the ignorance that surrounds WW2 is astounding in some people lol
So wait was Hiroshina and nagasaki terrorism?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Keep in mind that the two cities were weapons and vehicle manufacturing centers and that destroying all of them would cripple the Japanese War Machine.
Must.... resist... posting....... long.... response..... (I'll keep it short :P)
The rage that certain people (whose names start with a k, h, and u) regarding history, warfare, and common-effing-sense astounds me. With this "righteous" mentality, I now understand why western countries would never win a war with another nation of equal power that did not have this line of thought (Not trying to justify torture, genocide, etc). A modern day Hitler or Stalin would have a field day and steamroll the Neville Chamberlains in here (If they were leading countries).
War is horrible, but going back to try and change things might make them even worse. Of all the options back then, dropping the nukes were the quickest, most logical and effective way of ending the war. And yes, that includes waiting years to starve millions of people to death or getting millions of civilians and soldiers killed in an invasion.
[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="Palantas"]Well that's what happens. People go with whom they trust more and with the reasoning that fits more their world view. I trust more the people who were and are against it (many of whom were government and army officials at the time) because I won't be able to ever justify how killing 200 thousand innocent people is the best or right course of action in my mind. Bias doesn't equate to right though. As for war......it tends to have a death toll don't you think?Not the government, army officials, and historians who agreed it was the best thing to do...and did it, and things turned out well (for the US). Well, I think I'll go with those guys, because their opinions fit better with my preconceived notions.
LJS9502_basic
I find this bias comment ironic. Since I didn't respond to your last post a few pages back, here it is:
Yes, of course the cold war came after ww2. Sometimes I wonder if you just say this type of thing to be offensive rather than actually try to prove a point...You keep going on about facts but you ignore what is right in front of your eyes. Do you honestly think that when we dropped the bombs we weren't thinking in the back of our minds that it would also intimidate the soviets? They were also in the race to get the bomb. If the Western Allies proved to the world that they did indeed posses nuclear capability, then they could have demanded more from the peace treaty ending the war, as their trump card would have forced the Soviets to yeild some ground. I really hat having to spell myself out three times in one thread.
As for casualties in war- yes, unavoidable, but how can you justify the strategic bombing of both Germany and Japan? It was shock and awe, if nothing else, to beat the enemy's civilian population into submission. The US tried to do daylight bombings of Germany early on, but since bomber losses were so great they decided to just do night raids, which were in turn innacurate and hit civilian targets. Dresden, for example, was completely leveled, and Hiroshima came soon after. In both these cases, the civilians were the targets. I have no objection with calling strategic bombing as war crime, but once again, history is written by the victors.
Well the American deployment of nukes on not one but two civilian targets was most assuredly an atrocity and at the very least crimes against humanity on an unprecedented scale, wartime or not... but it depends on your perspective right? If Japan had developed the bombs and deployed them against American cities it would most certainly have been decried as a barbaric, atrocious act of utter evil, right? But because America never does anything beyond reproach, ever, it is viewed as noble and valorous...67gt500It was war, not a refereed match. You win wars by destroying the opponents will to fight, not by attrition of military forces. The only people who fight wars of attrition are bad and delusional commander with outdated ideas of glory. Often, attacking enemy civilians can just make your opponents fighting forces more angry and self-righteous, and can lose support of your own population. On the other hand, depending on the propaganda on both sides, the opposite can result, as was the case with the bombing of Japan. No one has ever said the bombings of Japan were noble and valorous. What people said is that they were right, and that they were necessary. What's right, and what's necessary, are sometimes the hardest things of all. Just because something is right and necessary doesn't mean it has to be something good. Something that is bad is not necessarily wrong or evil. The world is not black and white.
Must.... resist... posting....... long.... response..... (I'll keep it short :P)
The rage that certain people (whose names start with a k, h, and u) regarding history, warfare, and common-effing-sense astounds me. With this "righteous" mentality, I now understand why western countries would never win a war with another nation of equal power that did not have this line of thought (Not trying to justify torture, genocide, etc). A modern day Hitler or Stalin would have a field day and steamroll the Neville Chamberlains in here (If they were leading countries).
War is horrible, but going back to try and change things might make them even worse. Of all the options back then, dropping the nukes were the quickest, most logical and effective way of ending the war. And yes, that includes waiting years to starve millions of people to death or getting millions of civilians and soldiers killed in an invasion.
On3ShotOneKill
You, of course, are ignoring the many people who thought differently at the time, both government and army officials, not to mention historians who thought that there were good possibilities to end the war by less atrocious means. Of course your reasoning makes sense ONLY if you ignore that but I'm choosing not to ignore it. And if getting on a high horse or having a "righteous" mentality means questioning killing 200 thousand civilians as being the "right thing" then by all means I surely hope I never get off that high horse.
You know the world is **** up when you are accused of having too high ethical principles when you question the obliteration of innocent people by the thousands.
Do any of you guys know that both the allies and the axis intentionally and willfully targetted civilian areas? The germans thought is would help to demoralize the enemies. The allies the same. More people died in Dresden than in Nagasaki and Hiroshima combined. Yet there is almost no outrage about those events. No threads decrying the atrocity or how horrible that is. Why is death by one type of bomb worse than another? In a war where 100 million plus people died - the majority were NOT soliders BTW - why focus on the deaths of only a few and exlude the other 99.8 million?
