Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum

View Poll Results: The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was

Voters
37. You may not vote on this poll
  • The ultimate crime against humanity

    12 32.43%
  • A serious war crime because US had other options

    9 24.32%
  • An unethical act of war although US needed to check USSR

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

    1 2.70%
  • Justified because it saved many US & Japanese lives

    7 18.92%
  • Entirely justified because Japan would not surrender without it

    8 21.62%
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 103

Thread: Dropping the Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki:

  1. #26
    ohayo otaku:) Achievements:
    1 year registered
    babar-san's Avatar
    Join Date
    15-08-04
    Location
    the astral plane
    Age
    45
    Posts
    43


    Ethnic group
    caucasian
    Country: United States





    Quote Originally Posted by bossel
    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.
    I JUST SHOT SMACK INTO BOTH MY EYEBALLS, WHOOOAAAHHH!!!!!, BLAAARGGGG.....

  2. #27
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    bossel's Avatar
    Join Date
    28-09-03
    Location
    germany
    Posts
    790


    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by babar-san
    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?


    Quote Originally Posted by Sr Pasta
    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.

  3. #28
    ohayo otaku:) Achievements:
    1 year registered
    babar-san's Avatar
    Join Date
    15-08-04
    Location
    the astral plane
    Age
    45
    Posts
    43


    Ethnic group
    caucasian
    Country: United States



    [QUOTE=bossel]Do you have any evidence that the US did not recognize the GMD government?[QUOTE]


    [QUOTE=bossel]Ah, I see. We the US! Everybody else is irrelevant. You're a Bushite?[QUOTE]

    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.


    [QUOTE=bossel]Ah, I see. We the US! Everybody else is irrelevant. You're a Bushite?[QUOTE]

    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.

  4. #29
    Banned Achievements:
    Recommendation Second Class1 year registered

    Join Date
    22-04-04
    Posts
    1,720


    Country: United States



    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.

  5. #30
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    ippolito's Avatar
    Join Date
    07-10-03
    Location
    rome italy
    Age
    69
    Posts
    33


    Country: Italy



    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

  6. #31
    ohayo otaku:) Achievements:
    1 year registered
    babar-san's Avatar
    Join Date
    15-08-04
    Location
    the astral plane
    Age
    45
    Posts
    43


    Ethnic group
    caucasian
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by ippolito
    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.

  7. #32
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    bossel's Avatar
    Join Date
    28-09-03
    Location
    germany
    Posts
    790


    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by babar-san
    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.



    Quote Originally Posted by sabro
    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.

  8. #33
    Banned Achievements:
    Recommendation Second Class1 year registered

    Join Date
    22-04-04
    Posts
    1,720


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by bossel
    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?

  9. #34
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    bossel's Avatar
    Join Date
    28-09-03
    Location
    germany
    Posts
    790


    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by sabro
    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.

  10. #35
    ohayo otaku:) Achievements:
    1 year registered
    babar-san's Avatar
    Join Date
    15-08-04
    Location
    the astral plane
    Age
    45
    Posts
    43


    Ethnic group
    caucasian
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by bossel
    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

  11. #36
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    bossel's Avatar
    Join Date
    28-09-03
    Location
    germany
    Posts
    790


    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by babar-san
    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...

  12. #37
    Banned Achievements:
    Recommendation Second Class1 year registered

    Join Date
    22-04-04
    Posts
    1,720


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Sr Pasta
    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?)

  13. #38
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    ippolito's Avatar
    Join Date
    07-10-03
    Location
    rome italy
    Age
    69
    Posts
    33


    Country: Italy



    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.

  14. #39
    Banned Achievements:
    Recommendation Second Class1 year registered

    Join Date
    22-04-04
    Posts
    1,720


    Country: United States



    I still think would make a good opinion poll. I don't know how to set it up.

  15. #40
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    ippolito's Avatar
    Join Date
    07-10-03
    Location
    rome italy
    Age
    69
    Posts
    33


    Country: Italy



    Quote Originally Posted by sabro
    I still think would make a good opinion poll. I don't know how to set it up.
    sorry can you be more clear? tks

  16. #41
    Southern Sun Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    Duo's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-04-03
    Location
    The EU capital
    Posts
    655
    Points
    12,140
    Level
    33
    Points: 12,140, Level: 33
    Level completed: 28%, Points required for next Level: 510
    Overall activity: 0%


    Ethnic group
    Albanian
    Country: Belgium



    Quote Originally Posted by bossel
    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.
    But I'd say bossel that what you are describing is not being a bushite, but is something that is deeply intrenched into the deep psychology of the US. Something that Robert Lifton would call "superpower syndrome", a beleif in the omnipotence and untouchability of the nation.

