22
   

The moral differences between the holocaust and bombing Japan

 
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 12 Aug, 2013 04:30 am
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:
Those savages don't need a "state" and I don't picture anybody "giving" them one any time soon. That would be like giving a concert piano to a bunch of baboons.

Israel would give them a state, if only they would be willing to make peace.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 12 Aug, 2013 04:31 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
oralloy wrote:
JTT wrote:
Setanta wrote:
I have repeatedly pointed out that the United States used the atomic bomb because the Japanese would not surrender, and they needed to end that war, they wanted to end the madness.

That's not a lawful excuse to resort to war crimes. It is also a lie, but lies comes easy to a people who have lived horrible lies for their entire existence.

No, his statement is entirely factual.
As for legality, we did what needed to be done.

Was some LAW violated ??

Possibly.


OmSigDAVID wrote:
If so, then WHICH law??

The Laws of War require that collateral damage may not be excessive compared to the military gains of an attack.

It is possible that the number of civilians killed were excessive compared to the damage done by the A-bombs to the Japanese war machine.


OmSigDAVID wrote:
What is the authority for the alleged "law" ????
America is sovereign. It was sovereign then.

I'm not sure that there is one.

Possibly the Japanese government could have tried people involved in the A-bombings, had they been able to capture them before surrendering and ending the war.

If they had done so, though, we probably would have been a lot less lenient about Japanese atrocities (which we largely swept under the rug in favor of good post-war relations).
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 12 Aug, 2013 04:33 am
@igm,
igm wrote:
What might the future hold after the nuclear strike on Japan? It could eventually lead to state sponsored terrorism successfully detonating a nuclear device on the US homeland with no chance of retaliation... so we have a useless deterrent... no country to bomb... just a terrorist cell which can't be nuked... or even destroyed conventionally because they just keep on recruiting.

Your term "state sponsored" indicates that we would very much have someone to retaliate against.

Terrorist cells can also be destroyed. DroneStrikes are awesome!
peter jeffrey cobb
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Aug, 2013 05:48 am
@oralloy,
Hi. Just a quick question Smile
After looking at the link I posted. If you could have a time machine and you were in complete charge of the whole atomic operations. Would you do it again? ( make sure you look at the link please )
igm
 
  0  
Reply Mon 12 Aug, 2013 06:10 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

igm wrote:
What might the future hold after the nuclear strike on Japan? It could eventually lead to state sponsored terrorism successfully detonating a nuclear device on the US homeland with no chance of retaliation... so we have a useless deterrent... no country to bomb... just a terrorist cell which can't be nuked... or even destroyed conventionally because they just keep on recruiting.

Your term "state sponsored" indicates that we would very much have someone to retaliate against.

Terrorist cells can also be destroyed. DroneStrikes are awesome!


You couldn't be certain which state did the sponsoring (they would obviously be unknown) you can't nuke without worldwide opinion that is certain of the sponsor... it would never happen.

A cell can be destroyed but replacements are easy to find and to them its win win as they've just nuked the US with the loss of just a single terrorist cell at most.

Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Aug, 2013 08:42 am
@Ticomaya,
Ticomaya wrote:

Not everyone's moral compass points in the right direction.


Or, they do not care to acquire a moral compass for certain situations. I have heard, from otherwise very decent people, the comment that if there is one thing that Hitler did do, that was good, was rid Europe it its Jewish population. I suspect that many people on this forum have the failing, so to speak, of wanting to believe that all people are inherently good, and therefore it only takes some education to get people to all use the same moral compass for all situations. Many Americans do not realize, in my opinion, the depth of Jew hatred in Europe for centuries, let alone in pre-WWII Europe.

However, the comment above that I make reference to was made by Americans, so I suspect that right under the surface there is a bubbling cualdron of alienation and hate for more than one minority group, by large swaths of the masses. Heaven help us, if we ever have the inflation of the Weimar Republic.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  -4  
Reply Mon 12 Aug, 2013 09:09 am
@Ticomaya,
Quote:
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.


