HIROSHIMA A NECESSARY EVIL

[Parche]

This is one subject that should not be a controversy
On the 60th anniversary of the dropping of the
atomic bomb on Hiroshima by the 509th composite
B-29 group, Enola Gay, Col. Paul Tibbetts commanding.
President Truman made the right decision
Not only for the troops that would have landed
on Japan's beaches in Operation Olympic and Coronet
But also for the thousands of POW's that were
starving, malnurished, and diseased.
One, Commander Dick Okane of the Submarine
USS Tang was so weak, that he might have
had only days left, he later was awarded
the Medal of Honor, for the most ships sunk
by a sub. The famous Pappy Boyington was also
at Ofuna camp, and like Okane might have had
only a few days left to live.
There are many other reasons, such as the
horrible treatment of POW's from Wake Island
to New Guinea to the Phillipines.
Japan started the war at Pearl Harbor, the
US simply ended it on 2nd September 1945
After using the Atomic bombs on Hiroshima
and Nagasaki

[Comandante_Subzero]

1. War Crimes

US corporations provided Japan with the oil, scrap metal, & rubber they needed to conduct war from 1931 to 1941.

Those companies should be brought to justice for enabling Japanese fascism, just as US officials should be brought to justice for creating Muslim terrorism in Afstan in the 1980s.

[jbnow]

2. That simple?

A bomb so nice they dropped it twice?
One just wouldn't be enough?

And we'd be OK with being it being done to us if our enemy had people being treated poorly in our camps?
How many civilians is it OK to kill to get your point across?

[acmejack]

4. After they had finished dropping 70,000 tons of incendiaries

on Japanese cities flying virtually unopposed. The resulting fire storms were incredible, Tokyo and other major cities were burnt to the ground.

There is a school of thought that the Japanese were prepared to surrender if they could retain the Emperor. The US would accept no less than unconditional surrender. The rest is history.

[Parche]

6. Civilians

How many civilians on Wake Island
or the Phillipines
Not to mention Nanking

Civilians get caught up in war, their government and the Army
were responsible for those actions

Hiroshima was justified, along with Nagasaki (Kokura being
the main target) but was clouded over.

[brainshrub]

9. As many as necessary.

What's the difference between 100 or 100,000 thousand civilian deaths? Does anyone care to give a number as to how many civilian deaths, accidental or otherwise, make a "war crime?"

It doesn't matter, because the reality is that in war, every man, woman and child is a legitimate target.

The so-called "rules of warfare" are written to perpetuate the imaginary concept of a just war. The truth is that the "civilian" vs "soldier" distinction is a myth; it is logically impossible to separate the two.

Soldiers and military equipment do not exist in a vacuum; it is the civilian population that makes military strength possible. Weapons get built by civilians, all civilians make potential soldiers, civilian roads transport equipment and civilian taxes pay the salaries of the generals.

If you're goal is to end a war, the civilian population and infrastructure is the logical place to cause the most effective damage. If you stick to military-only targets a war would drag on forever.

Saying that civilians are not legitimate targets in warfare is like saying that you are not allowed to stab someone in the heart if you're trying to kill someone.

I am a pacifist because I understand that war makes me a target. As of now, an Iraqi insurgent has just as much right to kill me as he has to kill a US soldier. I can't claim that I have nothing to do with the Iraq War... my political party approved oft, my taxes pay for the bullets and my loyalty is to the government of the United States.

I may not like the activities of my government, but I directly benefit from the structure of this society. I'd be a hypocrite to claim that the same structure is not directly responsible for the war-crimes going on in Iraq as we speak.

[bpilgrim]

27. "in war, every man, woman and child is a legitimate target." OBL is that U

:scared:

peace

[brainshrub]

41. 9/11 was an act of ass murder, not war.

By framing the 9/11 as an act of war, Bush made OBL look like a warrior instead of the criminal he is.

[bpilgrim]

44. whats the difference

and do honestly think OBL thinks he's not at war with us :crazy:

if war means ANYTHING GOES, as OBL, the neoCONs and apparently some DU'ers think, then we will, in the end, destroy EVERYTHING.



peace

[brainshrub]

50. In a war, anything goes.

Whether people admit ot or not, in a war everything goes. Citizens like to make-believe that it does not, but the reality is that the moment fighting starts the law goes out the window.

The inherent immorality of war is why it must always be opposed.

It does not matter what OBL thinks; he has no nation, army or citizenship with which to declare war. He is a gang-leader, no more, no less.

[bpilgrim]

52. tell that to the NUREMBERG judges

i will never adopt the standards of the barbarian.

"It does not matter what OBL thinks; he has no nation, army or citizenship with which to declare war."

now your making rules :crazy:

peace

[brainshrub]

66. You adopt the standards of a barbarian when you declare war.

We both agree that it's wrong to kill. I'm just pointing out that in wartime there is no real distinction between civilian and soldier. Killing 100,000 children is just as evil as killing 100,000 soldiers.

Both the allies and axis powers killed millions of civilians. The axis lost and that's the only reason they were put on trial.

In context of the discussion about the anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima, I believe that it was immoral and wrong. However, we have no right to nit-pick over what our ancestors did. At the time, it seemed like the logical course of action.

If you condemn the Americans for nuking Japan, please remember to condemn the Japanese for attacking Pearl Harbor.

###

If you think I'm off-base about OBL, please point to OBLs army. Where is the flag? Who pays the taxes? Who elected OBL? What is the GDP of the Terror nation? Do they have an anthem? A national bird?

OBL nothing more than a figurehead for a loosely organized group of criminals who have decided to fight the US outside of international law or convention. He is a gangster.

If Bush hadn't made OBL into a warrior, he probably would have been turned in by the Afghan authorities. (BTW, they did want to turn him over, but the authorities wanted to see the evidence first.)

[manic expression]

76. That's beyond wrong

No one has the right to murder innocent people, whether in war or otherwise. There is quite a distinction between "war", and "genocide".

I don't care WHO won, both sides are wrong if they unnecessarily killed civilians. No one needs a trial for that.

Who here has NOT condemned the Japanese for attacking Pearl Harbor? That is not even being questioned. However, I think if a lot of Japanese "liberals" (I'm beginning to doubt that) had a similar sight, they would be saying: "PEARL HARBOR A NECESSARY EVIL", and similar filth.

"outside of international law or convention."...THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE RATIONALIZING!!!! I don't care who murders innocents, be they terrorists, criminals or large nations (along with their flags); it is wrong. In the end, it makes NO DIFFERENCE whether it is a nation with flags, anthems and GDP's; or a terrorist cell, it makes NO DIFFERENCE.

There are no real rules, but there is right and wrong, there is morality, there is humanity. These things need to be respected, no matter what the circumstances.

No non-combatant should EVER be targeted. PERIOD. There is no justification.

[brainshrub]

103. We agree.

No non-combatant should EVER be targeted. PERIOD. There is no justification.

You used the word "should". The bottom line is that civilians are targeted. They always are. No amount of hand-wringing, or after-the-fact moralizing* will change that.

