| 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: "Michael Price" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima - what they don't teach you in school |
13 Feb 2007 10:36:39 AM |
|
|
Tankfixer wrote:
In article <eqr6nj$uoo$1@news.onet.pl>, mumbled
Tankfixer <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote in
news:IZ8Ah.1475$Jl.763@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
In article <eqpp55$b2m$2@news.onet.pl>, mumbled:
Tankfixer <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote in
news:WLTzh.1195$Jl.1095@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
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 eit=
her
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.
Indiscriminate bombardment of civilians has been a crime since the
Hague Convention of 1907.
Odd that it would be since no one had ever bombed anyone yet.
They obviously wanted to keep it that way. Specific sections include The
Laws and Customs of War on Land and Bombardment by Naval Forces in Time=
of
War.
So they forsaw the use of aircraft to bomb even then eh ?
Well considering that strategic bombing was only 8 years away it's
not
all that surprising.
From wikipedia.
"The first ever aerial bombardment of civilians was on January 19,
1915, in which two German Zeppelins dropped 24 fifty-kilogram high-
explosive bombs and ineffective three-kilogram incendiaries on the
Eastern England towns of Great Yarmouth, Sheringham, King's Lynn, and
the surrounding villages. In all, four people were killed, sixteen
injured, and monetary damage was estimated at =A37,740.
There were a further nineteen raids in 1915, in which 37 tons of bombs
were dropped, killing 181 people and injuring 455. Raids continued in
1916. London was accidentally bombed in May, and, in July, the Kaiser
allowed directed raids against urban centres. There were 23 airship
raids in 1916 in which 125 tons of ordnance were dropped, killing 293
people and injuring 691. Gradually British air defences improved. In
1917 and 1918 there were only eleven Zeppelin raids against England,
and the final raid occurred on August 5, 1918, which resulted in the
death of KK Peter Strasser, commander of the German Naval Airship
Department. By the end of the war, 51 raids had been undertaken, in
which 5,806 bombs were dropped, killing 557 people and injuring 1,358.
The Zeppelin raids were complemented by the Gotha bomber, which was
the first heavier than air bomber to be used for strategic bombing. It
has been argued that the raids were effective far beyond material
damage in diverting and hampering wartime production, and diverting
twelve squadrons and over 10,000 men to air defences.
The French army on 15 June 1915 attacked the German town of Karlsruhe
killing 29 civilians and wounding 58. Further raids followed until
1918.
In contrast, the British launched their own form of strategic bombing:
at the start of the war there were attacks by bombers of the RNAS
against the Zeppelin production area and its hangars. In late 1915 the
order was given for attacks on German industrial targets and the 41st
Wing was formed from units of the RNAS and RFC. In early 1918 they
operated their "round the clock" bombing raid; with lighter bombs
attacking the town of Trier by day and large HP O/400s attacking by
night. In April 1918, the Independent Force, RAF was created, an
expanded bombing group that by the end of the war had aircraft that
could reach Berlin but were never used.
Following the war, the concept of strategic bombing developed. The
calculations which were performed on the number of dead to the weight
of bombs dropped would have a profound effect on the attitudes of the
British authorities and population in the interwar years, because as
bombers became larger it was fully expected that deaths from aerial
bombardment would approach those anticipated in the Cold War from the
use of nuclear weapons. The fear of aerial attack on such a scale was
one of the fundamental driving forces of British appeasement in the
1930s."
Or are you making this up as you go along ?
No he actually knows some history unlike you. In any case it's
hardly surprising that
the laws on indescriminant destruction of civilians by navies should
be extended to all
forms of projecting ordanance.
Also see the Hague Draft Rules of Air Warfare of 1922?1923
Operative word is "Draft"
--
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 |
13 Feb 2007 08:24:28 PM |
|
|
In article <1171384599.852548.170400@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,=20
nini_pad@yahoo.com mumbled
Tankfixer wrote:
In article <eqr6nj$uoo$1@news.onet.pl>, mumbled
Tankfixer <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote in
news:IZ8Ah.1475$Jl.763@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
In article <eqpp55$b2m$2@news.onet.pl>, mumbled:
Tankfixer <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote in
news:WLTzh.1195$Jl.1095@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
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 e=
ither
of the two citites.
Were you being honest about the isue you could admit that ti=
ny
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 t=
han
either atomic bomb.
Also war crimes.
Not by the standards of the day.
Japan started it. We finished it.
Indiscriminate bombardment of civilians has been a crime since the
Hague Convention of 1907.
Odd that it would be since no one had ever bombed anyone yet.
They obviously wanted to keep it that way. Specific sections include =
The
Laws and Customs of War on Land and Bombardment by Naval Forces in Ti=
me of
War.
So they forsaw the use of aircraft to bomb even then eh ?
=20
Well considering that strategic bombing was only 8 years away it's
not
all that surprising.
Or they didn't consider it at all.
Your pretty cite below only shows the combatants did not belive=20
stratigic bombing wasn't covered.
From wikipedia.
"The first ever aerial bombardment of civilians was on January 19,
1915, in which two German Zeppelins dropped 24 fifty-kilogram high-
explosive bombs and ineffective three-kilogram incendiaries on the
Eastern England towns of Great Yarmouth, Sheringham, King's Lynn, and
the surrounding villages. In all, four people were killed, sixteen
injured, and monetary damage was estimated at =A37,740.
=20
There were a further nineteen raids in 1915, in which 37 tons of bombs
were dropped, killing 181 people and injuring 455. Raids continued in
1916. London was accidentally bombed in May, and, in July, the Kaiser
allowed directed raids against urban centres. There were 23 airship
raids in 1916 in which 125 tons of ordnance were dropped, killing 293
people and injuring 691. Gradually British air defences improved. In
1917 and 1918 there were only eleven Zeppelin raids against England,
and the final raid occurred on August 5, 1918, which resulted in the
death of KK Peter Strasser, commander of the German Naval Airship
Department. By the end of the war, 51 raids had been undertaken, in
which 5,806 bombs were dropped, killing 557 people and injuring 1,358.
The Zeppelin raids were complemented by the Gotha bomber, which was
the first heavier than air bomber to be used for strategic bombing. It
has been argued that the raids were effective far beyond material
damage in diverting and hampering wartime production, and diverting
twelve squadrons and over 10,000 men to air defences.
