The GREATEST war crime

[HUGGY]

One does wonder about the SECOND bomb, of course.

As to the first bomb dropped?

I have no problems with that.

Had I known only what Truman knew at that time, I'd have ordered the mission, too.

I don't really wonder any more about the second bomb than I do the first. I'd be interested in why you do.

And also, I've read that some historians believe that not only would the alternative have cost thousands of American soldier's lives, but could have actually resulted in even more Japanese deaths than the bomb (assuming invasion was the alternative). An interesting topic for discussion for sure, but purely subjective and speculative. As for the OP's assertion that it was a war crime, total bullshit.

The projected loss in US lives alone to invade mainland Japan was estimated at a million.

Even if Eisenhower made the statement dickweed attributed to him, it's just proof of his ignorance in regard to the Japanese people. They would have died to the man protecting Hirohito.

The second bomb was dropped because Japan did not respond to a demand for surrender after the first one. They responded after the second one or there very well could have been more.

I may be wrong but I thought at that time there were only two bombs available. Am I mistaken? I have no source other than a memory of an old public tv educational prsentation.

 

[Quatermass]

Note that Editec is in contradiction with the article of his own citation: Id. exerpted from source The actual author of the work he has been ‘selectively quoting’ adds (immediately after the end of Editects cut and paste masterpiece):

1945 Truman used atomic bombs on two Japanese cities, Hiroshima on
August 6 and Nagasaki on August 9. Now generally considered a war
crime, at the minimum it was the murder of hundreds of thousands of
innocent civilians. There was no lack of military targets or a
demonstration in a remote place was possible, so the selection of
targets is indefensible, leaving aside the issue of whether the bombing
was justified in the first place.
(original author: "Humanist" <shan.bazz@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: 7 Aug 2005 13:01:33 -0700)

The above quote from &#8220;Humanist&#8221; needless to say fits in with the position Yukon, Kevin Kennedy and myself, Quatermass take in this debate. But flies in the face of the atrocity apologists such as Editec and his sorry band of flippant, amoral observers.

Further, that Editec has need to pontificate so profusely over the inclinations of the then Emperor of Japan, and the authority of the military, in what is essentially a moral dialectic only betrays the fact that no matter how deeply one buries their head in history, without a foundation of ethical rectitude the results are always pedantic and worthless. Editec here is a mere bean counter of war-crimes, without the moral compass to determine a legal, justified act from that which is criminal and wanton. Instead, with the blinkered countenance of the narrow minded autistic, he endlessly shuffles through the ifs and buts of modern history, missing entirely the tenor of the original question posted by Yukon, as to whether the Atomic Bombing of cities that are teaming with civilians is the greatest of crimes.

As I noted in my first post, the indifference so many Americans hold towards other nations is an intrinsic reflection of their own corrupted and belligerent ruling elite.

Marx already spoke of those who so readily internalise the ideological canker from their ruling class, numerously, and here in 1845, &#8216;The Illusion of the Epoch&#8217;

&#8220;The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it.&#8221;
The German Ideology: Chapter 1 - On Feuerbach

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-middle-east-general/73882-is-terrorism-the-central-plank-of-us-led-invasions-of-afghanistan-and-iraq.html

 

[Yukon]

Editec is just misinformed. He can't help it for he is a product of a failed education system. A system that refuses to acknowledge historical fact. Poor Editec. How sad.............

 

[Gunny]

I have in previous posts [ Is Terrorism the central plank of US led Invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq ? ] remarked on the Terroristic nature of the American Nation, much to the dismay of reactionary chauvinistic patriots, various indoctrinated apologists and ever present representatives of those great swathes of right wing opinion which form the bulwark of unquestioning support for whatever belligerent action its political leadership decides to embark upon.

From All of the responses expressed here, with the exception of Kevin Kennedy and Gurdari, to this question raised by Yukon, it becomes both clearly and sadly evident, just how deeply the philosophy of America's corrupt Imperialist ruling class has affected and permeated into the many layers of its proletarian masses.