People, it was war......
And yes, that is a excuse as there is no room for debating ethics and moral issues during such times.rastotm
Really? then what is the point of the Geneva convention and all the BS about torture or collateral damage etc etc? Then every side is the same during a war, no way to make a difference between the Nazis and the allies since there is no room for moral or ethical judgments.
I don't think anyone is justifying such bombings as Dresden. For me they were equally disgusting acts. By the way the estimated death toll in Dresden was 25 thousand people while japanese nukes ascended to close to 200 thousand people. I'm not saying we have to count the dead to decide which was is worse but more people died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.Do any of you guys know that both the allies and the axis intentionally and willfully targetted civilian areas? The germans thought is would help to demoralize the enemies. The allies the same. More people died in Dresden than in Nagasaki and Hiroshima combined. Yet there is almost no outrage about those events. No threads decrying the atrocity or how horrible that is. Why is death by one type of bomb worse than another? In a war where 100 million plus people died - the majority were NOT soliders BTW - why focus on the deaths of only a few and exlude the other 99.8 million?
sonicare
[QUOTE="rastotm"]
People, it was war......
And yes, that is a excuse as there is no room for debating ethics and moral issues during such times.kuraimen
Really? then what is the point of the Geneva convention and all the BS about torture or collateral damage etc etc? Then every side is the same during a war, no way to make a difference between the Nazis and the allies since there is no room for moral or ethical judgments.
Well said, you really reinforced what I tried to say. The Geneva conventions exist because there is no such thing as a good side in a war, it's all a chaotic mess of cruelty, blind rage and extreme fear.
Not every side is the same during war, yet every side is evil. One could claim that Hiroshima and Nagasaki are war crimes, but what is the point of claiming that? Japan commited many war crimes themselves, we don't hear much from that either.
Bias doesn't equate to right though. As for war......it tends to have a death toll don't you think?[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] Well that's what happens. People go with whom they trust more and with the reasoning that fits more their world view. I trust more the people who were and are against it (many of whom were government and army officials at the time) because I won't be able to ever justify how killing 200 thousand innocent people is the best or right course of action in my mind.Tokugawa77
I find this bias comment ironic. Since I didn't respond to your last post a few pages back, here it is:
Yes, of course the cold war came after ww2. Sometimes I wonder if you just say this type of thing to be offensive rather than actually try to prove a point...You keep going on about facts but you ignore what is right in front of your eyes. Do you honestly think that when we dropped the bombs we weren't thinking in the back of our minds that it would also intimidate the soviets? They were also in the race to get the bomb. If the Western Allies proved to the world that they did indeed posses nuclear capability, then they could have demanded more from the peace treaty ending the war, as their trump card would have forced the Soviets to yeild some ground. I really hat having to spell myself out three times in one thread.
As for casualties in war- yes, unavoidable, but how can you justify the strategic bombing of both Germany and Japan? It was shock and awe, if nothing else, to beat the enemy's civilian population into submission. The US tried to do daylight bombings of Germany early on, but since bomber losses were so great they decided to just do night raids, which were in turn innacurate and hit civilian targets. Dresden, for example, was completely leveled, and Hiroshima came soon after. In both these cases, the civilians were the targets. I have no objection with calling strategic bombing as war crime, but once again, history is written by the victors.
You misused ironic.No I keep things in historical perspective and don't try to dovetail later events that occurred as being germaine to that which they aren't. Why should I make assumptions because you deem them to an idea? I think during WW2 what was foremost in the minds of the military, military advisors, and the commander in cheif was ending that war. Period. Because you want to insinuate other conspiracy does not mean they existed. And you have not posited any evidence as to your assumptions/opinions. Frankly considering the USSR has nukes makes the lie of your statement. They were so intimidated that they had a cold war with the US for decades while creating their own bombs. That doesn't make sense. It's not logical.
If WW2 were fought today the allies would have lost. You can't be delicate in war. It's an all or nothing endeavor. So do you want to win the war or play nice? The UK actually was the first to bomb Germany after they were bombed. Germany wasn't yielding. As for Japan....BOTH cities were military targets. So your appeal to emotion is misplaced.
Second if civilians were the target....they wouldn't have been warned. You seem to be rewriting history to your agenda.
[QUOTE="sonicare"]I don't think anyone is justifying such bombings as Dresden. For me they were equally disgusting acts. By the way the estimated death toll in Dresden was 25 thousand people while japanese nukes ascended to close to 200 thousand people. I'm not saying we have to count the dead to decide which was is worse but more people died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The estimated death toll in Dresden is as high as 200,000 people. They fire bombed the city so it's incredibly variable and depends on the source used. But I think people do justify the conventional bombings of civilian areas by their silence. I've never seen one thread decrying that or complaining about it. Yet I've seen plenty of threads focusing on the nuclear bombings of japan. The coverage is not equal or even in context.Do any of you guys know that both the allies and the axis intentionally and willfully targetted civilian areas? The germans thought is would help to demoralize the enemies. The allies the same. More people died in Dresden than in Nagasaki and Hiroshima combined. Yet there is almost no outrage about those events. No threads decrying the atrocity or how horrible that is. Why is death by one type of bomb worse than another? In a war where 100 million plus people died - the majority were NOT soliders BTW - why focus on the deaths of only a few and exlude the other 99.8 million?
kuraimen
[QUOTE="kuraimen"]
[QUOTE="rastotm"]
People, it was war......
