USA war crimes - atomic bombs

[Wilber]

dre. While you are quoting stuff, you should read the views of some who were on the sharp end. Doing the fighting an dying so to speak on August 14th 1945.

Chapter 18 of George MacDonald Fraser's, Quartered Safe Out Here would be a good place to start. He was a young rifleman and section leader in Burma at the end of the war and afterward had conversations with people who weren't there that addressed just about everything you have raised. He agrees with you in that the Japanese were beaten at the time but the ones they were up against had shown no inclination to surrender and there was no question that more allied soldiers would die if they had to chase the Japanese into Malaya. He has also never found anyone who would have given up their own lives instead of those Japanese civilians, but plenty who had no problem with sacrificing more of the citizen soldiers who joined up for the duration, to fight a war that had to be fought. This was a war that had already taken more than 50 million lives fought by people who had seen their cities flattened by the Germans, the pictures of the concentration camps and the atrocities committed by the Japanese on civilians in Korea, China and other countries they had invaded. So adding a couple of hundred thousand Japanese civilians to that total wasn't a big issue for them.

But at one point,  he puts it on a purely personal level.

Quote

 

I led Nine Section for a time; leading or not, I was part of it. They were my mates, and to them I was bound by ties of duty, loyalty and honour. Now, take Nine Section as representing those Allied soldiers who would certainly have died if the bombs  had not been dropped (and remember that Nine Section might well have been not representative, but the men themselves). Could I say, yes, Grandarse or Nick or Forster were expendable and should have died rather than the victims of Hiroshima? No, never. And that goes for every Indian, American, Australian, African, Chinese and other soldier whose life was on the line in August 1945. So drop the bomb.

The odds are that I'd have survived: 4 to 1 actuarially speaking based on the sections Burma fatalities. But I might have been that one, in which case my three children and eight grandchildren would never have been born. And that, I'm afraid, is where all discussion of pros and cons evaporates and becomes meaningless, because for those eleven lives I would pull the plug on the whole Japanese nation and never blink. And so, I dare suggest, would you. And if you wouldn't, you may be nearer to the divine than I am but you sure as hell aren't fit to be parents or grandparents.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 25, 2017 by Wilber

[hot enough]

2 hours ago, Wilber said:

And that, I'm afraid, is where all discussion of pros and cons evaporates and becomes meaningless, because for those eleven lives I would pull the plug on the whole Japanese nation and never blink. And so, I dare suggest, would you. And if you wouldn't, you may be nearer to the divine than I am but you sure as hell aren't fit to be parents or grandparents.

Completely unfit to beget children.

[cannuck]

I am not an historian, but I did spend some time in the boardroom with one of the people who were instrumental in breaking the Japanese Imperial Navy code, and who remained a top advisor on all things Japanese throughout and even long after the war.   I wasn't there. I wasn't borne yet, but unlike the "scholars" that some chose to cherry pick to support their agenda,  he was.

It is true that SOME people in Japan wanted to negotiate a surrender before Hiroshima, but they were NOT the ruling group, nor empowered by them to do so.  And, as I recall what was told to me, it would have been a conditional surrender when the Allies had all agreed that only unconditional surrender was acceptable.  That is how I understand it from an impeccable source.

Now let's stir in some obvious facts.  What Japanese did as occupying forces was so incredibly disgusting that they really didn't have much moral high ground or any real friends on the other side.   They certainly defined the very nature of war crimes in treatment of captives and occupied nations.  The ruling group had been aware of the conditions required to surrender for months.  They did not surrender.  Nagasaki got nuked - they still did not surrender.  IT WAS THEIR CHOICE TO REMAIN AT WAR.

The Allies had paid dearly to reign in, and yes, save the rest of the world from the Japanese (and the Germans), and the US had one more weapon to use in a war that was still not over.  They used it.   Don't you EVER doubt that if the Japanese had it available, they would not have hesitated to use it either.  The number of civilian casualties from Hiroshima and Nagasaki were miniscule compared with those inflicted on occupied territories by Japan.  It was war, and a dirty one at that, not some academic exercise.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, hot enough said:

Completely unfit to beget children.