Terrorism is quite acceptable it seems, as long as the American flag is raised high enough and waved vigorously enough. As long as the manic tones of the star spangled banner are played loud enough and frequently enough, to blot out reason and human empathy and replace them with that false sense of national unity which comes with global conflict, and furnish some half witted excuse, that can be voiced triumphantly by latter generations on their internet message boards.

Unless one learns from History, its mistakes are bound to be repeated. The attitudes of the most vocal mob on this message board are salient examples of a people that only see the arse of History, and are capable of learning nothing except that sugar-laced propaganda they are spoon-feed from on high.

The dropping of two Atomic Bombs by Cowardly U.S. Air-force bombers on old men and helpless women and children in civilian areas of Japan are amongst the most despicable and rotten endeavours ever perpetrated by homo sapiens since the beginning of civilisation.

All who defend such acts are inhuman to the core. The fact so many Americans do defend such acts of Terrorism speaks volumes, on that decaying culture.

Such a carnage could never be justified by decent Human beings.

And here stands 'Yukon'. Who, a vile racialist though he may be, is ethically head and shoulders above so many others here on this question. 'Others' that without a second thought defend the right of their nation to boil pregnant women and little boys and crippled people and innocent babies in the molten radiance of atomic explosions.

That he should come to this highly moral conclusion in the face of such hostile patriotic reaction is testament indeed to how low the American Nation has sunk, in all that it is, all that it represents and in all that it undertakes.

What is clearly and sadly evident is that you are nothing but a dishonest revisionist, not worth the time and effort to debate. Joseph Goebbels would envy you.

 

[Gunny]

I don't really wonder any more about the second bomb than I do the first. I'd be interested in why you do.

And also, I've read that some historians believe that not only would the alternative have cost thousands of American soldier's lives, but could have actually resulted in even more Japanese deaths than the bomb (assuming invasion was the alternative). An interesting topic for discussion for sure, but purely subjective and speculative. As for the OP's assertion that it was a war crime, total bullshit.

The projected loss in US lives alone to invade mainland Japan was estimated at a million.

Even if Eisenhower made the statement dickweed attributed to him, it's just proof of his ignorance in regard to the Japanese people. They would have died to the man protecting Hirohito.

The second bomb was dropped because Japan did not respond to a demand for surrender after the first one. They responded after the second one or there very well could have been more.

I may be wrong but I thought at that time there were only two bombs available. Am I mistaken? I have no source other than a memory of an old public tv educational prsentation.

I don't know for sure. That's why the "could have been" caveat. I believe editec stated there were but the two. The "could have been" is also from the POV of the Japanese. Even if we only had two, they wouldn't have known it, IMO.

 

[Gunny]

Editec is just misinformed. He can't help it for he is a product of a failed education system. A system that refuses to acknowledge historical fact. Poor Editec. How sad.............

Another blatant lie and attempt to do nothing more than incite.

 

[roomy]

Greatest warcrimes are relative.Do us all favour and shut the fuck up.You look like a fucking idiot.

 

[Yukon]

Mr Gunny,

I made no attempt whatsoever to incite. My statement is what I believe to be factual and is based on the comments made by Mr Editec. Most people believe what is taught to them via school or other means. If the teachings are false then the system is failing us.

To believe that dropping an Atomic bomb on defenseless women and children, not once but twice, was anything more than a crime against humanity is simply beyond my comprehension.

Jesus taught us to "do onto others as you would have them do onto you". As a Christian and as a formed Priest I believe that killing innocent people is wrong.

 

[Gunny]

Mr Gunny,

I made no attempt whatsoever to incite. My statement is what I believe to be factual and is based on the comments made by Mr Editec. Most people believe what is taught to them via school or other means. If the teachings are false then the system is failing us.

To believe that dropping an Atomic bomb on defenseless women and children, not once but twice, was anything more than a crime against humanity is simply beyond my comprehension.

Jesus taught us to "do onto others as you would have them do onto you". As a Christian and as a formed Priest I believe that killing innocent people is wrong.