Until everyone admits that it is not possible to have a war without targeting civilians, our species will continue having wars. Believing that your side will somehow skip over the children on their way to killing the enemy is a quaint myth that help perpetuate the concept as war as a viable way to resolve conflicts.

I don't believe the Geneva convention should be thrown out. At the end of a war, both sides should stand trial for what they did.

In the meantime, let's all stop pretending that in a time of war, either side will obey any rules.



* I'm not accusing you of moralizing here, I understand where you are coming from.

[manic expression]

105. OK

We do agree.

I use "should" because that is the way things should be. I know that it is not the reality in almost all cases, but if people only do what they know is right, an infinite number of problems would be solved.

I think that in a time of war, both sides should obey empathy and respect. At the very least, people involved in war should try their best not to hurt innocents when pragmatically possible. That is the minimum.

I think that you're right. No war is far better than a perfect war. And a perfect war seems unobtainable (although I think that some causes are worth fighting for).

[bpilgrim]

88. "it seemed like the logical course of action." not to our military leaders

in theater at the time.

as to japan declaring war on us after much provocation from us and attacking a legit military target there isn't much to condemn in comparison with hiroshima & nagasaki now is there?

OBL is at war with us and they were legit fighters when they were on our side but now they are not doesn't make any sense yet i was just pointing out how you said in war there are no rules but now you try to apply rules... you can't have it both ways.

peace

[Conservativesux]

32. We are all just as guilty for letting * prosecute his oil war in Iraq.

[manic expression]

34. Oh, right...

So a pregnant woman is as much threat to an opposing country as a tank gunner? :wtf:

There is quite a difference, something that reasonable people can understand: civilians=no immediate threat; combatants=people who pose immediate threat.

Saying that civilians are not legitimate targets in warfare is like saying that you are not allowed to rape and stab a person's wife after her husband tries to stab you.

Sure, civilians do contribute to the war effort in minuscule ways, but do you think this makes them TARGETS? It doesn't, and don't try to say that it does. Morally, a person who supports a war is part of it; however, even a person who merely supports the war does not deserve to be hurt by his/her country's enemy, if indeed there is no outward involvement (this is considering a person who supports the war, which is different from someone who is neutral). Once there is active and true involvement, a person becomes a valid target.

A war can stop when only targeting the military only. We left Vietnam, and virtually no US civilians died in that. Oops, back to the drawing board you go.

You are not a legitimate target. Although if you are murdered by Iraqi partisans I'll be sure to inform your family that you got what was comin' to ya (oh, and I guess it's OK for the Iraqi partisans to kill them, too; you know, being targets 'n' all). :eyes:

[brainshrub]

83. Father rapers, Mother stabbers and the group W bench.

Saying that civilians are not legitimate targets in warfare is like saying that you are not allowed to rape and stab a person's wife after her husband tries to stab you.

In war, yes you would. I agree that in our respective armchairs there is the concept of civilians during a war, but the reality on the ground is that war is the total breakdown of law and morality.

Any act of humanity shown by one side or the other is an act of grace or co-incidence, but certainly not because it is right or wrong. The evil is complete and total.

By creating a mental framework of "non-combatants" we sanitize the act of war. We act surprised when we see Iraqi children with their feet blown off, as if it were possible to wage a war without those kind of disturbing images.

A war can stop when only targeting the military only. We left Vietnam, and virtually no US civilians died in that. Oops, back to the drawing board you go.

The only reason the Vietcong didn't kill more American civilians was because they didn't have access to them. It wasn't because they were more moral than the US Military. (Which killed hundred of thousands of civilians, by the way.)

Just because barely any US civilians died in the Vietnam War doesn't mean that civilians are not an integral part of the military. Go ahead and ask the DuPont employees of that era.

You are not a legitimate target. Although if you are murdered by Iraqi partisans I'll be sure to inform your family that you got what was comin' to ya (oh, and I guess it's OK for the Iraqi partisans to kill them, too; you know, being targets 'n' all). :eyes:

That's just it. In a war, that type of logic is what rules the day.

According to the reality of war I am a legitimate target. So are you, your little brother, your pregnant sister and her cats. That is precisely why the Iraqi war must end now. That is why it is your duty to protect your family by doing whatever is legally possible to end the conflict in Iraq as soon as possible.

If I do die at the hands of an Iraqi partisan, I hope that it won't be used as justification to continue the war one second longer.

[manic expression]

97. No, I wouldn't

There are civilians in a war, period.

Here's a few pictures from the ground:
http://crisispictures.org/2005/07/25/iraq-roundup/
http://crisispictures.org/2005/08/02/iraq-protest-turns-violent/

It's painfully obvious who is innocent and who is not. Put innocence in any situation, and it will not change it.

Any act of humanity is just that: right.

Yes, children will be hurt in war. That is why war must be seen as a tragedy in itself. Furthermore it is the RESPONSIBILITY for both forces to see to the minimization of such occurrences.

Vietnam shows that a force can win a struggle (quite a vicious struggle, I might add) without hurting civilians.

The question of "non-combatants" that aid the military is the gray area, but let us discuss. If someone DIRECTLY aids the military and its efforts, which supports a real threat to a force, then they become targets. Regular civilians do not nearly fall into this category AT ALL. The media calls mercenaries "civilian contractors", but they are valid targets because they provide and assist a real threat to the insurgency, and therefore, it is within their rights to target them.

No, you are not a legitimate target, you do not directly aid the threat to Iraqis. If you did, your family would NOT be valid targets whatsoever. If my family is threatened and I neutralized the threat (very cliche situation...), I have no right or reason to go after that person's family.

[brainshrub]

112. Job Description.

Put yourself in this scenario: A General believes that the enemy is camping out in a school. She has a missile that would take out the enemy, and every kid in a 500 meter radius. (For the purposes of this example, waiting for the enemy to leave the area or evacuating the children first is not an option, the lives of hundreds of allied soldiers are at stake if she doesn't act swiftly.)

Should she order the strike? No.

In a time of war, a Generals job is to kill the enemy, it isn't to make moral judgments. If the General lets the enemy go because of the children, she would rightfully be court-marshaled and replaced with someone who will.

So she does.

The inherent immorality of war makes humanity impossible. It's like lighting a match underwater. It's not that the General shouldn't obey the Geneva Convention, it's that she can't.

To finish off this scenario: IMHO the General should be tried for war-crimes after the war is over.

Vietnam shows that a force can win a struggle (quite a vicious struggle, I might add) without hurting civilians.

As I've written before, the only reason the Vietcong didn't kill more American civilians was because they didn't have access to them. The Vietcong never had the power to bypass the US Navy and Coast Guard to get even as far as Hawaii.

[manic expression]

127. OK, I'm the general

what do I do? I order infiltration of the school. I could also order warning shots fired. I could lay an ambush so that when school lets out, the forces could attack the obvious enemy. I could bypass the school and cut off the fighters' supply lines, rendering them powerless. One CAN avoid civilian casualties, it is all about doing what is right, no matter what.

There is no time where morality does not matter. Unfortunately, few people have the right thoughts in mind during such a time (many do).

