Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
When the first two bombs were dropped, there were two days between them. The Japanese were warned to surrender and then the first bomb was dropped. They were warned again, and the second was dropped. They were warned again that this would keep up until they surrendered and they surrendered. Later, they were angered to learn that there were no more bombs yet ready. They said they would have kept fighting if they knew they had a few more months before the third.
You are basically either ignorant or stupid. At Mai Lai, the infantry unit in question was taking fire from Viet Cong troops sheltering among the villagers. The VC fled, as planned, leaving the villagers to be killed. What Calley and his men did was a war crime and he was prosecuted for it. Show me ONE INSTANCE where Japanese. Nazi German, Soviet, Red Chinese, North Vietnamese Main Force or Viet Cong troops were prosecuted by their chains of command for the hundreds of thousands of war crimes that they committed.It is double standard - and a show of ignorance if you continue with such statements.
The use of the A-bombs onto Imperial Japan IMO can be (reasoned with) - but it was clearly intended to kill off civilians en mass.
The US government form it's day one, continued for a hundred years the intentional destruction-killing of Red-Indian women, children and the old. Following the footsteps of the former colonial powers who's territory the USA had bought and/or conquered. And since then the USA never stopped killing civilians - just as all other warring nations.
The Vietnam war (since you had brought it up) wasn't abandoned due to military or financial issues - but because the US government had run out of excuses to justify the death of approx. 2 million Vietnamese civilians towards the world community and it's own population - (approx. a third killed by VC's, South and North-Vietnamese regulars).
It is meaningless to resort to "new US terms" such as collateral damage - to disguise the fact that the killing of civilians are taken intentionally/knowingly into account.
The Mai Lai massacre was an intentional killing spree of GI's towards Vietnamese civilians. Since then the US came up with the term collateral damage in order to differentiate intentional murder of civilians without targeting a valid or suspected military asset, and e.g. in contra of those civilians that perished due to a napalm strike onto a settlement were enemy troops were known or suspected to be.
It is also pointless to single out a specific party that supposedly or actually did start a war - any party involved in a war will automatically commit murder of civilians. This also applies to "indirect" assistance - such as presently in Ukraine - were e.g. US HIMARS missiles also kill Ukrainian civilians. Just because these Ukrainian civilians are presently living in Russian occupied/control areas doesn't make them Russian civilians either. Especially not, since the UN has not validated Putin's territory claims.
That is why any culture knowledgeable person knew - that the war in Afghanistan can't be won - since one would need to kill off more or less the entire civilian Afghan population, or endure military and civilian losses for 50 years and more, to hopefully fundamentally change a medieval cultured-society.
Right until now in world history, the winner solely decides about wrong and right (aka trials and punishment) - in case Russia should win, then Russia will certainly accuse every single government supporter of Ukraine as a war criminal. And Russia would even be right to do so - just as the West will do if we should ever win this ridiculous war.
So far there is no UN manifested law - that would excuse or justify the killing of civilians due to "preserving freedom"or "democracy". There is only an international law that defines a governments military right to defend ones national security and there are conventions that regulate the conduct of war. - where the killing of civilians is a total no-go for all sides and punishment/legal persecution is regulated according to international law.
If you can't face such simple facts - then all hope is lost on you. - and that is not a lie.
To be fair, the Japanese plan targeted military assets. But Japanese air crews strafed civilian targets and at least one clearly marked hospital.Mai Lai was not a sanctioned operation, it was troops that went rogue and did not follow orders, they were prosecuted.
Yes, civilians have been killed in all the wars in history, War is hell on earth. We all know that., It is also true that we cannot replay history, it is done. What we can do is learn from it but we seem unable to do that. Ukraine may become our next Viet Nam with the senile moron in charge.
On the atomic bombs dropped by Truman. Do you think the japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was not intended to kill civilians?
Hawaii was a United States territory like District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Philippines, the American Virgin Islands and others. They were American soil and flew the stars and stripes.Pearl Harbor was a naval base, and not located in The United States. Reason enough to declare war, but that is not the topic of this thread.
so the japs killed civilians? I thought only the US did that. WTF?To be fair, the Japanese plan targeted military assets. But Japanese air crews strafed civilian targets and at least one clearly marked hospital.
