22
   

The moral differences between the holocaust and bombing Japan

 
 
reasoning logic
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 11 Aug, 2013 04:15 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
Japan invaded China on July 7, 1937.


OH OK so it started by a war that was being fought by Japan and its neighbors and then everyone wanted a piece of the action.
Setanta
 
  6  
Reply Sun 11 Aug, 2013 04:18 pm
@reasoning logic,
Yeah, you're an idiot. You haven't been paying attention, have yo?. On December 8, 1941, the Empire of Japan attacked the United States in Hawaii and United States troops in the Philippines. They invaded Hong Kong. On succeeding days, they invaded the Malay Peninsula, with Singapore as their ultimate goal; and they attacked Borneo and the Netherlands East Indies. If "everyone else wanted a piece of the action," it's because Japan forced it on them.

Moron.
Ticomaya
 
  3  
Reply Sun 11 Aug, 2013 04:22 pm
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:
In the spirit of intellectual honesty, this thread should have some credence given to the fact that not everyone believes the Nazis were bad people.

No, "credence" does not need to be given to that belief. I mean, not everyone believes laws should be followed (I'm referring to malum in se laws). These people are often referred to as sociopaths.

I fail to see how recognizing that contrary opinions exist furthers this thread. Of course they do. This is not a new development.

When I first joined this forum about 9 years ago, many threads were devoted to the topic of islamic terrorism. I am not a fan. It was pointed out to me that many people hold a contrary opinion from mine, and do not view these folks as terrorists, but merely "patriots," or some such euphemism. Very well, then. Terrorist sympathizers or apologists will argue for the terrorists. Nazi sympathizers or apologists are going to believe in the merits of the Nazis.

Not everyone's moral compass points in the right direction.
reasoning logic
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 11 Aug, 2013 04:30 pm
@Setanta,
Japan was becoming over populated and wanted to stretch it's wings kind of the way the US has done and they did not want the US to get in their way of building new Jewish I mean Japanese settlements.
Setanta
 
  5  
Reply Sun 11 Aug, 2013 04:36 pm
@reasoning logic,
Was that pathetic display what passes for humor at your house? It certainly bears no resemblance to history.
reasoning logic
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 11 Aug, 2013 04:39 pm
@Setanta,
You do not think that Japan was interested in more territory? I thought all apes wanted more territory.
Setanta
 
  5  
Reply Sun 11 Aug, 2013 04:42 pm
@reasoning logic,
Whenever you use the verb "to think," i know i am about to read some idiocy.
reasoning logic
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 11 Aug, 2013 04:48 pm
@Setanta,
You would prefer that I was an absolutist like yourself?

I think that the big problem was that Japan wanted to be like us.

A TRIBUTE FOR THE JAPANESE MILITARY: A BRIEF EXPLANATION ON WHY THE JAPANESE ATTACKED PEARL HARBOR

miguelito21
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Aug, 2013 05:06 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
So, in fact, you cannot make any authoritative statements about public opinion, other than admitting that a very small segment of commentators found the bombing unjustifiable.


Sure, but can you please explain how that has anything to do with my original comment?

You are trying to get me to comment on public opinion, for whatever reason. I have no idea what this has to do with my contentions, i.e. that (a) other explanations for the dropping of the atomic bomb exist other than what I referred to as the "official version", (b) these differing explanations are not the product of "blithering idiots", and (c) they are not a recent development.

I then presented in a summarized way the arguments put forth by the proponents of the "revisionist version".

Why you keep fixating on public opinion is beyond my understanding.


Setanta wrote:
As for your "Truman's own writings," that was exactly my point. Messer just says this, he doesn't allude any official correspondence, any memoranda, any private correspondence, nor any personal journal of Truman.


Yes, he does. Did you read the articles I referenced? It's there.
Ticomaya
 
  6  
Reply Sun 11 Aug, 2013 05:08 pm
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic wrote:
A TRIBUTE FOR THE JAPANESE MILITARY: A BRIEF EXPLANATION ON WHY THE JAPANESE ATTACKED PEARL HARBOR

I had 5 minutes to waste as I smoke a cigar on my balcony, so I thought I'd watch that video you posted. I'll remember to not make that mistake twice.

What did you hope to gain by posting that video? What was the point? It was inane. The creator of that video asks the viewer to please go to his blog to "contribute." In doing so, his "home page" shows his clear adoration for Adolph Hitler (as if one could not have guessed as much from the title of his blog: thirdreich88.blogspot)

reasoning logic
 
  0  
Reply Sun 11 Aug, 2013 05:10 pm
@Ticomaya,
Quote:
What did you hope to gain by posting that video? What was the point? It was inane. The creator of that video asks the viewer to please go to his blog to "contribute."