I know that they couldn't reach US Civilians for the life of them (no pun intended), but it still proves that one can wage a war against a military only; willfully or not.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

68. I guess the Geneva Convention isn't popular anymore at DU

I've seen quite a few posts today suggesting that the deliberate targeting of civilians is allright in war ... as war is war. I agree that the Japanese Empire was despicable and engaged in wars of aggression that had to be stopped. What's ironic is that the Japanese were horning in on the territories that the United States (Philppines campaign of 1899 where we killed one fifth of the civilian population), France (Vietnam with its bloody campaigns since the 1870's), The Netherlands (Indonesia), and Britain (Singapore, Malaysia, Burma) had conquered through their own wars of aggression and colonial empire.

But when we start claiming that war is war, that it's open season on anyone caught in the crossfire, we are descending a very slippery slope in my opinion. Pretty soon after that, we'll be saying that the manner of killing, whether by bomb, bayonet, or slow torture doesn't matter, as the people are dead anyway ... and war is war. Torture of civilians, genocide, mass exterminations have been justified by such language ... that war is war.

The apparent choice you offer is either no war at all and your quite admirable pacifism ... or total war where anything goes. I don't agree and I don't think it's hypocritical to promote a war to end another country's aggression, but to carry it out in the most humane manner possible, especially in the case where Japan had most of its Army isolated in China and unable to rescue the mainland. Japan was surrounded and we could have taken our time in trying to persuade them to accept peace.

[brainshrub]

95. Geneva convention is great, but let's

It is simply not possible to carry out a war "in the most humane manner possible." It is an insult to every maimed civilian to say to them: "Oh, sorry but you weren't targeted. We were going after the enemy... so it's okay that you had you're face burned off."

It's much more honest to admit that Generals know what they are doing when they engage in warfare.

IMHO, we should keep the Geneva Conventions but engage in total war. When everything is settled both sides have to go to trail.

Is that ever going to happen? Nope. But in the meantime, lets stop pretending to act shocked when we see images burnt Japanese bodies at Nagasaki. They would have done the same to us if they had the opportunity... there war a war going on.

[Junkdrawer]

100. Indeed. The majority of the poll thread and the moderators support...

of the dubious Hiroshima decision has been quite surprising and disappointing.

[brainshrub]

117. I only speak for myself. I'm a mod, not God.

Being a mod does not give what I say more weight. I am not speaking for DU, the Administrators or other moderators.

I'm sure many mods would disagree with me on this subject.

I am engaged in a respectful conversation with fellow DUers about the necessity of the bombing of Japan and the nature of warfare.

I am sorry if my opinion disappoints you, but being able to disagree and still knowing we are on the same side of most issues is part of the beauty of DU.

I hope you can make it to one of the DU Meetups this September. I'll buy you a pint and maybe you will be able to change my mind on this topic.

:toast:

[bloom]

143. I wouldn't say the Geneva Conventions are unpopular here

it may just be the people who do support the Geneva Conventions are not drawn to threads like these.

I find it rather amazing that some people don't see (or don't want to see) a difference between bombing a military base and bombing a city.

I wonder - to what extent the Iraq situation - as it is progressing is intended. How convenient, ethically, for the apologists if Iraq is destroyed by Iraqis (civil war or whatever) - instead of us - for the most part. Like we just got it started...

[Junkdrawer]

3. We didn't do to get Japan to surrender. We did it to keep Russia..

out of Japan and to make our "nuclear trip line" in Europe real.

Damn, 60 years later and we still discuss Hiroshima like children. Sad.

[Bucky]

43. I doubt you can say Hiroshima happened for only one reason.

The message to Russia was certainly part of the calculus, but it was an analysis of secondary benefits that Byrnes brought up with Truman, not the prime motivator behind the decision. The simpler explanation is that there was a war on, we had a single weapon that could do the work of several tons of ordance, both sides had become increasingly insensitive to the question of limiting civilian casualties, and there was no indication that Japan was willing to accept the policy of unconditionaly surrender.

[Junkdrawer]

48. I will give you Truman was politically afraid of NOT using the bomb...

and I believe Byrnes also reminded him of that, often.

But the main thing was to send "Uncle Joe" a message: We have the bomb, you don't, and we'll use it.

see:

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=11&ItemID=8457

[LWolf]

5. Evil is NEVER necessary. n/t

[Parche]

7. Evil

This evil was,

The Japanese government and or Army, was NOT going to
surrender, it took these 2 bombs to convince them of that
They were surrounded by Admiral Halsey's 3rd fleet
bombed every day, and still with their mentality
continued to fight on.

[LWolf]

17. So now evil is relative.

What is necessary, in any similar conflict, imo, is to end it with the least amount of death and destruction possible.

The "least amount of death and destruction" does not include atomic weapons.

[ET Awful]

19. Absolutely incorrect.

The ONLY issue keeping Japan from a complete surrender was the refusal to let them maintain the institution of Emperor.

Guess what, they STILL wouldn't have surrendered until they were allowed to keep that institution, and they DID keep it.

The bombing was an unnecessary atrocity.

Don't believe me? Let's see what military leaders at the time had to say:

http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

Educate yourself.

[Parche]

47. History

I have studied history

Maintaining the Emperor was only one of the issues
there were a lot more

Unconditional surrender is just that Unconditional
Japan did not have a leg to stand on

[ET Awful]

116. Gee, too bad so many military leaders (who I have an odd feeling

had a better grasp than you of the situation) disagree with you completely.

When I say study history, I mean something besides a high school history final.

Let's see, Dwight Eisenhower said "During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."

Admiral Leahy, Roosevelt's Chief of Staff: "It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons."

General MacArthur's opinion? "...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary."

Ralph Bard, Undersecretary of the Navy? "Following the three-power conference emissaries from this country could contact representatives from Japan somewhere on the China Coast and make representations with regard to Russia's position and at the same time give them some information regarding the proposed use of atomic power, together with whatever assurances the President might care to make with regard to the Emperor of Japan and the treatment of the Japanese nation following unconditional surrender. It seems quite possible to me that this presents the opportunity which the Japanese are looking for.

"I don't see that we have anything in particular to lose in following such a program." He concluded the memorandum by noting, "The only way to find out is to try it out."

Your completely flawed "unconditional surrender" argument is ridiculous because, even AFTER the use of the most horrendous weapon ever devised, the surrender was CONDITIONAL and they were allowed to maintain the institution of Emperor.

People are STILL dying today because of the use of those weapons.

You might want to re-read some real history.

[jonnyblitz]

8. "the bombs of August" by Howard Zinn (WW II vet/pilot)

<snip>
..... The bombing of Hiroshima remains sacred to the American Establishment and to a very large part of the population in this country. I learned that when, in 1995, I was invited to speak at the Chautauqua Institute in New York state. I chose Hiroshima as my subject, it being the fiftieth anniversary of the dropping of the bomb. There were 2,000 people in that huge amphitheater and as I explained why Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unforgivable atrocities, perpetrated on a Japan ready to surrender, the audience was silent. Well, not quite. A number of people shouted angrily at me from their seats.

Understandable. To question Hiroshima is to explode a precious myth which we all grow up with in this country-that America is different from the other imperial powers of the world, that other nations may commit unspeakable acts, but not ours.

