| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Deuteros" |
| Date: |
08 Feb 2007 07:11:37 PM |
| Object: |
Hiroshima - what they don't teach you in school |
Most history textbooks participate in the lie that nuking Hiroshima and
Nakasaki saved hundreds of thousands of American and Japanese lives. The
reality was that Japan had already been trying to surrender long before we
dropped the bombs:
US Responses to Dropping the Bomb
"...the greatest thing in history."
- Harry S. Truman
President of the United States during the Atomic Bombing
"It always appeared to us that, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese
were already on the verge of collapse."
- General Henry H. "Hap" Arnold
Commanding General of the U.S. Army
Air Forces Under President Truman
"I had been conscious of depression and so I voiced to (Sec. Of War Stimson)
my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already
defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly
because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the
use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a
measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at this very
moment, seeking a way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face.' "
- General Dwight D. Eisenhower
"Japan was at the moment seeking some way to surrender with minimum loss of
'face'. It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."
- General Dwight D. Eisenhower
"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and
Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese
were already defeated and ready to surrender. My own feeling was that in being
the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the
barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was taught not to make war in that fashion, and
wars cannot be won by destroying woman and children."
- Admiral William D. Leahy
Former Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
"I am absolutely convinced that had we said they could keep the emperor,
together with the threat of an atomic bomb, they would have accepted, and we
would never have had to drop the bomb."
- John McCloy
"P.M. [Churchill} & I ate alone. Discussed Manhattan (it is a success).
Decided to tell Stalin about it. Stalin had told P.M. of telegram from Jap
Emperor asking for peace."
- President Harry S. Truman
Diary Entry, July 18, 1945
"Some of my conclusions may invoke scorn and even ridicule.
"For example, I offer my belief that the existence of the first atomic bombs
may have prolonged -- rather than shortened - World War II by influencing
Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson and President Harry S. Truman to ignore an
opportunity to negotiate a surrender that would have ended the killing in the
Pacific in May or June of 1945.
"And I have come to view the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings that August as an
American tragedy that should be viewed as a moral atrocity."
- Stewart L. Udall
US Congressman and
Author of "Myths of August"
"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."
- U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey's 1946 Study
"Careful scholarly treatment of the records and manuscripts opened over the
past few years has greatly enhanced our understanding of why Truman
administration used atomic weapons against Japan. Experts continue to disagree
on some issues, but critical questions have been answered. The consensus among
scholars is the that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan. It
is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his
advisers knew it.
- J. Samuel Walker
Chief Historian
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
.
|
|
| User: "Tankfixer" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima - what they don't teach you in school |
11 Feb 2007 08:06:01 PM |
|
|
In article <1v3us2pi053jmpuiukbsk8ooml8d8i85ee@4ax.com>,
nunya@bizniz.net mumbled
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 03:01:14 -0700, "Daryl Hunt"
<dhunt@colwestnospam.com> wrote:
"Defendario" <Defendario@netscape.com> wrote in message
news:537811F1prrgiU1@mid.individual.net...
Did the Imperial Japanese Forces engage in strategic bombing of American
targets?
Yes. The Lighter than Air Balloons with Bombs. Some even made it as far as
Idaho. They dropped willynilly. So, yes, Japan tried to do strategic
bombing but we quite inept at it.
In fact, most Americans never even knew about it until years after the
war ended.
Or that they actually caused some civilian casualties on the continetal
US.
--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima - what they don't teach you in school |
10 Feb 2007 08:48:40 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 20:00:32 -0500 there was an Ancient Defendario
<Defendario@netscape.com> who stoppeth one in alt.atheism
Douglas Berry wrote:
Not selling to someone is an act of war? We didn't blockade Japanese
ports, we simply sdaid that because of Japan's actions in China (which
included firing on US patrol boats) we would no longer trade with
them.
Refusing service of trade is a traditional /causus/ /belli/
OK, name the wars where refusal to sell materials was the primary
cause. Then read what the actual Japanese long-range plan was.
The Empire of Japan started the conflict. Only an error of timing (and
lack of a qualified cryptographer at the Japanese embassy in
Washington) prevented them from delivering the declaration of war
before the bombs started falling on Pearl Harbor and the Philippines.
But there were many who knew it was coming, and chose to let it happen.
Since the US and Japan were at loggerheads on many issues, war was
seen as inevitable by many people. See, we had a choice: knuckle
under and let Tokyo dictate American policy in the Pacific, or stand
up and hope for the best.
If you actually read the "War Imminent" messages sent on November 24
and 27, you'd see the mindset of the American side. Here, let me help
you with that:
On Nov 24 and Nov 27, 1941, Admiral Harold Stark, the Chief of Naval
Operations in Washington, sent the following messages to Admiral
Kimmel and Lt. General Short.
"Nov 24, 1941... Chance of favorable outcome of negotiations with
Japan very doubtful....This situation coupled with statements of
Japanese government and movements [of] their naval and military forces
indicate in our opinion that a surprise aggressive movement in any
direction including attack on Philippines or Guam is a possibility."
"Nov 27, 1941...This dispatch is to be considered a war warning....
Negotiations with Japan looking toward stabilization of conditions in
the Pacific have ceased and an aggressive move by Japan is expected
within the next few days...Execute appropriate defensive deployment
preparatory to carrying out the tasks assigned in WPL 46 [the Naval
war plan]."
Of course we knew war was coming! When one side has made it clear that
they are willing to use military force to accomplish their policies,
and negotiations have ceased, what would you expect?
During World War II *all* combatants engaged in strategic bombing of
enemy population centers.
Did the Imperial Japanese Forces engage in strategic bombing of American
targets?
Yup. Manilia and other targets in the Philippines, which at the time
was American territory. The also launched numerous attacks from subs,
including one submarine launched seaplane!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on_America_during_WWII#Japanese_assaults
The slight inconvience of the Pacific Ocean prevented Japan from
engaging in the kind of raids seen over Europe. Indeed, our own
strategy in the Pacific centered around securing bases for our B-24
and B-29 bombers and their escorts. Hell, the entire battle of Iwo
Jima was fought because the island was perfectly palced to be an
emergency landing field for B-29s!
The Japanese did, however, bomb the hell out of Korea and Manchuria.
My father survived the bombing of Coventry
Another deal altogether.
Really? Why?
It was considered a legitimate tactic of war. Explain
the difference please between a thousand bombers leveling a city and
one bomber doing the same thing?
Essentially there is none. These tactics are not moral, and should be
disallowed for not discriminating between civilian and combatant, as
well as being unnecessarily destructive of civilian property.
OK, we outlaw strategic bombing. Guess where I'm putting my ammo
dumps, headquarters, and everything else I don't want you to hit.
Which means that you are going to do everything in your power to
devastate that city by other means.
Hate to tell you, but most strategic targets are also places where
people tend to gather in large numbers - ports, industrial centers,
transportation centers, and the like.
The Japanese used strategic bombing where they could. We just happened
to be better at it.
We were monstrous. LeMay should have hanged, not Yamashita.
We were monstrous? So, how many prisoners of war did we behead again?
