Only the losing side gets charged with war crimes.
Hiroshima, 64 years ago
- Thread starter minidog
- Start date
Only the losing side gets charged with war crimes.
Only Germany was going to have atom bomb. Thanks to German scientists' ethical behaviour, Germany couldn't make it real. I'm criticizing the application, not the countries. Massive murdering camps have no difference from massively destructive bombs.
I'm not a Nippon Empire fan. I just say that using those bombs is inferior. Japanese applications in China were more inferior than bombs. I have no sides in WW II. Nippon Empire could be invaded without atom bombs and the responsible people of what had happened in China could be judged to death in Nurnberg-like trials. Any country, any army, any person that hurts any form of life must face up with the death. Hiroshima and Nagasaki people were those hurt life. Their leaders needed to get blown up. When we come to what Japan did in China, i will be more criticizing and “ignorant”. Those mean stuffs in China has no difference with German camps and American bombs (just the application, not the whole country). American bombs did it in more justified ways.
NATO?! Those vampires? NATO did nothing in the favour of Turkland. NATO used Turkey to check U.S.S.R. during Cold War till intercontinental long range missiles that can hit U.S.S.R. from U.S.A..
When U.S.A. needed help to protect South Koreans back in early 1950s, Turkland sent troops to help NATO Forces and fight against Communists. When Turkland needed help to protect Turks in Nothern Cyprus in early 1970s, NATO wasn't there.
Let's come closer. Turkland has been facing up with PKK and its derivatives that have made extremely tyrant stuffs to innocent people, since 1984. It's terror at its best with 30,000 victims. NATO didn't see this.
U.S.A. got hit by numerous aircrafts directed by terrorists in September 11, 2001. That's terror too, an extremely raw kind. U.S.A. activated every possible ways in NATO to fight back. NATO got ready in the bilnk of an eye.
We are members of same NATO. Why is this double standard?
Nazi Germany was weakening slightly after 1942, thanks to heroic Allied forces since D-Day. All of them share the same place with the lost troops of my country in my heart. I'm not an anti-U.S.A. person. I just say that German camps for Jews, Japanese tyrant in China (which i do not ignore) and American bombs over two Japanese cities were absolutely horrible applications and they are warcrimes to innocents.
Yes, Nurnberg trials for Germany and atom bombs for Japan.
I don't accuse entire country for those. I accuse those who ordered to drop bombs. American people at that time and their children (you all) cannot be accused for anything about the bombs.
Your country is well and your values will live long. And, i care them all. We are sharing one tiny planet. Diversity is our real wealth. We all have flaws from the past which we have to consider when voyaging to future for not to repeat them.
From what was known at the time, there was very little option but to use the bomb.Although warfare ideally is between armies it had long before been extended to whole nations.But although Japan was already defeated (one main reason is often overlooked which was the submarine blockade) it never considered surrender.Add to this the horrendous treatment of Allied prisoners (which paled into insignificance compared to their treatment of fellow Asians , particularly the Chinese) and we begin to see the mind set of the Allies regarding the Japanese.The losses at Iwo Jimo gave an illustration of what to expect if Japan was invaded.It's almost certain the atom bombs killed fewer people than a protracted land offensive would have done.And even a battle between armies always involves large numbers of civilian deaths too.There was every indication at the time that Japan would defend every square yard.In the event, even after the atom bombs had been dropped and the Emperor had decided on surrender there was an attempted coup by army officers to continue the war.
The gorvernment and the militaries deserved to be punished. Not the civilians. Not the innocent citizens of Hiroshima.
Supafly
Retired Mod
Finally, after reading a LOT of very disturbing views on this terrible act of war, a statement that wraps it up :hatsoff:
Yes, the Japanese army did very horrific things, and probably many civilians approved, but bombing complete cities, and, what's much worse, leave generations of mutated and disfunctional people who never had any part in the war crimes is something that can never be forgiven.
If the USA had bombed the cities like the british army did bomb Dresden, that would be terrible, too, but at least that would just kill the people then and destroy every home.
But the radiation that stayed there for many, many years is what makes the difference.
Are you really telling me that is an option for a nation that tries to make the world a better place?
If you lot were as tough as you thought you were then you'd have been able to beat Japan in a non-cowardly way. And don't hit me with the shit that it saved lives what was done, the only lives it saved was those from the American side as everyone else is expendable and always has been. American talks about having allies, yet all they are is a means to an end. And an end that benefits America and America alone. Allies don't hold back information on terrorist strikes that are going to happen, and then bring it to light after the attack, and the knowledge of they knew about it two weeks before it happened [Glasgow Airport incident]. If anyone were to hold back such info from you babies, you'd get out of your pram and spit your dummy out in disgust and stomp your feet in a tantrum.
America is in NO position to tell anyone they can't use Nuclear [New-clear, not NooK-ular] weapons. I refer to the likes of Korea [for example]. America isn't mature enough to handle big boy weapons that come with responsibility. So they shouldn't try and dictate to others how they should act. It's not the bully tactic of do as I say, not as I do. It should be Lead by example or don't lead at all. Take all your boys toys [weapons] away from you and what do you become? that which you look down upon from a high height.
