Who should Japan apologize to for starting WW II?

[x-g.o.p.er]

Enough of this US apologist stuff for fighting a war we did not want. They started it, we finished it. Truman was right for using the A-bomb to end the war 60 years ago, he is right today, and he will still be right 100 years from now.

[wuushew]

1. Hasn't Japan apologized to numerous nations for its aggression?

with perhaps the exception of North Korea

[Just Me]

32. Somebody REALLY needs a history lesson. Japan DIDN'T start it. n/t

[stavka]

83. Huh?

They didn't sieze Korea?

They didn't invade Manchuria?

They didn't then invade China proper?

They didn't then run out of gas, steel, and rubber and get boycotted by the Dutch/English/French/Americans?

They didn't then attack the English/Dutch/US?

The 1930's Japanese leadership were no better than the Nazi's, worse maybe they should have known better.

[Just Me]

100. Do you really look at the world in such an one-dimensional way? n/t

[stavka]

116. One dimensional?

You are kidding right?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

105. Responses...

They didn't sieze Korea?

They didn't invade Manchuria?

They didn't then invade China proper?

****Yes to all of the above.

======================================

They didn't then run out of gas, steel, and rubber and get boycotted by the Dutch/English/French/Americans?

****They ran of raw materials because the U. S. stopped shipping those materials to Japan. That was part of the 8-point plan outlined by a U. S. Naval officer by the name of McCollum in 1940 designed to provoke Japan into attacking U. S. assets in the Pacific. Another part of the plan was to move the fleet from bases along the West Coast to Hawaii.

They didn't then attack the English/Dutch/US?

****Yes, but see above and then read "Day of Deceit" by Stinnett. We had broken all of the Japanese codes in 1940, and we knew where they were going to strike and where.

======================================

The 1930's Japanese leadership were no better than the Nazi's, worse maybe they should have known better.

****When discussing dictatorships, I'm not sure what "they should have known better" means. Most aggressive dictatorships believe that they are following the only correct path open to them when they take certain actions like going to war. One could say the same thing about the NeoCon Junta, couldn't they?

[stavka]

111. AT LAST !!!!! Somebody who reads post WWI- WWII

I was getting scared!

Nobody else wants to play like a grown-up.

That said -

"****They ran of raw materials because the U. S. stopped shipping those materials to Japan. That was part of the 8-point plan outlined by a U. S. Naval officer by the name of McCollum in 1940 designed to provoke Japan into attacking U. S. assets in the Pacific. Another part of the plan was to move the fleet from bases along the West Coast to Hawaii."

I need to look at this, I don't understand what it has to do with refuting the idea Japan was even more evil than the Europeans they kicked out point of view, but at least people read about the events that shaped our world.

[Carl Brennan]

213. Very lame post

AFTER Japan did all of its dirty deeds it was the US's DUTY to cut off their raw materials whereever possible. I cannot believe a sane person could write such as piece of garbage as you have here. :puke:

The US didn't provoke shit, they simply cut off supplies to a fascist nation bent on ruling the world along with Nazi Germany.

[TankLV]

114. Nope! Not a single one.

Not even mentioned in any history books over there.

The Germans have much on the subject by comparison, and have apologized many times in many places.

[Guaranteed]

131. Whether they have or not, they're sorry.

Those Japanese old enough to remember the war do NOT like talking about it. They're very ashamed of it.

[LondonAmerican]

2. Bollocks

The US government wanted the war, and badly.

The US should apologise to Japan for attempting to strangle their economy with sanctions, which led to the attack on Pearl Harbor. And then apologise again for genocide in using atomic bombs against civilians. And then again, for interning Japanese US citizens in concentration camps.

[x-g.o.p.er]

4. I will concede the interment of American citizens

based on their Japanese ancestry. The rest of your post is bollocks, respectfully speaking.

The sanctions were in response to the Japanese invasion of China...and Truman saved American lives by using the A-bomb, which shortened the war considerably.

[Career Prole]

11. "..and Truman saved American lives by using the A-bomb"

Hey, you skipped the part about American lives being worth more than Japanese lives, or is that just supposed to go without saying, like in Iraq.

[x-g.o.p.er]

15. At the time, as the Commander in Chief...

His job was to use whatever weapons of war that were at his disposal to ensure maximum damage to the enemy while doing his utmost to minimize American casualties.