And yes, that is a excuse as there is no room for debating ethics and moral issues during such times.rastotm
Really? then what is the point of the Geneva convention and all the BS about torture or collateral damage etc etc? Then every side is the same during a war, no way to make a difference between the Nazis and the allies since there is no room for moral or ethical judgments.
Well said, you really reinforced what I tried to say. The Geneva conventions exist because there is no such thing as a good side in a war, it's all a chaotic mess of cruelty, blind rage and extreme fear.
Not every side is the same during war, yet every side is evil. One could claim that Hiroshima and Nagasaki are war crimes, but what is the point of claiming that? Japan commited many war crimes themselves, we don't hear much from that either.
I just think that if any side in war is willing to claim the moral superiority in a conflict they should at least act accordingly. I would hate to be represented by people who keep denouncing things like terrorism and then go and act similarly whenever they have a chance. It would be better then if they just embraced terrorism, less hypocritical.
They say civility in war ended during ww one. There used to be some rules in terms of what you did and what you didn't. But war is an awful and brutal thing and people will resort to the lowest common denominator. It's hard to act righteous or noble when your goal is to kill your enemy. In WW2, every participating nation engaged in attacks on civilian targets. Russia, Germany, Japan, US, UK all intentionally hit civilian targets as part of their strategy. 70 years from that conflict, we can look back and say how wrong they were, but we are not the ones fighting and dying in a war that cost 100 million lives and caused untold horror. Hindsight is great, but times were much different back then. Travel was more restricted, societies were still evolving, and they did not have the instantaneous access to information that we have today. I think you have to put all that in perspective when judging them. Look back through history. Man is a savage beast. There's no shortage of atrocities or bad acts to review.
Most countries committed "war crimes" in WW2. Including Canada, France, Australia, UK, US. USSR. Moroccan French, China, Japan, Yugoslavians, Germany,Croatia, Italy, Romania.......but hey...let's point the finger at one country.:|They say civility in war ended during ww one. There used to be some rules in terms of what you did and what you didn't. But war is an awful and brutal thing and people will resort to the lowest common denominator. It's hard to act righteous or noble when your goal is to kill your enemy. In WW2, every participating nation engaged in attacks on civilian targets. Russia, Germany, Japan, US, UK all intentionally hit civilian targets as part of their strategy. 70 years from that conflict, we can look back and say how wrong they were, but we are not the ones fighting and dying in a war that cost 100 million lives and caused untold horror. Hindsight is great, but times were much different back then. Travel was more restricted, societies were still evolving, and they did not have the instantaneous access to information that we have today. I think you have to put all that in perspective when judging them. Look back through history. Man is a savage beast. There's no shortage of atrocities or bad acts to review.
sonicare
Even though I agree man has commited atrocious acts at every time in history I believe there are many noble and ethical people out there. Even people back in that day realized how bad bombing Japan that way was, is not like only after WW2 it became a bad or reprehensible act. I think we should point our fingers to everyone who doesn't meet at least a kind of sensible ethical standard not just support an action when it is by one nationality and condemn it when it is done by other.They say civility in war ended during ww one. There used to be some rules in terms of what you did and what you didn't. But war is an awful and brutal thing and people will resort to the lowest common denominator. It's hard to act righteous or noble when your goal is to kill your enemy. In WW2, every participating nation engaged in attacks on civilian targets. Russia, Germany, Japan, US, UK all intentionally hit civilian targets as part of their strategy. 70 years from that conflict, we can look back and say how wrong they were, but we are not the ones fighting and dying in a war that cost 100 million lives and caused untold horror. Hindsight is great, but times were much different back then. Travel was more restricted, societies were still evolving, and they did not have the instantaneous access to information that we have today. I think you have to put all that in perspective when judging them. Look back through history. Man is a savage beast. There's no shortage of atrocities or bad acts to review.
sonicare
really who cares but the estimates at the time were one million us servicemen deaths and 5 million japanese deaths would occur during an invasion of the home islands.I was pondering and wasn't Hiroshima and Nagasaki terrorism?
Terrorism is the use of terror to intimidate a leadership or people.
Hiroshima was to scare Japan into surrendering. So by dictionary terms it was terrorism.
Other definitions is attacking innocent people to push forth an agenda which it literally was (200K civilians in an instant to end a war and topple a regime).
So what do you think?
EDIT: to clarify-
Definition of Terrorism in thread: The Organized use of force against non military targets to pressure a government to further your own agenda.
Topics to think about:
Fighting Terror with terror?
Is terrorism ever Justifyable?
Why are some forms of terrorism more blown up than otheres?
mayceV
it looks to me that it is kinda tough to call something terrorism that saved so many lives.
personally i'm glad the us soldiers did not have to wade elbow deep through the blood of the civillian population.
have you guys not seem the old films of kids and women training with sharp sticks and training to dive under tanks with explosives strapped to them?
lol, at monday morning quarterbacking by people who have no grasp of history.
really who cares but the estimates at the time were one million us servicemen deaths and 5 million japanese deaths would occur during an invasion of the home islands.[QUOTE="mayceV"]
I was pondering and wasn't Hiroshima and Nagasaki terrorism?
