|
|
|
opus
Skeptic Friend
Canada
50 Posts |
 Posted - 05/28/2002 : 20:49:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
The part about your stand I don't understand is why the method of killing matters. If the dead of Hiroshima were shot with a rifle it would most certainly have been seen as a crime. Why because it was one bomb is it ok?
Not if Japanese soldiers were hiding behind civilians firing on U.S. soldiers who were in the process of storming a location.
------------
Truth above pride and ego; truth above all
That was not the situation. So I do not see how it applies. The public reasons for selecting Hiroshima might have been it's military infastructure. That does not mean those were the actual reasons. Other posts in this form have referenced the fact that they were looking for a target that would show the power of the bomb.
I believe my pint still stands that the method does not make the result ok. At that time any Japanese city could have been bombed at the whim of the American air force. It is not like they were well defended.
|
 |
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2002 : 22:04:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Not if Japanese soldiers were hiding behind civilians firing on U.S. soldiers who were in the process of storming a location.
------------
That was not the situation. So I do not see how it applies. The public reasons for selecting Hiroshima might have been it's military infastructure. That does not mean those were the actual reasons. Other posts in this form have referenced the fact that they were looking for a target that would show the power of the bomb.
Opus if you aren't too busy revising history let me translate the English that the Hiroshima City web site uses into Canadian English.
When they said "After the Manchurian Incident, the Shanghai Incident" by incident they mean unprovoked attack, bloodbath, invasion, enslavement, rape and torture of lesser people the Chinese.
When they say "The evacuation of people that had been organized at the outset of the air raids was prohibited near the end of the war in order to secure personnel necessary for air defense" what that means is that they wanted all the many military bases, the war planning commission and the war effort heavy industry to have a human shield of women and children around them. They didn't want the civilians evacuate to where it was safe. They forbid them to go, even after we warned them to leave.
Hiroshima wasn't tea houses and cherry blossoms, it was rubber and steel plants, it was aircraft manufacture and huge ship yards. It was the largest base of the Imperial air corp. It was a huge Navy yard. It's main industry was war and became so crowded with military that at one point they had to move three Marine bases to the suburbs. These Marines were the ones who mounted the rescue efforts after the bomb was dropped.
The Japanese soldiers, sailors, and airmen were hiding behind civilians and mounting attack after attack.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860
Edited by - slater on 05/28/2002 22:07:29 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2002 : 03:24:04 [Permalink]
|
Slater, this is information that I have never seen presented in this way. Thank you for presenting it. You didn't scream and whine and present information that had nothing to do with anything, in this post anyway. I'm not going to tell you that this is evidence that Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the following raids were in any way justified, I'm just telling you that it's refreshing to see the rare reasonable debate consisting of something other than telling people they're Anti-American so they must be wrong.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2002 : 09:46:02 [Permalink]
|
I tried to find this link for another discussion and ended up sending the wrong one.
Some of the background behind Japan and U.S. enmity and some notes on the bombings:
http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/july95shalom.htm
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn
Edited by - gorgo on 05/29/2002 09:49:00 |
|
|
|
opus
Skeptic Friend
Canada
50 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2002 : 09:52:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Opus if you aren't too busy revising history let me translate the English that the Hiroshima City web site uses into Canadian English.
When they said "After the Manchurian Incident, the Shanghai Incident" by incident they mean unprovoked attack, bloodbath, invasion, enslavement, rape and torture of lesser people the Chinese.
None of this is news to me. I am fully aware of the nastiness of the Japanese during the war. During the Rape of Nangking all women were decreed to be prostitutes and their price was free. To this day the Japanese do not acknowledge any of these crimes and may never do so.This does bring up two thoughts to me.
The first is why weren't more Japanese charged with war crimes as the Germans were? That is after going after the main figures it was all washed away. This only allowed the japanese an easier path to their shamefull state of denial.
Second, is your point that because the Japanese were nasty they just plain deserved to have the bomb dropped on them? I might have forgotten or missed it, but I do not think that was an argument used earlier in this topic. It is interesting 'if' this is what you mean. I am sure it was never used by the U.S. as an arguement to justify using the bomb.
