62nd anniversary of Hiroshima
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Modern History
Forum Discription: World History from 1918 to the 21st century.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=21077
Printed Date: 29-Apr-2024 at 14:33
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: 62nd anniversary of Hiroshima
Posted By: Beylerbeyi
Subject: 62nd anniversary of Hiroshima
Date Posted: 06-Aug-2007 at 09:46
| http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmD-QpyYdhk - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmD-QpyYdhk |
Replies:
Posted By: Giannis
Date Posted: 06-Aug-2007 at 10:05
|
Nazim Hikmet masterpiece by my opinion, I hope one day his last request may become true.
These are the lyrics of ''Little Girl'' :
I come and stand at every door but none can hear my silent tread. I knock and yet remain unseen for I am dead, for I am dead. I'm only seven tho' I died in Hiroshima long ago. I'm seven now as I was then when children die they do not grow. My hair was scorched by swirling flame, my eyes grew dim, my eyes grew blind. Death came and turned my bones to dust, and that was scattered by the wind. I need no fruit, I need no rice, I need no sweets or even bread. I ask for nothing for myself, for I am dead, for I am dead. All that I ask is that for peace you fight today, you fight today, so that the children of the world may live and grow and laugh and play. -------------  Give me a place to stand and I will move the world.
|
Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 06-Aug-2007 at 10:19
 ------------- |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 06-Aug-2007 at 11:44
|
Yeah, yeah.....all those capitalist, racist Westerners.
We all know how this membership loves genocide stories, so here's another one to chew on:
http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/nanking.htm - www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/nanking.htm
The Japanese (1945 version) got what they deserved. And it is always conveniently forgotten that the two bombs ENDED a war that had already ended like 50,000,000 lives.
|
Posted By: Patch
Date Posted: 06-Aug-2007 at 11:55
I wonder if anyone will start a thread in December to commerate the Rape of Nanking? or any of the other massacres carried out by the Japanese in ww2?
|
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 06-Aug-2007 at 12:04
Of course not. In December, there will be a thread about Pearl Harbor, and FDR conspiring with Hitler (behind Britain's back) to carve up the world. Germany in Europe/Asia, and the US everywhere else. The German's just couldn't deliver, so.....
Capitalist fascists had to stick together. We all know about this conspiracy, right?
 |
Posted By: Beylerbeyi
Date Posted: 06-Aug-2007 at 12:09
|
Nobody denies Japanese atrocities. But as usual some deny American ones.
The war would have ended anyway. Japanese wanted to surrender. Japanese civilans were nuked in order to make Japan surrender to the US only (as the Soviets were coming).
Anyway, if the Americans dropped the bomb on the mount Fuji, or to the sea off Tokyo, it would have had the same effect.
But they dropped it not just on Hiroshima, but also on Nagasaki soon thereafter...
If until December the Japanese invade, let's say, Iran, and kill 1 million Iranians, while claiming to be the shining beacon of democracy and liberty, I will start that thread. ------------- |
Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 06-Aug-2007 at 12:11
Can ordinary Japanese people be held responsible for the crimes of their fascist government? In that case, someone should immediately nuke the United States. ------------- |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 06-Aug-2007 at 12:20
Civilian support and/or acquiesence in a government's war policy makes them legitimate targets. Were not German civilians legitimate targets? Were not British civilians legitimate targets? Yes they were. Same with Japan.
If Islamic extremists in Afghanistan (or al-Qaeda in New York) like to kill Westerners or other foreigners, I think they view us as legitmate targets. When they hide out among their civilian support, the US and/or NATO is justified in targeting those civilian supporters.
If one doesn't like it, get the UN to outlaw war and terrorism and let's see where that goes.
|
Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 06-Aug-2007 at 12:28
|
Then 9/11 was totally justified as well. All those businessmen were funding the biggest terrorist state on this planet. ------------- |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 06-Aug-2007 at 12:30
If we are legitimate targets, then so are they.
|
Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 06-Aug-2007 at 12:43
|
If everybody is a legitimate target, what the f**k is terrorism? ------------- |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 06-Aug-2007 at 13:37
You tell us.
|
Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 06-Aug-2007 at 17:58
The Civilian population didn't want to surrender either due to fear propaganda that painted pretty vivid ideas of what Allied Soldiers would do had they landed. Infact, the Civilian population was being trained to fight off any Allied invasion, and with simple weapons too that would have left thousands dead. Not to mention before any Invasion there'd have been alot more bombings that would have been constant strategic bombing all around Japan.
 ------------- "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey 
|
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 06-Aug-2007 at 19:09
|
Japan was the aggressor nation in that war. Japan sought to conquer to
Pacific rim, and failed. Japan's responsibility was to defend her own
people, the US' responsibility was to defend it own people - the Allies
succeeded and Japan failed. Japan forfeited any claim to being a moral
or humane nation in the course of a decade long war which she began and
in the course of which she set the initiative for it being just as
macabre as Nazi atrocities - the only feature of Nazi crimes
distinguishing them from those of Japan is that killing was usually a
more industrial process. Japan forfeited any pretense to being a civilised part of humanity with her conduct in that war. The shock of the destruction finally shattered what resistance she had left, and the ultimate result was a progressive and peaceful nation state whose contribution to humankind today is a boon. It is through that destruction and subsequent recreation of Japanese policy that such a harmful nation was transformed into a peaceful and progressive one. Allied victory ensured the continued freedom of countries in today's world which now comprise a quarter of the world's population. It removed one of the most militaristic, racist and cruel expansionist powers from the face of the planet and was a victory for humanity. ------------- |
Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 06-Aug-2007 at 19:44
I don't see why not. Nobody is more worth than an innocent Japanese baby. ------------- |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 06-Aug-2007 at 19:55
At Nanking, Japanese soldiers took infants from their parents, threw them up in the air, and then practiced impaling the infant in mid-air with their bayonets. ------------- |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 06-Aug-2007 at 19:57
|
The post is about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, let's keep to the topic and stop diverting.
You think throwing an atomic bomb on two cities, killing 150,000 civillians and many more injuries and health problems for years to come is "civillised"?
It seems your idea of being "civillised" is seriously warped, anything the side you support is humanitarian and civillised be that dropping nukes, wiping out cities, targettin civillian populations...
The actions may have been necessary to win the war but it definately was uncivillised barbarism.
There are alot of people and groups who say the same about the U.S.
So by your logic, to protect their "civillised" way of life and for the benefit of humanity they can drop nukes on America, attack civillian targets, bomb cities and create a state of fear.
Then I guess you must support Iran's nucleur ambitions, terrorist organistions against the U.S, Iraqi resistance fighters, North Korea's nucleur ambitions.
------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 06-Aug-2007 at 19:58
|
At Nanking, Japanese soldiers took infants from their parents, threw them up in the air, and then practiced impaling the infant in mid-air with their bayonets. Constantine, what type of mentality is this? You killed my children so I have right to kill your children?
|
Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 06-Aug-2007 at 20:01
OK, kill those bastards and stay away from children. Or is this too complicated for you to understand? ------------- |
Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 06-Aug-2007 at 20:15
I didn't realize the Atomic Bomb was the first time a baby died in the world. Anymore more facts you'd like to share?
Were the Japanese invading others with a pillow fight in mind? Is there first hand killing of civilian babies not worth a mention? And believe me, there are horrific stories that the Japanese soldiers caused first hand and not by the outcome of a explosive.
Just realized Constantine's post had what I had in mind.
------------- "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
|
Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 06-Aug-2007 at 20:22
|
The fight was still going on on mainland Asia if I'm not mistaken. So not like what your saying, but if your going to bring up the "Baby killing" as your main arguement then it could be argued that the bomb only stopped them from killing babies of parents who never even wanted apart of the war. People's who's government wasn't even the AGREESOR.
Pardon me but you cannot justify a mass killing with saying If we dont mass kill them, they will mass kill us or They already mass killed us..
I should also add, this argument can be used against USA babies too..
|
Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 06-Aug-2007 at 20:27
------------- "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
|
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 06-Aug-2007 at 20:28
It was war. Japan chose war, the Allies were forced into it. If you enter into war, you put the welfare of your people at risk, the only way to ensure their safety is to gain military primacy and win. Japan failed to do that, and so the Allies had both the right and the capacity to inflict a relatively small amount of civilian damage (yes, 150,000 is small compared to tens of millions) to end the worst war in human history. Why does no one object to the firebombing of Tokyo which killed even more people? Does a mushroom cloud really change things? Bombing civilians in warfare isn't an aberration, it is the norm. Virtually every participant did it and suffered from it in that war. War is itself uncivilised and cruel, not necessarily the participants who must adjust themselves to it, so we can all thank the Japanese for so cruelly changing the game. I never claimed every action of the Allies was good, only the they were qualitatively better than those of the Axis. And they were. The Axis began the war, killed the most people, and killed in the crueller and more macabre ways. So to answer your question, yes war is bad. But we knew that already. So to place Hiroshima and Nagasaki as somewhere over and above other actions in that war is flawed. The bombings were simply a novel and efficient way of doing what conventional bombing was already achieving, except at much less risk and cost to US airforce servicemen.
Then it is great that most of the world disagrees with them and disagrees with the use of violence against the US at home. Back in WWII, however, virtually the entire planet was quite happy for Japan to receive liberal punishment. That's saying something.
I don't support nuclear proliferation, especially to small and scared nations, as those nations are the most likely to use them. If I had my way no one would have nukes, and if I couldn't have that then it would only be the three most powerful. As for the Iraqi resistance, I certainly can't blame them for trying to defend hearth and home. As for terrorist organisations, no I don't support organisations who are trying to engineer a return to the middle ages, much as I like to study that period of history it was an awful time to be alive. And as I said before, most of the world opposes the use of violence against the US at home. So if a deranged fringe group has some extreme opinion, that doesn't make it valid. When most of the world holds an opinion, then we should start paying attention. When 9/11 happened the world poured out its grief to the USA. When Hiroshima and Nagasaki turned to charcoal, the world at large had little sympathy. It was the attack to end an awful war, and no more destructive than many others attacks in that war. It is just used as a dramatic pin-up today by anyone who wants to potray the US as some sort of monster because they have some other axe to grind, and in WWII she was regarded as exactly the opposite by virtually the whole globe. ------------- |
Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 06-Aug-2007 at 20:30
This is the stupidest justification attempt for nuclear bombings of Hiroshima & Nagazaki I have ever heard.
Either prove that I was advocating the Japanese regime and its crimes, or simply shut up. ------------- |
Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 06-Aug-2007 at 20:35
|
didn't, I was just answering one of your arguements. I still believe the bomb was dropped to end the war and to prevent further American Soldier's deaths.
I am sure If USA first priority is life of her soldier, She can find a better way..