You're right, Tico. You highlight this spectacularly. Your moral compass obviously points in the wrong direction because you briefly held to the opinion that the US wasn't a terrorist nation. You were shocked when that revelation came to the fore, you denied it, almost in tears and then you have fled from any such discussion since.

It cannot be denied that you are a terrorist sympathizer for thee worst terrorist group/nation on the planet, the USA.

Quote:
Noam Chomsky: The phrase 'war on terrorism' should always be used in quotes, cause there can't possibly be a war on terrorism, it's impossible. The reason is it's led by one of the worst terrorist states in the world, in fact it's led by the only state in the world [the USA] which has been condemned by the highest international authorities for international terrorism, namely the World Court and Security Council, except that the US vetoed the resolution.

0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  -3  
Reply Mon 12 Aug, 2013 09:14 am
@Ticomaya,
Quote:
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.


Just consider how many sociopaths there are that have contributed to this thread. You rarely to never hear folks say that US administrations [UK and others too] should be held to account for their numerous war crimes and terrorist activities.

You, Tico, are among the leaders when it comes to being a sociopath. You rank right up there with Oralloy, BillRM, Setanta, ... .
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Mon 12 Aug, 2013 09:30 am
We are now several generations past the events of Nazi and Japanese genocide. In such cases it becomes fashionable and yea, even "Scholarly" to cherry pick facts about what were the actual goings on.
Im sure in another generation or so, the US will become the actual terrorist nation that forced poor Imperial Japan to start a "war of a lost cause" because we "strangled" her out of resources needed to build up its militaristic desires.

The real issue on "Unconditional surrender" had been to negate Japans original proposals (in its suit for peace) that would allow Japan to retain lands that were under her control before 1941. That was totally unacceptable to the Allies.
The fact that a failed coup allowed the Emperor to accept the terms only delayed Japans surrender by a few days after the bombings and Russias entry into the war in Manchuria.


JTT
 
  -3  
Reply Mon 12 Aug, 2013 09:43 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
If "everyone else wanted a piece of the action," it's because Japan forced it on them.


What utter crap, from the master of crap. The US had long been in the rape and pillage of other lands game before the Japanese got involved.

The US was partners with Japan and other European powers in raping and pillaging China. The US, realizing that it couldn't stake a complete claim to China, demanded an Open Door Policy so that it could at least get its share in the rape and pillage of China.

The US, as is always the case, didn't care what Japan or any other country did to others until that point where it needed something for its propaganda mill, something to stir the sheeple up.

How could the US, in good conscience, complain about Japan when the US had been doing the same things in the Philippines and Latin America?

"good conscience" and "the US" are not phrases that can coincide.

Quote:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Civil_Liberties/Pearl%20Harbor_Internment.html

Pearl Harbor, Internment, and Hiroshima: Historical Lessons

by Paul D'Amato

...

Maneuvering Japan to attack first

U.S. officials were in no doubt that the clash of interests between the U.S. and Japan in the Pacific would lead to war. It was only the timing that was in question. Wary of Japanese advances in China, the U.S. backed the Guomindang army of Chiang Kai-shek, a man described by state department officials as a "gangster"-a warlord among warlords who feared the aspirations of Chinese peasants and workers more than he did the Japanese invaders.

In the buildup to war, the U.S. engaged in a series of actions designed to draw Japan into attacking it. This was necessary, U.S. officials felt, because opinion polls in 1940 still showed that a majority of Americans were opposed to direct U.S. involvement in the European war. Lieutenant Commander Arthur H. McCollum, head of the Far East desk of the Office of Naval Intelligence, the man in charge of routing communications intelligence to Roosevelt between early 1940 and the Pearl Harbor attack, wrote a memorandum in October 1940, advocating eight actions designed to provoke a Japanese attack:

A. Make an arrangement with Britain for the use of British bases in the Pacific, particularly Singapore. B. Make an arrangement with Holland for the use of base facilities and acquisition of supplies in the Dutch East Indies [now Indonesia]. C. Give all possible aid to the Chinese government of Chiang Kai-shek. D. Send a division of long-range heavy cruisers to the Orient Philippines, or Singapore. E. Send two divisions of submarines to the Orient. F. Keep the main strength of the U.S. Fleet, now in the Pacific, in the vicinity of the Hawaiian Islands. G. Insist that the Durch refuse to grant Japanese demands for undue economic concessions, particularly oil. H. Completely embargo all trade with Japan, in collaboration with a similar embargo imposed by the British Empire.