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "Defendario" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima - what they don't teach you in school |
10 Feb 2007 09:18:49 PM |
|
|
Douglas Berry wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 20:00:32 -0500 there was an Ancient Defendario
<Defendario@netscape.com> who stoppeth one in alt.atheism
Douglas Berry wrote:
Not selling to someone is an act of war? We didn't blockade Japanese
ports, we simply sdaid that because of Japan's actions in China (which
included firing on US patrol boats) we would no longer trade with
them.
Refusing service of trade is a traditional /causus/ /belli/
OK, name the wars where refusal to sell materials was the primary
cause. Then read what the actual Japanese long-range plan was.
The IJN knew that the cutoff of crude oil and scrap iron would spell the
death of Japan's imperial designs. They had to strike before the Navy
became useless for want of fuel.
The Empire of Japan started the conflict. Only an error of timing (and
lack of a qualified cryptographer at the Japanese embassy in
Washington) prevented them from delivering the declaration of war
before the bombs started falling on Pearl Harbor and the Philippines.
But there were many who knew it was coming, and chose to let it happen.
Since the US and Japan were at loggerheads on many issues, war was
seen as inevitable by many people. See, we had a choice: knuckle
under and let Tokyo dictate American policy in the Pacific, or stand
up and hope for the best.
We could have accepted Japanese Hegemon over the Greater CoProsperity
Sphere, and helped them to achieve it. Japan did not want conflict with
the US, but saw it as inevitable, since the US would come to the aid of
the British, French and Dutch colonial possessions when they were attacked.
If you actually read the "War Imminent" messages sent on November 24
and 27, you'd see the mindset of the American side. Here, let me help
you with that:
On Nov 24 and Nov 27, 1941, Admiral Harold Stark, the Chief of Naval
Operations in Washington, sent the following messages to Admiral
Kimmel and Lt. General Short.
"Nov 24, 1941... Chance of favorable outcome of negotiations with
Japan very doubtful....This situation coupled with statements of
Japanese government and movements [of] their naval and military forces
indicate in our opinion that a surprise aggressive movement in any
direction including attack on Philippines or Guam is a possibility."
"Nov 27, 1941...This dispatch is to be considered a war warning....
Negotiations with Japan looking toward stabilization of conditions in
the Pacific have ceased and an aggressive move by Japan is expected
within the next few days...Execute appropriate defensive deployment
preparatory to carrying out the tasks assigned in WPL 46 [the Naval
war plan]."
Of course we knew war was coming! When one side has made it clear that
they are willing to use military force to accomplish their policies,
and negotiations have ceased, what would you expect?
The war was hardly in the US interests. We ought to have sided with Japan.
During World War II *all* combatants engaged in strategic bombing of
enemy population centers.
Did the Imperial Japanese Forces engage in strategic bombing of American
targets?
Yup. Manilia and other targets in the Philippines, which at the time
was American territory. The also launched numerous attacks from subs,
including one submarine launched seaplane!
You must be kidding. Manila was hardly American, being a colonial
possession.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on_America_during_WWII#Japanese_assaults
The slight inconvience of the Pacific Ocean prevented Japan from
engaging in the kind of raids seen over Europe. Indeed, our own
strategy in the Pacific centered around securing bases for our B-24
and B-29 bombers and their escorts. Hell, the entire battle of Iwo
Jima was fought because the island was perfectly palced to be an
emergency landing field for B-29s!
True. But the Japanese never developed truly capable strategic
aircraft. Their threat was zero.
The Japanese did, however, bomb the hell out of Korea and Manchuria.
Which was basically OK with Uncle Sugar, wasn't it?
My father survived the bombing of Coventry
Another deal altogether.
Really? Why?
Germany conducted a campaign of terror raids against the British. Japan
did not do so against the American homeland.
It was considered a legitimate tactic of war. Explain
the difference please between a thousand bombers leveling a city and
one bomber doing the same thing?
Essentially there is none. These tactics are not moral, and should be
disallowed for not discriminating between civilian and combatant, as
well as being unnecessarily destructive of civilian property.
OK, we outlaw strategic bombing. Guess where I'm putting my ammo
dumps, headquarters, and everything else I don't want you to hit.
Looks like tank and infantry assault with close air support are the way
to go, eh?
Which means that you are going to do everything in your power to
devastate that city by other means.
No, you just fight the old fashioned way. Blood and iron.
Hate to tell you, but most strategic targets are also places where
people tend to gather in large numbers - ports, industrial centers,
transportation centers, and the like.
But to indiscriminately target cities is crime. Sorry.
The Japanese used strategic bombing where they could. We just happened
to be better at it.
We were monstrous. LeMay should have hanged, not Yamashita.
We were monstrous? So, how many prisoners of war did we behead again?
Non-sequitur. The behavior of the enemy does not excuse the crimes your
side commits.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima - what they don't teach you in school |
11 Feb 2007 12:03:26 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 22:18:49 -0500 there was an Ancient Defendario
<Defendario@netscape.com> who stoppeth one in alt.atheism
Douglas Berry wrote:
OK, name the wars where refusal to sell materials was the primary
cause. Then read what the actual Japanese long-range plan was.
The IJN knew that the cutoff of crude oil and scrap iron would spell the
death of Japan's imperial designs. They had to strike before the Navy
became useless for want of fuel.
They were getting most of their oil from Indonesia.
Since the US and Japan were at loggerheads on many issues, war was
seen as inevitable by many people. See, we had a choice: knuckle
under and let Tokyo dictate American policy in the Pacific, or stand
up and hope for the best.
We could have accepted Japanese Hegemon over the Greater CoProsperity
Sphere, and helped them to achieve it. Japan did not want conflict with
the US, but saw it as inevitable, since the US would come to the aid of
the British, French and Dutch colonial possessions when they were attacked.
Japan wanted the Philippines, which were American territory.
If you actually read the "War Imminent" messages sent on November 24
and 27, you'd see the mindset of the American side. Here, let me help
you with that:
On Nov 24 and Nov 27, 1941, Admiral Harold Stark, the Chief of Naval
Operations in Washington, sent the following messages to Admiral
Kimmel and Lt. General Short.
"Nov 24, 1941... Chance of favorable outcome of negotiations with
Japan very doubtful....This situation coupled with statements of
Japanese government and movements [of] their naval and military forces
indicate in our opinion that a surprise aggressive movement in any
direction including attack on Philippines or Guam is a possibility."
"Nov 27, 1941...This dispatch is to be considered a war warning....
Negotiations with Japan looking toward stabilization of conditions in
the Pacific have ceased and an aggressive move by Japan is expected
within the next few days...Execute appropriate defensive deployment
preparatory to carrying out the tasks assigned in WPL 46 [the Naval
war plan]."
Of course we knew war was coming! When one side has made it clear that
they are willing to use military force to accomplish their policies,
and negotiations have ceased, what would you expect?
The war was hardly in the US interests. We ought to have sided with Japan.
o_0
Amazing how, when confronted with actual facts, you change the
subject.
Yup. Manilia and other targets in the Philippines, which at the time
was American territory. The also launched numerous attacks from subs,
including one submarine launched seaplane!
You must be kidding. Manila was hardly American, being a colonial
possession.
