View Full Version : Hiroshima\nagasaki
As japan had been trying to surrender months before the bombings, was the A-bomb used as a show of military might to keep stalin's russia underfoot?
Kaishowing
31-Mar-07, 23:24
I think it was done for a number of reasons.
Millions had been spent to develop the weapon, and to justify that cost there had to be a practical demonstation.
That demonstration was also intended to announce to Stalin that America was not a country that he would want to tangle with.
The main reason though was to end the war.
While surrender could well have been possible from Japan using conventional warfare, given the fanaticism of the troops a statement such as the two bombs would ensure that the majority of tha Japanese troops would cease to fight quickly therefore saving more allied lives.
Plus you have to factor human nature into the decision too.
Payback for Pearl Harbour.
As japan had been trying to surrender months before the bombings, was the A-bomb used as a show of military might to keep stalin's russia underfoot?
Not just Russia, the entire world.
Not just Russia, the entire world.
The communist parts anyway.
Interesting to read the projected death-count had it stayed conventional, 40,000 U.S. soldiers killed, 150,000 wounded, and 3,500 missing, how does this balance against 140,000 killed in hiroshima and those that died over the following years?
As japan had been trying to surrender months before the bombings
Have you any evidence of this?:confused
Have you any evidence of this?:confusedTruman's diary gives reference to a 'telegram from the Japanese emperor asking for peace.
Truman's diary gives reference to a 'telegram from the Japanese emperor asking for peace.
dates, times, quotes of content?
Kaishowing
01-Apr-07, 01:29
"Remember to add your calculations in your margine or marks will be taken off!"
"Remember to add your calculations in your margine or marks will be taken off!"
"Marks will not be deducted for any misplaced opinions so long as you can back up your assertions by presenting actual historical references.":Razz
Rheghead, it's one of those "pick the bits you want" suggestions.
Using the same method interpretation the claim could be made that in the early days of WW2 Britain was trying to "Surrender" to Hitler because a few top people and politicians thought we should not be at war with Fascists.
Actually I think there is good evidence to think that the Germans were trying to "Surrender" to us shortly after the start of the War and that Hitler sent Hess to negotiate their "Surrender".
We refused to accept the German surrender in order to continue testing the weapons we were using, after all, we had spent a fortune on the Navy and were developing some really advanced bombs.
It was only when Hitler realised that we were engaging in a massive Cover-up about the whole issue, in order to extend the War, that he denied all knowledge of what Hess was doing in order to save face.
Well, it's as near the truth as the fallacy that the Japanese had been trying to "Surrender" for months prior to the end of the War. Unless, of course, the Japanese were having difficulty finding somebody to translate two simple words, "We Surrender" from their language into English.
It also helps the “They were trying to Surrender for Months” myth if you ignore the fact that, even as the Emperor was recording the Surrender Tape, Officers from the War Ministry, in an attempt to seize the Emperor and the Tape with the intent of issuing forged Orders for Kamikaze Attacks, were involved in a desperate battle with Palace Troops loyal to the Emperor.
Had that battle ended differently then the Surrender would not have occurred as early as it did.
As usual, they totally ignore the bits of what really occurred that doesn't suit their version.
dates, times, quotes of content?
They are all listed here (http://www.antiwar.com/henderson/?articleid=9443).
They are all listed here (http://www.antiwar.com/henderson/?articleid=9443).
Sorry fred, I asked for times, dates and quotes of content to actual attempts to surrender by the japanese, and that has to be unconditional surrender btw. Still waiting....
Rheghead, I do so love it when I am fed useful information and sources. I decided to have a quick Google on Truman’s Diaries and the Japanese Surrender.
The site I came across was
http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/Churchill/Japan_surrender_attempts/July_1945.html
It is titled, “The attempts by the Japanese government to surrender, July 1945”
It starts on 7 July 1945 and ends on 27 July 1945.
At the beginning of July the Japanese were making urgent Diplomatic attempts in Moscow to prevent Russia from joining in the War against them at almost any cost.
The only direct attempts by the Japanese to indicate any prospects of Surrender to Truman was via Comrades Stalin and Molotov at the Potsdam Conference.
The Russians were, to say the least, unhelpful and blocked the Japanese Ambassador’s access to either of the Comrades, even claiming they had left Moscow when in fact they were still there.
I am at a complete loss to understand why the Russians should be so reluctant to help end the War against Japan.
On 8 August 1945, Russia declared War on Japan! What a surprise.
I wonder just who it was who had an interest in extending the length of that War and who might wish to transfer that blame, via their acolytes, to the Americans?
"Marks will not be deducted for any misplaced opinions so long as you can back up your assertions by presenting actual historical references."How can it be a misplaced opinion if I can back it up?;)
Rheghead, it's one of those "pick the bits you want" suggestions.
Using the same method interpretation the claim could be made that in the early days of WW2 Britain was trying to "Surrender" to Hitler because a few top people and politicians thought we should not be at war with Fascists.
Actually I think there is good evidence to think that the Germans were trying to "Surrender" to us shortly after the start of the War and that Hitler sent Hess to negotiate their "Surrender".
We refused to accept the German surrender in order to continue testing the weapons we were using, after all, we had spent a fortune on the Navy and were developing some really advanced bombs.
It was only when Hitler realised that we were engaging in a massive Cover-up about the whole issue, in order to extend the War, that he denied all knowledge of what Hess was doing in order to save face. Nice debating style but how about I pick the bits that are relevant.:lol:
Well, it's as near the truth as the fallacy that the Japanese had been trying to "Surrender" for months prior to the end of the War. Unless, of course, the Japanese were having difficulty finding somebody to translate two simple words, "We Surrender" from their language into English. leahy, nimitz, halsey and bonesteel seem to disagree with you there jaws, I think I'll stick to their views.
As usual, they totally ignore the bits of what really occurred that doesn't suit their version.Who are they?
Sorry fred, I asked for times, dates and quotes of content to actual attempts to surrender by the japanese, and that has to be unconditional surrender btw. Still waiting....Try doing some research or do you know it all already?
Try doing some research or do you know it all already?
I remember going through all this 'Japan trying to surrender thing' with fred about 2 years ago. It is just a load of 'conspiracy rubbish' with a heap of 'anti-america' thrown in for good measure.
If Japan really wanted to surrender then all they just had to do was lay down their arms like anyother numptie does when he surrenders.
I remember going through all this 'Japan trying to surrender thing' with fred about 2 years ago. It is just a load of 'conspiracy rubbish' with a heap of 'anti-america' thrown in for good measure.
If Japan really wanted to surrender then all they just had to do was lay down their arms like anyother numptie does when he surrenders.Surely you realise that with america wanting an unconditional surrender that it was more complicated than that?
Also, I am not anti-american so you have made an erroneous assumption, as for the conspiracy rubbish are you telling me the diaries and the thoughts of the others actualy involved in the decision making are fake?[lol]
are you telling me the diaries and the thoughts of the others actualy involved in the decision making are fake?[lol]
No, I am saying that documents that reveal attempts by the Japanese for an unconditional surrender do not exist before the bombs were dropped.
sorghaghtanibeki
01-Apr-07, 19:51
It is mind boggling to see the subjects that Fred Google and others of his disposition display on this forum. No doubt great minds have examined the subject of the bombs - much deeper than any googler on this could ever do. I think that it was because it was the USA who dropped the A - bomb that is more to do with it than anything with some of you. it is obvious that the "there were peace moves afoot" brigade have not visited Kanchanaburi and walked the route of the 'death railway' - I have and any action that would have bought about the cessation of this obscene torture would be justified, also a conservative estimation of an additional million dead was prevented. we have a saying 'hindsight is an exact science' now instead of pontificating about something you know nothing about (save google) read 'Old Marine's posting 'borrowed' from 'sailors held by Iran' thread and post something you KNOW about (now nothing I've written was engine searched).. I have help with my English!
Oldmarine #177 Sailors held by Iran thread "I fought through the Pacific for 36 months and observed the Japanese forces fighting harder and harder as we neared their homeland. When our troops entered Japan after the surrender they reported that old men, women and children were prepared to stand shoulder-to-shoulder in defending their homeland. The Japanese Emperor who was a god-like figure made the correct choice when he ordered his country to surrender. Otherwise, it would have been the worse blood bath the entire Pacific war would have seen."
Just read "Surviving under the sword" read it and then tell me it was wrong to drop the bombs!It was done,it was right at the time and nobody can change it now.
Sorry fred, I asked for times, dates and quotes of content to actual attempts to surrender by the japanese, and that has to be unconditional surrender btw. Still waiting....
You suddenly decide it has to be unconditional surrender.
The only condition the Japanese wanted was the safety of their Emperor.
America refused and dropped two atom bombs.
Then they guaranteed the safety of the Emperor.
The people of Hiroshema and Nagasaki died needlessly and senselessly.
The only "Condition" the Japanese were seeking was that the Emperor was left in place which is exactly what happened so there was obviously no problem there!
Other than that they accepted "Unconditional Surrender" without question.
The only "Conspiracy" which was happening over the ending of the War with Japan was that Stalin and the Russians, who had steadfastly refused to enter the War with Japan even at that late date, were spreading 'misinformation' about Japanese attempts to seek Surrender both to the Allies and to the Japanese.
It doesn’t take a lot of intelligence, especially in view of the fact that within a couple of weeks Stalin declared War on Japan, to realise why the Russians were busy blocking Japan’s attempted negotiations via them. They were stalling until they had massed their Army on the on the Borders of Japanese held China in order to Declare War and grab as many last minute ‘spoils’ as they could for the least involvement.
Nor does it take much to work out in whose interest it was, at the start of the Cold War, to spread information that the Capitalist West and the Americans in particular, were responsible for ignoring Japanese attempts to “Surrender”.
Nor does it take a great deal of intelligence to realise that the same deceit, and many like it, are still being perpetuated by those who continue to dream up fantasies for the overthrow of the “Capitalist West”.
You suddenly decide it has to be unconditional surrender.
The only condition the Japanese wanted was the safety of their Emperor.
