Dropping the Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki:

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was

  • The ultimate crime against humanity

    Votes: 12 30.8%
  • A serious war crime because US had other options

    Votes: 10 25.6%
  • An unethical act of war although US needed to check USSR

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • An inferior choice although US had few other options

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Justified because it saved many US & Japanese lives

    Votes: 8 20.5%
  • Entirely justified because Japan would not surrender without it

    Votes: 9 23.1%

  • Total voters
    39
I would like to believe that Japan had no choice. That the US or China or the Phillipines had somehow provoked the orgy of blood that was visited upon them. I would like to believe that Japan really did not conduct the war in the manner that it did. I would like to believe that the US had no other choice but to target population centers and bomb the country into the stone age and finally vaporize two populated cities. It would be nice if the greatest jump in technological knowledge was not motivated by our desire to kill one another. Unfortunately this is our history. We have to deal with it as humans and hope that we learned something.
 
babar-san said:
why else would america care about an imperialistic country, attacking a communist country?
Err..., I see that you don't know much about pre-WWII affairs. China was not Communist. Chiang Kai-Shek was a nationalist. If Japan had not attacked China again (after 1931) in 1937 it most probably would never have become Communist. Just before the Japanese attacked, the Communists were almost finished.

but you and i both know, that not in 1000 years, would america drop nuclear weapons on germany.
I disagree. Germany was lucky to be beaten in the beginning of 1945. If the war had developed differently, probably (one of) the bombs would have been dropped on Germany.
What's more, carpet bombing on cities in Germany had pretty much the same effect as dropping A-bombs. Eg. the victim numbers in Dresden even may have been bigger than those in Hiroshima. Probably at least 35,000 victims, though estimates for the total number of dead range from 25,000 up to 200,000 (some even higher).

my point is, germany arguably deserved it more than japan.
Not really. What the Japanese did in China was not much better than what Germans did in Eastern Europe.

japan never really posed a significant threat to the united states militarily, but they were the scapegoats for a war that had to end
Neither did Germany pose much of a threat to the US. But it all depends how you define "significant threat".

I'm surely no supporter of dropping A-bombs on Japan. I see it as a warcrime. Yet you cannot really say that the Japanese were lured into that war & that there was some big conspiracy against Japan. Fact is, Japan started the war in China & it started the war against the US. Bad choices.
 
bossel said:
Err..., I see that you don't know much about pre-WWII affairs. China was not Communist. Chiang Kai-Shek was a nationalist. If Japan had not attacked China again (after 1931) in 1937 it most probably would never have become Communist. Just before the Japanese attacked, the Communists were almost finished.