So yes, as the commander in chief, American lives were more important to save than those of the enemy.

[Career Prole]

22. Mmm-boy...war sure is a clever way of doing business.

Sure is a great source of pride to me that we can kill more innocent people at one blow than anyone else on earth. /sarcasm

[LondonAmerican]

21. Exactly

that's the part that they typically don't like to say out loud. Or the fact that according to all laws of war there is a difference between soldiers and civilians and that you are not supposed to indiscriminately slaughter civilians -- which is all that an A-bomb can do.

[DoNotRefill]

45. wrong.

the a-bomb doesn't indiscriminately slaughter civilians. It indiscriminately slaughters EVERYBODY, civilians and military alike. And targeting the industries which produce the sinews of war is a VERY effective tactic.

[LondonAmerican]

52. Except

of course that they did in fact indiscriminately kill civilians. And that was the whole point.

Face it, it was simple racist genocide committed against Asians by white Americans.

All the bleating about "good intentions" won't change that very ugly fact. Which is one reason why most people around the world got sick and tired of the US government's "morality" a long, long time ago.

[DoNotRefill]

55. Horseshiat.

OK, America is at fault for putting an economic stranglehold on Japan to try to stop their wholesale slaughter of Chinese before Pearl Harbor, right? So, we're racist because we started a war to keep one group of asians from slaughtering a separate, genetically distinct group of asians in what amounted to a racial holy war? How can that be? And if it was indeed a racist genocide, why didn't we hold off for a few months, and then nuke the entirety of the home islands off the face of the map?

Sorry, but the "America was the racist aggressor against the valiant innocent asians" just doesn't wash. Japan's hands were FAR dirtier than ours ever were.

Hell, for that matter, if we were being so racist, why did we try to help the Chinese in CBI? Remember Vinegar Joe? how 'bout the Flying Tigers? Oh, wait, were the people they were helping against the Japanese not Asian enough?

[x-g.o.p.er]

60. Great post!! n/t

[Just Me]

97. WOW! Was THAT what it was all about?

:shrug:

[Wilber_Stool]

24. How many Japanese would have died

in a mainland invasion? They would have fought with rakes and pointed sticks if the Emperor had told them to.
Oops. I questioned the wrong statement. This was for 14.

[Career Prole]

28. No, I'm afraid I don't see Japanese women, children, and elderly

civilians doing that at all. My imagination's just not that good.

[Wilber_Stool]

35. Then you don't know

the Japanese very well. They would walk through the gates of hell for the Emperor. When American sailors tried to rescue Japanese in the water they would swim away from their rescuers. During the occupation, the Emperor said no harm should come to any American, none did. Not one was hurt in any way.

[bpilgrim]

44. would have been much worse than iraq - n/t

peace

[Career Prole]

65. Sure Wilber...but I believe we were talking about civilians, were we not?

I believe any civilian who had seen two cities virtually vaporized in an instant would tend to be a bit gun-shy around the occupying force which showed such an utter disregard for non-combatants.
As for the walk through fire for the Emperor thing, I seem to remember hearing exactly the same song-and-dance routine from the right about the fedayeen and Republican Guard fighting to the last man for Saddam Hussein. They blew that call, too.

[DoNotRefill]

46. That's odd. They had organizations training to do just that.

schoolgirls, old men, et cetera. Just like the Nazi's Volkssturm, which was known for putting 10 year old kids on the front line.

[Career Prole]

67. Link? n/t

[DoNotRefill]

85. do a google search for the phrase:

"One hundred million will die for the Emperor and Nation"

They were serious about it.

You also might read what Leahy said he'd estimate US casualties to be if we invaded Japan.

Edit: typo in the quote

[Career Prole]

129. I looked it up as you said I should...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22One+hundred+million+will+die+for+the+Emperor+and+Nation%22&btnG=Google+Search

"©2004 Google - Searching 4,285,199,774 web pages
Results 1 - 4 of about 13"

All directly quoting or based on the same article, all by amateur historians, mostly just quoted in various message boards.
I would've preferred something from a Japanese historian, to tell the truth.