Snipe. I won't point out any more. I just won't take you seriously if you accuse me of doing it.  

[Ash74]

The irony is if the axis had one and without the American war machine it would have been likely or had Germany or Japan created the bombs first we would not have the right to have this discussion.

Hate the states all you like, that is your right. A right that they have helped make sure we all have

. 

[cannuck]

8 hours ago, Ash74 said:

The irony is if the axis had one and without the American war machine it would have been likely or had Germany or Japan created the bombs first we would not have the right to have this discussion.

Hate the states all you like, that is your right. A right that they have helped make sure we all have

. 

IMHO, one of the key setbacks to German nuclear research was the loss of the world's entire supply of deuterium.  This was the work of several clandestine operations by Norwegian expats, resistance and Brits that destroyed the production equipment, and later the facilities at Norsk Hydro.  The remaining equipment at the end could not produce enough quantity or quality to sustain supplies adequate for a reactor to produce weapons grade Pu.   Norsk Hydro first gave their existing inventory of high purity D2O to France before the Nazis moved in, and that material was removed from the Curie institute by Brits and move through Dunkirk as the Germans invaded Paris and swept West.  That was in turn moved to the most secure location the Allies could imagine - a new plant built in Warfield BC to support atomic bomb development over here.

The Americans DID bomb the Hydro Norsk facilities once they entered the war, but by then the bulk of the work to remove material and destroy the equipment was already done, and it was a Brit/Norwegian commando raid that finally destroyed the facilities with hand placed demolition charges.  The final blow to the Nazi atomic weapons programme was sinking of the ferry with the last of the poor quality D2O stocks - again nothing to do with the Yanks at all.

Project Manhattan was far, far more the result of American initiative than any other country, but that was in making the Allied bomb, not stopping the Axis one.

[hot enough]

12 hours ago, Ash74 said:

The irony is if the axis had one and without the American war machine it would have been likely or had Germany or Japan created the bombs first we would not have the right to have this discussion.

The Americans were happy to do business with both the Japanese and Nazi Germany before the war and right into the war, in the case of Germany. The US never cared what these countries were doing as long as they weren't cut out of the pie. The US and Britain teamed up on Japan with other European powers, not because Japan was doing bad things, but because Japan looked to be the new power in SE Asia. 

[DogOnPorch]

For one: Japan was willfully breaking the Washington Treaty which it signed.

That's bad.

[DogOnPorch]

For two: Japan invaded China. Then Indochina.

That was really bad.

[DogOnPorch]

For three: Once the war was on, Japan insisted on abusing Allied prisoners and civilians in some of the most inhuman ways possible. Setting the tone for the rest of the conflict re: no quarter given...from either side.

 

That was really really bad.

Edited March 25, 2017 by DogOnPorch

[Ash74]

12 hours ago, hot enough said:

The US and Britain teamed up on Japan with other European powers, not because Japan was doing bad things, but because Japan looked to be the new power in SE Asia. 

Huh......I always thought the US didn't start military actions or teamed up with any other nations till that bombing thing in Hawaii. Yes I am sure you think the states over reacted by placing sanctions on Japan when it got a savage with the invasion of China. Lord knows the Germans didn't want a fight at the time.lol

The U.S is guilty of many things but scolding them for their actions during World War 2 is not really helping your cause. Try as you might to defend the Nazis and Japanese empire these were not very nice people. Both Stalin and Churchill were desperate for the states to get involved. The bombing of Pearl Harbour guaranteed the defeat of the Axis powers.

 

[Altai]

I dont find it illogical to atomic bomb somewhere during a war as long as there is no any other options to get rid of your enemy and save innocent people. But its a crime if you are just doing it to solve something with the quickest way despite you are able to do other things and save more innocent lifes.

[DogOnPorch]

1 hour ago, Altai said:

I dont find it illogical to atomic bomb somewhere during a war as long as there is no any other options to get rid of your enemy and save innocent people. But its a crime if you are just doing it to solve something with the quickest way despite you are able to do other things and save more innocent lifes.

 

This was next...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall

"Planning for the invasion of the main Japanese home islands had reached its final stages, and if the landings actually took place, we might supply about fifteen atomic bombs to support the troops."

Edited March 26, 2017 by DogOnPorch

[hot enough]

12 hours ago, Ash74 said:

Huh......I always thought the US didn't start military actions or teamed up with any other nations till that bombing thing in Hawaii.

Then you are obviously severely hampered by your lack of history. 

[overthere]

On 3/23/2017 at 6:39 PM, bcsapper said:

The idea that the war would have been over quickly without massive loss of American life, and loss of Japanese life greater than that which was lost in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined, is as ridiculous as the notion that the US government was responsible for 9/11.

 

This is what immediately preceded the atomic bombs being dropped, the Battle for Okinawa.  The purpose for the battle from the America viewpoint was using the islands as a base to carpet bomb Japan for many months, to enable a land invasion.  This is what happened: 

Quote

. The battle was one of the bloodiest in the Pacific, with an estimated total of over 82,000 direct casualties on both sides: 14,009 Allied deaths and 77,417 Japanese soldiers.^[23] Allied grave registration forces counted 110,071 dead bodies of Japanese soldiers, but this included drafted Okinawans wearing Japanese uniforms.^[15] 149,425 Okinawans were killed, committed suicide or went missing, a significant proportion of the estimated pre-war 300,000 local population.^[23]

It was the final realization by the US of what they faced with Japan- an implacable enemy that would not hesitate to throw every man woman and child into certain death. They knew that many Okinawans killed themselves before being captured or forced to surrender.  It was another sobering moment for the American leaders. Any onvasion of the Japanse homeland would take the numbers from Okinawa and increase them dramatically..  By then, they knew they had another option.  They took it, and IMO redcued the body count of dead humans by in the process.  Proof of the Japanese nature was that they refused to surrender after Hiroshima occurred.   They knew with absolute certainty that they were going to lose the war, they were warned of the consequences, and still they would not surrender.  Hiroshima is partly on the American soul, but Nagasaki has to be charged to the Japanese leaders.

Edited March 26, 2017 by overthere

[Wilber]

2 hours ago, Altai said:

I dont find it illogical to atomic bomb somewhere during a war as long as there is no any other options to get rid of your enemy and save innocent people. But its a crime if you are just doing it to solve something with the quickest way despite you are able to do other things and save more innocent lifes.

The quickest way almost always saves lives in the long run. Who do you consider more innocent, the Japanese or the people they attacked?

[Ash74]

30 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Then you are obviously severely hampered by your lack of history. 

Well your history seems more than a little biased. 

You have implied the world would have been a better place under a Nazi or Japanese empire regime. 

[hot enough]

5 minutes ago, Ash74 said:

Well your history seems more than a little biased. 

You have implied the world would have been a better place under a Nazi or Japanese empire regime. 

You wouldn't know that since you have no knowledge of history yourself. Or logic. 

[Ash74]

5 minutes ago, hot enough said:

You wouldn't know that since you have no knowledge of history yourself. Or logic. 

I have enough logic to know that dropping the bomb saved allied lives

[overthere]

3 minutes ago, Ash74 said:

I have enough logic to know that dropping the bomb saved allied lives

It also saved millions of Japanese lives, civilian lives.  Though it could be argued that there were no Japanese civilians.

[DogOnPorch]

1 hour ago, overthere said:

It also saved millions of Japanese lives, civilian lives.  Though it could be argued that there were no Japanese civilians.

