68 years ago today

[Jimmy_Jam]

All this talk of f*cking and *sses and c*nts is getting me hot.

 

[gipper]

My father waded ashore at Omaha beach and slogged his way across Europe. When he was done, he and his division was rounded up and was to be moved onto ships for a trip half-way around the world, where he would have been one of the lucky ones to wade ashore onto the island of Japan. Thankfully, before they had the chance the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and then Nagasaki.

My father may have made it through an invasion or he may not have. But I can tell you that he talked of that time with a thankfullness to President Truman who made that unnecessary. The dropping of the atomic weapons were horrible and it killed many, many innocent Japanese. Like what happened in Nanking, and the Phillipines, and Hawaii, and Burma and the list goes on and on. But it was necessary and it was appropriate and it may have SAVED up to several hundred thousand GI's.

To judge a character from history using todays sensibilities and logic is fool-hearty and ridiculous. The Japanese were willing to use 5 million civilians and march them onto the beaches where the landings were going to take place. Many, many more innocents would have died...

I thought as you do, but I learned the truth.

My father was also in Europe preparing for departure to Japan prior to the surrender. So, I too thought the a-bombs were necessary to end the war and stop further blood letting. Problem is when you research it, the truth is entirely different from what we thought and were taught.

Here are several links you should find enlightening, but also most disheartening. The a-bombing is one of the most immoral acts ever committed in all of human history.
Left-Liberal Catholics: Yay for the Atomic Bombings! | Tom Woods
The Ethics of War: Hiroshima and Nagasaki After 50 Years : The Freeman : Foundation for Economic Education
The War Criminal Harry Truman ?
http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=094bb1ea0292b5c3802f0e3229a668fd&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.houseofpolitics.com%2Fthreads%2F67-years-ago-yesterday.15574%2Fpage-2&v=1&libId=4cbd50ea-1267-48bc-8785-f77d6dfbfadb&out=http%3A%2F%2Fmises.org%2Fjournals%2Fscholar%2Fseverance.pdf&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.houseofpolitics.com%2Fthreads%2F67-years-ago-yesterday.15574%2Fpage-3&title=67%20years%20ago%20yesterday%20%7C%20Page%202%20%7C%20House%20Of%20Politics%20Forum&txt=http%3A%2F%2Fmises.org%2Fjournals%2Fscholar%2Fseverance.pdf&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_13759027443346
The Hiroshima Myth ?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The a-bombing[s are two] of the most immoral acts ever committed in all of human history.

Based on...what?
Compared to... what?

 

[Foxfyre]

My father waded ashore at Omaha beach and slogged his way across Europe. When he was done, he and his division was rounded up and was to be moved onto ships for a trip half-way around the world, where he would have been one of the lucky ones to wade ashore onto the island of Japan. Thankfully, before they had the chance the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and then Nagasaki.

My father may have made it through an invasion or he may not have. But I can tell you that he talked of that time with a thankfullness to President Truman who made that unnecessary. The dropping of the atomic weapons were horrible and it killed many, many innocent Japanese. Like what happened in Nanking, and the Phillipines, and Hawaii, and Burma and the list goes on and on. But it was necessary and it was appropriate and it may have SAVED up to several hundred thousand GI's.

To judge a character from history using todays sensibilities and logic is fool-hearty and ridiculous. The Japanese were willing to use 5 million civilians and march them onto the beaches where the landings were going to take place. Many, many more innocents would have died...

I thought as you do, but I learned the truth.

My father was also in Europe preparing for departure to Japan prior to the surrender. So, I too thought the a-bombs were necessary to end the war and stop further blood letting. Problem is when you research it, the truth is entirely different from what we thought and were taught.

Here are several links you should find enlightening, but also most disheartening. The a-bombing is one of the most immoral acts ever committed in all of human history.
Left-Liberal Catholics: Yay for the Atomic Bombings! | Tom Woods
The Ethics of War: Hiroshima and Nagasaki After 50 Years : The Freeman : Foundation for Economic Education
The War Criminal Harry Truman ?
http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=094bb1ea0292b5c3802f0e3229a668fd&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.houseofpolitics.com%2Fthreads%2F67-years-ago-yesterday.15574%2Fpage-2&v=1&libId=4cbd50ea-1267-48bc-8785-f77d6dfbfadb&out=http%3A%2F%2Fmises.org%2Fjournals%2Fscholar%2Fseverance.pdf&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.houseofpolitics.com%2Fthreads%2F67-years-ago-yesterday.15574%2Fpage-3&title=67%20years%20ago%20yesterday%20%7C%20Page%202%20%7C%20House%20Of%20Politics%20Forum&txt=http%3A%2F%2Fmises.org%2Fjournals%2Fscholar%2Fseverance.pdf&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_13759027443346
The Hiroshima Myth ?

