USA war crimes - atomic bombs

[hot enough]

5 minutes ago, Jason Laframboise said:

Interesting response.

 

What is interesting about it?

[bcsapper]

12 minutes ago, dre said:

I think that's revisionist history. Here is what the people actually involved have said...

Admiral William Leahy (Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman)

 

Herbert Hoover

General Douglas Macarthur

Genearal Carter Clarke

General Carl Spatz (commandar of airforce operations in the pacific)

 

ELLIS ZACHARIAS - Directory of Naval Intelligence

General Paul Nitze (stragic bombing survey)

 

The general consensus from military people at the time was "Are you insane? We already won!".

People who try to come up with a post-hoc justification are not only uninformed but disgusting people. They should kill themselves. This was one of the most evil acts ever commited in the history of the human race. A deliberate and calculated mass-murder of innocent people that was entirely punitive in nature. And the political purpose of it was not to win the war but to force the Japanese to give up their emperor and Potsdam ended up letting them keep it anyways.

Truly dispicable. An act of depravity so brazen that the perpetrators of 911 would be considered peace loving hippies in contrast.

Why didn't the Japanese surrender after the first bomb was dropped?  I understand there were Russians involved, and I understand there were differences of opinion, but the notion that the US should have forgotten what they had been through in the past four years and risked the lives of any more of their troops is what is not only uninformed but disgusting. And truly post-hoc. The idea that, having gone through the horror of the Pacific island hopping on the way to Japan that they would even consider invading the mainland when they had the weapon they had been developing just for this situation, is not one I can even understand, unless a certain bias is involved.  The rape of Nanking was one of the most evil acts ever committed in the history of the human race.  The bombings to end WWII, given the last six years had cost something like fifty million lives, were justified.  

[blackbird]

Americans made a calculation that it would have cost them tens of thousands of American lives to take Japan by landing armed forces on the Japanese island.  Japan's military was not ready to surrender.  They were preparing every citizen to fight to the death in Japan itself.  Remember the objective is to win the war with the minimum casualties on your side.  They calculated that the atom bomb would save a lot of American lives.

Edited March 24, 2017 by blackbird

[blackbird]

The claim that the war was over is nonsense.  If it was over, why did the Japanese not surrender until after the two atomic bombs had been dropped?

War is a very tragic business but it's not something where you give the enemy any advantage or sacrifice the lives of your own country to reduce the loss of the enemy.  They were the enemy at that time and started the war by attacking Pearl Harbour where they killed three thousand people.  Tens of thousands of American men died on the island of Okinawa to take it.   Where is your sympathy for those people?  Wake up.  You do what you have to do to save your own people first.

[Jason Laframboise]

12 minutes ago, hot enough said:

What is interesting about it?

Interesting with in the context of the isolationist attitude present in the United States prior to Pearl Harbor.

[bush_cheney2004]

3 hours ago, hot enough said:

Yes, Canada has been aiding and abetting the USA's war crimes. That doesn't make US war crimes any less egregious or evil or incredible lies, bragging as they constantly do that they are warm, benevolent, while they are cold and malevolent. 

 

But we are very proud of this particular "war crime", and gosh darn it, Canada deserves some credit.    Without Canada's participation in these "war crimes", they never would have happened.   That's the USA though, trying to hog all the credit for "war crimes"....sigh.

 

[bush_cheney2004]

2 hours ago, hot enough said:

Or you could address the fact that the US has been guilty of vicious war crimes during WWII, and for the following years right up to today. 

 

So ?    Who hasn't been guilty of "war crimes" ?    Why single out the USA....Americanophobia ?

[dre]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

Why didn't the Japanese surrender after the first bomb was dropped?  I understand there were Russians involved, and I understand there were differences of opinion, but the notion that the US should have forgotten what they had been through in the past four years and risked the lives of any more of their troops is what is not only uninformed but disgusting. And truly post-hoc. The idea that, having gone through the horror of the Pacific island hopping on the way to Japan that they would even consider invading the mainland when they had the weapon they had been developing just for this situation, is not one I can even understand, unless a certain bias is involved.  The rape of Nanking was one of the most evil acts ever committed in the history of the human race.  The bombings to end WWII, given the last six years had cost something like fifty million lives, were justified.  

There was no reason to risk any lives of the troops. Didnt you read what any of the military leaders said at the time? The Islands were completely blockaded and even before the bombs were dropped the Japanese were signalling that they were willing to surrender if they were allowed to keep the office of emperor (which the US rejected but Potsdam eventually gave them anyways). The Japanese were done. They could not export or import anything what-so-ever. There was no need to invade or risk the lives of more allied troops.

The purpose of the atomic bombings was political.. not military. It was about punishing the Japenese people and sending a message to the Russians. It was immaterial in terms of winning the war which was already over. It was as necessary in terms of defeating Japan as firebombing Dresden was in defeating Germany.

[bcsapper]

2 minutes ago, dre said:

There was no reason to risk any lives of the troops. Didnt you read what any of the military leaders said at the time? The Islands were completely blockaded and even before the bombs were dropped the Japanese were signalling that they were willing to surrender if they were allowed to keep the office of emperor (which the US rejected but Potsdam eventually gave them anyways). The Japanese were done. They could not export or import anything what-so-ever. There was no need to invade or risk the lives of more allied troops.

The purpose of the atomic bombings was political.. not military. It was about punishing the Japenese people and sending a message to the Russians. It was immaterial in terms of winning the war which was already over. It was as necessary in terms of defeating Japan as firebombing Dresden was in defeating Germany.

Why did they not surrender without keeping the Emperor?  It seems to me, after all that happened, the US had every right to set the conditions of the surrender. Why didn't they surrender after the first one, Emperor be damned?  

I heard the Russians had asked for some help, which resulted in the Dresden bombing.   Just a timing error is all.

[dre]

2 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Why did they not surrender without keeping the Emperor?

Because the emperor was in charge, genius.

[bcsapper]

5 minutes ago, dre said:

Because the emperor was in charge, genius.

So, genius, they would've had to invade. Better just to drop the bomb.  Hell of an Emperor. Better drop another one.  

[dre]

Just now, bcsapper said:

So, genius, they would've had to invade. Better just to drop the bomb.  Hell of an Emperor. Better drop another one.  

Why invade? The islands were completely blockaded. The war was effectively over. Again didnt you read what the military and military intelligence at the time had to say? 

[bcsapper]

Just now, dre said:

Why invade? The islands were completely blockaded. The war was effectively over. Again didnt you read what the military and military intelligence at the time had to say? 

Obviously the war was not over. It could have been, had Japan surrendered. After Okinawa maybe. After Hiroshima.  

[Ash74]

The Toyko fire bombings were just as devastating to Japan as the nukes

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/03/10/national/deadly-wwii-u-s-firebombing-raids-on-japanese-cities-largely-ignored/

Why ignore that?

Shall we talk about the Bataan death March or the rape of Peking?

Or is this thread only for U.S bashing?

[DogOnPorch]

50 minutes ago, dre said:

Why invade? The islands were completely blockaded. The war was effectively over. Again didnt you read what the military and military intelligence at the time had to say? 

 

The military intelligence of the time dropped the Bombs to avoid Operation Downfall.

Worked like a charm.

[Bonam]

52 minutes ago, dre said:

It was as necessary in terms of defeating Japan as firebombing Dresden was in defeating Germany.

What is "necessary"? Do you know that regardless of possible American or Japanese casualties in any possible invasion, that with each day that passed, thousands of innocent people in China and elsewhere were murdered, raped, tortured, and subjected to twisted medical experiments by the Japanese Army? Against an adversary like Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan in WWII, absolutely any means are completely justified to achieve the soonest, most complete, and most assured victory possible. Neither Germany nor Japan would have hesitated an instant before using nukes on the US, Russia, or any of the allied powers. 

People think about the morality of war in terms of the wars of today... which are essentially optional wars, police actions, addressing minor (almost non-existent) threats. In such wars, yeah, avoid civilian casualties when possible. Or better yet, don't get into optional wars to begin with. But WWII was not such a war, it was an existential struggle, it was total war as the world has never seen since and with any luck will never see again. Past a certain point, there can be no hesitation to use any means available. If there had been nukes before Germany had surrendered, it would have been entirely justified to have used them there, too.

To not use every means possible to bring about the swiftest and most complete end to the war would have been a betrayal of every single person that died at the hands of Germany and Japan, and every single person who sacrificed their lives in fighting them. 

[DogOnPorch]

1 hour ago, dre said:

Why invade? The islands were completely blockaded. The war was effectively over. Again didnt you read what the military and military intelligence at the time had to say? 

 

Japanese aircraft attacked Allied forces AFTER the surrender.

Japan still had a million man army in China....fighting merrily away.

Japan had nearly a million men still scattered across the Pacific Theater.

Some isolated Japanese soldiers kept fighting in some regions well into the 1970s.

The only part of the Japanese war machine that was truly defeated was the IJN...the Navy.

Edited March 24, 2017 by DogOnPorch

[DogOnPorch]

16 minutes ago, Bonam said:

What is "necessary"? Do you know that regardless of possible American or Japanese casualties in any possible invasion, that with each day that passed, thousands of innocent people in China and elsewhere were murdered, raped, tortured, and subjected to twisted medical experiments by the Japanese Army? Against an adversary like Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan in WWII, absolutely any means are completely justified to achieve the soonest, most complete, and most assured victory possible. Neither Germany nor Japan would have hesitated an instant before using nukes on the US, Russia, or any of the allied powers. 