So was Hawaii. Yet the Stars and Stripes flew over both places,
American law prevailed, and the people there could become citizens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on_America_during_WWII#Japanese_assaults
The slight inconvience of the Pacific Ocean prevented Japan from
engaging in the kind of raids seen over Europe. Indeed, our own
strategy in the Pacific centered around securing bases for our B-24
and B-29 bombers and their escorts. Hell, the entire battle of Iwo
Jima was fought because the island was perfectly palced to be an
emergency landing field for B-29s!
True. But the Japanese never developed truly capable strategic
aircraft. Their threat was zero.
The Japanese did, however, bomb the hell out of Korea and Manchuria.
Which was basically OK with Uncle Sugar, wasn't it?
Not really, since it led to the very cutting off of trade that you
claim was an act of war! Hell, do you even read your own arguments?
My father survived the bombing of Coventry
Another deal altogether.
Really? Why?
Germany conducted a campaign of terror raids against the British. Japan
did not do so against the American homeland.
So? We are discussing the use of strategic bombing in WWII. All
sides did it.
OK, we outlaw strategic bombing. Guess where I'm putting my ammo
dumps, headquarters, and everything else I don't want you to hit.
Looks like tank and infantry assault with close air support are the way
to go, eh?
And of course civilians and their homes are immune to house to house
fi9ghting. Why, look at Stalingrad to see how wonderful a city looks
after a ground war!
Which means that you are going to do everything in your power to
devastate that city by other means.
No, you just fight the old fashioned way. Blood and iron.
Which still devastates cities. You know what artillery can do.
Hate to tell you, but most strategic targets are also places where
people tend to gather in large numbers - ports, industrial centers,
transportation centers, and the like.
But to indiscriminately target cities is crime. Sorry.
Given the ability to aim bombs in WWII, it was the standard. Now, we
can do better. Note that we didn't send massive flights of B-52s over
Baghdad to carpet bomb the city. We used aimed munitions to strike
strategic buildings.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "Defendario" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima - what they don't teach you in school |
11 Feb 2007 07:35:37 PM |
|
|
Douglas Berry wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 22:18:49 -0500 there was an Ancient Defendario
<Defendario@netscape.com> who stoppeth one in alt.atheism
Douglas Berry wrote:
OK, name the wars where refusal to sell materials was the primary
cause. Then read what the actual Japanese long-range plan was.
The IJN knew that the cutoff of crude oil and scrap iron would spell the
death of Japan's imperial designs. They had to strike before the Navy
became useless for want of fuel.
They were getting most of their oil from Indonesia.
And that's what Churchill and Roosevelt were pressuring the Dutch to cut
off.
Since the US and Japan were at loggerheads on many issues, war was
seen as inevitable by many people. See, we had a choice: knuckle
under and let Tokyo dictate American policy in the Pacific, or stand
up and hope for the best.
We could have accepted Japanese Hegemon over the Greater CoProsperity
Sphere, and helped them to achieve it. Japan did not want conflict with
the US, but saw it as inevitable, since the US would come to the aid of
the British, French and Dutch colonial possessions when they were attacked.
Japan wanted the Philippines, which were American territory.
But I'm sure they would have been OK with a friendly American occupation
of the Philippines, so long as the Japanese were getting what they
wanted from Indonesia and Indochina, not to mention Singapore and Malaysia
If you actually read the "War Imminent" messages sent on November 24
and 27, you'd see the mindset of the American side. Here, let me help
you with that:
On Nov 24 and Nov 27, 1941, Admiral Harold Stark, the Chief of Naval
Operations in Washington, sent the following messages to Admiral
Kimmel and Lt. General Short.
"Nov 24, 1941... Chance of favorable outcome of negotiations with
Japan very doubtful....This situation coupled with statements of
Japanese government and movements [of] their naval and military forces
indicate in our opinion that a surprise aggressive movement in any
direction including attack on Philippines or Guam is a possibility."
"Nov 27, 1941...This dispatch is to be considered a war warning....
Negotiations with Japan looking toward stabilization of conditions in
the Pacific have ceased and an aggressive move by Japan is expected
within the next few days...Execute appropriate defensive deployment
preparatory to carrying out the tasks assigned in WPL 46 [the Naval
war plan]."
Of course we knew war was coming! When one side has made it clear that
they are willing to use military force to accomplish their policies,
and negotiations have ceased, what would you expect?
The war was hardly in the US interests. We ought to have sided with Japan.
o_0
Amazing how, when confronted with actual facts, you change the
subject.
Actually, that's exactly where the discussion leads to. The US had no
business propping up the failed colonialism of the European powers.
I personally think the war was mostly motivated by stark racism.
Yup. Manilia and other targets in the Philippines, which at the time
was American territory. The also launched numerous attacks from subs,
including one submarine launched seaplane!
You must be kidding. Manila was hardly American, being a colonial
possession.
So was Hawaii. Yet the Stars and Stripes flew over both places,
American law prevailed, and the people there could become citizens.
This doesn't prove that Japan attacked those targets with aerial
bombardments of the scope and viciousness of the USAAF campaign against
Japan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on_America_during_WWII#Japanese_assaults
The slight inconvience of the Pacific Ocean prevented Japan from
engaging in the kind of raids seen over Europe. Indeed, our own
strategy in the Pacific centered around securing bases for our B-24
and B-29 bombers and their escorts. Hell, the entire battle of Iwo
Jima was fought because the island was perfectly palced to be an
emergency landing field for B-29s!
True. But the Japanese never developed truly capable strategic
aircraft. Their threat was zero.
The Japanese did, however, bomb the hell out of Korea and Manchuria.
Which was basically OK with Uncle Sugar, wasn't it?
Not really, since it led to the very cutting off of trade that you
claim was an act of war! Hell, do you even read your own arguments?
That ***** with the Chinese had been going on for years. It was the
occupation of French Indochina that spooked Roosevelt.
My father survived the bombing of Coventry
Another deal altogether.
Really? Why?
Germany conducted a campaign of terror raids against the British. Japan
did not do so against the American homeland.
So? We are discussing the use of strategic bombing in WWII. All
sides did it.
Not really. Russia and Japan never developed the capacity to do serious
strategic (terror) bombing. Italy hardly counts, although an Italian
came up with the concept.
OK, we outlaw strategic bombing. Guess where I'm putting my ammo
dumps, headquarters, and everything else I don't want you to hit.
Looks like tank and infantry assault with close air support are the way
to go, eh?
And of course civilians and their homes are immune to house to house
fi9ghting. Why, look at Stalingrad to see how wonderful a city looks
after a ground war!
Those civilians have a chance to escape, and a decent soldier won't
intentionally harm them or destroy their property wantonly.
Which means that you are going to do everything in your power to
devastate that city by other means.
No, you just fight the old fashioned way. Blood and iron.
Which still devastates cities. You know what artillery can do.
Military necessity -- way different from a 1,000 bomber raid.
Hate to tell you, but most strategic targets are also places where
people tend to gather in large numbers - ports, industrial centers,
transportation centers, and the like.
But to indiscriminately target cities is crime. Sorry.