America is in NO position to tell anyone they can't use Nuclear [New-clear, not NooK-ular] weapons. I refer to the likes of Korea [for example]. America isn't mature enough to handle big boy weapons that come with responsibility. So they shouldn't try and dictate to others how they should act. It's not the bully tactic of do as I say, not as I do. It should be Lead by example or don't lead at all. Take all your boys toys [weapons] away from you and what do you become? that which you look down upon from a high height.
On the other hand, If USA drop nuclear weapons, some agressive dictators (Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong-Il) may take it as a sign of weakness.
Without nuclears weapons (on both sides) the Cold War would have been WWIII.
Nuclear weapons and the atrocities that could result of makig war to a country that has some scare governments.
Without nuclears weapons (on both sides) the Cold War would have been WWIII.
Nuclear weapons and the atrocities that could result of makig war to a country that has some scare governments.
Japanese were not barbaric, Muslims are not evil, Whites are not racist. It really gets under my skin when people group and entire class of people. An idividual followed an order from another individual. If you studied the Muslim faith, you would understand that the "true Muslim" faith is extremely well mannered, and adopts a major recpect for human life. Down through generations it has been changed by extremeist (individuals) at take on a totally different persona from years of opression.
The Japanese did not kill your great-grand-father. A person was responsable for his death, not the Japanese. We all have to choose. We are all individuals. If I go out here and kill another man, that dosent mean all mixed race people are killers.
If I can leap from mid court and slam-dunk a basketball throught a hoop dosent mean because I have black in me Im good at basketball. There are all types of races that are good in basketball, just not publicized like blacks are in American basketball.
If I can spell any and all words correctly in any lauguage dosent mean because I have asian blood in my veins Im a good speller, it means "I" studied, or "I" have a gift (individual).
Please folks understand this. It does humanity harm when we categorize in this fashion. We are seeding the problem. Just think about it before you do it.
The world doesn't call on America; America, time and again, has gatecrashed the party and invited themselves to places they weren't welcome. They are not the world police. The last forty years speak for themselves, don't you think?
Korea?
Cuba?
Viet Nam?
Iraq?
Axis of Evil?
As for the comparison of US and Nazi Germany, both are nationalistic by and large. That is a fair likeness.
Re: Morality of dropping the A-bombs. No morality can be claimed in warfare. This is a fact as fighting becomes a practical means to an end, never is it a moral issue, despite what politicians will do to fervour support.
Re: NATO. Please don't imply NATO is some kind of insurance policy Europe took out. America is but one member. America has been granted permission by member states to hold military bases where previously it would never have been allowed. If it wasn't for NATO, America would have gone to war with the USSR and likely have been defeated.
As mentioned, all top powers have their day and it is true to acknowledge America is now in the throes of a decline, albeit a protracted one. It's economy has been knocked sideways in a time of globalisation. The previous Wall Street Crash was permissible in the sense that the country could pick itself up again and start afresh. Now it is the outside world that will have to help pick America up and get it's economy working again. We're seeing it already with the ¢a$h for Clunkers success that is helping stimulate the auto-industry again, but that stimulus is paying dividends to Eastern manufactures, Hyundai, Toyota, Honda etc. Gas guzzling American auto-companies are nose diving because they didn't heed advice earlier on their over dependence for oil.
China is now the world power, they are likely to have everything that constitutes a modern world super-state, including space supremacy when they establish a moonbase. Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC) have already made clear they want an end to the Dollar's world status, this isn't a request, this will now have to happen considering who it is who is saying this - and of course it's not up to America anyway, it will be the rest of the world who decides what currency they put their trust in.
This isn't an Anti-American-just-deserts. It's a sobering cup of coffee after a night of heavy drinking for the last century.
Korea?
Cuba?
Viet Nam?
Iraq?
Axis of Evil?
As for the comparison of US and Nazi Germany, both are nationalistic by and large. That is a fair likeness.
Re: Morality of dropping the A-bombs. No morality can be claimed in warfare. This is a fact as fighting becomes a practical means to an end, never is it a moral issue, despite what politicians will do to fervour support.
Re: NATO. Please don't imply NATO is some kind of insurance policy Europe took out. America is but one member. America has been granted permission by member states to hold military bases where previously it would never have been allowed. If it wasn't for NATO, America would have gone to war with the USSR and likely have been defeated.
As mentioned, all top powers have their day and it is true to acknowledge America is now in the throes of a decline, albeit a protracted one. It's economy has been knocked sideways in a time of globalisation. The previous Wall Street Crash was permissible in the sense that the country could pick itself up again and start afresh. Now it is the outside world that will have to help pick America up and get it's economy working again. We're seeing it already with the ¢a$h for Clunkers success that is helping stimulate the auto-industry again, but that stimulus is paying dividends to Eastern manufactures, Hyundai, Toyota, Honda etc. Gas guzzling American auto-companies are nose diving because they didn't heed advice earlier on their over dependence for oil.