Terrorism is the use of terror to intimidate a leadership or people.
Hiroshima was to scare Japan into surrendering. So by dictionary terms it was terrorism.
Other definitions is attacking innocent people to push forth an agenda which it literally was (200K civilians in an instant to end a war and topple a regime).
So what do you think?
EDIT: to clarify-
Definition of Terrorism in thread: The Organized use of force against non military targets to pressure a government to further your own agenda.
Topics to think about:
Fighting Terror with terror?
Is terrorism ever Justifyable?
Why are some forms of terrorism more blown up than otheres?
Riverwolf007
it looks to me that it is kinda tough to call something terrorism that saved so many lives.
personally i'm glad the us soldiers did not have to wade elbow deep through the blood of the civillian population.
have you guys not seem the old films of kids and women training with sharp sticks and training to dive under tanks with explosives strapped to them?
lol, at monday morning quarterbacking by people who have no grasp of history.
You talk about history yet you use no source whatsoever for your claims? :| At least I have provided sources from the time that say that there were several viable options to end the war without much bloodshed so don't pretend you guys have an exlcusive hold of what is the truth in history.[QUOTE="On3ShotOneKill"]
Must.... resist... posting....... long.... response..... (I'll keep it short :P)
The rage that certain people (whose names start with a k, h, and u) regarding history, warfare, and common-effing-sense astounds me. With this "righteous" mentality, I now understand why western countries would never win a war with another nation of equal power that did not have this line of thought (Not trying to justify torture, genocide, etc). A modern day Hitler or Stalin would have a field day and steamroll the Neville Chamberlains in here (If they were leading countries).
War is horrible, but going back to try and change things might make them even worse. Of all the options back then, dropping the nukes were the quickest, most logical and effective way of ending the war. And yes, that includes waiting years to starve millions of people to death or getting millions of civilians and soldiers killed in an invasion.
kuraimen
You, of course, are ignoring the many people who thought differently at the time, both government and army officials, not to mention historians who thought that there were good possibilities to end the war by less atrocious means. Of course your reasoning makes sense ONLY if you ignore that but I'm choosing not to ignore it. And if getting on a high horse or having a "righteous" mentality means questioning killing 200 thousand civilians as being the "right thing" then by all means I surely hope I never get off that high horse.
You know the world is **** up when you are accused of having too high ethical principles when you question the obliteration of innocent people by the thousands.
Since when is killing 200,000 people considered worse than killing half a million in firebombings? Or millions due to genocide and regular warfare? Your "high horse" comes from your hypocritical stance that some how the nuclear weapons were worse than things that killed people more slowly and in greater numbers. I thought you didn't believe in comparing the killing of other human beings, but somehow the bombs were worse than anything else in the war? Is it because the EVIL U.S. used them? 200,000 people unfortunately died, but it was indeed a time of WAR and it was the method that would end the conflict the fastest and with the least amount of people killed.
I am not ignoring anyone, but find it hilarious that YOU are ignoring the people from back then who believed dropping the bombs was the right thing to do because of your bias. FYI Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military supporting cities with Japanese divisions being stationed in one and a naval port being in another. Your "ethics" would lead to the death of millions and a prolonged war. Trying to enforce civility and ethics in a savage and unethical thing such as war can only be done to a cetain extent before you start to become unable to fight a war effectively. This was a TOTAL WAR, and there has been nothing like it since (Thank god).
[QUOTE="kuraimen"]
[QUOTE="On3ShotOneKill"]
Must.... resist... posting....... long.... response..... (I'll keep it short :P)
The rage that certain people (whose names start with a k, h, and u) regarding history, warfare, and common-effing-sense astounds me. With this "righteous" mentality, I now understand why western countries would never win a war with another nation of equal power that did not have this line of thought (Not trying to justify torture, genocide, etc). A modern day Hitler or Stalin would have a field day and steamroll the Neville Chamberlains in here (If they were leading countries).
War is horrible, but going back to try and change things might make them even worse. Of all the options back then, dropping the nukes were the quickest, most logical and effective way of ending the war. And yes, that includes waiting years to starve millions of people to death or getting millions of civilians and soldiers killed in an invasion.
On3ShotOneKill
You, of course, are ignoring the many people who thought differently at the time, both government and army officials, not to mention historians who thought that there were good possibilities to end the war by less atrocious means. Of course your reasoning makes sense ONLY if you ignore that but I'm choosing not to ignore it. And if getting on a high horse or having a "righteous" mentality means questioning killing 200 thousand civilians as being the "right thing" then by all means I surely hope I never get off that high horse.
You know the world is **** up when you are accused of having too high ethical principles when you question the obliteration of innocent people by the thousands.
Since when is killing 200,000 people considered worse than killing half a million in firebombings? Or millions due to genocide and regular warfare? Your "high horse" comes from your hypocritical stance that some how the nuclear weapons were worse than things that killed people more slowly and in greater numbers. I thought you didn't believe in comparing the killing of other human beings, but somehow the bombs were worse than anything else in the war? Is it because the EVIL U.S. used them? 200,000 people unfortunately died, but it was indeed a time of WAR and it was the method that would end the conflict the fastest and with the least amount of people killed.
