27
   

When I am wrong...I am wrong!

 
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Sat 20 Jul, 2013 01:25 pm
@DoctorGotz,
DoctorGotz wrote:
I feel like I walked into a heated argument among family members.

Awkward.

I guess it will take time to sort out who has the best of this argument.

I don't think I can agree with JTT that Japanese atrocities during World War II were learned from America.
The Japanese have a long history of cruelty that is all their own.
Still, there is something especially cruel about incinerating two cites and hundreds of thousands of civilians.
The IMPORTANT thing was to save American lives,
not to take an interest in Japanese well-being (not before the occupation).

WELCOME to A2K!




David
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 20 Jul, 2013 01:33 pm
@DoctorGotz,
Quote:
I feel like I walked into a heated argument among family members.

Awkward.


get used to it, we are in some ways a lot like a dysfunctional family.

Quote:
I guess it will take time to sort out who has the best of this argument.
Bingo! do your own thinking

Quote:
Still, there is something especially cruel about incinerating two cites and hundreds of thousands of civilians.
we were tired of the war, we were going to win it but those damned Japs were going to stretch it out a couple of more years. so we made a choice.
Arjunakki
 
  4  
Reply Sat 20 Jul, 2013 02:43 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
we were tired of the war, we were going to win it but those damned Japs were going to stretch it out a couple of more years. so we made a choice.


Your post is highly racial and offensive. To the heart of the matter as to why the Americans dropped the A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaka is the realism they wanted to a) test the bomb on live subjects, b) to send a warning to the world do not mess with the US.

To me the reasoning for dropping "Fat Man and Little Boy Bombs" on innocent people is today perplexing. I consider the act of deliberating targeting cities filled with innocent people man's inhumanity to man. That can never be made right until future generations of Americans make up for it in some way.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Jul, 2013 02:46 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Still, there is something especially cruel about incinerating two cites and hundreds of thousands of civilians.
hawkeye10 wrote:
we were tired of the war, we were going to win it but those damned Japs
were going to stretch it out a couple of more years. so we made a choice.
The idea was to save AMERICAN lives, including POWs.

Failure to have done so wud have been TREASON: aid and comfort to the enemy.





David
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Jul, 2013 03:02 pm
@Arjunakki,
Hawkeye wrote:
we were tired of the war, we were going to win it
but those damned Japs were going to stretch it out a couple of more years. so we made a choice.


Arjunakki wrote:
Your post is highly racial [so what??] and offensive.
Nuking u was even MORE offensive; yes ??
Your sneak attack on Pearl Harbor was offensive.



Arjunakki wrote:
To the heart of the matter as to why the Americans dropped the
A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaka is the realism they wanted to
a) test the bomb on live subjects,
b) to send a warning to the world do not mess with the US.
Do u think it worked ?





Arjunakki wrote:
To me the reasoning for dropping "Fat Man and Little Boy Bombs" on innocent people is today perplexing.
Was it as perplexing as the Rape of Nanking in 1937 ?



Arjunakki wrote:
I consider the act of deliberating targeting cities filled with innocent people man's inhumanity to man.
That can never be made right until future generations of Americans make up for it in some way.
Well, we protected u from the commies for a long time; that counts for something.





David
0 Replies
 
Moment-in-Time
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Jul, 2013 03:07 pm
@OmSigDAVID,

Were the Atomic Bombings Necessary?
by David Krieger
July 30, 2012

"On August 14, 1945, Japan surrendered and World War II was over. American policy makers have argued that the atomic bombs were the precipitating cause of the surrender. Historical studies of the Japanese decision, however, reveal that what the Japanese were most concerned with was the Soviet Union’s entry into the war. Japan surrendered with the understanding that the emperor system would be retained. The US agreed to do what Truman had been advised to do before the bombings: it signaled to the Japanese that they would be allowed to retain the emperor. This has left historians to speculate that the war could have ended without either the use of the two atomic weapons on Japanese cities or an Allied invasion of Japan.