Infact, even one bomb is enough to show japan that they lost war.
why two?
Then it is great that most of the world disagrees with them and disagrees with the use of violence against the US at home. Back in WWII, however, virtually the entire planet was quite happy for Japan to receive liberal punishment. That's saying something.
If you only listen yourself.. If you listen all world, dont be sure about it... |
Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 06-Aug-2007 at 20:53
------------- "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
|
Posted By: galvatron
Date Posted: 06-Aug-2007 at 21:27
| I can say what Japan get is what come arounds goes arounds ,they get this bomb because the act of the goverments on Korea ,China and south east asian,this is part of Karma . |
Posted By: Patch
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2007 at 03:05
|
In 1937 Japan launched an unprovoked war of aggression against China, slaughtering millions. The Japanese followed this up in 1941 by attacking the US, Britain, British Commonwealth and Dutch territiries. Again the death toll ran into millions. The Japanese in their killing made little distinction between military or civilian - the Rape of Nanking has already been mentioned, but they also carried out large scale massacres of civilians in the Philipines and murdered many in Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, countless millions in China etc. Other crimes of the Japanese included the enslavement of women in the occupied territories to use as prostitutes for their troops. The Japanese also set up a chemical warfar centre in China where they carried out experiments using toxic chemicals on thosands of Chinese civilians. By July 1945, while the Japanese aggressors had been pushed back substantially they still occupied a large part of China and all of Korea and were still murdering civilians and POWs in the territories they controlled. Further the Japanese were preparing to resist an invasion, even training and arming school girls to resist the Allies as well as in more practicle terms keeping thousands of troops and planes in reserve to attack the Allies once they had landed. Casualty projections (including Japanese civilian losses) for an invasion of Japan were estimated to be upwards of a million.
At the Potsdam conference the Allies give there terms of surrender to the Japanese see below -
"The proclamation stated that the full force of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States - United States , the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire - British Empire , and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Government_of_the_Republic_of_China - National Government of the Republic of China would strike the final blows upon Japan. They warned that "The might that now converges on Japan is immeasurably greater than that which, when applied to the resisting Nazis, necessarily laid waste to the lands, the industry and the method of life of the whole German people" and this power of the Allies would lead to "the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the Japanese homeland" unless Japan ended the war. Also that:
The Japanese Governement rejected out of hand these terms, which were significantly more generous than those given to Germany in May 1945. The consequence for the Japanes of their refusal to agree peace was the declaration of war by the Soviets as had been agreed by the Allies and the atomic bombings on Japan.
Even after the bombings and Soviet attack the Japanese war cabinet was deadlocked and it was only the deciding vote of the Emperor that caused them to surrender.
The responsiblity for the dead of Hiroshima, Nagassaki and all those forgotten millions who dead in the war in the far east lies entirely with the Japanese militarists and their supporters who launched a war of aggression. If they had not gone to war none would have died and if they had surrendered when given the oppurtunity it would not have been necessary to drop the atomic bombs.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2007 at 03:17
|
Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were tagets of an enemy country. Nanking was a surrenderd city. Thats why the latter was not justified. ------------- |
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2007 at 04:33
|
I don't think those against the use of nukes on Japan are against attacking Japan per se, but that using the Nukes was unnecessary in itself to win the war and that killing civilians is morally the same thing no matter on who's side your on. I fail to see the reason or justice in targeting and killing of civilians on such a large indiscriminate scale. The military gains are questionable, for that particular option. The war could of been won differently. While Japan needs to go a very long way in understanding its own dark past, i am equally chilled by the shrugging of shoulders 'they had it coming' attitude to the mass incineration of civilians.
|
Posted By: Patch
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2007 at 04:54
On the contrary the military gains from the bombing could not have been greater - they forced the Japanese surrender saving perhaps 1 million lives. Ending the war in days rather than 6 months or more.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2007 at 06:06
|
By 1946 it was clear to the occupying powers that the Japanese would have been compelled to surrender by November and the bomb was in the final analysis not necessary. In August 1945 all that was known was that the Japanese had fought for every mm of territory and the Americans would have to undertake a very dangerous invasion, and the British Empire, a very difficult clearing opertaion in SE Asia.
Hindsight is great, but the decision made in 1945 was the correct one with respect to information that was available. ------------- |
Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2007 at 07:16
|
'Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?' Leó Szilárd ------------- |
Posted By: Beylerbeyi
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2007 at 07:55
|
As usual, we are supposed to forgive the Americans and the British when they commit atrocities. When they drop nukes on civilians, nukes become instruments that save lives, and transform countries to peaceful pacifists.
If this is true, someone should nuke US ASAP, so that they become a civilised country.
Some question why not mention Japanese atrocities or other bombing campaigns. The reason is the Japanese are neither killing the Iraqis by the millions nor have thousands of nuclear warheads targetting major cities on the planet today.
The Japanese have mended their ways, but Americans haven't. It is our duty to fight the evil empire of our time.
Much that is written here, about the Japanese fighting to the end, etc. are lies. They knew they lost the war, and they were trying to arrange surrender for months. They were talking to the Soviets about it as well.
Americans wanted to dictate the terms of surrender, and they wanted to keep the Soviets out of the negotiations. They also wanted to show off their new weapon, so that Soviets wouldn't get any ideas about expanding by force into Europe and China.