One of the amateur historians, even has a disclaimer on his site:
http://www.mikekemble.com/disclaimer.html

"Whilst every effort has been made in my research into various topics, I must ask readers to bear in mind that the truth is presented as I found it. Every effort has been made to ensure accuracy and facts. History is, and has always been, in the eyes of the writer. Therefore the history of a particular incident will only be as accurate as the "side" it was written on. The history of Russia, according to the Communists, is very different to the history of Russia as written by any western historian. That is just an example. Chinese history, I am sure, is different to the "reds" as to "nationalists". Or what happened at the Bay of Pigs is different in Cuban eyes to those of America.
You must remember one thing about reading historical events on the net, as well as in books, history is in the opinion of the writer and can, on occasion, mislead. I have made strenuous efforts to present the facts, where these differ, I have provided the "argument", luckily, most is beyond dispute."

Provides "the argument where available"...or so he says. The article upon which he based his pro-atomic solution screed is the same one all the other sites refer to. He provided a link to it, so I followed the link since he said he'd edited the original article, and that's what I wanted. I found the original article where he'd linked to. I also found anti-atomic bomb articles on the same site he'd linked to. So much for providing both sides of the argument where available. :)
The article they all used was written by a guy who says he found top< secret war plans in the national archives. He doesn't ever quote them, just refers to them. Mentions monitored Japanese radio broadcasts stating schools would be closed to prepare for the defense of Japan after the Potsdam Declaration threatened the total destruction of Japan. I gotta think had the situation been reversed we'd have closed the schools too.[br />
The dissenting argument is here.
http://sandysq.gcinet.net/uss_salt_lake_city_ca25/zach08.htm#top

This one I'd read about.

"Hiroshima
Was it Necessary?
...Zacharias continued, "The Potsdam Declaration, in short, wrecked everything we had been working for to prevent further bloodshed...

"Just when the Japanese were ready to capitulate, we went ahead and introduced to the world the most devastating weapon it had ever seen and, in effect, gave the go-ahead to Russia to swarm over Eastern Asia.

"Washington decided that Japan had been given its chance and now it was time to use the A-bomb.

"I submit that it was the wrong decision. It was wrong on strategic grounds. And it was wrong on humanitarian grounds."

Ellis Zacharias (Deputy Director of the Office of Naval Intelligence)
"How We Bungled the Japanese Surrender", Look, 6/6/50, pg. 19-21."

[DoNotRefill]

132. In that case, it might help if you read and searched in Japanese...

but I've seen published pictures of them drilling....

[stavka]

87. Saipan, Okinawa....

...at least the plan in Japan was to try and fight, rather than just kill themselves...
why does everybody need a "link" for it to be real? Read a book for ****'s sake!

[DoNotRefill]

43. career....

when you're in a war, there are two groups. Your people, and everybody else. Putting the lives of the people in the "everybody else" on equal status as your own people is foolhardy in the extreme. If killing 100,000 enemy people saved the life of a SINGLE US Soldier, it was Truman's DUTY to do it. That's a BASIC, BEDROCK principle of leadership, and ANYBODY who doesn't adhere to it has NO BUSINESS being in command of ANYTHING.

[Career Prole]

57. And no sense of moral responsibility whatsoever, and when they

profess to be Christians on top of it, it's all the more perverse.
Assholes who think that way are the cause of war, not the cure for it.

[DoNotRefill]

64. You have no concept of duty or honor or what it means to command.

I don't mean that as a flame, just a statement of fact.

During Viet Nam, people espousing the philosophy you're pushing routinely got fragged for placing their personal interests over the interests of the men under their command.

There is NO higher duty than the duty a commander has to the people under his command to look out for THEIR interests absolutely FIRST. ANY person in command who looks after the interests of themselves or the interests of the enemy before the interests of his or her men DESERVES to be fragged. They should NEVER have been placed into a position of command in the first place.

[Career Prole]

73. You know I started to...but I don't believe I'll dignify that

with a response, because opposing people who will follow their commander-in-chief into battle blindly from some misguided sense of duty are exactly why I've been a Democrat my entire life. I take it you joined up for the chicks. As for honor, fella, I've got a discharge that says "honorable" right across the freaking top as I've been judged on that score by people who have a right to judge me on it. You...don't...have...that...right.

[wickerwoman]

137. This is too simplistic.

Withdrawing and then nuking the shit out of Iraq and Afghanistan would probably save the lives of more than one American soldier. Does that make it a viable tactic?

[lanparty]

128. The invasion of Japan ...

Would likely have taken 3-4 many Japanese lives than American lives. As it was, they were fire-bombing Tokyo. There really wasn't that much difference.