Given the ability to aim bombs in WWII, it was the standard. Now, we
can do better. Note that we didn't send massive flights of B-52s over
Baghdad to carpet bomb the city. We used aimed munitions to strike
strategic buildings.
That was nice. Too bad the occupation was run by idiots whose
incompetence bordered on criminality.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima - what they don't teach you in school |
12 Feb 2007 07:31:31 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 20:35:37 -0500 there was an Ancient Defendario
<Defendario@netscape.com> who stoppeth one in alt.atheism
Douglas Berry wrote:
They were getting most of their oil from Indonesia.
And that's what Churchill and Roosevelt were pressuring the Dutch to cut
off.
This would be the same Winston Churchill who didn't become Prime
Minister until May, 1940? Considering that he was appointed *after*
the blitzkrieg had taken out the Low Countries, I'm eager to hear in
what capacity he was pressuring the Dutch government in.
Japan wanted the Philippines, which were American territory.
But I'm sure they would have been OK with a friendly American occupation
of the Philippines, so long as the Japanese were getting what they
wanted from Indonesia and Indochina, not to mention Singapore and Malaysia
No, they wouldn't. If you actually read history, you'd see that
removing the United States and the European powers from the Western
Pacific and Asia was a major war goal.
Of course we knew war was coming! When one side has made it clear that
they are willing to use military force to accomplish their policies,
and negotiations have ceased, what would you expect?
The war was hardly in the US interests. We ought to have sided with Japan.
Amazing how, when confronted with actual facts, you change the
subject.
Actually, that's exactly where the discussion leads to. The US had no
business propping up the failed colonialism of the European powers.
We weren't. We were propping up our own colonial empire.
I personally think the war was mostly motivated by stark racism.
The rest of the world thinks you're wrong.
You must be kidding. Manila was hardly American, being a colonial
possession.
So was Hawaii. Yet the Stars and Stripes flew over both places,
American law prevailed, and the people there could become citizens.
This doesn't prove that Japan attacked those targets with aerial
bombardments of the scope and viciousness of the USAAF campaign against
Japan.
Because Japan lacked heavy bombers, they couldn't. But they did do as
much damage as they could with what they had.
Not really, since it led to the very cutting off of trade that you
claim was an act of war! Hell, do you even read your own arguments?
That ***** with the Chinese had been going on for years. It was the
occupation of French Indochina that spooked Roosevelt.
That happened in 1940. After we had cut off trade. Do try to keep
things straight.
And of course civilians and their homes are immune to house to house
fi9ghting. Why, look at Stalingrad to see how wonderful a city looks
after a ground war!
Those civilians have a chance to escape, and a decent soldier won't
intentionally harm them or destroy their property wantonly.
ROTFLMAO!!! Tell that to the people of Stalingrad, or Berlin!
No, you just fight the old fashioned way. Blood and iron.
Which still devastates cities. You know what artillery can do.
Military necessity -- way different from a 1,000 bomber raid.
Yeah, the raid is over in a few hours. How long did the battle of
Stalingrad last?
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "Defendario" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima - what they don't teach you in school |
12 Feb 2007 02:27:38 PM |
|
|
Douglas Berry wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 20:35:37 -0500 there was an Ancient Defendario
<Defendario@netscape.com> who stoppeth one in alt.atheism
Douglas Berry wrote:
They were getting most of their oil from Indonesia.
And that's what Churchill and Roosevelt were pressuring the Dutch to cut
off.
This would be the same Winston Churchill who didn't become Prime
Minister until May, 1940? Considering that he was appointed *after*
the blitzkrieg had taken out the Low Countries, I'm eager to hear in
what capacity he was pressuring the Dutch government in.
Since the Dutch Government was in exile, and still allied with the
British, they had plenty of pull. Who do you think our main military
allies were in the first months of WW II? The Dutch, that's who.
Japan wanted the Philippines, which were American territory.
But I'm sure they would have been OK with a friendly American occupation
of the Philippines, so long as the Japanese were getting what they
wanted from Indonesia and Indochina, not to mention Singapore and Malaysia
No, they wouldn't. If you actually read history, you'd see that
removing the United States and the European powers from the Western
Pacific and Asia was a major war goal.
I'm sure the Japanese would have cut slack to a friendly US, to achieve
the goals I outlined.
Of course we knew war was coming! When one side has made it clear that
they are willing to use military force to accomplish their policies,
and negotiations have ceased, what would you expect?
The war was hardly in the US interests. We ought to have sided with Japan.
Amazing how, when confronted with actual facts, you change the
subject.
Actually, that's exactly where the discussion leads to. The US had no
business propping up the failed colonialism of the European powers.
We weren't. We were propping up our own colonial empire.
Which consisted of the Philippines and some assorted desert islands?
<snort>
I personally think the war was mostly motivated by stark racism.
The rest of the world thinks you're wrong.
Crap. One need only look at the propaganda art of WW II to find proof
of my contention. Your education is seriously lacking.
You must be kidding. Manila was hardly American, being a colonial
possession.
So was Hawaii. Yet the Stars and Stripes flew over both places,
American law prevailed, and the people there could become citizens.
This doesn't prove that Japan attacked those targets with aerial
bombardments of the scope and viciousness of the USAAF campaign against
Japan.
Because Japan lacked heavy bombers, they couldn't. But they did do as
much damage as they could with what they had.
Which in reality was very little, like I said.
Not really, since it led to the very cutting off of trade that you
claim was an act of war! Hell, do you even read your own arguments?
That ***** with the Chinese had been going on for years. It was the
occupation of French Indochina that spooked Roosevelt.
That happened in 1940. After we had cut off trade. Do try to keep
things straight.
Wrong. We offered to cut off trade *unless* Japan evacuated Indochina.
Why am I bothering with an ignoramus like you?
:-\
And of course civilians and their homes are immune to house to house
fi9ghting. Why, look at Stalingrad to see how wonderful a city looks
after a ground war!
Those civilians have a chance to escape, and a decent soldier won't
intentionally harm them or destroy their property wantonly.
ROTFLMAO!!! Tell that to the people of Stalingrad, or Berlin!
Lots of those soldiers lacked decency.
I could also add the citizens of al-Fallouja and al-Ramadi to your list.
No, you just fight the old fashioned way. Blood and iron.
Which still devastates cities. You know what artillery can do.
Military necessity -- way different from a 1,000 bomber raid.
Yeah, the raid is over in a few hours. How long did the battle of
Stalingrad last?
And how many civilians were actually killed at Stalingrad, as opposed to
say Dresden or Tokyo?
Your arguments are very weak indeed.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima - what they don't teach you in school |
12 Feb 2007 06:59:47 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 15:27:38 -0500 there was an Ancient Defendario
<Defendario@netscape.com> who stoppeth one in alt.atheism
Douglas Berry wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 20:35:37 -0500 there was an Ancient Defendario
<Defendario@netscape.com> who stoppeth one in alt.atheism
Douglas Berry wrote:
They were getting most of their oil from Indonesia.
And that's what Churchill and Roosevelt were pressuring the Dutch to cut
off.
