Riesstiu IV
Deity
Excellent posts Richard III and privatehudson 
!
!
Atomic Weapons usage in WW2
- Thread starter Hunter
- Start date
- Status
Cactus_Jack
Lefty Nutter
Originally posted by privatehudson
Do you have any evidence whatsoever to back this claim or is this simply based on your rather biased view of global politics and the USA overall?
Oh my, how evil, and there was me thinking the Germans bombed London for target practice. Do you consider the British 1000 bomber raids any less of a crime considering their dubious worth to the war effort? Being a civilian in a country under bombing raids is all part of the **** happens law that is in effect during war.
Agreed, but this doesn't necessarily mean the A-bombs are automatically for similar dubious reasons as the attacks on Vietnam.
You might not like the fact, but total war means "total". If you're country enters into a war of agression against a powerful enemy, then tough ****. Sure not everyone in Japan agreed, and sure the children had no option, but that is part of the responsibility of the adults. If anything some blame for the a-bombs rests with the adult population of Japan who were so stubborn about refusing to see the end of their fighting abilities that the impression on the allies would have been a need to invade.
The Japanese government and possibly even the people knew full well what kind of war they entered into at the begining, they then had consequences as part of their actions.
Ok let me put it this way. Just becuase the Nazis and Japanese did evil things its ok that we do evils things as well? Maybe i should go on about America so much, but i feel i have to as my country is a lap dog slave of it just involved in there crimes as the US. The USA has been waging low level wars against the third world and middle east. Does that make it ok for terrorists to try and kill innocent people? Every war in histroy the leaders of the nation aways clam noble reason. Bin Lardin Hitler Starlin rtc done the same thing.
PS: Answer this question if the USA really did give a **** about the crimes the Japanese commit in China and other southern Asian countrys why did they do anything to stop them before?
PSS: Oh yeah why didnt they show the Japanese the power of the atomic before using it?
Richard III
Duke of Gloucester
They did try to do something to stop it before, "really cool guy." They imposed sanctions, and tried diplomacy - all of the real nice, peaceful ways you wanted them to try. Funny, in one breath, you want peace, and then piss on them when they tried peaceful techniques to do the moral thing and paid for it with their lives. They allowed arms to sift through to the Chinese. None of that worked.
So, come Dec. 1941, the Japanese - in the midst of American-sponsored, peaceful negotiations - showed the world just how responsive they were to peaceful economic sanctions, by attacking the broadest number of targets every attacked in world history, while continuing to attack the Chinese.
So, since the Japanese forced the US administration to try a less peaceful approach to persuasion, well, that's when the war came. And the US tried to beat the living bejesus out of the bastards, without trusting "peaceful means" or restraint or negotiation.
Funny about that, eh?
See, the fact is, you're an apologist for aggression, as long as it isn't American. There's no other rationalization for your "moral equivelancy" arguments here. I can appreciate the idea from many that they would want to explore other options, but to suggest that somehow the events that led to the Atomic Bomb were the result of US malfeasance, conspiracy and pro-war sentiment is historically ludicrous, whatever you might think of their record after WWII under different presidents.
R.III
So, come Dec. 1941, the Japanese - in the midst of American-sponsored, peaceful negotiations - showed the world just how responsive they were to peaceful economic sanctions, by attacking the broadest number of targets every attacked in world history, while continuing to attack the Chinese.
So, since the Japanese forced the US administration to try a less peaceful approach to persuasion, well, that's when the war came. And the US tried to beat the living bejesus out of the bastards, without trusting "peaceful means" or restraint or negotiation.
Funny about that, eh?
See, the fact is, you're an apologist for aggression, as long as it isn't American. There's no other rationalization for your "moral equivelancy" arguments here. I can appreciate the idea from many that they would want to explore other options, but to suggest that somehow the events that led to the Atomic Bomb were the result of US malfeasance, conspiracy and pro-war sentiment is historically ludicrous, whatever you might think of their record after WWII under different presidents.
R.III
Richard III
Duke of Gloucester
And just caught your last absurd argument.
Why show them "the power of the Atom Bomb" before using it?
1. After all, they'd done far worse damage with multiple plane raids, and that hadn't done the trick.
2. They only had two bombs, at a cost of billions of dollars - real money (and that's not just a tiny point; those billions were later needed for the world recovery).
3. Why would they be obliged to? Why didn't the Japanese "demonstrate" the value of their naval air force before hitting Pearl Harbor?