You do realize that post WWII, and with the rise of Progressivism/Leftism/modern American Liberalism in the USA that came into full bloom in the 1960's and beyond, there has been a whole cult of anti-American sentiment determined to dismantle and rewrite U.S. history. Aided, abetted, and encouraged by leftwing academia, many master's thesis and dissertations have been written into works as you linked. I could find ten sources to rebut each one of your sources, but I don't have the time or inclination to hunt them up.

But this writer has it right (emphasis mine):

Sixty-five years ago today, the United States and the Allies did what was unthinkable, but necessary.

Yes, the nation had blood on its hands, but it was an act of war and war begets blood.

Now six and a half decades later, shielded in the cocoon of political correctness, time and distance, an emerging school of American thought contradicts what we've been told all these years. It asserts our government's military officials believed at the time it was not necessary to drop the atomic bombs and were lying when they said the act was meant to bring about a more immediate end to an entire world at war.

The assertion is revisionist history at its worst.

Researching Japanese historians, we learn that those who encouraged that country's surrender and an earlier end to the war regarded the bombs as "gifts from heaven," Mitsumasa Yonai, the Japanese navy minister during World War II was quoted in The New York Times years later.

At that time, Japan's national policies were governed by a small panel of men who were stalemated about whether Japan should surrender and under what circumstances: 12 for surrender, three against and one undecided. A unanimous decision was required.

Emperor Hirohito was said to favor surrender but did not meddle in governmental affairs. He was looked upon as a god, and affairs of state were said to be beneath him.

By the time the Enola Gay dropped the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Germany had surrendered and the Soviet Union had declared war on Japan, invading the country and killing 14,000 Japanese soldiers. The United States had already been bombing Japan from raids based in China, and much of Japan's military manufacturing facilities lay in ruins.

Still, the Japanese military leaders refused to quit, insisting that victory was possible. They were willing to sacrifice millions of other people's lives for their lost cause.

Continuing the war would have meant firebombing more Japanese cities and an invasion that would have ground up millions of lives on both sides. One needs to look no further than that god-forsaken rock Okinawa, which was important only as a fueling station to put Allied bombers within one-fuel-tankful striking distance of the Japanese mainland.

The cost in lives, time, and material, was a massive factor in the decision to use the atomic bomb against Japan just six weeks later.

More people died during the Battle of Okinawa than all those killed during the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined: more than 38,000 Americans wounded and 12,000 killed or missing and 36,000 wounded, more than 107,000 Japanese killed, and more than 100,000 Okinawan civilians who perished in the battle.
More here:
Vail Daily's Randy Wyrick: Why Hiroshima was necessary | VailDaily.com

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

The a-bombing[s are two] of the most immoral acts ever committed in all of human history.

Based on...what?
Compared to... what?

Probably based on the number of civilian deaths that other military actions during the war at least made attempts to avoid. Whatever necessity our chain of command assessed for such a measure, it might be a appropriate to at least acknowledge the tragedy. Killing 200,000 civilians in one fell swoop carries with it a moral price, I don't care what the justification is. Whether it qualifies as the among the most immoral act committed in all of human history is debatable, but not ridiculous to suggest.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The a-bombing[s are two] of the most immoral acts ever committed in all of human history.

Based on...what?
Compared to... what?

Probably based on the number of civilian deaths that other military actions during the war at least made attempts to avoid.

In 1945, the USAAF burned Japanese cities to the ground, nightly, without regard to the well-being of Japanese civilians - a lot more area was destroyed and a lot more civilians were killed in these raids than the atom bomb drops - so, how is that a meaningful basis for this judgement?

Whatever necessity our chain of command assessed for such a measure, it might be a appropriate to at least acknowledge the tragedy. Killing 200,000 civilians in one fell swoop carries with it a moral price....