This would be the same Winston Churchill who didn't become Prime
Minister until May, 1940? Considering that he was appointed *after*
the blitzkrieg had taken out the Low Countries, I'm eager to hear in
what capacity he was pressuring the Dutch government in.
Since the Dutch Government was in exile, and still allied with the
British, they had plenty of pull. Who do you think our main military
allies were in the first months of WW II? The Dutch, that's who.
The Dutch government in exile was a single office with about 100
employees. In the first few months of WWII for the US, the Dutch had
already surrender
Japan wanted the Philippines, which were American territory.
But I'm sure they would have been OK with a friendly American occupation
of the Philippines, so long as the Japanese were getting what they
wanted from Indonesia and Indochina, not to mention Singapore and Malaysia
No, they wouldn't. If you actually read history, you'd see that
removing the United States and the European powers from the Western
Pacific and Asia was a major war goal.
I'm sure the Japanese would have cut slack to a friendly US, to achieve
the goals I outlined.
You base this observation on what? And why would we just give up our
overseas possessions?
Actually, that's exactly where the discussion leads to. The US had no
business propping up the failed colonialism of the European powers.
We weren't. We were propping up our own colonial empire.
Which consisted of the Philippines and some assorted desert islands?
<snort>
At the time, a bit more than that. We owned large stretches of the
Pacific, Panama, Haiti, Cuba was pretty much an American puppet state.
Add in the American colonies of Alaska and Hawai'i, and we had quite
the little empire going.
I personally think the war was mostly motivated by stark racism.
The rest of the world thinks you're wrong.
Crap. One need only look at the propaganda art of WW II to find proof
of my contention. Your education is seriously lacking.
I own propaganda material from all the belligerents. Those
caricatures weren't the motivation, but rallying points. Demeaning
and belittling your enemy is an old, old tactic. There are cartoons
from the Revolutionary War that depict British officers as either
sadistic beasts or drooling incompetents.
This doesn't prove that Japan attacked those targets with aerial
bombardments of the scope and viciousness of the USAAF campaign against
Japan.
Because Japan lacked heavy bombers, they couldn't. But they did do as
much damage as they could with what they had.
Which in reality was very little, like I said.
The residents of Shanghai, Manilla, and Port Moseby would beg to
differ.
Not really, since it led to the very cutting off of trade that you
claim was an act of war! Hell, do you even read your own arguments?
That ***** with the Chinese had been going on for years. It was the
occupation of French Indochina that spooked Roosevelt.
That happened in 1940. After we had cut off trade. Do try to keep
things straight.
Wrong. We offered to cut off trade *unless* Japan evacuated Indochina.
Why am I bothering with an ignoramus like you?
We cut off trade before they occupied Indochina!
ROTFLMAO!!! Tell that to the people of Stalingrad, or Berlin!
Lots of those soldiers lacked decency.
No, artillery lacks decency. Machineguns lack decency. Hell, look at
Arnhem after Market Garden. The British were perhaps the most polite
a decent troops in WWII, and the town was ruined by house to house
fighting!
I could also add the citizens of al-Fallouja and al-Ramadi to your list.
Probably. Of course, we didn't use artillery to devastate those
places nor did we carpet bomb them.
Yeah, the raid is over in a few hours. How long did the battle of
Stalingrad last?
And how many civilians were actually killed at Stalingrad, as opposed to
say Dresden or Tokyo?
40,000+ Close to 100,000 people living in the city were reported as
missing at the war's end, and never found.
That's comparable to the deaths in the May 1945 Tokyo firebombing
(80-100,000) or the Dresden attack (25,000-35,000)
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "Defendario" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima - what they don't teach you in school |
12 Feb 2007 07:34:58 PM |
|
|
Douglas Berry wrote:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 15:27:38 -0500 there was an Ancient Defendario
<Defendario@netscape.com> who stoppeth one in alt.atheism
Douglas Berry wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 20:35:37 -0500 there was an Ancient Defendario
<Defendario@netscape.com> who stoppeth one in alt.atheism
Douglas Berry wrote:
They were getting most of their oil from Indonesia.
And that's what Churchill and Roosevelt were pressuring the Dutch to cut
off.
This would be the same Winston Churchill who didn't become Prime
Minister until May, 1940? Considering that he was appointed *after*
the blitzkrieg had taken out the Low Countries, I'm eager to hear in
what capacity he was pressuring the Dutch government in.
Since the Dutch Government was in exile, and still allied with the
British, they had plenty of pull. Who do you think our main military
allies were in the first months of WW II? The Dutch, that's who.
The Dutch government in exile was a single office with about 100
employees. In the first few months of WWII for the US, the Dutch had
already surrender
The Dutch Far East Forces continued to fight throughout the war, bumpkin.
Japan wanted the Philippines, which were American territory.
But I'm sure they would have been OK with a friendly American occupation
of the Philippines, so long as the Japanese were getting what they
wanted from Indonesia and Indochina, not to mention Singapore and Malaysia
No, they wouldn't. If you actually read history, you'd see that
removing the United States and the European powers from the Western
Pacific and Asia was a major war goal.
I'm sure the Japanese would have cut slack to a friendly US, to achieve
the goals I outlined.
You base this observation on what? And why would we just give up our
overseas possessions?
It's already happened. Bushler is trying to reverse this process, but
colonialism is passe. Far better to let the natives govern themselves
and have economic relations with them, to our advantage of course.
Actually, that's exactly where the discussion leads to. The US had no
business propping up the failed colonialism of the European powers.
We weren't. We were propping up our own colonial empire.
Which consisted of the Philippines and some assorted desert islands?
<snort>
At the time, a bit more than that. We owned large stretches of the
Pacific, Panama, Haiti, Cuba was pretty much an American puppet state.
And Japan threatened this arrangement, how?
Add in the American colonies of Alaska and Hawai'i, and we had quite
the little empire going.
Japan didn't need to or intend to occupy Hawaii or Alaska.
What they wanted was to create a defensive ring which would be to bloody
and costly for the US to penetrate, leaving them hegemony over Southeast
Asia. Eventually they achieved this goal, in a financial/economic sense.
I personally think the war was mostly motivated by stark racism.
The rest of the world thinks you're wrong.
Crap. One need only look at the propaganda art of WW II to find proof
of my contention. Your education is seriously lacking.
I own propaganda material from all the belligerents. Those
caricatures weren't the motivation, but rallying points. Demeaning
and belittling your enemy is an old, old tactic. There are cartoons
from the Revolutionary War that depict British officers as either
sadistic beasts or drooling incompetents.
But the war propaganda against Japan was blatantly racist, and aimed at
the "Yellow Peril" Why not acknowledge this and move on?
My contention is that Roosevelt and Churchill refused to entertain
Japan's legitimacy because of racism. Quotes from both men could be
found to back up this assertion. Do you deny this?
This doesn't prove that Japan attacked those targets with aerial
bombardments of the scope and viciousness of the USAAF campaign against
Japan.
Because Japan lacked heavy bombers, they couldn't. But they did do as
much damage as they could with what they had.
Which in reality was very little, like I said.
The residents of Shanghai, Manilla, and Port Moseby would beg to
differ.
And those cities had how many tons of bombs per acre, compared say to
Hamburg or Berlin? FFS, dude. Get serious.