Oh and I very much appreciate your using Canadian English.
quote:
When they say "The evacuation of people that had been organized at the outset of the air raids was prohibited near the end of the war in order to secure personnel necessary for air defense" what that means is that they wanted all the many military bases, the war planning commission and the war effort heavy industry to have a human shield of women and children around them. They didn't want the civilians evacuate to where it was safe. They forbid them to go, even after we warned them to leave.
Hiroshima wasn't tea houses and cherry blossoms, it was rubber and steel plants, it was aircraft manufacture and huge ship yards. It was the largest base of the Imperial air corp. It was a huge Navy yard. It's main industry was war and became so crowded with military that at one point they had to move three Marine bases to the suburbs. These Marines were the ones who mounted the rescue efforts after the bomb was dropped.
I have to admitt a weakness in this area. My main area of interest visa vie WWII has always been the ETO and not the Pacific. But I will do my best.
The shield arguement has no teeth. Why would the Japanese even imagine that hiding behind civilians would be in any way effective? The USAF was hugely successful in flattening any city they chose to. And I do not recall that fact that there were civilians in them stopped them from burning these cities to the ground. More people were killed in Tokyo with conventional bomb and incenduraries. The Japanese military had to be aware of what was being bombed. They were there.
It also sounds to me as if these military bases and support operation were traditionally in this city. It is not possible to claim that because they were there, it is hiding behind civilians. As for not allowing evacuation, please refer to the above.
quote:
The Japanese soldiers, sailors, and airmen were hiding behind civilians and mounting attack after attack.
This does not concure with my understanding of the situation at the time we are discussing. Other than suicide attacks the JIAF was a spent force. If a plane dared to take off and challange the American it was simplely blown out of the sky. The Americans could fly when they wanted, where they wanted and how they wanted. That is not to say that there was no threat from the Japanese, but it was limited. Any preperations that were going on would surely have been directed at defending the home Islands. An impossible task given what they were up against.
Sorry if you feel I have revised history again. For me the issue as I have stated before is simple: The mass killing of civilians is wrong and is a CAH. If not specifically a CAH then certainly a war crime. Whether it be through bullets, gas or bombs. I understand that civilians will die when countries have millitary installations in or near cities and these installations are ligitimatly attacked. This was esoecially true back then when hitting the target was chancey at best.
NB the preview would not work so sorry ifit is not readable.
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2002 : 10:10:48 [Permalink]
|
What bothers me here is, that if the Japanese were not about to surrender at all, why did two amotic bombs change that? If the fanaticism ran "so high"?
It's only "fanaticism" in the Western sense. In Japan it is "honor" --the way of the Samurai.
To fight on without hope has great honor.
To give your life for you god/emperor as a human bomb killing the enemy is a tremendous honor.
To hide in the hills of Guam until the 1970's taking pot-shots at picnickers also has honor.
To stand your ground in a cave with your back to the wall facing a flame thrower IS the way of the Samurai!
But to die without being able to fight back has no honor. The A bomb took away the code of the Samurai and any nobility that went with it and the Emperor caved.
Secondly, that the Japanese governemnt gave no outward signs to its population, that it was trying to reach peace, doesn't prove that it was not the case. It only shows that the Japanese government didn't tell it's population how bad the situation was.
Actually the Japanese government didn't just withhold information, it openly lied to it's own "lower classes" about what was happening.
"Trying to reach peace" with it's "war machine" mostly intact and it's track record in the Pacific? The United States may be many things but suicidal isn't one of them.
Japan always had the option for peace--unconditional surrender--they didn't take it.
Finally: In my second to last post I responded to your remarks and posted questions to you.
I answered your questions in the context of this discussion, in the context of WW II. You appear to me to want them answered out of context to enable you to make charges of 'racism.' But out of context these questions are senseless and I won't dignify them with an answer.
As to your racism remark I feel that I must point out that you are being Euro-centric. Americans are not a race. We are made up of all the races, and combinations there of, that you could possibly imagine. Many of us are Japanese.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2002 : 10:59:09 [Permalink]
|
Second, is your point that because the Japanese were nasty they just plain deserved to have the bomb dropped on them?