"The US Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that, even without the use of the atomic bombs, without the Soviet Union entering the war and without an Allied invasion of Japan, the war would have ended before December 31, 1945 and, in all likelihood, before November 1, 1945. Prior to the use of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the US was destroying Japanese cities at will with conventional bombs. The Japanese were offering virtually no resistance. The US dropped atomic bombs on a nation that had been largely defeated and some of whose leaders were seeking terms of surrender.

"Despite strong evidence that the atomic bombings were not responsible for ending the war with Japan, most Americans, particularly those who lived through World War II, believe that they were. Many World War II era servicemen who were in the Pacific or anticipated being shipped there believed that the bombs saved them from fighting hard battles on the shores of Japan, as had been fought on the islands of Iwo Jima and Okinawa. What they did not take into account was that the Japanese were trying to surrender, that the US had broken the Japanese codes and knew they were trying to surrender, and that, had the US accepted their offer, the war could have ended without the use of the atomic bombs.

"The US dropped atomic bombs on a nation that had been largely defeated ...the bombs were unnecessary."

http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/db_article.php?article_id=381
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sat 20 Jul, 2013 03:15 pm
@Moment-in-Time,
the japs had been told that their surrender had to be unconditional, which they were not willing to do, as proven by the cables. I believe that part of the arguement was that they would not unconditionally surrender until all of the island looked like Dresden, which would have been a slog with lots of them killed, that nuking them might actually save jap lives.
Frank Apisa
 
  3  
Reply Sat 20 Jul, 2013 03:18 pm
What in hell is going on in this forum?

Why is there so much animosity…and desire to turn every thread into a fight or insult fest?

Does everyone here really hate most of the others as much as the posts seem to indicate?
JTT
 
  5  
Reply Sat 20 Jul, 2013 03:21 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Good question, Frank. I forget, who was it that started the thread?
0 Replies
 
glitterbag
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Jul, 2013 08:28 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Ergo, the need for the ignore button. When I get frustrated, I take a break and hit the game threads, or read.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Sun 21 Jul, 2013 03:02 am
@Arjunakki,
It amazes me that people indulge in apologetics for Japan. They had seized Formosa (now called Taiwan) in 1895 and went to war with China. They invaded and annexed Korea in 1910. They invaded Manchuria in 1931, and set up a puppet state. They invaded the rest of China and began the second Sino-Japanese war in 1937. In 1941, as a part of a deliberate plan many months in the planning (since 1940), they invaded Hong Kong, the Philipppines, French Indo-China, the Malay peninsula, Singapore, Borneo and the Dutch East Indies. Purely for military reasons, they attacked the American naval base in Hawaii.

Japan was responsible for the deaths of millions and millions of civilians. They caused billions of dollars of property damage in 1930s and 1940s dollars. They enslaved tens of thousands of Korean and Chinese women for an institutionalized sexual slavery, assembly line rape, calling them comfort girls. It has been a struggle for more than fifty years to get them to even admit that they did what the rest of the world clearly knows they did, never mind extracting apologies from them. What about man's inhumanity to man in those cases?

On Saipan and Iwo Jima Japanese troops fought almost literally to the last bullet, and Japanese civilians had thrown themselves off cliffs (often at the points of Japanese bayonets) rather than surrender to the Americans. This necessarily cost thousands of American lives which surrenders of those islands would have saved. I see no reason to paint the Americans as horrendous villains for taking measures to prevent that on an even greater scale. But what is far more disgusting, is portraying Japan as some hapless, innocent victim. That's the worst case i've ever seen historically of having made one's bed and whining about being obliged to lie in it.
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Jul, 2013 04:13 am
I have found a fascinating document via Google (don't ask!) entitled "Sperm Competition and the Function of Masturbation in Japanese Macaques".

http://edoc.ub.uni-muenchen.de/105/1/Thomsen_Ruth.pdf

0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  6  
Reply Sun 21 Jul, 2013 09:03 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

Does everyone here really hate most of the others as much as the posts seem to indicate?

I just cleared all of my ignore list. Welcome to A2K!
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Jul, 2013 12:09 pm
@hawkeye10,
You're just repeating the same old propaganda, Hawkeye. You can't see thru the gigantic charade that is the US.

I recently posted a bit from an article about US war crimes and terrorism since WWII. The author specifically asked for one example where, of all the countries the US had invaded, the people and the country actually benefited.

Quote:
Despite strong evidence that the atomic bombings were not responsible for ending the war with Japan, most Americans, particularly those who lived through World War II, believe that they were. Many World War II era servicemen who were in the Pacific or anticipated being shipped there believed that the bombs saved them from fighting hard battles on the shores of Japan, as had been fought on the islands of Iwo Jima and Okinawa. What they did not take into account was that the Japanese were trying to surrender, that the US had broken the Japanese codes and knew they were trying to surrender, and that, had the US accepted their offer, the war could have ended without the use of the atomic bombs.

[From MiT's article a few posts back]




0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Jul, 2013 01:02 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
It amazes me that people indulge in apologetics for Japan.


It doesn't amaze me in the least, at all, one little bit, Setanta, that you have completely misread what Arjunakki stated.

Quote:
I see no reason to paint the Americans as horrendous villains for taking measures to prevent that on an even greater scale.


Of course you don't. You make apologies for the US and its war crimes all the time.

You make excuses, phony, lame excuses for the monumental war crime of Vietnam because you took part in it.

But a little perspective is in order.

You fail to mention, though you do know, that the US forced Japan, militarily, to open its doors to trade. If the US had ever had that done to them, they would have forever held a major grudge and attacked whoever presented such an affront to the high and mighty Yanks.

Quote:
They had seized Formosa (now called Taiwan) in 1895 and went to war with China.


How convenient that you forget that the US and European powers were right there taking part in the plunder of China. The US instituted its "Open Door Policy", and it fought alongside the Japanese, aiding them and the other European powers to squash the Chinese fight to evict the foreign devils.

Quote:
They invaded and annexed Korea in 1910. They invaded Manchuria in 1931, and set up a puppet state. They invaded the rest of China and began the second Sino-Japanese war in 1937.


How would this be any different than the US invasions of the Philippines, of numerous Latin American countries? The only difference I can see is that Japan has paid for its crimes and stopped such predatory behavior, while the US has continued their same predatory behavior right up to the present day.

Japan simply followed the lead of the US, the UK and other European powers.

Quote:
Japan was responsible for the deaths of millions and millions of civilians.


The US has been responsible for the deaths of millions and millions of civilians, and again, it continues on a daily basis even as we speak.

Quote:
They caused billions of dollars of property damage in 1930s and 1940s dollars.


Ditto the US right up to today and on ongoing.

Quote:
They enslaved tens of thousands of Korean and Chinese women for an institutionalized sexual slavery, assembly line rape, calling them comfort girls.


"comfort women", but let's not worry about facts, Set. Do you think for a moment that US troops have not done the same thing? When the US was doing their famous scorched earth policies in the Philippines, mowing down civilians left and right, do you think for a moment that US troops were not raping women and children?

Consider the number of countries the US has invaded. In all of them there was no concern about torturing and murdering. But raping, "No, not our boys".

Quote:
In 1941, as a part of a deliberate plan many months in the planning (since 1940), they invaded Hong Kong, the Philipppines, French Indo-China, the Malay peninsula, Singapore, Borneo and the Dutch East Indies.


Many months in planning.

Whereas the US has, and has had for years, current ongoing plans that they continue to rethink about invasions of all manner of countries, even their neighbors.

Now why would a country that was being squeezed by the US and the UK even consider military action?

Quote:
Purely for military reasons, they attacked the American naval base in Hawaii.


Purely for non-military reasons, the US has "Over 200 times we [the USA] have put our forces into other countries to force them to our will".