Not really, since it led to the very cutting off of trade that you
claim was an act of war! Hell, do you even read your own arguments?
That ***** with the Chinese had been going on for years. It was the
occupation of French Indochina that spooked Roosevelt.
That happened in 1940. After we had cut off trade. Do try to keep
things straight.
Wrong. We offered to cut off trade *unless* Japan evacuated Indochina.
Why am I bothering with an ignoramus like you?
We cut off trade before they occupied Indochina!
When? Give me some citations.
ROTFLMAO!!! Tell that to the people of Stalingrad, or Berlin!
Lots of those soldiers lacked decency.
No, artillery lacks decency. Machineguns lack decency. Hell, look at
Arnhem after Market Garden. The British were perhaps the most polite
a decent troops in WWII, and the town was ruined by house to house
fighting!
And how many civilians were intentionally murdered by the Brits?
You are backpedaling. Quit while you're ahead.
I could also add the citizens of al-Fallouja and al-Ramadi to your list.
Probably. Of course, we didn't use artillery to devastate those
places nor did we carpet bomb them.
Sure, we didn't. How do you suppose we delivered the WP to those poor
kids that got burned up? What about the "Shock and Awe"? The hospitals
which were attacked, doctors and nurses assaulted and patients dragged
from their beds and murdered? What of the families pinned down by
sniper fire and murdered one by one, or left to bleed to death in the
streets? All these things and worse were done by Americans, I'm ashamed
to admit.
Time to pull it out and get a little fresh air.
Yeah, the raid is over in a few hours. How long did the battle of
Stalingrad last?
And how many civilians were actually killed at Stalingrad, as opposed to
say Dresden or Tokyo?
40,000+ Close to 100,000 people living in the city were reported as
missing at the war's end, and never found.
They probably left and went East, or joined the Red Army.
This doesn't in any way excuse the terror bombing of Tokyo by LeMay.
I say again, LeMay and not Yamashita deserved the noose.
That's comparable to the deaths in the May 1945 Tokyo firebombing
(80-100,000) or the Dresden attack (25,000-35,000)
I think your numbers are deflated. I've read that up to 250,000
perished in the 36 hour attack on Dresden, and over 150,000 died in the
Tokyo raids.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tankfixer" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima - what they don't teach you in school |
12 Feb 2007 09:16:07 PM |
|
|
In article <8d22t2ph46da29nt2tbua8h4ukctpmohti@4ax.com>,
penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com mumbled
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 15:27:38 -0500 there was an Ancient Defendario
<Defendario@netscape.com> who stoppeth one in alt.atheism
Douglas Berry wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 20:35:37 -0500 there was an Ancient Defendario
<Defendario@netscape.com> who stoppeth one in alt.atheism
Douglas Berry wrote:
They were getting most of their oil from Indonesia.
And that's what Churchill and Roosevelt were pressuring the Dutch to cut
off.
This would be the same Winston Churchill who didn't become Prime
Minister until May, 1940? Considering that he was appointed *after*
the blitzkrieg had taken out the Low Countries, I'm eager to hear in
what capacity he was pressuring the Dutch government in.
Since the Dutch Government was in exile, and still allied with the
British, they had plenty of pull. Who do you think our main military
allies were in the first months of WW II? The Dutch, that's who.
The Dutch government in exile was a single office with about 100
employees. In the first few months of WWII for the US, the Dutch had
already surrender
The Dutch spent most of 1941 trying to get some guarantees from the US
to help them in Asia.
They afraid Japan would try to impose a protectorate as they did in
French Indochina
Japan wanted the Philippines, which were American territory.
But I'm sure they would have been OK with a friendly American occupation
of the Philippines, so long as the Japanese were getting what they
wanted from Indonesia and Indochina, not to mention Singapore and Malaysia
No, they wouldn't. If you actually read history, you'd see that
removing the United States and the European powers from the Western
Pacific and Asia was a major war goal.
I'm sure the Japanese would have cut slack to a friendly US, to achieve
the goals I outlined.
You base this observation on what? And why would we just give up our
overseas possessions?
One thing I am sure of, he doesn't seem to have much knowledge of
Japanese attitudes prewar.
Actually, that's exactly where the discussion leads to. The US had no
business propping up the failed colonialism of the European powers.
We weren't. We were propping up our own colonial empire.
Which consisted of the Philippines and some assorted desert islands?
<snort>
At the time, a bit more than that. We owned large stretches of the
Pacific, Panama, Haiti, Cuba was pretty much an American puppet state.
Add in the American colonies of Alaska and Hawai'i, and we had quite
the little empire going.
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times... ;')
I personally think the war was mostly motivated by stark racism.
The rest of the world thinks you're wrong.
Crap. One need only look at the propaganda art of WW II to find proof
of my contention. Your education is seriously lacking.
I own propaganda material from all the belligerents. Those
caricatures weren't the motivation, but rallying points. Demeaning
and belittling your enemy is an old, old tactic. There are cartoons
from the Revolutionary War that depict British officers as either
sadistic beasts or drooling incompetents.
I would maintain that the second caricature is accurate for some of
them!
This doesn't prove that Japan attacked those targets with aerial
bombardments of the scope and viciousness of the USAAF campaign against
Japan.
Because Japan lacked heavy bombers, they couldn't. But they did do as
much damage as they could with what they had.
Which in reality was very little, like I said.
The residents of Shanghai, Manilla, and Port Moseby would beg to
differ.
What would he care about them ?
They were just little brown people in his eyes.
BeEsides, when the Japanese really wanted to get a point across they
just attached it to the end of a rifle, remmeber Nanking
Not really, since it led to the very cutting off of trade that you
claim was an act of war! Hell, do you even read your own arguments?
That ***** with the Chinese had been going on for years. It was the
occupation of French Indochina that spooked Roosevelt.
That happened in 1940. After we had cut off trade. Do try to keep
things straight.
Wrong. We offered to cut off trade *unless* Japan evacuated Indochina.
Why am I bothering with an ignoramus like you?
We cut off trade before they occupied Indochina!
He hasn't gotten to that chapter yet Doug.
ROTFLMAO!!! Tell that to the people of Stalingrad, or Berlin!
Lots of those soldiers lacked decency.
No, artillery lacks decency. Machineguns lack decency. Hell, look at
Arnhem after Market Garden. The British were perhaps the most polite
a decent troops in WWII, and the town was ruined by house to house
fighting!
I could also add the citizens of al-Fallouja and al-Ramadi to your list.
Probably. Of course, we didn't use artillery to devastate those
places nor did we carpet bomb them.
Yeah, the raid is over in a few hours. How long did the battle of
Stalingrad last?
And how many civilians were actually killed at Stalingrad, as opposed to
say Dresden or Tokyo?
40,000+ Close to 100,000 people living in the city were reported as
missing at the war's end, and never found.
That's comparable to the deaths in the May 1945 Tokyo firebombing
(80-100,000) or the Dresden attack (25,000-35,000)
Doug, stop confusing him with facts..