In the lead-up to Pearl Harbor, the United States implemented each of McCollum's points-always careful to ease the embargo on Japan enough to allow them to obtain fuel for their fleet operations. Referring to the deployment of U.S.

warships in or near Japanese territorial waters, Roosevelt remarked, "I just want them to keep popping up here and there and keep the Japs guessing." The day after McCollum's memo, Roosevelt was quoted as saying, "Sooner or later the Japanese would commit an overt act against the United States and the nation would be willing to enter the war."

Events unfolded as scripted, the U.S. tightening the screws by degrees on Japan. In July 1940, Roosevelt cut off the supply of oil, scrap iron, and aviation gasoline to Japan; however, it allowed Japan to purchase enough oil from U.S. suppliers to keep its military operations running. At the same time, the U.S. intervened to prevent Japan from purchasing oil from the Dutch East Indies. Roosevelt knew from intercepted diplomatic communications that Japan was now planning to seize the Dutch East Indies by force, using as a secret staging area land leased from the Dutch. Informed of the plans, the Dutch government refused to grant the lease.

Secretary of War Henry Stimson's diary records a November 25, 1941, meeting with Roosevelt, Admiral Harold Stark, and others to discuss "how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into a position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves."'' After the war, he testified to a congressional committee:

In spite of the risk involved, however, in letting the Japanese fire the first shot, we realized that in order to have the full support of the American people it was desirable to make sure that the Japanese be the ones to do this so that there should remain no doubt in anyone's minds as to who were the aggressors.

British Minister of Production Oliver Littleton was more abrupt in his assessment: "Japan was provoked into attacking Pearl Harbor. It is a travesty on history even to say that America was forced into the war."

According to historian Robert B. Stinnett in his new book Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor, U.S. officials not only maneuvered Japan to attack, but knew that the attack was coming at Pearl Harbor. McCollum, the intelligence officer who had devised the plan to provoke Japan into attacking the U.S., dismissed as "rumor" a January 1941 report from the third secretary of the U.S. embassy in Tokyo that he had received information from a reliable Peruvian minister that "Japanese military forces were planning, in the event of trouble with the United States, to attempt a surprise mass attack on Pearl Harbor using all their military resources."

More importantly, U.S. naval intelligence had not only broken Japan's "purple code" used to transmit diplomatic messages, but also had cracked the code used by the Japanese navy to transmit radio messages, according to Stinnett's research. Assistant Chief of Naval Operations Rear Admiral Robert Ingersoll wrote a letter on October 4, 1940, to the U.S. Navy's two Pacific commanders explaining, "Every major movement of the Orange (America's code name for Japan) Fleet has been predicted."

To this day, the original intercepts obtained by U.S. naval intelligence have not been turned over to the National Archives. Records of U.S. Naval Intelligence Station H indicate that the commander of the Japanese attack, Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, dispatched 13 radio messages, none of which has been released to the National Archive, November 24-26, when Japan's fleet was heading toward Hawaii. Neither the Pacific Fleet's radio intercept traffic chief, Homer Kisner-the man who daily delivered decoded Japanese radio transmissions to Pearl Harbor from Station H-nor any of his operators was ever called before any of the nine Pearl Harbor investigations that happened after the war.

Despite claims by the U.S. government that the Japanese forces steaming toward Hawaii maintained radio silence, Kisner confirmed in interviews with Stinnett that his operators intercepted several Japanese naval transmissions prior to the December 7, 1941, attack. Admiral Husband Kimmel, in charge of the U.S. Pacific Fleet when Pearl Harbor was attacked, was never apprised of any of the intercepts. "I can't understand, may never understand, why I was deprived of information available in Washington," Kimmel wrote after the war.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Mon 12 Aug, 2013 10:03 am
@peter jeffrey cobb,
Quote:
After looking at the link I posted.


