The truth about Truman’s bombing Japan

[Zincwarrior]

Wow! Crazy!

You mean when the US military mass murders civilians they aren’t really mass murdering civilians.

LMFAO!

I imagine your Russian paymasters know a thing or two about that.

 

[Redfish]

Lol. Are you aware of what indiscriminate firestorm bombing results in? Lol.

of course, but to claim that we targeted schools is a lie.

 

[ThirdTerm]

Are you aware of what indiscriminate firestorm bombing results in? Lol.

I recently read that the firebombing of Tokyo that killed 100,000 citizens lowered the bar for the use of atomic bombs. The bombing of Dresden also killed 25,000 people.

 

[Unkotare]

Hiroshima and the Myths of Military Targets and Unconditional Surrender

Every year, in early August, new articles appear that debate whether the dropping of the atomic bombs in 1945 was justified. Earlier this month, the 75th anniversary of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks, was no exception.

www.lawfareblog.com

"We find no evidence that anyone within the Truman administration undertook a formal legal analysis of the attack options in 1945. Nonetheless, intuitive moral concerns and background legal principles were often raised, especially by Stimson. But the archival record makes clear that such concerns were muted and rationalized away. Killing civilians was the primary purpose of the Hiroshima bombing. "

.

 

[Unkotare]

III Peace Education

<p>This section will cover the restoration of education se […]</p>

hiroshimaforpeace.com

" According to records on the war damage, 78 schools were damaged in the atomic bombing, including 39 national schools, 30 middle schools, and nine high schools and universities."

.

 

[gipper]

of course, but to claim that we targeted schools is a lie.

Lol. When you destroy a large city ON PURPOSE, you know you’re destroying schools. Why would you want women and children murdered?

 

[Kruska]

You recognize the heinous acts by imperial Japan, but not the US. Why?

Because I consider "unlike you" the military obvious decision to make use of two atom-bombs to end a period of aggressive expansionist policy, beheld by the Imperial Japanese government for 65 years - resulting into the death of around 20 million civilians, as not being a "heinous" decision at all.

It was a tough decision, that saved/avoided far more people continuing to die on all sides, then the number it killed.

 

[Kruska]

Lol. When you destroy a large city ON PURPOSE, you know you’re destroying schools. Why would you want women and children murdered?

Because our world societies morals have changed radically since the 20th century.

WW1 and WW2 started to change our thinking fundamentally via the head of states believing that destroying cities, infrastructure and blockading food supplies will automatically result in a reduction of military abilities of their enemies and are bound to cause a second "civilian" front within another country. Thus ending a war.

In the 1970's a new idea/moral came up - that it is uncivilized and inhumane to kill civilians. Soldiers killing soldiers was still found to be okay/acceptable - Since it was logical to expect a war to bring about civilian casualties the world peace movement dream came about. No war, ergo no dead civilians, or no dead at all due to everlasting peace.

However the world is full with "leaders" and organizations that will continue to take active military action or incite such actions in order to pursue their agenda.

And now in 2023 we have people that evaluate wars that happened 75 years ago and longer - with a moral concept of today that however still is not beheld by the majority and needless to say by most governments. Presently we have even reached a point in political and social moral where it is now propagated by certain parts of society that it is okay to get civilians killed in order to spread and promote democracy.

 

[themirrorthief]

Because our world societies morals have changed radically since the 20th century.

WW1 and WW2 started to change our thinking fundamentally via the head of states believing that destroying cities, infrastructure and blockading food supplies will automatically result in a reduction of military abilities of their enemies and are bound to cause a second "civilian" front within another country. Thus ending a war.

In the 1970's a new idea/moral came up - that it is uncivilized and inhumane to kill civilians. Soldiers killing soldiers was still found to be okay/acceptable - Since it was logical to expect a war to bring about civilian casualties the world peace movement dream came about. No war, ergo no dead civilians, or no dead at all due to everlasting peace.

However the world is full with "leaders" and organizations that will continue to take active military action or incite such actions in order to pursue their agenda.

And now in 2023 we have people that evaluate wars that happened 75 years ago and longer - with a moral concept of today that however still is not beheld by the majority and needless to say by most governments. Presently we have even reached a point in political and social moral where it is now propagated by certain parts of society that it is okay to get civilians killed in order to spread and promote democracy.

what bothers me so much that I cant sleep is why fluck we have never nuked canada yet

 

[Kruska]

what bothers me so much that I cant sleep is why fluck we have never nuked canada yet

Isn't that obvious? because there are strong political groups within the USA, that want to preserve the survival of the Polar bears.

 

[Redfish]

Lol. When you destroy a large city ON PURPOSE, you know you’re destroying schools. Why would you want women and children murdered?

War is hell, that is the only answer. Innocents have died in every war in history, But earlier you said that the US killed innocents on purpose, that is a lie. When Truman dropped the bombs, he killed hundreds of thousands but saved millions on both sides, he ended the war. It was the right thing to do.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Because our world societies morals have changed radically since the 20th century.

WW1 and WW2 started to change our thinking fundamentally via the head of states believing that destroying cities, infrastructure and blockading food supplies will automatically result in a reduction of military abilities of their enemies and are bound to cause a second "civilian" front within another country. Thus ending a war.