Why yes, that is what I am saying. If they had sat at home and made 'nice' with their neighbors then no one should have raised a finger against them. But since they left a trail of death and destruction across the Pacific from Burma to Hawaii then drastic measures were in order.
It is interesting 'if' this is what you mean. I am sure it was never used by the U.S. as an arguement to justify using the bomb.
Being attacked is the argument that the USA used to "justify" the Second World War.
You seem to attribute "the bomb" with magical properties. It doesn't seem to bother you that we killed Japanese in less exotic ways.
The shield arguement has no teeth. Why would the Japanese even imagine that hiding behind civilians would be in any way effective?
Really? The civilians were heading for the hills, as the Hiroshima City web site states, and were ordered to stay put " in order to secure personnel necessary for air defense" What do you think that means? They weren't manning the akak guns with school children.
It also sounds to me as if these military bases and support operation were traditionally in this city. It is not possible to claim that because they were there, it is hiding behind civilians.
Tradition?! The city grew to the size that it did as a support to the many military bases.
If you are going to place prime military targets in the hearts of cities and then start a war it is unrealistic to think that the cities won't be attacked. Note, for instance, Canada. None of it's major cities have military targets.
Sorry if you feel I have revised history again. For me the issue as I have stated before is simple: The mass killing of civilians is wrong and is a CAH.
The civilians were warned to get away from the industrial/military center by the Americans. The civilians wanted to leave. The civilians tried to leave. The Japanese government forced them to stay. It's all on the Hiroshima City web site, once you get through their novel use of language.
The Americans wanted to save a million American lives. The Japanese were willing to place their civilians between their own military and the enemy, instead of the other way around.
Whose is the CAH?
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860
Edited by - slater on 05/29/2002 11:15:10 |
|
|
|
Badger
Skeptic Friend
Canada
257 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2002 : 21:19:09 [Permalink]
|
Omega, the Japanese offer of surrender didn't meet the conditions for its acceptance, ie. unconditional. I guess you could say "who was the US to dictate the terms of surrender?", or "how could such extreme terms be demanded?" but I think Slater's provided a number of examples that support the requirement of unconditional surrender as being a reasonable proposition.
Opus, with regard to "why, because it was one bomb, is it ok?" it's about as ok as the firebombing of Dresden. The city was a target, due to military presence, it would have ended up getting bombed anyway. It's a tragedy that a large number of civilians died, to be sure. I would suppose that this is why leaflets were dropped.
Re: the gold...ya, it was sweet, and so was the womens gold. For a bunch of Hosers, we did pretty well in this winter Olympics.
Re: charging more Japanese with war crimes...Good point. After all, they do have slanty eyes. (I'm being facetious) It's odd that white people would go after other white people so vigorously. I never thought of that before.
If you think it's work, you're doing it wrong. |
|
|
|
Omega
Skeptic Friend
Denmark
164 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2002 : 17:23:07 [Permalink]
|
Slater> Out of curiosity: Why is it that everyone else except you is revising history? What makes you stand out as THE authority on the actual facts?
“Hiroshima wasn't tea houses and cherry blossoms, it was rubber and steel plants, it was aircraft manufacture and huge ship yards.”
This again. So all Japanese were ”tough mother fu—ers”? Not humans? How come you know there wasn't a tea-house in Hiroshima? It's not like there was anything left after the atomic bomb.
No one here has condoned the Japanese government and military invasions before and during WW II. But why is it, that in your mind all Japanese people are monsters? To condone the camps set up during WW II where Japanese Americans were interned?
If Hiroshima was this, now suddenly huge, massive gigantic military base I'd still like to know, why it hadn't been bombed by conventional means prior to August 6th 1945. Why only Truman and you call it ”a military base” when all I find is ”a city with military installations”.
July 25th 1945: President Truman told his diary that he had ordered the bomb dropped on a "purely military" target, so that "military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children."
July 25 1945: The bombing order issued to General Spaatz made no mention of targetting military objectives or sparing civilians. The cities themselves were the targets.
August 9th, 1945: In his radio-speech to the nation President called Hiroshima "a military base."