America refused and dropped two atom bombs.
Then they guaranteed the safety of the Emperor.
The people of Hiroshema and Nagasaki died needlessly and senselessly.
I think you have to prove the causal link. Do you think the Emperor committed war crimes?
I think you have to prove the causal link. Do you think the Emperor committed war crimes?
Hmmm, Did Hitler, did Mussolini, did Saddam ? good question Rheghead?
Hmmm, Did Hitler, did Mussolini, did Saddam ? good question Rheghead?
Did Bush????
Quite frankly, it does not matter if they were going to surrender or not. Anyone that thinks that it is justifiable to use nuclear weapons or even just to use them as a deterrent on or against any persons in any situation or conflict is an ignorant psychopath. Only the darkest kind of criminals actually think this kind of violence, much less any violence and blatant disregard for the environment and human kind is alright.
And conventional wars are ok or less painful I take it??
Just read "Surviving under the sword" read it and then tell me it was wrong to drop the bombs!It was done,it was right at the time and nobody can change it now.
Haven't read the book but this is the most sensible post on the thread.
Quite simply, nothing can be changed now. I wonder what is to be gained from wringing our hands over events in History that we are powerless to do anything about?
It is easy to play the intellectual idealist sitting in a cosy armchair, armed with Google and a feeling of self-righteousness. Hindsight is also a mighty powerful tool when coupled with total non-responsibility. Very different to be there at the time with the weight of both military and civilian lives to muddy the equation of perfection. It was not a question then of "What would Jesus do?" more one of "Jesus, what the F-Company do we do?"
Of course, fred and roy will convince you that they could have found a solution where everybody went home good friends and those bad guns all went into a skip beside the bottle banks at the supermarket. Fantasy Island or what?
There are plenty of people in this World who are currently dying through lack of food, clean water or other things that we CAN address, so why the obsession with things we can do nothing about and which, quite frankly, people are unlikely to feel sympathy about. Lose a Child, Brother or Father in a war and then come back to spout your idealist tripe!!
Not a perfect world, never will be, let's focus on that which CAN help.
This article is certified Googleless
much less any violence
Gosh, the secret to world peace has been staring at us in the face and we just haven't noticed. Why don't we just go around and be nice to one another?:roll:
I think you have to prove the causal link. Do you think the Emperor committed war crimes?
Happy birthday.
sorghaghtanibeki
01-Apr-07, 22:22
Roy; "Quite frankly, it does not matter if they were going to surrender or not. Anyone that thinks that it is justifiable to use nuclear weapons or even just to use them as a deterrent on or against any persons in any situation or conflict is an ignorant psychopath. Only the darkest kind of criminals actually think this kind of violence, much less any violence and blatant disregard for the environment and human kind is alright"
roll over and play dead; simplistic naivety
No, I am saying that documents that reveal attempts by the Japanese for an unconditional surrender do not exist before the bombs were dropped.Obviously they didn't exist at the time, that's why they are called memoirs.
Arguing for the sake of arguing once again?
Being nice to each other would be a damn good start in my opinion. I feel extremely sorry for you if you think the answer to peace is war! Is that more doublespeak again Rheghead? Good one!:lol:
WAR IS PEACE.
PEACE IS WAR. :eek:
It takes two to argue.
The reality is that there are nutters like Amedinajhad in the world who would nuke Israel purely on religious grounds if he had the bomb.
If the bad boys have weapons then the good boys have to have bigger weapons.
Peace is worth fighting for.
"Peace is worth fighting for" is nothing but, pure, unequivocal doublethink. At it's finest. :confused
Try telling that to any citizen of a country who is being invaded. You wouldn't last very long I'd imagine...
The latest insult, we are all get our info from google, hehehe, haven't heard that one since irc.[lol]
Google is our god but we bow to your superior knowledge.http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b104/voltarol/77.gif
"Peace is worth fighting for" is nothing but, pure, unequivocal doublethink. At it's finest. :confused
It's like saying virginity is worth screwing for.
Try telling that to any citizen of a country who is being invaded. You wouldn't last very long I'd imagine...
Which one Afghanistan or Iraq?
Or shall we hang on a while and ask Iran?
Which one Afghanistan or Iraq?
Or shall we hang on a while and ask Iran?
You are so predictable.
Both.
It takes two to argue.
The reality is that there are nutters like Amedinajhad in the world who would nuke Israel purely on religious grounds if he had the bomb.
If the bad boys have weapons then the good boys have to have bigger weapons.
Peace is worth fighting for.
This is not about religion, but about the illegal occupation of land.
I am not aware of any comments of Amedinajhad that would suggest that he has a problem with anybody being a cristian or a jew rather than a muslim.
Your quotation " ...nutters like Amedinajhad in the world who would nuke Israel purely on religious grounds if he had the bomb" is pathetic and really little helpful.
Can you please provide some evidence that Iran would "nuke" anybody on religious grounds?
This is not about religion, but about the illegal occupation of land.
I am not aware of any comments of Amedinajhad that would suggest that he has a problem with anybody being a cristian or a jew rather than a muslim.
Your quotation " ...nutters like Amedinajhad in the world who would nuke Israel purely on religious grounds if he had the bomb" is pathetic and really little helpful.
Can you please provide some evidence that Iran would "nuke" anybody on religious grounds?
Iraq illegally occupied Kuwaiti lands yet Iran didn't call for Iraq to be wiped off the face of the Earth even considering all the bad blood between them. Yet it calls for Israel to wiped off the face of the Earth, the difference? Religion.
Kaishowing
01-Apr-07, 23:55
I seem to remember that Sadaam hid his entire air force in Iran not long after that....Is that a case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend?...or two Middle Eastern countries calling a truce to face the greater enemy....us?
After their 8 year war (which had only ended about a couple of years previously) you'd think that only a powerful shared hatred or fear would force those two countries to abandon their mutual distrust.
As for Iran's attitude towards Israel....I would suggest the main issue is American sponsorship (less so nowadays...but still an issue)
The Jewish religion has always been a factor in that region, Israel hasn't.
Iraq illegally occupied Kuwaiti lands yet Iran didn't call for Iraq to be wiped off the face of the Earth even considering all the bad blood between them. Yet it calls for Israel to wiped off the face of the Earth, the difference? Religion.
So you think religion is the only difference between Iraq and Israel? That's pathetic and you know it.
So you think religion is the only difference between Iraq and Israel? That's pathetic and you know it.
Iran is an Islamic theocracy, the religious leaders are the real wielders of power. Israel is a Jewish parliamentary democracy.
I do not think religion is the only difference but it is the main one.
Iran is an Islamic theocracy, the religious leaders are the real wielders of power. Israel is a Jewish parliamentary democracy.
I do not think religion is the only difference but it is the main one.
Can you please show any evidence that Iran would consider to wipe 'another country of the map' purely on religious reasons?
May be you could try to provide a standard of evidence that is high enough to meet your own criteria?
Can you please show any evidence that Iran would consider to wipe 'another country of the map' purely on religious reasons?
May be you could try to provide a standard of evidence that is high enough to meet your own criteria?
A theocracy works on the basis of drawing its policy including its foreign policy from scripture.
Do you want a list of anti-semitic exerpts from the Koran?
Iraq illegally occupied Kuwaiti lands yet Iran didn't call for Iraq to be wiped off the face of the Earth even considering all the bad blood between them.
Can you provide proof of that statement?
Yet it calls for Israel to wiped off the face of the Earth, the difference? Religion.
No, they didn't call for Israel to be wiped off the face of the earth.
You live in a fantasy world, you ignore reality, you ignore the facts, you just keep repeating the lies in the hope you repeat them enough times they will become true.
The rightful owners of a land are its indigenous inhabitants, in the case of that part of Palestine now called Israel that would be the Palestinians regardless of religion, there were Muslim, Jewish and Christian Palestinians indigenous to Palestine just as there are Muslim, Jewish and Christian Iranians.
The people now laying claim to Palestine are not its indigenous inhabitants, they have arrived there in the last hundred years from various parts of Europe where their ancestors had lived for centuries. They began the ethnic clensing of Palestine even before the British mandate ended, half of the refugees expelled were in the 6 weeks prior to it ending.
The UN partition plan of 1947 recomended that 56% of the land be set aside for a Jewish State, 42% for an Arab state and 2% for an internationalised Jerusalem, through a series of masacres the Zionists grabbed 77%.
Palestinian Refugees have the right to return to their homes in Israel.
General Assembly Resolution 194, Dec. 11, 1948
"Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible."
Israel's occupation of Palestine is Illegal.
Security Council Resolution 242, Nov. 22, 1967
Calls for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from territories occupied in the war that year and "the acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."
Israel's settlements in Palestine are Illegal.
Security Council Resolution 446, March 22, 1979
"Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East."
Palestinian have the right to Self-Determination.
General Assembly Resolution 3236, November 22, 1974
Affirms "the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine...to self-determination without external interference" and "to national independence and sovereignty."
The Zionist regime in Israel has complied with none of these resolutions, that is what it is about.
By your logic, that means Iran wants to wipe every country off the map that isn't an Islamic theocracy! Who's the nutter now?[lol] Ridiculous!
I never said that.
Please do not tell me that you are assuming all Muslims are anti-semitic now are you?
Never said that either, are you arguing for the sake of it?
Can you provide proof of that statement?
Where have you been for the last 17 years?
A theocracy works on the basis of drawing its policy including its foreign policy from scripture.
Do you want a list of anti-semitic exerpts from the Koran?
Would a list "of anti-semitic exerpts from the Koran" proof anything about Iran's intention to destroy Israel?
Can you please show some decent evidence to back up your claim?
Would a list "of anti-semitic exerpts from the Koran" proof anything about Iran's intention to destroy Israel?
Would Iran be an effective theocracy if it didn't take its policy directly from scripture? It is God's word, no?
You're grasping at straws here!
I think you are trivialising the effect that Islam has on the lives of Iranians and other muslims.
Well, what are you saying here then Rheghead? Really? I think you are fantasising that there is some type of general religious hate of Muslims towards other religions.