You are basically either ignorant or stupid. At Mai Lai, the infantry unit in question was taking fire from Viet Cong troops sheltering among the villagers. The VC fled, as planned, leaving the villagers to be killed. What Calley and his men did was a war crime and he was prosecuted for it. Show me ONE INSTANCE where Japanese. Nazi German, Soviet, Red Chinese, North Vietnamese Main Force or Viet Cong troops were prosecuted by their chains of command for the hundreds of thousands of war crimes that they committed.
so the japs killed civilians? I thought only the US did that. WTF?
The Mai Lai massacre occurred during an encompassing official sanctioned military operation. (an anti-insurgency operation) Within this operation, certain or a certain unit went totally rouge - resulting in the Mai Lai massacre.Mai Lai was not a sanctioned operation, it was troops that went rogue and did not follow orders, they were prosecuted......
On the atomic bombs dropped by Truman. Do you think the japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was not intended to kill civilians?
....Leaving the villagers to be killed... - by whom?....The VC fled, as planned, leaving the villagers to be killed.
your view of history is very warped, but you are entitled to hold it and speak it,-------for now.I mostly agree. With Germany out of the way our progress against Japan would have sped up and we would have eventually won without the use of nuclear weapons. We just wanted to show off.
Nuking their fleet after baiting it to an area might have been more ethical and the sheer display of utter power probably would have led to Japan's surrender anyway, but without killing all those civilians.
I agree, Truman was a POS for that.
What the VC did at Mai Lai was a typical operation by them. Start a firefight from a neutral or government-friendly village to draw out a reaction force of RVN or US troops then leave so then the ARVN or US forces would kill the civilians and turn them against the RVN government. It worked well against the ARVNs because they would generally just call-in artillery or an air strike killing most or all of the villagers. US troops tended to assault the village and only kill or wound those actually firing on them. Mai Lai was an aberration.....Leaving the villagers to be killed... - by whom?
So now who is ignorant and stupid? clearly a person who posts such a statement.
This thread isn't about the persecution of war-criminals, but whether the usage of A-bombs was justified, since it was predominantly used to intentionally kill off totally defenseless civilians en mass.
As I had stated several times before: IMO the reasons leading to the approval by Truman of those two A-bombs, can be reasoned with and as such their implementation can be justified. The same applies IMO to those devastating fire bombing raids onto Japan and the conventional bombing.
If a government does not want it's own civilian population to become casualties of war - then simply don't start or initiate a war in the first place.
That the VC and also the regular North-Vietnamese forces took advantage of the huge civilian support (against the then termed US imperialists and it's corrupt Saigon allies) via deploying propaganda units/agents all over South Vietnam and many villages therefore housing voluntarily or unwillingly VC and NVA combat troops is known. That the RVN and US troops pulverized and used chemical warfare onto every square inch in South-Vietnam upon a mere VC/NVA suspicion - regardless of civilian lives/casualties is also known.What the VC did at Mai Lai was a typical operation by them. Start a firefight from a neutral or government-friendly village to draw out a reaction force of RVN or US troops then leave so then the ARVN or US forces would kill the civilians and turn them against the RVN government. It worked well against the ARVNs because they would generally just call-in artillery or an air strike killing most or all of the villagers. US troops tended to assault the village and only kill or wound those actually firing on them. Mai Lai was an aberration.
www.history.com
Neither the US or RVN ever used chemical weapons anywhere in Southeast Asia. Apparently my memory was faulty about Calley’s unit taking fire. But nonetheless, that was a common practice of both the NVA and VC.That the VC and also the regular North-Vietnamese forces took advantage of the huge civilian support (against the then termed US imperialists and it's corrupt Saigon allies) via deploying propaganda units/agents all over South Vietnam and many villages therefore housing voluntarily or unwillingly VC and NVA combat troops is known. That the RVN and US troops pulverized and used chemical warfare onto every square inch in South-Vietnam upon a mere VC/NVA suspicion - regardless of civilian lives/casualties is also known.
As for Mai Lai - there were no VC troops at the time, and the advancing US force also had not been taking fire from Mai Lai.
Vietnamese villagers killed by U.S. soldiers in My Lai Massacre | March 16, 1968 | HISTORY
On March 16, 1968, a platoon of American soldiers brutally kills as many as 500 unarmed civilians at My Lai, one of a cluster of small villages located near the northern coast of South Vietnam. The crime, which was kept secret for nearly two years, later became known as the My Lai Massacre. In...