Let me guess you donated? Shocked
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Sun 11 Aug, 2013 05:16 pm
@miguelito21,
I am "fixating" on public opinion because you brought it up.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  6  
Reply Sun 11 Aug, 2013 05:22 pm
By the way, i am not peddling some "official version." In my first post, i made it clear why i was saying that the bombs were dropped. The Japanese would not surrender. When they had lost every major battle and all the campaigns, when their navy was destroyed, when their air power was destroyed, when their homeland was being bombed with impunity, they would not surrender. That's why i say that only a blithering idiot would not understand why the bombs were used. That Truman may have other strong motivations does not alter that the bombs were dropped to end the war. They ended the war. Havering about other motives doesn't change that.
neologist
 
  2  
Reply Sun 11 Aug, 2013 05:35 pm
I'll say this, RL. You have endurance. Mr. Green
0 Replies
 
miguelito21
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Aug, 2013 06:02 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
I am "fixating" on public opinion because you brought it up.

Where? There is no reference to it in my original post.

In your reply to that post you wrote: "By the way, i wonder what Miguel alleges was the reaction of world public opinion in 1945."

You brought it up, for reasons I still don't understand. If you could offer an explanation, that'd be great.


Setanta wrote:
By the way, i am not peddling some "official version."

"Echoing" may be a better word. In any case, it's not meant in a negative way.


Setanta wrote:
The Japanese would not surrender.

The Japanese would not surrender unconditionally, i.e. risk losing the institution of the Emperor.
And they did not, even after the two atomic bombs.


Martin Zuberi in Strategic Analysis (2001)
Stalin's armies were racing across Manchuria; there was no time to lose. Truman asked Byrnes to draft a reply to the Japanese surrender offer. The carefully drafted reply contained the sentence: "From the moment of surrender the authority of the Emperor and the Japanese Government to rule the state shall be subject to the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers who will take such steps as he deems proper to effectuate the surrender terms." This assurance implied the retention of the emperor. Through deliberate ambiguity, Japan's conditional surrender was being accepted; but, at the same time, the fiction of unconditional surrender could be maintained.
[...]
The only substantive change was in the American position. Thus, after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the United States agreed to the continuation of the imperial dynasty. Hanson Baldwin rightly pointed out, "We demanded unconditional surrender, then dropped the bomb and accepted conditional surrender."



Setanta wrote:
That Truman may have other strong motivations does not alter that the bombs were dropped to end the war.

Again, that has not been disputed. This is not what the disagreement is about.


Setanta wrote:
They ended the war.

That, however, is disputed.

From the same source (the references are at the end of the article):

Since the surrender occurred shortly after the atomic bombings, a myth developed that the bomb saved American lives. Modification of the terms of surrender, guaranteeing the future of the imperial dynasty, would have terminated the war much earlier.
[...]
The main factor triggering the timing of the offer was the Soviet declaration of war because it dispelled the illusion of Soviet mediation.
[...]
The British assessment as well was that "the Russian declaration of war was the decisive factor in bringing Japan to accept the Potsdam declaration."
[...]
The atomic bombs killed one-seventh as many Japanese as the incendiary bombing. "Since Tokyo was not directly affected by the (atomic) bombing", Army Vice-Chief of Staff Torashiro Kawabe later pointed out, "the full force of the shock was not felt."
In comparison, the Soviet entry into the war was a much greater shock. Chief of Staff Admiral Toyoda confessed after the war that the Russian attack rather than the atomic bombs hastened the surrender.
[...]
There was an important domestic factor as well impinging on the Japanese decision.
As early as February 1943, Kidó had a long conversation with Prince Konoye who "repeatedly spoke of the necessity of terminating the conflict as soon as possible lest unsettled internal conditions lead to an intensification of Communist activity within Japan."
The stark choice, in his view, was between early cessation of hostilities or ultimate victory of Communism. Soviet intervention threatened the survival of the imperial institution. Hirohito ordered his troops to stop fighting because its prolongation "may eventually result in the loss of the very foundation on which our Empire exists."
peter jeffrey cobb
 
  2  
Reply Sun 11 Aug, 2013 06:49 pm
@reasoning logic,
I want to make sure that I understood the question. Is the question " what is the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral differences between http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=pictures+of+the+holocaust&qpvt=pictures+of+the+holocaust&FORM=IGRE and http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=pictures+of+the+victims+of+the+atomic+bomb&qpvt=pictures+of+the+victims+of+the+atomic+bomb&FORM=IGRE ?
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sun 11 Aug, 2013 08:37 pm
@Setanta,
Of course you're peddling the official version, Set. There's always an official version that never squares with the facts.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sun 11 Aug, 2013 08:38 pm
@Setanta,
Of course you're peddling the official version, Set. There's always an official US version that never squares with the facts.

