as if it were a given, but it remains speculation - of course. The US had more than just two options at that point in the war. A massive invasion force was not some law of physics that could never have been avoided in the absence of the bomb such that things like "it saved X number of lives!" can be stated as if indisputable mathematical conclusions.


----------



## mememe (Aug 11, 2012)

Publius1787 said:


> mememe said:
> 
> 
> > Publius1787 said:
> ...



You lamenting a fate of  civilians in Iraq sounds like a joke after your justification of mass murders of civilians at the hands of US.

WHAT WERE YOU DOING IN IRAQ IN THE FIRST PLACE?! Can't you understand that to Iraqis you are INVADERS and ENEMIES? And those who are forced to look for work on your military bases because YOU destroyed their places of work automatically become "collaborators", "traitors" and "enemies" regardless of what they do on your bases?

What was going on in Iraq prior to your invasion was THEIR business (like it is your business what rights and wrongs are taking place in your country). You did not go there to "save civilians" or to "spread democracy"...


----------



## Publius1787 (Aug 11, 2012)

mememe said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > Hmmmm, destroy two cities and end the war or fight for another two years and have millions in collateral damage. Is it really that hard of an option?
> ...



I would go so far as to say that war is a crime. Does that change reality? No. Speculation? Study the Battle of Okinawa!


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 11, 2012)

Publius1787 said:


> the Japanese in Okinawa impressing civilians in to service, shooting them if they refused, and murdering anyone accepting food, water, and first aid from the Americans.




Like a lot of things on both sides of the issue, this has to be understood in the context of the time. At that time (some would say now as well, to a degree, but that's another issue) Okinawans were not seen as 'really' Japanese. Not equal to mainlanders at any rate. So their 'disposal' in that battle does not indicate with certainty what would have happened in any invasion of Honshu. 

People like to make a lot of the whole "they would never surrender!" bit as well, but this too is overdone. Any reading of Japanese history reveals that defeated generals surrendered all the time when that was the only option, and that in general care was usually taken not to destroy civilian populations during wars. Civilian populations throughout Asia were treated brutally by the Japanese military because they were seen as 'not Japanese' and therefore expendable - as horrible as that idea and its consequences were. The civilian population on Honshu would not have been seen that way. That population was already starving, demoralized, and had long since had enough of war before the bombs were dropped. Many people had had enough of it since before the war began, really.


----------



## Ernie S. (Aug 11, 2012)

mememe said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > mememe said:
> ...



Hardly. The Nazis exterminated millions of their own countrymen without provocation. The US responded to an attack that killed 3,500 members of its Pacific fleet and destroyed a significant part of its Navy.
You can't equate the Holocaust and Hiroshima and retain any semblance of integrity. Sorry.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 11, 2012)

mememe said:


> WHAT WERE YOU DOING IN IRAQ IN THE FIRST PLACE?! Can't you understand that to Iraqis you are INVADERS and ENEMIES? ...





Did you talk to many Iraqis before the war? People who had lived for decades under saddam?


----------



## mememe (Aug 11, 2012)

Publius1787 said:


> mememe said:
> 
> 
> > Publius1787 said:
> ...



War of aggression is a crime. War of defence is not.


----------



## Publius1787 (Aug 11, 2012)

mememe said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > mememe said:
> ...



And what were their ends? By "their" I'm referring to the Muj, AQI, among many others single person named groups. Sure both the Muj and AQI, the two dominant groups in Iraq, wanted us out of there. However, I can assure you that their leadership were mainly from out of country, the population hated them, and they did not care about the manner of which their ends were achieved. Though, something tells me you know nothing about either of these groups.


----------



## MikeK (Aug 11, 2012)

Armed combat is organized insanity and that is not just rhetoric.  Because fear is the precursor of hatred the more one fears his enemy the more virulent and compelling his hatred will become.  

I lived through the War years and although I was a pre-teen boy I have recollection of the atmosphere of prevailing fear and the ubiquitous anti-Jap (and anti-Nazi) propaganda.  It was on the radio and in movies in reports of cruelty by Japanese to their prisoners. There were stories of the Rape of Nanking and there were very arresting posters in stores, subways, and on buses.  Here are just a few examples:  

















Those are relatively mild examples.  As the War progressed the images became more brutally graphic.  The effect of the propaganda was such that by the time the "A Bomb" was developed it was impossible to harbor the slightest reluctance to use it.  In fact, while it is not commonly known the main reason for interning Japanese Americans was their own protection.  