--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tankfixer" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima - what they don't teach you in school |
12 Feb 2007 08:03:58 PM |
|
|
In article <0eq0t25618m3nqqoe7intvo5qnh0h6gn03@4ax.com>,
penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com mumbled
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 20:35:37 -0500 there was an Ancient Defendario
<Defendario@netscape.com> who stoppeth one in alt.atheism
Those civilians have a chance to escape, and a decent soldier won't
intentionally harm them or destroy their property wantonly.
ROTFLMAO!!! Tell that to the people of Stalingrad, or Berlin!
Or Nanking.....
--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima - what they don't teach you in school |
17 Feb 2007 05:24:51 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 18:03:26 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
The IJN knew that the cutoff of crude oil and scrap iron would spell the
death of Japan's imperial designs. They had to strike before the Navy
became useless for want of fuel.
They were getting most of their oil from Indonesia.
Wrong. Indonesia didn't exist. It was known then as the Dutch East
Indies. Which the Japs occupied nevertheless.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tankfixer" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima - what they don't teach you in school |
11 Feb 2007 07:56:18 PM |
|
|
In article <s9urs299lc3mg0me2m2od4hsrhtbui808v@4ax.com>,
penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com mumbled
On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 22:06:28 -0500 there was an Ancient Defendario
<Defendario@netscape.com> who stoppeth one in alt.atheism
So nice to see someone open to debate. We had the best reason ever:
they started a war.
Hogwash. Roosevelt knew he would force conflict with the embargo, which
is itself an act of war.
Not selling to someone is an act of war? We didn't blockade Japanese
ports, we simply sdaid that because of Japan's actions in China (which
included firing on US patrol boats) we would no longer trade with
them.
Sank one even.
An act of war usually...
The Empire of Japan started the conflict. Only an error of timing (and
lack of a qualified cryptographer at the Japanese embassy in
Washington) prevented them from delivering the declaration of war
before the bombs started falling on Pearl Harbor and the Philippines.
IIRC there was a qualified crypto clerk.
But the embassy's instructions were that they not handle the traffic,
only the inexperienced staff member could.
Then there is the whole concept of proportionality, which seems alien to
you. You might want to read up on it, as well as the concept of just war.
During World War II *all* combatants engaged in strategic bombing of
enemy population centers. My father survived the bombing of Coventry,
for example. It was considered a legitimate tactic of war. Explain
the difference please between a thousand bombers leveling a city and
one bomber doing the same thing?
The Japanese used strategic bombing where they could. We just happened
to be better at it.
They even tried rather unorthodox method of ballons on the high altitude
current.
Balloons got as far east as the Great Lakes.
--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rontus Mekoras" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima - what they don't teach you in school |
09 Feb 2007 11:16:23 AM |
|
|
Being a ravid anti-nuke person myself I still kinda thank the good olde USA
for nuking Japan. Many people don't know that Japan bombed DArwin, Australia
and also attacked Sydney and threatened to invade Australia.
I for one thank America for saving our *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima - what they don't teach you in school |
10 Feb 2007 04:56:45 PM |
|
|
"Rontus Mek'oras" <michael@subgenious.com> wrote in
news:H%1zh.5286$sd2.664@news-server.bigpond.net.au:
Being a ravid anti-nuke person myself I still kinda thank the good olde
USA for nuking Japan. Many people don't know that Japan bombed DArwin,
Australia and also attacked Sydney and threatened to invade Australia.
I for one thank America for saving our *****.
Japan was hardly in a position to invade Australia in August 1945.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rev.Cowcatcher" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima - what they don't teach you in school |
08 Feb 2007 11:32:21 PM |
|
|
On 09 Feb 2007 01:11:37 GMT, "Deuteros" <deuteros@xrs.net>
wrote:
Most history textbooks participate in the lie that nuking Hiroshima and
Nakasaki saved hundreds of thousands of American and Japanese lives. The
reality was that Japan had already been trying to surrender long before we
dropped the bombs:
*Sigh*. Time to take the bait again, I guess.
Who knows?
Yep, Japan tried to surrender, but the political situation
in Japan was rather complicated. All the emperor had to do
was say "stop". But he probably didn't see that as an option
as long as he would not remain untouched; for selfish
reasons, of course, but also because Japan without an
emperor would, if possible, be an even worse place to be
than it already was at that point. 2000 years of feudalism
can't just be canceled in a week.
I get pretty fucking ***** when people try to defend
what was done at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was a crime, an
act of unthinkably horrific proportions. There is no fact,
or assembly of facts, in any functional system of thought in
the entire world, which can successfully defend the act of
deliberately wiping out the population of two whole cities.
Ignorance is no excuse. Choosing to save the lives of
american soldiers over the lives of japanese civilians is no
excuse. Strategy is no excuse. Guessing what might have
happened otherwise is definitely no excuse.
Puny humans. *****'em all.
....
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tankfixer" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima - what they don't teach you in school |
10 Feb 2007 12:01:06 AM |
|
|
In article <n21os29hcp2u64epi5ednft3gsjn7kmf2s@4ax.com>,
bergjylt@gmail.com mumbled
deliberately wiping out the population of two whole cities
Except that isn't the case, is it ?
--
--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rev.Cowcatcher" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima - what they don't teach you in school |
10 Feb 2007 12:20:46 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 06:01:06 GMT, Tankfixer
<paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote:
In article <n21os29hcp2u64epi5ednft3gsjn7kmf2s@4ax.com>,
bergjylt@gmail.com mumbled
deliberately wiping out the population of two whole cities
Except that isn't the case, is it ?
Really?
Am I to understand that you think the whole thing was an
accident, or do you suggest that if you don't actually
manage to instantly vaporize every single human being on the
site, and leave about 10% of the total building mass
standing, it's actually okay?
....
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tankfixer" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima - what they don't teach you in school |
10 Feb 2007 09:53:57 PM |
|
|
In article <7moqs29ppirfd79dur24rhpplkau55qt75@4ax.com>,
bergjylt@gmail.com mumbled
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 06:01:06 GMT, Tankfixer
<paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote:
In article <n21os29hcp2u64epi5ednft3gsjn7kmf2s@4ax.com>,
bergjylt@gmail.com mumbled
deliberately wiping out the population of two whole cities
Except that isn't the case, is it ?
Really?
Am I to understand that you think the whole thing was an
accident, or do you suggest that if you don't actually
manage to instantly vaporize every single human being on the
site, and leave about 10% of the total building mass
standing, it's actually okay?
The bomb(s) did not "vaporize" every single human being in either of the
two citites.
Were you being honest about the isue you could admit that tiny fact.
--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas D. Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima - what they don't teach you in school |
10 Feb 2007 10:05:40 PM |
|
|
"Tankfixer" <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote
The bomb(s) did not "vaporize" every single human being in either of the
two citites.
Were you being honest about the isue you could admit that tiny fact.
As many people died in one day of conventional high explosive bombing in
Tokyo as in Hiroshima, and in a far more gruesome manner, burning slowly
and physically mangled- far better to be vaporized! If I had my choice, I'd
go for instantly vaporized.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tankfixer" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima - what they don't teach you in school |
11 Feb 2007 08:01:51 PM |
|
|
In article <45ce9617$0$28115$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
dda@rr.rochester.com mumbled
"Tankfixer" <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote
The bomb(s) did not "vaporize" every single human being in either of the
two citites.