4. What difference would it have made? As we've told you several times, Japanese archives have confirmed - and American archives have confirmed that the Americans knew - that the first bomb had little impact on the Japanese government's mindset, in part because they were so screwed up that they convinced themselves it was a hoax, or that the Americans must only have one bomb, or even that it was an advantage to be bombed in such a way because it gave them a rallying point to use against the US.
You are just so willing to avoid the truth here, I don't understand why...?
Why show them "the power of the Atom Bomb" before using it?
1. After all, they'd done far worse damage with multiple plane raids, and that hadn't done the trick.
2. They only had two bombs, at a cost of billions of dollars - real money (and that's not just a tiny point; those billions were later needed for the world recovery).
3. Why would they be obliged to? Why didn't the Japanese "demonstrate" the value of their naval air force before hitting Pearl Harbor?
4. What difference would it have made? As we've told you several times, Japanese archives have confirmed - and American archives have confirmed that the Americans knew - that the first bomb had little impact on the Japanese government's mindset, in part because they were so screwed up that they convinced themselves it was a hoax, or that the Americans must only have one bomb, or even that it was an advantage to be bombed in such a way because it gave them a rallying point to use against the US.
You are just so willing to avoid the truth here, I don't understand why...?
privatehudson
The Ultimate Badass
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2003
- Messages
- 4,821
If you can find the part of my posts were I claim bombing civilians is nice then you win a cookie. It's not nice, it's necessary, it's part of total war. Simple as, they knew the war they entered into, tough luck really. You gauge the level of response needed to stop the enemy and use it, if the enemy does not even entertain peace before you are forced to use severe measures on them, well that's really their problem.
Nope, but terrorists rarely are trying to restore some form of global peace methinks either.
Not ready for war would be part of it. The US was barely ready for WWII when it happened, it would have been up a certain creek without a paddle if it tried in the 30's. Second I think Richard did nicely on the other issues
Third if you pulled your head out of your opposition to post WWII america (rightly or wrongly) you'd be able to consider WWII with something of a less biased stance. You're letting events that hadn't even happened by people who were possibly not even born affect your judgement of the events of WWII. That's wrong 
Riesstiu IV
Deity
Who is Bin Lardin? A fat terrorist?
Also, who the heck is Starlin? A former Hollywood star becoming a communist dictator?
Cactus_Jack
Lefty Nutter
Eoconomic sactions are never peacefull? Anyway the USA didnt give a **** that Japan was killing people. Just like they didnt give a **** when Saddam was commiting his worst crimes. I get pissed off when people attach pure godly motives to americas actions. I am not a apologist for aggression when have i ever apologized for Japans actions? I know Japan was doing evil things, but how does that excuse Americas actions? Do you really know what America gets up to in the Third World? Do you know how many people where killed in Veitnam from bombing alone How many people CIA backed death sqauds have killed in latin America? Japan was defeat in the second world war as isnt a threat to world peace any longer. The USA still is. Its the same pattern as aways.
Cactus_Jack
Lefty Nutter
Originally posted by privatehudson
If you can find the part of my posts were I claim bombing civilians is nice then you win a cookie. It's not nice, it's necessary, it's part of total war. Simple as, they knew the war they entered into, tough luck really. You gauge the level of response needed to stop the enemy and use it, if the enemy does not even entertain peace before you are forced to use severe measures on them, well that's really their problem.
Nope, but terrorists rarely are trying to restore some form of global peace methinks either.
Not ready for war would be part of it. The US was barely ready for WWII when it happened, it would have been up a certain creek without a paddle if it tried in the 30's. Second I think Richard did nicely on the other issues
No your letting post war proganda cloud your judgement on world war 2. Heck the west suported the nazis in the 30s becuase they thought they would whip the workers into line. Really that is facist senteiment from the west. I wont deny many brave men fought in the second world war on the side of the allys, but goverment motives are a diffrent thing.
Riesstiu IV
Deity
How so?
Didn't know you could speak for every single American. I am personally disgusted with both atrocities.
No one is saying America is perfect.
Because they attacked us first.
Well a lot of our foreign aid goes to third world countries. I personally care about the third. In fact I have relatives that live there.
Richard III
Duke of Gloucester
1. I know much more about all of the above than I expect you do, a fact amply proven by your lack of specifics. If you were a little less of an anti-US bigot, I might even provide some for you so that you don't have to be so rabid in your generalizations.
Fact is, though, I'm objective enough to judge each situation on its own merits, not backwards. The US then wasn't the US now. Again, you demonstate incredibly hypocrisy by attacking the US for being violent, and then denouncing them for trying economic sanctions in an effort to stop Japanese violence - sanctions which, I might add, were considerably more targeted for Japan than the ones seen against Iraq. But I bet you don't know the difference, do you?
2. I literally hope you rot in hell.
3. Since I have no influence in those quarters, however, I will control my blood pressure but simply giving your irrational childhood diatribes the response they deserve, e.g. I'm pressing the ignored button.
Bye!
Reisstiu, good luck getting answers...!
Cactus_Jack
Lefty Nutter
Well you havent controled your blood pressure enough, not to refrian from wishing me a trip to hell
. Anyway do you know anything of USA's pre world war 2 record? Its genocide attacking other countrys and intervention in latin America. Ok this is the last time i will reply to this question ok? i will do so in caps cuase you seem to be dense.
1 IF A EVIL PERSON ATTACKS A OTHER EVIL PERSON< IT DOESNT STOP THE EVIL PERSON ATACKING BEING EVIL JUST BECUASE THE PERSON HE IS ATTACKING IS EVIL.
In other words the sactions where not in place to stop Japanese violence. They where there to stop japanese power. Massive diffrence. You most likely too thick to know it. The sactions where basicly blocking all oil so Japan couldnt feed its engery needs. The USA was unable to put sactions that starve Japanese civilians cuase it wasnt as powerless as Iraq. The Iraq sactions are a crime the Nazis would be proud of , but i am not talking about them. I get pissed of at Americans gushing about how great they are when they are no better than anyother facist starlinist goverment of the 20 century.
Richard III
Duke of Gloucester
I'm so glad I stopped one last time to read your ****, because:
1. You clearly did not read my post; I'm quite aware of "latin america," no matter how many times you repeat it, I'm quite certain I'm more aware of the details than you are.
I'm quite aware, for instance, of the U.S. support for Anastasio Somoza (know him? Can you name his sons? Can you tell me which one took power? Was it Luis, or Anastasio Jr.? Don't look it up, tell me!), or the "exercise and drop" policy to leave weapons behind for the Contras in Honduras in the '80s; I'm aware that the US helped the British and a coalition of central american states expel adventurer William Walker from his rule of Nicaragua, just as I'm aware that US marines hunted Sandinistas in the late 1920s and early 1930s. I'm aware of Teddy Roosevelt's support for the Panamanian rebels that got him his canal through someone unsavory means, and I'm aware of the sordid history of the fall of Allende in Chile, the Junta in Argentina, the coup in Brazil, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
"Genocide" is not, actually, a technically correct term for any American intervention in Latin America, since at no time has the United States ever tried to eliminate or displace a Latin American nation or people. Guatemala certainly did, but in that case, it was more US indifference that was an issue, given that US interest at the time was much more focused on El Salvador and Nicaragua. While US forces, US governments and US troops or representatives have on many occasions been complicit in what could be called "war crimes" or "crimes against humanity," the central question is this: what, if anything, does any of this have to do with a conversation about Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his successor finding it necessary to build and use atomic weapons in 1945? If we were talking about the FMLN (heard of them, oh intellectual giant?) using an atom bomb on Miami in 1982, then all of your moral points might actually be of some help to us. They are not.
2. If power or bloodletting was all the US cared about, then why didn't the US go to war when the Japanese bombed the USS Panay in 1937? No one is gushing about how great the Americans are, and - contrary to your self-centred, chomskyist delusions - no one has missed your "evil does not beget evil" argument either. What is being said is this: under the circumstances, engaged in a total war that was not nearly as over as you pretend, the US had three options.
Options one (starve out Japan with a blockade and continued aerial bombing) and two (invade) would both have caused massive civilian and allied casualties, with the added threat that civilians still under forcible Japanese occupation - e.g. the residents of Indochina, Malaysia, the East Indies, parts of the Phillipines, Korea and half of China - might be the ones to starve or die from reprisals during the months required to complete either task. Option three - drop the atomic bombs - created the momentum to end the war, with heavy innocent casualties, but casualties that were by no means heavier than that expected under any other option, and probably much lighter.