Quote:
It has been a struggle for more than fifty years to get them to even admit that they did what the rest of the world clearly knows they did, never mind extracting apologies from them. What about man's inhumanity to man in those cases?


Man's inhumanity to man in those cases was adjudicated in the Tokyo Trials. The US's inhumanity to man in all the cases that exist since the US's inception have never been adjudicated.

The US has never come anywhere close to admitting to what they have largely hidden from the world, a series of vicious crimes that long preceded those of Japan and have long continued after Japan was stopped.

Quote:
A People's War?

excerpted from a

People's History of the United States

by Howard Zinn





*****

For the United States to step forward as a defender of helpless countries [World War II] matched its image in American high school history textbooks, but not its record in world affairs. It had instigated a war with Mexico and taken half of that country. It had pretended to help Cuba win freedom from Spain, and then planted itself in Cuba with a military base, investments, and rights of intervention. It had seized Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and fought a brutal war to subjugate the Filipinos. It had "opened" Japan to its trade with gunboats and threats. It had declared an Open Door Policy in China as a means of assuring that the United States would have opportunities equal to other imperial powers in exploiting China. It had sent troops to Peking with other nations, to assert Western supremacy in China, and kept them there for over thirty years.

While demanding an Open Door in China, it had insisted (with the Monroe Doctrine and many military interventions) on a Closed Door in Latin America-that is, closed to everyone but the United States. It had engineered a revolution against Colombia and created the "independent" state of Panama in order to build and control the Canal. It sent five thousand marines to Nicaragua in 1926 to counter a revolution, and kept a force there for seven years. It intervened in the Dominican Republic for the fourth time in 1916 and kept troops there for eight years. It intervened for the second time in Haiti in 1915 and kept troops there for nineteen years. Between 1900 and 1933, the United States intervened in Cuba four times, in Nicaragua twice, in Panama six times, in Guatemala once, in Honduras seven times. By 1924 the finances of half of the twenty Latin American states were being directed to some extent by the United States. By 1935, over half of U.S. steel and cotton exports were being sold in Latin America.

Just before World War I ended, in 1918, an American force of seven thousand landed at Vladivostok as part of an Allied intervention in Russia, and remained until early 19~0. Five thousand more troops were landed at Archangel, another Russian port, also as part of an Allied expeditionary force, and stayed for almost a year. The State Department told Congress: "All these operations were to offset effects of the Bolshevik revolution in Russia."

In short, if the entrance of the United States into World War II was (as so many Americans believed at the time, observing the Nazi invasions) to defend the principle of nonintervention in the affairs of other countries, the nation's record cast doubt on its ability to uphold that principle.

What seemed clear at the time was that the United States was a democracy with certain liberties, while Germany was a dictatorship persecuting its Jewish minority, imprisoning dissidents, whatever their religion, while proclaiming the supremacy of the Nordic "race." How ever, blacks, looking at anti-Semitism in Germany, might not see their own situation in the U.S. as much different. And the United States had done little about Hitler's policies of persecution. Indeed, it had joined England and France in appeasing Hitler throughout the thirties. Roosevelt and his Secretary of State, Cordell Hull, were hesitant to criticize publicly Hitler's anti-Semitic policies; when a resolution was introduced in the Senate in January 1934 asking the Senate and the President to express "surprise and pain" at what the Germans were doing to the Jews, and to ask restoration of Jewish rights, the State Department "caused this resolution to be buried in committee," according to Arnold Offner (American Appeasement).

When Mussolini's Italy invaded Ethiopia in 1935, the U.S. declared an embargo on munitions but let American businesses send oil to Italy in huge quantities, which was essential to Italy's carrying on the war. When a Fascist rebellion took place in Spain in 1936 against the elected socialist-liberal government, the Roosevelt administration sponsored a neutrality act that had the effect of shutting off help to the Spanish government while Hitler and Mussolini gave critical aid to Franco.

Offner says:

"... the United States went beyond even the legal requirements of its neutrality legislation. Had aid been forthcoming from the United States and from England and France, considering that Hitler's position on aid to Franco was not firm at least until November 1936, the Spanish Republicans could well have triumphed. Instead, Germany gained every advantage from the Spanish civil war."

Was this simply poor judgment, an unfortunate error? Or was it the logical policy of a government whose main interest was not stopping Fascism but advancing the imperial interests of the United States? For those interests, in the thirties, an anti-Soviet policy seemed best. Later, when Japan and Germany threatened U.S. world interests, a pro-Soviet, anti-Nazi policy became preferable.

*****

It was not Hitler's attacks on the Jews that brought the United States into World War II, any more than the enslavement of 4 million blacks brought Civil War in 1861. Italy's attack on Ethiopia, Hitler's invasion of Austria, his takeover of Czechoslovakia, his attack on Poland-none of those events caused the United States to enter the war, although Roosevelt did begin to give important aid to England. What brought the United States fully into the war was the Japanese attack on the American naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, on December 7, 1941. Surely it was not the humane concern for Japan's bombing of civilians that led to Roosevelt's outraged call for war-Japan's attack on China in 1937, her bombing of civilians at Nanking, had not provoked the United States to war. It was the Japanese attack on a link in the American Pacific Empire that did it.

*****

Quietly, behind the headlines in battles and bombings, American diplomats and businessmen worked hard to make sure that when the war ended, American economic power would be second to none in the world. United States business would penetrate areas that up to this time had been dominated by England. The Open Door Policy of equal access would be extended from Asia to Europe, meaning that the United States intended to push England aside and move in.

*****

The plight of Jews in German-occupied Europe, which many people thought was at the heart of the war against the Axis, was not a chief concern of Roosevelt. Henry Feingold's research (The Politics of Rescue) shows that, while the Jews were being put in camps and the process of annihilation was beginning that would end in the horrifying extermination of 6 million Jews and millions of non-Jews, Roosevelt failed to take steps that might have saved thousands of lives. He did not see it as a high priority; he left it to the State Department, and in the State Department anti-Semitism and a cold bureaucracy became obstacles to action.

Was the war being fought to establish that Hitler was wrong in his ideas of white Nordic supremacy over "inferior" races? The United States' armed forces were segregated by race. When troops were jammed onto the Queen Mary in early 1945 to go to combat duty in the European theater, the blacks were stowed down in the depths of the ship near the engine room, as far as possible from the fresh air of the deck, in a bizarre reminder of the slave voyages of old.

The Red Cross, with government approval, separated the blood donations of black and white. It was, ironically, a black physician named Charles Drew who developed the blood bank system. He was put in charge of the wartime donations, and then fired when he tried to end blood segregation. Despite the urgent need for wartime labor, blacks were still being discriminated against for jobs. A spokesman for a West Coast aviation plant said: "The Negro will be considered only as janitors and in other similar capacities.... Regardless of their training as aircraft workers, we will not employ them." Roosevelt never did any thing to enforce the orders of the Fair Employment Practices Commission he had set up.

The Fascist nations were notorious in their insistence that the woman's place was in the home. Yet, the war against Fascism, although it utilized women in defense industries where they were desperately needed, took no special steps to change the subordinate role of women. The War Manpower Commission, despite the large numbers of women in war work, kept women off its policymaking bodies.

A report of the Women's Bureau of the Department of Labor, by its director, Mary Anderson, said the War Manpower Commission had "doubts and uneasiness" about "what was then regarded as a developing attitude of militancy or a crusading spirit on the part of women leaders...."
In one of its policies, the United States came close to direct duplication of Fascism. This was in its treatment of the Japanese-Americans living on the West Coast. After the Pearl Harbor attack, anti-Japanese hysteria spread in the government. One Congressman said: "I'm for catching every Japanese in America, Alaska and Hawaii now and putting them in concentration camps.... Damn them! Let's get rid of them!"