Further, to see it as a wanton act of gargantuan cruelty rather than as an unavoidable necessity ("to end the war, to save lives") would be to raise disturbing questions about the essential goodness of the "good war."
<snip>

the rest:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/Bombs_August.html

[jbnow]

12. There are many problems with "the good war"

Stopping Hitler would indeed be a good cause...it is devastating to know we knew much of what was happening and did nothing. We wouldn't accept the refugees on the SS St. Louis in 1939 or lift the quota on Jewish immigration. In fact it was just the Dominican Republic that expressed willingness to take in great numbers.

So it was a good cause to fight for, but what government was really fighting for that? I am not a history buff, perhaps it was nobler then I know.

But even as a kid I didn't buy the two bombs being OK. I don't know about the first bomb, I'd need to study more then I wish to (though I will read this article) but the 2nd bomb? One wasn't convincing?

[Comandante_Subzero]

81. History Whitewashed

The history of the war not generally told is how US & Brit (& to an extent others) corporations & banks helped fascism to build up & arm.
It didn't happen in a vacuum! Look at the history of Chase Bank, for one. Texaco won the war for the fascists in Spain by providing unlimited oil credits. WW2 was an extension of WWI - a global rivalry of imperial powers.

In essence the Axis states were following the examples of the more established colonial powers. US abuse & extermination of Indians was judged good, German extermination of Poles & Jews was bad as was Japanese maltreatment of their conquered peoples. But only because they threatened us, not because we really cared what happened to Poles, Jews, or Chinese.

[Parche]

14. Japan

Actually Japan was not ready to surrender
The Army was in charge, and they were never
going to surrender, it took the 2bombs and
the Emperor to change that.

It is not "Questioning" Hiroshima, it is stating the facts

Thousands of POW's would have been killed, and were in fact
already being killed if not for the dropping of the bombs.
Along with the troops that were going to invade

Atrocities were Nanking, Wake Island, Truk,Bataan,Phillipines
and they were unforgivable

The Atomic bombs were necessary.

[K-W]

138. ignore mispost

[Cleita]

10. So should Iraq drop a bomb on us to end a war we started?

You decide.

[Parche]

16. Rationale

These 2 scenarios are completely different

The GW Bush should never have illegally invaded Iraq

Iraqi's are already fighting for their country
as we have seen

[Cleita]

30. Should the Japanese have bombed Pearl Harbor?

Isn't this just as illegal as Bush's invasion of Iraq? We committed no act of agression against Japan, nor did Iraq commit an act of agression against the USA. By your rationale, Iraq or one of its allies has a right to drop a nuclear bomb on us to get Americans to stop their war against them.

There never is a necessary evil in my book. All evil is evil and not necessary. However, the allies managed to rout the Nazis without the bomb and Hitler was not even entertaining the idea of surrender. So why did we drop bombs on Japan? Could it be that Germans were European like the ruling class in our country and the Japanese were Asian and more expendable than Germans? I think the decision involved more than a small degree of racism.

During WWII Japanese or Japs or Nips as they were called were always dehumanized in ways that the Nazis never were. (There was a replay of this racism in Vietnam, who were called gooks.) I know. I heard my parents and neighbors speak about it all the time. The newsreels one saw in the movies were very racist in tone. However, it was acceptable because they were the enemy.

So is selective droppping of the bomb only a necessary evil when we drop it on an enemy that is very different from us?

[Parche]

64. Pearl Harbor

Pearl Harbor has nothing to do with Iraq

There are alot of reasons why it was Japan and not
Germany

By the time the US had all the full components for the
bomb,around July 1945, Germany had already surrendered in May 1945

In Germany we were already surrounding Berlin, along with
the Soviets and British, so to think about it,
we had already invaded Germany.

Japan proper was never invaded before the bombs were dropped

All enemies are different than us, I dont care what color,
race,creed
If the circumstances are the same, then it is necessary

[Cleita]

78. In Germany if the Nazis had followed Hitler's last orders,

they would have found nothing but dead Germans and scorched earth. Hitler had decided if he had to die, then all of Germany would die with him. He would not surrender. Your original post though says this was a necessary evil. You cross the line here to the end justifies the means standard of ethics. Everyone know that is plain wrong and also counterproductive. History has born out that dropping nukes on Japan was not necessary. They were close to the end themselves and would have surrendered.

[Parche]

82. History

History does not say that Japan would have surrendered
without the bomb, but in fact remained steadfast and
stubborn, that is the Bushido code.

Germany was already occupied and surrounded by
the major allies, so they were defeated, nothing
left to invade

Japan on the other hand still had not been invaded
(The Home Islands)


It was a necessary evil, I wish it didnt have to happen
but to end the war, and free our POW's sooner, it
saved many lives.

[Cleita]

87. You said we save lives by killing?

Right here on this thread is a post about what Howard Zinn has to say about it. Now I think Howard says what needs to be said no matter how unpopular because he would rather speak the truth.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4274694&mesg_id=4274785

Here are the terms of surrender for Germany. Once the AXIS allies of Japan were vaporized, Japan really was preparing for surrender. It was in its best interest to do so. You will notice the surrenders were German military and not high ranking members of the Nazi government, who were all dead or on the run by then.

http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/war.term/093_02.html

I really don't blame Harry Truman. He was convinced that this was the only recourse by the people who wanted to drop the bombs. But the end justifies the means is not a good reason. When you rationalize the fact the lives will be saved it's a very slippery ethical slope you travel.

Isn't that sort of like the reason we invaded Iraq, so that Iraqis would be better off? Oh, never mind the 100,000 estimated Iraqis we have killed in the process. Think of all the lives we saved. :eyes:

The worst part of this is that we changed the world forever. We now must live in perpetual fear that a nuclear war will be fought sometime in the future because of this.

[Parche]

154. Iraq no comparison

Iraq has and will never have anything to do with Hiroshima
to compare them is irrational

A lot of countries were studying Atomic energy/power
We just put the pieces together first

Yes by saving millions of lives it was worth it

[jbnow]

134. Well we did commit an act of aggression

in their eyes. We froze Japan's funds and cut off their oil. In a time of war that is certainly supporting the other side and weakening Japan.

But you have a good point. If Iraq could suddenly buy a bomb, would they be justified in bombing a couple of our cities to make us surrender?

I wonder if it too easy to say "Civilians get killed" because barring the Civil War in the south, we don't know what it is to have war in our land.

[Greyhound]

102. Yes, we are prosecuting a war of aggression, and that makes us

legitimate targets. Fortunately for us Iraq doesn't have the means, and the other nations don't have the balls. There's no way to distinguish us (opposition to the war), from them (supporters), so we're all at risk.
Shit. :shrug:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. They were crimes against Humanity. Truman should have been tried.

Under the Nuremberg Charter Article 6:

"(b) WAR CRIMES: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoner of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity."

The rationalizations and justifications given for mass murder are just that. Rationalizations and justifications, mostly based on unsupported speculation of what might have happened if an unnecessary invasion was carried out.

