The truth about Truman’s bombing Japan

gipper said:
There never was any need for a ground invasion.
Click to expand...
It was the next planned operation of US forces, your attempts to rewrite history to make the US the bad guy are falling on deaf ears. The Japanese started the war in the Pacific, we ended it. That is history. Whether the ground invasion was necessary or not is a moot question, and opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. Yours happens to stink.
 
Kruska said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
The immoral part of that war was getting involved in the first place by helping China fight Japan in a conflict in Asia. Just like it was immoral to get involved in the fighting among middle-easterners. Here is a good way to avoid suicidal attacks by fanatics that force us to either help the fanatics speed up their suicide, or let their slow suicide harm us along the way: Don't get involved with suicidal maniacs.

This part of the OP's quotes study:

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.

is absurd. We believe that the Japanese would have surrendered because surviving Japanese leaders said so? Why did those leaders survive when most of the leadership did not? Because they were not suicidal maniacs as were most of the Japanese leadership.

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.
 
Redfish said:
.... Do you think the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was not intended to kill civilians?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Seymour Flops said:
The immoral part of that war was getting involved in the first place by helping China fight Japan in a conflict in Asia. Just like it was immoral to get involved in the fighting among middle-easterners. Here is a good way to avoid suicidal attacks by fanatics that force us to either help the fanatics speed up their suicide, or let their slow suicide harm us along the way: Don't get involved with suicidal maniacs.

This part of the OP's quotes study:

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.

is absurd. We believe that the Japanese would have surrendered because surviving Japanese leaders said so? Why did those leaders survive when most of the leadership did not? Because they were not suicidal maniacs as were most of the Japanese leadership.

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.
Click to expand...
Historically accurate, but don't expect our resident peacenik libs to understand. They are the same idiots that put senile Joe in office so he could let China dominate us.
 
The crazy left never ceases trying to rewrite history. Why? Because they're liars. Their agenda is a lie. Therefore, everything has to fit the lie. They're in darkness.
 
15th post
Hawaii had been a part of the United States for almost a half century by the time of Pearl Harbor. To insist otherwise is to pretend that Washington DC and Puerto Rico, among others, aren't part of the United States now, which is nonsense.

That said, I have never seen evidence that the Japanese deliberately targeted the civilian population during the attack on Pearl Harbor. The primary target of the first wave was the shipyard and ships, while they ignored infrastructure targets such as oil tanks and headquarters buildings. The target of the second wave was the airfield and hangers. There is even a report that during their low-flying approach, one of the Japanese pilots waved off civilians to warn them of the impending attack.

That also said, that is one data point in a long and bloody series of wars. This is, after all, the same Japanese military that perpetuated the Rape of Nanking, which was beyond horrifying.

The point is, no nation is heroic and absolved from atrocities during wartime. The villain in this story is the war itself, which turns even the most noble participants into cruel monsters who would absolutely target civilians if they felt it was necessary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Was America too slow to free the slaves or is the record pretty good given the plant's history?

< Previous Thread

Those extinct by Germans don't include Jews.

Next Thread >

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
President Trump Is Alarmingly Wrong On Iran!
Replies
6
Views
195
katsteve2012
katsteve2012
Ringo
A comparison of how Western media outlets cover events in Ukraine and Iran⁠⁠2
Replies
0
Views
89
Ringo
Ringo
Ringo
About Poland's plans to demand reparations from Russia.
Replies
1
Views
126
1srelluc
1srelluc
Invisibleflash
Was atomic bomb on Japan meant to save lives or to scare Stalin?
2
Replies
28
Views
552
Deadstick
Deadstick
Doc7505
Democrats Erupt Over Trump’s Iran Strikes
3 4 5
Replies
93
Views
959
berg80
berg80

New Topics

Latest Discussions

Back
Top Bottom