The only think I would have LIKED them to do is to drop the A-Bomb on a pure military target FIRST. Hiroshima was almost completely civilian.

I too used to think using the A-Bomb was 100% wrong. Yes, Japan WAS on the ropes. Yes they WERE floating peace overtures. But they also wanted to surrender without submitting to occupation and reformation. Leaving those murderous commanders at the helm was unnacceptable.

The result is the strongest democracy of ALL asian nations.

[liberalhistorian]

13. That's certainly true.

Japan took advantage of China's military and economic weakness in its attempt to dominate that area of the world. Japan may be a different country nowadays, but at that time it was viciously aggressive and treated its prisoners and the civilians of countries it invaded (especially China and American POWS) horrendously. We owe Japan no apologies at all, NONE WHATSOEVER. It's the other way around.

[LondonAmerican]

14. The A-Bomb

may have saved soldiers' lives -- at the expense of killing thousands upon thousands of civilians.

It was one of the worst war crimes ever committed.

An easier way to end the war would have been to drop the US' arrogant 'unconditional surrender' demand. At the end, the US let Japan keep their emperor anyway.

Finally, it wasn't any of the US' damned business whether the Japanese invaded China or not. The US has been playing the hypocritical moralist for a long time -- Iraq being only the latest example -- and the US certainly did not put sanctions on Japan because our rulers loved the Chinese people any more than Bush invaded Iraq because he wants Iraqis to feel our love.

I'm glad we agree at least that the internment of US citizens of Japanese descent in concentration camps was a bad thing!

[delete_bush]

30. Just as it was none of our

damned business concerning the German threat to Britain. Should have let them had their way with that pathetic little island, right?

[LondonAmerican]

50. Germany declared war on the US

There was no choice was there.

The US government, on the other hand, did everything it could to provoke the Japanese into an attack, which they duly received.

Regardless, none of that justifies in the least the genocide committed against Japanese civilians. Not in the least. That's something that only people who really did believe that the Japanese were racially inferior or subhuman were able to do. There's no point in trying to whitewash that and pretty much everyone around the world knows that.

[maggrwaggr]

59. if we hadn't ended WWII with a nuclear bomb .....

somebody would have started the next war with a nuclear bomb.

It was inevitable.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were such horrors that it's kept the world from using nuclear weapons for almost 50 years.

It doesn't justify what happened, but in retrospect it's the truth.

[Just Me]

107. Even in retrospect,...I do not see how you can assert that as "truth".

I'm sorry.

You are presupposing that "somebody would have started the next war with a nucler bomb".

Why?

Oh, well,...it really doesn't matter since,...it already happened.

BUT,...if anyone carries the suppositions (which were "marketed" to us all) into our present or future,...the past DOES matter as a mark we will never escape from,...

UNLESS, we recognize that, indeed, NOTHING is inevitable,...either past, present or future.

[delete_bush]

127. Of course there was a choice...

we could have just said no, we don't accept your war. We won't bother you if you don't bother us. That way we can avoid making real life decisions on bombs and war and stuff like that.

Go get the Brits and we'll just let you cause we might have to make some tough decisions in 1945 that armchair quarterbacks will be second guessing 60 years from now.

Truman was right for the time in which he lived.

[kwolf68]

130. Unreal

Had America really wanted a war then we would have prepared for it long before Japan attacked Pearl.

We would have started building planes, ships, etc. We didn’t begin industrial production of war equipment until AFTER Japan attacked.

To say “we are the cause of Pearl Harbor” is a joke and shows you don’t have the capacity to consider this topic objectively. Japan and Germany were trying to take over the entire world at the time. Japan was plowing through Asia while Germany was plowing through Europe.

We sent aid to England and Russia, but pretty much stayed isolated until Japan attacked us.

You say our economic sanctions “forced” Japan to invade. What a complete load of horse crap. Had Japan not invaded nations and murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent people then we would have kept sending them goods. We didn’t bomb them, THEY BOMBED US. They KILLED US first.

As far as the A-Bomb. I hate the very idea, but had we had a ground invasion not only would the same number of people been killed in Japan, but maybe more. Not to mention more American lives as well.

Further, Japan knew what they were getting. We had detonated an a-bomb and sent word to Japan exactly what this bomb would do to them, but they were determined to “fight to the death.”