whoa, whoa, whoa.....Chiang Kai-Shek never seized complete control of china. i may not know that much about pre-ww2 chinese, japanese conflict, but i do know this much-The Chinese Communist Party ultimately began with the intellectual ferment of the May Fourth Movement, or the New Culture Movement, which began in 1911. Frustrated by the Qing court's resistance to reform and by China's weakness, young officials, military officers, and students?\inspired by the revolutionary ideas of Sun Yat-Sen?\began to advocate the overthrow of the Qing dynasty and creation of a republic. A revolutionary military uprising, the Wuchang Uprising, began on October 10, 1911 in Wuhan. The provisional government of the Republic of China was formed in Nanjing on March 12, 1912 with Sun Yat-Sen as President, but Sun was forced to turn over power to Yuan Shikai who commanded the New Army and was Prime Minister under the Qing government, as part of the agreement to let the last Qing monarch abdicate. Yuan Shikai proceeded in the next few years to abolish the national and provincial assemblies and declared himself emperor in 1915. Yuan's imperial ambitions were fiercely opposed by his subordinates and faced with the prospect of rebellion. Yuan broke down and died shortly after in 1916, leaving a power vacuum in China. His death left the republican government all but shattered, ushering in the era of the "warlords" during which China was ruled and ravaged by shifting coalitions of competing provincial military leaders.
A little noticed event (outside of China) in 1919 would have long term repercussions for the rest of Chinese history in the 20th century. This was the May Fourth Movement. The discrediting of liberal Western philosophy amongst Chinese intellectuals was followed by the adoptation of more radical lines of thought. This in turn planted the seeds for the irreconcilable conflict between the left and right in China that would dominate Chinese history for the rest of the century.
In the 1920s, Sun Yat-Sen established a revolutionary base in south China and set out to unite the fragmented nation. With Soviet assistance, he entered into an alliance with the fledgling Communist Party of China (CPC). After Sun's death in 1925, one of his protégés, Chiang Kai-shek, seized control of the Kuomintang (Nationalist Party or KMT) and succeeded in bringing most of south and central China under its rule in a military campaign known as the Northern Expedition. Having defeated the warlords in south and central China by military force, Chiang was able to secure the nominal allegiance of the warlords in the North. In 1927, Chiang turned on the CPC and relentlessly chased the CPC armies and its leaders out of their bases in southern and eastern China. In 1934, driven out of their mountain bases (as the Chinese Soviet Republic), the CPC forces embarked on the Long March across China's most desolate terrain to the northwest, where they established a guerrilla base at Yan'an in Shaanxi Province.
During the Long March, the communists reorganized under a new leader, Mao Zedong.The bitter struggle between the KMT and the CPC continued openly or clandestinely through the 14-year long Japanese invasion 1931-1945, even though the two parties nominally formed a united front to oppose the Japanese invaders in 1937, during the Sino-Japanese War 1937-1945 portion of World War II. The war between the two parties resumed after the Japanese defeat in 1945. By 1949, the CPC occupied most of the country. In 1938, the Soviet Union recognized Mao as the leader of the CCP, and in 1945, he was elected the Chairman of the CCP Central Committee, Chairman of the Politburo, Chairman of the Secretariat, and Chairman of the Military Commission. Mao was the CCP.
so you see, it's not acurate to call pre-mao china "nationalist", because it was considered illegitimate by the ccp, and the soviet union, and Chiang Kai-Shek's KMT was never recognized as a ruling governmental structure for all of china. certainly, the united states would have liked to see him in complete control, but this never happened, obviously, as Shek was overthrown by Moa's peasant armies, and exiled to taiwan, where he proclaimed taipei as "the capitol of the republic of china", claiming to retake the mainland, whitch never happened. and lets not forget, the founders of the Chinese Communist Party were a prominent leader in the New Culture Movement, Li Ta-cha'o and Ch'en Tu-hsiu. Iconoclastic and brilliant, he fundamentally disagreed with the ideas of the other major leader of the New Culture Movement, Hu Shih, who believed that Chinese society should be changed gradually, "drop by drop." Ch'en, however, believed that Chinese society should be changed all at once in a revolution modelled after the Bolshevik Revolution. In 1921, he formed the Chinese Communist Party, which came under the supervision of Gregory Voitinsky, a Soviet representative of the Comintern (Communist International). On July 20, 1921, the CCP held its first congress with twelve Chinese and two Russians present. Li Ta-ch'ao could not make it, but those in attendance including the later leader of the Communist revolution and Communist China, Mao Tse-tung. it seems to me that communism was the recognized governmental structure even during the divided nations strife between the KMT and the CCP. the KMT collapsed after Shek was displaced, and his "nationalist" ideals went with him.

and about germany posing a threat, i certainly think that if hitler had fortified austria, and not devided his forces, we would have had a much more difficult time in defeating him. his military was the best in the world at the time, and without the combined efforts of the british and french, i dont think it would have been so easy.
 
babar-san said:
Chiang Kai-Shek never seized complete control of china.
Are you trying to be funny? 1st you tell me that Japan was "an imperialistic country, attacking a communist country" while the Communists at the beginning of all-out-war in 1937 numbered maybe 100,000 people & were threatened with total extinction. Now you tell me that China wasn't nationalist because Chiang didn't control 100% of the country?

but i do know this much
You know, I think it's part of netiquette to name your sources, esp. when you cut & paste such lengthy pieces as you did. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, but I suppose they like to be mentioned as a source, anyway.