The teachings aren't false just because you choose to believe a convoluted, backwards-assed version of events. Fortunately for all the US military personnel that didn't die because your backwards-assed, fallacious "thinking" wasn't en vogue at the point in time.

People still fought wars with winning in mind instead half-assing at it trying to change someone's way of thinking. There's no crime. Simple logic: he who has the most men left when the war is over wins. You win by destroying the enemy's ability to wage war. Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were valid military targets as both cities contributed to the Japanese war effort.

And you can't argue with results. The war was ended.

It's fools like you and your line of thinking that have caused this trying to fight with arm tied behind your back mentality to begin with.

Innocent people die in war. Yet you and this other cut-n-paste knucklehead would present innocent people being killed as collateral damage as a primary strategy. You're both liars. Plain and simple. That idiot that can't spell quartermass is an idiot because he appears to believe his stupid shit. You're just a liar in that your sole purpose is to offend and shock others.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Revisionism&#8217;s heyday lasted until the 1990s. Then the historiographical ground began to shift. A new body of scholarly work emerged, often based on hitherto unavailable documents, which countered revisionist arguments that the atomic bomb was primarily a diplomatic weapon in 1945, that Japan would have surrendered prior to the planned U.S. invasion had the bomb not been used, and that projected casualty figures for the anticipated invasion of Japan were far lower than those cited by supporters of the decision to use the bomb. The scholars producing these books and articles provided powerful support for Truman&#8217;s decision to use the atomic bomb against Japan. Thus Edward Drea&#8217;s MacArthur&#8217;s Ultra: Codebreaking and the War against Japan (1992) chronicled how Allied intelligence tracked the Japanese military buildup on the southernmost home island of Kyushu in the months prior to Hiroshima, a buildup that demonstrated Tokyo&#8217;s intent to fight to the bitter end and rendered all &#8220;low&#8221; casualty estimates dating from the spring and early summer of 1945&#8211;&#8211;the estimates relied upon by revisionist historians&#8211;&#8211;obsolete and irrelevant months before American soldiers were scheduled to land in Japan. In 1995 Robert P. Newman&#8217;s Truman and the Hiroshima Cult demolished the credibility of the United States Strategic Bombing Survey&#8217;s claim that Japan would have surrendered in the fall of 1945 absent both the atomic bombs and the Soviet entry into the war, while Robert James Maddox&#8217;s Weapons for Victory: The Hiroshima Decision Fifty Years Later effectively dismantled what was left of the &#8220;atomic diplomacy&#8221; thesis. Two years later, in &#8220;Casualty Projections for the U.S. Invasion of Japan, 1945-1946: Planning and Policy Implications&#8221; (The Journal of Military History, July 1997), D. M. Giangreco conclusively documented the existence of enormous casualty projections, some of which undeniably reached Truman and his top advisors. The next year, in &#8220;The Shock of the Atomic Bomb and Japan&#8217;s Decision to Surrender&#8211;&#8211;A Reconsideration&#8221; (Pacific Historical Review, November 1998), Sadao Asada, relying on a thorough review of Japanese-language sources, exposed as untenable the contention that Japan was prepared to surrender before Hiroshima or that a modification of the Potsdam Declaration guaranteeing the status of the emperor would have produced a Japanese surrender.

Source here

It is now understood that the 90s revisionists were full of shit, dropping the Abombs were the only sane choice and only way to end the war outside of losing millions of Japanese and maybe 1 million US fighting men in a main force invasion of Japan proper.

Such weapons were not a 'war crime' and in fact no treaty covered this.

Excellent, informative post.

I might add, that we probably would have seen a "North Japan" and a "South Japan" had we not acted as we did -- the USSR was preparing a war declaration on Japan in order to claim territory -- and probably Japan would have been another brush war to add to Korea and Vietnam. Literally millions of lives were SAVED by getting the unconditional surrender exactly when we did.