The students that were pelting stones at the British Embassy were not students of International Law, Criminal Law but Islamic Studies. Why would students of Islamic studies turn out in their droves in protest over an unreligious matter?
I think you are trivialising the effect that Islam has on the lives of Iranians and other muslims.
So could you please enlighten me what effect the bible and christianity has on the leaders of US and UK and whether these effects are better or worse and why, compared with what you have told us about Islam and Iran?
So could you please enlighten me what effect the bible and christianity has on the leaders of US and UK and whether these effects are better or worse and why, compared with what you have told us about Islam and Iran?
I think it has a tremendous effect. When Bush spoke in terms of a 'crusade', it spoke volumes to me. When Blair is a closet Roman Catholic instead of coming out truthfully then that speaks volumes to me.
You truly have lost the plot now Rheghead. :eek:
Think again, Bush openly admits to God telling him that invading Iraq was the right thing to do.
Are you suggesting religion doesn't have an effect on his foreign policy?
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article317805.ece
The bible says, Thou shalt not kill, mind?[para]
The Bible is the ideal book for the cherry-pickers of logic, same goes for the Koran. There are lots of references to killing and encouragement to kill.
They have been literary inspirations for almost all of the world's atrocities. I doubt if a future nuclear strike in the middle east should be an exemption to this rule.
Nope, just the politically motivated using anything they can to indoctrinate others.
Kaishowing
02-Apr-07, 02:34
Actually, in this case Rheghead is correct.
If you look at transcripts of speeches that George W Gump has made since 9/11 you'll notice that more and more frequently he quotes from the bible and paraphrases certain passages.
He's said quite openly that the success of the American trops is due to the fact that they're on a religiously inspired 'mission'.
He's even said that his place as president is a 'divine appointment'.
From being your run-of-the-mill born again Christian 9/11 has turned him into a genuine fire and brimstone messianic Calvinist.
Rather frightening when you combine that with his true belief that America is to lead the world to eradicate evil.
One of the most frightenting comments I've heard about is "Bush seems to make this mistake over and over again—confusing nation, church, and God. The resulting theology is more American civil religion than Christian faith."
Basically that he's remaking Christianity in his own image, and his country is letting him get away with it.
Look at the history of some of his speechwriters.....Alot have evangelical roots. So they make frequent use of biblical quotes, but the fact is that they're being taken totally out of context...something that the majority of Christian America conveniantly overlooks as long as there's a member of the religious right in the oval office.
Yup.....Dubya's a dangerous man.
Actually, in this case Rheghead is correct.
If you look at transcripts of speeches that George W Gump has made since 9/11 you'll notice that more and more frequently he quotes from the bible and paraphrases certain passages.
He's said quite openly that the success of the American trops is due to the fact that they're on a religiously inspired 'mission'.
He's even said that his place as president is a 'divine appointment'.
From being your run-of-the-mill born again Christian 9/11 has turned him into a genuine fire and brimstone messianic Calvinist.
Rather frightening when you combine that with his true belief that America is to lead the world to eradicate evil.
One of the most frightenting comments I've heard about is "Bush seems to make this mistake over and over again—confusing nation, church, and God. The resulting theology is more American civil religion than Christian faith."
Basically that he's remaking Christianity in his own image, and his country is letting him get away with it.
Look at the history of some of his speechwriters.....Alot have evangelical roots. So they make frequent use of biblical quotes, but the fact is that they're being taken totally out of context...something that the majority of Christian America conveniantly overlooks as long as there's a member of the religious right in the oval office.
Yup.....Dubya's a dangerous man.Did you google that.;)
Come now jaws, do you believe that leahy, nimitz, halsey and bonesteel are liars?
Not in the least, just that such claims about them without indication of the source and the context of what they said is not very convincing.
Are you saying that they all claim to have known, before the fact, that they knew exactly at what time the Japanese were going to announce that they had Surrendered?
If so, what is the source of the information where they say this.
I ask simply because all the indications were that the Japanese were hoping that, by going via the Russians, they could avoid surrendering directly to Americans and British.
cliffhbuber
02-Apr-07, 05:00
A fine daze to all! A few comments on the latest phase of this discussion.
Re: Bush and the 2 dimensional gang..(that can't shoot straight)
Most in North America do not believe that Bush has enough background knowledge to make prudent decisions in international affairs.
Bush has said for years he doesn't read and it is quite obvious.
His clinging to religious zeal is taken by many as rhetoric to please the religious right which represents about 20 to 25% of the Republican vote in recent elections.
As for Bush being a true religious believer, that is anyone's guess.
People will do anything to create an image for politics.
A number of the right-wing religious leaders in the US preach hatred for other religious groups, and at times, come across as batty as religious zealots around the world.
The Bush White House team have politicized foreign affairs to deal with the domestic image. A root cause for going to war was to get the votes for the 2002 November election. Another lingering sore was the promise by Bush 1 that the Shiites would be aided by the US if they revolted against Saddam in 1991/2. Many Shiites tried to revolt, but the US did nothing.
Cheney and Rumsfeld convinced Bush W. that the US had to revisit the Iraq issue to gain self-respect.
The oil issue should not be left out of the equation as the White House did for almost 4 years. Late last Fall, Bush conceded that the US would have to stay in Iraq to protect the oil interests. (VP Cheney was a past CEO of Halliburton, an oil giant, which got the non-bid contract to rebuild the oil fields in Iraq)
Although Bush passed signed a bill to become law while Governor of Texas that has made that state the greatest producer of wind power, he has not considered publicly similar legislation for the country.
The move to ethanol is but a kickback for corn (the ears and stalks kind of corn) farmers as that fuel cannot be transported by pipeline, requires a present subsidy of 40 cents US a gallon, and gets far less mileage than gasoline or diesel fuel.
Ethanol made from sugar cane a in Brazil gets about 9 times more value for the dollar than ethanol made from corn.
With a diminishing educated class, relative to a huge immigrant and underclass population, and with a disappearing middle class, the US is not in a very favourable position in trying to be the world's policeman nor to take on up and coming trade powerhouses such as India and China.
With China holding 100s of billions in US treasury bonds, the States has been very reluctant to challenge China on trade practices or copyright theft.
It is always easy for outsiders to criticize the States, but criticism is necessary when a huge elephant may trample on the ants.
For those outsiders, myself included, a good tactic is to encourage the millions of decent and sensible Americans who want real change.
What other country would we want to call the some of the shots in world affairs?
As Churchill once stated, "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."
Not in the least, just that such claims about them without indication of the source and the context of what they said is not very convincing.
Are you saying that they all claim to have known, before the fact, that they knew exactly at what time the Japanese were going to announce that they had Surrendered?
If so, what is the source of the information where they say this.
I ask simply because all the indications were that the Japanese were hoping that, by going via the Russians, they could avoid surrendering directly to Americans and British.The source, some wrote memoirs, (which I have read, not on google by the way.:D) and previously unreleased statements.
The context was the utter disgust of certain military men, (eisenhower and macArthur in particular), at the a-bomb having been used and their reasons why it was unnessessary.
I am not saying and never infered that they knew exactly when the japanese were going to announce their surrender only that they knew that the japanese had been trying to do so before the soviets entered the war.
oldmarine
02-Apr-07, 06:39
As japan had been trying to surrender months before the bombings, was the A-bomb used as a show of military might to keep stalin's russia underfoot?
Where did you get that false information? Someone has been feeding you a bunch of poppycock. I was there for 36 months and from what I observed Japan certainly was not trying to surrender months before the two A-bombs were dropped. The only two A-bombs in our arsenal were required to force the Japanese Emperor to talk his people into surrender over the objections of the Japanese warlords.
cliffhbuber
02-Apr-07, 07:00
Oldmarine is quite correct in that the Japanese military dictatorship showed no interest in unconditonal surrender (as mentioned earlier) until well after the dropping the the 2nd A-bomb.
The generally accepted figure for casualties of an American attack on the Japanese mainland was 500 000.
Also, the US was by far the largest force fighting the Japanese on their outpost islands such as Iwo JIma and Okinawa.
Where did you get that false information? Someone has been feeding you a bunch of poppycock. I was there for 36 months and from what I observed Japan certainly was not trying to surrender months before the two A-bombs were dropped. The only two A-bombs in our arsenal were required to force the Japanese Emperor to talk his people into surrender over the objections of the Japanese warlords.
The world survives for millions of years without atomic weapons and the moment one is developed, for use against Hitler should he develop one as well, it becomes imperative to use it on Japan.
Two men fighting, one is beaten, laid there gasping unable to rise unable to throw another punch and the other one takes out a gun and shoots him...twice, where is the honour in that?
Not one bomb fell on America in WWII, Japan's cities had been flattened, every target of any strategic importance at all had been flattened, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were civilian targets.
It cannot be justified, if a country was facing certain defeat then I could see the justification for using such a devastating weapon but not when a country had already won, not when there was the alternative to discus terms of surrender with Japan, not when they prolonged the war for weeks just to give themselves chance to use it.
I ask simply because all the indications were that the Japanese were hoping that, by going via the Russians, they could avoid surrendering directly to Americans and British.
So what were they hoping when they tried to discus terms of surrender through direct contact with American diplomats and OSS employees in Sweden and Switzerland?
cliffhbuber
02-Apr-07, 13:34
Not one bomb fell on America in WWII, Japan's cities had been flattened, every target of any strategic importance at all had been flattened, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were civilian targets.
It cannot be justified, if a country was facing certain defeat then I could see the justification for using such a devastating weapon but not when a country had already won, not when there was the alternative to discus terms of surrender with Japan, not when they prolonged the war for weeks just to give themselves chance to use it.
- The US was shelled by at least one Japanese sub off the coast of Oregon. About 1000 ballon bombs fell across the western half of the US (and a few in Canada).
- We might think it was logical for the Japanese to surrender, but they did not.
The population was brainwashed to think that dying for one's country was the ultimate honour; to surrender was the ultimate shame.