  17. #42
    Banned Achievements:
    Recommendation Second Class1 year registered

    Join Date
    22-04-04
    Posts
    1,720


    Country: United States



    Domo Arigato lexico

    I think the bombs were horrible. So was firebombing Japanese cities. Both should be war crimes. But that's my opinion now, in hind sight, out of context, from the comfort of my safe office. I hope weapons of this sort are never used again.

    IN context, it is difficult to think that Truman would or could make any other decision. From the American 1945 perspective, aerial bombing of civillian targets was already the norm. A terrible war, in which all the rules of conduct had been rewritten, was raging unabated and seemingly without end. The US military had seen the resolve of the Japanese over and over again, to fight past the point of any reasonable chance of success, to fight in any way possible, to the death, and to inflict the maximum number of casualties. The invasion of Japan was planned and large numbers of deaths on both sides were predicted. Truman had to drop the bombs.

    In the last thread I mentioned that I hated this sort of reasoning- That the end of the war justifies this type of carnage and this selection of target.

    We were angry after 3000 innocents were slaughtered on 9/11. But nothing is said about the 9000 or so Iraqi civillians that were killed and continue to die. Even if the war is justifiable, even with the most accurate weapons and most careful planning "collateral damage" is unavoidable. Can we justify this loss of life?
    Last edited by No-name; 05-01-05 at 03:39. Reason: added thought

  18. #43
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    bossel's Avatar
    Join Date
    28-09-03
    Location
    germany
    Posts
    790


    Country: Germany



    Checked "serious war crime", but even without other options I'd still hold that view. Targeting civilians is IMO always a war crime.

  19. #44
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered

    Join Date
    15-07-04
    Posts
    33


    Country: Indonesia



    Interesting experiments.

    Interesting experiments. (It should be added to the list)

    Not that everyone like interesting experiments though.


    It should be noted that the fire bombing of Tokyo is much more devastating and more torturing than both the atomic bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. The effect on the events in Nagasaki and Hiroshima is shock (to the ones who survived), while the effects for the events in Tokyo is terror (to the ones who are about to die and the ones who currently experienced the bombing).


    The atomic bombings weren't done for a speedy war resolution, it was done to make people angry and fight each other (both in the present at that time and the future like now), and also for experiments.

    Even before the atomic bombings, the Japanese government already offered to surrender... twice.

    Though it should be noted that both governments (the Japanese government and the U.S.A. governments) are nothing more but puppets controlled by the same puppet master.

    Just think, the Japanese government has no gain at all for attacking Pearl Harbour. Even if it have a grouch against the U.S.A., it can kick its butt later when it already captured South East Asia / East Indies.

    And also the U.S.A. government has no gain at all at participating at the Pacific war, and also the European war.

    The reasons these two governments go into wars was because they weren't acting on their own.

    The same goes for the current wars.



    Nevertheless, what has already happened has already happened. Past is past. Just leave it that way. No fuss. Nothing.

    Besides, it was around 60 years ago! Most of the people who survived it are already grandparents (or great grandparents) or dead. The last thing they want to do is dig up old painful memories.

    Man... Sometimes I wish many more people would be ignorant of history, since history can be used to make people fight each other. "War crimes", "War criminals", "War crime trials", and so on, those are nothing but a ploy to make people fight each other, can all of you people see that?


    I remember a World War II story. Two people meet each other, long after World War II. After some talking with each other, they later found out that they both experienced the same event, one is bombing the city where the other one lives, while the other one was attacking the airplane that was bombing his city.

    They become close friends though.

    The moral of the story? Who cares!




    Now... If you want to do a war, here are some tips;.

    The best war is fought by making your enemies gave away their country to you without any battle. War is done through deception. Know your enemy and yourself. Divide and conquer is an effective strategy.

    With my computation, I deduced that humankind's common enemy isn't human, as in, NOT a homo sapien.

  20. #45
    Banned Achievements:
    Recommendation Second Class1 year registered

    Join Date
    22-04-04
    Posts
    1,720


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by digicross
    Even before the atomic bombings, the Japanese government already offered to surrender... twice.
    Hmmm. I was under the impression that the first offer didn't come until August 12, after both bombs. Do you have a source?

    Hey Digicross, I noticed you fly an Indonesian flag. How are things with you? Is there anything we can do?

    Bossel-- I agree with your sentiment. People playing war should be required to stay away from houses and children.

