22
   

The moral differences between the holocaust and bombing Japan

 
 
JTT
 
  3  
Reply Mon 19 Aug, 2013 08:48 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
Do u know whether thay complied with that obligation ?


You should be wondering if the US has ever paid reparations for the trillions it has stolen, Om. The US wouldn't be near the powerful nation it is now, if it hadn't been a band of pirates its entire existence.

The grand experiment in "democracy" got to where it is by being a band of pirates.
JTT
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 19 Aug, 2013 08:53 am
@oralloy,
Oralboy and OmSig spewing Uncle Sam's jism.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 19 Aug, 2013 08:53 am
@oralloy,
More Oralboy lies and foot stomping.
0 Replies
 
reasoning logic
 
  -4  
Reply Mon 19 Aug, 2013 04:50 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Quote:
It's not really a matter of being an "idiot" and I apologize for using that term.


I would not worry about it because I have thoughts about you as well, "such as sociopath but I do not think it is helpful to use language like that when talking with others.

Quote:
But you don't seem to listen to what others on this thread are trying to sell you.


Sure I do and by my replying to you should be an acknowledgment of it.

Quote:
On this thread you keep on misusing the word "genocide" and insisting that it, somehow, has something to do with the number of casualties,


Have you seen a consensus of all the scholars agreeing on the definition of genocide?

I am just curious if it is possible to be at war and drop enough bombs on a nation for it to be genocide in your opinion and if it was possible how many bombs would need to be dropped and how many people would need to be killed?

I Know, I know, I know. It is the intent of killing innocent people but if you drop millions of bombs on an island can you possibly have that many targets and be precise at hitting them from that altitude? It is not rocket science to see sociopaths when they are dropping that many bombs on you is it?






0 Replies
 
reasoning logic
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 19 Aug, 2013 06:31 pm
Making peace is a marathon

0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  8  
Reply Mon 19 Aug, 2013 09:20 pm
@reasoning logic,
Really RL, JTT doesn't need a defender, and if he does, I don't think you are up to it.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Mon 19 Aug, 2013 09:54 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
Really RL, JTT doesn't need a defender, and if he does, I don't think you are up to it.


You're going to keep posting these threads and I will comment on those that I find of interest. If you don't like what I have to say...so sorry.
reasoning logic
 
  0  
Reply Tue 20 Aug, 2013 07:29 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
Really RL, JTT doesn't need a defender


I seem to agree with you, JTT stands out far beyond what any of us could possibly stand "logically speaking. If it were not for JTT there would be little to consider about our behavior as a country would there?
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Tue 20 Aug, 2013 08:06 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

Quote:
Really RL, JTT doesn't need a defender, and if he does, I don't think you are up to it.


You're going to keep posting these threads and I will comment on those that I find of interest. If you don't like what I have to say...so sorry.


Actually, I didn't start this thread, please respond to any post of mine that strikes your interest.

Not that it should matter one whit to you, but I no longer have you on Ignore
Finn dAbuzz
 
  3  
Reply Tue 20 Aug, 2013 08:07 pm
@reasoning logic,
Sorry again, but I don't need JTT, or you for that matter, to realize that our country isn't all good.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Tue 20 Aug, 2013 08:38 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
Not that it should matter one whit to you, but I no longer have you on Ignore


Yes, I realize that, Finn. My first clue was you responding to my posts.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Tue 20 Aug, 2013 08:45 pm
@JTT,
Ahh, but in the past you accused me of "peeking." How did you know that wasn't the case now?
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Tue 20 Aug, 2013 08:52 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
I felt the stirrings of detente.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Wed 21 Aug, 2013 03:04 am
@miguelito21,
miguelito21 wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Japan was not being asked to surrender unconditionally

Walter already quoted point 13 of the Potsdam Declaration:

"We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces"

http://www.ndl.go.jp/constitution/e/etc/c06.html

6. There must be eliminated for all time the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest, for we insist that a new order of peace, security and justice will be impossible until irresponsible militarism is driven from the world.
7. Until such a new order is established and until there is convincing proof that Japan's war-making power is destroyed, points in Japanese territory to be designated by the Allies shall be occupied to secure the achievement of the basic objectives we are here setting forth.
10. [...] The Japanese Government shall remove all obstacles to the revival and strengthening of democratic tendencies among the Japanese people.


The Potsdam Declaration makes no mention of the Emperor, but anyone greatly concerned with the survival of the imperial institution could easily see the terms of this declaration as a great threat to it.

The fact remains: It was a list of generous surrender terms.

Unconditional surrender is when someone surrenders without any terms.


miguelito21 wrote:
Quoting more from the Zuberi article:
On August 9 the Japanese War Council was discussing the terms of surrender they should pursue when it received the news of the Nagasaki bombing, which didn't change the situation much. At the end of the meeting: "Nine voted for acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration with a proviso regarding kokutai,

That was the faction that was willing to surrender so long as we guaranteed Hirohito's unlimited dictatorial power.


miguelito21 wrote:
four wanted the three additional conditions to be fulfilled, and three were undecided"
Note: the three additional conditions were: (a) voluntary withdrawal of Japanese forces overseas under their own commanders; (b) no Allied occupation of Japan; and (c) those responsible for the war to be tried by the Japanese themselves.