(From Documents on the Decision to Use Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki http://www.dannen.com/decision/). I don't know if you can see what happened there. Hiroshima became a military base, it wasn't prior to the bomb.
” The Japanese soldiers, sailors, and airmen were hiding behind civilians and mounting attack after attack.”
Prove it, please. It somehow contradicts the idea that Japanese were fanatical suicide-minded people, who'd give their lives for the Emperor. There is no honour in hiding behind civilians.
The Emperor caved, but as I've written just about a giga-zillion times, the Emperor was ready to surrender. I'd like a comment on the entry into Truman's diary for example.
” Actually the Japanese government didn't just withhold information, it openly lied to it's own "lower classes" about what was happening. ”
That is first of all nothing new. A government giving our wrong or misleading information happens to this day. And this, secondly, just goes to show, that my argument, namely that the Japanese government was ready to surrender, could very well be the case.
Japan's warmachine was far from intact. It's navy and airforce was in shambles (please see one of my many previous posts). However. Seeing as you think the Japanese army hadn't suffered any substantial losses that couldn't be replenished, despite fire-bombing of for example Tokya and Nagasaki and other cities, i can see where you're coming from.
” answered your questions in the context of this discussion, in the context of WW II.”
No, you haven't.
”You appear to me to want them answered out of context to enable you to make charges of 'racism.' But out of context these questions are senseless and I won't dignify them with an answer.”
This is an exceedingly loop-sided reply to say the least. But if you can't asnwer them, so be it.
”As to your racism remark I feel that I must point out that you are being Euro-centric. Americans are not a race. We are made up of all the races, and combinations there of, that you could possibly imagine. Many of us are Japanese.”
I'm aware of that, Slater. Just as you're probably aware that Japanese Americans were not treated as Americans during WW II, and segregation were still widespread in the USA.
Therefore the question is absolutely not Eurocentric in origin and it is still un-answered.
You also think that commiting warcrimes justify large-scale mass-destruction? That the civilians in Hiroshima deserved the bomb, because of the |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2002 : 19:25:05 [Permalink]
|
Why is it that everyone else except you is revising history?
I wasn't aware that two people were everyone. I have no idea why you are doing it.
So all Japanese were "tough mother fu—ers"? Not humans?
Again with the "race card"?!
But why is it, that in your mind all Japanese people are monsters? To condone the camps set up during WW II where Japanese Americans were interned?
This is a strange tactic. Don't all of these straw-men itch?
Here let me try the same thing…Why are you supporting the Axis, you must be a Nazi!! You think you are a member of the master race!!
AAAhhhchhooo!!! Sorry… hay fever. All of this straw makes me sneeze.
If Hiroshima was this, now suddenly huge, massive gigantic military base I'd still like to know, why it hadn't been bombed by conventional means prior to August 6th 1945.
Suddenly? It had been a military installation since the Russian war.
Why only Truman and you call it "a military base" when all I find is "a city with military installations".
I didn't call it "a " military base, in fact I ticked off the different types of bases that were there.
July 25th 1945: President Truman told his diary that he had ordered the bomb dropped on a "purely military" target, so that "military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children."
We did what we could to get the civilians out of the way.
August 9th, 1945: In his radio-speech to the nation President called Hiroshima "a military base."
He should have said numerous military bases.
Hiroshima became a military base, it wasn't prior to the bomb.
That will be news to the City govt. of Hiroshima. You had better E-mail them so that they can change the city history section of their web site.
The Japanese soldiers, sailors, and airmen were hiding behind civilians and mounting attack after attack."
Prove it, please.
Already did.
It somehow contradicts the idea that Japanese were fanatical suicide-minded people, who'd give their lives for the Emperor. There is no honour in hiding behind civilians.
You are mistaking European Chivalry with the Japanese concept of Honor it's an entirely different ethic. These were commoners and of little value.
The Emperor caved, but as I've written just about a giga-zillion times, the Emperor was ready to surrender.
Saying it a giga-zillion may help you believe it--but it doesn't make it a fact. If he was intending to surrender anyway why not after Okinawa? Or after the fire bombing of Tokyo? Or after the first Atomic bomb? Even I am not that bad a procrastinator that it takes the destruction of three cities to get me off my ass to do something I already intended to do.