  21. #46
    Anjin Achievements:
    1 year registered

    Join Date
    10-04-04
    Location
    Seattle, Washington
    Age
    42
    Posts
    370


    Ethnic group
    Mainly: Italian, German, Scottish, Irish
    Country: United States



    Targeting civilians to achieve a military/political goal is just NOT OK. The ends DON'T justify the means.
    For information on the pros and cons of teaching at Nova English schools in Japan, check out

  22. #47
    Banned Achievements:
    Recommendation Second Class1 year registered

    Join Date
    22-04-04
    Posts
    1,720


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Brooker
    Targeting civilians to achieve a military/political goal is just NOT OK. The ends DON'T justify the means.
    I wish I could agree with you. I want both my boys to live in a world where you are right and I am wrong about this.

    I don't see another way (and I include the bombing campaigns in Germany and the firebombing of Japan in this) that the allies could have won the war. To have in your hands the means to end the death and destruction and not use it might also be called criminal.

  23. #48
    Banned Achievements:
    Recommendation Second Class1 year registered

    Join Date
    22-04-04
    Posts
    1,720


    Country: United States



    Only ten responses? (Seven replies?)... I thought this would be a much more controversial and interesting topic on this forum.

    We are talking about the only use of a nuclear weapon against a civillian population ever. Talk about WMD's. The US has them, has used them and uses the rumor of their presence to invade another sovereign nation.

  24. #49
    Chukchi Salmon Achievements:
    1 year registered

    Join Date
    22-12-04
    Location
    Sunny South Korea
    Posts
    642


    Ethnic group
    Paleo-Asian
    Country: South Korea



    Quote Originally Posted by sabro
    Only ten responses? (Seven replies?)... I thought this would be a much more controversial and interesting topic on this forum.

    We are talking about the only use of a nuclear weapon against a civillian population ever. Talk about WMD's. The US has them, has used them and uses the rumor of their presence to invade another sovereign nation.
    I understand your indignation about the lack of response. I try to find a reason for it such as wanting to avoid conflict or the fact that these incidents belong to the remote past. But I can only speak for myself. Because I am both ignorant about the subject, and inhibited by it.

    The only thing I am sure of is that I had more than once applauded the dropping out of vengence. And I am ashamed to admit it. The more I think about it, I feel there is something inherently wrong about the whole thing.

    When Albert Einstein suggested the bombing, he probably did not realize the true extent of the consequences. Fifty-five years later, when he was voted the most influential figure of the 20th century in the New York Times poll (was it Newsweek? I forgot.), it really burned me. People only think about the magnitude of the TNT equivalent of the bomb invented by this scientist. And that makes him important? I feel sorry for him for his involvement in such a horrendous act of human anhilation. He is probably the most guilt-torn man ever known. May he rest in peace, if that is permitted. May I rest in peace when I'm gone.

    The only practical reconciliation or healing I've found was in art pieces that dealt with the subject; having at least some people trying to see nuclear warfare without prejudice is the only comfort I can get on a conscious plane.

    But this is far from enough. I don't think I know enough to say any more. I hope to though.
    Z: The fish in the water are happy.
    H: How do you know ? You're not fish.
    Z: How do you know I don't ? You're not me.
    H: True I am not you, and I cannot know. Likewise, I know you're not, therefore I know you don't.
    Z: You asked me how I knew implying you knew I knew. In fact I saw some fish, strolling down by the Hao River, all jolly and gay.

    --Zhuangzi

  25. #50
    Banned Achievements:
    Recommendation Second Class1 year registered

    Join Date
    22-04-04
    Posts
    1,720


    Country: United States



    Einstein had very little to do with the development of the bomb. The letters he wrote in the thirties were basically warning that Germany would develop a bomb in time, and the US should also look into it. To take the idea of an atomic bomb from theoretical physics to practical application took room fulls of geniuses like J. Robert Oppenheimer, and lots and lots of cash.

    I used to be appalled by the inhumanity of dropping such a horrendous weapon- especially on the targets that were chosen, and I still am. But I was born twenty years after the event, and the context of WWII has to be taken into consideration.

    I think this is important because people tend to forget how nasty an implement this was. I think when people see that 9000 Iraqi civillians were killed in the invasion, they shrug those lives off. When the US continues to spend more money on better nuclear technology even without the Soviet threat, when military spending far outstrips humanitarian aid, when the former Soviet Union can't even account for half of its bombs and material, that this is an important issue.

    So someone should chime in and set me straight. American imperialists like me that justify the incineration of a hundred thousand civillians in the name of peace deserve to be taken to task- especially by those who were targeted by this atrocious act.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Which bombs are best for democratisation?
    By Anton, Bear's den in forum Opinions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 25-10-11, 17:38
  2. Belgium becomes first country to ban cluster bombs
    By Maciamo in forum European News & Hot Topics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-03-06, 11:41
  3. Bombs In London? Hope All Our English Members Are Ok !
    By Frank D. White in forum European News & Hot Topics
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 09-07-05, 02:25

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •