19
   

Was it a war crime when US nuked Hiroshima & Nagasaki?

 
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2009 03:40 pm
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:

David, and "nigger" is an anglicization of the Spanish "negro",
which as you are no doubt aware means "black". Only a color, right?
Yet it is still offensive. Use it at your peril around someone who
is an African-American. Tell them it's only a synonym for "black"
and see how far that gets you. If you get your ass stomped it
might perhaps be an object lesson for you that language is a
shared action, it has a social context, particularly insults.
Your "logic" should tell you that, unless you really like being
considered a total asshole, you consider that context before
you misuse a word, and before you gratuitously keep using a word
that people have told you, and given you evidence,
is insulting. Words do not connote only what you unilaterally
decide they do. (And, incidentally, "bonehead" means a head of
solid bone instead of "brain and bone". It does seem applicable)

I reject your allegation of my having been given "evidence" up to,
but not including, this quoted n exhibited post.

I post in candor n sincerity; to do otherwise is void of purpose, as I see it.

Truth n fairness move me to acknowledge the merit of your argument in this post.
I had not thought of it that way. I challenged u, expecting u to fail,
but u met my challenge successfully with your analogy.

I 've not had much occasion to analyse the historical derivation
of the word "nigger." Obviously, u r right about the color translation.
In retrospect, I surmise that the offensive quality of that name
probably resulted from the unlimited contempt in which the blacks
were held in the 1800s and possibly in the 1700s; maybe the 1600s,
not much better in the first half of the 1900s.

Tho the Japanese were certainly hated and bitterly resented
for the sneak attack, I am not of the opinion that thay were held in contempt.
Indeed, their personal bravery in combat was much respected.
Some will disagree.

For my part, I have borne them no ill will.
Neither I nor my friends suffered directly at their hands.
I don 't discriminate against them, if thay can speak English clearly.

Rather unexpectedly, u have given me pause to re-consider
use of that abbreviation. I had deemed it no worse than
someone calling me "Dave" instead of David. 60 years ago,
my mother called me "Davy Boy" but I did not take offense.

Nice job, Jack.





David
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2009 03:45 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
You deemed wrong.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2009 03:52 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

You deemed wrong.

Have u anything to add to Jack 's analysis ?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2009 03:58 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
No.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2009 04:08 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

No.

We exhausted the subject.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2009 04:10 pm
@High Seas,
Not to put too fine a point on it . . . bullshit. He routinely says things calculated to offend other posters here, and then does this pathetic innocence act.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2009 05:09 pm
@High Seas,
High Seas wrote:
oralloy wrote:
High Seas wrote:
PS Japan, having accepted the informal assurances provided on the status of the emperor, sent word (of course in Japanese) to the Secretary of State which stopped just short of "unconditional surrender"; Truman decided it was good enough, and said so in the formal declaration of his acceptance of the surrender:


The "assurances" we gave Japan was that MacArthur would have the power to depose the Emperor whenever he felt like it.
..............................................................
High Seas wrote:
Truman decided to take it that way - of course the only right thing to do - and that's why he had to refer to that Potsdam declaration; but that's not what the Japanese text said, precisely, though verbatim translations of nuances vary considerably.


Japan told Truman that they accepted all our terms, including the fact that MacArthur would be free to depose the Emperor at will.

It seems reasonable enough to consider it an acceptance of the Potsdam Proclamation.


On the Potsdam declaration, we are agreed. On the informal assurances, you somehow fail to grasp the meaning of "informal", or that by definition the term wouldn't be included in any written guarantee.


I get "informal". That is why I initially told you there were no such discussions.

But when you gave a link that referred to the notes that the US and Japan started exchanging through Switzerland and Sweden, I figured that must be what you were talking about, even though I personally would never consider that exchange informal.


Regardless of what qualifies as "informal", there were no pre-surrender communications other than those notes.

That exchange of notes stated that MacArthur would have control over whether or not the Emperor would continue to rule.

The surrender document also stated that MacArthur would have control over whether or not the Emperor would continue to rule.

And in any case, the exchange of notes did not commence until after *both* A-bombs had been dropped.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2009 05:20 pm
@High Seas,
High Seas wrote:
There is a question whether nuclear weapons would have been dropped on Germans, or even Russians, by people who looked just like them; the Japanese looked different.


The US engaged in area bombing in central Berlin. I think that is a fair indication that we would have been willing to nuke at least central Berlin.


As for the relative brutality against Japan vs brutality against Germany, that doesn't have to be necessarily due to skin color. Japan did Pearl Harbor, was doing horrific things to our POWs, and was fighting to the death instead of surrendering when we beat them.