Were you being honest about the isue you could admit that tiny fact.
As many people died in one day of conventional high explosive bombing in
Tokyo as in Hiroshima, and in a far more gruesome manner, burning slowly
and physically mangled- far better to be vaporized! If I had my choice, I'd
go for instantly vaporized.
The firebombing raids of Tokyo killed many more in one night than either
atomic bomb.
--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima - what they don't teach you in school |
11 Feb 2007 09:09:23 PM |
|
|
Tankfixer <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote in
news:jUPzh.1054$Jl.618@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
In article <45ce9617$0$28115$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
dda@rr.rochester.com mumbled
"Tankfixer" <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote
The bomb(s) did not "vaporize" every single human being in either of
the two citites.
Were you being honest about the isue you could admit that tiny fact.
As many people died in one day of conventional high explosive bombing
in Tokyo as in Hiroshima, and in a far more gruesome manner, burning
slowly and physically mangled- far better to be vaporized! If I had my
choice, I'd go for instantly vaporized.
The firebombing raids of Tokyo killed many more in one night than either
atomic bomb.
Also war crimes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tankfixer" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima - what they don't teach you in school |
12 Feb 2007 12:25:58 AM |
|
|
In article <eqolp3$fen$2@news.onet.pl>, mumbled
Tankfixer <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote in
news:jUPzh.1054$Jl.618@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
In article <45ce9617$0$28115$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
dda@rr.rochester.com mumbled
"Tankfixer" <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote
The bomb(s) did not "vaporize" every single human being in either of
the two citites.
Were you being honest about the isue you could admit that tiny fact.
As many people died in one day of conventional high explosive bombing
in Tokyo as in Hiroshima, and in a far more gruesome manner, burning
slowly and physically mangled- far better to be vaporized! If I had my
choice, I'd go for instantly vaporized.
The firebombing raids of Tokyo killed many more in one night than either
atomic bomb.
Also war crimes.
Not by the standards of the day.
Japan started it. We finished it.
--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima - what they don't teach you in school |
12 Feb 2007 07:05:42 AM |
|
|
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:1171281615.569858.122880@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:
I watch a LOT of historical documents on WWII. One of the most fierce
battles the U.S. faced against Japan was Iwo Jima, a good site to go
to if you are interested is www.iwojima.com
The Japanese were fierce, and they were not going to let up. They
were willing to fight and die for the Emperor.
Another battle that was fierce, and caught the U.S. off guard was the
battle of Okinawa.
Dropping the bomb, while it was a tragic event, served a few purposes.
a) It ended the war
b) It launched the U.S. into becoming a super power
c) It changed the world and showed U.S. enemies, just what we had and
we were willing to use it.
d) By using it, we ended the war and probably saved more lives than
what would have been lost had their been a land invasion.
And we would have saved even more lives if we had allowed Japan to surrender
in July 1945 when they offered to.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima - what they don't teach you in school |
12 Feb 2007 08:17:33 AM |
|
|
"Deuteros" <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:eqpon6$b2m$1@news.onet.pl...
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:1171281615.569858.122880@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:
I watch a LOT of historical documents on WWII. One of the most fierce
battles the U.S. faced against Japan was Iwo Jima, a good site to go
to if you are interested is www.iwojima.com
The Japanese were fierce, and they were not going to let up. They
were willing to fight and die for the Emperor.
Another battle that was fierce, and caught the U.S. off guard was the
battle of Okinawa.
Dropping the bomb, while it was a tragic event, served a few purposes.
a) It ended the war
b) It launched the U.S. into becoming a super power
c) It changed the world and showed U.S. enemies, just what we had and
we were willing to use it.
d) By using it, we ended the war and probably saved more lives than
what would have been lost had their been a land invasion.
And we would have saved even more lives if we had allowed Japan to
surrender
in July 1945 when they offered to.
They were not going to surrender, I don't know what history books you are
reading.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima - what they don't teach you in school |
12 Feb 2007 07:04:47 PM |
|
|
"Osprey" <NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:mvednSIXW-5g603YnZ2dnUVZ_tijnZ2d@comcast.com:
"Deuteros" <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:eqpon6$b2m$1@news.onet.pl...
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:1171281615.569858.122880@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:
I watch a LOT of historical documents on WWII. One of the most fierce
battles the U.S. faced against Japan was Iwo Jima, a good site to go
to if you are interested is www.iwojima.com
The Japanese were fierce, and they were not going to let up. They
were willing to fight and die for the Emperor.
Another battle that was fierce, and caught the U.S. off guard was the
battle of Okinawa.
Dropping the bomb, while it was a tragic event, served a few purposes.
a) It ended the war
b) It launched the U.S. into becoming a super power
c) It changed the world and showed U.S. enemies, just what we had and
we were willing to use it.
d) By using it, we ended the war and probably saved more lives than
what would have been lost had their been a land invasion.
And we would have saved even more lives if we had allowed Japan to
surrender
in July 1945 when they offered to.
They were not going to surrender, I don't know what history books you
are reading.
"P.M. [Churchill} & I ate alone. Discussed Manhattan (it is a success).
Decided to tell Stalin about it. Stalin had told P.M. of telegram from Jap
Emperor asking for peace."
- President Harry S. Truman
Diary Entry, July 18, 1945
Most history textbooks are watered down, PC verions of history.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tankfixer" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima - what they don't teach you in school |
12 Feb 2007 09:16:11 PM |
|
|
In article <eqr2rf$pa5$1@news.onet.pl>, mumbled
"Osprey" <NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:mvednSIXW-5g603YnZ2dnUVZ_tijnZ2d@comcast.com:
"Deuteros" < > wrote in message
news:eqpon6$b2m$1@news.onet.pl...
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
news:1171281615.569858.122880@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:
I watch a LOT of historical documents on WWII. One of the most fierce
battles the U.S. faced against Japan was Iwo Jima, a good site to go
to if you are interested is www.iwojima.com
The Japanese were fierce, and they were not going to let up. They
were willing to fight and die for the Emperor.
Another battle that was fierce, and caught the U.S. off guard was the
battle of Okinawa.
Dropping the bomb, while it was a tragic event, served a few purposes.
a) It ended the war
b) It launched the U.S. into becoming a super power
c) It changed the world and showed U.S. enemies, just what we had and
we were willing to use it.
d) By using it, we ended the war and probably saved more lives than
what would have been lost had their been a land invasion.
And we would have saved even more lives if we had allowed Japan to
surrender
in July 1945 when they offered to.
They were not going to surrender, I don't know what history books you
are reading.
"P.M. [Churchill} & I ate alone. Discussed Manhattan (it is a success).
Decided to tell Stalin about it. Stalin had told P.M. of telegram from Jap
Emperor asking for peace."
- President Harry S. Truman
Diary Entry, July 18, 1945
And does it say what Japan was willing to do to get the peace they asked
for ?
Most history textbooks are watered down, PC verions of history.
Much better to just make it up as you like to do.
--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."
.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