That was the faction that wanted to end the war in a draw. They were dominant until the Emperor overruled them in favor of the other faction.


miguelito21 wrote:
After meeting with the Emperor, on August 10, "Togo proposed acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration "with the understanding that it did not comprise any demand which prejudices the prerogatives of His Majesty as a Sovereign Ruler."

Hirohito's "prerogatives as a sovereign ruler" included unlimited dictatorial power unconstrained by any law.


miguelito21 wrote:
The American response:
"Stimson and Leahy said the emperor's help would be needed in obtaining surrender of scattered Japanese troops. It was of vital importance for Stimson to get Japan under American control "before the Russians could put in any substantial claim to occupy and help rule it." Byrnes, however, still feared a backlash. The demand for unconditional surrender was made before the two bombs were dropped and before the Soviet Union was a belligerent. "If any conditions are to be accepted", he insisted, "I want the United States and not Japan to state the conditions."

That has things a bit out of order. The US did indeed state the conditions. But we did that weeks before the bombs, with the Potsdam Proclamation.


miguelito21 wrote:
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."

It also told them that the Emperor was going to be subordinate to MacArthur.


miguelito21 wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Nonsense. The condition that Japan asked for was rejected. And there was no ambiguity whatsoever.
Japan asked us to guarantee that Hirohito would retain unlimited dictatorial power as Japan's living deity. And we replied that Hirohito would be subordinate to MacArthur.

I disagree. As I said, the Potsdam Declaration could be seen as a great threat to the existence of the emperor. Now at least he is explicitly mentioned, and stating that his authority will be "subject to the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers" logically implies that it will continue to exist - subordinate as it may be.

That doesn't change the fact that "our statement that Hirohito would be subordinate to MacArthur" was a direct rejection of "Japan's request that Hirohito retain unlimited dictatorial power".


miguelito21 wrote:
His prerogatives may be affected, depending on the outcome of the surrender and the peace talks,

May??? His unlimited dictatorial power was outright abolished.


miguelito21 wrote:
but it's not as if it would be the first time Japan had a sacred ruling emperor with limited effective power.

True, but Japan was still asking that Hirohito retain unlimited power with no constraints. And we still told them no.


miguelito21 wrote:
At least he remains, and Japan could save face, which the emperor apparently managed to do.

But without the unlimited dictatorial power that Japan wished to have preserved.


miguelito21 wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Not very likely. Japan was dead set on trying to end the war in a draw with the aid of the Soviets.

What do you mean by "in a draw" ?

Picture the way the Korean War later ended.

Specifically I am referring to the "three additional conditions" you quoted above.

It would have allowed Japan to simply call off the war, pack up, and go home.


miguelito21 wrote:
They were actively seeking Soviet intercession to manage better surrender terms for themselves.

Terms that don't require you to actually lose the war are certainly better.

But it would be a stretch to call that surrender.


miguelito21 wrote:
"Kido was the central figure in the group of Japanese leaders seeking negotiated peace. Foreign Minister Togo was pressing Ambassador Naotake Sato in Moscow to request the Soviet government to use its good offices to obtain modification of the Allied terms of surrender.

Sato's primary job in this scheme was to secure permission for Prince Konoye to come and talk to the Soviet government. Sato wasn't delivering proposals himself.


miguelito21 wrote:
All that was needed was an assurance regarding the retention of the emperor.

If that is the case, why did Togo wire Sato that "surrender with the sole condition of a guarantee for the Emperor" was just another form of unconditional surrender?

Remember, the faction that wanted to end the war in a draw (those three additional conditions) held sway over Japan's government at this time. The "one condition" faction did not become dominant until Hirohito directly expressed his preference for them.


miguelito21 wrote:
It was proposed that Prince Konoye be sent as an envoy to Mosocw. The Togo-Sato messages were quickly decoded because the US navy cryptographers had broken the Japanese codes."

Yes. Mr. Grew (the same guy who is often cited for his request that the Potsdam Proclamation include a sort of a promise regarding the Emperor) assessed that Japan was likely just trying to get out of the war without surrendering.

He was right.


miguelito21 wrote:
From History professor Dennis Wainstock's The Decision to Drpo the Atomic Bomb (1996):
Conclusion (to the introduction)
"By the end of July 1945, if not before, Japan was militarily defeated. Fire raids had ravaged its major cities; its best troops were killed or missing in East Asia and the South Pacific, and many were still fighting in China. Twenty-two million Japanese were homeless, and the US naval and air blockade had cut off imports of fuel, food and raw materials from Japan's conquests in China, Korea, and Manchuria. US submarines roamed Japanese waters sinking tankers and freighters that tried to run the blockade. Japan's Navy had ceased to exist, and Air Force was severely diminished. US battleships and cruisers were shelling port installations and military compounds within gun range of the Japanese shores. At the same time, carrier-based fighters and bombers flew with near-impunity over the islands, bombing targets of opportunity - railway tracks and trains, motorized troop convoys, factories and air fields.