To say this war could have been ended in a more peaceful solution by suggesting to Japan, “an arrogant American conditional surrender” is beyond the scope of human ignorance.

The bottom line is…If Japan had not invaded our nation on the heels of rampant imperial dominations and some of the most inhumane treatment of prisoners in human history an atom bomb would have never been dropped on them.

I’m sick and tired of Japan being treated as the Saint and the victim in World War II. They freaking started the shit and were too damn foolish to back down when their military had been decimated and we told them what was coming.

[Blue Wally]

144. WRONG!

kwolf68 needs to do some serious reading:

"Had America really wanted a war then we would have prepared for it long before Japan attacked Pearl."

FDR ordered "protective obilization" in 1940 because of world events. Alll nine national guard divisions were called to active duty. The nine active army divisions were brought to full strength. The size of the active force tripled from 1939-1940. Selective service initiated the peacetime draft in 1940.

"We would have started building planes, ships, etc. We didn’t begin industrial production of war equipment until AFTER Japan attacked."

The vast naval armada that crushed Japan was authorized by Congress in 1940. Subsequent naval bills only tinkered with the details.

"To say “we are the cause of Pearl Harbor” is a joke and shows you don’t have the capacity to consider this topic objectively. Japan and Germany were trying to take over the entire world at the time. Japan was plowing through Asia while Germany was plowing through Europe."

True, though our embargo (the right thing to do) can be said to have forced the Japanese hand.

"We sent aid to England and Russia, but pretty much stayed isolated until Japan attacked us."

We sent aid to China and the Netherlands East Indies (Indonesia) as well to arm them against the Japanese.

"I’m sick and tired of Japan being treated as the Saint and the victim in World War II. They freaking started the shit and were too damn foolish to back down when their military had been decimated and we told them what was coming."

The Japanese killed far more Chinese and other Asians than the Germans killed Jews, Gypsies, Poles, and Russians, yet the Japanese have never been given the degree of abuse the Germans did (and still do).

[0rganism]

84. Niether of the A-Bombs killed as many civilians as the Tokyo firebombing

185,000 people were killed or wounded in the Tokyo fires, which consumed 16 square miles of city. The two A-bombs combined were only slightly more deadly. Sadly, the masterminds of WW2 -- on both sides -- saw little wrong with targeting civilian population centers.

Above all else, we must do what it takes to make sure it never happens again.

[bpilgrim]

92. common MISCONCEPTION

hiroshima city's most recent figures say that over 200,000 people have died as a result. check google

never forget that the a-bomb is the bomb that keeps on killing long after it has been detonated.

:hi:

peace

[0rganism]

99. Has it risen so high? That's sad, and even more reason to shun war

Last time I checked, the death toll from the Hiroshima bomb was still counted at around 150000. Not that it matters anymore; the action was taken. There is no way we can repair what was broken; whether or not it was excusable in the long run is secondary to building a lasting global peace from the ashes.

So far, we haven't done so well.

[bpilgrim]

102. yes and agreed

i found the stat n hiroshima city web site about a year ago but i lost it =(

:hi:

peace

[Media_Lies_Daily]

106. The U. S. provoked Japan into attacking U. S. assets in the Pacific...

...by following an 8-step plan written by a U. S. Naval officer by the name of Stinnett in 1940. Read "Day of Deceit" by Stinnett for the rest of the story.

[Baltimoreboy]

126. So what provoked them to attack China, Manchuria and Korea

Or did they also write theoretical memos?

[Blue Wally]

143. Stinnett cannot be believed

1. He claims it was FDRs fault.

2. He served on the same carrier as Bush the elder. They were probably collaborating on his book while they were steaming around the Pacific.

[stavka]

154. So, if I take a drunk's keys away, and he hits me, it's my fault.

Or, if I won't sell somebody some more shotgun ammo, its my fault when he comes at me trying to kill me? (keeping in mind he already killed his wife and has designs on his kids)

Wouldn't it have been better if say, Japan pulled out of China?

[Raskolnik]

158. That book is not the source you want to base your claims on.

You know that the book you mentioned is a shoddy, discredited work, right?

[stavka]

161. ...you're just saying that

Because, it sites "The Secret Protocols of the Elders of Zion"

[Raskolnik]

172. Among other things...

Yeah, that's a start.