I am not ignoring anyone, but find it hilarious that YOU are ignoring the people from back then who believed dropping the bombs was the right thing to do because of your bias. FYI Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military supporting cities with Japanese divisions being stationed in one and a naval port being in another. Your "ethics" would lead to the death of millions and a prolonged war. This was a TOTAL WAR, and there has been nothing like it since.
Simple....in his estimation whatever the US does is evil.....even when compared to worse scenarios.[QUOTE="On3ShotOneKill"][QUOTE="kuraimen"]
You, of course, are ignoring the many people who thought differently at the time, both government and army officials, not to mention historians who thought that there were good possibilities to end the war by less atrocious means. Of course your reasoning makes sense ONLY if you ignore that but I'm choosing not to ignore it. And if getting on a high horse or having a "righteous" mentality means questioning killing 200 thousand civilians as being the "right thing" then by all means I surely hope I never get off that high horse.
You know the world is **** up when you are accused of having too high ethical principles when you question the obliteration of innocent people by the thousands.
LJS9502_basic
Since when is killing 200,000 people considered worse than killing half a million in firebombings? Or millions due to genocide and regular warfare? Your "high horse" comes from your hypocritical stance that some how the nuclear weapons were worse than things that killed people more slowly and in greater numbers. I thought you didn't believe in comparing the killing of other human beings, but somehow the bombs were worse than anything else in the war? Is it because the EVIL U.S. used them? 200,000 people unfortunately died, but it was indeed a time of WAR and it was the method that would end the conflict the fastest and with the least amount of people killed.
I am not ignoring anyone, but find it hilarious that YOU are ignoring the people from back then who believed dropping the bombs was the right thing to do because of your bias. FYI Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military supporting cities with Japanese divisions being stationed in one and a naval port being in another. Your "ethics" would lead to the death of millions and a prolonged war. This was a TOTAL WAR, and there has been nothing like it since.
Simple....in his estimation whatever the US does is evil.....even when compared to worse scenarios. Unfortunately, he isn't the only one on this board :( He has NEVER participated in a topic while not criticizing the U.S. from all of the ones I've seen him in. Somehow a 200 year old country is the worst in history.......[QUOTE="kuraimen"]
[QUOTE="On3ShotOneKill"]
Must.... resist... posting....... long.... response..... (I'll keep it short :P)
The rage that certain people (whose names start with a k, h, and u) regarding history, warfare, and common-effing-sense astounds me. With this "righteous" mentality, I now understand why western countries would never win a war with another nation of equal power that did not have this line of thought (Not trying to justify torture, genocide, etc). A modern day Hitler or Stalin would have a field day and steamroll the Neville Chamberlains in here (If they were leading countries).
War is horrible, but going back to try and change things might make them even worse. Of all the options back then, dropping the nukes were the quickest, most logical and effective way of ending the war. And yes, that includes waiting years to starve millions of people to death or getting millions of civilians and soldiers killed in an invasion.
On3ShotOneKill
You, of course, are ignoring the many people who thought differently at the time, both government and army officials, not to mention historians who thought that there were good possibilities to end the war by less atrocious means. Of course your reasoning makes sense ONLY if you ignore that but I'm choosing not to ignore it. And if getting on a high horse or having a "righteous" mentality means questioning killing 200 thousand civilians as being the "right thing" then by all means I surely hope I never get off that high horse.
You know the world is **** up when you are accused of having too high ethical principles when you question the obliteration of innocent people by the thousands.
Since when is killing 200,000 people considered worse than killing half a million in firebombings? Or millions due to genocide and regular warfare? Your "high horse" comes from your hypocritical stance that some how the nuclear weapons were worse than things that killed people more slowly and in greater numbers. I thought you didn't believe in comparing the killing of other human beings, but somehow the bombs were worse than anything else in the war? Is it because the EVIL U.S. used them? 200,000 people unfortunately died, but it was indeed a time of WAR and it was the method that would end the conflict the fastest and with the least amount of people killed.
I am not ignoring anyone, but find it hilarious that YOU are ignoring the people from back then who believed dropping the bombs was the right thing to do because of your bias. FYI Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military supporting cities with Japanese divisions being stationed in one and a naval port being in another. Your "ethics" would lead to the death of millions and a prolonged war. Trying to enforce civility and ethics in a savage and unethical thing such as war can only be done to a cetain extent before you start to become unable to fight a war effectively. This was a TOTAL WAR, and there has been nothing like it since (Thank god).
Who says that I said that is was worse than anything? Please quote me where I said that. My whole point is that saying that it was the best or the right course of action is disgusting for me. I think the people who dropped those bombs back then did it for less than noble reasons. I think they did it to show the world the power they had and to test the weapons. Some of those who were there think that was the case. But don't expect me to think that everybody then thought that it was the only option because that was not the case.[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]really who cares but the estimates at the time were one million us servicemen deaths and 5 million japanese deaths would occur during an invasion of the home islands.[QUOTE="mayceV"]
I was pondering and wasn't Hiroshima and Nagasaki terrorism?