How does killing 200,000 civilians with two aircraft differ morally from killing 200,000 civilins with 2,000 aircraft?

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Based on...what?
Compared to... what?

Probably based on the number of civilian deaths that other military actions during the war at least made attempts to avoid.

In 1945, the USAAF burned Japanese cities to the ground, nightly, without regard to the well-being of Japanese civilians - a lot more area was destroyed and a lot more civilians were killed in these raids than the atom bomb drops - so, how is that a meaningful basis for this judgement?

Whatever necessity our chain of command assessed for such a measure, it might be a appropriate to at least acknowledge the tragedy. Killing 200,000 civilians in one fell swoop carries with it a moral price....

How does killing 200,000 civilians with two aircraft differ morally from killing 200,000 civilins with 2,000 aircraft?

It doesn't, but as a single act there is certainly a difference in magnitude. I'm not accusing you in particular, but there seems to be a reluctance among some to acknowledge the tragedy of those bombings in the haste justify them. There are arguments that justify the bombings. There is also a moral price. That is war.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Probably based on the number of civilian deaths that other military actions during the war at least made attempts to avoid.

In 1945, the USAAF burned Japanese cities to the ground, nightly, without regard to the well-being of Japanese civilians - a lot more area was destroyed and a lot more civilians were killed in these raids than the atom bomb drops - so, how is that a meaningful basis for this judgement?

Whatever necessity our chain of command assessed for such a measure, it might be a appropriate to at least acknowledge the tragedy. Killing 200,000 civilians in one fell swoop carries with it a moral price....

How does killing 200,000 civilians with two aircraft differ morally from killing 200,000 civilins with 2,000 aircraft?

It doesn't, but as a single act there is certainly a difference in magnitude.

In terms of what?
Efficacy of action has a bearing on moral price?

It seems to me that few, if any, of the people who gripe about the nuclear bombings pay any attention at all to the conventional bombings - they shand in horror that we dropped nukes, but don't blink an eye at the thermite, napalm and HE that killed far more people and destroyed a far greater area.

 

[gipper]

The a-bombing[s are two] of the most immoral acts ever committed in all of human history.

Based on...what?
Compared to... what?

Read the links and educate yourself.

In short, killing innocents for no good reason (and worse for nefarious reasons, which were the reasons Truman used), is ALWAYS immoral and something ALL Americans should condemn.

 

[Foxfyre]

Probably based on the number of civilian deaths that other military actions during the war at least made attempts to avoid.

In 1945, the USAAF burned Japanese cities to the ground, nightly, without regard to the well-being of Japanese civilians - a lot more area was destroyed and a lot more civilians were killed in these raids than the atom bomb drops - so, how is that a meaningful basis for this judgement?

Whatever necessity our chain of command assessed for such a measure, it might be a appropriate to at least acknowledge the tragedy. Killing 200,000 civilians in one fell swoop carries with it a moral price....

How does killing 200,000 civilians with two aircraft differ morally from killing 200,000 civilins with 2,000 aircraft?

It doesn't, but as a single act there is certainly a difference in magnitude. I'm not accusing you in particular, but there seems to be a reluctance among some to acknowledge the tragedy of those bombings in the haste justify them. There are arguments that justify the bombings. There is also a moral price. That is war.

Yes. Every decision we make from euthanizing a beloved pet because we cannot afford to restore him to health to eating meat from slaughtered animals to serving on a jury that will send a person to prison or cause him to be sentenced to death, to how we choose to spend and use our time, energy, abilities, and private resources all exacts a moral price.

To choose to defend yourself and/or your loved ones or others from a person or beast intent on doing them harm exacts a moral price.

To accept your country's call to train to kill and pick up a weapon of war exacts a moral price. To kill or be killed is a moral choice.

To choose to walk away from a crippled Japan still our enemy or bludgeon them into submission and unconditional surrender was a moral choice. To choose to kill many unconventionally rather than the almost certainty of killing many more via conventional means was a moral choice.

Given the limited alternatives we had, given the fact that the Japanese people are now a wholly independent, peaceful, prosperous nation that are friends with the world rather than oppressor, given that killing the many almost certainly saved millions in blood as well as treasure, and given that the demonstration has meant no nuclear weapons used in anger now for almost seven decades, I have to believe we made the right choice.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The a-bombing[s are two] of the most immoral acts ever committed in all of human history.