Franklin D. Roosevelt did not share this frenzy, but he calmly signed Executive Order 9066, in February 1942, giving the army the power, without warrants or indictments or hearings, to arrest every Japanese-American on the West Coast-110,000 men, women, and children-to take them from their homes, transport them to camps far into the interior, and keep them there under prison conditions. Three-fourths of these were Nisei-children born in the United States of Japanese parents and therefore American citizens. The other fourth- the Issei, born in Japan-were barred by law from becoming citizens. In 1944 the Supreme Court upheld the forced evacuation on the grounds of military necessity. The Japanese remained in those camps for over three years.

...

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/PeoplesWar_PeoplesHx.html

0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  2  
Reply Sun 21 Jul, 2013 01:06 pm
Looks like Frank's rant has provided JTT a forum.
And Frank doesn't even get to see it. Laughing
trying2learn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Jul, 2013 01:11 pm
@Frank Apisa,
For what it is worth, I agree.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Jul, 2013 01:19 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
I see no reason to paint the Americans as horrendous villains for taking measures to prevent that on an even greater scale.


What you mean to say, but lack the honesty, is,

I see no reason to paint the Americans as horrendous villains for making up these phony excuses about taking measures to prevent that on an even greater scale.

Bears repeating because US propaganda is so insidious. It's like trying to eradicate the plague, with 14th century thinking and technology.

Quote:
Were the Atomic Bombings Necessary?
by David Krieger
July 30, 2012

"On August 14, 1945, Japan surrendered and World War II was over. American policy makers have argued that the atomic bombs were the precipitating cause of the surrender. Historical studies of the Japanese decision, however, reveal that what the Japanese were most concerned with was the Soviet Union’s entry into the war. Japan surrendered with the understanding that the emperor system would be retained. The US agreed to do what Truman had been advised to do before the bombings: it signaled to the Japanese that they would be allowed to retain the emperor. This has left historians to speculate that the war could have ended without either the use of the two atomic weapons on Japanese cities or an Allied invasion of Japan.

"The US Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that, even without the use of the atomic bombs, without the Soviet Union entering the war and without an Allied invasion of Japan, the war would have ended before December 31, 1945 and, in all likelihood, before November 1, 1945. Prior to the use of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the US was destroying Japanese cities at will with conventional bombs. The Japanese were offering virtually no resistance. The US dropped atomic bombs on a nation that had been largely defeated and some of whose leaders were seeking terms of surrender.

"Despite strong evidence that the atomic bombings were not responsible for ending the war with Japan, most Americans, particularly those who lived through World War II, believe that they were. Many World War II era servicemen who were in the Pacific or anticipated being shipped there believed that the bombs saved them from fighting hard battles on the shores of Japan, as had been fought on the islands of Iwo Jima and Okinawa. What they did not take into account was that the Japanese were trying to surrender, that the US had broken the Japanese codes and knew they were trying to surrender, and that, had the US accepted their offer, the war could have ended without the use of the atomic bombs.

"The US dropped atomic bombs on a nation that had been largely defeated ...the bombs were unnecessary."

http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/db_article.php?article_id=381
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Jul, 2013 01:20 pm
@neologist,
What did you think of MiT's article, Neo?

Quote:
Were the Atomic Bombings Necessary?
by David Krieger
July 30, 2012
neologist
 
  2  
Reply Sun 21 Jul, 2013 01:49 pm
@JTT,
I espouse no political opinions.
Wars are a symptom of human sickness.
The end of war will accompany the fulfillment of Daniel 2:44
 

Related Topics

Lola at the Coffee House - Question by Lola
JIM NABORS WAS GOY? - Question by farmerman
Adding Tags to Threads - Discussion by Brandon9000
LOST & MISPLACED A2K people. - Discussion by msolga
Merry Andrew - Discussion by edgarblythe
Spot the April Fools gag yet? - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Great New Look to A2K- Applause, Robert! - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Head count - Discussion by CalamityJane
New A2K feature requests. - Discussion by DrewDad
The great migration - Discussion by shewolfnm
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 12/26/2024 at 10:26:43