Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Look, I understand where you are coming from. I don't deny the horrors that those people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki faced. But how do you figure that the Japanese, or the Germans wouldn't have tried to attack us, had we just stood by?
Because we--meaning FDR--wasn't "standing by" to begin with. He was frantically looking for a way to enter a war the American people didn't want to be in. He found it.
Neither Japan nor Germany had the capability or sophistication to attack North America, and Japan never even expressed a desire to do so, prior to 1941.
Quote:
Furthermore, Hitler tried to exterminate a whole culture of people. Or do you think that the Holocaust didn't happen either?
Sure it did, although the total extermination aspect of the Holocaust wasn't present until at least January, 1942 (Wannsee). It's a hard sell to link that, then, to decisions about war and peace made in 1940 and '41.
Quote:
And regardless of what Hawaii was, we had American citizens on that island, and it was still a territory of the US! You want to talk about war crimes? Let's talk about the atrocities commited by the Japanese troops in their quest to conquer Asia!
What Japanese militarists and imperialists did does not reflect on me. What American militarists and imperialists did, does.
Quote:
You on the other hand seem to hate the US, as well as Americans in general!
I apply the same rules to the U.S. that I do to any other countries. We fall short in many areas, and we sure as hell fall short of our own self-concept (though that's so inflated, it would be hard not to fall short.) If you want to describe that as hatred of the U.S. or Americans, you can. To me, it feels like I am only hating hypocrisy in all its manifestations.
For the tenth time: they offered to negotiate a surrender in July, 1945. WE chose not to pursue it. WE therefore bear responsibility for every death that occurred following that decision.
Not if ALL parties involved had agreed and signed to only accept unconditional surrender. We couldn't We didn't want to anyway since the memories *of the time* remembered well how Germany had been left able to make another war. You can't judge the mindset of a time by the mindset of a later one.
And yes, ALL parties waged brutal war against civilians. But this is the NATURE of modern wars. So while it does not make it "right" you can't put blame on one side or the other. Germany, however outright murdered about 12 million people all told in its slave system and genocides, and that is not an act of war, and Japan murders numerous people in China and conquered territories, and treated its POW's despicably. If you want to pull out an ethical 'balance sheet' them you drop the acts of war and end up with two nations who used brutality and murder in ways the other side did not. Neither deserved the chance to surrender with conditions.
And dropping the bomb killed a lot of people. But the alternative of an invasion would have killed many many more. All history is relatve and good and bad are never white and black but in shades of grey.
And with atomic weapons in the fore, and the two bombs on Japan dropped, we knew what they would do. We didn't before. Troops were driven trought the hotzone, not knowing how deadly the role of radiation was yet. Think if they had not been used. Not only would many thousands and thousands of both sides died in an invasion, likely to involve atomic weapons anyway, but the shock of the bomb that hit the whole world and created a reason NOT to ever do it again, would not have been there.
What else would have been different and how soon would a bomb have been dropped anyway, somewhere else?
Then it's our responsibility (our leaders' responsibility) that the war continued, and that people on all sides continued to die even more senselessly than those who died before the offer was made.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moth
Translated:
Its the Allies responsibility that they sought a proper conclusion to the war rather than one that would leave Japan capable of regrouping and rearming. A war that Japan started on her own volition.
djacques- You are not making a damn bit of sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by djacques
Any mutually agreed conclusion to any war is "proper."
It's only American savages who expect "unconditional surrender" and refuse to entertain any other possibility. Most of the world is not that morally and intellectually obtuse. It's a prototypically American "big dick" thing.
Even Iran and Iraq negotiated an end to a long, brutal war, ffs.
moth is absolutely right. we should not have, could not have, and did NOT leave japan, or germany, with the wherewithal to rebuild their military, and pick a time in the future to restart hostilities again, but with more modern technology. perhaps you would rather we have fought world war three using nuclear weapons, rather than have limited wars since. remember that einstein once said "i do not know what weapons will be used to fight world war three, but i do know that world war four will be fought with sticks and stones". leaving hitler and hirohito with any kind of military that could be rebuilt easily, which is what both would have wanted had they truly wanted a negotiated peace, rather than leaving them without a military, as part of an unconditional surrender that we got, would have been quite stupid.
and to prove that we only have to look back to a few of the largest conflicts of the 20th century, korea, vietnam, and gulf war one, to know this is true. in all cases, be they cease fire agreements, or peace treaties, our enemies used the time to rebuild and rearm their military forces so that when hostilities broke out again they would be as ready as possible. and THAT caused more casualties than dropping two nuclear weapons to end a destructive world war.
so you can berate the allies for wanting to break the will of germany and japan to prevent them from rebuilding and restarting hostilities if you like, but you are completely wrong to do so because you do not fully understand then enemy of the times. and until you do, you will make the same mistakes that other governments have made in the past with their enemies. you might want to read sun tzu's art of war and get some real insight on how to win wars.
Because we--meaning FDR--wasn't "standing by" to begin with. He was frantically looking for a way to enter a war the American people didn't want to be in. He found it.
Neither Japan nor Germany had the capability or sophistication to attack North America, and Japan never even expressed a desire to do so, prior to 1941.
Sure it did, although the total extermination aspect of the Holocaust wasn't present until at least January, 1942 (Wannsee). It's a hard sell to link that, then, to decisions about war and peace made in 1940 and '41.
What Japanese militarists and imperialists did does not reflect on me. What American militarists and imperialists did, does.
I apply the same rules to the U.S. that I do to any other countries. We fall short in many areas, and we sure as hell fall short of our own self-concept (though that's so inflated, it would be hard not to fall short.) If you want to describe that as hatred of the U.S. or Americans, you can. To me, it feels like I am only hating hypocrisy in all its manifestations.
And this in a nutshell is the downfall of our foreign policy.
We create or impose a moral standard upon those we don't like and conveniently disregard said code when it happens to be an ally of ours.
We condemned the rape of Nanking and ignore the raping and pillaging of eastern Europe by our ally the USSR.
We demand terrorist to conduct war in a civilized manner and ignore when Israel does anything but.
Case in point Lebenon just a few years ago. Now compare that brush fire to when Russia kicked the snot out of Georgia.
Israel claimed lebenon initiated the conflict.
Russia claimed Georgia initiated the conflict.
Both claimed the initiators killed their soldiers.
Both claims are accepted as true.
The difference. Russia killed far less civilians and did less damage.
Russia was heatedly condemned by the USA Israel enjoyed full support.
so you can berate the allies for wanting to break the will of germany and japan to prevent them from rebuilding and restarting hostilities if you like, but you are completely wrong to do so because you do not fully understand then enemy of the times. and until you do, you will make the same mistakes that other governments have made in the past with their enemies.
In the first place, WW2 was a war of choice from the American perspective--Roosevelt's choice, anyway. The American people weren't let in on this, but the more farsighted ones knew it.
In the second place, I did not mention Germany. We are focusing on the established fact that Truman nuked two cities almost a month after he recieved a peace proposal that was identical to the terms that eventually prevailed. I do condemn any targeting of any civilians anywhere, any time, by anyone, but what we should've done about Germany and surrender terms does not now concern me.
And this in a nutshell is the downfall of our foreign policy.
We create or impose a moral standard upon those we don't like and conveniently disregard said code when it happens to be an ally of ours.
We condemned the rape of Nanking and ignore the raping and pillaging of eastern Europe by our ally the USSR.
We demand terrorist to conduct war in a civilized manner and ignore when Israel does anything but.
Case in point Lebenon just a few years ago. Now compare that brush fire to when Russia kicked the snot out of Georgia.
Israel claimed lebenon initiated the conflict.
Russia claimed Georgia initiated the conflict.
Both claimed the initiators killed their soldiers.
Both claims are accepted as true.
The difference. Russia killed far less civilians and did less damage.
Russia was heatedly condemned by the USA Israel enjoyed full support.
Absolutely true in every detail. And absolutely true in every foreign policy decision we've made for many decades. Why ordinary people can't see through this, I'll never be able to understand.
In the first place, WW2 was a war of choice from the American perspective--Roosevelt's choice, anyway. The American people weren't let in on this, but the more farsighted ones knew it.
In the second place, I did not mention Germany. We are focusing on the established fact that Truman nuked two cities almost a month after he recieved a peace proposal that was identical to the terms that eventually prevailed. I do condemn any targeting of any civilians anywhere, any time, by anyone, but what we should've done about Germany and surrender terms does not now concern me.
first off war at that time was inevitable anyway, regardless of FDR wanting it or not. again read a real history book someday. the japanese were serious about expanding their empire across the pacific, and the US was in the way of them doing that. how you ask? well some of the real estate that the japanese wanted to get their hands on were the phllipines, indonesia, australia, and new zealand. in order to get any of these countries, the japanese were going to have to deal with the US because the phillipines were under US protection, australia and new zealand were close allies of the US, and indonesia was between the phillipines and australia, and it wouldnt do to have a belligerent power knocking on the door of one of our best allies EVER.
yamamoto knew that if japan was going to expand its empire, then they needed to keep the US out of the war as long as possible by destroying our fleet at pearl harbor. japan wanted to force us to sue for peace after the bombing of pearl harbor, and the destruction of our navy there.
as for targeting civilians, understand that in japan their defense industry, a legitimate target by the way, was a cottage industry, and it was spread out all over the japanese home islands. the materials needed to supply the military were built in the homes of japanese citizens, and hiroshima and nagasaki both fully engaged in building the materials of war, and thus both cities were legitimate targets.
so again, you can berate truman, and FDR, for how they prosecuted the war if you like, but in the end they did what they needed to do to win the war, and minimize casualties, and prevent japan from becoming a belligerent power ever again.
first off war at that time was inevitable anyway, regardless of FDR wanting it or not. again read a real history book someday. the japanese were serious about expanding their empire across the pacific, and the US was in the way of them doing that. how you ask? well some of the real estate that the japanese wanted to get their hands on were the phllipines, indonesia, australia, and new zealand. in order to get any of these countries, the japanese were going to have to deal with the US because the phillipines were under US protection, australia and new zealand were close allies of the US, and indonesia was between the phillipines and australia, and it wouldnt do to have a belligerent power knocking on the door of one of our best allies EVER.
Which treaty required us to defend our so-called allies, Australia and New Zealand?
When Truman lied to America that Hiroshima was a military base rather than a city full of civilians, people no doubt wanted to believe him. Who would want the shame of belonging to the nation that commits a whole new kind of atrocity.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