[Parche]

15. Justification

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both Military targets

The Nuremburg trials were also after the fact

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. Justification for murdering 200,000 civilians?

If, as you say, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets, then why couldn't the "military" parts of the targets have been taken out with conventional weaponry? Or, were all those women and children busy producing heavy artillary?

The Nuremburg trials were indeed after the fact. They were also "after the fact" of the invasions of Poland, France, Belgium, Russia, and "after the fact" of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Sobibor. So, does that make them invalid? The Tokyo War Crimes Trials were also "after the fact" of Nanking, The Phillipines, Singapore, Pearl Harbor, and the Burma Railroad.

Most trials take place "after the fact" of a crime.

[Bucky]

51. Not murder, not 200k, and not "harder" than conventional bombing.

why couldn't the "military" parts of the targets have been taken out with conventional weaponry? Or, were all those women and children busy producing heavy artillary?

Actually, yes, the Japanese did geographically scatter their production sites, specifically to protect them from even wide area bombing. The weapons production facilities were by any reasonable standard legitimate and legal targets of war. Bombing is innaccurate. It kills nearby civilians. It was the Japanese who chose to scatter-site them in part with the expectation that the Americans might be reluctant to hit family dwellings.

In any other context, you might call that hiding behind their women's skirts.

"Murder" is obviously not the right word. There was no intent to kill civilians, only to destroy a major production area that had gone mostly undamaged--as well as to deliver a psychological blow to show the hopelessness of resistance. The two atomic bombings, by the way, killed about 100,000 - not 200,000. The Rape of Nanking, in comparison, included the systematic and deliberate slaughter of 325,000 Chinese pretty much for the purpose of killing Chinese.

For Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the explanation is simply that there was a war on, we had a single weapon that could more efficiently do the work of several tons of ordance, and which held out the promise of saving both Japanese and American lives.

To have allowed Japan to get away with a simple peace agreement would be to invite yet another world war once their fascist machinery got revving again. Don't forget that Truman's generation was fighting its second war to end all war. They didn't want a Japanese Hitler rising out of the ashes of WW2 as the German version had done out of a incompletely defeated Germany from WW1.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

96. I'll stick to the use of "murder".

Your rationalizations for mass murder are quite like the ones used by both the Japanese in the Phillipines and China and the Germans throughout Eastern Europe.

The Japanese were fighting "bandits" in China and the Phillipines and therefore "had to" destroy civilian populations to control the situation. The Germans were fighting "Bolshevik" partisans and used the same excuse.

The "simple peace agreement" you allude to was a surrender with the conditions that Japan be allowed to retain the emperor and the "national essence" (Kokudai). Which is exactly what the surrender ended up being.

The figures of civilian casualties you aver in both instances, Nanking and Hiroshima/Nagasaki vary with the telling.

You're quite mistaken if you think that I am, in any way, sympathetic to the Japanese militarists. I have no doubt, that they would have used any means, including nuclear weapons, to achieve they're ends. But, to hang them for war crimes and atrocities while letting the perpetrators of similar, and often worse, atrocities against humanity escape even trial, is hypocrisy at it's lowest.

Even one of the Nuremburg judges said as much.

[jonnyblitz]

21. I agree. Instead he is a hero of the Democratic Party.

only in America...

[Walt Starr]

13. Agreed n/t

[manic expression]

46. I see your disdain for innocent people's

humanity knows no bounds.

[Walt Starr]

135. I see your hatred for your own nation knows no bounds

Bombing Hiroshima nad Nagasaki was the right thing to do. You are so blinded by hindsight you have no clue what you are talking about.

[tabasco]

18. I agree.

Ending the war saved lives.

1 million casualties to invade the home islands. The Japanese were prepared to fight to the last position. The militarists were in control.

Dropping the bombs saved American and Japanese lives.

Don't try to convince the virulently anti-military types, though. They apparently don't give a damn for the tens of thousands of infantrymen that would have died in an invasion.

[Parche]

69. Invasion

Not only saving thousands if not millions of soldiers
but also the remaining civilians on both sides.

A few people dont realize the Japanese mind set,
they fought to the death, not matter what.
The civilians were ordered,and would have done just that.

[IndianaGreen]

20. What medals were bestowed on our POWs in Hiroshima?

They too perished at what was essentially the first shot of the Cold War.

Why do you think the US government went to such pains to suppress the truth about Hiroshima and Nagasaki from the American public and the world? Our beloved government wanted the American people to believe that we needed huge piles of atomic weapons to defend ourselves against the Osama bin Laden of that day, "godless communism." Selling this crap to the public would have been made difficult had the American people known the horrific truth about the effects of atomic weapons.

Anyone in here old enough to remember the "duck and cover" propaganda about what to do in case of atomic attack?

Whitewashing Hiroshima: The Uncritical Glorification of American Militarism
by Gary G. Kohls, MD

Back in 1995, the Smithsonian Institute was preparing an honest but aggressive display dealing with the 50th anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Amid much right-wing reactionary wrangling, from various ultrapatriotic veterans groups all the way up to the Newt Gringrich-dominated Congress, the Smithsonian was forced to eliminate that painful but historically important part of the story – the Japanese civilian perspective. So again we had another example of powerful politically conservative ultrapatriotic groups influencing public policy – and messing with history because they didn't have the courage to face up to unpleasant historical truths.

The historians did have a gun to their heads, of course, but in the mêlée, the media and the public overlooked a vital historical point. And that is this: The two bombs did not have to be used to end the war and there wouldn't have been a bloody American invasion of Japan. American intelligence, with the full knowledge of President Truman, was fully aware of Japan's desperate search for ways to honorably surrender weeks before the order was given for the American-led nuclear Holocaust that was Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

American intelligence data, revealed in the 1980s, show that a large-scale US invasion (planned for no sooner than November 1, 1945) would have been unnecessary. Japan was working on peace negotiations with the Allies through its Moscow ambassador in July of 1945. Truman knew of these developments because the US had broken the Japanese code years earlier, and all of Japan's military and diplomatic messages were being intercepted. On July 13, 1945, Foreign Minister Togo said: "Unconditional surrender (giving up all sovereignty) is the only obstacle to peace." Truman knew this, and the war could have ended by simply conceding a post-war figurehead position for the emperor, a leader regarded as a deity in Japan. That concession was refused by the US; the Japanese continued negotiating for peace; and the bombs were dropped. And, ironically, after the war, the emperor was allowed to remain in place. So what were the real reasons for 1) the refusal to accept Japan's offer of surrender and 2) the decision to proceed with the bombings?

Shortly after WWII, military analyst Hanson Baldwin wrote: "The Japanese, in a military sense, were in a hopeless strategic situation by the time the Potsdam demand for unconditional surrender was made on July 26, 1945." Admiral William Leahy, top military aide to President Truman, said in his war memoirs, I Was There: "It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons. My own feeling is that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages." And General Dwight Eisenhower agreed.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/kohls1.html


Curator Shigeru Aratani, of the Hiroshima National Peace
Memorial Hall for the Atomic Bomb Victims, points at a photo
of Army Air Force Cpl. John Long Jr., top right, among other
victims at the memorial in Hiroshima, Japan.

Photo of American victim of Hiroshima bomb now included in memorial display

By Gary Schaefer / Associated Press

HIROSHIMA, Japan -- Near where the atomic bomb detonated over Hiroshima, the faces of the victims silently appear and fade on a wall of television monitors in a relentless display of the attack’s terrifying human toll.

Amid the thousands of faces, one stands apart: that of Cpl. John Long Jr., U.S. Army Air Force.

Long, who died in the blast while being held by the Japanese, last month became the first American serviceman to be enshrined at a memorial here, throwing light on the little-known story of U.S. prisoners of war who perished at Hiroshima.

“It shows how indiscriminate the slaughter was,” said Shigeru Aratani, a curator at the Hiroshima National Peace Memorial Hall for the Atomic Bomb Victims. “Enemies and friends, soldiers and civilians, women and children -- they were all killed.”

http://www.detnews.com/2004/nation/0402/15/nation-63775.htm

[jonnyblitz]

22. great post IG.

:thumbsup: :hi:

[IndianaGreen]

23. Watch the Sundance Channel tonight for a great documentary

I posted the story about "Original Child Bomb" a documentary about film shot in Hiroshima and Nagasaki about the effect of the atomic bombings. The film was suppressed by the US government.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4274356&mesg_id=4274356

[jonnyblitz]

24. I don't get sundance...maybe i can find it on a torrent site online

I often find good political documentaries on torrent sites. I would like to watch it. i will check your thread out..

[bpilgrim]

25. excellent post

as usual, thank you :toast:

are you surprised so many here on DU still would have

peace

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

28. You lost me at the first line

"This is one subject that should not be a controversy"

After having written such a dismissive, because-I-say-so sentence, even if the rest of your post has a point, it hasn't.

[tjdee]

31. Same here.nt

[manic expression]

29. HIROSHIMA: AN UNNECESSARY SLAUGHTER

You would so callously murder 110,000 people (not to mention countless others - hundreds of thousands - from radiation)? For what? We could have struck military targets, but to massacre so many innocents is BEYOND WRONG!!!!!

So Pearl Harbor=Hiroshima+Nagasaki??? That is wrong in every way.

Get some compassion, logic and respect and then get back to me.

[Zhade]

33. I disagree, history disagrees, and I find this post reprehensible.

Of all days to post this tripe, you pick today?

Fucking disgusting.

[Parche]

45. Post

What is wrong with this post on this day,
with either thoughts or an opinion explaining why

History does not disagree with this post

The soldiers on Baatan in 1942 do not disagree
The sailors at Pearl Harbor do not disagree
The Marines at Wake Island do not disagree

If you study history, then you would know

[Zhade]

49. I have studied history, I do know, and I do find your OP disgusting.

This is the final word from me - I REALLY don't want to have a post deleted.

[Parche]

67. History

I have also studied history

And that is your opinion, to find things disgusting

What I find disgusting is how the Japanese treated
our POW's, and they did start the war
The US did not

And this is the final word from me.

I do not like war just like the other people on this
forum, I dont like the killing on either side,
but like I said, it was a Necessary evil, which
I hope never happens again

[not systems]

141. Sound more like revenge the way you frame it.

Was it revenge for the POW's and Pearl Harbor
or was it a militarily "necessary evil"?

You can have it both ways.

[HEyHEY]

54. Hey, buddy, was it women and children who killed people at pearl?

Was it they who cracked the whip at baatan?

No, but it was women and children who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. No American women and children died did they?

[Parche]

70. civilians

Thousands of civilians died in the Pacific war at the
hands of the Japanese

Some at Pearl Harbor
Wake Island massacre October 1943
Guam
Solomon Islands
Phillipines
China, Nanking

[HEyHEY]

73. You missed the point

If someone killed your family, does it make sense to kill their family who did nothing?

[MattSWin]

35. More civilians were killed in the bombing of Tokyo..

Than in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.

For all the people critical of bombing Nagasaki and Hiroshima, what would you have done differently?

The main question is did dropping the bomb spare more lives than it took? I'm convinced it did simply because we'd already lost 400,000 troops as well as the hundreds of thousands civilians the Japanese killed in such places as Nanking.

[bpilgrim]

39. FALSE: Hiroshima ALONE is up to almost a quarter MILLION deaths

not that that has anything to do with the decision of nuking a DEFEATED, suing for PEACE nations cities, TWICE...

fyi: ALL military leaders in theater at the time recommended we accept their 1 condition SOONER in order to SAVE LIVES.

more...
http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

psst... pass the word :hi:

peace

[HEyHEY]

36. Easy to say when your skin hasn't been melted off your body

Not to mention that of your child's.

[HEyHEY]

37. Why did they not drop it on Germany? Oh yeah - white folks

[Cleita]

38. Yep. You've got that right.n/t

[Parche]

40. A-Bomb

The components were not ready until after Germany
surrendered.

[HEyHEY]

42. We're talking four months difference, they had the bomb

[Parche]

56. bomb

Germany surrendered in May 1945
The US didnt have all the components for the bomb
ready until July

[HEyHEY]

58. So we're told

[Fescue4u]

93. So you think we should have nuked Germany to?

Strange are the views of the revisionist.

We shouldnt have nuked Japan, but we should have nuked Germany.

Well, thats interesting....

[Caleb]

53. You actually think we didn't drop it on Germany

because they were white?

I never heard that one before. Have any proof?

[HEyHEY]

55. Yeah, the fact it didn't happen

And that germany was a tougher nut to crack..yet we drop it on Japan?

[Caleb]

57. Pretty weak evidence

You do know that the original plan was to drop it on Germany, right?

[HEyHEY]

59. Then why was it not done?

[Caleb]

60. Because they surrendered before the bomb was complete

[HEyHEY]

61. I don't buy that

THis was one of the most top secret projects of all time. I'm sure there is tons of info we never knew about it and never will know.

[Caleb]

62. Maybe...

But, I don't buy your claim that the nuking of Japan was racially motivated.

[HEyHEY]

63. I don't think it was motivated by race

I just think it was much easier to pull the trigger because it wasn't a nation of white people.

[Princess Turandot]

106. Operation Thurndercloud: Berlin, Dresden et al, February 1945, was

bursting at the seams in part with people fleeing west in fear of the advancing Soviet armies, when it was relentlessly bombed. Estimates of casualties range from 25,000 to 250,000 by historians: total counts were difficult because of the number of 'refugees' in Dresden in particular. (Other people have estimated that upwards of 500,000 people died, although those estimates seem to come mostly from intense critics of warfare.) Tens of thousands died in Berlin during the same bombing campaign. Whatever the number, I have to assume they were all white.

[0rganism]

75. The Trinity test was July 16, two months after the surrender of Germany

and three weeks prior to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

There are many things that can be effectively concealed from the local population.

The above-ground detonation of a nuclear device doesn't happen to be one of them.

[Parche]

65. Germany

Admiral King, and General Marshall had a Europe
"First" order
That being said, Germany surrendered before Japan
and before all the components were ready for the bomb

[Greyhound]

108. Are you familiar with what we did to Dresden? At least the A-Bomb was...

relatively quick.
"...records recovered from the Dresden archives in 1993, listing the number of people buried after the attack in municipal cemeteries at 21,271. All sources agreed on one fact: A contributing factor in the number of casualties was that Dresden lacked proper air raid shelters for civilians."

[bpilgrim]

111. "relatively quick" - NONSENSE it reached across generations and into the

WOMB to keep on killing long after the initial SHOCK-n-AWE.

fyi

peace

[Greyhound]

114. OK, but what about the point?

[bpilgrim]

118. you brought it up

i was just pointing out the facts.

peace

[Greyhound]

142. Oh, point was response to HeyHey's assertion that we

didn't nuke europe 'cause it's white.

[Endangered Specie]

119. As I understand it the bomb was originally developed to be used

against the Nazis, the only reason it wasnt was they were more or less already beat/surrendered by the time it was ready.

[0rganism]

71. Can a necessary evil arise from a chain of unnecessary evils?

I don't want to go into the whole POW-treatment debate, or a lengthy discussion of the possible alternatives not mentioned in your (apparently incomplete) post. Instead, I want to examine the background of your assertion.

For example, we can (and often do) point to the bombing of Pearl Harbor as an unnecessary evil. In turn, this can be causally linked to the outbreak of WWII as another prime example of an unnecessary evil. It was the direct result of the rise to power of Adolf Hitler, an unnecessary evil rooted in the economic ruination of Germany post-WWI, which itself was the knee-jerk response to the many highly-unnecessary evils of WWI.

To even regard your thread title as possibly true, we have to isolate and restrict the range of the context we will consider. In the scope of the last months of the war, with Germany and Italy surrendered, but with Joseph Stalin well-positioned to exert considerable influence in the post-war world, perhaps the American government saw solid, even irrefutable, reasons to end the war with Japan in this manner. But such reasoning only applies within a framework of already-questionable premises.

I suggest we expand our context, and ask whether acts of naked agression against civilian populations are, in any sense, necessary.

[Parche]

84. Post

There was nothing incomplete about the post

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets
Civilians live around military targets
We didnt have smart bombs back then, so
unfortunately civilians were killed

We saved our soldiers lives, Japanese civilians,
and our thousands of POW's lives
I think that is a good reason to drop the bombs

[Fescue4u]

72. Immoral NOT to bomb Hiroshima

It would have been an evil to withhold the means necessary to save lives of hundres of thousands of Americans.

[HEyHEY]

79. By killing women and children?

Barbarians kill children.

[Fescue4u]

89. The Japanese killed their own women and children

through their decision to go to war, and to continue the war.

Besides, the value of any one American was 10x greater than that of the entire Japanese population at that time.

It was a sad thing, but the Japanese did it to themselves.

[manic expression]

101. WHAT?

The Japanese did NOT kill their own women and children. To say so is both ignorant and disgusting.

The value of 1 American life is the same as 1 Japanese life. I dare say that anything else is bigotry.

The Japanese did not "force" us to drop the bomb on innocents! That is the old wife-beater argument: "I'm sorry you made me hit you, honey".

:puke: :puke: :puke:

[Fescue4u]

104. Sorry. I side with Truman on this one.

And its pretty damn arrogant of us to question our own countrymen (of our own party) who made this decision 60 years ago.

The Japanese choose war, and war they received.

And Im sorry, Japanese life had ZERO value during WW II. (Even then, the Japanese didnt value their own lives, witness Kamikazees and arming boys and girls with sticks to fight impending invasion)

Today we enjoy peace and friendship with the Japanese. That happened because our grandparents had the Wisdom to do what was right, and to put the war to an end.


Thankgod our grandparents had the Wisdom to do the right thing.

[manic expression]

109. It is pretty

damn wrong to NOT question such injustice. I don't care if my grand-father dropped the bomb himself, I will still criticize whoever did such a horrible act.

The Japanese chose war, they received a massacre. That is not right.

No amount of war can lessen someone's value. Period. If you think otherwise, I suggest you reconsider the label "liberal". If you had a clue, you'd know that Japanese Kamikazes valued their lives because they used them for what they thought was the right thing: protecting their home.

Today, we would enjoy the peace with more people, people who were wrongly murdered for false reasons.

I wish we had the wisdom to learn from our predecessor's mistakes.

[Fescue4u]

110. It was hardly an injustice, it didnt even make us "even"

Millions of Americans put their lives on hold for 4 years.
Hundreds of thousands of Americans were killed.

This was the fault of the japanese.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were just desserts for an illegal war started by Japan.


as for "they thought was the right thing: protecting their home."

LMAO.

May I suggest you rethink your "liberal" position? It sounds like you an GW have alot in common.

[bpilgrim]

113. "Hiroshima and Nagasaki were just desserts" - puke

fyi: OBL uses the same reasoning

"May I suggest you rethink your "liberal" position? It sounds like you an GW have alot in common."

you said it

peace

[manic expression]

122. HARDLY AN INJUSTICE???

WE MURDERED 140,000 people! To think that it is anything but an injustice is disgusting and wrong!

Oh, woe is me! People had to put their lives on hold for 4 WHOLE YEARS! No, way! :sarcasm:....140,000 Japanese had their lives wrongly put on hold...indefinitely...by the US. No amount of inconvenience can come close to rationalizing a massacre.

The Japanese instigated a WAR. We instigated an indiscriminate slaughter. There's a difference.

"Oh, since someone threw a rock at me I beat him to death, before raping and killing his family and friends." So very justified, right? :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :puke: :puke: :puke:

How did Japanese Kamikazes NOT think they were protecting their home? They were, actually. And how, exactly, does that justify murdering civilians?

(edited for more accuracy in regard to satirical paragraph)

[Fescue4u]

125. The Injustice was Pearl Harbor

And no Japanese was murdered.

They died in the war they started.

Karma is funny that way.

[manic expression]

130. You know what's funny?

the fact that we DID murder countless Japanese (or 140,000).

They died in a slaughter that was unnecessary. There is a difference between war and massacre. They started the former; we started the latter.

Oh, and if you are killed tomorrow by Iraqi partisans, I'll be sure to inform your family that you got what was comin' to ya. :sarcasm:

Pearl Harbor was mainly against Naval targets. Pearl Harbor cannot even begin to compare with Hiroshima, let alone Nagasaki as well. And even if they targeted civilians exclusively, do not try to justify an injustice with another injustice; for you cannot.

Karma will not be so funny when it comes back to us.

Do you REALLY want to go waaay back to see who was responsible? America forced industrialization on Japan. If that never happened, Japan would have never been in a position to attack us. So actually, Pearl Harbor was our own imperialistic interests coming back on us.

Nice try, but you can't justify such wrongs.

[Fescue4u]

136. LMAO

"America forced industrialization on Japan."

Yep. Its all Americas fault.

When in doubt, blame America!

[manic expression]

137. Oh, nice rebuttal

Go crack open a history book. America did force industrialization on Japan.

Doesn't make it America's fault, but we set in motion the chain of events that led to Pearl Harbor.

Again, nice try.

[Fescue4u]

145. Oh, I thought you were making a joke

You did preface that ridiculous comment with "you know whats funny"...

anyway.


We didnt force Japan to do anything but end their illegal war of aggression.

Hiroshima is a proud moment in America history when American technology and know how put the stop to a murdering outlaw enemy of world peace, and did it without costing any American lives.

[Parche]

150. ??/

We helped the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor?

[Fescue4u]

74. Hiroshima happened for ONE reason ONLY

And that is reason is that Japan hadnt surrendered by August 5th.

Japan had the means to end the bloodshed and deaths of their citizens. They choose not to do so.

[HEyHEY]

77. Why did Nagasaki happen?

[Parche]

85. Nagasaki

Because cloud cover over the city of Kokura, the primary
target, so the Commander of the B-29 "Bockscar" selected
Nagasaki, the 2nd target as the target to bomb.

[Fescue4u]

91. Because Hiroshima demonstration wasnt enough

The Japanese had an up close and personal DEMONSTRATION of the power of the atom bomb. This demonstration happened over Hiroshima.

it wasnt enough to convince the Japanese.

So Nagasaki happened.

As history would write, Nagasaki was finally enough to convince the Japanese to stop the slaughter of their own people.

[bpilgrim]

94. and they didn't surrender after Nagasaki either

it wasn't until we agreed to their 1 condition that they finally did and the imperial throne stands witness to this very day of that fact.

imagine how many could have been saved, on our side and theirs, if we had accepted our military leaders, in theater at the time, advice, sooner. :cry:

peace

[Fescue4u]

147. Yes.

They were a hardheaded people with little regard for their own lives.

[tocqueville]

92. because the sky over Kokura was cloudy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

[KamaAina]

107. To show the godless commie Russkies who was boss?

It was pretty much meant to set the stage for the Cold War. Hiroshima may, just possibly, have been justified on military grounds, but in the words of the People's Almanac, "the subsequent attack on Nagasaki was totally unnecessary".

[ET Awful]

132. Ooooookay, and Sadam could have stopped Bush from bombing

Iraq by leaving right? Do you really believe that bullshit?

[Fescue4u]

146. Well its your own bull....

""Ooooookay, and Sadam could have stopped Bush from bombing"
Posted by ET Awful

Iraq by leaving right?""


Why would I be inclined to comment on your strawmen in regards to a war 60 years after the war we are discussing?

Do you think Truman considered the implications in Iraq while making the decision to end WW II???

[tocqueville]

80. the bomb wasn't meant for that

it's just an excuse

(in reality it was meant to tell the Russians to back off Japan)

but the excuse is interesting : the bad treatment of POWs "allows"
mass civilian killing in retaliation.

Exactly as the US behavior in Gitmo, Abu Grahib etc... is giving a "moral ground" to Al Quaeda

if the US justifies it, why shouldn't we says OBL

what do you answer to that ?

[Parche]

86. Iraq

Iraq has nothing to do with the Hiroshima or Nagasaki
bombings

[tocqueville]

90. no ?

if you justify as Truman did the nuclear retaliation by the treatment of POWS by the Japanese, how can't the AL Quaeda thugs "justify" their atrocities by the bad treatment of Iraquis and Afghan POWS by the US ?

logic is logic

torturing enemies is giving arguments to the enemy to "justify" their atrocities and thus putting US GIs in even morev harms way. Specially if they are captured. And the same "argument" can be used to blow up people at the WTC or in London.

[Parche]

152. Iraq

But we are not at war with Iraq, never have been

That is just one of the reasons to drop the bomb
there were others

[tocqueville]

98. Eisenhower, Mac Arthur were against it

Eisenhower wrote in his memoir The White House Years:
"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act? During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment, was I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.<16> (pg. 312-313)"

MacArthur believed the dropping of the bombs to be "completely unnecessary from a military point of view. <17>(pg. 775)"
The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, after interviewing hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, reported:

"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.<18>"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

[bvar22]

99. Many people, including those in the "High Command" disagree.

Gen Dwight Eisenhower and Gen. McArthur hardly EVER agreed on anything, but they did agree that:

The Japanese were ready to surrender and there was No Military Need or Benefit from destroying those two cililian cities.

[Name removed]

115. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

129. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Endangered Specie]

120. Make sure you recite this to all the survivors of the bombs...

im sure that will go over real well.

[barb162]

126. Maybe they should all be given a copy of the "Rape of Nanking"

to let them see what some of the war was about that THEY started.

[Endangered Specie]

128. what kind of absurd logic is that?

Using that same logic, it would be ok for an African nation to firebomb a couple US cities because of the slave trade.

[Chicago Democrat]

121. TOTALLY WRONG! Hiroshima was a disaster!

NOT WORTH IT!

Not worth the developement of this weapon.


I curse Edward Teller for all eternity.

[Deja Q]

123. It was also retribution for PEARL HARBOR.

There may be 5 times as many valid reasons for using the bomb; but it'd be a coincidence to think that the attack of Pearl Harbor and the use of the Bomb on JAPAN.

Indeed, the US usually prefers to work out of self-interest rather than altruism. But that aside, there are plenty of reasons why Japan was the logical target... many have been said in other responses or other posts.

The Bomb was necessary and, retribution or not, Japan was sadly the most logical target.

[Comandante_Subzero]

124. Necessary Murders

Probably Osama's reasoning as well.

[Endangered Specie]

131. I thought justifying genocide would be something left to people like

Adolf, or Joseph, guess I was wrong on that one.

[understandinglife]

133. It was not necessary, in any way. Neither was Nagasaki. Period.

I know because in 1972 I had access to portions of Admiral Forrestal's diaries that remained classified at that time. I have no knowledge if the pages I read have been declasified, but I know what they contained. I would have to go to the Seeley G Mudd Manuscript Library at Princeton University, and view what they claim to be the "complete and unexpurgated diaries" to know if what I had access was actually declassified. But what I do know from what I read is that Hiroshima and Nagasaki NEVER NEEDED TO HAPPEN TO END THE WAR WITH JAPAN. Period.

http://www.peacecandy.com/gwbush/remindus
REMIND US

Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us - How ever long it takes, the day must come when tens of millions of caring individuals peacefully but persistently defy the dictator, deny the corporatists their cash flow, and halt the evil being done in Iraq and in all the other places the Bu$h neoconster regime is destroying civilization and the environment in the name of "America."

[Fescue4u]

148. Neither was Pearl Harbor or Nanking.

Karma is a bitch

[not systems]

151. Revenge as justification for an atrocity against humankind...

lovely.

[bpilgrim]

139. ALERT: This thread has run its course and has become inflammatory.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4271977#4275936

peace

[bloom]

144. It did have an inflammatory title... eom

[K-W]

140. Keep your nationalistic mythology to yourself please. EOM

[Name removed]

149. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DistressedAmerican]

153. PUKE!

:puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke:

[Moderator]

155. Locked.

Realizing that this is a long standing, emotional and ongoing debate about America's use of the atomic bomb, some discussion seemed appropriate on this anniversary.

The discussion here has been lost in accusation and side tracks. We're going to lock this one.