In March 1968, a platoon of soldiers from Charlie Company received word that Viet Cong guerrillas had taken cover in the Quang Ngai village of Son My. The platoon entered one of the village’s four hamlets, My Lai 4, on a search-and-destroy mission on the morning of March 16. Instead of guerrilla fighters, they found unarmed villagers, most of them women, children and old men.
The soldiers had been advised before the attack by army command that all who were found in My Lai could be considered VC or active VC sympathizers, and were told to destroy the village. They acted with extraordinary brutality, raping and torturing villagers before killing them and dragging dozens of people, including young children and babies, into a ditch and executing them with automatic weapons.
The massacre reportedly ended when an Army helicopter pilot, Warrant Officer Hugh Thompson, landed his aircraft between the soldiers and the retreating villagers and threatened to open fire if they continued their attacks.
As I and others have already stated - war is hell, and IMO there is no warring party that could claim being innocent of atrocities or of killing civilians intentionally.
That's okay - everyone has his momentsNeither the US or RVN ever used chemical weapons anywhere in Southeast Asia. Apparently my memory was faulty about Calley’s unit taking fire. But nonetheless, that was a common practice of both the NVA and VC.
www.britannica.com
it was not a chemical weapon designed to kill humans, it was designed as a herbicide to remove foliage so the bombers could see their targets more clearly. It was toxic to humans and has killed many americans and vietnamese. But war is hell, why is anyone surprised by that?That's okay - everyone has his moments
As for chemical warfare - either you are totally unaware about the usage of Agent Orange and it's color relatives, or you might have reasons to believe that a herbicide isn't a chemical substance - in which case you would be wrong.
Agent Orange also contained small, variable proportions of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin—commonly called “dioxin”—which is a by-product of the manufacture of 2,4,5-T and is toxic even in minute quantities. About 50 million liters (13 million gallons) of Agent Orange—containing about 170 kg (375 pounds) of dioxin—were dropped on Vietnam. Agent Orange was one of several herbicides used in Vietnam, the others including Agents White, Purple, Blue, Pink, and Green. The names derived from color-coded bands painted around storage drums holding the herbicides.Agent Orange | Definition, Effects, & Victims
Agent Orange, mixture of herbicides that U.S. military forces sprayed in Vietnam from 1962 to 1971 during the Vietnam War for the dual purpose of defoliating forest areas that might conceal Viet Cong and North Vietnamese forces and destroying crops that might feed the enemy.
This stuff (aka chemical warfare) was used and sprayed by the US and the South-Vietnamese air-force
Agent Orange was an Herbicide, NOT a chemical weapon. It was never intended to harm humans, in fact at the time it was considered harmless to people. The dosage you trumpet was tiny, one-liter weighs 2.2 pounds, so fifty million liters weighed ELEVEN MILLION POUNDS divide that by 375 equals .2933333 parts per million of dioxin. That's about as far from a lethal dose as can be found. A lethal dose of Dioxin is about twenty milligrams. You'd have to drink hundreds of gallons of Agent Orange to get that much dioxin. No reputable agency or organization has ever classified ANY herbicide as a chemical weapon.That's okay - everyone has his moments
As for chemical warfare - either you are totally unaware about the usage of Agent Orange and it's color relatives, or you might have reasons to believe that a herbicide isn't a chemical substance - in which case you would be wrong.
Agent Orange also contained small, variable proportions of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin—commonly called “dioxin”—which is a by-product of the manufacture of 2,4,5-T and is toxic even in minute quantities. About 50 million liters (13 million gallons) of Agent Orange—containing about 170 kg (375 pounds) of dioxin—were dropped on Vietnam. Agent Orange was one of several herbicides used in Vietnam, the others including Agents White, Purple, Blue, Pink, and Green. The names derived from color-coded bands painted around storage drums holding the herbicides.Agent Orange | Definition, Effects, & Victims
Agent Orange, mixture of herbicides that U.S. military forces sprayed in Vietnam from 1962 to 1971 during the Vietnam War for the dual purpose of defoliating forest areas that might conceal Viet Cong and North Vietnamese forces and destroying crops that might feed the enemy.
This stuff (aka chemical warfare) was used and sprayed by the US and the South-Vietnamese air-force
With Germany out of the way our progress against Japan would have sped up and we would have eventually won without the use of nuclear weapons.