 

15 Fatman type devices for tactical use....

[ironstone]

Admiral Yamamoto was correct when he made his comment about awakening a sleeping giant and filling him with a terrible resolve or words to that effect.It was a different time and mindset in those days.President Truman was not bound by political correctness either.The enormous loss of civilian lives was horrible of course,but there can be little doubt that a huge number of Allied soldiers were saved by the use of atomic bombs.

[Army Guy]

On 3/23/2017 at 9:46 PM, hot enough said:

The idea that you know better than the scholars who have studied this is what is ridiculous. You constantly comment without any knowledge. 

What scholars up until this point in this topic you've presented 3 opinions of 3 generals on what they thought of the use of the atomic wpn on Japan...are these the scholars you talk about.....perhaps you'd like to let us in on your sources or the supposed scholars.....

You have yet to prove your original statement....USA war crimes - atomic bombs....what you have produced is 3 opinions from 3 US generals.....nothing more.....So they all agree that the atomic bomb was not needed.....big deal.....the last time i checked the US was engaged in a total war with Japan....meaning pretty much everything went, including fire bombing cities.....full of civilians....

My question is what is the difference of fire bombing japanese cities with large formations of bombers.....killing thousands, even 100K in one raid.....than lets say dropping one atomic wpn.....was there at the time a war convention about atomic wpns, was there a war convention about dropping fire bombs on paper japanese cities....What law is it they broke , i mean you make the claim but don't support it.....maybe on pages 3 or 4 nope.....

From all the posts i have read from you, trust me i don't read alot of yours....i get the feeling that your 19 years old , in collage, perhaps university, got the world by the bag, you smoke a little weed do a little drinking, probably live in the dorm so you don't have to obey moms rules.....and like most university students you get a hard on with the way the US and Canada runs, or conducts itself.....to the point you spend most of your waking hours on forums arguing the same thing....every time you learn a new thing in school you have to preach it to the world....

Here is the thing, the west has never said it was perfect, but we really do like apple pie, and jager shooters and yet all those bad things you accuse them of doing i mean on and on and on ,    .....you are living under the consequences of those actions, you take advantage of everything they have won in our names daily.....freedom of speech, freedom of thought , freedom of expression etc etc and yet you seem to enjoy the fruit of those labors........never once have you said i am one of you....i can not stand the things you have done in my name....i am moving...i can not live with your standards anymore.....hopefully to one of those peaceful nations you like so much in the middle east ....It is not that i don't want you to use and enjoy all your freedoms because i do  .....but even a baby's cry can be annoying as hell after awhile and right now your annoying as f***.. 

i hope you come back when you grow up....

Signed your number 2 fan......

 

Edited April 8, 2017 by Michael Hardner
profanity

[Wilber]

17 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Here is the thing, the west has never said it was perfect, but we really do like apple pie, and jager shooters and yet all those bad things you accuse them of doing i mean on and on and on ,    .....you are living under the consequences of those actions, you take advantage of everything they have won in our names daily.....freedom of speech, freedom of thought , freedom of expression etc etc and yet you seem to enjoy the fruit of those labors........never once have you said i am one of you....i can not stand the things you have done in my name....i am moving...i can not live with your standards anymore.....hopefully to one of those peaceful nations you like so much in the middle east ....It is not that i don't want you to use and enjoy all your freedoms because i do  .....but even a baby's cry can be annoying as hell after awhile and right now your annoying as f***.... 

I don't make assumptions about who or what someone might be but I agree with this part. Or is it no longer allowed to quote someones post and agree with it on this forum? Are we now only allowed to do it anonymously by this stupid reputations score?

Edited April 8, 2017 by Michael Hardner
profanity

[Army Guy]

7 hours ago, Wilber said:

I don't make assumptions about who or what someone might be but I agree with this part. Or is it no longer allowed to quote someones post and agree with it on this forum? Are we now only allowed to do it anonymously by this stupid reputations score?

Thank you for the back up.....and i 100% agree with your post....