=20
The French army on 15 June 1915 attacked the German town of Karlsruhe
killing 29 civilians and wounding 58. Further raids followed until
1918.
=20
In contrast, the British launched their own form of strategic bombing:
at the start of the war there were attacks by bombers of the RNAS
against the Zeppelin production area and its hangars. In late 1915 the
order was given for attacks on German industrial targets and the 41st
Wing was formed from units of the RNAS and RFC. In early 1918 they
operated their "round the clock" bombing raid; with lighter bombs
attacking the town of Trier by day and large HP O/400s attacking by
night. In April 1918, the Independent Force, RAF was created, an
expanded bombing group that by the end of the war had aircraft that
could reach Berlin but were never used.
=20
Following the war, the concept of strategic bombing developed. The
calculations which were performed on the number of dead to the weight
of bombs dropped would have a profound effect on the attitudes of the
British authorities and population in the interwar years, because as
bombers became larger it was fully expected that deaths from aerial
bombardment would approach those anticipated in the Cold War from the
use of nuclear weapons. The fear of aerial attack on such a scale was
one of the fundamental driving forces of British appeasement in the
1930s."
=20
=20
Or are you making this up as you go along ?
No he actually knows some history unlike you. In any case it's
hardly surprising that
the laws on indescriminant destruction of civilians by navies should
be extended to all
forms of projecting ordanance.
He hasn't shown that knowledge if he possess it.
Also see the Hague Draft Rules of Air Warfare of 1922?1923
Operative word is "Draft"
--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a=20
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rev.Cowcatcher" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima - what they don't teach you in school |
11 Feb 2007 12:44:07 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 03:53:57 GMT, Tankfixer
<paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote:
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.
Exactly. The opinion implied above being that this fact does
not change a thing. I simply assumed you had caught on to my
original statment regarding inexcusability and jumped a step
head. I did this by cleverly attempting to infer your
counterargument from the material already available. I
apparently forgot to factor in a thing or two, which you are
still keeping secret from me inside your braincase. To avoid
me having to employ someone to break open your braincase and
root around searching for what you intend to contribute to
this discussion, please enlighten us as soon as convenient.
Were you being honest about the isue you could admit that tiny fact.
You seem to be under the delusion that I have lied to you.
Please explain.
You see, I, with my mighty and long-winded brain, can
concieve of a manyfold of different ways I might have formed
the sentence you have been obsessing over lately.
For example: I could have said something like "There's no
fact which can excuse vaporizing 90% of the building mass of
a city, along with thousands of people, leaving the majority
of the rest to die a slow and agonizing death". That would
have been more accurate, but no more or less "honest".
Here's a free helpful tip, to avoid having future people you
try to debate attempt to chew off your face in pure
frustration at your *****-slurping idiocy. Sometimes we make
an what's called an "assumption". We do this to make
communication less bulky. In this case, the assumption was
that any fucker with half a brain or so knows the basic,
horrible facts, down to the melting of skin, puking up of
important organs, runny eyeballs and all that.
I guess we could pretend, for the sake of argument, that the
commonly known facts of what happens when you detonate a
nuclear weapon could somehow challenge the truth of my
statement- that there is no excuse for using such a weapon.
"Not everyone within the city limits is lucky enough to be
turned into a puff of superheated gas when a nuclear weapon
goes off - many can linger on for a few days or weeks, and
some lucky few actually survive despite all odds. About 10%
of the building mass may be left standing" Now, does this
look like an excuse to use such a weapon?
Now sit down and shut up. The hairy grownups are busy
rubbing their fucked-up ideologies togheter, and don't need
your human blabbering.
Yee-haw. Time for startup coffee.
Maybe I should go set fire to an old folk's home today.
It'll be okay - a few of the old skinsacks will probably
manage to hobble their way to safety with only minor burns.
....
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tankfixer" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima - what they don't teach you in school |
11 Feb 2007 08:03:23 PM |
|
|
In article <dvbts2puog6iavc2k7nmgm39j3hc1u1m6c@4ax.com>,
bergjylt@gmail.com mumbled
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 03:53:57 GMT, Tankfixer
<paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote:
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.
Exactly. The opinion implied above being that this fact does
not change a thing. I simply assumed you had caught on to my
original statment regarding inexcusability and jumped a step
head. I did this by cleverly attempting to infer your
counterargument from the material already available. I
apparently forgot to factor in a thing or two, which you are
still keeping secret from me inside your braincase. To avoid
me having to employ someone to break open your braincase and
root around searching for what you intend to contribute to
this discussion, please enlighten us as soon as convenient.
Be careful back peddling there son, you will get yoru knickers caught in
the chain.
Remaining lunicy snipped.
No sense in killing any more innocent's than required.
--
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 |
12 Feb 2007 06:37:46 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 02:03:23 GMT, Tankfixer
<paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote:
In article <dvbts2puog6iavc2k7nmgm39j3hc1u1m6c@4ax.com>,
bergjylt@gmail.com mumbled
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 03:53:57 GMT, Tankfixer
<paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote:
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.
Exactly. The opinion implied above being that this fact does
not change a thing. I simply assumed you had caught on to my
original statment regarding inexcusability and jumped a step
head. I did this by cleverly attempting to infer your
counterargument from the material already available. I
apparently forgot to factor in a thing or two, which you are
still keeping secret from me inside your braincase. To avoid
me having to employ someone to break open your braincase and
root around searching for what you intend to contribute to
this discussion, please enlighten us as soon as convenient.
Be careful back peddling there son, you will get yoru knickers caught in
the chain.
Remaining lunicy snipped.
No sense in killing any more innocent's than required.
Ho-ho. Too many debate shows lodged in your brain, I see.
Maybe I should join in the spirit, clamp my jaws onto half a
sentence of yours and refuse to talk about the actual topic?
Actually, I see I don't need to. You actually admit to
thinking deliberately killing innocents is sometimes
"required". I'm sure the Interahamwe militia leaders would
agree with you.
That's good. It saves me the time it would take to play the
rest of your game, where I call you a patriopsychotic nazi,
and then spend fifteen posts telling you how I'm not talking
to you anymore.
