|
|
|
Omega
Skeptic Friend
Denmark
164 Posts |
 Posted - 05/24/2002 : 18:56:53 [Permalink]
|
Atomic> “Boy”? I'm fairly new around here, so what exactly has Gorgo done to warrant such treatment by you? And I'm still waiting for a reply to my post to you.
Truman said publicly that Hirsoshima was a military base. Was that the truth?
“I guess the Emperor was curious about how many people would be killed in a nuclear attack despite warning attempts by the US.”
Are you serious about that statement?
Slater> “Having been one myself, I don't believe in sacrificing American soldiers to save the enemy.”
But it is okay to sacrifice Japanese civilians to save American soldiers?
“The fact that I am writing to you now should demonstrate that.” Demonstrate what? That you're consistent? Consistent about what? And what has that got to do with my question, which you refuse to reply to, now calling it a trick question?
” This is not to say that I think that war is a good thing.”
I'm not saying that either. The name of the one who it was, here on the forum, escapes me right now, and I don't have the time to go back over all the threads involving wars.
So Japan committed war-crimes during WW II? Everyone did that. Does that justify nuclear-burning two cities and hundred of thousands of civilians? Especially when Japan was about to surrender?
Let me ask again: I'd still like to know if you think it was okay to sacrifice 250.000 Japanese to save 60.000 American soldiers?
What's the trick?
“Those three letters speak volumes about your prejudices. That's some "blind eye" you are turning there.”
Says you, who's accused me of Anti-American rhetoric, for questioning the use of the atomic bombs, implying hypocracy on my behalf and what have you.
You're not even able to answer my question. Instead you attack me personally. The Japanese view on WW II has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether or not it was justified to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima or not.
TokyoDreamer> ” What I believe was relevant about the testimony of the lady who was actually there at the time was that she provides first-hand eyewitness account to the fact that the U.S. did indeed warn the civilians that they were going to drop the bomb.”
So the Truman administration did not want to harm civilians? Why then, did Truman publicly claim Hiroshima was a military base?
”Isn't this proof that they were after military targets only?”
If that was the case, why didn't they CHOSE a military target and not two cities?
Opus> ” As long a they have no large military their lack of contrition is not going to hurt us.”
You think the Japanese would attack who if they had a large army?
Don't you know why they attacked Pearl Harbour???
The motive to drop the bomb was political. Japan was already defeated and "the atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all," as Major General Curtis E. LeMay bluntly asserted in September 1945. (Alperovitz, Decision, p. 336.) the reason for the slaughter of nearly 300,000 civilians and the destruction of two cities makes no sense unless the larger picture is considered. If the Truman-administration had merely wanted to play with its new deadly weapons, it could have taken the advice of many scientists and advisers who were proposing a demonstration in an unpopulated area with representatives from various countries present. The fact is that the administration was thinking beyond the war to the time in which the victorious Allies would redraw the world map. The main contenders for dominance in the postwar period were the U.S. and Russia.
Containing Russia's influence after the war created a dilemma for the U.S. in terms of how to end the war. If Russia entered the war against Japan as the Allies had planned or, alternatively, if they were to broker the peace with Japan, as Japan had implored them to do, then Russia would have a greater hold on Asia--which the Truman-administration did not want. This situation provided a major incentive to bring an end to the war before August 15, the date on which R |
 |
|
|
Omega
Skeptic Friend
Denmark
164 Posts |
Posted - 05/24/2002 : 20:12:12 [Permalink]
|
I received an e-mail from Garrette:
I still get to review the forum briefly, and will continue to have that opportunity for a couple of weeks. Just no time to respond.
So go ahead and respond to my comments in the Hitler/CAH thread. I think I said I'd leave you with the last word anyway, so you're not being unfair, though I appreciate the honorable attempt to debate civilly (yes, I've enjoyed it, too, though I disagree with you on just about everything).
You'll undoubtedly have valid criticisms as I posted the whole thing from memory and I am sure details are wrong. Actually, I know of one already even without going back to my references: I typed the Japanese had 12,000 kamikaze aircraft. That's off by an order of magnitude; it was 1,200.
In any case, I think a couple of others will look at your comments for weakness, and if they don't, then my points weren't that strong to begin with.
Have at it, or else I'll have nothing new to read when I have the time.
Take care.
P.S. Regarding my subject "Permissions": Feel free to post this on the board to prevent any unwarranted claims of impropriety.
Right on, Garrette. At least we did manage to find the core of disagreement in regards to the Death-Penalty. Maybe we get to discuss that when you're back with time to reply.
I would of course like some references. I've given you mine, and you question those.
“1. I think, Omega, that you are confusing the arguments of others with my arguments. Mine on this subject have been very limited and mostly along the vein that you must establish your case first. Understandable, though, as you do get more comments to respond to than I do.”
I may've called you Slater and vice versa. People sometimes respond to questions or comments posted by others. The meaning should be clear.
My case is: Japan was ready to surrender. The islands' supply lines had been cut, the Japanese air force was a shambles, and Tokyo was nearly in ruins. The USSBS (United States Strategic Bombing Survey) had concluded that Japan would have surrendered by the end of the year, without invasion and without the atomic bomb.
I've brought forth evidence for this. Among them Dwight D. Eisenhower and general MacArthur. This also strongly questions the version of events that are with us today. That the Allies were forced to drop the bomb because the Japanese would never surrender--they were a nation of "fanatics," where even the children would willingly commit suicide before surrendering.
The Emperor of Japan had started negotiations with the Russians to put an end to the war well, almost a year, before the Potsdam Conference. He had sent his nephew, Prince Konoye, to the Soviets to try and get them to help broker a peace that kept the Emperor in power. We asked the Soviets to delay giving them an answer...
Final terms offered to the Japanese in the Potsdam Declaration on July 26 made no mention of the Emperor or of the imperial system.
When the Japanese finally surrendered a day after the devastation of bomb #2... the final surrender agreement included a part about the Emperor remaining in power and kept Imperial rule. Sound familiar? That had been the only sticking point(s) before to an early Japanese surrender!
Dropping atomic bombs on people, the first and fortunately only time in history this far, should not be taken lightly.
“2. Regarding Alperovitz, may I suggest Maddox's response? It is one I use, though I no longer have a copy. "The Origins of the Cold War" or something like that. It was written before Lifton & Mitchell's book but some of the arguments can apply to that also.”
I'm sure you or someone with that book handy can give some of the responses. I'm currently reading about WW I and don't have aeons of time on my hands. Also, what I have done mostly is using quotes from Alperovitzs books, not his opinions on the matter.
“3. I also recommend "Downfall" by Robert Franks which will refute the assertions about intent and, a |
|
|
|
Badger
Skeptic Friend
Canada
257 Posts |
Posted - 05/24/2002 : 21:34:47 [Permalink]
|
“What they (The Japense) would do was to strike any mention of this horror from all their history books. The rational was that it served no purpose to teach students anything about WW II that didn't foster patriotism.”
And?
Omega, the above is from one of your posts. You responded with the "AND" comment. It shocks me. You didn't strike me as the type who would condone revisions to history.
The danger, as I see it, is that the public is not offered the opportunity to learn from history, and istead is being manipulated by their government to feel victimized and resentful towards the United States and allies of WW II.
I don't see that as a good thing.
If you think it's work, you're doing it wrong. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 05/24/2002 : 22:31:40 [Permalink]
|
I checked out those links and did some of my own searching about the claim that Hiroshima was a military base. What I found where heavily biased sites that seemed to agree that because the civilian to military population ratio was 6 to 1 the city was not a military target. I was not aware of some magic ratio that negated the fact that there were substantial numbers of soldiers in the city. My interpretation is that it was a city with a military base attached. To me that makes it quite a valid military target. Warning was given to the population prior to the bombings and you still claim that the US targeted civilians. You assume, because the Japanese surrendered after the dropping of the second bomb, that neither needed to be dropped. You have decided that American military commanders were required to look after the welfare of the enemy rather than their own men. You may think all that if you wish. I think you are wrong.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2002 : 04:16:07 [Permalink]
|
If you don't think the U.S. has their version of history, then you haven't been paying attention. I think, without going back and looking, the "And?" had something to do with the fact that it sounds like someone was trying to justify this murder by saying that the Japanese changed history.
quote:
“What they (The Japense) would do was to strike any mention of this horror from all their history books. The rational was that it served no purpose to teach students anything about WW II that didn't foster patriotism.”
And?
Omega, the above is from one of your posts. You responded with the "AND" comment. It shocks me. You didn't strike me as the type who would condone revisions to history.
The danger, as I see it, is that the public is not offered the opportunity to learn from history, and istead is being manipulated by their government to feel victimized and resentful towards the United States and allies of WW II.
I don't see that as a good thing.
If you think it's work, you're doing it wrong.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
opus
Skeptic Friend
Canada
50 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2002 : 06:16:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Hey don't let facts get in the way of the speculation!
When this all started I was tending towards Hiroshima being a CAH but the leaflets change things. If warning were sent out then, as far as I am concrenred, there could be no CAH unless you mean the Japanese for hiding the warnings from the population. Now that was criminal. Just add it to the list of Japanese war crimes.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
I reread the Slaters post and he was writing about the Nagasaki Museum and I have to assume that those leaflettes would apply to that city and not Hiroshima. Which makes more sense as the Japanese could be expected to know there was such a bomb. For the US it would be a case of CYA.
So Atomic dude there just might be a whole lot o' speculating going on.
|
|
|
|
Badger
Skeptic Friend
Canada
257 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2002 : 07:24:47 [Permalink]
|
Of course, Gorgo, the US has it's own version of history, as does every country. I doubt that one can be totally free of revisionism.
The problem as I see it is the willful suppression of a government's responsibilities and actions during such a large incident (WW II).
Imagine, if you will, a Holocaust Never Happened movement by the German Government. It's as bad as the We Never Starved The Ukranians statements out of the USSR.
I keep thinking of the old saw "If you don't learn from history, you're destined to repeat it." I don't see repeating the horrors of WW II, now in a high tech full colour surround sound modern day format as being desirable.
If you think it's work, you're doing it wrong. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2002 : 08:00:00 [Permalink]
|
Again, I fail to see the difference or the relevance. None of the things cited excuse the U.S. or anyone from murder.
The U.S. leaves plenty of things out of its history, so I don't understand your point. I'm not excusing the Japanese, I'm just not sure why you think the U.S. is any different.
When we talk about Vietnam, we don't talk about the millions killed in Southeast Asia, we talk about the 50,000 U.S. soldiers killed. We don't talk about the millions starved in Nepal by Britain in WWII, we talk about the millions killed by Hitler. It's who wins and who gets to shape what's told. Not to excuse Hitler or anyone else. Crime is crime. We need to stop using different standards to measure the U.S.
quote:
Of course, Gorgo, the US has it's own version of history, as does every country. I doubt that one can be totally free of revisionism.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Omega
Skeptic Friend
Denmark
164 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2002 : 09:41:09 [Permalink]
|
Badger> My response to the line in question is just that. And your attacks on me personally as “someone who condones revising history” shows a bad line of argumentation.
Whether or not the Japanese have a revised version of WW II, has nothing to do with whether or not there was a just cause to drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I'm amazed you can't see that.
Slater's been busy turning the WW II Japanese people into a bunch of screaming fanatics.
My argument has been and is, that it was not necessary to drop the bomb to end the war.
Japanese revisionism has nothing to do with that.
But for the record I am very much indeed opposed to revised versions of history. Which is why I previously brought up my amazement that the Smithsonian was not allowed to hold a critical exhibition on the bombings.
Is it only Japan that has a revised version of events? The West doesn't? When it comes to Hiroshima and Nagasaki we're told the absolute truth?
Atomic> “What I found where heavily biased sites.” Biased how? I asked you once, and I´ll do it again. The CIA had offices in the WTC. Does that make the WTC a military target? If not, what is the difference between the WTC and Hiroshima?
Approximately 43,000 troops were stationed in Hiroshima at the time of the bombing, but the fact that the city had largely escaped conventional aerial bombardment as late as August 1945 speaks to the fact that the Allies considered the city to be of low importance militarily. The Allied strategy throughout 1945 was to level through aerial bombardment any target important to Japan's continuance of the war. If Hiroshima been central to "war work" for Japan, they too would have been heavily bombed.
The criteria actually set out by the committee that had been established to identify possible targets for the new atomic bombs during its initial meetings in April 1945 were as follows: "
1) they be important targets in a large urban area of more than three miles diameter,
2) they be capable of being damaged effectively by a blast, and
3) they are likely to be unattacked by next August."
In addition, they agreed
that psychological factors in the target selection were of great importance. Two aspects of this are (1) obtaining the greatest psychological effect against Japan and (2) making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released.
Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson expressed his concern to Truman that heavy Allied bombardment would leave no target in Japan that could provide the bomb with a "fair background to show its strength." (Secretary of War Henry Stimson, quoted in Alperovitz, Decision.) The June 1 notes of the Interim Committee are most instructive: "[T]he present view of the Committee was that the bomb should be used against Japan as soon as possible; that it be used on a war plant surrounded by workers' homes; and that it be used without prior warning."
” You assume, because the Japanese surrendered after the dropping of the second bomb, that neither needed to be dropped.”
Where did I say that?
Don't tell me what I assume, please. Read what I write. I have written that because Japan was ready to surrender there was no need to kill 250.000+ civilians.
” You have decided that American military commanders were required to look after the welfare of the enemy rather than their own men. You may think all that if you wish. I think you are wrong.”
Don't tell me what I have decided, either, please.
So you, too, think it was okay to sacrifice 250.000 Japanese civilians to save 60.000 American troops?
"All it takes to fly is to fling yourself at the ground... and miss."
- Douglas Adams |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2002 : 10:09:07 [Permalink]
|
By the way, there is no good evidence that this happened, so the way I stated it was not the best way to state it. Makes me wonder if there was a "free press" if I could state for sure that it did or it didn't happen, but I can't do so now.
quote:
millions starved in Nepal by Britain in WWII,
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2002 : 11:48:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
So you, too, think it was okay to sacrifice 250.000 Japanese civilians to save 60.000 American troops?
In a war, which the last time I checked WWII was, if you can kill a bunch of the enemy without losing a single of your own men it is considered a job well done. The way you keep asking that says to me that you already have decided that. Don't be disengenuine about it. It was my side in the war that was able to win without losing too many soldiers. But that was only the final battle of the war. We had already lost a tremendous number of lives. I am totally OK with what was done.
quote:
Atomic> “What I found where heavily biased sites.” Biased how? I asked you once, and I´ll do it again. The CIA had offices in the WTC. Does that make the WTC a military target? If not, what is the difference between the WTC and Hiroshima?
I think that in a war all targets are valid, including the WTC. It is up to the winners of the war to decide which targets were invalid. Again, I think this is just the way it is, it is the way it always as been. I don't really have a defense for it beyond that it's human nature but there you go.
@tomic
 @tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Badger
Skeptic Friend
Canada
257 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2002 : 11:55:44 [Permalink]
|
Ok, Omega. My response was off topic. However, that line did strike me.
Anyway, on topic, yes I'd pull the trigger on a boy Hitler. There would probably be someone to take his place, given the political and economic climate at the time, but I'm not a gambler.
Second, dropping the bomb on Hiroshima. I say it was justified, because they had to go ahead and drop a SECOND bomb before the japanese surrendered. The deaths of 250 000 of the Emperors subjects in a heartbeat wasn't enough to convince him to give up.
If you think it's work, you're doing it wrong. |
|
|
|
opus
Skeptic Friend
Canada
50 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2002 : 19:07:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Ok, Omega. My response was off topic. However, that line did strike me.
Anyway, on topic, yes I'd pull the trigger on a boy Hitler. There would probably be someone to take his place, given the political and economic climate at the time, but I'm not a gambler.
Second, dropping the bomb on Hiroshima. I say it was justified, because they had to go ahead and drop a SECOND bomb before the japanese surrendered. The deaths of 250 000 of the Emperors subjects in a heartbeat wasn't enough to convince him to give up.
If you think it's work, you're doing it wrong.
You couldn't just take him aside and let him know he hadn't ought to kill the jews when he gets the chance. Since it is a fantasy to even have the chance, why not try positive steps to change the outcome. Surely the boy Hitler would remember a visit from the future.
So dropping the bomb was justified because it did not work??? Are you sure you are Canadian?? That logic is wacked out eh! you must be a member of the Alliance. 
Edited by - opus on 05/25/2002 19:08:41 |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2002 : 00:53:57 [Permalink]
|
What is obvious, deny it if you want, is that 2 bombs did work. Whether they would have surrendered with none, or one is conjecture. What we do know is that one was dropped....no surrender......2nd was dropped....they surrendered.
What I see going on in this thread is simple America bashing with some assumptions thrown in with little regard for facts.
You do spend time at Japanese websites taking them to task for their numerous warcrimes don't you? Or is going after the big boy a hobby?
@tomic
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2002 : 04:11:04 [Permalink]
|
Ah, so if Japan committed crimes we should ignore the crimes of the U.S.
quote:
What I see going on in this thread is simple America bashing with some assumptions thrown in with little regard for facts.
You do spend time at Japanese websites taking them to task for their numerous warcrimes don't you? Or is going after the big boy a hobby?
@tomic
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