it seems to me that communism was the recognized governmental structure even during the divided nations strife between the KMT and the CCP
I can't see how anything in this article contradicts what I said before.
In 1937 Chiang was in control of most of China & he was head of state. The Communists declared the "Chinese Soviet Republic" in Jiangxi province, which existed from 1931-34, but that was it. I wonder, if you could name some countries outside the Comintern which recognized any Communist leadership of 1930's China.

it's not acurate to call pre-mao china "nationalist", because it was considered illegitimate by the ccp, and the soviet union
Now you're really funny. Because the CCP says so, the Chinese government was illegitimate? Which legitimation would a Communist government have?
Even the Soviet Union, which was in favour of the Chinese Communists, had to deal with Chiang as the head of the Chinese state.
 
Racism & the atom bombs

The dropping of the atom bombs, as well as the fire bombings of japanese cities, should have been war crimes then and are definitely war crimes under current international law. IMO, those responsible should have been set on trial for crimes against humanity.

ippolito said:
It is my opinion that no one in 1945 in usa could image what kind of bomb

I believe you underestimate the racism of western countries. A lot of people in the U.S. supported genocide, just as people in England, France or Spain did during colonialism. (Or, just as many people does today during the occupation of Iraq, one might add.)

"John Dower's depiction of the hatred of America's leaders and people toward the Japanese during World War II shocked me. He mentions a December 1945 Fortune poll that found 23 percent of the respondents wished the U.S. had the chance to use "many more of them [atomic bombs] before Japan had a chance to surrender" (1986, 54). The poll results vividly reveal the depth of the hatred many Americans must have felt during the war."
http://wgordon.web.wesleyan.edu/papers/hiroshim.htm

"Unconditional surrender, as an ill-defined slogan, did not foreclose any possibility, no matter how horrendous. A quick glance at American speeches, opinion polls, and movies would not reassure Japan. Thirteen percent of the respondents wanted to "kill all Japanese"; another 33 percent wanted to destroy the Japanese state. Life magazine showed photos of American war trophies sent home to loved ones in the form of hollowed out Japanese skulls."
http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/Pearlman/pearlman.asp

http://www.eupedia.com/shop/showproduct.php/product/329/sort/1/cat/12/page/
http://www.kosovo.com/sk/rastko-kosovo/istorija/ccsavich-propaganda.html
 
bossel said:
Are you trying to be funny? 1st you tell me that Japan was "an imperialistic country, attacking a communist country" while the Communists at the beginning of all-out-war in 1937 numbered maybe 100,000 people & were threatened with total extinction. Now you tell me that China wasn't nationalist because Chiang didn't control 100% of the country?


i dont see the humor in any of this, sorry. as for netiquet, i did not use the link you posted, in fact, most of this (except for names) i already knew, when i find the page again, i will post it. while its true that the republican era of china lasted from 1912-1949, the original discussion between you and i was the intervention and interest in chinese-japanese conflict by the united states. while chiang was head of state for the KMT,south and central china, he did not control the entire country, this is one reason the united states had a presense there. this "republican" form of government was not recognized as a legitimate government by the UNITED STATES, that is why we had stategic commanders in china aiding chiang, we wanted to see it ferment into a lasting , unified chinese government, but this did not happen. my point is, that the country was devided throughout this era, with the ccp and kmt battling constantly, with a strong support for mao by the chinese ppl. especially after chiang turned on the ccp as he did. his nationalist government was never recognized by the united states as being "the one, true, governmental structure for china". maybe to everyone else, but not to the us. we knew well ahead of time that the comintern had a hand in chinese governmental reform.
and would continue to do so, under the direction and aid of the soviets. this was a very unstable time in chinese history obviously. but with the soviets and the ccp growing in numbers, and the country devided, the united states was weary, because us-soviet relations were less than polished, and intervention could have meant an early start to ww2, in a much diffferent fashion. so, when i say its not acurate to say that china was "nationalist" at this time, is because the country was still devided, and the united states felt that communism was inevitable, but underhandedly tried to sway that inevitability.
 
babar-san said:
the original discussion between you and i was the intervention and interest in chinese-japanese conflict by the united states.
& I still can't see how you can come to the conclusion that China of the 30's was a Communist country.

this "republican" form of government was not recognized as a legitimate government by the UNITED STATES,
Do you have any evidence that the US did not recognize the GMD government?
China was member of the League of Nations. I doubt that you will find the Communists representing China there.

maybe to everyone else, but not to the us.
Ah, I see. We the US! Everybody else is irrelevant. You're a Bushite?

the united states felt that communism was inevitable, but underhandedly tried to sway that inevitability.
Sources?