China is now the world power, they are likely to have everything that constitutes a modern world super-state, including space supremacy when they establish a moonbase. Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC) have already made clear they want an end to the Dollar's world status, this isn't a request, this will now have to happen considering who it is who is saying this - and of course it's not up to America anyway, it will be the rest of the world who decides what currency they put their trust in.
This isn't an Anti-American-just-deserts. It's a sobering cup of coffee after a night of heavy drinking for the last century.
I couldn't agree more. It was not the Japanese as a whole who decided to attack Pearl Harbour or build Unit 731. These were decisions made by those at the very top. Mainly by a man who at the time was considered a living god. Let's not group all Japanese people at the time into one, especially not those at Hiroshima and Nagasaki who because of the war were mainly women, children and old people. They didn't do anything, It was the policies carried out by Hirohito and his generals that started the war. They were just that disgusting term "collateral damage".
As Friday said above, with all the money and time they spent on the project there was no way they weren't getting dropped no matter what condition the Japanese were in. The "bomb" was - in my opinion - far more of a warning to the Soviets than to anyone else. Truman and Roosevelt before him knew exactly how the Soviets were positioning themselves. This was a propaganda tool far more than it was a object of war.
And oh what happy days followed.
Yeah I repped him.It's not usefull or really accurate to single out any group of humans as more this or that.I could mention americans/transplanted europeans genocide of native americans.All humans have the capacity for all things good and bad.
And the use of the bombs was of course in part a statement to the russians.It also was a good way for us to test what it's real effectiveness was.It was all new territory for us.
But I still think its main reason for use was a military and somewhat domestic american political one.It was estimated an invasion of Japan would have resulted in a million american casualties (dead and wounded) and no american president could have faced the public knowledge that we had a super weapon that could have (and did) prevented that but that he had decided not to use it.Saving Japanease lives was a byproduct but truthfully it was about saving american lives which is quite understandable IMO.
well said. The fire bombing was far more effective that the atomic bombs so its pretty obvious that was a warning to Russia.
From the viewpoint of the guys on the ground in the 1940s your argument makes no sense. The Japanese had behaved in such a way that they were scarcely accepted as normal human beings.No commander or politician would have accepted American casualties to prevent Japanese ones.The problem was that the whole of Japanese society was involved and there was a culture in which death was preferred to surrender.In Europe, when the Germans recognised their position as impossible they surrendered.This saved Allied lives as well.The Japanese war was a different proposition altogether.The soldiers on the ground would never give in, it had to come from the high command which is why the bombs were needed.
Supafly
Retired Mod
I can't believe you made that comment. A good way to test the nuclear bomb and it's effectiveness?
You must have a heart of stone.
The Japanese sense of honour, which you've done an excellent job of describing but failed to label as such, is no less relevant than what we face in modern day, don't you think?
Suicide bombers give their lives because of their beliefs. Honour is deeply rooted in Japan, fighting against them in the conventional sense was pointless, but we didn't realise that at first - that is why the A-Bomb was used. However, the A-Bomb isn't a great deal different from men with guns, it's just quicker. To do a proper job you fight an enemy by defeating their ideals. If they dishonour themselves then you have won, if they can be persuaded to a different way of thinking, then you've saved them from death and still won.
Well was the idea that we just dropped the bomb on them as an example to the russians (which was one of reasons IMO) any better?
As some had mentioned the fire bombings done to Tokyo actually resulted in more deaths.That was all very calculated as well.
WW2 was "total war" with virtually no holds barred by both sides.Civilians etc were seen as fair game.Break their will to fight.
And I was just offering what I think the thinking by the people who decided to use the bomb was at the time.Did they have "hearts of stone", maybe so.
You know in the 50s we had a lot of tests of the bomb in the nevada desert.In some of them we marched american soldiers across where the bomb had just been detonated.Again that was about trying to learn what the effects of the bomb were.Crazy and heartless maybe but in the context of the times understandable IMO.
This all gets back to my belief we must get rid of such weapons.Their mere existence means they will be used at some point.
very scary
Supafly
Retired Mod
The point is that these bombs have caused massive harm to the people who survived them. And the mutated and cancer-stricken kids of these people have nothing to do with that war.
And, sure, I know of the test in the american deserts. That was fucking up the own people, that's bad, too.
And many acts are understandable - but they remain heartless and in poor judgement
our history teacher showed us years ago some damn fucked up pictures of victims... damn that was so horrible, hope that would never happend again.
booooh usa booooh! shame on u!
btw i readed that the usa thinked about that they have tried to drop that bomb over dresden! is that true of false?
pls correct me if i wrong...
booooh usa booooh! shame on u!
btw i readed that the usa thinked about that they have tried to drop that bomb over dresden! is that true of false?
pls correct me if i wrong...
But we must remember those affects like the radiation were not understood at all at the time and were not fully understood for many many years.Which is why we did craziness like we did with our own soldiers later.We learned about that by using it,as terrible as that was.
And I still contend that the use of the bomb was the only possible judgement that could have been taken for the reason I gave above.One million american casualties were prevented.No president/american would have said that was better alternative.That would have been seen to be having a "heart of stone" towards all those young americans and that choice was easy for us I think.
Similar threads