It also confuses the two ciphers the Japanese were using at the time of Pearl Harbor (Naval and Diplmatic). We had broken the Diplomatic, but had a long way to go on the Naval, but the book uses the fact that "we had broken their codes" as a substitute for "we had broken the codes that they used to plan the attack"

Poor scholarship to say the least.

[JVS]

188. Wait, you mean that's a bad source

Does this mean that I was wrong to impose a "pale of settlement" on my old Jewish room-mate? I forced him to never come farther down the hallway than the bathroom for nothing? He wasn't plotting against me? ;-)

[Raskolnik]

200. Oh, he was probably plotting against you...

just not in coordination with the Elders of Zion.

That's what you get for leaving wet towels on the floor: the enmity of the Jews.

[Rex]

189. Actually Truman was fearful of the Russians sending

an army into Japan thus taking a key strategic area for the soon to be Cold War. Truman nuked Japan in hopes to end the war and keep Russia out of Japan. Let us be honest about why the A-bomb was dropped on Japan, shall we?

[jeff30997]

5. I agree with you LondonAmerican.

:nuke:

[Mr. Blonde]

7. FDR

wanted to join the war once it had started, but I don't feel that he was sitting around thinking "you know what would be great right now? A really big really terrible war. Just to get the economy going good." Why should the US apologize to Japan for illegally interring AMERICAN citizens?

[liberalhistorian]

8. WTF? WTF? WTF? WTF? WTF?

THAT IS THE BIGGEST BUNCH OF BULLSHIT I HAVE EVER HEARD IN MY LIFE. Japan attacked US, pal, we didn't provoke them or ask for it. THEY attacked US because they were allies of the damn Nazis, who were bent on world domination, and they wanted to get us into the war so that we could be defeated as a world power. And the way they treated our POWs made anything we did to them look like a day in Romper Room. I find it absolutely, incredibly unbelievable that anyone could make such an utterly ridiculous claim as contained in your post.

And for your information, there is more than credible evidence that Japan was planning its attack on Pearl Harbor for a full TEN YEARS.

BTW, x-g.o.p.e.r., Germany technically started WWII when it attacked Poland in 1939. But Japan was more than happy to go along for the ride with Germany; its treatment of China alone was beyond horrendous.

[bpilgrim]

16. Recommendations for action - against jp - by the usa (oct. 7 1940)

more...
http://news.globalfreepress.com/images/pearl_harbor/recommendations


“The only thing new in the world
is the history you don’t know.”. Harry S. Truman

:hi:

peace

[WoodrowFan]

48. 1937

Actually in 1937 Japan invaded China, though in 1931 they invaded Manchuria. So arguably Japan started it 2 years before Germany.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

118. You are incorrect in regards to Japan....we did provoke them....

...and you'll find it systematically outlined and massively documented in "Day of Deceit" by Stinnett. If you haven't read this book, you need to do so to bring yourself up to date. By the way, Stinnett is a WWII Pacific Theater vet himself.

As for the rest of your commentary, they must have taught you history a little differently than they taught me. When Japan attacked the U. S. at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, their diplomats in Washington, DC, were supposed to have simultaneously delivered a Declaration of War. They were kept waiting until the attack was over so that WE could claim that we were hit by a "sneak attack"...all part of the plan described above.

Most historians gloss over the fact that NONE of our carriers were in Pearl on December 7th...but IMHO, that adds more to the fact that we knew they were coming and we knew where they were going to strike.

On December 8, 1941, we, along with Great Britain, declared war on Japan. On December 11, Germany declared war on the U. S., because they were part of an alliance with Italy and Japan.

With Germany declaring war against the U. S. that finally got the U. S. into the war in Europe, something FDR had been trying to accomplish for quite some time with no results.

I also believe that you're jumping the gun in regards to WHEN Nazi Germany wanted to confron the the U. S., if ever. The Nazis were already at war with Great Britain, and had foolishly created a second front when they attacked the USSR in June 1941. With combat taking place on TWO fronts, I'm extremely dubious that the Nazis wanted to get us into the war as quickly as it happened in late 1941.

Oh, as to your assertion that Germany started WWII in September 1939 by invading Poland, you may want to back that up about a year and a half to 1938 when Germany occupied Austria and Czech Sudetenland.