People think about the morality of war in terms of the wars of today... which are essentially optional wars, police actions, addressing minor (almost non-existent) threats. In such wars, yeah, avoid civilian casualties when possible. Or better yet, don't get into optional wars to begin with. But WWII was not such a war, it was an existential struggle, it was total war as the world has never seen since and with any luck will never see again. Past a certain point, there can be no hesitation to use any means available. If there had been nukes before Germany had surrendered, it would have been entirely justified to have used them there, too.

To not use every means possible to bring about the swiftest and most complete end to the war would have been a betrayal of every single person that died at the hands of Germany and Japan, and every single person who sacrificed their lives in fighting them. 

 

The Japanese NEVER surrendered on the battlefield. A problem...

Edited March 24, 2017 by DogOnPorch

[DogOnPorch]

49 minutes ago, Ash74 said:

The Toyko fire bombings were just as devastating to Japan as the nukes

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/03/10/national/deadly-wwii-u-s-firebombing-raids-on-japanese-cities-largely-ignored/

Why ignore that?

Shall we talk about the Bataan death March or the rape of Peking?

Or is this thread only for U.S bashing?

 

Both Lemay and Yamato noted that Japan's cities were made of paper.

[DogOnPorch]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

So, genius, they would've had to invade. Better just to drop the bomb.  Hell of an Emperor. Better drop another one.  

 

I think we are seeing the application of victim status to the Imperial Japanese. A modern construct...

[bush_cheney2004]

29 minutes ago, Bonam said:

....People think about the morality of war in terms of the wars of today... which are essentially optional wars, police actions, addressing minor (almost non-existent) threats. In such wars, yeah, avoid civilian casualties when possible. Or better yet, don't get into optional wars to begin with. But WWII was not such a war, it was an existential struggle, it was total war as the world has never seen since and with any luck will never see again. Past a certain point, there can be no hesitation to use any means available. If there had been nukes before Germany had surrendered, it would have been entirely justified to have used them there, too.

 

Agreed...."morality of war" in this context is an oxymoron.

[bush_cheney2004]

8 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

I think we are seeing the application of victim status to the Imperial Japanese. A modern construct...

 

It is remarkable how the modern revisionist mind works.   Imperial Japan is now the WW2 victim....but I'm sure that China would disagree.

[DogOnPorch]

6 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

It is remarkable how the modern revisionist mind works.   Imperial Japan is now the WW2 victim....but I'm sure that China would disagree.

 

Well...think about it: the Japanese were peacefully torpedoing battleships when your country brutally attacked them. It's pretty cut n' dry...

[Topaz]

In my view, since the end of WW2, and the creation of CIA, the USA has become more corrupt and until a President house cleans the corruption in government it will only get worse. One problem is that no American wants to believe their government is corrupt and I can say the same about Canada , the difference though is the US is more corrupt than Canada and we do act against corruption when its brought forward to the public. Hopeful, Trump can make America great again.

[blackbird]

7 hours ago, Bonam said:

What is "necessary"? Do you know that regardless of possible American or Japanese casualties in any possible invasion, that with each day that passed, thousands of innocent people in China and elsewhere were murdered, raped, tortured, and subjected to twisted medical experiments by the Japanese Army? Against an adversary like Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan in WWII, absolutely any means are completely justified to achieve the soonest, most complete, and most assured victory possible. Neither Germany nor Japan would have hesitated an instant before using nukes on the US, Russia, or any of the allied powers. 

People think about the morality of war in terms of the wars of today... which are essentially optional wars, police actions, addressing minor (almost non-existent) threats. In such wars, yeah, avoid civilian casualties when possible. Or better yet, don't get into optional wars to begin with. But WWII was not such a war, it was an existential struggle, it was total war as the world has never seen since and with any luck will never see again. Past a certain point, there can be no hesitation to use any means available. If there had been nukes before Germany had surrendered, it would have been entirely justified to have used them there, too.

To not use every means possible to bring about the swiftest and most complete end to the war would have been a betrayal of every single person that died at the hands of Germany and Japan, and every single person who sacrificed their lives in fighting them. 

You're absolutely correct.  A sensible voice.  Lots of younger people growing up today have no idea about war.  They have never studied it and live in a kind of dream world where they think about things in terms of peace, love, and selfies.  As you pointed out, there were all kinds of horrors continuing every day.  Not to mention the prisoners of war that were treated very cruelly in many cases.  Just because some military leaders thought the war "was over" doesn't mean Japan had surrendered.  They had not in fact.  They were preparing their citizens on the mainland to fight to the death of every person.  The Japanese military had no intention of surrendering if they could keep the fight going.  That is ingrained in their thinking from history.  That's why after the war, all Samurai swords had to be surrendered to the occupying American forces in Japan.  They were considered a symbol of Japan's historic militarism and never surrender attitude.  People had to take their personal collector's Samurai swords to depots set up all over the country and turn them in.  Many some how made it back to the states and were given to some military veterans as a gift for serving. 

Edited March 24, 2017 by blackbird