Based on...what?
Compared to... what?

Read the links and educate yourself.

"Look it up" neither supports your statement nor answers my questions.
Lay it out for me and quote the relevant sections from your sources.

In short, killing innocents for no good reason (and worse for nefarious reasons, which were the reasons Truman used), is ALWAYS immoral and something ALL Americans should condemn.

I see.
So, your statement hinges on your interpretation of 'a good reason".
Soundly argue that the nuclear bombings were morally worse than the conventional firebombings that took place throughout the 8 months prior.

 

[Foxfyre]

The a-bombing[s are two] of the most immoral acts ever committed in all of human history.

Based on...what?
Compared to... what?

Read the links and educate yourself.

In short, killing innocents for no good reason (and worse for nefarious reasons, which were the reasons Truman used), is ALWAYS immoral and something ALL Americans should condemn.

I did. And provided you a reasoned rebuttal. Which you ignored. Here:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/history/306698-68-years-ago-today-6.html#post7654525

 

[Unkotare]

We weren't. Fail.
Please try again.
This time, please try to stick with the conditions actually in place at the time instead what might have been if things were different before then.

You asked me to speculate, fool.

Yes. Given the conditions actually in place at the time.

As I said: you cannot tell us why the Japanese would have announced their surrender on 8/15, had the bombs not been dropped.

I already answered your question, fool. No game time for you.

 

[Unkotare]

I hope I qualify my responses.

It seems you misunderstand the word as it was used in the context above.

Are you now down to this, I misunderstand what you meant. So enlighten me how did you intend the word to be used?

To modify or limit, like the way you kept changing yours every time your premise was proven untrue.

 

[regent]

It seems you misunderstand the word as it was used in the context above.

Are you now down to this, I misunderstand what you meant. So enlighten me how did you intend the word to be used?

To modify or limit, like the way you kept changing yours every time your premise was proven untrue.

To say that all people use the same behavior patterns could well be wrong so we qualify, and I qualified some responses to indicate I didn't believe all people behaved or believed the the same way. So what premise or premises did I use that were proved to be untrue?

 

[Missouri_Mike]

The a-bombing[s are two] of the most immoral acts ever committed in all of human history.

Based on...what?
Compared to... what?

Read the links and educate yourself.

In short, killing innocents for no good reason (and worse for nefarious reasons, which were the reasons Truman used), is ALWAYS immoral and something ALL Americans should condemn.

Read this you moron. http://crossroads.alexanderpiela.com/files/Fussell_Thank_God_AB.pdf

It pretty much seals your existence as an uninformed fool.

 

[namvet]

if he doesn't drop em he face's impeachment. period

 

[regent]

Two questions and then a personal note:

1. Are civilians, that produce war goods that are used to kill the enemy, legitimate targets?
2. If those Japanese cities had cottage industries producing war materials were they legitimate targets?

A personal Note. Actually, the war crime that made me the most upset was the Japanese beheading of American prisoners because they were involved in B29 raids. Japanese officers loved to use their sabers. When Japan surrendered it was imperative that America get troops in there fast to protect their Prisoners.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Two questions and then a personal note:

1. Are civilians, that produce war goods that are used to kill the enemy, legitimate targets?
2. If those Japanese cities had cottage industries producing war materials were they legitimate targets?

A personal Note. Actually, the war crime that made me the most upset was the Japanese beheading of American prisoners because they were involved in B29 raids. Japanese officers loved to use their sabers. When Japan surrendered it was imperative that America get troops in there fast to protect their Prisoners.

the factories are

 

[M14 Shooter]

You asked me to speculate, fool.

Yes. Given the conditions actually in place at the time.
As I said: you cannot tell us why the Japanese would have announced their surrender on 8/15, had the bombs not been dropped.

I already answered your question, fool. No game time for you.

Good to see that we both know you cannot describe how or why the Japanese would have surrendered when they did, if not for the bombs.

No surrender = war continues.
War continues = firebombing continues
Firebombings continue = more and more and more and more Japanese civilians die.
No way to soundly argue otherwise - and you know it.