One last point...Japan NEVER "went along for the ride" with anyone. They believed themselves to be as much a master race as the Nazis believed themselves to be. Additionally, Japan had invaded Manchuria in 1931...a solid two years before Hitler became Chancellor of Germany.

[Raskolnik]

160. You REALLY need to read some history other than that book...

The reason Japan's declaration of war was after, not simultaneous, to the Pearl Harbor attack was a sanfu by the diplomats in Washington. The Japanese high command was furious when they found out their attack preceded the declaration.

Let me ask you a question: what did the U.S. or FDR have to gain by being unprepared for the Pearl Harbor attack? If we truly knew of its coming, why didn't they have a counter-attack waiting? Even with the carriers not in the Harbor, the crippling of our Pacific fleet was a very near thing. Do you feel that this was just a calculated gamble on FDR's part?

[TankLV]

120. And, too proove just how despicable the Japanese were at the time,

First, we had flooded the country with leafletts TELLING THEM WHAT WE WERE GOING TO DO, giving them a chance to surrender.

They did not.

Then, after the first bomb was dropped, they still fought on.

They did not surrender.

Then, after the second bomb was dropped, they still did not surrender.

Only after much deliberation between the warlords and emperor, did they finally aquiese to the Emperor who wanted to stop the insanity.

And newly discovered documents proove the Japanese and Germans were only a COUPLE DAYS away from doing the VERY SAME THING TO SAN FRANCISCO!

We were just incredibly fortunate and lucky to have done it first.

I can only envision the nightmare world that would have resulted if the Germans and Japanese won.

You apologists need to educate yourselves more.

I am so sick of this crap every anniversary. I lived thru the "poor innocent Japanese, awful Americans" crap in Hawaii.

Now the big point is to make sure there is never a reason to do so again. To think of all of humanity as "us" and not "them". That is what we should be fighting for!

[stavka]

155. There was even a coup attempt then!

There were elements who tried to kill the Emperor, when it became clear he was willing to surrender.

[rogerashton]

9. Oh, yeah?

F. D. Roosevelt saw war with Germany as inevitable, and would probably rather have fought Germany without the complications of also having to fight Japan at the same time. Most of the rest of the country didn't want a war with anybody. Germany was dumb enough to be loyal to their Japanese ally -- their "best response" strategy would have been to announce that their alliance didn't apply to an aggressive war by Japan, and concentrate their forces on the Soviet Union -- and gave Roosevelt the war against Germany, probably proving Roosevelt was right in thinking the war inevitable -- when people are that dumb, what can you do?

[DoNotRefill]

39. So, London, when are the Brits going to apologize for....

antagonizing the Nazis???

Bombing cities is NOT genocide. Sorry, guess again.

[JVS]

185. Not to mention the betrayal of their French allies and the decision...

to become involved in a war that they were ill equipped to fight. The UK opened pandora's box by taking on the Germans without being well prepared to beat them. It's a good thing for them that the Russians got attacked and ended up doing most of the hard work.

[Delano]

135. While I utterly DEPLORE Truman's unnecessary use of the bomb...

While I utterly DEPLORE Truman's unnecessary use of the bomb... (he had NOT exhausted all options), I disagree with the logic that "the US forced Japan to attack" What nonsense. Does the US's insatiable greed for oil excuse its illegal attack on Iraq? No. Japan wouldn't have had such a dire need for steeel and oil if it's military machine wasn't raping half of Asia. Regardless of the motives at the time, our sanctions against them were reasonable. The could have tried to reach an agreement to end the sanctions, but they chose a sleazy sneak attack.

As for putting Japanese-Americans into internment camps - it was also unnecessary and wrong-headed, but calling them concentration camps (and thus comparing them to the ones in Nazi Germany with all their horrors) is a bit of a stretch. They were treated relatively well and were sctually given the choice of relocating outside the quarantine zones or going into the camps. Most chose the camps (and given their inability to blend in and the anti-"Jap" hatred prevalent at the time, they were probably safer IN the camps...)

Those criticisms really do fall under the "blame America first" umbrella. The A-bombing , however, was inexcusable. It should never be used again by any nation. PERIOD.

[fujiyama]

140. WTF?

That's crazy. So it was wrong to impose sanctions on them for invading China? Maybe you should read about Japanese atrocities against the Chinese. They were about as cruel as anything the Nazis did.