Germany didn't do Pearl Harbor, and while they committed some horrific crimes, they were not systematically abusing our POWs (at least to my knowledge -- I haven't done an in-depth study of that), and they were typically willing to surrender when we had them in a hopeless situation.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2009 05:33 pm
@oralloy,
The carpet bombing against Berlin was brutal no matter how one looks at it. That we turned around and started doing airlifts to Berlin to feed the masses also should speak to America's "fair play." I'm not aware of any other country that has ever done the same thing.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2009 05:34 pm
The firestorms we started Dresden
were very brutal; were thay distinct in principle from our later nuclear attacks on Japan ?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2009 06:04 pm
@cicerone imposter,
From the BBC:

Quote:


Germany 1945

On 2 May 1945, after one of the most intense battles in human history, the guns at last stopped firing amongst the ruins of Berlin. According to Soviet veterans, the silence that followed the fighting was literally deafening. Less than four years after his attack on the Soviet Union, Hitler's self-proclaimed thousand-year Reich had ceased to exist. The German Führer himself was dead.

Europe would never be the same again. Despite years of Cold War tension, the continent would remain free of war for decades to come, unprecedented in European history. Crucially, by the time that Germany re-emerged as a single and united nation in 1990, the megalomania that had brought death and destruction to the continent in the first half of the century had been well and truly purged.

But the human cost of the battle for Berlin had been enormous. Millions of shells were fired into a city that was already devastated after two years of relentless bombing raids by British and American warplanes. Nearly a quarter of a million people died during the last three weeks of World War Two, almost as many as the United States lost during the entire war.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2009 06:58 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

The firestorms we started Dresden
were very brutal; were thay distinct in principle from our later nuclear attacks on Japan ?


The UK started the firestorm at Dresden.

But in terms of brutality, I guess there wasn't much difference.
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Apr, 2009 08:52 am
@Setanta,
Possibly you are correct, though I don't see how you can determine someone else's "intent", especially since you don't seem to have met the person. As I said, I have in fact met him, and it is my considered opinion that he believes every word he writes - nor can I imagine any reason why he would deliberately seek to deceive the readers. Since I'm no telepath either, we can leave it at that.
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Apr, 2009 09:00 am
@oralloy,
Oralloy - from contemporaneous sources you will see that informal talks were held between envoys of the Imperial Court of Japan and officials in Switzerland, Sweden, even Russia, BEFORE Potsdam - admittedly at low levels. When Japanese officials tried to meet higher-level Russians (with whom they were not at war at the time, as you know) they were allowed to arrive and then contemptuously told that the Russians had already left for Potsdam. The report of the returning delegation to Tokyo minutely describes the loss of face at this treatment - and that record, as well as many others, have been preserved by all participants. Secretary Stimson mentions it specifically in his diary - and he, unlike others in that administration, was extremely uneasy at dropping these terrible new weapons on what he called "defenseless women and children" in Japan.
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Apr, 2009 09:08 am
@oralloy,
recent studies by German experts has debunked the 500,000 casualties reported at Dresden...20,000 to a maximum of 25.000....still a heavy toll but certainly not in the same category as the A-bombing

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/onthefrontline/3123512/Dresden-bombing-death-toll-lower-than-thought.html
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Tue 28 Apr, 2009 09:37 am
@High Seas,
One doesn't have to be able to read minds to see him repeatedly saying things to people which he knows offend them because he has been told so, just as he has done in this thread. I suppose we are to believe that because you met him, your conclusions about his character and intent are infallible.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Tue 28 Apr, 2009 12:12 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

The firestorms we started Dresden
were very brutal; were thay distinct in principle from our later nuclear attacks on Japan ?


The UK started the firestorm at Dresden.

But in terms of brutality, I guess there wasn't much difference.

When I said "we" I meant the guys on our side of the war.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Tue 28 Apr, 2009 12:16 pm
@panzade,
panzade wrote:

recent studies by German experts has debunked the 500,000 casualties reported at Dresden...20,000 to a maximum of 25.000....still a heavy toll but certainly not in the same category as the A-bombing

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/onthefrontline/3123512/Dresden-bombing-death-toll-lower-than-thought.html

I 've never put this to an actual test,
but I have a hunch that being in a firestorm probably hurts
about as much as getting nuked.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Tue 28 Apr, 2009 12:27 pm
@High Seas,
High Seas wrote:

Oralloy - from contemporaneous sources you will see that informal talks were held between envoys of the Imperial Court of Japan and officials in Switzerland, Sweden, even Russia, BEFORE Potsdam - admittedly at low levels. When Japanese officials tried to meet higher-level Russians (with whom they were not at war at the time, as you know) they were allowed to arrive and then contemptuously told that the Russians had already left for Potsdam. The report of the returning delegation to Tokyo minutely describes the loss of face at this treatment - and that record, as well as many others, have been preserved by all participants.




Secretary Stimson mentions it specifically in his diary - and he,
unlike others in that administration, was extremely uneasy
at dropping these terrible new weapons on what he called "defenseless women and children" in Japan.

I wonder whether Stimson woud have preferred
to exchange the well being of the Japanese
for American casualties, including the bereaved back in America.
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Apr, 2009 01:14 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
no test needed...just a note concerning the topic:war crimes
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 08:26:15