Terrorism is the use of terror to intimidate a leadership or people.
Hiroshima was to scare Japan into surrendering. So by dictionary terms it was terrorism.
Other definitions is attacking innocent people to push forth an agenda which it literally was (200K civilians in an instant to end a war and topple a regime).
So what do you think?
EDIT: to clarify-
Definition of Terrorism in thread: The Organized use of force against non military targets to pressure a government to further your own agenda.
Topics to think about:
Fighting Terror with terror?
Is terrorism ever Justifyable?
Why are some forms of terrorism more blown up than otheres?
kuraimen
it looks to me that it is kinda tough to call something terrorism that saved so many lives.
personally i'm glad the us soldiers did not have to wade elbow deep through the blood of the civillian population.
have you guys not seem the old films of kids and women training with sharp sticks and training to dive under tanks with explosives strapped to them?
lol, at monday morning quarterbacking by people who have no grasp of history.
You talk about history yet you use no source whatsoever for your claims? :| At least I have provided sources from the time that say that there were several viable options to end the war without much bloodshed so don't pretend you guys have an exlcusive hold of what is the truth in history.what's the point when you are going to believe whatever it is you want to believe?as far as your sources go it looked to me like a bunch of people who had never read sun tzus the art of war and had no clue as to how the japanese wage a war.
You talk about history yet you use no source whatsoever for your claims? :| At least I have provided sources from the time that say that there were several viable options to end the war without much bloodshed so don't pretend you guys have an exlcusive hold of what is the truth in history.what's the point when you are going to believe whatever it is you want to believe? The point is that people here act as if they have a exclusive knoweldge of history that makes it unquestionable to judge the event as if it was nothing more than what they say it was and then condescendingly suggest people who think otherwise "have no grasp of history". If you are not aware of the many people who were there and questioned the bombings then you shouldn't be lecturing anyone about history.[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]really who cares but the estimates at the time were one million us servicemen deaths and 5 million japanese deaths would occur during an invasion of the home islands.
it looks to me that it is kinda tough to call something terrorism that saved so many lives.
personally i'm glad the us soldiers did not have to wade elbow deep through the blood of the civillian population.
have you guys not seem the old films of kids and women training with sharp sticks and training to dive under tanks with explosives strapped to them?
lol, at monday morning quarterbacking by people who have no grasp of history.
Riverwolf007
[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]what's the point when you are going to believe whatever it is you want to believe? The point is that people here act as if they have a exclusive knoweldge of history that makes it unquestionable to judge the event as if it was nothing more than what they say it was and then condescendingly suggest people who think otherwise "have no grasp of history". If you are not aware of the many people who were there and questioned the bombings then you shouldn't be lecturing anyone about history.it's just funny to me that there is actual film archive footage of japanese men women and children flinging themselves off cliffs to avoid surrender, training with explosives strapped to their backs, thousands of suicide planes, boats and subs all ready to go and we are supposed to deny what a bloodbath was about to occur when japan was to be invaded.[QUOTE="kuraimen"] You talk about history yet you use no source whatsoever for your claims? :| At least I have provided sources from the time that say that there were several viable options to end the war without much bloodshed so don't pretend you guys have an exlcusive hold of what is the truth in history.kuraimen
You talk about history yet you use no source whatsoever for your claims? :| At least I have provided sources from the time that say that there were several viable options to end the war without much bloodshed so don't pretend you guys have an exlcusive hold of what is the truth in history.what's the point when you are going to believe whatever it is you want to believe?[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]really who cares but the estimates at the time were one million us servicemen deaths and 5 million japanese deaths would occur during an invasion of the home islands.
it looks to me that it is kinda tough to call something terrorism that saved so many lives.
personally i'm glad the us soldiers did not have to wade elbow deep through the blood of the civillian population.
have you guys not seem the old films of kids and women training with sharp sticks and training to dive under tanks with explosives strapped to them?
lol, at monday morning quarterbacking by people who have no grasp of history.
Riverwolf007
as far as your sources go it looked to me like a bunch of people who had never read sun tzus the art of war and had no clue as to how the japanese wage a war.
So you're telling me that these people knew nothing about what was happening and had no knowledge of war? :roll:
William Leahy U.S. Chief of Staff
Dwight Eisenhower United States President
Herbert Hoover United States President
Douglas Macarthur Chief of Staff of the US Army
Joseph Grew US diplomat
John Jay McCloy Asistant Secretary of War
Ralph Bard Asistant Secretary of the Navy
Lewis Strauss Special Asistant Secretary of the Navy
Paul Nitze Vice Chairman, U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey
Albert Einstein
Leo Szilard Conceived the atomic bomb
Ellis Zacharias Deputy Director of the Office of Naval Intelligence General
Carl Spaatz in charge of Air Force opertaion in the Pacific
Brigadier General Carter Clarke The military intelligence officer in charge of preparing intercepted Japanese cables
All of those thought the bombing was unecessary and better alternatives were available.