So they obliterated the Japanese cities one after the other. Nagasaki was bombed only 3 days later than Hiroshima, which is not enough time for arranging surrender. In fact Japanese haven't surrendered immediately after the nukes, Americans launched a huge fire bombing campaign the next week. Surrender came on the 15tth August, 6 days after the second bomb. If the Americans wanted to wait for surrender, they would have waited for a week after the first bomb.
The reason they destroyed two cities was they had two bombs of different types ready. If they had had three bombs they would have destroyed three cities, and Anglos and their coconuts worldwide would be telling us why it was absolutely necessary to bomb three cities, and the Japanese would never have surrendered with just two bombs... ------------- |
Posted By: DayI
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2007 at 08:56
|
something i dont get is why the americans used the excuse "we prevented more civilians dying by trowing a atomic bomb". If this can be a excuse for it, then they should also trow another one above bagdad to prevent civilian killings... I had heard they where planning to trow one into vietnam, but it didnt happend because of some factors. With such cheap excuses they cover their atrocities up. ------------- Bu mıntıka'nın Dayı'sı http://imageshack.us - [IMG - http://www.allempires.com/forum/uploads/DayI/2006-03-17_164450_bscap021.jpg - |
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2007 at 09:11
Either way the conventional bombings was just as effective, so i cant see any reason beyond what Bey has already mentioned to use these brand new weapons. At least with the normal bombs you can pretend to aim for the factories. This was a war crime, but the winner writes the rules. |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2007 at 14:51
|
USA said they wouldn't accept an unconditional surrender - but they did! japan said we want to keep our emperor and voila, they have kept it. why? japan after the meiji restauration created an imerpialist empire similar to western european powers at the time, first annexing Korea and later Manchuria, eventually staging war with China. those were hard fought gains over the years but the Red Arym destroyed the Kwantung Army in a matter of weeks, taking away for that the japanese needed years to built up, e.g. the industry in Manchukuo. a much celebrated event of the pacific war was the raising of the flag on mt. suribachi which was considdered Japanese soil. well, Red Army sodliers also already occupied Sachalin and Kuriles islands and were already on the jump to Hokkaido. one thing that makes the Red Army unresistable is its indifference to the loss of human lifes, if you studied the Eastern Front you'll know. on the eastern frotn another itnerstign thing happened. German untis were defeated by Soviet Forces and surrednered....to the Allies! why did they do that? of course because they didn't wanted to end up in Siberian Gulags but in warm and comfortable Allied PoW camps. but everyoen agrees correctly it was the Red Army who brought about the downfall of the 3. Reich. so now back to Japan and the Emperor. as we all know the US was still calculating possible victims in a possible invasion of Japan while the Red Army ivnasion was basically already udnerway. so, by now Japan has already lost everyhting they gained after the Meiji restauration and now they were going to lose something that brought about this raise to power at all - their emperor! as we all know Emperors in Peoples Republics don't have a considderable lifespan. so the Japanese did what every smart Wehrmacht soldier in europe did, they escaped the Communist thread by surrendering to the allies! and voila, they keep the emperor. mission accomplished. in relation to the topic. as we all know the Red Army is pretty indifferent to the loss of their own soldiers lives which was the primary argument of the US for the bombs. well, the bombs were a clear signal to the Soviets that the US was goign to claim their prize by all means necessary as it was probably expected that the Red Army would still invade the Japanese mainland despite its surrender to the Allies and install a pro-Soviet regime. afterall US troops occupied southern Korea well after the Japanese capitulation.... to prevent it falling to the Red Army. if we look at the events the battle for Japan was in fact not the last battle of ww2 but the first battle of the Cold War. ------------- |
Posted By: Justinian
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2007 at 16:29
|
As someone pointed out earlier the fire bombings of tokyo and the bombing of all the other major japanese cities caused a great deal more damage and casualties than the atomic bombs by quite a bit. I think what this arguement comes down to is whether people believe it is alright to do a little evil for the greater good or not. My opinion is that the atomic bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima was necessary and the best option to take versus an invasion of the homeland. Again as others have said the japanese civilians were being armed with pitchforks to fight the invading soldiers. Even the estimated fatalities for the soldiers and civilians are incredible. I should add that I probably never would have existed if the bombs hadn't been dropped and we had been forced to invade the mainland (my grandfather was in the marine corps and if I remember correctly would have been amongst the first or second wave landing). Kudos to whoever mentioned the plot of the militarist officers trying to prevent the emperor from issuing an order for surrendering. We dropped two bombs because the Japanese didn't surrender after the first, the psychological effect of dropping the bomb on cities was much greater than if they had been dropped on a mountain or in the sea.
Excellent points Temujin. ------------- "War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann 
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2007 at 23:57
|
Justinian, whether the bomb had been dropped or not, your grand father would have not gone ashore, by 1946 as I said it was clear the Japanese were finished.
Howevere it was still the right decision since the US did not have that knowledge in 45.
------------- |
Posted By: Justinian
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2007 at 00:21
|
I agree that the Japanese were finished, but we were absolutely determined to end the war as soon as possible if we hadn't dropped the bomb we would have invaded right away to end the war, defeat japan soundly and perhaps show our strength to the soviets. The problem would be just maintaining a blockade against japan until they capitulated, the public were so anti-japanese (concentration camps of japanese americans) they would never have stood for us sitting back and waiting until the japanese surrendered. We were going to demand surrender and if rejected invade. Someone had posted what are demands were, as he/she said they were rejected out of hand so we had no choice but to drop the bombs or invade the mainland.