Few people realize that we're STILL fighting WW2, it's in the last phase pitting the extremist jihadists against a western world which created the Jewish State after WW2, and now supports and protects it. Their mission is and always has been complete eradication of the Jews. It's a thousands of years long conflict that I fear will only end with one side completely eradicated.

 

[editec]

There was no chance the allies would accept Japan's conditions.

Likely true. Still doesn't explain the rush to the second bombing

Because of FDR's Casablanca comments the US was locked into uncondtinional surrender.

US was locked into no separate peace.

Unconditional surrender is in the eyes of the beholder.

Japan was crushed.

Please explain to me why you believe the second bomb had to be dropped so quickly.

I don't see the rush.

I've never seen any credible answer to this question/

You aregument makes the case for not accepting any surrender on any terms whatever.

Understood.

Still doesn't explain the first bombs, and it clearly doesn't explain the second.

 

[garyd]

So you think the firebombing of Tokyo was all right? Never mind that it killed far more people than the nuke did. At an absolute minimum 10 million people died in the Pacific Theater of Operations during WWII and you are all hot and bothered over less than one percent of them being killed by a nuke. Your blindness Yukon is as truly apalling as is your selective morality.

 

[Quatermass]

Yukon

You are most kind with your appraisal of my post (#33) in this debate.

My employment of the appellation 'vile racialist' arises from previous contributions I noticed you've made, in arguments seperate from this one and which indicate a certain relegation of non-white peoples. As an Internationalist I feel duty bound to lay criticism at the door of any such notion which infringes upon the fraternity of the Human species.

That aside, on this issue of the criminality of certain nations, namely America, I think we've gained the upper ground with the greatest of ease. Indeed, further besetment from our positions of superiority may even be viewed by future generations as a 'virtual war crime' of sorts, given the weakness of the opponents here.

Unfortunately Mr Gunny is biased and narrow minded in his thought process as are most Americans. American's will never admit that they made a mistake in fact Americans wont even admit that might have made a mistake.

The average American believes:
* They won the Vietnam War
* The 9/11 terrorists entered the USA through Canada
* Their country is a socialist haven as a result of the recent sovietization of the economy
* Universal Medicare is "evil"
* Don Ameche invented the telephone
* John Wayne won the Battle of Britain
* Al Gore invented the internet
* Richard Nixon wasn't a crook

I mean come on folks. How can a person debate rationally with people like this?

So it isnt at all surprising that Mr Gunny believes what he does about the WWII war crimes against the people of Japan.

I also found your comments on the beliefs and characteristics of 'the average American' to be most insightful. 'Never a truer word was spoken in jest'.



"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were almost defeated and ready to surrender...in being the first to use it, we...adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages."

Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy,
Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during World War II

Youth incinerated to charcoal remains in Hiroshima, compliments of U.S. valour.

 

[Yukon]

Mr. Quatermass,

I have been called a racist in the past and I suppose I will be called the same in the future.

That being said it is nice to be able to discuss and debate issues with a person such as yourself - obviously educated and broad-minded. Even though we disagree we do so as mature gentlemen. It is sad that other people cannot follow the example being set for them.

 

[Gunny]

There was no chance the allies would accept Japan's conditions.

Likely true. Still doesn't explain the rush to the second bombing

Because of FDR's Casablanca comments the US was locked into uncondtinional surrender.

US was locked into no separate peace.

Unconditional surrender is in the eyes of the beholder.

Japan was crushed.

Please explain to me why you believe the second bomb had to be dropped so quickly.

I don't see the rush.

I've never seen any credible answer to this question/

You aregument makes the case for not accepting any surrender on any terms whatever.

Understood.

Still doesn't explain the first bombs, and it clearly doesn't explain the second.

We did in fact accept a conditional surrender. Hirohito was was not touched. Had we insisted on his standing trial, the Japanese people would have fought to the last person, atomic bomb or no.

The accounting for dropping the second bomb is that after the first, Japan was again ordered to surrender and did not reply. We dropped the second bomb as a result.

Credibility is in the eyes of the beholder.