The point is that people here act as if they have a exclusive knoweldge of history that makes it unquestionable to judge the event as if it was nothing more than what they say it was and then condescendingly suggest people who think otherwise "have no grasp of history". If you are not aware of the many people who were there and questioned the bombings then you shouldn't be lecturing anyone about history.it's just funny to me that there is actual film archive footage of japanese men women and children flinging themselves off cliffs to avoid surrender, training with explosives strapped to their backs, thousands of suicide planes, boats and subs all ready to go and we are supposed to deny what a bloodbath was about to occur when japan was to be invaded. Many of those people thought that not even an invasion would have been necessary. Japan was ready to surrender mostly.[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]what's the point when you are going to believe whatever it is you want to believe?
Riverwolf007
what's the point when you are going to believe whatever it is you want to believe?[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]
[QUOTE="kuraimen"] You talk about history yet you use no source whatsoever for your claims? :| At least I have provided sources from the time that say that there were several viable options to end the war without much bloodshed so don't pretend you guys have an exlcusive hold of what is the truth in history.kuraimen
as far as your sources go it looked to me like a bunch of people who had never read sun tzus the art of war and had no clue as to how the japanese wage a war.
So you're telling me that these people knew nothing about what was happening and had no knowledge of war? :roll:
William Leahy U.S. Chief of Staff
Dwight Eisenhower United States President
Herbert Hoover United States President
Douglas Macarthur Chief of Staff of the US Army
Joseph Grew US diplomat
John Jay McCloy Asistant Secretary of War
Ralph Bard Asistant Secretary of the Navy
Lewis Strauss Special Asistant Secretary of the Navy
Paul Nitze Vice Chairman, U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey
Albert Einstein
Leo Szilard Conceived the atomic bomb
Ellis Zacharias Deputy Director of the Office of Naval Intelligence General
Carl Spaatz in charge of Air Force opertaion in the Pacific
Brigadier General Carter Clarke The military intelligence officer in charge of preparing intercepted Japanese cables
All of those thought the bombing was unecessary and better alternatives were available.
hindsight = 20/20.[QUOTE="kuraimen"]
[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]what's the point when you are going to believe whatever it is you want to believe?
as far as your sources go it looked to me like a bunch of people who had never read sun tzus the art of war and had no clue as to how the japanese wage a war.
Riverwolf007
So you're telling me that these people knew nothing about what was happening and had no knowledge of war? :roll:
William Leahy U.S. Chief of Staff
Dwight Eisenhower United States President
Herbert Hoover United States President
Douglas Macarthur Chief of Staff of the US Army
Joseph Grew US diplomat
John Jay McCloy Asistant Secretary of War
Ralph Bard Asistant Secretary of the Navy
Lewis Strauss Special Asistant Secretary of the Navy
Paul Nitze Vice Chairman, U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey
Albert Einstein
Leo Szilard Conceived the atomic bomb
Ellis Zacharias Deputy Director of the Office of Naval Intelligence General
Carl Spaatz in charge of Air Force opertaion in the Pacific
Brigadier General Carter Clarke The military intelligence officer in charge of preparing intercepted Japanese cables
All of those thought the bombing was unecessary and better alternatives were available.
hindsight = 20/20. Those people were there at the time and they basically were calling the bombing unecessary before it happened :roll:btw, bombing 2 cities with atomics = omg! teh outrage!
burning 70 other cities to the ground and killing 500,000 with newly developed napalm = *crickets chirping*
peoples priorities are funny aren't they?
lol, i got another one.
boo hoo lets all cry for the japanese and how they lost a couple hundred thousand in those cities while not bringing up the 15 to 20 million deaths they caused in china.
[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]hindsight = 20/20. Those people were there at the time and they basically were calling the bombing unecessary before it happened :roll: Hence hindsight being 20/20. We have a better grasp on the situation than they did. We can look at all the variables. They couldn't.[QUOTE="kuraimen"]
So you're telling me that these people knew nothing about what was happening and had no knowledge of war? :roll:
William Leahy U.S. Chief of Staff
Dwight Eisenhower United States President
Herbert Hoover United States President
Douglas Macarthur Chief of Staff of the US Army
Joseph Grew US diplomat
John Jay McCloy Asistant Secretary of War
Ralph Bard Asistant Secretary of the Navy
Lewis Strauss Special Asistant Secretary of the Navy
Paul Nitze Vice Chairman, U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey
Albert Einstein
Leo Szilard Conceived the atomic bomb
Ellis Zacharias Deputy Director of the Office of Naval Intelligence General
Carl Spaatz in charge of Air Force opertaion in the Pacific
Brigadier General Carter Clarke The military intelligence officer in charge of preparing intercepted Japanese cables
All of those thought the bombing was unecessary and better alternatives were available.
kuraimen
[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]hindsight = 20/20.Those people were there at the time and they basically were calling the bombing unecessary before it happened :roll: Hence hindsight being 20/20. We have a better grasp on the situation than they did. We can look at all the variables. They couldn't.Ace6301
So we should just bomb the hell out of everything and ask questions later expecting the best? No thx, I don't want to live in such a world.
lol, i got another one.
boo hoo lets all cry for the japanese and how they lost a couple hundred thousand in those cities while not bringing up the 15 to 20 million deaths they caused in china.
Riverwolf007
Strawman! I never said or implied that anywhere. This is a Hiroshima and Nagasaki thread if you haven't noticed.btw, bombing 2 cities with atomics = omg! teh outrage!
burning 70 other cities to the ground and killing 500,000 with newly developed napalm = *crickets chirping*
peoples priorities are funny aren't they?
