Why are so few willing to discuss real historical events?

[Je suis Omar]

Tim: Hindsight is 20/20. When you are in a war you don't really know what is necessary and you have to rely on trial and error. This means that no matter what some of your "trials" can be viewed as "errors" in retrospect but that does not mean the decision made with the information available at the time was wrong. The best example is Nagasaki. We can reasonably argue now that if the Japanese were given a little more time they would have surrendered without the second bomb. However, at the time, the Americans could not known that for sure and using the second bomb just "in case" was a reasonable decision.

----------

Another of those long standing pernicious US lies. Nobody twists history better or more than the US.

Why didn't that defence work for the Germans, Japanese or Italians? Or for that matter, the folks who ran Nazis death camps?

Edited April 2, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[Je suis Omar]

Either you are really new to the Internet, or you are a disgruntled former poster who was banned for some kind of continual forum rule violations. Just a hunch. It's happened before, and it will happen again.

Are you suggesting that telling the truth is a violation of forum rules? Or is your problem with speaking uncomfortable truths?

Open debate is supposedly what we westerners are famous for. Some of us certainly do like to lord it over those in other nations.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Another of those long standing pernicious US lies. Nobody twists history better or more than the US.

Typical...the issue isn't war crimes at all, be it Canada, United Kingdom, Germany, Japan, USSR, or the USA.

Apparently the issue is how much better the USA is at winning the propaganda war.

Even the "war crimes" rants are imported from...America.

[Je suis Omar]

TimG: You can't prevent wars unless people are willing to let go nationalist/religious ideas. For example, in the South China sea there is no rational reason for China to insist on "owning" a bunch of little islands. They only insist on it because there are a lot of nationalist bigots in China who think the reputation of China is some how connected to "owning" these islands. This in, turn, makes the countries that currently "own" the islands feel like they being bullied and that they have no choice but to stand up to the bully in order to prevent even greater bullying the future. The end result could be war but preventing it requires that Chinese nationalists give up their notions and accept that peaceful trade is a better for China's long term reputation than short term bullying. That is not going to happen.

--------------

Why do you pick China for your example, Tim? Why not the USA? Compare the number of bullying over land and resources by China with that of the USA.

What do you think the final tally would be?

[carepov]

Hindsight is 20/20. When you are in a war you don't really know what is necessary and you have to rely on trial and error. This means that no matter what some of your "trials" can be viewed as "errors" in retrospect but that does not mean the decision made with the information available at the time was wrong. The best example is Nagasaki. We can reasonably argue now that if the Japanese were given a little more time they would have surrendered without the second bomb. However, at the time, the Americans could not known that for sure and using the second bomb just "in case" was a reasonable decision.

You do not need 20/20 vision, heck even a blind person could see that on August 8, 1945 a second A-bomb was not necessary, and especially not necessary on a populated area. This was a clear error. The West has made plenty of them.

Another of those long standing pernicious US lies. Nobody twists history better or more than the US.

Well, nobody except for the Russians, Chinese, Spanish, Germans, Italians, Japanese, Arabs, Turks....

[bush_cheney2004]

You do not need 20/20 vision, heck even a blind person could see that on August 8, 1945 a second A-bomb was not necessary, and especially not necessary on a populated area. This was a clear error. The West has made plenty of them.

No...it was not an error. It was a well contemplated, debated, and examined decision made with clear conscience and purpose.

The U.S. (and other nations) have the means and will to do it again if circumstances require.

Make no mistake about that.

Edited April 2, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[Argus]

Voluminous information is available that documents the myriad war crimes and terrorist actions of the US government since WWII

(actually going way way further back) but no one talks about it.

What is or is not a 'war crime' is often a matter of interpretation and requires context.

War is ugly. The US during its involvement in wars, has behaved better than most, and certainly no worse than any other nation I can think of.

[Argus]

It is not a war crime to kill terrorists.

[On Guard for Thee]

No...it was not an error. It was a well contemplated, debated, and examined decision made with clear conscious and purpose.

The U.S. (and other nations) have the means and will to do it again if circumstances require.

Make no mistake about that.

So there you go...it was discussed, so it coudnt have been wrong. Too bad about the extra 40-80k deaths.

[TimG]

You do not need 20/20 vision, heck even a blind person could see that on August 8, 1945 a second A-bomb was not necessary, and especially not necessary on a populated area. This was a clear error. The West has made plenty of them.

Sure it was an error. People make errors during wars. People die from errors. But intent matters and that is why there is a difference between an accident, criminal negligence, murder 2 and murder 1. The American officials who authorized the second bomb may have made an error but they believed it was necessary to end the war.

Rounding people up and executing them in gas chambers. That was no error. It was a war crime.

Now if you had conclusive proof that the people who authorized the second bombing were perfectly aware that it was not necessary and they just wanted to test their new war toy then that would be a war crime. However, such proof does not exist and given the context of a bloody war I think they should be given the benefit of the doubt.