A fair assessment.

Despite all that, Japan at the time refused to surrender.


miguelito21 wrote:
After April 1945, Japan's leaders sought a diplomatic solution to end the war.

Ouch! That was written by a history professor?

It was only in July that Japanese leaders started trying to end the war in a draw. The key motivation for the change in policy seems to have been the ease with which we overran Okinawa (which Japan had believed impregnable).


miguelito21 wrote:
So I don't understand how ending the war in this situation could be considered ending it "on a draw".

Well look at those three additional terms.

There would be no occupation of Japan.

Instead of surrendering and being disarmed, Japanese soldiers would simply pack up and return home.

Japan would be in charge of all trials for Japanese war criminals.

The three terms (especially when combined with Hirohito retaining unlimited dictatorial power) amount to just calling off the war without Japan being defeated.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Wed 21 Aug, 2013 03:08 am
@miguelito21,
miguelito21 wrote:
oralloy wrote:
But Truman did not in any way know. The author makes it sound like Truman was a reliable psychic or something.

Not at all.
He argues Truman thaught or that even he was sure the Japanese would surrender after hearing about the Soviet declaration of war and advances in Manchuria.
No one in their right mind would argue, much less in a scientific article, that Truman, or anyone for that matter, knew how events would unfold.
And judging from the evidence at hand, from Truman and his advisers, I think it's pretty safe to say that he thaught the Japanese would surrender.

All I see is someone who is happy that he has secured a devastating blow to the enemy, and is hopeful that that blow will finally lead to victory.

None of Truman's advisers gave any indication that they believed Japan would surrender when the Soviets entered the war. They only mentioned that it was possible. If Truman believed it, he must have considered himself more knowledgeable than all his top generals.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Wed 21 Aug, 2013 03:12 am
@miguelito21,
miguelito21 wrote:
oralloy wrote:
That might be a quote from his first edition, but it's not what his revised edition says.

What does it say?
The authors are quoting: J. Samuel Walker, "The Decision to Use the Bomb: A Historiographical Update," Diplomatic History, Vol. 14, No. 1 (Winter 1990.)
I can't access that article, nor the subsequent edition to which you are referring to (I couldn't even find it).

Apparently he issues papers as well as books. I was referring to the revised edition of his book:

ISBN: 978-0-8078-5607-9

I was so used to him as a book author that it didn't occur to me that you were citing a paper.


The book assesses (in hindsight) that the big invasion would never have happened, even without the A-bombs.

But it also assesses that the A-bombs did cause the war to end earlier than it otherwise could have, and did therefore save a small number of American lives.

From what I read in the conclusion (it's been awhile since I read the whole book), it does not try to make any assessments about "what Truman knew in 1945".


miguelito21 wrote:
There is however a very interesting article by the same professor: Recent Literature on Truman’s Atomic Bomb Decision: A Search for Middle Ground, in Diplomatic History, Vol. 29, No. 2 (April 2005).

Sounds like he might be taking Hasegawa into account.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Wed 21 Aug, 2013 03:16 am
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic wrote:
They are both immoral acts but I personally think when you drop A-bombs and millions of other bombs on a city, you have now brought the war into the homes of many people who would not want anything to do with war.
When you bomb navy ships you chose a military target that was a navy base.

Throughout the war, Japan brutally murdered our soldiers after they surrendered. Note the Bataan Death March.

Japan also brutally murdered huge numbers of civilians in the Asian nations that they invaded.

Pearl Harbor was a base of a country that Japan was not at war with when they attacked. Even attacking the military targets was a terrible crime.

And Japan killed some civilians when they attacked Pearl Harbor.


Hiroshima was a huge military base.

Nagasaki was a concentration of huge military factories.

And we were just trying to defend ourselves from Japan's brutal onslaught.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  3  
Reply Wed 21 Aug, 2013 05:34 am
@JTT,
The US has never been a pirate nation. The US is VASTLY more efficient at producing the grains which are at the bottom of the food pyramid than any other nation. We have some 2% of our people working on farms; that percentage is much higher in other nations, some say as much as 60% still in China.

Americans pretty much invented modern manufacturing and mass production and about the only thing which we really need which we haven't been able to supply ourselves with until recently has been oil, and we've paid for that rather than just taking it, to our own great harm.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Wed 21 Aug, 2013 09:53 am
@gungasnake,
I wouldn't worry about JT's stooped headedness. I hera hes in his last semester of suicide bomber training and he will soon have a job.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Aug, 2013 10:33 am
@gungasnake,
Quote:
The US has never been a pirate nation.


The US has always been a pirate nation. It started with the genocide of Native Americans and it continues to this day in Iraq, Afghanistan, and South and Central American countries.

Y'all are delusional. The historical record points up clearly that all the Us has been is a gigantic racketeering scheme using its military might to steal from the poor countries of the world.

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler

I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

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 0.38 seconds on 05/24/2019 at 10:50:21