"We Americans are the ultimate innocents. We are forever desperate to believe that this time the government is telling us the truth."
- Sydney Schanberg

Actually, I think Sydney is being generous.

When you've heard propaganda your whole life even stark truths, stark reality will hardly shake it, That's what propaganda does,
0 Replies
 
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Aug, 2013 01:37 am
@peter jeffrey cobb,
You seem to have a good understanding Peter.

It is amazing how other people can view the immoral acts differently and justify them at times.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 12 Aug, 2013 04:30 am
@JTT,
Quote:
Numbers were wildly thrown into the air (for example, Secretary of State James Byrnes talked of "a million casualties" resulting from an invasion), but there was no attempt to seriously estimate American casualties and weigh that against the consequences for Japanese men and women, old people and babies. (The closest to such an attempt was a military estimate that an invasion of the southernmost island of Japan would cause 30,000 American dead and wounded.)

The War Department commissioned a study carried out by reputable scientists who consulted with competent military officers, and it estimated that an invasion of Japan would result in 1.7 million to 4 million American casualties, and 400,000 to 800,000 American fatalities.

It also estimated Japanese casualties, though I forget the numbers (they were greater than American casualties however).


Quote:
The evidence today is overwhelming that an invasion of Japan was not necessary to bring the war to an end. Japan was defeated, in disarray, and ready to surrender.

Hindsight sure is nice. But if Japan was so ready to surrender, nobody was stopping them. They were free to surrender whenever they wanted.


Quote:
The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, which interviewed 700 Japanese military and political officials after the war, came to this conclusion:
Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

Hindsight sure is nice.

They had a bit of an axe to grind though. They were arguing that conventional air power won the war all on its own. They were trying to get post-war defense funding to favor the Air Force over the other services.


Quote:
After the war American scholar Robert Butow went through the papers of the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the records of the International Military Tribunal of the Far East (which tried Japanese leaders as war criminals), and the interrogation files of the U.S. Army. He also interviewed many of the Japanese principals and came to this conclusion: "Had the Allies given the Prince (Prince Konoye, special emissary to Moscow, who was working on Russian intercession for peace) a week of grace in which to obtain his Government's support for the acceptance of the proposals, the war might have ended toward the latter part of July or the very beginning of the month of August, without the atomic bomb and without Soviet participation in the conflict."

Prince Konoye was working on Soviet intercession for peace? Really?

How was he doing that when he was sitting in Japan waiting for permission to enter the USSR, and not communicating in any way with the Soviets?

Lowbrows like this Zinn freak have no business demeaning the work of a distinguished scholar like Mr. Butow by mixing it in with their deranged ranting.


Quote:
On July 13, 1945, three days before the successful explosion of the first atomic bomb in New Mexico, the United States intercepted Japanese Foreign Minister Togo's secret cable to Ambassador Sato in Moscow, asking that he get the Soviets to intercede and indicating that Japan was ready to end the war, so long as it was not unconditional surrender.

Togo asked nothing of the sort. What he did was tell Sato to get Soviet permission to let Prince Konoye come and speak with them.

And at the same time that Togo was wiring that unconditional surrender was an obstacle to Japan surrendering, he was also wiring that "surrender with the sole condition of protection for the Emperor" was just another form of unconditional surrender.


Quote:
On August 2, the Japanese foreign office sent a message to the Japanese ambassador in Moscow, "There are only a few days left in which to make arrangements to end the war.... As for the definite terms... it is our intention to make the Potsdam Three-Power Declaration [which called for unconditional surrender] the basis of the study regarding these terms."

Japan did not specify in this communication how they hoped to modify the Potsdam Proclamation, and I do not recall there being any American attempt to guess the intent of this specific communication. But previous American analyses had guessed (correctly) that Japan was trying to end the war in a draw. Most likely everyone just figured it was more of the same.

We know from hindsight that it was, in fact, just more of the same.