The total control of the media and educational systems, whether Nazi, Soviet, or Japanese, took away the ability of many citizens to think logically. The citizenry was trained to support the dictatorship at all costs.
Anyone who thought independently, contrary to the government's policies, would be taken care of by secret police, etc.
In our states of free thinking, hindsight can be an enjoyable, if not frustrating, mental exercise, but we have to try and live the times to appreciate decisions of the day.
Blazing Sporrans
02-Apr-07, 14:25
oldmarine and cliff - I'm afraid that when it comes to debating life, history and the mysteries of the cosmos on the Org, there is only one universal truth, which is;
"What are mere facts and personal experiences compared to the magnitude of fred's opinions?".
Here endeth the lesson [lol]
Not one bomb fell on America in WWII,
Hmmm, and here was me thinking that Pearl Harbour was part of America :confused shows how wrong I can be if I listen to Fred, oh weel, there no fool lek an owld fool [lol]
Where did you get that false information? Someone has been feeding you a bunch of poppycock. I was there for 36 months and from what I observed Japan certainly was not trying to surrender months before the two A-bombs were dropped. The only two A-bombs in our arsenal were required to force the Japanese Emperor to talk his people into surrender over the objections of the Japanese warlords.Try reading the post directly above your own.:roll:
So what were they hoping when they tried to discus terms of surrender through direct contact with American diplomats and OSS employees in Sweden and Switzerland?
“On July 8, 1945, Joseph Grew, the Acting Secretary of State, reported to the Secretary a message from the American envoy in Stockholm: Major-General Onodera, the Japanese military attaché there, had just invited to dinner Prince Carl Bernadotte. Over dinner, the attaché had told the Swede that Japan knew that the war was lost, and that the Emperor and government had authorised him to make direct contact with King Gustav when the right time comes with a view to contacting the Allies. Apart from stating that the Emperor must be maintained in his position after the Japanese capitulation, no condition was specified. Onodera did however stress that the right time had not yet come -- so the Americans were not to be informed of this approach yet. But meanwhile he asked Bernadotte to arrange a meeting with his father Carl Sr., who was brother of King Gustaf and President of the Swedish Red Cross.”
http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/Churchill/Japan_surrender_attempts/July_1945.html
By 6 August it was obvious that “the right time had not yet come”, neither had it by 9 August.
I find it rather strange that the Japanese should be negotiating with the OSS in Sweden at the same time that they are talking to the Swedes and telling them specifically not to inform the Americans.
If what you say is true (and I notice you do not quote a source) then the Japanese were feeding disinformation to at least the Swedes and common sense would dictate to the OSS also to ensure the Americans did not approach the Swedes directly. I can find no reference to the Japanese negotiating their surrender via the OSS.
Likewise with respect to Switzerland, I can find no reference to any Japanese negotiations prior to the aforementioned dates or after for that matter.
It would be of great help if you could show some back-up for your information which, as usual, is delightfully devoid of verifiable facts.
Kaishowing
02-Apr-07, 18:30
Don't know about Switzerland...But there is some evidence to suggest that an almost identical peace proposal to the one the Japanese signed in September, was proposed by the Japanese themselves to MacArthur in January. He forwarded it to Roosevelt prior to his visit to Yalta for the 'Big Three' meeting.
As to why it wasn't acted on?...Or if Roosevelt's declining health was an issue?
Who knows.
The offer was made and rejected. Without knowing the full facts at hand at the time we're not in any position to judge.
Eagle-eyed hindsight is easy.
The offer was made and rejected. Without knowing the full facts at hand at the time we're not in any position to judge.
Eagle-eyed hindsight is easy.
Good to see someone else get to the point instead of batting urls back and forth across the net. This seems to be Jaws and Rheghead vs fred and roy as much as anything else.
Pick any subject and the same names will be there on Centre Court at the Org Wimbledon Doubles Championship.
"Advantage Rheghead and Jaws"
Now finish them off before rain stops play and Sir Cliff starts warbling from his botoxed heid!!
sorghaghtanibeki
02-Apr-07, 19:00
exactly scorrie!
Kaishowing Rheghead and Jaws "hindsight is a exact science'
Kaishowing
02-Apr-07, 19:29
"hindsight is a exact science'
Only with the full facts. Something we dont have the luxury of unfortunately.
cliffhbuber
02-Apr-07, 19:49
Now finish them off before rain stops play and Sir Cliff starts warbling from his botoxed heid!!
:) Dat's for shore! The warblers are returning from their winter climes, and there is nothing that beats a soapbox of botox...light enough to carry off when the rotten tomatoes and cabbage head one's way.
As me great 9x grandpappy, Huisdean Dhu M'Kay said up there in Durness, "When you go out on the rocky ledge to relieve yourself, be sure there is enough room to turn around. Backing up in a tail wind can be nasty."
Aye!
Kaishowing, sorghaghtanibeki, I couldn't agree more.
People are always good at telling you that they knew exactly what was going to occur yesterday but, strangely enough, never bothered to announce the fact on the day prior to that.
I have no idea what would have happened regarding the surrender of Japan had Hiroshima and Nagasaki had not been bombed, and neither has anybody else.
All even the wisest can do, under the circumstances, is use the exact science of Guesswork and to present that as “fact” is, to say the least, intentionally misleading.
Hmmm, and here was me thinking that Pearl Harbour was part of America :confused shows how wrong I can be if I listen to Fred, oh weel, there no fool lek an owld fool [lol]
Pearl harbour is part of America.
It wasn't when the bombs fell on it though, it didn't become part of America till 1959.
- The US was shelled by at least one Japanese sub off the coast of Oregon. About 1000 ballon bombs fell across the western half of the US (and a few in Canada).
- We might think it was logical for the Japanese to surrender, but they did not.
The population was brainwashed to think that dying for one's country was the ultimate honour; to surrender was the ultimate shame.
The total control of the media and educational systems, whether Nazi, Soviet, or Japanese, took away the ability of many citizens to think logically. The citizenry was trained to support the dictatorship at all costs.
Anyone who thought independently, contrary to the government's policies, would be taken care of by secret police, etc.
In our states of free thinking, hindsight can be an enjoyable, if not frustrating, mental exercise, but we have to try and live the times to appreciate decisions of the day.
Being shelled by one submarine does not justify nuking two cities.
The people of Japan were brainwashed into doing whatever their Emporor told them to do, if he told them to commit suicide they would commit suicide, if he told them to surrender they would surrender.
The bombs wern't used as tactical military weapons against an enemy force, they were used as instruments of terror against a civillian population, terrorism in it's most extreme form.
So if Germany had crushed the British Navy and Airforce, cut off our supply lines, would they have been justified in using nuclear weapons on British civillians to end the war sooner and save the lives of German soldiers?
We'll fight them on the beaches; we'll fight them in the trenches; we'll fight them in the city; we'll fight them in the valleys; but we shall never, never, never surrender.
Winston Churchill
Being shelled by one submarine does not justify nuking two cities.
The people of Japan were brainwashed into doing whatever their Emporor told them to do, if he told them to commit suicide they would commit suicide, if he told them to surrender they would surrender.
The bombs wern't used as tactical military weapons against an enemy force, they were used as instruments of terror against a civillian population, terrorism in it's most extreme form.
So if Germany had crushed the British Navy and Airforce, cut off our supply lines, would they have been justified in using nuclear weapons on British civillians to end the war sooner and save the lives of German soldiers?
So is that you admitting to being wrong about America being bombed? Whatever you think may or may not have happened if they had not been used is irrelevant - they were.
sorghaghtanibeki
02-Apr-07, 20:42
"So if Germany had crushed the British Navy and Airforce, cut off our supply lines, would they have been justified in using nuclear weapons on British civillians to end the war sooner and save the lives of German soldiers?" Would the british still be murdering thousands ofslave laborers on the railway lines, would the british still be using suicide pilots, would the british still be fighting and dieing willingly, would the british still be experimenting biologically on humans, and as the germans were still in process of murdering 6,000,000 jews, gypsies, queers and political people, then dropping a few a bombs would be quite minor
cliffhbuber
02-Apr-07, 20:56
Re: the status of Hawaii in 1941.. It was an American Territory since 1900; thus, it was part of the US...as you know the US Pacific Fleet was stationed at Pearl Harbour when the Japanese attacked.
Your arguments about whether the US (or any other country) should have used the bomb seem to be based on an anti-nuclear bias, which I am sure most of us today have.
However, the choice of weapons leading to the unconditional surrender of Japan, was on the table for discussion in front of President Harry Truman.
Should the firebombing of the large cities by B29s continue? (It was good enough from my point of view).
Or should the US invade the Japanese homeland to fight to the last drop of those defending the Rising Sun?
What would it take to prevent hundreds of thousands of US casualties?
That was the question, for better or worse, not how many Japanese would be killed.
'Bomber' Harris is accused of firebombing German cities. Sadly, in wartime, most don't have the time to philosophize about killing citizens, 'nicely'.
I'm sure the good folks of London and Southern England didn't reflect on the destruction of Berlin, Hamburg, or Dresden as V-1s and V-2s came droning in on them.
War is war, and as often is the case, the crazy leaders don't give a hoot about their own people.
One of Hitler's last memorable (recorded) diatribes was to blame the German people for letting him down. He said the Germans didn't deserve to live.
We are but particles of dust in the eons of history. We do what we have to, to survive.
Discussion is good. Maybe down the road, some leaders, dictators or otherwise, may be less inclined to go for the all-out wipeout of humanity.
Being shelled by one submarine does not justify nuking two cities.
The people of Japan were brainwashed into doing whatever their Emporor told them to do, if he told them to commit suicide they would commit suicide, if he told them to surrender they would surrender.
The bombs wern't used as tactical military weapons against an enemy force, they were used as instruments of terror against a civillian population, terrorism in it's most extreme form.
So if Germany had crushed the British Navy and Airforce, cut off our supply lines, would they have been justified in using nuclear weapons on British civillians to end the war sooner and save the lives of German soldiers?
OK fred, what would you have done had you been in charge at the time?