You do bring up good points though. ------------- "War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann
|
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2007 at 04:18
This seems to be the major benefit that humanity got from Hirosima and Nagasaki bombing ------------- . |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2007 at 04:22
Americans, Britts or Russians didn't even start their ways of understanding their dark past. ------------- . |
Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2007 at 05:10
|
It is funny, Japan surrendered because of fear A-Bomb created over civilians..
Can we call this as terrorism? Mass scale terror?(Main aim of terrorism is to kill civilians and create fear..)
If not, what is difference?
|
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2007 at 08:58
Hence why I had added a link to the UN website that has an proposed definition in a previous post. Here is the most succinct and earliest definition from the thirties from that site
the updated and expanded definition
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_definitions.html - |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2007 at 09:21
Dresden bombing or Hirosima and Nagasaki ideally fit to this determination. ------------- . |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2007 at 10:13
So did the previously mentioned rape of nanking; the unnecessary bombing of Rotterdam; the murder of civilian hostages in France, Russia, Italy and Yugoslavia; the killing of 6,000,000 Jews and millions of other civilians; and also the behavior of Red army troops in Germany in 1945. How many Red army courts martial are you aware of?
The cited document from a League of Nations that was defunct by 1938, and that was never functional anyway doesn't mean anything. Decent people don't desire these things to happen, but they happened anyway.
What's your point? Or does your historical knowledge begin in 1945?
|
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2007 at 10:32
Nah....psychological warfare. It all depends on who wins.
 Seriously, what is different here from how the Assyrians, or the 7th century Arabs conducted their wars? Or how Alp Arslan acted after Manzikert? Or how the Mongols practiced warfare in central Asia and Russia
The Romans did it as well at Carthage and Jerusalem and other places.
Historically, these are successful tactics, and although cruel and painful, they have worked. Don't confuse low intensity rules of engagement with total war. The two are worlds apart.
Historians analyze and interpret. They can't be crippled by moral determination unless they want to become clergymen.
It has constantly amazed me how so many here think Genghis Khan is the greatest hero since God, and he was a mass butcher on every level. He did what every conqueror did.
|
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2007 at 10:35
Yes yes and yes. But how is it related to particular events discussed in this topic?
My point is simple -- what Germans and Japanese did is not a moral excuse of a barbaric behaviour of Americans and Russians. Without this understanding such things will happen in the future. ------------- . |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2007 at 10:40
Please see my response to Mortaza.
War = barbaric behavior (even by non-barbarians).
|
Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2007 at 11:46
|
Pike again bin laden will agree with you when he was planing 9/11.
Dont you think so?
|
Posted By: ulrich von hutten
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2007 at 12:56
|
Please make a pause...just to remind of all the victims of wars, machinated by capitalists, communists, despots and oppressors of all kinds....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aDrsd6fLJ4 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aDrsd6fLJ4 ------------- 
http://imageshack.us"> 
|
Posted By: Justinian
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2007 at 17:18
Cheap shot.
 My point was that I was biased in favor of dropping the bomb. Like I said this argument comes down to whether people think it was right to do a little evil for the greater good or not. Was it an act of terrorism? You certainly have a point to support that, same as for dresden or hamburg. Any act that is targeted at civilians and has as its goal to inspire terror to achieve exterior motives like surrender would be considered terrorism. So I would say yes it was terrorism. ------------- "War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann
|
Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2007 at 17:31
Greater good? What is that? Your existence?
------------- |
Posted By: Justinian
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2007 at 17:38
|
Ha, Ha, Ha. (I admit that is funny) But, no it was that both the japanese and allies would suffer much higher casualties if the bombs hadn't been dropped and the allies had been forced to invade. ------------- "War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann
|
Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2007 at 17:44
|
So you want to tell us that USA think and care about japan people, so she just droped a-bomb over them?
Well, sensible.
|
Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2007 at 17:54
You can keep telling that yourself. Anyone with some common sense can see that Americans didn't care about Japanese lives at all. If they did, they wouldn't nuke Nagasaki just three days after the first bombing. They should have give some time, maybe a week, to Japanese to reconsider. ------------- |
Posted By: Justinian
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2007 at 18:09
|
I didn't say the allies cared about japanese casualties, simply that there would have been much more of them for the japanese. The allies weren't completely heartless they didn't like the japs but they didn't want to kill every man, woman and child even if thats what they did in hiroshima and nagasaki. As everyone knows hindsight is 20/20 and dropping the bombs was the right decision. I stated earlier the allies had no patience to wait the japanese out, they could surrender immediately or we were going to keep dropping bombs on them. I think someone mentioned it but we were not going to wait them out because the cold war with the soviets had begun. If we waited the japanese out the russians would already be steamrolling their way to tokyo. That was the mindset of the high command. ------------- "War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann
|
Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2007 at 18:36
|
Bombing a hospital is widely accepted as a war crime. Do you agree on this? ------------- |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 08-Aug-2007 at 18:38
Not sure what you are thinking here.
|
Posted By: Peteratwar
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2007 at 04:55
| Given the emotive hindsight responses of many here plus various wild interpretations, can I ask if any of the posters were alive at the time ? |
Posted By: ulrich von hutten
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2007 at 13:33
|
Iceland remembers the nuclear attacks of 1945
In memory of the atomic bomb victims of The first candle floating memorial service was held in August 1985 after Japanese atomic bomb survivors sent candles to At the same time as the pacifists remember those who died in the atomic bombings, they emphasize that their message, “Never again They advocate that war should never be an option, and that air raids and military power do not ensure peace. Instead of solving the world’s problems with violence, the pacifist movement emphasizes the importance of cooperative communication to achieve a peaceful and nuclear-free world. Candles will be available for purchase on location. I will be there tonight, all your absurd comments in my mind.... -------------
http://imageshack.us">
|
Posted By: Justinian
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 01:15
I suppose it depends on the circumstances, but yes I would say that is a war crime. I'm guessing you're asking whether dropping the bombs would constitute a war crime. If you are my response is that they would fit the description of war crimes. I'll just add that world war II was a conflict where both sides committed atrocities, the axis are considered worse because the magnitude of their crimes was so much greater than the allies. I also don't believe the allies equal good and the axis equal bad, simply that the allies were nowhere near the level of evil the axis were. That's the problem with war crimes, war is organized chaos. It's hard to put rules on something like human conflict when its on this scale.
Ulrich just because you may hold a different opinion than others doesn't make their comments absurd. I'm sure that everyone of us on this forum would have prefered if world war two had never happened and that our relatives could have lived together in harmony, unfortunately throughout human history that has for the most part never been the case. ------------- "War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann
|
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 06:22
Apart from those who start war after war using this as a one of the engines for their economics. I wonder, those who support Hirosima and Nagasaki bombings, what do they think about Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Jugoslavia, Afganistan and Iraq wars? Do they support them too? ------------- . |
Posted By: HEROI
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 07:07
|
The bomb on Hiroshima was a tragedy,but inevitable,it had some positive aspects aswell,it ensured that the Atomic Bomb would never be used again,as it will never again be used. The whole of the war was a tragedy,the Bomb was an episode of this war,and it can not be taken out of the context,whichever would have got their hands first on the Bomb would have used it,it was FORTUNATE that it was the good guys.
Another positive aspect out of it is that the W.W.2 could have had a nuclear war had the American not got there just before others. ------------- Me pune,me perpjekje. |
Posted By: Patch
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 07:33
|
Korea - yes I fully support the UN intervention to reverse the NK aggression
Vietnam - in theory I would support - see above - but the Americans handled it badly - they lost
Iraq I- clearly support the war to reverse the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait - should have done the job properly though so Iraq II wouldn't have been necessary
Yugoslavia - support the intervention to prevent a genocide.
Afganistan - support the interevntion to destroy the Taliban due to the aid they gave Al Quida. Plus they are a bunch of murdurous thugs anyway.
Iraq II - bit gray, there may have been legitimate reasons for invading but the most publicised ones - WMD - weren't. Don't miss Saddam however.
|
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 07:57
|
so you create one genocide to prevent another? cool. ------------- . |
Posted By: Peteratwar
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 10:09
| genocide seem to be a remarkably overused word. It is used in contexts where it is not really applicable and thus downgrades the real meaning of it |
Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 10:14
Yeah, it's not genocide when Westerners do it!
------------- |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 16:24
|
Mass killings on a scale never heard before in one fell swoosh. Certainly deserves some form of recognition right up their with genocide. Of course the same goes for any innocents killed in battle, which is now-a-days given the stupid moniker, collateral damage. Alright stuff happens. Downplaying it serves to justify the unjustifiable.
On a side note today. A General at Central Command dropped charges against a corporal and his attorney over the 2005 Hadithah massacres.
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/08/marine_sharratt_070809/ - http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/08/marine_sharratt_070809/
In his dismissal of the charges against Lance Corporal Sharratt, General Mattis has accurately and eloquently described the extreme demands placed upon combat Marines and soldiers in insurgency warfare. The dismissal of charges demonstrates that this convening authority fully understands the complex and difficult circumstances his Marines face in Iraq and Afghanistan,” they said in a statement. “About the complexity of this conflict and Lance Corporal Sharratt’s innocence, we can add nothing to the powerful words of General Mattis.”
Granted the envioronment and circumstances were rough.
Then this:
“Where the enemy disregards any attempt to comply with ethical norms of warfare, we exercise discipline and restraint to protect the innocent caught on the battlefield,” he added. “Our way is right, but it is also difficult.”
Hogwash. The so-called 'enemy' were woman and children in bed and men who starred back! What innocents were protected? Sad day for US military justice. But as the saying goes, "Might makes right!" ------------- |
Posted By: Justinian
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2007 at 01:25
No, no, no, no, no, no. I would consider myself a pacifist. If you had asked my 3 or more years ago I would have said yes, no, yes, yes, no, no. For Korea to keep the aggressive north from invading the south. For Iraq the first time from stopping an aggressive iraq from invading a weak country to the south, we should have removed sadam from power then in my opinion. For Yugoslavia yes because of the human rights violations, though my knowledge on the subject is rather limited. ------------- "War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann
|
Posted By: what_is_history
Date Posted: 23-Aug-2007 at 22:20
|
AMEN! I am so tired of hearing about how horrible the "evil capitalist American empire" is. I do believe that it was the "Evil capitalist Americans" along with the "evil British" that eliminated the threat of Hitler and the atrocities of the Japaneese Empier, which was no small task. ------------- "It aint what you don't know that gets you in trouble; it's what you know for sure that just ain't so." -Mark Twain |
Posted By: Richard XIII
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2007 at 06:33
|
First of all it isn't an anniversary is a commemoration. Every human being killed in every war is a tragedy. In some moment of time some people took some decision good or bad, you judge them from your comfortable way of life. I think we all must mourning the victims and be decent, with all our "intelligent" comments.