Quote:
Barton Bernstein, a Stanford historian who has studied the official documents closely, wrote:
This message, like earlier ones, was probably intercepted by American intelligence and decoded. It had no effect on American policy. There is not evidence that the message was sent to Truman and Byrnes [secretary of state], nor any evidence that they followed the intercepted messages during the Potsdam conference. They were unwilling to take risks in order to save Japanese lives.

What sort of ignorant tripe is this?

Truman and Byrnes read the intercepts at Potsdam. The intercepts just didn't indicate any sort of worthwhile attitude on the part of the Japanese government.

Truman take risks to save Japanese lives??? Where is this nonsense coming from?


Quote:
In his detailed and eloquent history of the making of the bomb, Richard Rhodes says, "The bombs were authorized not because the Japanese refused to surrender but because they refused to surrender unconditionally."

I point out, again, the reality that the Potsdam Proclamation repealed unconditional surrender and provided Japan with a list of generous surrender terms.


Quote:
The one condition necessary for Japan to end the war was an agreement to maintain the sanctity of the Japanese emperor, who was a holy figure to the Japanese people.

Nope. Up through the second A-bomb, Japan was trying to end the war in a draw, without surrendering.

It was only after Nagasaki that Japan was willing to surrender "just with a guarantee for their Emperor".

And even then, their requested guarantee asked for a lot more than just his sanctity. Rather, Japan asked us to guarantee his unlimited dictatorial power.


Quote:
Former ambassador to Japan Joseph Grew, based on his knowledge of Japanese culture, had been trying to persuade the U.S. government of the importance of allowing the emperor to remain in place.

Mr. Grew advised that we promise to allow his dynasty to continue as a powerless figurehead.

Mr. Grew's proposal gave us the right to depose or execute Hirohito, and install his son as that figurehead.


Quote:
Herbert Feis, who had unique access to State Department files and the records on the Manhattan Project, noted that in the end the United States did give the assurances the Japanese wanted on the emperor. He writes, "The curious mind lingers over the reasons why the American government waited so long before offering the Japanese those various assurances which it did extend later."

We did no such thing.

When Japan asked that we guarantee Hirohito's unlimited dictatorial power as Japan's living deity, our reply was that Hirohito was going to be subordinate to MacArthur.


Quote:
Why was the United States in a rush to drop the bomb, if the reason of saving lives turns out to be empty, if the probability was that the Japanese would have surrendered even without an invasion?

There was no rush. It was just the fact that war was raging and the bombs were ready to use.

The US did not have any time machines built, and so did not have access to any of these Monday-morning quarterbacking conclusions drawn in hindsight long after the end of the war.


Quote:
Historian Gar Alperovitz, after going through the papers of the American officials closest to Truman and most influential in the final decision, and especially the diaries of Henry Stimson, concludes that the atomic bombs were dropped to impress the Soviet Union, as a first act in establishing American power in the postwar world.

Gar Alperovitz is in no way a historian. And the reason we dropped the bombs was because Japan had not yet surrendered.


Quote:
He points out that the Soviet Union had promised to enter the war against Japan on August 8. The bomb was dropped on August 6.

I point out that the Soviet cowards were dawdling in their entry into the war, hoping to wait until Japan was all but defeated before they came in to claim the spoils, and they only scurried to hurry up when they learned that the A-bombs would soon be ready.


Quote:
The scientist Leo Szilard had met with Truman's main policy adviser in May 1945 and reported later: "Byrnes did not argue that it was necessary to use the bomb against the cities of Japan in order to win the war.... Mr. Byrnes' view was that our possessing and demonstrating the bomb would make Russia more manageable."

The fact that there were hopes that our possession of nuclear weapons might make the Soviets start acting like humans, does not mean that the bombs dropped on Japan had any purpose other than trying to make Japan surrender.


Quote:
The end of dropping the bomb seems, from the evidence, to have been not winning the war, which was already assured,

Wrong. The evidence fully indicates that the reason for dropping the bombs was to make Japan surrender.


Quote:
not saving lives, for it was highly probably no American invasion would be necessary,

That's easy to say from hindsight, but until Japan actually surrendered, such an invasion was a real possibility.


Quote:
but the aggrandizement of American national power at the moment and in the postwar period.

This Zinn freak really is something else.

Setting aside the fact that he is lying when he says that bombs dropped on Japan had anything to do with the Soviets, does he really consider protecting innocent people from Soviet domination to be "aggrandizement of American national power"??

Sheesh! What a freak!
0 Replies
 
 

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 © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 10/19/2019 at 04:24:15