Bearing in mind that there was no Google back then, I think it is pretty safe to say that you would have wet your little pants and cried like a baby. Google Heavyweight, real life Paperweight!!
So is that you admitting to being wrong about America being bombed? Whatever you think may or may not have happened if they had not been used is irrelevant - they were.
I must admit to not knowing about the balloon bombs, even I don't know everything. I was thinking of conventional bombs dropped from a plane when I made the statement, the sort that rained down on Coventry, London, Dresden and Tokyo, rather than an anti personel mine tied to a hydrogen balloon.
Atomic bombs undoubtedly were used but it is far from irrelevant, it is entirely relevant to the situation we are in today. In 1945 America was the only country in the world with atomic weapons and they determined to keep it that way. They knew that as sole nuclear power there was no war they could not win, they always had the ace of trumps up thier sleeve, every other country in the world would have to back down or face anihilation. They had achieved what Hitler had only dreamt of.
What is relevant is the ease with which they sold one of the greatest crimes of the 20th century to the public. Even today people still say "we saved thousands of lives" and believe it, they don't give a thought to the tens of thousands of women, children, babies who perished and worse, the ones who survived, for a while at least.
Then Russia aquired nuclear technology and the world was safe while the people were told they were now in mortal danger and believed it. There was a balance, neither side could use their ultimate weapon or it would be used against them. In the late 20th century America did try to cancel out the Soviet balance with a Star Wars Program so they could use their ultimate weapon without fear of retaliation and the people were told this was to make them safer and the people believed it.
Now since the fall of the Soviet Union we have entered a new era, once again a faction in control of the American government have their sights set on total world domination, a unipolar Mammon worshiping world. Would they use nuclear weapons again to achieve their goal? You bet they would, just as in 1945 they would not hesitate the moment they thought they could get away with it. The only question is how would they sell it to the people this time, would it be sold as cheaply as the last.
"So if Germany had crushed the British Navy and Airforce, cut off our supply lines, would they have been justified in using nuclear weapons on British civillians to end the war sooner and save the lives of German soldiers?" Would the british still be murdering thousands ofslave laborers on the railway lines, would the british still be using suicide pilots, would the british still be fighting and dieing willingly, would the british still be experimenting biologically on humans, and as the germans were still in process of murdering 6,000,000 jews, gypsies, queers and political people, then dropping a few a bombs would be quite minor
You seem to think that Germany and Japan were not justified in their actions in WWII.
Do I take this to mean they would also be not justified in using nuclear weapons or are you suggesting they would?
It seems that Japan was working on an A-bomb of her own.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unterseeboot_234
U234
The U-boat was loaded with examples of the finest of Germany's war technology: an entire dismantled Me-262 jet fighter, V-2 missile components, plans for other armaments and, most extraordinary of all, 550 kilograms (1,213lb) of uranium oxide – enough raw material for two atomic bombs. In addition, there were some unusual passengers: several high-ranking German experts and two Japanese officers.
http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/H/history/i-m/lastdays1.html
The U-boat was on it’s way from Germany to Japan with it’s cargo when the War in Europe ended. As a result the Crew surrendered to the Americans on 14 May 1945. The Japanese, who were supposedly thinking of nothing but how to Surrender at that time, had sent two Officers to accompany the cargo. The two Japanese Officers committed Hara Kari rather than surrendering with the German Crew.
Seems rather strange to carry such material by U-boat all the way from Germany to Japan so that the Japanese would receive it just in time for them to surrender.
The material was eventually delivered to it’s intended destination by air.
It seems that Japan was working on an A-bomb of her own.
They were up until 1943, they didn't get very far and decided that it would be impossible for Japan, or America, to build an atomic bomb before the end of the war and abandoned the project to concentrate their efforts on developing radar.
Why do you extrapulate Germany, when it was obvious they had lost the war, sending materials they didn't want to fall into allied hands to Japan into "Japan was working on an A-bomb of their own"? Are you so desperate to defend the indefencible?
They were up until 1943, they didn't get very far and decided that it would be impossible for Japan, or America, to build an atomic bomb before the end of the war and abandoned the project to concentrate their efforts on developing radar.
Why do you extrapulate Germany, when it was obvious they had lost the war, sending materials they didn't want to fall into allied hands to Japan into "Japan was working on an A-bomb of their own"? Are you so desperate to defend the indefencible?
U234 was on the way to Japan packed with enriched uranium, was it just going to Japan just for show?:roll: It wasn't 1943, it was 1945.
U234 was on the way to Japan packed with enriched uranium, was it just going to Japan just for show?:roll: It wasn't 1943, it was 1945.
So they get Vallery Singleton to knock up an atomic bomb out of a couple of toilet rolls and an empty washing up liquid bottle then what? They hadn't even managed to land a conventional bomb on an American city and they didn't have enough petrol for the Imperial Palace lawnmower.
The uranium was going to Japan so the Americans wouldn't get their hands on it.
Rheghead and Jaws, why do you continue to give fantasy fred credibility by responding to his tosh?
There comes a time when nonsense outstays its welcome.
For your own credibility, let the Court Jester have the last word so that he can retire to channel 634 and wallow in his own sense of self-satisfaction.
The superior being has spoken, even God cowers down and lets the bairn have his bottle for the greater good of mankind and the lessening of the fiery Hades that is "bored to the diddies" via the Noble Knight "Sir Chin Gin"
sorghaghtanibeki
04-Apr-07, 22:54
fred; Imperial Palace lawnmower was push sort
Having just seen what the Japs did to the inhabitants of Singapore and the garrison here, I am glad they dropped the bombs on Japan. No doubt the other countries they invaded on the way here were treated as appallingly.
They WOULD have fought to the last man - of that there is no doubt. 'oldmarine' was there - how much more of a eyewitness does fred et al want?
If fred wishes to think as he does let him. I suspect if he had a hand in WWII in the far east we'd still be fighting. Or maybe speaking Japanese....
Having just seen what the Japs did to the inhabitants of Singapore and the garrison here, I am glad they dropped the bombs on Japan. No doubt the other countries they invaded on the way here were treated as appallingly.
They WOULD have fought to the last man - of that there is no doubt. 'oldmarine' was there - how much more of a eyewitness does fred et al want?
If fred wishes to think as he does let him. I suspect if he had a hand in WWII in the far east we'd still be fighting. Or maybe speaking Japanese....
Or maybe we'd all be typing away at computers made by Japanese companies, listening Japanese radios and watching Japanese televisions, cooking our food in Japanese microwaves and driving Japanese cars.
I've met a few Japanese people, they are a beautiful people with a beautiful culture, not a bit like the picture you paint of them.
sorghaghtanibeki
05-Apr-07, 20:39
fred; Unit 731?
North Rhins
05-Apr-07, 20:52
I’ve been off line for a couple of weeks, having discovered that laptops don’t bounce, in fact gravity wins every time.
Having now had time to catch up on all the different threads and subjects, I must confess to a sense of déjà vu. It would appear, Fred that you still have the ability to infect every topic you reply to. Your constant attempts to corrupt and manipulate issues open to debate is as predictable as it is tedious.
Your relentless compulsion to attribute the world’s problems on either a) America, b) a conspiracy or c) an American conspiracy is verging on the psychotic.
Rather than relying on this forum to live out your fantasies, I think you would be better served by seeking professional help.
Whatever the solution might be Fred, for the love of the wee man give it a rest.
fred; Unit 731?
Is that a reason to hate the entire Japanese race?
I don't put the blame for Hiroshima and Nagasaki on the American people, I put the blame on the American Government. I doubt you would find many Japanese who would defend the attrocities of Unit 731, why do you defend the attrocities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
I’ve been off line for a couple of weeks, having discovered that laptops don’t bounce, in fact gravity wins every time.
I thought the clique were a bit short handed.
If you don't like what I write don't read it.
why do you defend the attrocities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
It is not something that I enjoy but it is something that is needed to be done.
1945 was before the days of nuke proliferation treaties, the IAEA and the UN. We were at war, the Japanese were at war. We were shooting at them, they were shooting at us. The Allies had a big weapon and they used it, tough cheddar if you were on the other end of it, it served a purpose.
We cannot take the Abombs in isolation and feel bad about them, we have to take in the whole picture or at least try to inorder to put it in context.
In 1945, everyone in the Pacific region hated the Japanese. The Chinese suffered at least 15 million civillian casualties due to them in their war. The Americans, still a largely apartheid country, got hit by them and wanted to hurt the yellow man. We were no better and the Indians hated them. And the Burmese, well that is another one. Revenge was high on the agenda.
Quite frankly, no one could of given a monkey's whether the bombs were dropped, so long as they ended the war and it hurt the Japanese.
You have just got to analyse it in the spirit of the times and not put an apologetic, liberalist angle on it. It saves a lot of brain cells that way as well.
Hindsight is so easy, but when you are looking down the barrel of a Japanese gun, you just don't have time to weigh up the ethics of blasting 200,000 of them to kingdom come so long as the holder of the said gun is in the blast zone.
The Japanese of today are nice people and I know several - but only because they got their asses well and truly wupped 60 years ago. Just as the Germans are nice people - apart from them claiming the sun loungers every where they go (invading places is still hard to get over)...
But 60 years ago the Japanese were slaughtering innocent people left, right and centre as they drove the Rising Sun across the Far East. I know my history and I knew of the atrocities carried out in the name of the Emperor but when you stand and read the personal stories of people subjected to the barbarity of the Japanese, it tends to sink in a little deeper.
The little notes pinned to the walls in the Chapel and Museum of Changi Prison from relatives of prisoners who died at the hands of the Japanese focuses the mind (just as my mind was focused after visiting Bergen Belsen Concentration Camp).
The Japanese had no regard for human life.
To them to surrender in battle was dishonourable. Anyone who surrendered to them was not honourable and so they treated them like dirt.
The Korean "comfort women" forced to follow the Japanese around the Far East to provide 'services' for their troops.
Forcing prisoners to build the Burma railway on a bowl of rice a day.
Ignoring the Geneva Convention (waits for fred to bring up Gitmo).