I guess I'll just hand you the dunce hat right away. What a
funny little posterthing.
....
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima - what they don't teach you in school |
10 Feb 2007 11:20:01 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 07:20:46 +0100 there was an Ancient
Rev.Cowcatcher <bergjylt@gmail.com> who stoppeth one in alt.atheism
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?
Except it didn't wipe out every human. Hiroshima had a population of
about 255,000 at the time of the bombing. 90,000 were killed in the
blast.
Nagasaki had a 1945 population of 240,000, with 70,000 being killed by
the bomb.
So in reality, the atomic bombings didn't "wipe out the population of
two whole cities". In fact, less than 50% of the population in either
city were killed by the blast. Even counting the follow-on deaths you
don't come close to wiping out either city.
--
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 |
09 Feb 2007 06:52:04 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 06:32:21 +0100 there was an Ancient
Rev.Cowcatcher <bergjylt@gmail.com> who stoppeth one in alt.atheism
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.
Sure there is.
They started the fucking war. We ended it.
They refused to quit even as we were reducing their cities to ashes
with conventional bombs. They refused to quit when they ran out of
trained pilots and had to resort to kamikaze attacks. They refused to
quit even as famine was beginning to set in among their own people!
I've stood at Ground Zero in Hiroshima. I still believe that we had
every right to do what we had to do to end the war they started on
December 7th, 1941.
Oh, do you object as strongly to the firebombing of Tokyo? Killed
more peol,e in three days than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.
--
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 |
09 Feb 2007 07:19:21 PM |
|
|
Douglas Berry wrote:
On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 06:32:21 +0100 there was an Ancient
Rev.Cowcatcher <bergjylt@gmail.com> who stoppeth one in alt.atheism
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.
Sure there is.
They started the fucking war. We ended it.
You must be a humanitarian.
They refused to quit even as we were reducing their cities to ashes
with conventional bombs. They refused to quit when they ran out of
trained pilots and had to resort to kamikaze attacks. They refused to
quit even as famine was beginning to set in among their own people!
They would've quit soon enough.
I've stood at Ground Zero in Hiroshima. I still believe that we had
every right to do what we had to do to end the war they started on
December 7th, 1941.
You are sick. Get help.
Oh, do you object as strongly to the firebombing of Tokyo? Killed
more peol,e in three days than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.
That was also a war crime. LeMay should have hanged, not Yamashita.
--
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 |
09 Feb 2007 08:51:19 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 20:19:21 -0500 there was an Ancient Defendario
<Defendario@netscape.com> who stoppeth one in alt.atheism
Douglas Berry wrote:
They started the fucking war. We ended it.
You must be a humanitarian.
I am a former soldier.
They refused to quit even as we were reducing their cities to ashes
with conventional bombs. They refused to quit when they ran out of
trained pilots and had to resort to kamikaze attacks. They refused to
quit even as famine was beginning to set in among their own people!
They would've quit soon enough.
Oh, yes. Issuing spears to schoolchildren, digging defensive trenches
and laying mines, slogans like "Ten Million People As One Bullet!" are
all signs of imminent surrender.
How many Japanese would you be willing to see starve to death while
waiting for the military to grasp the reality? How many cities
ravaged by plagues? We ended the war.
I've stood at Ground Zero in Hiroshima. I still believe that we had
every right to do what we had to do to end the war they started on
December 7th, 1941.
You are sick. Get help.
No, I am a realist. It was horrible. So was the slaughter of
American POWs on Wake Island. Guess what? War sucks. People die in
droves, lives are torn apart, cities are ravaged. It's why wise
leaders try to avoid them.
Oh, do you object as strongly to the firebombing of Tokyo? Killed
more peol,e in three days than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.
That was also a war crime. LeMay should have hanged, not Yamashita.
We won. QED.
--
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 |
09 Feb 2007 09:10:43 PM |
|
|
Douglas Berry wrote:
On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 20:19:21 -0500 there was an Ancient Defendario
<Defendario@netscape.com> who stoppeth one in alt.atheism
Douglas Berry wrote:
They started the fucking war. We ended it.
You must be a humanitarian.
I am a former soldier.
Funny that. Same here.
They refused to quit even as we were reducing their cities to ashes
with conventional bombs. They refused to quit when they ran out of
trained pilots and had to resort to kamikaze attacks. They refused to
quit even as famine was beginning to set in among their own people!
They would've quit soon enough.
Oh, yes. Issuing spears to schoolchildren, digging defensive trenches
and laying mines, slogans like "Ten Million People As One Bullet!" are
all signs of imminent surrender.
But exactly how did the atom bomb ensure that surrender would follow?
It is my opinion that Stalin's declaration of war against Japan was the
deciding factor.
How many Japanese would you be willing to see starve to death while
waiting for the military to grasp the reality? How many cities
ravaged by plagues? We ended the war.
If the Japanese starve themselves our hands are clean.
I've stood at Ground Zero in Hiroshima. I still believe that we had
every right to do what we had to do to end the war they started on
December 7th, 1941.
You are sick. Get help.
No, I am a realist. It was horrible. So was the slaughter of
American POWs on Wake Island. Guess what? War sucks. People die in
droves, lives are torn apart, cities are ravaged. It's why wise
leaders try to avoid them.
Soldiers are legitimate targets.
The incendiary bombing and use of atomic weapons was terrorism, mostly
directed at Russia. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were meant to impress Stalin
more than Hirohito.
Oh, do you object as strongly to the firebombing of Tokyo? Killed
more peol,e in three days than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.
That was also a war crime. LeMay should have hanged, not Yamashita.
We won. QED.
So in your world might makes right.
That just means you are a moral midget.
--
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 |
10 Feb 2007 11:08:20 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 22:10:43 -0500 there was an Ancient Defendario
<Defendario@netscape.com> who stoppeth one in alt.atheism
Douglas Berry wrote:
I am a former soldier.
Funny that. Same here.
11B2V. You?
Oh, yes. Issuing spears to schoolchildren, digging defensive trenches
and laying mines, slogans like "Ten Million People As One Bullet!" are
all signs of imminent surrender.
But exactly how did the atom bomb ensure that surrender would follow?