Edited April 2, 2015 by TimG

[Argus]

Your "relative peace" is an absolute myth. While you have been enjoying your creature comforts, you care not at all, by your

own shocking admission, of the millions slaughtered, the more countless hundreds of millions who have had their lives and

homes destroyed, relatives and loved ones taken from them, children poisoned, ... by the USA.

The anarchy of the third world is not our fault, it is the fault of the brutal people, organizations and governments which exist there.

And as has already been stated, you have yet to give us an example. What the US is doing in Afghanistan is hardly a war crime. It's self-defense combined with an attempt to keep that place from turning into a toilet again the instant they leave.

[bush_cheney2004]

We all know that Canada won the war in the Pacific....didn't need any atomic bombs to do it.

Just sell the uranium to the Americans after First Nations slaves died mining it, sit back, and relax.

Watch it all on American TV...just as it does today.

[Argus]

Are you sure the fact that Japan and Germany's resources were depleted was not the primary reason for the end of WWII?

The Allies certainly could have won the war with less collateral damage.

You are a historian? A general?

[bush_cheney2004]

...The American officials who authorized the second bomb may have made an error but they believed it was necessary to end the war.

No, it was not an error. It was a purposeful decision made with full knowledge of the consequences for "innocent civilians".

It was about far more than just ending the war.

[Je suis Omar]

[quote name="carepov" post="1043251" timestamp

Well, nobody except for the Russians, Chinese, Spanish, Germans, Italians, Japanese, Arabs, Turks....

Admittedly, there are other contenders. But the Oscar has to go to the Americans who have actually been able to fool way more people than any others you mentioned, Carepov.

[TimG]

No, it was not an error. It was a purposeful decision made with full knowledge of the consequences for "innocent civilians".

It can be viewed as an "error" only in hindsight - a perspective which I reject. The decision was reasonable at the time.

[On Guard for Thee]

No, it was not an error. It was a purposeful decision made with full knowledge of the consequences for "innocent civilians".

It was about far more than just ending the war.

Thats right. It was about proving that Meriku could produce more than one atomic bomb.

[Je suis Omar]

You are a historian? A general?

My guess, and mind you, it's only a guess, Argus, but I'd say no. However, historians do exist, generals too. The ones who chose reality agree with Carepov's assessment.

[Je suis Omar]

It can be viewed as an "error" only in hindsight - a perspective which I reject. The decision was reasonable at the time.

A-Bombing of Japan Was Unnecessary

Published: October 29, 1988

To the Editor:

R.H. Hodges's letter (''An Inner Circle of 100 or So Carried Out A-Bombing of Japan,'' Oct. 1), which defends the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, ignores longstanding evidence and documents unearthed by historians in recent years.

Even the official strategic bombing survey concluded shortly after World War II that the atomic bombs were unnecessary: ''Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.''

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/10/29/opinion/l-a-bombing-of-japan-was-unnecessary-393488.html

Edited April 2, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[bush_cheney2004]

Same circumstances...same outcome, and far less expensive than thousands of sorties to drop incendiaries on Japanese cities, which actually killed far more people. Bombs away !!!!

[TimG]

I wonder what the people obsessed with lumping every harmful act during war into the 'war crime' bucket hope to accomplish?

It does not encourage a rational discussion of the past so we can learn from it. If anything, it blurs the distinction between real war crimes and decisions that seem bad in hindsight. This makes it much harder to learn from the past.

[bush_cheney2004]

I wonder what the people obsessed with lumping every harmful act during war into the 'war crime' bucket hope to accomplish?

They are also quite sloppy about it, using the term "war crimes" far outside of specific international treaty elements, context and jurisdiction.

Even Kim Kardashian plays the "war crimes" card....it's very trendy....for conflicts going back hundreds of years !

Edited April 2, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[bush_cheney2004]

Do go on, George.

Why, Jesus...we have already answered your OP question. America has already given you all the reasons, and the means to find them.

[Je suis Omar]

I wonder what the people obsessed with lumping every harmful act during war into the 'war crime' bucket hope to accomplish?

It does not encourage a rational discussion of the past so we can learn from it. If anything, it blurs the distinction between real war crimes and decisions that seem bad in hindsight. This makes it much harder to learn from the past.

The most valuable lesson we can learn from the WWII era would be to not let war criminals distort history. This grand distortion of history goes much further back than the 1940s of course, but the theme is the same.

We don't have to go back to WWII, Tim. There are plenty of examples from today. We have the war crimes committed by the USA invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.

[bush_cheney2004]

....We don't have to go back to WWII, Tim. There are plenty of examples from today. We have the war crimes committed by the USA invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.

...or Canada in Somalia, Haiti, and Afghanistan. See...everybody is still doing it !