The list of their attrocities is endless.
Just as the war in the Far East would have been endless and very, very bloody if the Allies would have had to march into Tokyo...(as 'oldmarine' has confirmed)
The Japanese soldiers who, 40 years after the end of the war, were still serving their Emperor in the jungles of islands in the Pacific, show how determined they would have been if there had been an invasion of Japan.
The 'bomb' is a terrible weapon, and thankfully it has only been used twice. But both times were justified IMO. An opinion shared by many, many people.
Hindsight is so easy, but when you are looking down the barrel of a Japanese gun, you just don't have time to weigh up the ethics of blasting 200,000 of them to kingdom come so long as the holder of the said gun is in the blast zone.
Since when did the orchestrators of war care a hoot about the cannon fodder? They never have, even today the American government sends their troops into battle without body armour and hides the returning wounded away in rat infested dumps while handing billions to their corporate chums.
"It saved American lives" wasn't the reason, that was just the excuse. The war was over for Japan there was no doubt of that, America was flattening Japanese cities with conventional bombs and Japan couldn't even put fighters up to defend them, they had no Navy to defend their supply routes. Then on April 5th 1945 Russia denounced the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact and that is when Japan started trying to surrender to America.
If America really cared about the lives of their troops there was a solution which would have cost the life of not one American serviceman and saved the lives of the inhabitants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, just wait and let Russia finish the job.
Alternatively they could just have accepted a conditional surrender from Japan.
America had the means to end the war, instead they prolonged the war and cost the lives of American servicemen just so they could use their bombs.
Then on April 5th 1945 Russia denounced the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact and that is when Japan started trying to surrender to America.
There isn't one contemporary piece of evidence to support this.
And why would Japan talk surrender to a country she wasn't at war with?
Japan and Russia were engaged in a 'peace talk' but not on Japanese terms, it was veiled as a peace talk but only to buy time for Russia to mobilise its troops along the Russian border which she eventually did. This is historical fact. Russia couldn't be at war with Japan before because she couldn't fight on 2 fronts, but when Germany fell then Russia looked towards her eastern flank.
Alternatively they could just have accepted a conditional surrender from Japan.
No they couldn't. The terms of their surrender was decided well before the development of the A bomb, at the Casablanca Conference. The allies decided then that Germany and Japan must unconditionally surrender.
Rheghead and Jaws, why do you continue to give fantasy fred credibility by responding to his tosh?
I can see your point but I can go on for years like this.:D I love history and it gives me an opportunity to look it up for the real events that took place. The taller that fred makes his stories, the wiser that I become.
No they couldn't. The terms of their surrender was decided well before the development of the A bomb, at the Casablanca Conference. The allies decided then that Germany and Japan must unconditionally surrender.
Well I think they could have changed their minds to save the lives of a quarter of a million innocent people.
Well I think they could have changed their minds to save the lives of a quarter of a million innocent people.
Impossible. An agreement is an agreement with all the allies. America could not have unilaterally changed that decision.
Impossible. An agreement is an agreement with all the allies. America could not have unilaterally changed that decision.
Why not? The American government isn't exactly famous for sticking to their agreements, ask any Native American.
sorghaghtanibeki
06-Apr-07, 20:40
fred. your threads all finish blaming the USA. so as you are so very far from reality that i too am taking the path of all the others and leaving you in you own naive wonderland, i think again Rheghead you must have patents of a saint!
Well I think they could have changed their minds to save the lives of a quarter of a million innocent people.
Indeed, quarter of a million Japanese lives, what about the millions of Chinese woman and children that the Japanese had happily been exterminating for several years?
Fred you live in a strange world, the Japanese culture was very different to the "western allies" culture at the time, they lived in a military society in which unconditional surrender was not an option. To drop the bomb was the only quick way to end the war.
Indeed, quarter of a million Japanese lives, what about the millions of Chinese woman and children that the Japanese had happily been exterminating for several years?
Fred you live in a strange world, the Japanese culture was very different to the "western allies" culture at the time, they lived in a military society in which unconditional surrender was not an option. To drop the bomb was the only quick way to end the war.
Not the bomb, the bombs.
Like I said, if unconditional surrender wasn't an option then negotiate a conditional surrender. The children and babies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki hadn't killed any Chinese and the military rulers who had wern't there.
Not the bomb, the bombs.
Like I said, if unconditional surrender wasn't an option then negotiate a conditional surrender. The children and babies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki hadn't killed any Chinese and the military rulers who had wern't there.
Indeed they had not, but what would the Imperial Japanese Army still stationed in China have done over the following months? Would they have stopped their slaughter?
You also seem to be forgetting that the Red Army had just started to invade the northern territories that were held by the Japanese. The Red Army, as you should know were not particularly bothered about casualites, civilian or military and the resultant several months would have been very costly for both sides
fred. your threads all finish blaming the USA. so as you are so very far from reality that i too am taking the path of all the others and leaving you in you own naive wonderland, i think again Rheghead you must have patents of a saint!
Sorghaghtanibeki
This is a thread about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It should not come as a surprise that the USA get some blame in this threat. In my opinion they were wrong to drop the bombs. They were wrong in Vietnam and they are wrong in Iraq. If you would pay more attention to what Fred writes. you would realize that he blames the USA government of wrongdoing and not the people of the USA. Sorghaghtanibeki let me ask you a question: Do you trust the UK and the USA governments after all the rubbish they told their people prior to the invasion of Iraq? Remember most nations of the UN did not approve of the invasion. It was only the majority of the governments of the 'coalition of the brave' that was keen to start a war.
Besides, I truly believe that in some occasions it requires more guts to say NO to war than to run with the masses and to promote the nuking of civilians.
Rambler, as you point out this is about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, whilst I agree with some of your post, you have to remember that both Germany and Japan were agressive military states who had been responsible for horiffic atrocities against the citizens of the countries they had occupied.
The actions of the US in this light are understandable, remember they had been attacked by Japan and not the other way round. They were not sticking their nose in where it was not wanted.
j4bberw0ck
07-Apr-07, 00:53
In my opinion they were wrong to drop the bombs. They were wrong in Vietnam and they are wrong in Iraq.
I think it might be better to say that it's your view that the US was wrong, and that it's your view that they were wrong in Vietnam and wrong in Iraq.
To dignify your view as an opinion suggests that you were there and have special or specialist knowledge leading you to a reasoned conclusion.
I'd be very surprised if reason formed any part of anything that might be considered a thinking process, or that you were there or have that knowledge. Unless you can confirm otherwise ? (http://forum.caithness.org/showpost.php?p=209835&postcount=14)
Indeed they had not, but what would the Imperial Japanese Army still stationed in China have done over the following months? Would they have stopped their slaughter?
You also seem to be forgetting that the Red Army had just started to invade the northern territories that were held by the Japanese. The Red Army, as you should know were not particularly bothered about casualites, civilian or military and the resultant several months would have been very costly for both sides
Yes the Red Army was massing it's troops on the Manchurian border which is why the atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nothing to do with saving the lives of American troops, nothing to do with saving lives in China, it was a purely strategic decission to stop Russia from grabbing as much territory as they could before the Japanese surrender, if America allowed them to surrender or more likely the invasions if they didn't and to keep China out of Communist hands. That is why the second bomb was dropped only three days after the first, the Japanese had got the message, the bomb dropped on Nagasaki was unneccessary, they were going to surrender but America wanted them to surrender quickly so they killed another 75,000 innocent civillians to keep as much of Eastern Asia out of Communist hands as possible.
There followed two more wars in Korea and Vietnam and a lot more people were killed for the same reason because that is why people always get killed, over political ideals, power, wealth and territory. People are never killed for humanitarian reasons, not there, not in Hiroshima, not in Nagasaki, not ever, that is just the excuse.
They're doing it again with Iraq, saying how we invaded to give the poor oppressed Iraqi people freedom from an evil dictator and people are believing it even though all the contempory evidence talks of weapons of mass destruction and Al Qaeda links. They believe it because they want to believe it, to ease their consciences but the fact is it was all about political ideals, power, wealth and territory, it always is.
Yes the Red Army was massing it's troops on the Manchurian border which is why the atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nothing to do with saving the lives of American troops, nothing to do with saving lives in China, it was a purely strategic decission to stop Russia from grabbing as much territory as they could before the Japanese surrender, if America allowed them to surrender or more likely the invasions if they didn't and to keep China out of Communist hands. That is why the second bomb was dropped only three days after the first, the Japanese had got the message, the bomb dropped on Nagasaki was unneccessary, they were going to surrender but America wanted them to surrender quickly so they killed another 75,000 innocent civillians to keep as much of Eastern Asia out of Communist hands as possible.
There followed two more wars in Korea and Vietnam and a lot more people were killed for the same reason because that is why people always get killed, over political ideals, power, wealth and territory. People are never killed for humanitarian reasons, not there, not in Hiroshima, not in Nagasaki, not ever, that is just the excuse.
They're doing it again with Iraq, saying how we invaded to give the poor oppressed Iraqi people freedom from an evil dictator and people are believing it even though all the contempory evidence talks of weapons of mass destruction and Al Qaeda links. They believe it because they want to believe it, to ease their consciences but the fact is it was all about political ideals, power, wealth and territory, it always is.
You are again trying to draw similarities of Japan with Iraq. I dislike it when you hijack the thread in that way. It was a different conflict in a different age. There was no indication that Japan was trying to surrender before the Nagasaki bomb. They only had to tell their troops to stop firing and that would be it. Game over.
The logic that dropping the bombs was done to stop a land grab by Russia is beyond my logic when it was after the bomb was dropped that Russia declared war.
But you are right, no bomb is dropped for humanitarian reasons at the time it is dropped but history will see the Abombs that way because hindsight is an exact science. That is why it is justifiable.
Can you see a course for the Japanese conflict if the Bombs weren't dropped? If you could roll back the tape and delete then history could have been very different. In fact there could be an alternative fred on here bleating on about why the US didn't drop the bomb and bring a swift end to the war. Was it justified to murder 30 million Japanese in the alternative history when the Abomb could have stopped it dead?