Sr Pasta said:
I believe you underestimate the racism of western countries.
Well, I don't doubt that there was a heavy racist undertone regarding Japanese during & after WWII. Yet I don't think this is related to dropping the bombs.

From one of your links:
"According to Leahy's notes at the Washington Conference (May 1943), "the grand strategy of the war remained fixed on achieving unconditional surrender of the Axis powers in Europe while [only?] maintaining pressure on Japan to secure positions from which her ultimate surrender could be forced." At the Cairo Conference (November 1943), the communiqué drafted by Harry Hopkins, at Roosevelt's instruction, made the obligatory demand for unconditional surrender. Then, it set specific stipulations, consistent with a series of position papers. drafted by State Department professionals and Asia specialists. None of the points were draconian, at least compared to those imposed on Germany. Japan was to be "stripped of all" its overseas conquests, presumably to quarantine a nation that Roosevelt believed was genetically disposed towards acts of lawless violence. The president's policy of isolating Japan from the rest of Asia may have smacked of political eugenics, but nothing was said about occupation, demilitarization, war trials, or the emperor of Japan."

As you can see, there is a certain racist attitude ("genetically disposed...") but still the drafted conditions were not as strong as those regarding Germany.
 
bossel said:
Do you have any evidence that the US did not recognize the GMD government?
bossel said:
Ah, I see. We the US! Everybody else is irrelevant. You're a Bushite?
do you have any evidence that it did? my main source of information on this subject i owe to my grandfather, colonel william h. cleland (retired), who fought in the korean conflict, and has extensive knowledge of ww2, us involvement with china, before and after the revolutionary war, and us wartime policy. i think its safe to assume he knows more about this subject than you or i.


bossel said:
Ah, I see. We the US! Everybody else is irrelevant. You're a Bushite?
a bushite? thats a bit snide, you obviously dont understand the politics of the united states government. i dont like bush anymore than anyone else that opposes his policies. funny how you are quick to turn this discussion into something personal. true china was a member of the league of nations, under a republican state, but the united states had the foresight to understand that this would not last. soviet influence within the ccp forshadowed the events that inevitably led to the collapse of the kmt. the united states knew this well in advance. are you forggeting again that the debate between you and i was started because of my view on american policies? do not mistake this as a biased opinion.
we the united states? are you implying that my opinion is based on american superiority? thats a load of bs. i am simply providing the objective position of the us policy makers during the 22 years the revolutionary war had its greatest impact on chinese government. the plain and simple fact is that the united states took into consideration that during the entire revolution, it could be viewed in essense, a complete quagmire of fuding factions, hardly a unified , "nationalist" country, with secure governmental structure. as for the rest of the world view, i cant speak for them.

an example of the forshadow >
American imperialism assisted Chiang by pouring in munitions and other supplies, and even direct military intervention in the transport of Kuomintang troops to Manchuria and North China by the US fleet and air force. Chiang had initial successes, but all in vain. He was leading a dying regime, more archaic than even the Czarist regime in Russia. So rotten was the regime that large parts of the supplies were sold by officials to the Stalinist armies for gold, and ministers and other officials in Chiang's government pocketed a great part of the dollars supplied for the war by America. Only the lesser part of the supplies and munitions actually reached the Nationalist troops at the front.

The military commanders ceaselessly intrigued against one another, as in all doomed regimes. Chiang, for example, starved General Fu Tso Yi, the only outstanding general who showed any real capacity on the Nationalist side, of supplies, for fear he might seek to replace him. The generals were outclassed by the superior strategy and tactics of the Red Army command.
However, the main reason for the victories of the Chinese Stalinists has been readily pointed out by Mao Tse Tung: the social questions involved. 'Land to the peasants,' as in the Russian revolution, sounded the death knell of feudal landowners and their corrupt regime. In large part, the Chinese Stalinists have carried out the agrarian revolution. That is the significant difference between the struggle in 1927 and now. It is this which has been responsible for the melting away of the armies which Chiang tried to use to crush the agrarian rebellion. Chiang's armies are composed of peasants - the poorest peasants at that - who have not enough money to escape conscription by bribing the officials. > http://www.marxist.com/TUT/TUT4-1.html

chiang's oppression of the peasantry in the area Mao was driven from, Central and South China, in the 6,000-mile retreat to the mountain fastnesses around Yenan, where a 'soviet' republic was set up, had an indigenous population of around 10 million. this played a crucial role in support for mao, as chiang taxed them so heavily and burdened them with unbelievable treatment, conscripts for the red army were in no short supply, so, in responce to your comment on the 100,000 communists left at the end of this conflict is far from the actual number of active comminist supporters.

this entire argument started by my understanding of the position taken by the united states during this unstable revolution. not once have i tried to contradict the fact that for a short time, the "world view" of china was pointing in the direction of nationalism, a view that the united states did not legitimize, because of chiang's underhanded tactics and decision making, meaning, the united states understood that nationalism would not ferment to a stable form of government, instead concentrating on the eventual "outcome" of the revolutionary war. we remained indifferent to chinese policy until the war was over. while we tried to help chiang, it quickly became clear that he was a corrupt leader, and not to be trusted. with the soviet issue in play also, why do you think we had 2 strategic commanders advising mao, and chiang, at the same time? gen stillwell, and the other dope whos name i cant remember.

Mao Zedong was the chairman of the Communist Party of China from 1935 until his death. Under his leadership, it became the ruling party of mainland China as the result of its victory in the Chinese Civil War and the founding of the People's Republic of China in 1949.

one more thing, i totally disagree with you about dropping atomic bombs on germany. it was "considered" just once, after realizing how powerful the weapon really was, then quickly dismissed because of the safety of our allies. our allies had more financial and internal interests in germany than we did. carpet bombing became the popular choice. i dont think the united states would have ever commited to dropping a nuke in western europe.
 
This discussion has taken an interesting turn. My knowledge of 20th century Chinese history is rather limited (and I teach history)...so this is rather interesting.

My two cents:

I believe that the US would have had no qualms about dropping the atomic bomb on Germany. At the time, the experts were far more impressed by the blast effect than worried about radiation and fallout. (Beside, normal weather patterns would have carried the clouds over the USSR.) Germany didn't last long enough, and the day and night bombing campaign had left no suitably pristine cities. (Even though the bombing of Japan was more thorough, it was an entirely American operation-- and so suitable targets were preserved for the bomb.)

Should Aerial bombing of civillian populations be a war crime? (as it is defined by several international agreements now) And this was not invented by the US, only perfected...Japan was among the first nations to target cities from the air.

Should the victors of a conflict charge members of their own military services with war crimes? (I doubt this will ever happen.)

Racism played a role in WWII. But the United States did not choose Japan. Japan attacked the United States. American propaganda consistantly dehumanized the Japanese relying heavily on well worn racist stereotypes. Fighting in the Pacific took on a brutality not seen on the western front of the European theater. The Chinese as "Allies" were not depicted as subhuman.

Someone said that the US had British and French help in Europe... French? The French resistance did give limited support, but I think the Soviets deserve a little credit for defeating Germany.
 
Well we could make a book with all these writtens
on my side I still consider a bad act against humanity to "try" like an experiment
to bomb against civilians with such kind of destructive power....you all can write pages and pages of history.....but the results don't change.
I also conside a bad act against nature and animals those french exsplosions
in Polynesia....one of the most beatiful places in this world...
About my words I wrote a question....why cth cinema production has never did a film about that dark moment?
We saw many films about Vietnam ....Korea Pacific war etc....
Perhaps there weren't any hereos in that story?
Regards to all of you
 
ippolito said:
Well we could make a book with all these writtens
on my side I still consider a bad act against humanity to "try" like an experiment
to bomb against civilians with such kind of destructive power....you all can write pages and pages of history.....but the results don't change.
I also conside a bad act against nature and animals those french exsplosions
in Polynesia....one of the most beatiful places in this world...
About my words I wrote a question....why cth cinema production has never did a film about that dark moment?
We saw many films about Vietnam ....Korea Pacific war etc....
Perhaps there weren't any hereos in that story?
Regards to all of you

actually, there is a time period movie directed by zhang yimou , while he was starting to become famous worldwide for his incredible cinematography, and choice of stories. they were very controverstion in china, as he is the only director in cumminist china's history to have gotten away with some of the things said in his films. he directed a film called "their lives", about a family caught up in the revoltionary war, very sad story. but acurate to the nail. some of his other notables are "raise the red lantern" (my fav), about a young highschool female graduate who intstead of going to college is wed to a ritch nobleman, and becomes his third concubine.
 
babar-san said:
do you have any evidence that it did?
Actually, I do. The US recognized the Nationalist Chinese government on 25 July 1928. But that's just from a history book, not such a great source like a
grandfather, colonel william h. cleland (retired),
I think, in the same book it says that the US was the 1st country to restore tariff autonomy to China after recognition of the Nationalist government.

a bushite? thats a bit snide, you obviously dont understand the politics of the united states government. i dont like bush anymore than anyone else that opposes his policies. funny how you are quick to turn this discussion into something personal.
Personal? If you say that the GMD government was illegitimate because it may have been recognized by "everyone else, but not to the us", then that sounds pretty much like Bushite talk: Either agree with us or you're irrelevant.

the collapse of the kmt. the united states knew this well in advance.
Wow, a bunch of clairvoyants in the US administration? They must have been quite good, esp. considering the fact that the Communists were almost finished in the mid 30's.

are you forggeting again that the debate between you and i was started because of my view on american policies?
Only partially. Forgot the Tripartite pact?

i am simply providing the objective position of the us policy makers during the 22 years the revolutionary war had its greatest impact on chinese government.
The "objective" position through the eyes of your granddad.

Now that's a great objective history source.

one more thing, i totally disagree with you about dropping atomic bombs on germany. it was "considered" just once, after realizing how powerful the weapon really was, then quickly dismissed because of the safety of our allies.
It didn't really have to be considered since Germany capitulated before the bombs were ready. For the rest, I refer to Sabro's last post.



sabro said:
Should Aerial bombing of civillian populations be a war crime? (as it is defined by several international agreements now) And this was not invented by the US, only perfected...Japan was among the first nations to target cities from the air.
Regarding bombing of largely civilian targets, I came across an interesting website.

Quote:
"1. Unanimous resolution of the League of Nations Assembly, Protection of Civilian Populations Against Bombing From the Air in Case of War, League of Nations, September 30, 1938[...]
I. Recognizes the following principles as a necessary basis for any subsequent regulations:
1) The intentional bombing of civilian populations is illegal;
2) Objectives aimed at from the air must be legitimate military objectives and must be identifiable;
3) Any attack on legitimate military objectives must be carried out in such a way that civilian populations in the neighbourhood are not bombed through negligence."

Hence atomic or carpet bombing of cities can be considered illegal, even back then.
 
bossel said:
arding bombing of largely civilian targets, I came across an interesting website.

Quote:
"1. Unanimous resolution of the League of Nations Assembly, Protection of Civilian Populations Against Bombing From the Air in Case of War, League of Nations, September 30, 1938[...]
I. Recognizes the following principles as a necessary basis for any subsequent regulations:
1) The intentional bombing of civilian populations is illegal;
2) Objectives aimed at from the air must be legitimate military objectives and must be identifiable;
3) Any attack on legitimate military objectives must be carried out in such a way that civilian populations in the neighbourhood are not bombed through negligence."