 

[Gunny]

Mr. Quatermass,

I have been called a racist in the past and I suppose I will be called the same in the future.

That being said it is nice to be able to discuss and debate issues with a person such as yourself - obviously educated and broad-minded. Even though we disagree we do so as mature gentlemen. It is sad that other people cannot follow the example being set for them.

What kind of lameass strawman is this? I haven't called either of you racists. You're both idiots and liars.

One can only stare in amazement and you two freaks complimenting each other for your complete lacks of intelligence, knowledge debating skills and personal integrity.

 

[Xenophon]

There was no chance the allies would accept Japan's conditions.

Likely true. Still doesn't explain the rush to the second bombing

Because of FDR's Casablanca comments the US was locked into uncondtinional surrender.

US was locked into no separate peace.

Unconditional surrender is in the eyes of the beholder.

Japan was crushed.

Please explain to me why you believe the second bomb had to be dropped so quickly.

I don't see the rush.

I've never seen any credible answer to this question/

You aregument makes the case for not accepting any surrender on any terms whatever.

Understood.

Still doesn't explain the first bombs, and it clearly doesn't explain the second.

I have the perfect book for you, right up your ally:

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Rising-Sun-Decline-Japanese-1936-1945/dp/0812968581]Amazon.com: The Rising Sun: The Decline and Fall of the Japanese Empire, 1936-1945 (Modern Library War): John Toland: Books[/ame]

Toland, who's wife was Japanese, interviewed many of the players (the book was written in 1970).

He himself changed his viewpoint of the pacific war from writing this book.

The interviews with teh roayal family members will clear up a lot of this.

 

[editec]

Mr Gunny,

I made no attempt whatsoever to incite. My statement is what I believe to be factual and is based on the comments made by Mr Editec. Most people believe what is taught to them via school or other means. If the teachings are false then the system is failing us.

Oh, bla bla bla, Yukon. the educational system has nothing to do with it. This is not the sort of issue one can expect people not enamored by history to know or care about.

To believe that dropping an Atomic bomb on defenseless women and children, not once but twice, was anything more than a crime against humanity is simply beyond my comprehension.

Crime speaks to state of mind as well as the facts, chum.

Consider that Truman really might have thought that invading Japan would have caused the death of far more innocents than both bombs combined did.

This whole moral outrage canard you keep trying to play is childish.

Jesus taught us to "do onto others as you would have them do onto you". As a Christian and as a formed Priest I believe that killing innocent people is wrong.

Well when you fail to mention Japans criminal behavior and jerk us off with you anti-American worst war crime blather most of us have our doubts about your sincereity.

I have very little doubt had I been POTUS, knowing what I knew when Truman came into office, I'd have probably dropped that first bomb, as well.

My question remains was the second bomb justified, and if it was, WHY was it?

That is the ONLY debate I am having here.

This worst war crime is sheer lunacy.

The Japanese soldiers cut off more heads for FUN, than both bombs killed, you ninny.

American RESTRAINT given that and how our prisoners were treated was fairly remarkable.

So take you anti-American bullshit and shove it.

You ain't doing Jesus no favors, either, sport.

 

[Yukon]

What kind of lameass strawman is this? I haven't called either of you racists. You're both idiots and liars.

One can only stare in amazement and you two freaks complimenting each other for your complete lacks of intelligence, knowledge debating skills and personal integrity.

Mr. Gunny,

I don't think I said that you refered to me as a racist and I never revert to name calling. I will pray for you...

 

[Gunny]

What kind of lameass strawman is this? I haven't called either of you racists. You're both idiots and liars.

One can only stare in amazement and you two freaks complimenting each other for your complete lacks of intelligence, knowledge debating skills and personal integrity.

Mr. Gunny,

I don't think I said that you refered to me as a racist and I never revert to name calling. I will pray for you...

I guess this means you are going to ignore rather than address editec dropping the A-bomb on your so-called argument. Lame.

Even if you were sincere; which, you aren't ... you pray for your own ass and let me worry about mine.