Seeing as you think the Japanese army hadn't suffered any substantial losses that couldn't be replenished, despite fire-bombing of for example Tokya and Nagasaki and other cities, i can see where you're coming from.
And seeing you sympathies for Imperial Japan I can see where you are coming from.
Many of us are Japanese."
I'm aware of that, Slater. Just as you're probably aware that Japanese Americans were not treated as Americans during WW II, and segregation were still widespread in the USA.
I see, you flip back and forth from 2002 to 1945 at will. Context/ out of context, it's all the same to you. Just so long as you can call people racists.
Your moral high ground is a fantasy. You're saying that we shouldn't have fought with the Japanese because they are Japanese and we are lily white. So we are racists because they attacked us and we fought back. Maybe it's okay that we won the Second World War but we shouldn't have hurt anyone while we were doing it.
That the civilians in Hiroshima deserved the bomb, because of the crime committed by the Japanese government and military??
The CRIME that was committed by the Japanese government and military was the forcing the civilians t |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2002 : 19:48:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I'm aware of that, Slater. Just as you're probably aware that Japanese Americans were not treated as Americans during WW II, and segregation were still widespread in the USA.
I see, you flip back and forth from 2002 to 1945 at will. Context/ out of context, it's all the same to you. Just so long as you can call people racists.
Your moral high ground is a fantasy. You're saying that we shouldn't have fought with the Japanese because they are Japanese and we are lily white. So we are racists because they attacked us and we fought back. Maybe it's okay that we won the Second World War but we shouldn't have hurt anyone while we were doing it.
If anyone was wondering where I picked up this anti-American sentiment, this is an example. This is not just criticizing a policy. This is doing everything possible to characterize Americans as bad people in 1945 and just as bad now. Official documents are cast aside in favor of anti-war propaganda. I checked out that Dannen site and couldn't help but notice that most of the "evidence" there was based upon interpretation of statistics like the 6-1 ratio even though that ratio indicates a large number of military personnel. A very large number. The site also delighted in repeating that quote by Truman regardless of the fact that he was right even if he didn't phrase it correctly. I feel terrible that not agreeing with you makes me unskeptical. You come here fully confifent that you have all the facts and are completely correct yet you haven't looked at your data very closely.
You have also assumed that the Emperor would have surrendered despite so much evidence to the contrary. The most telling fact here is that there was no surrender after the first bomb was sropped. It's right there in front of you but you seem to keep missing it. There's also the fact that, as the US advanced one island at a time, the Japanese fought damn near to the last man each and every time. Surely this was in the minds of those running the war. I would have tossed that around in my head a few times and considered the lives of soldiers. You have also tried to make some bizarre case that the US should have been as concerned about the enemy as it was for it's own people. I have no idea where such an idea comes from but no general except an insane one would ever think that way. No one would. Ever.
Don't expect everyone to yield to your superior thinking and grasp of the facts.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
opus
Skeptic Friend
Canada
50 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2002 : 21:03:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Second, is your point that because the Japanese were nasty they just plain deserved to have the bomb dropped on them?
Why yes, that is what I am saying. If they had sat at home and made 'nice' with their neighbors then no one should have raised a finger against them. But since they left a trail of death and destruction across the Pacific from Burma to Hawaii then drastic measures were in order.
I feel that is confusing fighting a war against the perpetrator and targetting civilains during that war. The latter is a crime. quote:
It is interesting 'if' this is what you mean. I am sure it was never used by the U.S. as an arguement to justify using the bomb.
Being attacked is the argument that the USA used to "justify" the Second World War.
You seem to attribute "the bomb" with magical properties. It doesn't seem to bother you that we killed Japanese in less exotic ways.
Unfair commentary, I have very clearly stated several times that the atomic bomb and conventional bombs used intentionally to kill civilians is a crime. It is tactic the US no longer uses and for good reasons too. One it is morally repugnant , two it does not work. Soldiers die in battle. As much as I do not like war I agree that the U.S. going to war with Japan was the morally right thing to do. That being said, it does not make every action taken by the U.S. during the war morally right.quote:
The shield arguement has no teeth. Why would the Japanese even imagine that hiding behind civilians would be in any way effective?