Given that the alternative (four) offered by the Japanese government was to attempt to negotiate to secure its continued occupation of some of those nations, or, to put it more bluntly, an alternative which would have involved international endorsement and acceptance of Japanese genocide (and here, the word does apply) and other war crimes, then the US was in a classic dilemma: kill people, kill people, kill people, or allow a situation to continue in which people would have been killed regardless. So you see, no one is ignoring your moral quandary, it's just that we're moving beyond your coloring book chomskyite analysis to note that in THIS case, it WAS a quandary, not a colouring book decision. In THIS case, the situation was difficult enough that to use the bomb, however sick, was at least an understandable alternative.
3. For the hundredth time, I'm not an American.
R.III
1. You clearly did not read my post; I'm quite aware of "latin america," no matter how many times you repeat it, I'm quite certain I'm more aware of the details than you are.
I'm quite aware, for instance, of the U.S. support for Anastasio Somoza (know him? Can you name his sons? Can you tell me which one took power? Was it Luis, or Anastasio Jr.? Don't look it up, tell me!), or the "exercise and drop" policy to leave weapons behind for the Contras in Honduras in the '80s; I'm aware that the US helped the British and a coalition of central american states expel adventurer William Walker from his rule of Nicaragua, just as I'm aware that US marines hunted Sandinistas in the late 1920s and early 1930s. I'm aware of Teddy Roosevelt's support for the Panamanian rebels that got him his canal through someone unsavory means, and I'm aware of the sordid history of the fall of Allende in Chile, the Junta in Argentina, the coup in Brazil, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
"Genocide" is not, actually, a technically correct term for any American intervention in Latin America, since at no time has the United States ever tried to eliminate or displace a Latin American nation or people. Guatemala certainly did, but in that case, it was more US indifference that was an issue, given that US interest at the time was much more focused on El Salvador and Nicaragua. While US forces, US governments and US troops or representatives have on many occasions been complicit in what could be called "war crimes" or "crimes against humanity," the central question is this: what, if anything, does any of this have to do with a conversation about Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his successor finding it necessary to build and use atomic weapons in 1945? If we were talking about the FMLN (heard of them, oh intellectual giant?) using an atom bomb on Miami in 1982, then all of your moral points might actually be of some help to us. They are not.
2. If power or bloodletting was all the US cared about, then why didn't the US go to war when the Japanese bombed the USS Panay in 1937? No one is gushing about how great the Americans are, and - contrary to your self-centred, chomskyist delusions - no one has missed your "evil does not beget evil" argument either. What is being said is this: under the circumstances, engaged in a total war that was not nearly as over as you pretend, the US had three options.
Options one (starve out Japan with a blockade and continued aerial bombing) and two (invade) would both have caused massive civilian and allied casualties, with the added threat that civilians still under forcible Japanese occupation - e.g. the residents of Indochina, Malaysia, the East Indies, parts of the Phillipines, Korea and half of China - might be the ones to starve or die from reprisals during the months required to complete either task. Option three - drop the atomic bombs - created the momentum to end the war, with heavy innocent casualties, but casualties that were by no means heavier than that expected under any other option, and probably much lighter.
Given that the alternative (four) offered by the Japanese government was to attempt to negotiate to secure its continued occupation of some of those nations, or, to put it more bluntly, an alternative which would have involved international endorsement and acceptance of Japanese genocide (and here, the word does apply) and other war crimes, then the US was in a classic dilemma: kill people, kill people, kill people, or allow a situation to continue in which people would have been killed regardless. So you see, no one is ignoring your moral quandary, it's just that we're moving beyond your coloring book chomskyite analysis to note that in THIS case, it WAS a quandary, not a colouring book decision. In THIS case, the situation was difficult enough that to use the bomb, however sick, was at least an understandable alternative.
3. For the hundredth time, I'm not an American.
R.III
Riesstiu IV
Deity
Such a comparison is absurd. How many millions of people died in our concentration and labor camps. How many dictators with absolute power have we had?
privatehudson
The Ultimate Badass
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2003
- Messages
- 4,821
OR.... I am looking at the choices available and what consequences they would have had and deciding that the one selected was a good one. You've yet to say how your choices would lead to a better post war world, or prove that your assumption about imminent Japanese surrender was due.
SOME in the west, note the SOME.
The question you neglect to answer is what you would have done in their place and how this would improve matters. Governments are corrupt and rarely angelic, it's true, never been denied, but you still sit in your chair filled with hindsight and fail to understand the issue as a whole.
For the final time IT'S A WAR they entered into war assuming they would win and did not, they entered into a war in which their own nature made it necessary to use extreme measures. It was more than partly their fault.
I'd imagine a lot, but you can hardly expect that to influence the decisions of men in 1945 can you?
Oh so you think Japan and Germany would have treated the world much better? Wake up and smell the coffee... I'd rather live in a US dominated world than a Nazi Germany dominated world any day of the week and twice on sundays.
Why they were there is irrelevant, they failed, Japan paid the price when it failed to take notice. This is part of the simple facts of global politics, not part of the A-Bomb issue.
No, but it could of in 1944-45 stopped the food producing areas of Japan from transporting the food to the cities and effectively starved millions to death by bombing the railroads and costal convoys. This as stated by Richard III was an option under American consideration that they decided against for the reasons he mentioned.
As Richard says, you're full of criticism, but not so hot on informing us of what YOU would have done in that situation. Please enlighten us of this and how your choices would have created a better world for the future.
Cactus_Jack
Lefty Nutter
here are two things i would of done diffrent.
1 i wouldnt of used the atomic bomb in Japan, perhaps only a milltary target if i had too. The usa really used the bomb to show the russians who is boss. Not really a good motive to use it.
2 i wouldnt of tolorated Japanese crimes in asia from the start. When the USA realised that Japan didnt care about there interests thats when the decided to provoke them to strike first.
1 i wouldnt of used the atomic bomb in Japan, perhaps only a milltary target if i had too. The usa really used the bomb to show the russians who is boss. Not really a good motive to use it.
2 i wouldnt of tolorated Japanese crimes in asia from the start. When the USA realised that Japan didnt care about there interests thats when the decided to provoke them to strike first.
privatehudson
The Ultimate Badass
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2003
- Messages
- 4,821
On your first suggestion
You fail to indicate:
How this would have ended the war (ie proved the Japanese would have come to terms with the allies and what terms these would be)
Proved any such terms would have been acceptable and/or would have produced a more stable far east and better Japan in the post war period
Determined how during all this you would have dealt with Stalin and ensured that he would not pre-empt any peace deal with an invasion. Please tell us how you would control Stalin and ensure he was happy with any deal between the US/UK and Japan unless he was offered something as part of said deal.
Humour me, and assume (as the majority of texts show) Japan was not about to surrender and the allies would have been forced to look for another solution. Can you think of one militarily that would have created less damage and casualties than the A-bomb?
Prove that your suggestion about the US motives is true, ie show us more than your opinion to support this.
On your second point:
Suggest a way in which the Allies could have prevented such crimes from occurring, a plan if you will detailing what steps would realistically have prevented the Japanese from continuing.
Oh and on the point, the Japanese were not FORCED to strike first, that was their choice.
You fail to indicate:
How this would have ended the war (ie proved the Japanese would have come to terms with the allies and what terms these would be)
Proved any such terms would have been acceptable and/or would have produced a more stable far east and better Japan in the post war period
Determined how during all this you would have dealt with Stalin and ensured that he would not pre-empt any peace deal with an invasion. Please tell us how you would control Stalin and ensure he was happy with any deal between the US/UK and Japan unless he was offered something as part of said deal.
Humour me, and assume (as the majority of texts show) Japan was not about to surrender and the allies would have been forced to look for another solution. Can you think of one militarily that would have created less damage and casualties than the A-bomb?
Prove that your suggestion about the US motives is true, ie show us more than your opinion to support this.
On your second point:
Suggest a way in which the Allies could have prevented such crimes from occurring, a plan if you will detailing what steps would realistically have prevented the Japanese from continuing.
Oh and on the point, the Japanese were not FORCED to strike first, that was their choice.
Cactus_Jack
Lefty Nutter
Ok i will find texts that show Japan was willing to surender on only on condiction. It was a condiction kept anyway, therefore making the use of atomic bombs pointless. Except to show the Russian who was pimp daddy.
Cactus_Jack
Lefty Nutter
Richard III
Duke of Gloucester
Don't think we've forgotten you; it's just that when someone is self-destructive enough to post links to quotes from Alperovitz's sloppilu researched book as though it's objective fact, that deserves a really really nasty response, of the sort that it takes time to build up in one's throat, much as one does when horcing up a big ball of mucus in one's throat for that special spit.
- Status
Similar threads