Riverwolf007
I've seen him in a couple political/geopolitical related ones and it is always a "cute" remark about evil America and how it ruined the Middle East by itself (Because WWI, WWII and the U.S.S.R had NOTHING to do with it :roll: )On3ShotOneKillAs LJ once said, the past is past. So why does America still supports dictators (or "kings" as your officials so delightfully put it) abroad?
Hence hindsight being 20/20. We have a better grasp on the situation than they did. We can look at all the variables. They couldn't.[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] Those people were there at the time and they basically were calling the bombing unecessary before it happened :roll: kuraimen
So we should just bomb the hell out of everything and ask questions later expecting the best? No thx, I don't want to live in such a world.
Accuse people of making a strawman and then strawman people yourself? Class act.[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="Ace6301"] Hence hindsight being 20/20. We have a better grasp on the situation than they did. We can look at all the variables. They couldn't.Ace6301
So we should just bomb the hell out of everything and ask questions later expecting the best? No thx, I don't want to live in such a world.
Accuse people of making a strawman and then strawman people yourself? Class act. So then why did you bring that up? Are you expecting that people just agree that the japanese bombimgs were the best course of action because of what happened later? What kind of things can you justify using that mentality. Many people justified the recent Iraq and Afghanistan wars with the exact same mentality, that things will work for best in the end while starting a couple of wars that killed thousands of innocnets. What kind of lessons can we expect to learn from history if we start justifying things that way? It is a dangerous mentality.[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="kuraimen"]Accuse people of making a strawman and then strawman people yourself? Class act. So then why did you bring that up? Are you expecting that people just agree that the japanese bombimgs were the best course of action because of what happened later? What kind of things can you justify using that mentality. Many people justified the recent Iraq and Afghanistan wars with the exact same mentality, that things will work for best in the end while starting a couple of wars that killed thousands of innocnets. What kind of lessons can we expect to learn from history if we start justifying things that way? It is a dangerous mentality. No it isn't. No one is suggesting we look forward with that mentality. Looking back on things and viewing the outcomes and deciding which one was the best is fine and normal. In that 100% unique situation it was the outcome that had the best end result. You're so fixed on viewing the world as black and white that you jump on anything that disagrees with your view of the world that's already set in stone rather than challenging your perceptions of the way the world works. Sometimes horrible things have good results. It's a fact of life. They don't always and it's idiotic to fall into thinking what works in one situation could work in another. This isn't a slippery slope. One unique situation cannot be used to justify the actions in another situation. You assume that history should be judged by what those in the past assumed rather than what we know. This isn't a moral discussion. It's a discussion of history. You have nothing to argue that the bombings of Japan were worse than the other outcomes. Your entire argument is centered on what people back then thought. They thought wrong. Their heart was in the right place but they were wrong. I'm a bloody pacifist and I can see this, how can't you.So we should just bomb the hell out of everything and ask questions later expecting the best? No thx, I don't want to live in such a world.
kuraimen
[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]lol, i got another one.
boo hoo lets all cry for the japanese and how they lost a couple hundred thousand in those cities while not bringing up the 15 to 20 million deaths they caused in china.
kuraimen
Strawman! I never said or implied that anywhere. This is a Hiroshima and Nagasaki thread if you haven't noticed.Bartman! what i would like for you to take away from this is that you, me and everyone on this site no matter who they are or where they are from is a part of a government or culture that has participated in war crimes during a conflict and had their government lost their leaders would have been hung as criminals.btw, bombing 2 cities with atomics = omg! teh outrage!
burning 70 other cities to the ground and killing 500,000 with newly developed napalm = *crickets chirping*
peoples priorities are funny aren't they?
Riverwolf007
why is the atomic bombings any sort of big deal in any way?
it's like complaining that one square inch of an elephant is gray. boy, if you don't like that one square inch whatever you do don't look at the rest of it.
Strawman! I never said or implied that anywhere. This is a Hiroshima and Nagasaki thread if you haven't noticed.Bartman! what i would like for you to take away from this is that you, me and everyone on this site no matter who they are or where they are from is a part of a government or culture that has participated in war crimes during a conflict and had their govenment lost their leaders would have been hung as criminals.[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="Riverwolf007"] [QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]
btw, bombing 2 cities with atomics = omg! teh outrage!
burning 70 other cities to the ground and killing 500,000 with newly developed napalm = *crickets chirping*
peoples priorities are funny aren't they?
Riverwolf007
why is the atomic bombings any sort of big deal in any way?
it's like complaining that one square inch of an elephant is gray. boy, if you don't like that one square inch whatever you do don't look at the rest of it.
My ancestors were spanish people who came to this land and slaughtered the native population and destoryed entire cultures. I accept that and will never try to justify such a disgusting thing. Likewise I would never try to justify any despicable act commmited by my government or the people that are supposed to represent me and my culture. I think that is the reason the Japan bombings are so ncontroversial, I never see anyone defending the Holocaust or 9/11 or any terrorist act yet americans are the only ones who I've seen defend such atrocious acts commited by their governemnt so easily. As if we should just accept that they are the good guys who sometimes have to do such things for the good of humanity pffft.Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment