Excuse me, this is a public forum and I will debate whoever I feel like debating.
You're free to do so, I advised it for your own sake.
You are twisting the facts by trying to pretend there is any similarity between jihadis carrying out violent acts against civilians and World War.
I am making an observation that a large portion of people believe in the use of violence against civilians in the name of your cause. Ask Chinese, Ask Americans, Ask Russians, Ask Britons.
The Japanese had shows terrible brutality throughout World War II. Against POWs, against most of Southeast Asia. Koreans still hate the Japanese today for what they did.
Which still does not negate the point. This is a red herring entirely, I did not deny Japanese brutality, and I am far more familiar with the crimes of the Japanese, and Minami in particular's crimes in Korea then you are. However, this has nothing to do with the debate. The question was not "Did the IJA and IJN commit attrocities in Asia?" but, "Is the support use of violence against civilians in what is just, common?"
So, don't go there. Yes, there are bombs that will go off in war. If you don't like that, then DON'T START A WAR.
Based on things like this, you seem to not be entirely opposed to attacking civilians, so long as you view it as give just cause.
An Emperor who decides to take his country to war is the one responsible for those deaths. He chose to do so, knowing it was possible that he could get whupped by the U.S.
As I said, this is why you shouldn't debate WWII with me, the fact that you consider the Emperor to be the prime factor in the decision to go to war is appalling.
The U.S. did NOT target Hiroshima and Nagasaki because there were civilians there. That is simple libel, my friend. It is in these cities that the FACTORIES WERE LOCATED for military use.
You don't know much Japanese Geography do you my friend? Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not major industrial centers of Japan. That would be Osaka and to a lesser extent tokyo. By this point in the war however, most Japanese Industry was
A) At a standstill due to the Submarine Blockade, and therefor useless.
B) Spread out deliberately to limit the effects of strategic bombing.
C) Located in underground bunkers, similar to the Nordhausen facility.
D) Located in the untouched reaches of the Japanese Empire, particularly Manchuria.
Thus Hiroshima and Nagasaki make less then Ideal targets for a strike on Industry, if you wanted to cripple Japans war capacity (moreso then it allready was by the blockade), you would probably not even have hit a major city, but facilities in the Japanese countryside, or in China. Besides which not even truman claimed that it was an industrial center, but a port facility.
Get some education, you sound like a flake.
Get some education, you sound like a novice.
Some untwisted truth from some people a bit more in touch with the air war, Proffesor Gerhard Weinberg and Marshal of the Royal Air Force Sir Arthur Travers Harris, 1st Baronet GCB OBE AFC RAF.
"...the British tried to direct a major portion of their bombing effort at German industry, especially the crucial oil industry. In the Process they made a discovery which some realistic exercises would have reaveled to them years before: Bombers flying at night, to reduce vulerability to fighters, and at high elevations, to reduce vulnerability to anti-aircraft fire, were unlikely to hit almost any target, even on a clear night, to say nothing of cloudy ones. The choice, fairly obvious by early 1942, was either to abandon most bombing altogether or make german
cities, which were large enough to hit, the targets. In this situation, the London government opted for the latter alternative. They entrusted this project to a newly appointed chief of Bomber Command, Air Chief Marshal Sir Arthur Harris.
An energetic and driving officer, Harris had been in the Air Staff. He knew that there were serious questions about the efficeincy of the RAF's Bomber Commmand Operations, and he was determined to change the situation. He Knew that in this he had the full, energetic and enthusiastic backing of Churchill. He proceeded to demonstrate the capacity of Bomber Command to locate and destroy
urban areas, beginning with the Baltic port of Lubeck...Some British Church leaders in public and a few political leaders in private raised the question of the morality of aiming such vast military effort
at civilians. Harris wanted the British Government to tell the truth, that this was in reality what was being done and why, but the government preferred to prevaricate."
--Professor Gerhard L. Wienberg
A World at Arms: A global History of World War II Pages 577-578.
(Emphasis Mine)
Those aren't my words, those are an Acredited historian and the Airmashall's own words. If your willing to argue with those who commited the act of what their motive was, be my guest.
You may also note, that it is those exact tactics that Harris advocates, Massed Bombers launching night-time raids from high altitudes targetting urban centers, that was used on Tokyo On May 10-11.
Japan was given a WARNING. More than one. The Japanese knew EXACTLY what would happen if they refused. They refused:
Japan was given plenty of opportunity to avert the disaster. They had lost all the land they had gained. It was over. But they still refused to give up. Suicide bombers in planes were diving into important naval vessels. The U.S. did not want to invade Japan like they did Germany. But they would do it if they had do. This was the alternative. And Japan DID NOT TAKE IT.
All this is again a red Herring. The question is not if the target of civilians is justified, but whether a significant proportion of most populations believe it is, provided just cause. The very fact that you're attempting to provide me with Just Cause only leads me to conclude that the answer to that question is positive, and you are part of that group.
It is very easy to google this. Churchill also wrote an excellent book on World War II. Some people bother to read.
Some people bother to read books by Credited historians, rather then recognizable names. It's not like I tell people to go read Speer if they want an account of the war.