Understandably, the initial reaction of Americans to the bomb, which ended the War, was euphoric relief.  The effect of the bomb on the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn't evoke any regret for some time.  Four years of gradually intensifying hatred doesn't dissipate quickly.


----------



## mememe (Aug 11, 2012)

Ernie S. said:


> mememe said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



Nazis were tried for deliberate targeting civilians for mass extermination, and not for the number of those they murdered. Unless, you think that if instead of "...................." millions they killed "....." millions no one would've said a bad word to them.

In Japan US did what Nazis were doing: they deliberately targeted civilians for mass extermination.


----------



## Publius1787 (Aug 11, 2012)

mememe said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > mememe said:
> ...



I don't suppose you would dare say that the Japanese in WWII were defending?


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 11, 2012)

MikeK said:


> In fact, while it is not commonly known the main reason for interning Japanese Americans was their own protection.
> .





No it wasn't.


----------



## Publius1787 (Aug 11, 2012)

MikeK said:


> Armed combat is organized insanity and that is not just rhetoric.  Because fear is the precursor of hatred the more one fears his enemy the more virulent and compelling his hatred will become.
> 
> I lived through the War years and although I was a pre-teen boy I have recollection of the atmosphere of prevailing fear and the ubiquitous anti-Jap (and anti-Nazi) propaganda.  It was on the radio and in movies in reports of cruelty by Japanese to their prisoners. There were stories of the Rape of Nanking and there were very arresting posters in stores, subways, and on buses.  Here are just a few examples:
> 
> ...



Dehumanizing your enemy makes it easeyer to kill them.


----------



## mememe (Aug 11, 2012)

Publius1787 said:


> And what were their ends? By "their" I'm referring to the Muj, AQI, among many others single person named groups. Sure both the Muj and AQI, the two dominant groups in Iraq, wanted us out of there. However, I can assure you that their leadership were mainly from out of country, the population hated them, and they did not care about the manner of which their ends were achieved. Though, something tells me you know nothing about either of these groups.



And that was NONE OF US BUSINESS!!! Like it is no one else's (apart from Americans)  business what is going on inside of US.
You did NOT go into Iraq to "liberate" or to "spread democracy"!

Are you aware that US finances, arms and supports terrorist and religious extremist groups around the world?!


----------



## mememe (Aug 11, 2012)

Publius1787 said:


> mememe said:
> 
> 
> > Publius1787 said:
> ...



No.

It was a general observation.


----------



## Publius1787 (Aug 11, 2012)

mememe said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > And what were their ends? By "their" I'm referring to the Muj, AQI, among many others single person named groups. Sure both the Muj and AQI, the two dominant groups in Iraq, wanted us out of there. However, I can assure you that their leadership were mainly from out of country, the population hated them, and they did not care about the manner of which their ends were achieved. Though, something tells me you know nothing about either of these groups.
> ...



Sure! The enemy of my enemy is my friend. 

And .... So .... You brush it off as its non of my business? Funny, I thought you knew why they were fighting us. I thought you knew why they fought both us and the civilian population. I thought you said that they were defending themselves. You inability to answer the question showes me that you are aware that defense is absolutly not the ends of their mission. Their ends is the purge the middle east from western influence and kill infidels. Their ends is violently achieved Sharia law. Their ends is to "kill the infidel wherever he may be/hide." want to have some fun? Try to open girls college in Afghanistan. I promise you an amateur fireworks display!


----------



## mememe (Aug 11, 2012)

Publius1787 said:


> mememe said:
> 
> 
> > Publius1787 said:
> ...



These "Muj" and "AQI" enjoyed full US support in Afghanistan in 1980-s, in Serbia, in Russia, in all the "stans" of Central Asia, in Libya and in Syria. And yet you are trying to convince me that in Iraq (btw, Al-Q didn't get there until US "liberated" the country!) US was fighting militant Islamists on behalf of Iraqi population!

Can you explain to me, because I really do not get it, what (in your opinion) business was that of US who and how lived in Iraq?!

As for Afghanistan, then I have a surprise for you: until US start stirring shit there supporting Islamic fundamentalists against Soviet influence, the life there was quite different from what it is now, after first US assisted Taliban into power, and then invaded it all together.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 11, 2012)

Publius1787 said:


> Dehumanizing your enemy makes it easeyer to kill them.




The problem is that some people have trouble stopping that after the war is over.


----------



## Publius1787 (Aug 11, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > Dehumanizing your enemy makes it easeyer to kill them.
> ...



A limited few I would say.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 11, 2012)

mememe said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > And what were their ends? By "their" I'm referring to the Muj, AQI, among many others single person named groups. Sure both the Muj and AQI, the two dominant groups in Iraq, wanted us out of there. However, I can assure you that their leadership were mainly from out of country, the population hated them, and they did not care about the manner of which their ends were achieved. Though, something tells me you know nothing about either of these groups.
> ...





Conspiracy Forum thataway, pengyou. 

<<<<


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 11, 2012)

Publius1787 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Publius1787 said:
> ...





There are still some people today - people born after the war - who sound like those propaganda posters.


----------



## regent (Aug 11, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> > In fact, while it is not commonly known the main reason for interning Japanese Americans was their own protection.
> ...



I wouldn't say it was the main reason but it was a factor. There was a lot of hostility physical and otherwise toward those of Japanese and Chinese appearance. People couldn't tell the difference betweem the two. But they were not the only minorities that were in trouble, check out the military's conflict with the zoot-suiters. 
But perhaps the primary reason the Japanese on the west coast were removed was the political power of the Daughters of the Golden West and the California fruit and vegetable growers. I would also question General DeWitt's objectivity and his decision to remove the Japanese from the coast.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 11, 2012)

regent said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > MikeK said:
> ...




It was one justification, and a weak one at that.


----------



## Publius1787 (Aug 11, 2012)

mememe said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > mememe said:
> ...



Sure. I would be happy to explain it to you. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Any questions? And we weren't fighting any terrorists on behalf the Iraqi people. We fought them to prevent a terrorist safe haven after we left. Did it work? That is partially on Obamas hands now. 

Funny how socialist praise and defend the countries under the influence of the USSR during the Arab cold war, but demonize the US for doing the same. Look at the staff of all those leaders in Palistine, Egypt, Tunisia, Saddams Iraq, and Iran, etc and you will find a mess of Soviet trained dictatores. Some of which you can see below who attended Soviet universities (just one university for this group) with the intent of sparking socialist revolutions across the middle east, Africa, and south America, expanding soviet influence by arming the Arab, African, and south American revolutionaries. Look! Its Chavez, educated in the USSR. Go figure huh?

Ali Khamenei, Supreme Leader of Iran (wrote his thesis on holocaust denial)
Fatima Abdel Mahmoud, Sudanese politician, leader of the Sudanese Socialist Democratic Union
Hugo Chávez, 61st and current President of Venezuela
Abed Elrahim Abu Zakrra, Sudanese writer and poet
Bharrat Jagdeo, Former President of Guyana from 1999 to 2011
Irina Khakamada, Russian politician, a member of The Other Russia coalition
Porfirio Lobo Sosa, President of Honduras, a politician and agricultural landowner
Ilich Ramírez Sánchez, Venezuelan terrorist and assassin (expelled)
Lucy Seki, Brazilian linguist
Ganesh Shah, Nepalese politician and member of Communist Party of Nepal (United)
Rohana Wijeweera, Sri Lankan Marxist politician


Look up "the caspian report" on YouTube. That kid is good! You will perhaps have some of your views vindicated there. It's fascinating to say the least!

http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=plpp&v=TEC9uM1h4i0


----------



## Publius1787 (Aug 11, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



Sure.


----------



## regent (Aug 11, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



FDR had turned the removal decision over to the nine corps commanders, only DeWitt of the ninth corps area ordered the removal of the Japanse. Of Course the responsiblity was FDR's but should FDR have approved DeWitt's decision or not. Now in the safety of years we can say he should not have.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 11, 2012)

What we can say is that FDR was an unamerican scumbag. It was his name on the Executive Order.


----------



## tjvh (Aug 11, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> There were some interesting responses to this question - and it's a tough one.
> 
> Do you consider the A-bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to be war crimes? ? Japan Today: Japan News and Discussion



Absolutely not. America was fighting people who were devoid of rationality. The Japanese were completely brainwashed into believing it was honorable to die for their regime. Were America not to drop the Atomic bombs, it's an absolute fact an invasion of Japan would have cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans, and many more Japanese civilians. However brutal the use of the A-bombs were, they ultimately saved countless lives on *BOTH* sides.


----------



## williepete (Aug 11, 2012)

tjvh said:


> Absolutely not. America was fighting people who were devoid of rationality. The Japanese were completely brainwashed into believing it was honorable to die for their regime. Were America not to drop the Atomic bombs, it's an absolute fact an invasion of Japan would have cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans, and many more Japanese civilians. However brutal the use of the A-bombs were, they ultimately saved countless lives on *BOTH* sides.



Finally. Back on topic. Not a war crime.


----------



## mememe (Aug 11, 2012)

Publius1787 said:


> Sure. I would be happy to explain it to you. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Any questions?
> 
> And we weren't fighting any terrorists on behalf the Iraqi people. We fought them to prevent a terrorist safe haven after we left.
> 
> ...



None! US finds militant Islamists and plain terrorists, finances them, arms them, supports them to wreck target countries.

And in Afghanistan (80-s), Serbia, Russia, Libya and now Syria you fought alongside them/supported them? How is that possible?

yes, during cold war USSR and US were supporting/helping to power different puppets in their respective sides of the divide. But comparing the life in Afghanistan during Soviet influence and now -- during US influence, can't you see the difference?! And Chavez! He is BRILLIANT in keeping US vultures away from Venezuella's riches! 

Can you name a single country where US "humanitarian bombings" and coloured revolutions brought prosperity to the general population? I can't!


----------



## mememe (Aug 11, 2012)

tjvh said:


> Absolutely not. America was fighting people who were devoid of rationality.



And according to many, Americans are brainwashed people devoid of rationality. Should you be WMD'd?


----------



## regent (Aug 11, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> What we can say is that FDR was an unamerican scumbag. It was his name on the Executive Order.



Yep, it was FDR that was responsible. But what about Truman was he also a scum bag for dropping the bombs on Japan? Was MacArthur a scum bag for invading the Philippines when most thought it was not required? Was Ike a scum bag for removing Patton for the slap? Was Obama a scum bag for ordering the demise of Bin Laden?


----------



## MikeK (Aug 11, 2012)

mememe said:


> These "Muj" and "AQI" enjoyed full US support in Afghanistan in 1980-s, in Serbia, in Russia, in all the "stans" of Central Asia, in Libya and in Syria. And yet you are trying to convince me that in Iraq (btw, Al-Q didn't get there until US "liberated" the country!) US was fighting militant Islamists on behalf of Iraqi population!
> 
> Can you explain to me, because I really do not get it, what (in your opinion) business was that of US who and how lived in Iraq?!
> 
> As for Afghanistan, then I have a surprise for you: until US start stirring shit there supporting Islamic fundamentalists against Soviet influence, the life there was quite different from what it is now, after first US assisted Taliban into power, and then invaded it all together.


There were twenty-one black & white photographs (deleted to save space) following the text in the above message with absolutely no indication of their significance.  

What did I miss?  What were they about?


----------



## Publius1787 (Aug 11, 2012)

mememe said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > Sure. I would be happy to explain it to you. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Any questions?
> ...



Oh, the sheer existence of America brought prosperity to the world. Especially our thoughts of individual rights and capitalism! And the doctrine of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" will always be a plausible and reasonable. Capitalism has done more for the common man than any thing in the history of the world. Sorry your Soviet dream didn't work out. 

In response to your quote: A society that places equality before liberty will have neither. A society that places individual liberty above equality will have a great deal of both.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 11, 2012)

tjvh said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > There were some interesting responses to this question - and it's a tough one.
> ...




You're late. We've already covered dehumanizing an enemy and the flaws in easy simplifications.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 11, 2012)

regent said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > What we can say is that FDR was an unamerican scumbag. It was his name on the Executive Order.
> ...




That's what we're here to discuss.


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 12, 2012)

Incarceration of Americans ethnically identified as 'Japanese' was racist and wrong.

Invading Japan was unnecessary (probably Okinawa as well).

Dropping the bombs was wrong.

No one anywhere in WWII was more racist nor more wrong than Japan.


----------



## editec (Aug 12, 2012)

The Emperor of Japan was NOT in a position to end the war even though it was obvious that Japan was going to be invaded.

Tojo was still in power and his military junta was still in control despite the fact that the emporer wanted to make peace.

THEN the first bomb hit Hiroshima.

The Emporer's political power was suddenly recognized and Japan was suing for peace.  They were quibbling about terms of the peace and refusing to accept an "UNCONDITONAL SURRENDER"

Japan's mistake...


But the USA had one more bomb to drop.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Aug 23, 2012)

Atrocities are only war crimes when others do them......


----------



## High_Gravity (Aug 28, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> There were some interesting responses to this question - and it's a tough one.
> 
> Do you consider the A-bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to be war crimes? ? Japan Today: Japan News and Discussion



No.


----------

