View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003 Location: Retired
|
Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2010 7:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Koveras wrote: |
TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
Speaking of surrender how many people are aware that even AFTER the Emperor told the Japanese council to surrender, some hardliners planned a coup to stop the Emperor from surrendering? THEY were certainly determined to fight to the last man. And not only the last MAN.. pictures taken prior to a planned invasion show Japanese women and children training with bamboo spears in order to practice repelling an Allied invasion. An invasion was estimated at minimum to cost at least a million lives if not more.
Re: the bamboo spear issue...here's an actual eyewitness account of it.
http://www.australia.to/2010/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4461:an-eyewitness-account-of-the-battle-of-okinawa&catid=135:idn<emid=268
See the second paragraph of the eyewitness account. |
Don't you think that when women and children are training with spears, it's fairly obvious that the country is beaten, and there's absolutely no need to drop nukes on it? |
It's fairly obvious that an invasion would have been enormously bloody and probably end up killing more civilians than the atomic bombings. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
Posted: Mon Nov 29, 2010 1:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, the Riken facility did have a nuclear research program of sorts, but as far as I know there is no evidence that they were anywhere even close to developing a nuclear weapon... (basically all they had was a few cyclotrons, one of which had been purchased from the US years earlier, but no heavy water or enriched uranium). Plus that facility had already been bombed.
There was an unsubstantiated article written by the journalist David Snell in 1946 on the "rumor" of Japan having tested a bomb in North Korea. As far as I can tell though, it's totally unfounded...
Quote: |
It's fairly obvious that an invasion would have been enormously bloody and probably end up killing more civilians than the atomic bombings. |
It's only "obvious" if based on false premises (such as unconditional surrender being absolutely necessary, as well as the notion that it couldn't have been achieved without the atomic bombings in the first place). If civilians were not deliberately targeted (as they had been in Europe), then it is quite conceivable that casualties would have been less than in the atomic bombings. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
Posted: Mon Nov 29, 2010 2:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
It's fairly obvious that an invasion would have been enormously bloody and probably end up killing more civilians than the atomic bombings. |
I read a bunch of stuff in uni that suggested Japan had already been willing to surrender, but they were unwilling to surrender unconditionally as they wanted to keep the emperor. The United States supposedly insisted on an unconditional surrender because they thought the emperor would eventually lead to a renewed Japanese militarism. The fact that the US then allowed Japan to maintain the imperial system begs the question of whether there were Cold War power calculations at play, and if the United States simply felt that it needed to drop a bomb on a populated area to send the Soviets a signal.
Short version: it's not entirely obvious that an invasion would have been necessary in the first place. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
rollo
Joined: 10 May 2006 Location: China
|
Posted: Mon Nov 29, 2010 7:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
I believe that the North Korean nuclear facility at Yangbon is the old Japanese nuclear facility built by the Japanese in the 1940's. They also had a small experimental nuclear facility in Tokyo. They were trying to develop the bomb.
What they did have and had was the capability to launch a plague attack on San Diego which would have meant its spreading across the U.s. and the world. San Diego was the transit center for military forces. They actually drew up the plan and were prepared to carry it out.
The propaganda news reel I referred to was a Japanese propaganda film that was supposed to show the Japanese that suicide was preferable to surrender.
I think the hate I was referring to was Pilger's in that he focuses on a U.S. action , calls it a great crime without putting it in any context.
Of course it was horrible , the whole war was horrible , were there alternatives that is really not clear from the historical record. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
Posted: Mon Nov 29, 2010 9:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
rollo wrote: |
I believe that the North Korean nuclear facility at Yangbon is the old Japanese nuclear facility built by the Japanese in the 1940's. They also had a small experimental nuclear facility in Tokyo. They were trying to develop the bomb. |
No, the old Japanese facility was in Hungnam city ('Konan' in Japanese). It was dismantled after the war and the equipment taken by the Soviets. The site at Yongbyon was constructed by the North Koreans in the 80's.
Quote: |
What they did have and had was the capability to launch a plague attack on San Diego which would have meant its spreading across the U.s. and the world. San Diego was the transit center for military forces. They actually drew up the plan and were prepared to carry it out. |
This sounds extremely far fetched (more like propaganda in fact)... if you have any links though, it'd be nice to take a look.
Quote: |
I think the hate I was referring to was Pilger's in that he focuses on a U.S. action , calls it a great crime without putting it in any context.
Of course it was horrible , the whole war was horrible , were there alternatives that is really not clear from the historical record. |
Yes the whole war was horrible, but context makes little or no difference when we are talking about the blatant mass killing of civilians (in this case, entire major cities wiped off the map). It is never justified. In fact the exact same rational for justifying the atomic bombings could be used to justify the London Blitz: "Hitler only did it to save time and lives in the long run". Such an argument holds no water. Merely stating that one side's government 'started it' is not sufficient either, since regardless none of the civilians caught up the fighting deserve to die (not even accidentally). |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
OneWayTraffic
Joined: 14 Mar 2005
|
Posted: Mon Nov 29, 2010 4:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Vistorq. I think that most of us are agreed on that point. It's very hard to argue that children for example deserve to die simply because they were born in the wrong city. Yet many civilians did die in that war, and I think that Hiroshima and Nagasaki receive disproportionate attention. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 12:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
OneWayTraffic wrote: |
Vistorq. I think that most of us are agreed on that point. It's very hard to argue that children for example deserve to die simply because they were born in the wrong city. Yet many civilians did die in that war, and I think that Hiroshima and Nagasaki receive disproportionate attention. |
This isn't a question of "due proportion". It's a question of whether it was a war crime, which it clearly was, by any definition (certainly under the subsequent Geneva Convention). In fact it was about as clear-cut a war crime as you could gets. Very straightforward.
The German and Japanese leadership responsible for war crimes were tried (and executed). Rightly so. Why then, was Truman the blatant war criminal never tried? The answer is because the US government doesn't adhere to moral principles. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
rollo
Joined: 10 May 2006 Location: China
|
Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 8:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Why wasnt Churchhill and the King of U.K tried for the fire bombing of Dresden?" Mountbatten for the execution of Japanese prisoners in Burma? At least the Japanese bombings served a purpose to end the war. The Dresden bombing was just murder. let's discuss that "crime". |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
T-J

Joined: 10 Oct 2008 Location: Seoul EunpyungGu Yeonsinnae
|
Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 8:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Come on visitorq you as well as anyone should know that Japan in fact detonated atomic bombs on itself in one of the best false flag operations in history. Cant' believe you haven't picked up on this yet. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007 Location: retired
|
Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 10:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
rollo wrote: |
Why wasnt Churchhill and the King of U.K tried for the fire bombing of Dresden?" Mountbatten for the execution of Japanese prisoners in Burma? At least the Japanese bombings served a purpose to end the war. The Dresden bombing was just murder. let's discuss that "crime". |
Yes, let us do that. It was a crime. It was a horrible horrible crime.
That it was a crime does not in any way diminish the disgusting use of atomic weapons (or firebombs) on civilian populations. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
rollo
Joined: 10 May 2006 Location: China
|
Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 12:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Now if it took a while to formalize the surrender and the Japanese army in china does , to a Chinese city what a Japanese city did to Manilla then the argument would be that the U.s. committed a crime when it did not drop the bombs. Remember the Japanese army in china often disregarded Tokyo orders. They were exterminating the p.o.w.s . They did it in Malaya, and Hong Kong. It is not as simple as some say it was.
The fire bombing of Dresden, well that was simple, just the Brits continuing their butchering ways.
Where is Big bird? She deposited this mess and flew away. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003 Location: Retired
|
Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
mises wrote: |
rollo wrote: |
Why wasnt Churchhill and the King of U.K tried for the fire bombing of Dresden?" Mountbatten for the execution of Japanese prisoners in Burma? At least the Japanese bombings served a purpose to end the war. The Dresden bombing was just murder. let's discuss that "crime". |
Yes, let us do that. It was a crime. It was a horrible horrible crime.
That it was a crime does not in any way diminish the disgusting use of atomic weapons (or firebombs) on civilian populations. |
Why is an atomic weapon so much more horrible than an ordinary bomb? Or any other weapon? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
postfundie

Joined: 28 May 2004
|
Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 7:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
Why then, was Truman the blatant war criminal never tried? The answer is because the US government doesn't adhere to moral principles. |
No, Truman wasn't tried because the Allies won. If they had lost to Japan he would have been tried.
Doesn't the fact that it took two bombs tell you the Japanese weren't on the point of surrender? Shouldn't one bomb have been enough if they were out there training with sticks?
Okinawa is just a little island and probably 100,000 civillians died in that invasion. It was a crime and a shame to drop those bombs but it would have been a greater crime to let that war continue, to let it fester and grow until WW III came about. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
rollo
Joined: 10 May 2006 Location: China
|
Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
They had 1400 pilots and pilots ready for kamikaze missions if an invasion took place. Does'nt sound like they wanted to surrender. Many cities were destroyed in that war. Destroying these cities probably stopped other cities from being destroyed.
Hitler bombed London because the British had started the bombing of civilians prior to that. The attacks on London were retaliation for savage attacks by the British on civilians.
The bombings were bad! We agree on that. We disagree on whether they were totally nessacary. Ther were disagreements at the time about this. But why focus on this, except to focus on this except to put the U.s. in a bad light. there were other far worse actions. in the war. At least this one had a good result. It ended it. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007 Location: retired
|
Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 11:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
mises wrote: |
rollo wrote: |
Why wasnt Churchhill and the King of U.K tried for the fire bombing of Dresden?" Mountbatten for the execution of Japanese prisoners in Burma? At least the Japanese bombings served a purpose to end the war. The Dresden bombing was just murder. let's discuss that "crime". |
Yes, let us do that. It was a crime. It was a horrible horrible crime.
That it was a crime does not in any way diminish the disgusting use of atomic weapons (or firebombs) on civilian populations. |
Why is an atomic weapon so much more horrible than an ordinary bomb? Or any other weapon? |
First, I didn't say that. I made no hierarchy and even made reference to the firebombings. I do hope that was a Soju post.
Second: http://www.hiroshima-spirit.jp/en/museum/morgue_w17.html
Right, so atomic weapons leave behind something called "radiation". Look into it.
In the end, as I am a full formed moral human being, I can not find a place in my mind or heart from which sufficient evil and misanthropy exists to even begin a sentence where I'd justify incinerating civilians. You know, infants and elderly. Imagine a new born burning to death. Then imagine a couple thousand all at once. I can see how a power hungry amoral politician might be disassociated from ethical norms enough to ponder such an act, but you're proletariat. What's your excuse? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|