------------- "I want to know God's thoughts... ...the rest are details." Albert Einstein |
Posted By: ulrich von hutten
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2007 at 08:05
carefully worded,Richard. Nothing more to add. -------------
http://imageshack.us">
|
Posted By: Richard XIII
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2007 at 08:45
|
thank you! I don't know which of us are capable to take such important decision and to live with it in peace. Many of our forumers are young, in this moment are three old people here me, you and Northman and is our job to make the things straight. Thank you one more time. ------------- "I want to know God's thoughts... ...the rest are details." Albert Einstein |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2007 at 14:42
somehow you "forgot" that Soviet Union participated in this elimination, maybe even more than USA and UK taken together. The country which was considered by your officials as "evil". As far as I understand you forgot to mention USSR simply because this paricipation does not fit in the whole pathetics of your statement. If you are tired listening this, vote for people who are not going to start wars using "evilness" for a reason. Besides, the fact that you are tired does not make mass killings of people less "evil" even if it is done by brave American soldiers, democracy spreaders and the only supporters of civilized people ------------- . |
Posted By: what_is_history
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2007 at 17:52
|
You missed the point. Of course it is sad whenever anyone dies, but the point of fighting a war is to WIN IT! You can't tell me that the Japaneese Empire or the Germans under Hitler were somehow innocent. America did what it had to do. Too bad you don't see it that way, but oh well. ------------- "It aint what you don't know that gets you in trouble; it's what you know for sure that just ain't so." -Mark Twain |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2007 at 18:32
|
I know your point very well. Look in this thread and you will find thaat most Americans think in the same way. I simply do not agree with it. I do not understand why present day Germans and Japanese are ashaimed of what happened but Americans, Brits and Russians are not. I do not understand why the winninng side suppose that it was more right than Germans or Japanese. To me there was no right side in this War. To stop doing something wrong you first need to realize that it is wrong. That's the first step. ------------- . |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2007 at 18:36
I don't know about making things right but those old farts you mentioned sure do make me feel young! ------------- |
Posted By: Justinian
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2007 at 21:34
That is an acute observation. It seems that it is a huge taboo to even mention the second world war in germany without feeling guilty and/or apologetic. Japan seems to be much more relaxed in this regard and can view what happened without the guilt pouring over them. From what I understand the swastika, Mein Kampf etc. are even illegal in germany. I must say I was utterly dumbfounded when I first learned that, since it would be political suicide if our government tried to tell us what we can and can't read. (sadly it seems we are coming closer to that with every passing day) Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be a pacifist of sorts, and view the allies guilty for fighting the war and killing people just like the axis. Also how in textbooks and personal opinions in the U.S. the axis are viewed as evil incarnate while the americans and allies are shown as the saviours of civilization. (Doesn't that sound familiar) I agree with you completely in those two regards. The word for it is hypocrisy. One thing most americans don't even know is that we had our own "concentration camps" for japanese americans and italian and german nationals.
 I think where we are disagreeing is that I view it as an evil that prevented greater evil, whereas you view it as evil nonetheless. Honestly your point has more weight than mine, at the least it has the moral high ground. Especially when I think back to the various quotes about evil breeds evil, two wrongs don't make a right etc.
I must say I am torn, it is quite the moral dilemma. ------------- "War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann
|
Posted By: what_is_history
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2007 at 23:04
|
I'll tell you why we are not ashamed. We didn't start the war. Read your history! ------------- "It aint what you don't know that gets you in trouble; it's what you know for sure that just ain't so." -Mark Twain |
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2007 at 23:18
While it is true that the internment camps represent a grave moral evil, it is ludicrous to try to establish a moral equivalency between the U.S. organized internment camps and the German extermination camps. You did not do this, at least not overtly. Still, I am responding because I feel that we need to establish the proper context in which to understand the evils committed by both the Axis and the Allies in the Second World War.
-Akolouthos
P.S. We must also remember, in the interests of understanding American xenophobia during WWII, that the U.S. internment camps for German and Italian Americans were a good bit more pleasant than those established to contain Japanese Americans.
|
Posted By: Justinian
Date Posted: 25-Aug-2007 at 01:17
|
Did it come across that way? If it did then I didn't explain myself properly. There is no comparison between the two. What I mean't to say was America had some faults and biases' of its own, like the axis, but nowhere near the level of the japanese and germans. I used the word concentration camp because that is the term I have heard used for that particular situation before. Perhaps a better example would have been the racism towards minorities especially blacks in america, similar to the germans racism, just that the germans went way beyond the americans. ------------- "War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann
|
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 25-Aug-2007 at 01:23
|
It didn't. I was simply trying to clarify the point, as there are a lot of people who have irrationally criticized American conduct during the war in this thread--which is quite surprising, since there are perfectly valid rational criticisms that can be made. I apologize if you felt like I was accusing you; the comment "at least not overtly" was intended to give you the opportunity to disagree if I had interpreted your original comments in a softer sense than you had intended them. In retrospect, it was I who was being reckless with my language, for which you have my apologies. In an effort to clarify certain points, I muddled the original point of your post.
-Akolouthos
|
Posted By: Majkes
Date Posted: 25-Aug-2007 at 01:58
We should be greatfull that not everybody were thinking like You cause we would be know living in some Nazi or Communist dictatorship. I will add that if not Russians, Brits and Americans there wouldn't be now any Jews, Polish, Gypsies, Russians etc but it doesn't seem to disturb You so dream on...
|
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 25-Aug-2007 at 07:03
Last 50 years you started at least 5 wars. Number of people died in these wars is comparable to number of Jews died in WWII. If I were you I would be ashamed. ------------- . |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 25-Aug-2007 at 07:11
Dream on what? You discuss the issue in terms of historical amusements. There would be no if... I know that Americans, Russians and Britts killed many innocent people and by that way there is no difference between them and Germans or Japanese. But now there is one huge difference -- Germans and Japanese remember what have they done and will try to avoid this in future. Others keep thinking that they were right. They made wrong conclusions from the War. ------------- . |
Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 25-Aug-2007 at 07:23
|
will add that if not Russians, Brits and Americans there wouldn't be now any Jews, Polish, Gypsies, Russians etc but it doesn't seem to disturb You so dream on...
I am sure, jews,polish or gypsies will survive If USA does not drop an a bomb over japans. Or If Allies will not kill civilians.
I dont think we should change a japan civilian to an american one..At least, I have not such preference.
|
Posted By: Majkes
Date Posted: 25-Aug-2007 at 08:22
You said that to You there was no right side in this war. One of the stupidest claims I've heard on this forum. For me if one side goal was to destroy whole nations I support the other side that fought them. I suppose Your opinion is based on the fact that if Axis would win Bulgaria would grab Macedonia and parts of Greece.
|
Posted By: Majkes
Date Posted: 25-Aug-2007 at 08:28
I was refering to what Anton said that there was no right side in this war so I don't know what Your post has to do with mine
 . I don't support throwing bomb on Japan nor killing civilians. |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 25-Aug-2007 at 09:29
My opinion is based on a fact that killing of people is bad. A thing I believe to be so trivial that there is no need to repeate it. C'mon Majkes don't tell me that you don't know that main reason of any war is economical. Goal of Germans was not to destroy nations but to have an access to resources that growing German economics needed. As for the stupidity of my claim, I can only smile here ------------- . |
Posted By: Majkes
Date Posted: 25-Aug-2007 at 12:44
Ok, sorry Anton for that stupidy
 . It wasn't stupid, You have some point there for sure but I have to say that in WWII economical reasons were not the only one. You can't deny Hitler planned to kill all Jews in Europe. He had also plans to turn Polish and other Slavs in slaves. He was a madman and because of this war wasn't like every other. Never before there were comitted such crimes. I would agree if You would say what You said about WWI but not about WWII. |
Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 25-Aug-2007 at 14:31
|
Yes, you are right in all points. What I wanted to say is that allies accepted the game rules and still play in the same way.
------------- . |
Posted By: Justinian
Date Posted: 02-Sep-2007 at 01:17
Thanks for the explanation. No offence taken.  ------------- "War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann
|
Posted By: AndronicusRex
Date Posted: 27-Sep-2007 at 01:19
|
Look the bombings took place during a war and had to happen. An invasion of Japan would have cost an estimated 1 million American lives before a surrender could have been forced that way. Instead, we paid them back for Pearl Harbor and their raping of South-East Asia, and forced a promt surrender and end to hostilities. Of course in that situation an American is worth more than a Japanese person, its WAR. Civilized or not, armed conflict is going to be a little more violent than you playing Risk with your friends. Any sensible person realizes this. In addition, the dropping of two atomic bombs ushered in a new age for humanity as a whole, and should always be viewed as a proud American achievement in both science and warfare. ------------- Andronicus Rex, Noble of the Republic http://angryamericanaristocrat.blogspot.com/ |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 27-Sep-2007 at 01:54
|
Okay, the above post is where it becomes creepy. ^ The Atom Bomb was no great boon for humanity (as the inventors of it also beleived), yes the dropping was the right decision, but it was hardly a proud achivement, since then the invention of poison gas shells would have to be a proud German achievement. ------------- |
Posted By: snowybeagle
Date Posted: 27-Sep-2007 at 03:15
The Potsdam Declaration (July 26, 1945) called for unconditional surrender of the armed forces only, dropping all references to the Japanese emperor. And they (USA) got it, eventually.
But the Japanese leadership chose to rejected it (July 27-28, 1945). The omission of references to the Tenno was not lost, but apparently, they thought the Allies was weakening their resolve (trying to preserve lives of the Allied troops) instead of the face-saving gesture it was meant to be.
Those who claimed Japan would have surrendered earlier if allowed to keep the Tenno overlooked this point.
|
Posted By: Beylerbeyi
Date Posted: 27-Sep-2007 at 13:48
Another example of the moral bankruptcy of the American Empire. Just when I think they can't sink any lower, some... poster comes up with something sicker.
All I can say to those who rush to defend these atrocities is despite the likes of you running about, I hope someone won't follow your example and drop a nuke or two on your country. ------------- |
Posted By: AndronicusRex
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2007 at 03:46
|
Haha well I guess a communist from Cuba certainly wouldn't agree, even though how many have been killed because of you and your ilk's "revolutions"? In the International Forum our human rights record is still better than Cuba's, even despite the debacle that is Iraq and Bush's idiotic policies. ------------- Andronicus Rex, Noble of the Republic http://angryamericanaristocrat.blogspot.com/ |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2007 at 08:33
|
Beylerbeyi, is if memory serves, from Turkey. There is a tradition on AE to chose a country not your own for your location. ------------- |