Damned if you do, damned if you don't! [lol]
sorghaghtanibeki
07-Apr-07, 09:19
Rambler: "If you would pay more attention to what Fred writes" this is a joke, yes?
The actions of the US in this light are understandable, remember they had been attacked by Japan and not the other way round. They were not sticking their nose in where it was not wanted.
So you think it all started with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour? Have you never wondered why the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour? A Japanese invasion of America was an impossibility what do you think they hoped to gain?
It started 200 years earlier with China, China was a very rich country full of things we wanted but we had nothing they wanted so we had to pay for the goods we got from them with gold and silver. Before long the rich merchants of the West realised that if gold and silver kept on dissapearing into China while consumables like tea came out eventually all our gold and silver would end up in China. So we and our ally Japan, got the population of China adicted to opium just so we would have something to sell them to get our gold and silver back. By the time the 20th century arrived and the invention of more adictive forms of opium like morphine and heroin China was a crippled, much of their population were drug adicts and the Chinese government had had a couple of wars with the West to try and stop the trade, which was illegal in China.
So when Japan started to emerge as an industrial nation with a great thirst for raw materials China was the obvious choice, we had been keeping them weak. The only problem was the Western companies who wern't too happy when Japan decided to cut them out of the action. When Japan invaded China in 1931 the West and in particular America responded with a series of trade embargos and sanctions cutting off Japan's supplies of raw materials like scrap metal and eventually their supply of oil from the west. Japan had to choose between abandoning their ambitions to be a wealthy industrial nation or go out and take the resources they needed for themselves and the only thing stopping them doing that was the American Navy. Japan had to take the Philipines where America had three naval bases but they knew if they did that America would retaliate if they could.
Japan attacked Pearl Harbour on the 7th of December 1941, on the 8th of December they invaded the Philipines, that was their goal, an Eastern Asian country close to Japan which America considered theirs, which the Pacific Fleet would have defended if they hadn't been sunk at Pearl Harbour. Many in America wern't sorry, they had been pushing for America to attack Japan and remove the threat to their source of wealth in the East, take Japan's share as well. The American people wern't having it, it took a Pearl Harbour to persuade them. There is some strong evidence that some in the American Government wern't surprised by the attack, that it was expected and that they decided to do nothing to prevent it.
Japan saw the fantastic wealth the West was making from the Far East and wanted some, the only thing stopping them was the West's military might in the area. People in the Middle East are seeing the fantastic wealth the West is making from Middle Eastern countries and they want some, the only thing stopping them is American military might in the area, for some time many in America have wanted the government to go in and secure that wealth, cut out the ambitious Middle Eastern countries who wanted that wealth for themselves. The American people wern't having it, it took another Pearl Harbour to persuade them, there is some strong evidence that some in the American Government were expecting it and did nothing to prevent it.
j4bberw0ck
07-Apr-07, 14:10
there is some strong evidence that some in the American Government were expecting it and did nothing to prevent it.
But, fred, you'd bleat like merry hell about those nasty Yankee imperialist neo-con friends of rich industrialists if "some in the American government were expecting" Iran to build a nuclear weapon "and did something to prevent it".
Or are you now so busy copying and pasting Google articles that you don't have time to read them any more?
Do you now advocate pre-emptive strikes against countries who might attack, and is it now your view that if you fail to prevent an attack, then any attack that does occur is your own fault?
But, fred, you'd bleat like merry hell about those nasty Yankee imperialist neo-con friends of rich industrialists if "some in the American government were expecting" Iran to build a nuclear weapon "and did something to prevent it".
Or are you now so busy copying and pasting Google articles that you don't have time to read them any more?
Do you now advocate pre-emptive strikes against countries who might attack, and is it now your view that if you fail to prevent an attack, then any attack that does occur is your own fault?
Yeah, it is just another example of Fred's twisted 'conspiracy theory' influenced twisted hypocrisy. I knew this thread would get on to the run up to Pearl. Gosh, now the Japanese are justified to attack Pearl eh? That takes the biscuit. The US is now the seasnake lying at the bottom of the ocean just waiting for its enemies to bite it so that it can retaliate with a killer blow. [lol] As if the Japanese weren't stacking the tables against the west in the post-war era when our British goods were tariffed up to the hilt in Japan while we just enjoyed all those cheap japanese imported motorcycles, electrical goods and let our Shipbuilding industry go to the wall. That sounds like a good reason for another H bomb on Tokyo then? :roll:
So are you suggesting that the US actively solicited the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbour?
As to your suggestion that people are never killed for humaniterian reasons what do you think WWII was all about?
Whatever you might think of the US, surely they and the British Empire can justifiably claim that they were fighting a humaniterian war. If you look at what the Japanese and Germans were doing in the countries they occupied how can you claim that putting a stop to that was not humaniterian, or are you suggesting that Chinese, jews, homosexuals, gypsies, slavs and various other eastern european races were happy with their treatment under their occupiers?
Yes, there were innocents killed by the atomic bombs but not nearly as many as were killed by the axis.
Yes, we will all agree that it would have been better if they had not been dropped but they were and history shows that a couple of days later the war ended.
As to your claims about the political issues in dropping the bomb, then yes you are right, the US did want to show Stalin the power that they possessed, but then can you imagine what had happened if Stalin had of taken Japan? Are you suggesting that the following fifty years would have been better for the Japanese? Look at Germany after the war, who fared better, East or West?
Unfortunately Fred you are letting your obvious hatred of the US cloud your judgement on this.
oldmarine
08-Apr-07, 01:36
There have been some interesting postings on the events of WWII and various theories of what caused the start of that war and the participants, i.e., Germany, Italy, and Japan plus the counter actions of China, England, USA, and many others drawn into the conflict. It appears that "Fred" has sorted it all out and wants to blame me and my country (the USA) for all the deaths that followed. I don't know where he gets his information; however, that's not the way I saw of the war I fought in the Pacific nor my compatriots who fought in Europe.
I thank the many of you who see the truth in the "untruth" in what Fred is trying to portray. Fortunately, most of the posters disagree with Fred. I don't know what country Fred wants to serve, but it cannot be England, Scotland, or any in Great Britain. It appears that he is trying to reinvent history and wants all of you to believe his theories.
Just accept it, oldmarine, the Americans are behind everything. When the Roman Empire became too strong the CIA were involved in clandestine activities to fund and arm Attila the Hun so he could attack Rome and weaken it in order to take control of the World’s oil supply, olive oil that is.
Well, they seem to be responsible for everything else, so why not? There are those in the world who wish to believe that there is no end to America’s evil scheming!
There again, there are those in the World who believe in UFOs and Alien Abductions. :lol:
So are you suggesting that the US actively solicited the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbour?
I'm saying that once America had cut off Japan's supply of oil they had little option but to attack somewhere, they were backed into a corner. If Iran were to seal off the Straits of Hamas what do you think we would do?
On the one hand we have Japan who were being crippled by American sanctions and intimidated by American bases in the Far East doing what they had to do to secure the future of their country condemned. On the other hand we have the invasion of Iraq, who was no threat to anyone, condoned. Can you explain the logic behind that to me?
I thank the many of you who see the truth in the "untruth" in what Fred is trying to portray. Fortunately, most of the posters disagree with Fred. I don't know what country Fred wants to serve, but it cannot be England, Scotland, or any in Great Britain. It appears that he is trying to reinvent history and wants all of you to believe his theories.
I serve all countries and recognise there is good and bad in all of them.
I serve the people who are killed and maimed in wars not the rich and powerful who start them so they can become even richer and more powerful.
Take a look at our history, it's one long war and in every one both sides believed they were good and the other side were evil because in every one both sides believed the proganda of their ruthless, greedy, megalomaniac leaders.
If people continue to stick their heads in the sand and blindly believe we can do no wrong while they can do no right despite the evidence then the war will last forever. Innocent people are dying horrible deaths in Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia, hundreds a day, because ordinary people have eyes but refuse to see, ears but refuse to listen.
I'm one person I can't do much but I'll do what I can to alter as many false perceptions of reality as I can. This is Easter Sunday, we pay respect to a man who died on a cross 2000 years ago while ignoring every word he ever said, who would Jesus have bombed next, Iran or Syria?
...I'll do what I can to alter as many false perceptions of reality as I can...
Won't happen while you're reading the utter drivel you are...
I thank the many of you who see the truth in the "untruth" in what Fred is trying to portray. Fortunately, most of the posters disagree with Fred. I don't know what country Fred wants to serve, but it cannot be England, Scotland, or any in Great Britain. It appears that he is trying to reinvent history and wants all of you to believe his theories.
I have been asking myself that question for a few years now Oldmarine, I would rather believe an old Grunt such as you than Fred and all his ilk with their conspiracy theories
I'm saying that once America had cut off Japan's supply of oil they had little option but to attack somewhere, they were backed into a corner. If Iran were to seal off the Straits of Hamas what do you think we would do?
On the one hand we have Japan who were being crippled by American sanctions and intimidated by American bases in the Far East doing what they had to do to secure the future of their country condemned. On the other hand we have the invasion of Iraq, who was no threat to anyone, condoned. Can you explain the logic behind that to me?
Iraq no threat to nobody, slighty off topic but what do the Kuwaitis think about that statement?
As to Japans only option was to attack the US, are you suggesting that it is ok to attack another country because they do not want to trade with you?
Iraq no threat to nobody, slighty off topic but what do the Kuwaitis think about that statement?
At the time we invaded Iraq was no threat to Kuwait.
The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait could easily have been avoided, Iraq did have some genuine grievances and they did try to solve them by diplomatic means first.
As to Japans only option was to attack the US, are you suggesting that it is ok to attack another country because they do not want to trade with you?
I'm saying it's wrong for everyone to believe that Pearl Harbour was a totaly unprovoked act of aggression on the part of the Japanese.
Just as with Iraq it is the assumption that one side is always guilty unless proven innocent and the other side is always innocent unless proven guilty which is wrong.
j4bberw0ck
08-Apr-07, 13:53
is it now your view that if you fail to prevent an attack, then any attack that does occur is your own fault?