By showing that we could, with minimal effort, destroy Japan. What
had taken hundreds of bombers now only took one, and that devastation
was greater than what the mass raids produced. I've read (in
translation) the IJA reports from Hiroshima. The unifying theme is "we
are defenseless against this."
It is my opinion that Stalin's declaration of war against Japan was the
deciding factor.
It was *a* factor. The atomic attacks, Stalin declaring war, the
Allies moving forces to the Pacific for a final assault.. all
contributed to the surrender.
How many Japanese would you be willing to see starve to death while
waiting for the military to grasp the reality? How many cities
ravaged by plagues? We ended the war.
If the Japanese starve themselves our hands are clean.
And you accuse me of moral rectitude?
No, I am a realist. It was horrible. So was the slaughter of
American POWs on Wake Island. Guess what? War sucks. People die in
droves, lives are torn apart, cities are ravaged. It's why wise
leaders try to avoid them.
Soldiers are legitimate targets.
As are the enemy's centers of production and transport. Too bad those
happen to be in cities most of the time.
The incendiary bombing and use of atomic weapons was terrorism, mostly
directed at Russia. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were meant to impress Stalin
more than Hirohito.
OK, cite one official US document that puts impressing the USSR as the
primary mission goal of the atomic attacks.
We won. QED.
So in your world might makes right.
In war, yes.
That just means you are a moral midget.
Are you capable of avoiding snide personal attacks?
--
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 07:07:07 PM |
|
|
Douglas Berry wrote:
On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 22:10:43 -0500 there was an Ancient Defendario
<Defendario@netscape.com> who stoppeth one in alt.atheism
Douglas Berry wrote:
I am a former soldier.
Funny that. Same here.
11B2V. You?
11B2C
Oh, yes. Issuing spears to schoolchildren, digging defensive trenches
and laying mines, slogans like "Ten Million People As One Bullet!" are
all signs of imminent surrender.
But exactly how did the atom bomb ensure that surrender would follow?
By showing that we could, with minimal effort, destroy Japan.
It wasn't true of course. There was only one other bomb, and even had
we used it, Japan could have resisted.
What
had taken hundreds of bombers now only took one, and that devastation
was greater than what the mass raids produced. I've read (in
translation) the IJA reports from Hiroshima. The unifying theme is "we
are defenseless against this."
They were defenseless against all attacks pretty much, and starving.
It is my opinion that Stalin's declaration of war against Japan was the
deciding factor.
It was *a* factor. The atomic attacks, Stalin declaring war, the
Allies moving forces to the Pacific for a final assault.. all
contributed to the surrender.
Starvation and a lack of a navy figured heavily.
How many Japanese would you be willing to see starve to death while
waiting for the military to grasp the reality? How many cities
ravaged by plagues? We ended the war.
If the Japanese starve themselves our hands are clean.
And you accuse me of moral rectitude?
Yes. We weren't forcing them to fast. If they wanted peace, they knew
the standing offer.
No, I am a realist. It was horrible. So was the slaughter of
American POWs on Wake Island. Guess what? War sucks. People die in
droves, lives are torn apart, cities are ravaged. It's why wise
leaders try to avoid them.
Soldiers are legitimate targets.
As are the enemy's centers of production and transport. Too bad those
happen to be in cities most of the time.
But when the attack cannot discriminate between legitimate and
illegitimate targets, the attack itself is illegitimate.
The incendiary bombing and use of atomic weapons was terrorism, mostly
directed at Russia. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were meant to impress Stalin
more than Hirohito.
OK, cite one official US document that puts impressing the USSR as the
primary mission goal of the atomic attacks.
It would not appear in a document, fool. The message was plainspoken
nonetheless.
We won. QED.
So in your world might makes right.
In war, yes.
There are ways to win with less odium
That just means you are a moral midget.
Are you capable of avoiding snide personal attacks?
Yes, but I am an insightful judge of character.
I pull no punches.
--
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 |
10 Feb 2007 09:03:23 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 20:07:07 -0500 there was an Ancient Defendario
<Defendario@netscape.com> who stoppeth one in alt.atheism
Douglas Berry wrote:
Oh, yes. Issuing spears to schoolchildren, digging defensive trenches
and laying mines, slogans like "Ten Million People As One Bullet!" are
all signs of imminent surrender.
But exactly how did the atom bomb ensure that surrender would follow?
By showing that we could, with minimal effort, destroy Japan.
It wasn't true of course. There was only one other bomb, and even had
we used it, Japan could have resisted.
The United States expected to have another atomic bomb ready for use
in the third week of August, with three more in September and a
further three in October.
Those dates are before the earliest possible launch of the invasion of
the home islands.
What
had taken hundreds of bombers now only took one, and that devastation
was greater than what the mass raids produced. I've read (in
translation) the IJA reports from Hiroshima. The unifying theme is "we
are defenseless against this."
They were defenseless against all attacks pretty much, and starving.
And ending the war quickly saved an estimated 10 million from starving
to death.
How many Japanese would you be willing to see starve to death while
waiting for the military to grasp the reality? How many cities
ravaged by plagues? We ended the war.
If the Japanese starve themselves our hands are clean.
And you accuse me of moral rectitude?
Yes. We weren't forcing them to fast. If they wanted peace, they knew
the standing offer.
And they REJECTED that offer! By Odin's Eye, do you not get that they
refused to surrender? We had been sending feelers out through neutral
countries since mid-1944!
As are the enemy's centers of production and transport. Too bad those
happen to be in cities most of the time.
But when the attack cannot discriminate between legitimate and
illegitimate targets, the attack itself is illegitimate.
We declare wars against nations, not specific parts of that nation.
You were a mortarman, can you declare with a clear conscience that you
always knew *exactly* where your shell would hit and who was inside
the blast radius?
OK, cite one official US document that puts impressing the USSR as the
primary mission goal of the atomic attacks.
It would not appear in a document, fool. The message was plainspoken
nonetheless.
That would be a *no* then. I can quote Truman.
"The atom bomb was no "great decision." It was merely another powerful
weapon in the arsenal of righteousness."
"...The might that now converges on Japan is immeasurably greater
than that which, when applied to the resisting Nazis, necessarily laid
waste to the lands, the industry and the method of life of the whole
German people. The full application of our military power, backed by
our resolve, will mean the inevitable and complete destruction of the
Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of
the Japanese homeland..."
"...We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the
unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide
proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The
alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction."
In war, yes.
There are ways to win with less odium
Sure, we could have starved them out, losing perhaps 10 million to
starvation and plague. How would history judge that, hm? Or we could
have let them keep Korea and Manchuria. While we were at that, we
could have apologized to Germany, put Donitz back in power and
returned Norway to them. Or we could have invaded, leading to an
estimated 1 million allied casualties and Ghu knows how many dead
Japanese and even worse damage to Japan's infrastructure.
Instead we ended the war in about ten days.
That just means you are a moral midget.
Are you capable of avoiding snide personal attacks?
Yes, but I am an insightful judge of character.
I pull no punches.
Amusing, since you spend most of this thread whinging about the US
*not* pulling punches.
--
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 09:26:14 PM |
|
|
Douglas Berry wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 20:07:07 -0500 there was an Ancient Defendario
<Defendario@netscape.com> who stoppeth one in alt.atheism
Douglas Berry wrote:
Oh, yes. Issuing spears to schoolchildren, digging defensive trenches
and laying mines, slogans like "Ten Million People As One Bullet!" are
all signs of imminent surrender.
But exactly how did the atom bomb ensure that surrender would follow?
By showing that we could, with minimal effort, destroy Japan.
It wasn't true of course. There was only one other bomb, and even had
we used it, Japan could have resisted.
The United States expected to have another atomic bomb ready for use
in the third week of August, with three more in September and a
further three in October.
That doesn't square with what I've read.
Those dates are before the earliest possible launch of the invasion of
the home islands.
Which would be likewise unnecessary.
What
had taken hundreds of bombers now only took one, and that devastation
was greater than what the mass raids produced. I've read (in
translation) the IJA reports from Hiroshima. The unifying theme is "we
are defenseless against this."
They were defenseless against all attacks pretty much, and starving.
And ending the war quickly saved an estimated 10 million from starving
to death.
The Japanese would have quit long before that.
How many Japanese would you be willing to see starve to death while
waiting for the military to grasp the reality? How many cities
ravaged by plagues? We ended the war.
If the Japanese starve themselves our hands are clean.
And you accuse me of moral rectitude?
Yes. We weren't forcing them to fast. If they wanted peace, they knew
the standing offer.
And they REJECTED that offer! By Odin's Eye, do you not get that they
refused to surrender? We had been sending feelers out through neutral
countries since mid-1944!
*****, pagan. It was the Japanese who were putting feelers out, not
the US/UK gang.
As are the enemy's centers of production and transport. Too bad those
happen to be in cities most of the time.
But when the attack cannot discriminate between legitimate and
illegitimate targets, the attack itself is illegitimate.
We declare wars against nations, not specific parts of that nation.
Wrong. Civilians and other non-combatants are supposed to be held
blameless, and protected. Re-read Geneva and Hague.
You were a mortarman, can you declare with a clear conscience that you
always knew *exactly* where your shell would hit and who was inside
the blast radius?
Anti-tank missile operator actually. I was fairly confident that I
would hit what I was shooting at.
OK, cite one official US document that puts impressing the USSR as the
primary mission goal of the atomic attacks.
It would not appear in a document, fool. The message was plainspoken
nonetheless.
That would be a *no* then. I can quote Truman.
"The atom bomb was no "great decision." It was merely another powerful
weapon in the arsenal of righteousness."
But that was BS of course.
"...The might that now converges on Japan is immeasurably greater
than that which, when applied to the resisting Nazis, necessarily laid
waste to the lands, the industry and the method of life of the whole
German people. The full application of our military power, backed by
our resolve, will mean the inevitable and complete destruction of the
Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of
the Japanese homeland..."
"...We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the
unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide
proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The
alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction."
Japan was aching for a way out. Offering to respect the Emperor sealed
the deal.
In war, yes.
There are ways to win with less odium
Sure, we could have starved them out, losing perhaps 10 million to
starvation and plague.
Where do you get that figure from? Ur (_!_)?
How would history judge that, hm? Or we could
have let them keep Korea and Manchuria. While we were at that, we
could have apologized to Germany, put Donitz back in power and
returned Norway to them. Or we could have invaded, leading to an
estimated 1 million allied casualties and Ghu knows how many dead
Japanese and even worse damage to Japan's infrastructure.
All this is ridiculous and a strawman fallacy.
Instead we ended the war in about ten days.
We could have waited a few more. There was no need to use the A-Bomb.
That just means you are a moral midget.
Are you capable of avoiding snide personal attacks?
Yes, but I am an insightful judge of character.
I pull no punches.
Amusing, since you spend most of this thread whinging about the US
*not* pulling punches.
I didn't say I would strike below the belt.
--
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 12:13:39 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 22:26:14 -0500 there was an Ancient Defendario
<Defendario@netscape.com> who stoppeth one in alt.atheism
Douglas Berry wrote:
The United States expected to have another atomic bomb ready for use
in the third week of August, with three more in September and a
further three in October.
That doesn't square with what I've read.
Those figures came from Gen. Leslie Groves, director of the Manhattan
Project. They were in a memo sent to the Secretaries of War and of
the Navy, as well as to President Truman after the Nagasaki bombing.
Those dates are before the earliest possible launch of the invasion of
the home islands.
Which would be likewise unnecessary.
Prove that assertation.
And ending the war quickly saved an estimated 10 million from starving
to death.
The Japanese would have quit long before that.
Prove that assertation.
And they REJECTED that offer! By Odin's Eye, do you not get that they
refused to surrender? We had been sending feelers out through neutral
countries since mid-1944!
*****, pagan. It was the Japanese who were putting feelers out, not
the US/UK gang.
Really? And if I cite internal memos from Cordell Hull to Roosevelt
discussing the wording of such feelers to be sent through the Swedes?
We declare wars against nations, not specific parts of that nation.
Wrong. Civilians and other non-combatants are supposed to be held
blameless, and protected. Re-read Geneva and Hague.
Yup. Which applies to situations where the civilians can be indetified
and protected. Note that before both atomic attacks we dropped
leaflets in the target cities advising civilians to flee.
You were a mortarman, can you declare with a clear conscience that you
always knew *exactly* where your shell would hit and who was inside
the blast radius?
Anti-tank missile operator actually. I was fairly confident that I
would hit what I was shooting at.
11-C is an Indirect Fire Infantryman. Where'd you do OSUT?
That would be a *no* then. I can quote Truman.
"The atom bomb was no "great decision." It was merely another powerful
weapon in the arsenal of righteousness."
But that was BS of course.
Because you say so?
"...The might that now converges on Japan is immeasurably greater
than that which, when applied to the resisting Nazis, necessarily laid
waste to the lands, the industry and the method of life of the whole
German people. The full application of our military power, backed by
our resolve, will mean the inevitable and complete destruction of the
Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of
the Japanese homeland..."
"...We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the
unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide
proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The
alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction."
Japan was aching for a way out. Offering to respect the Emperor sealed
the deal.
After we showed we could destroy them utterly.
In war, yes.
There are ways to win with less odium
Sure, we could have starved them out, losing perhaps 10 million to
starvation and plague.
Where do you get that figure from? Ur (_!_)?
International Red Cross documents (post war), US Army Intelligence
estimates, Internal Japanese government reports from the summer of
1945 on the growing food shortages and health problems in rural areas.
Instead we ended the war in about ten days.
We could have waited a few more. There was no need to use the A-Bomb.
Because you have said so. History disagrees.
--
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 07:46:03 PM |
|
|
Douglas Berry wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 22:26:14 -0500 there was an Ancient Defendario
<Defendario@netscape.com> who stoppeth one in alt.atheism
Douglas Berry wrote:
The United States expected to have another atomic bomb ready for use
in the third week of August, with three more in September and a
further three in October.
That doesn't square with what I've read.
Those figures came from Gen. Leslie Groves, director of the Manhattan
Project. They were in a memo sent to the Secretaries of War and of
the Navy, as well as to President Truman after the Nagasaki bombing.
Then you must have seen something I haven't. We used two bombs too many
in any case.
Those dates are before the earliest possible launch of the invasion of
the home islands.
Which would be likewise unnecessary.
Prove that assertation.
Got a time machine handy?
:-\
And ending the war quickly saved an estimated 10 million from starving
to death.
The Japanese would have quit long before that.
Prove that assertation.
See above.
Why do you think that I must *prove* my opinions, when you don't?
:-\
And they REJECTED that offer! By Odin's Eye, do you not get that they
refused to surrender? We had been sending feelers out through neutral
countries since mid-1944!
*****, pagan. It was the Japanese who were putting feelers out, not
the US/UK gang.
Really? And if I cite internal memos from Cordell Hull to Roosevelt
discussing the wording of such feelers to be sent through the Swedes?
Does that mean the Japanese didn't initiate the contact, as I have been
given to understand?
We declare wars against nations, not specific parts of that nation.
Wrong. Civilians and other non-combatants are supposed to be held
blameless, and protected. Re-read Geneva and Hague.
Yup. Which applies to situations where the civilians can be indetified
and protected. Note that before both atomic attacks we dropped
leaflets in the target cities advising civilians to flee.
Which were ignored by the citizens because we dropped similar leaflets
without attacking, to disrupt production.
Face it -- the Atom bombs were indiscriminate massacres of human beings
who deserved better.
You were a mortarman, can you declare with a clear conscience that you
always knew *exactly* where your shell would hit and who was inside
the blast radius?
Anti-tank missile operator actually. I was fairly confident that I
would hit what I was shooting at.
11-C is an Indirect Fire Infantryman. Where'd you do OSUT?
11Bravo Two Charlie -- Dragon gunner
Ft Benning GA
That would be a *no* then. I can quote Truman.
"The atom bomb was no "great decision." It was merely another powerful
weapon in the arsenal of righteousness."
But that was BS of course.
Because you say so?
Yeah! :-)
"...The might that now converges on Japan is immeasurably greater
than that which, when applied to the resisting Nazis, necessarily laid
waste to the lands, the industry and the method of life of the whole
German people. The full application of our military power, backed by
our resolve, will mean the inevitable and complete destruction of the
Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of
the Japanese homeland..."
"...We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the
unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide
proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The
alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction."
Japan was aching for a way out. Offering to respect the Emperor sealed
the deal.
After we showed we could destroy them utterly.
After the Soviets offered to clean up what was left of the Army in
China, leaving the Japanese with literally nothing to save themselves,
much less their face.
In war, yes.
There are ways to win with less odium
Sure, we could have starved them out, losing perhaps 10 million to
starvation and plague.
Where do you get that figure from? Ur (_!_)?
International Red Cross documents (post war), US Army Intelligence
estimates, Internal Japanese government reports from the summer of
1945 on the growing food shortages and health problems in rural areas.
Worst case scenario guesstimates. IOW the aSSes of some people back in
the 40s with their own agendas.
I don't really think the Japanese would have let the situation go nearly
so long. They'd have caved in for humanitarian reasons.
Instead we ended the war in about ten days.
We could have waited a few more. There was no need to use the A-Bomb.
Because you have said so. History disagrees.
Your historians disagree. Mine agree with me.
Might as well drop it.
--
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 07:38:02 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 20:46:03 -0500 there was an Ancient Defendario
<Defendario@netscape.com> who stoppeth one in alt.atheism
Douglas Berry wrote:
Those figures came from Gen. Leslie Groves, director of the Manhattan
Project. They were in a memo sent to the Secretaries of War and of
the Navy, as well as to President Truman after the Nagasaki bombing.
Then you must have seen something I haven't. We used two bombs too many
in any case.
Yes, I have. Original documents, translations of Japanese reports..
I've actually studied this in great detail.
Prove that assertation.
Got a time machine handy?
:-\
I'll accept that as an admission that you cannot prove what you claim.
Why do you think that I must *prove* my opinions, when you don't?
:-\
I'm citing documents. You are making wild claims.
Really? And if I cite internal memos from Cordell Hull to Roosevelt
discussing the wording of such feelers to be sent through the Swedes?
Does that mean the Japanese didn't initiate the contact, as I have been
given to understand?
They initiated contact, but they're demands were unreasonable. The
1943 peace feelers pretty much was a restatement oif their war goals:
we get to keep everything we grabbed.
Yup. Which applies to situations where the civilians can be indetified
and protected. Note that before both atomic attacks we dropped
leaflets in the target cities advising civilians to flee.
Which were ignored by the citizens because we dropped similar leaflets
without attacking, to disrupt production.
We gave warning. They ignored it.
Face it -- the Atom bombs were indiscriminate massacres of human beings
who deserved better.
So are conventional bombs, and fire bombs. War sucks.
Anti-tank missile operator actually. I was fairly confident that I
would hit what I was shooting at.
11-C is an Indirect Fire Infantryman. Where'd you do OSUT?
11Bravo Two Charlie -- Dragon gunner
Ft Benning GA
Ah. Hated those things.
But that was BS of course.
Because you say so?
Yeah! :-)
Sorry, not good enough in a discussion of historical events.
After we showed we could destroy them utterly.
After the Soviets offered to clean up what was left of the Army in
China, leaving the Japanese with literally nothing to save themselves,
much less their face.
Who cares about their face? And they had plenty of troops in the Home
Islands.
Where do you get that figure from? Ur (_!_)?
International Red Cross documents (post war), US Army Intelligence
estimates, Internal Japanese government reports from the summer of
1945 on the growing food shortages and health problems in rural areas.
Worst case scenario guesstimates. IOW the aSSes of some people back in
the 40s with their own agendas.
Amazing. you refuse to accept facts.
I don't really think the Japanese would have let the situation go nearly
so long. They'd have caved in for humanitarian reasons.
ROTFL! You really have no clue.
Might as well drop it.
Your surrender is noted and accepted.
--
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 02:34:04 PM |
|
|
Douglas Berry wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 20:46:03 -0500 there was an Ancient Defendario
<Defendario@netscape.com> who stoppeth one in alt.atheism
Douglas Berry wrote:
Those figures came from Gen. Leslie Groves, director of the Manhattan
Project. They were in a memo sent to the Secretaries of War and of
the Navy, as well as to President Truman after the Nagasaki bombing.
Then you must have seen something I haven't. We used two bombs too many
in any case.
Yes, I have. Original documents, translations of Japanese reports..
I'm supposed to take your word for this.
I've actually studied this in great detail.
Sure you have.
;-)
Prove that assertation.
Got a time machine handy?
:-\
I'll accept that as an admission that you cannot prove what you claim.
As much as you.
Why do you think that I must *prove* my opinions, when you don't?
:-\
I'm citing documents. You are making wild claims.
You /refer/ to documents. You haven't offered a cite yet.
Really? And if I cite internal memos from Cordell Hull to Roosevelt
discussing the wording of such feelers to be sent through the Swedes?
Does that mean the Japanese didn't initiate the contact, as I have been
given to understand?
They initiated contact, but they're demands were unreasonable. The
1943 peace feelers pretty much was a restatement oif their war goals:
we get to keep everything we grabbed.
Proof?
Yup. Which applies to situations where the civilians can be indetified
and protected. Note that before both atomic attacks we dropped
leaflets in the target cities advising civilians to flee.
Which were ignored by the citizens because we dropped similar leaflets
without attacking, to disrupt production.
We gave warning. They ignored it.
We lied about attacks that didn't happen. The Japanese we're lulled
into ignoring it.
Face it -- the Atom bombs were indiscriminate massacres of human beings
who deserved better.
So are conventional bombs, and fire bombs. War sucks.
Especially when conducted in a criminal manner, as you seem to advocate.
Anti-tank missile operator actually. I was fairly confident that I
would hit what I was shooting at.
11-C is an Indirect Fire Infantryman. Where'd you do OSUT?
11Bravo Two Charlie -- Dragon gunner
Ft Benning GA
Ah. Hated those things.
Crappy system. Best to shoot-n-scoot.
But that was BS of course.
Because you say so?
Yeah! :-)
Sorry, not good enough in a discussion of historical events.
Sure it is. It's the same thing you want me to buy.
At the end of the day all history is monday morning QB ***** and opinions
of varying validity.
After we showed we could destroy them utterly.
After the Soviets offered to clean up what was left of the Army in
China, leaving the Japanese with literally nothing to save themselves,
much less their face.
Who cares about their face? And they had plenty of troops in the Home
Islands.
The Japanese certainly cared about face, and to deal with them is to
enter their world. The Japanese certainly cared about the Army of
Manchuoko, and didn't want to see it destroyed.
Where do you get that figure from? Ur (_!_)?
International Red Cross documents (post war), US Army Intelligence
estimates, Internal Japanese government reports from the summer of
1945 on the growing food shortages and health problems in rural areas.
Worst case scenario guesstimates. IOW the aSSes of some people back in
the 40s with their own agendas.
Amazing. you refuse to accept facts.
What some try to pass off as facts, no.
I don't really think the Japanese would have let the situation go nearly
so long. They'd have caved in for humanitarian reasons.
ROTFL! You really have no clue.
Same to you.
Might as well drop it.
Your surrender is noted and accepted.
You are defeated by your own brainwashing.
Scrub your cerebrum again and get back to me.
--
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 07:06:10 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 15:34:04 -0500 there was an Ancient Defendario
<Defendario@netscape.com> who stoppeth one in alt.atheism
Douglas Berry wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 20:46:03 -0500 there was an Ancient Defendario
<Defendario@netscape.com> who stoppeth one in alt.atheism
Douglas Berry wrote:
Those figures came from Gen. Leslie Groves, director of the Manhattan
Project. They were in a memo sent to the Secretaries of War and of
the Navy, as well as to President Truman after the Nagasaki bombing.
Then you must have seen something I haven't. We used two bombs too many
in any case.
Yes, I have. Original documents, translations of Japanese reports..
I'm supposed to take your word for this.
Do what I did. Get assigned to the 3rd United States Infantry (The
Old Guard) and take extension courses through the Army Continuing
Education Program that gives you access to the Library of Congress and
the National Archives (hey, I had to something between funerals at the
Garden and standing at attention at the White Hose/Pentagon/Whereever)
I spent a lot of time reading these documents for a course on the
occupation of Japan.
I'll accept that as an admission that you cannot prove what you claim.
As much as you.
I've cited documents. You haven't cited anything.
So are conventional bombs, and fire bombs. War sucks.
Especially when conducted in a criminal manner, as you seem to advocate.
It seems that you would have use go back to the Napoleonic Era, with
brightly uniformed armies lining up at 100 paces. Ain't gonna happen.
Your surrender is noted and accepted.
You are defeated by your own brainwashing.
Scrub your cerebrum again and get back to me.
My brainwashing consisted of reading the original documents and being
lectured by people who were there.
--
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 07:43:43 PM |
|
|
Douglas Berry wrote:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 15:34:04 -0500 there was an Ancient Defendario
<Defendario@netscape.com> who stoppeth one in alt.atheism
Douglas Berry wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 20:46:03 -0500 there was an Ancient Defendario
<Defendario@netscape.com> who stoppeth one in alt.atheism
Douglas Berry wrote:
Those figures came from Gen. Leslie Groves, director of the Manhattan
Project. They were in a memo sent to the Secretaries of War and of
the Navy, as well as to President Truman after the Nagasaki bombing.
Then you must have seen something I haven't. We used two bombs too many
in any case.
Yes, I have. Original documents, translations of Japanese reports..
I'm supposed to take your word for this.
Do what I did. Get assigned to the 3rd United States Infantry (The
Old Guard) and take extension courses through the Army Continuing
Education Program that gives you access to the Library of Congress and
the National Archives (hey, I had to something between funerals at the
Garden and standing at attention at the White Hose/Pentagon/Whereever)
Dress Blues every day, eh? Lucky you.
I spent a lot of time reading these documents for a course on the
occupation of Japan.
OK
I'll accept that as an admission that you cannot prove what you claim.
As much as you.
I've cited documents. You haven't cited anything.
What? You want I should chase google for you too?
So are conventional bombs, and fire bombs. War sucks.
Especially when conducted in a criminal manner, as you seem to advocate.
It seems that you would have use go back to the Napoleonic Era, with
brightly uniformed armies lining up at 100 paces. Ain't gonna happen.
Not at all. I think that the present technology of smart weapons could
usher in a new age of moral warfare, targeted strictly at the military
and production and leaving the innocent unharmed.
Your surrender is noted and accepted.
You are defeated by your own brainwashing.
Scrub your cerebrum again and get back to me.
My brainwashing consisted of reading the original documents and being
lectured by people who were there.
Which again is a type of brainwashing. If you really think that
Hirohito would have sat while 10 /Million/ Japanese died of starvation
you must be severely challenged. That would never have happened.
My contention which you have failed to refute is that a couple of months
of continued blockade and bombing of industrial/military targets would
have brought the Emperor, and his Empire, to their knees.
The A-Bomb need not have been used. It was militarily superfluous in
the war against Japan, and the only reasonable explanation for its use
was to put the fear of the USAAF into the Soviet Union.
And that it did. And so began the Cold War.
--
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: "KP nospam@please" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima - what they don't teach you in school |
13 Feb 2007 01:20:57 PM |
|
|
"Defendario" <Defendario@netscape.com> wrote in message
news:53cj9uF1s38l1U1@mid.individual.net...
If you really think that Hirohito would have sat while 10 /Million/
Japanese died of starvation you must be severely challenged. That would
never have happened.
He sat by or actively encouraged the perpetrators while an equal or greater
number of non-japanese suffered exactly that fate or worse.
He sat by or actively encouraged or had his minions force large numbers of
japanese civilians to do exactly that or worse on Saipan and Okinawa among
other places.
He was not a nice guy at the head of many other not nice guys who did not
operate according to 21st (or even 20th) Century Western mores or standards
of behavior. Thinking that he did or would have is a large mistake.
My contention which you have failed to refute is that a couple of months
of continued blockade and bombing of industrial/military targets would
have brought the Emperor, and his Empire, to their knees.
Too bad your father (or grandfather) wasn't the last Soldier, Sailor,
Airman, Marine, or Coast Guardsman who was killed enforcing those "couple
months of blockade and bombing" instead of surviving because the war was
brought to an end as quickly as possible. Then there would be no need for
this exchange.
The A-Bomb need not have been used. It was militarily superfluous in the
war against Japan, and the only reasonable explanation for its use was to
put the fear of the USAAF into the Soviet Union.
It Ended The War. It Ended The War Faster Than Any Other Available Option.
It Saved American Lives. That's the real explanation and it's eminently
reasonable.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Defendario" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima - what they don't teach you in school |
14 Feb 2007 04:34:20 PM |
|
|
KP wrote:
"Defendario" <Defendario@netscape.com> wrote in message
news:53cj9uF1s38l1U1@mid.individual.net...
If you really think that Hirohito would have sat while 10 /Million/
Japanese died of starvation you must be severely challenged. That would
never have happened.
He sat by or actively encouraged the perpetrators while an equal or greater
number of non-japanese suffered exactly that fate or worse.
Of course. They were not Japanese.
He sat by or actively encouraged or had his minions force large numbers of
japanese civilians to do exactly that or worse on Saipan and Okinawa among
other places.
He was not a nice guy at the head of many other not nice guys who did not
operate according to 21st (or even 20th) Century Western mores or standards
of behavior. Thinking that he did or would have is a large mistake.
More than wantonly using the ultimate weapon against a prostrate enemy?
:-\
My contention which you have failed to refute is that a couple of months
of continued blockade and bombing of industrial/military targets would
have brought the Emperor, and his Empi
Can't answer that, eh?
Figures.
.
|
|
|
| User: "KP nospam@please" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima - what they don't teach you in school |
14 Feb 2007 06:20:59 PM |
|
|
"Defendario" <Defendario@netscape.com> wrote in message
news:53hguqF1s7g60U1@mid.individual.net...
KP wrote:
"Defendario" <Defendario@netscape.com> wrote in message
news:53cj9uF1s38l1U1@mid.individual.net...
If you really think that Hirohito would have sat while 10 /Million/
Japanese died of starvation you must be severely challenged. That would
never have happened.
He sat by or actively encouraged the perpetrators while an equal or
greater number of non-japanese suffered exactly that fate or worse.
Of course. They were not Japanese.
He sat by or actively encouraged or had his minions force large numbers
of japanese civilians to do exactly that or worse on Saipan and Okinawa
among other places.
He was not a nice guy at the head of many other not nice guys who did not
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