Hence atomic or carpet bombing of cities can be considered illegal, even back then.

Thanks. This is an awesome website-- with lots of information and sources for both sides of this debate. There are several persuasive essays in this collection.

The question lingers in my mind though because the so-called strategic bombing of Germany and Japan were probably instrumental in ending WWII. Does the ends justify the means? Could the war have been won without the (probably illegal) massive bombing campaigns?
 
sabro said:
Does the ends justify the means? Could the war have been won without the (probably illegal) massive bombing campaigns?
I don't think carpet bombing of cities helped the war effort very much. For what I know, it may have even strengthened morale of the population. Industrial production didn't really suffer that much, either. In the 2nd half of 1944 German production of war related materials was higher than ever.

Indiscriminate carpet bombing was not really effective. Selective bombing of eg. railroads & oil refineries was much more efficient.
 
bossel said:
Actually, I do. The US recognized the Nationalist Chinese government on 25 July 1928. But that's just from a history book, not such a great source like a

I think, in the same book it says that the US was the 1st country to restore tariff autonomy to China after recognition of the Nationalist government.


Personal? If you say that the GMD government was illegitimate because it may have been recognized by "everyone else, but not to the us", then that sounds pretty much like Bushite talk: Either agree with us or you're irrelevant.


Wow, a bunch of clairvoyants in the US administration? They must have been quite good, esp. considering the fact that the Communists were almost finished in the mid 30's.


Only partially. Forgot the Tripartite pact?


The "objective" position through the eyes of your granddad.


Now that's a great objective history source.


It didn't really have to be considered since Germany capitulated before the bombs were ready. For the rest, I refer to Sabro's last post.




Regarding bombing of largely civilian targets, I came across an interesting website.

Quote:
"1. Unanimous resolution of the League of Nations Assembly, Protection of Civilian Populations Against Bombing From the Air in Case of War, League of Nations, September 30, 1938[...]
I. Recognizes the following principles as a necessary basis for any subsequent regulations:
1) The intentional bombing of civilian populations is illegal;
2) Objectives aimed at from the air must be legitimate military objectives and must be identifiable;
3) Any attack on legitimate military objectives must be carried out in such a way that civilian populations in the neighbourhood are not bombed through negligence."

Hence atomic or carpet bombing of cities can be considered illegal, even back then.


man, you are the king of taking things out of context, who said anything about agreeing with the united states on this issue? i certainly have not tried to persuade anyone to do so. also, the link i posted was for historical references about china, not the objective american position on chinese government. i thought you would have at least figured that one out? i think american policy during this time is a bit more complicated than just "recognizing" the nationalist party alone. we had to recognize the party, because we were sending them transports and munitions, otherwise, it would have seemed very much like a direct military intervention in the eyes of the ccp, and a possible attack from us forces, that would have pulled the soviets farther into this mess. something the united states did not want to happen. as for my dear ole granddad, he didnt spend half of his life in the army and attain the 3 stars on his collar to not know what hes talking about. "recognizing" and "legitimizing" are 2 diffferent things, the later, is something i dont think ever happened, otherwise, we would not have needed 2 strategeic commanders in the field advising both parties. (one reason why mao denounced his invitation to come to the united states and visit the pres.) no, i havnt forggoten about the tripartite pact, just deviated from it.
of course we lifted tarrifs from china after chiang took office, who wouldnt have?
and i dont think you have to be clairvoyant to understand that intervening in chinese affairs directly at this time could mean war with the soviets, who had a heavy hand to play in helping form the ccp.
anyway, its been fun debating this subject, but its gettin old......just like my granddad :wave:
 
babar-san said:
who said anything about agreeing with the united states on this issue? i certainly have not tried to persuade anyone to do so.
What I wrote: "If you say that the GMD government was illegitimate because it may have been recognized by "everyone else, but not to the us", then that sounds pretty much like Bushite talk: Either agree with us or you're irrelevant."

also, the link i posted was for historical references about china, not the objective american position on chinese government.
Historical references by a Marxist website, again: Great!

we had to recognize the party, because we were sending them transports and munitions, otherwise, it would have seemed very much like a direct military intervention in the eyes of the ccp
In 1928?

and a possible attack from us forces
Huh? Which attack? Why should the US attack? Whom?

he didnt spend half of his life in the army and attain the 3 stars on his collar to not know what hes talking about.
Certainly, I understand. Makes him an expert in Chinese history. Obviously. How could I doubt?