The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait could easily have been avoided, Iraq did have some genuine grievances and they did try to solve them by diplomatic means first.
Ah, yes, it was Kuwait's fault after all.
I'm saying it's wrong for everyone to believe that Pearl Harbour was a totaly unprovoked act of aggression on the part of the Japanese.
Just as with Iraq it is the assumption that one side is always guilty unless proven innocent and the other side is always innocent unless proven guilty which is wrong.
So it is OK to invade or launch acts of war so long as you think you're justified? Wow. For someone who's long argued that the USA goes to war for no reason other than they think they're justified, and that they're wrong to go to war on that basis, that's pretty good.
I serve all countries and recognise there is good and bad in all of them.
I serve the people who are killed and maimed in wars not the rich and powerful who start them so they can become even richer and more powerful.
Take a look at our history, it's one long war and in every one both sides believed they were good and the other side were evil because in every one both sides believed the proganda of their ruthless, greedy, megalomaniac leaders.
If people continue to stick their heads in the sand and blindly believe we can do no wrong while they can do no right despite the evidence then the war will last forever. Innocent people are dying horrible deaths in Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia, hundreds a day, because ordinary people have eyes but refuse to see, ears but refuse to listen.
I'm one person I can't do much but I'll do what I can to alter as many false perceptions of reality as I can. This is Easter Sunday, we pay respect to a man who died on a cross 2000 years ago while ignoring every word he ever said, who would Jesus have bombed next, Iran or Syria?
Dear god, now he thinks he's Jesus's stand-in..........
If Iran were to seal off the Straits of Hamas what do you think we would do?
:lol::lol: Fred, Hamas is one of a group of terrorist organisations (recognised as such by your friends at the UN) which is funded by Iran and Syria. You possibly mean the Strait of Hormuz, which is the body of water forming the gateway to the Persian Gulf from the Indian Ocean. I would have thought someone with your heavenly connexions might have seen that. Sealing off Hamas would be great. Preferably in a very, very deep hole in company with their friends Hizbollah, Al Qaeda, and most of the Saudi extremist political structure (the Wahhabis in particular).
Ah, yes, it was Kuwait's fault after all.
Where did I say that?
So it is OK to invade or launch acts of war so long as you think you're justified? Wow. For someone who's long argued that the USA goes to war for no reason other than they think they're justified, and that they're wrong to go to war on that basis, that's pretty good.
Where did I say that?
Dear god, now he thinks he's Jesus's stand-in..........
Where did I say that?
:lol::lol: Fred, Hamas is one of a group of terrorist organisations (recognised as such by your friends at the UN) which is funded by Iran and Syria. You possibly mean the Strait of Hormuz, which is the body of water forming the gateway to the Persian Gulf from the Indian Ocean. I would have thought someone with your heavenly connexions might have seen that. Sealing off Hamas would be great. Preferably in a very, very deep hole in company with their friends Hizbollah, Al Qaeda, and most of the Saudi extremist political structure (the Wahhabis in particular).
One minute you're accusing me of cut and pasting everything from google then the next you're trying to ridicule me for a simple typing mistake.
Is your idea of inteligent debate to try and twist everything I say and make personal attacks?
j4bberw0ck
08-Apr-07, 16:11
inteligent debate
Where did you say that?
twist everything I say
Fred, with regard to such things I sit at the feet of the Master.
make personal attacks?
Did you see these things? -------> :lol::lol:
I think you're big enough (and probably ugly enough) to weather a minor outburst of humour, don't you? Of course it was a typo - unless you've decided, with your new heavenly powers, to summarily rename it.
I'm still impressed by your effortless switch to it being all right for Japan to attack Pearl Harbor because America deserved it and it was all right for Iraq to invade Kuwait because, apparently, diplomacy had failed.
At the time we invaded Iraq was no threat to Kuwait.
The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait could easily have been avoided, Iraq did have some genuine grievances and they did try to solve them by diplomatic means first.
Yes I can see the reasoning in that, is that not the reasoning Adolf hitler used to invade most of Europe. I believe that he had some genuine grievances with the Treaty of Versailles.
I'm saying it's wrong for everyone to believe that Pearl Harbour was a totaly unprovoked act of aggression on the part of the Japanese.
Right, so the US was responsible for the agressive expansionist policy carried out by Japan during the preceding years
Just as with Iraq it is the assumption that one side is always guilty unless proven innocent and the other side is always innocent unless proven guilty which is wrong.
Basically Fred, I think you are showing your true colours pretty well. You express anti war sympathies, but the above show that as long as the US is not involved in the attacking then the war can be justified.
Can you tell me, was the US justified in attacking Japan back, or were they just to lie down and take what was given to them?
We seem to have come to the 'conclusion' that its ok for any country other than the US to wage wars if they are not happy with diplomatic means.
Your undoubted hatred of the US causes you to loose continuity, in one post you claim to be anti war and the next you are trying to justify it.
Yes I can see the reasoning in that, is that not the reasoning Adolf hitler used to invade most of Europe. I believe that he had some genuine grievances with the Treaty of Versailles.
The people of Germany had some genuine grievances with the Treaty of Versailles which is how Hitler managed to take control of Germany in the first place. If they hadn't then WWII might have been avoided as well.
Right, so the US was responsible for the agressive expansionist policy carried out by Japan during the preceding years
No, the US was responsible for the agressive expansionist policy of the US in previous years and subsequent years, the US is responsible for their agressive expansionist policies in Afghanistan and Iraq today. Just how did you think Perl Harbour got to be an American territory in the first place? How do you think America got to be American territory?
Japan was responsible for the expansionist policies of Japan.
Basically Fred, I think you are showing your true colours pretty well. You express anti war sympathies, but the above show that as long as the US is not involved in the attacking then the war can be justified.
How do you translate "Just as with Iraq it is the assumption that one side is always guilty unless proven innocent and the other side is always innocent unless proven guilty which is wrong." to mean that?
Can you tell me, was the US justified in attacking Japan back, or were they just to lie down and take what was given to them?
Yes America was justified in retaliating against the Japanes attack, I have never argued that they wern't. I've just said that the Japanese attack on Pearl harbour wasn't the totally unprovoked act of aggression people believe it was.
We seem to have come to the 'conclusion' that its ok for any country other than the US to wage wars if they are not happy with diplomatic means.
Have you? How did you reach that conclusion? I merely said the Iraq Kuwait war could have been avoided.
Your undoubted hatred of the US causes you to loose continuity, in one post you claim to be anti war and the next you are trying to justify it.
No I'm not justifying it, I'm merely pointing out the hypocricy of it, if we can eliminate our manifest destiny complex maybe we can one day eliminate war.
The people of Germany had some genuine grievances with the Treaty of Versailles which is how Hitler managed to take control of Germany in the first place. If they hadn't then WWII might have been avoided as well.
Admittedly, but is that justification for what Nazis did over the following ten years? Could those grievences not have been settled by diplomacy?
No, the US was responsible for the agressive expansionist policy of the US in previous years and subsequent years, the US is responsible for their agressive expansionist policies in Afghanistan and Iraq today. Just how did you think Perl Harbour got to be an American territory in the first place? How do you think America got to be American territory?
Afghanistan and Iraq were carried out under with the authority (you will probably argue this point) of the UN. So surely the UN has an expansionist policy?
Japan was responsible for the expansionist policies of Japan.
Hallelujah, you've seen the light!
How do you translate "Just as with Iraq it is the assumption that one side is always guilty unless proven innocent and the other side is always innocent unless proven guilty which is wrong." to mean that?
Who said that? Do I believe that?
Yes America was justified in retaliating against the Japanes attack, I have never argued that they wern't. I've just said that the Japanese attack on Pearl harbour wasn't the totally unprovoked act of aggression people believe it was.
So you do think that some violence can be justified? If someone does not agree with you are you saying that it is ok to physically attack you?
Have you? How did you reach that conclusion? I merely said the Iraq Kuwait war could have been avoided.
Well yes I guess you are right, WWII could have been avoided if Germany had been allowed to invade Poland and any other country it liked. You can avoid any war but at what price?
From the below it seems that you agree, your post states that they had some diplomatic issues they could not solve, so violence was the next understandable step.
The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait could easily have been avoided, Iraq did have some genuine grievances and they did try to solve them by diplomatic means first.
No I'm not justifying it, I'm merely pointing out the hypocricy of it, if we can eliminate our manifest destiny complex maybe we can one day eliminate war.
Are you suggesting that you are the only one who has concerns about US foriegn policy?
Admittedly, but is that justification for what Nazis did over the following ten years? Could those grievences not have been settled by diplomacy?
No it isn't justification for what the Nazis did over the following years it is the reason they could do it. America cutting off Japan's oil wasn't the justification for the bombing of Pearl Harbour it is the reason it happened. It's simple cause and effect but you seem to have got it into your head that cause means justification.
Afghanistan and Iraq were carried out under with the authority (you will probably argue this point) of the UN. So surely the UN has an expansionist policy?
Well I don't want to argue with you so I'll just let you tell me which UN Security Council resolutions authorised the use of force against Afghanistan and Iraq.
So you do think that some violence can be justified? If someone does not agree with you are you saying that it is ok to physically attack you?
The right of self defence is universally accepted, once you have been attacked you have the right to fight back, that is what I said and all that I said.
Well yes I guess you are right, WWII could have been avoided if Germany had been allowed to invade Poland and any other country it liked. You can avoid any war but at what price?
I said that WWII could have been avoided if we hadn't created the right conditions for Hitler to take power in the first place.
From the below it seems that you agree, your post states that they had some diplomatic issues they could not solve, so violence was the next understandable step.
No, I said that the Iraq Kuwait war could have been avoided if the legitimate grievances of Iraq had been addressed.
Are you suggesting that you are the only one who has concerns about US foriegn policy?
What on earth gave you that idea? I have certainly not said that or anything like that. I think every right thinking person in the world has some very grave concern