Really? The civilians were heading for the hills, as the Hiroshima City web site states, and were ordered to stay put " in order to secure personnel necessary for air defense" What do you think that means? They weren't manning the akak guns with school children.
It also sounds to me as if these military bases and support operation were traditionally in this city. It is not possible to claim that because they were there, it is hiding behind civilians.
Tradition?! The city grew to the size that it did as a support to the many military bases.
If you are going to place prime military targets in the hearts of cities and then start a war it is unrealistic to think that the cities won't be attacked. Note, for instance, Canada. None of it's major cities have military targets.
Not having miltary bases and instalations in cities is a North American luxury. First and formost there is lots of land here. Second, even if older nations, Europe for example are now deomocratic it was not always the case and that has left a tradition of urban military instalations. That is less so now, but was more so back in the 30's and 40's.
The shield argument does not have teeth. I say again under what context could the japanese expect the Americans not to bomb just because there were civilians nearby. Moving POW's in that, I can see a context for your claim. quote:
Sorry if you feel I have revised history again. For me the issue as I have stated before is simple: The mass killing of civilians is wrong and is a CAH.
The civilians were warned to get away from the industrial/military center by the Americans. The civilians wanted to leave. The civilians tried to leave. The Japanese government forced them to stay. It's all on the Hiroshima City web site, once you get through their novel use of language.
The Americans wanted to save a million American lives. The Japanese were willing to place their civilians between their own military and the enemy, instead of the other way around.
Whose is the CAH?
Are you able to detail this warning. A web sight to go to? There was no way that the Americans would anounce beforehand they were going to drop a big ass bomb on Hiroshima. First, what if it did not work, second what would be the point there was no context to place such a warning in and it could not have been believed. I might buy it for the second bomb. You keep trying to make the Japanese look bad. hey I know they were bad. To quote my mom, "two wrongs do not make a right."quote:
Hey Atomic glad to have you back. Maybe I am thick but I still do not see how that quote is anti American. What happened to the Japanese in the U.S and Canada for that matter, is well known. Maybe you could write it in Candian english and type slowly cause I do not seem to swift on this point.
no time to proof read, not that it helps much so sorry for the spiling.
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2002 : 03:33:35 [Permalink]
|
Another reality basher. I think it has been shown that the dead in Hiroshima were mostly civilian. I think it's been shown that Hiroshima had military bases, which were not the main target of the bomb. I think it's been shown that Japan was ready to surrender, and the U.S. knew it, but didn't accept the surrender because FDR probably thought that would make him look soft on the "Japs" and wanted to show the Russians what the U.S. had and that they weren't afraid to use it.
Again, this is not to sit in judgment of another age. The point is not to bash the U.S. for no good reason, but to attempt to get U.S. leaders to respect life and liberty and freedom and law.
quote:
If anyone was wondering where I picked up this anti-American sentiment,
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2002 : 04:08:07 [Permalink]
|
Wouldn't be so quick to say that. There are those that would argue otherwise.
quote:
It is tactic the US no longer uses
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2002 : 06:00:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I think it's been shown that Hiroshima had military bases, which were not the main target of the bomb.
No, it hasn't been shown this. What has been shown (using the Hiroshima city government's own web site!!!) is that Hiroshima had been a huge military complex and staging ground for their war effort. Just because Omega doesn't know why we didn't bomb them before August 6, 1945 doesn't make this untrue.
quote:
I think it's been shown that Japan was ready to surrender
No, it has not! My goodness. The terms were unconditional surrender. The Japanese were never ready to unconditionally surrender until after the second bomb was dropped.
quote:
and the U.S. knew it, but didn't accept the surrender because FDR probably thought that would make him look soft on the "Japs" and wanted to show the Russians what the U.S. had and that they weren't afraid to use it.
If this speculation doesn't show an anti-US (or at least anti-US-Leader) bias, I don't know what would.
------------
fortiter in re, suaviter in modo
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 05/31/2002 06:02:39 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