"recognizing" and "legitimizing" are 2 diffferent things
When you recognize a government, you pretty much say that this is the legitimate representative of the country to deal with.

the later, is something i dont think ever happened, otherwise, we would not have needed 2 strategeic commanders in the field advising both parties
Yep. That's completely logic.

and i dont think you have to be clairvoyant to understand that intervening in chinese affairs directly at this time could mean war with the soviets
Who talked of "intervening in chinese affairs directly"? What I reacted upon was your " true china was a member of the league of nations, under a republican state, but the united states had the foresight to understand that this would not last. soviet influence within the ccp forshadowed the events that inevitably led to the collapse of the kmt. the united states knew this well in advance."
That's what I would call clairvoyant abilities: Knowing in the mid-30's (when the Communists were almost finished, as I said before) that the GMD would fall some 15 years later.
Taking things out of contex? Look who's talking...
 
Sr Pasta said:
The dropping of the atom bombs, as well as the fire bombings of japanese cities, should have been war crimes then and are definitely war crimes under current international law. IMO, those responsible should have been set on trial for crimes against humanity.

the web sites are fabulous. I completely understand your opinion and I agree with the moral assessment. The bomb was a horror beyond horror. I would never underestimate the affect racism had on the dropping of the bomb-- my mother and her family spent many months in interment camps due to this racism. Furthermore the US propaganda machine used racism to generate support for the war. (In Europe we villified the Nazi Hun, but in the Pacific the Enemy was the Japanese race...) Racism was patriotic. Truman's racist assessment of the Japanese was based in part on the Imperial Army's conduct toward civillians and POW's-- and was accurate in that context.

I do not see, however in the context of their time and with the resources available to the united states how a different decision could have been reached. The Japanese started the war. Their brutal militaristic expansion needed to be stopped. The tenacity and brutal ferocity of the Japanese soldier ensured that the killing would go on long after any reasonable hope of a negotiated settlement had passed. Lots of people, including civillians were dying daily. It showed no signs of stopping soon. Truman took the path with the least risk and the greatest immediate benefit from his point of view.

As wishy washy as my previous post was, I'm going to stick to my basic opinion: It was a Faustian choice that effectively ended the war and saved lives.

That being said-- I hope what Bossel said about the strategic bombing campaign in europe being a failure is true. I'm not sure at all if moral indignation alone will stop this from happening again. I hope people will remember what a horrific weapon the bomb is. I hope every US president will view war in all its glory with the blood and death and widespread suffering and destruction before starting anything. (Especially if you can't find your WMD's... hey wait, isn't a pre-emptive invasion also illegal as a war of agression?)
 
When germans were bombing all the british soldiers were running away
When british were bombing all german soldiers were running away
when americans were bombing all germans and british were running away.

This just a little innocent funny story but the new way to bomb everywere anytime with any kind of bomb is a us way to defeat the enemy.
this will give a victory...but also killing a lot of civilians...
This kind of war haqs been actuted in vietnam also with napalm but did not
helps to reach a victory.
Some kind of war can be done this way lke the pacific but as we all have seen
in Falluja is a dood to door guerrilla and big bombs will not do a lot...only many civilians died....in this case men to men fight.
Is not possible easly to win a war without deads on your side...
bombing so much is a clear way to kill a lot of number of people there....
is not important if children men women soldiers.....just bomb and bomb again
I am agree about:
The dropping of the atom bombs, as well as the fire bombings of japanese cities, should have been war crimes then and are definitely war crimes under current international law. IMO, those responsible should have been set on trial for crimes against humanity.
 
I still think would make a good opinion poll. I don't know how to set it up.
 

This thread has been viewed 77025 times.

Back
Top