Could you direct me to that link, Peter?
JTT
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 12 Aug, 2013 10:14 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
In such cases it becomes fashionable and yea, even "Scholarly" to cherry pick facts about what were the actual goings on.


This is truly laughable, especially from you, a purported "academic", Farmer, when one considers what passes for the "history" of the USA.

Quote:
The real issue on "Unconditional surrender" had been to negate Japans original proposals (in its suit for peace) that would allow Japan to retain lands that were under her control before 1941. That was totally unacceptable to the Allies.


Of course it was unacceptable, mostly to the US. The US knew going into WWII that it would come out the real winner, that it would be able to grab much of the colonies wealth for itself.

We should all mightily applaud the unbelievably brave actions of the Vietnamese people for standing up to the Gengis Khan of the 20th century.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Aug, 2013 10:51 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
The real issue on "Unconditional surrender" had been to negate Japans original proposals (in its suit for peace) that would allow Japan to retain lands that were under her control before 1941. That was totally unacceptable to the Allies.....


That is actually another kind of problem...

Again I cannot fault Truman based on what had actually gone down. Nonetheless I'd had tried something different after about the third big fire-bomb raid. The Japanese people and leaders were not totally stupid and they could see the writing on the wall.

One problem is that of proportion (the million or so people killed in the fire raid over Tokyo). Another problem is the question of whether anybody in Manchuria, North Korea, or China was better off living under Stalinist regimes for the next 45 years than they had been under Japanese Rule or than they would have been under Japanese Rule with the United States dictating pollicy to Japan.

What Russia looked like in 1987 was an entire nation about as well off as Detroit is now, and for the same kinds of reasons, and a number of the satellite commie places were substantially worse off than Russia.
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Aug, 2013 10:52 am
@reasoning logic,
Quote:
What do you think are the moral differences between the holocaust and the bombings of the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?


I think this might be a more apt comparison...

What are the moral differences between the institution of slavery in the United States, including the importation of slaves into the U.S., and the Holocaust?
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Aug, 2013 11:29 am
@gungasnake,
Monday morning is always the best time to place your football pool tickets.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 12 Aug, 2013 12:11 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
I think this might be a more apt comparison...

What are the moral differences between the institution of slavery in the United States, including the importation of slaves into the U.S., and the Holocaust?


Both are apt comparisons, FF, and now that we've determined that the fire bombings and the two atomic bombs on Japanese civilians were the moral equivalent of the Holocaust, go ahead and venture into these other areas.

You might want to look at the Native American US genocidal program too. And then Vietnam, then Nicaragua, then Korea, then Cambodia, then ... .
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Aug, 2013 12:18 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:
You might want to look at the Native American US genocidal program too. And then Vietnam, then Nicaragua, then Korea, then Cambodia, then ... .


How many of those were you personally involved in?
JTT
 
  -3  
Reply Mon 12 Aug, 2013 12:20 pm
@izzythepush,
Quote:
How many of those were you personally involved in?


As I mentioned, you say the stupidest things when you are challenged on your lies, Izzy.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Aug, 2013 12:24 pm
@JTT,
So you won't answer the question. That figures, as does your Oralboyesque response.

You don't give a **** about all those people. All you care about is being right. You're the sort who would torch a kindergarten if you could pin the blame on someone else.
JTT
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 12 Aug, 2013 12:28 pm
@izzythepush,
Quote:
So you won't answer the question.


You're not serious, are you? You think that was a legitimate question?

That, Izzy, was on the order of,

Has your daughter decided to turn you in to authorities for sodomizing her since she was 13?

Quote:
That figures, as does your Oralboyesque response.


As I mentioned you say the stupidest thing when you're caught prevaricating.

Quote:
You don't give a **** about all those people. All you care about is being right. You're the sort who would torch a kindergarten if you could pin the blame on someone else.


See what I mean.
 

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 © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/10/2025 at 11:27:17