In the 1970's a new idea/moral came up - that it is uncivilized and inhumane to kill civilians. Soldiers killing soldiers was still found to be okay/acceptable - Since it was logical to expect a war to bring about civilian casualties the world peace movement dream came about. No war, ergo no dead civilians, or no dead at all due to everlasting peace.

However the world is full with "leaders" and organizations that will continue to take active military action or incite such actions in order to pursue their agenda.

And now in 2023 we have people that evaluate wars that happened 75 years ago and longer - with a moral concept of today that however still is not beheld by the majority and needless to say by most governments. Presently we have even reached a point in political and social moral where it is now propagated by certain parts of society that it is okay to get civilians killed in order to spread and promote democracy.

The amusing thing is that our enemies now hide among civilians. This will result in the elimination of the idea that civilian casualties are bad. The pendulum swings both ways.

 

[gipper]

War is hell, that is the only answer. Innocents have died in every war in history, But earlier you said that the US killed innocents on purpose, that is a lie. When Truman dropped the bombs, he killed hundreds of thousands but saved millions on both sides, he ended the war. It was the right thing to do.

Same old cliches. War is hell so mass murdering defenseless civilians is acceptable. I don’t believe that for one second. We Americans should be better than that, but we’re not.

 

[tyroneweaver]

Americans need to come to the realization that the bombings of civilians was really mass murder, not unlike what Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were guilty of.

Great column on the subject.

The Atomic Bombing of Japan, Reconsidered
By Alan Mosley
Mises.org

January 2, 2019

Russia’s move, in fact, compelled the Japanese to consider unconditional surrender; until then, they were only open to a conditional surrender that left their Emperor Hirohito some dignity and protections from war-crimes trials. Ward concludes that, as in the European theatre, Truman didn’t beat Japan; Stalin did.

Harry Truman never expressed regret publicly over his decision to use the atomic bombs. However, he did order an independent study on the state of the war effort leading up to August of 1945, and the strategic value of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. In 1946, the U.S. Bombing Survey published its findings, which concluded as follows: “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” This is an intensive condemnation of Truman’s decision, seeing as Russia did enter the war, and that plans for an invasion had been developed.

As Timothy P. Carney writesfor the Washington Examiner, the fog of war can be a tricky thing. But if we’re forced to side with Truman, or Eisenhower and the other dissenting military leaders, the Eisenhower position isn’t merely valid; it actually aligns better with some fundamental American values. Given all the uncertainty, both at the time and with modern historical revisionism, it’s better to look to principle rather than fortune-telling. One principle that should be near the top of everyone’s list is this: it’s wrong to target civilians with weapons of mass destruction. The deliberate killing of innocent men, women, and children by the hundreds of thousandscannot be justified under any circumstances, much less the ambiguous ones Truman encountered. Whether his decision was motivated by indignation toward Japanese “ pigheadedness” or concern for his troops, Truman’s use of such devastating weapons against non-combatants should not be excused. Americans must strive for complete and honest analysis of the past (and present) conflicts. And if she is to remain true to her own ideals, America must strive for more noble and moral ends—in all conflicts, domestic and foreign—guided by our most cherished first principles, such as the Golden Rule. At the very least, Americans should not try so hard to justify mass murder.

The Atomic Bombing of Japan - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com

my FIL just finished a bloody battle at the Bulge. And was being trained for a land invasion of Japan. I bet he was thankful for the bomb

 

[gipper]

my FIL just finished a bloody battle at the Bulge. And was being trained for a land invasion of Japan. I bet he was thankful for the bomb

As was my dad, but why? Have you asked yourself why our criminal government needed to invade and conquer Japan? We had already destroyed them. They weren’t a threat to anyone.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

As was my dad, but why? Have you asked yourself why our criminal government needed to invade and conquer Japan? We had already destroyed them. They weren’t a threat to anyone.

yes they were they still held large area of foreign territory had several million troops under arms. They were killing thousands of people every month while you claim they were defenseless.

 

[gipper]

yes they were they still held large area of foreign territory had several million troops under arms. They were killing thousands of people every month while you claim they were defenseless.

Once again you prove you know nothing. Their army was starving and without oil. Little ammunition and completely demoralized. Their best soldiers were dead. If you knew anything, you’d know that’s a military incapable of offensive action.

You might read up on how the Soviet Red Army handled the Japanese Imperial Army (Kwantung Army) in Manchuria, but than you’d have to know how to read above fourth grade level.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Once again you prove you know nothing. Their army was starving and without oil. Little ammunition and completely demoralized. Their best soldiers were dead. If you knew anything, you’d know that’s a military incapable of offensive action.

You might read up on how the Soviet Red Army handled the Japanese Imperial Army (Kwantung Army) in Manchuria, but than you’d have to know how to read above fourth grade level.

You are a retard but then we have known that for years.

 

[gipper]

You are a retard but then we have known that for years.

That’s a fourth grader response. You’re much too old to be so dumb.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That’s a fourth grader response. You’re much too old to be so dumb.

the only dumb ones in this thread are all you morons claiming we could have just ignored Japan in 1945