As for the atomic bomb, that's debatable, but there is no doubt that Japan was an aggressor in WWII.

[lastknowngood]

3. Japan didn't start wwII that was Germany. Japan started the

branch in the Pacific. They did start the fight with us, but we weren't realy in the war at that time. Check dates and times and realize the war didn't start when they attaced the U.S. it started in Poland.

[x-g.o.p.er]

6. Absolutely right...

but WWII started for the US because of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. That was my point in using "WWII" in my original post.

[FDRrocks]

187. Then the obvious answer is the US n/t

[RoyGBiv]

29. Dates: Japanese Attacks

1931 - Japan invades Manchuria
1936 - Japan and Germany sign the anti-Comintern Pact
1937 - Japan invades China

The idea that WWII began with the invasion of Poland is based in a Euro-centric world-view.

Japan used the same kind of rationale that Germany did -- lack of room, essentially -- to justify expansion and subjugation of the inferior races.

The United States responded to this expansionism with diplomatic efforts and economic sanctions. Japan needed the extra resources, particular in the form of oil, it was trying to acquire my conquering, to further its imperialistic objectives. So, Japan chose to take it up a notch, so to speak.

[bpilgrim]

10. we NUKED a DEFEATED about to surrender nation's CITIES CIVILIAN POPULATION

TWICE.

hiroshima is the the second most horrid word in the american lexicon succeeded only by nagasaki. - kv

* In his memoirs Admiral William D. Leahy, the President's Chief of Staff--and the top official who presided over meetings of both the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Combined U.S.-U.K. Chiefs of Staff--minced few words:

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. . . .

In being the first to use it, we . . . adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children. (THE DECISION, p. 3.)

more...
http://www.doug-long.com/ga1.htm

peace

[x-g.o.p.er]

18. And had the A-bomb been in Japan's hands...

they would have used it against us, as history shows. The only reason they DIDN'T use it against us is because we beat them to it.

[LondonAmerican]

19. How exactly does 'history show' this?

and i thought you are trying to make a moral case not one that puts the US and Japan at the exact same level.

[x-g.o.p.er]

34. Japan was actively pursuing

an atomic program and bombers with enough range to reach the United States. Had they had the resources, money, and time, they would have developed an atomic weapons program, and would have used it against the United States.

[bpilgrim]

38. Sadaam was actively pursuing WMD that can be remotely flown...

:crazy:

peace

[Media_Lies_Daily]

119. And since we were bombing all of Japan's cities around the clock...

...how were the Japanese supposed to accomplish the dual feat of building the a-bomb as well as developing bombers with the range to reach the U. S.? Where were they supposed to get the raw materials needed for such projects?

[bpilgrim]

23. even in nanking they didn't indiscriminantly kill every man, women n child

and completely level the whole city....

but all that is speculation. lets talk about what REALLY happened if we are going to discuss this at all without it decesending to a flame fest.

:hi:

peace

[x-g.o.p.er]

25. So selected massacres are acceptable???? WTF??? n/t

[bpilgrim]

26. precisely

no and is EXACTLY why hiroshima and nagasaki are NOT ACCEPTABLE and much more than an apology is required imho.

peace

[DoNotRefill]

36. you're right.

instead of levelling the city in a single blast, killing people indiscriminately, they took people out in a HIGHLY discriminatory manner, tied them to posts, and used them for bayonet and sword practice while they were still alive. From the photos I've seen, most of which are unpublished, they had a particular taste for torturing buddhist monks to death. I'd say 60%+ of the original photos I've seen involved monks.

Yes, we bombed them, and yes, it sucked. What they did was FAR worse. At least we didn't serve their bodies as appetizers to other Japanese as a joke. BTW, that's NOT propaganda, they actually did it. Orders were issued on at LEAST a divisional level regarding the portioning and distribution of the bodies of murdered POWS to the troops for consumption. A bunch of them hanged for it after the war.

[bpilgrim]

40. and just think... we now got our own torture pictures to go with theirs

peace

[DoNotRefill]

51. sorry, dude...not even close.

when they start showing widespread pictures of US soldiers using live people for bayonet drill, we'll talk.

You're doing a HUGE disservice to the Chinese people by comparing the two.

[bpilgrim]

54. how bout AC-130 GUNSHIP DRILLS?

and their are THOUSANDS of horrible pictures of TOTURE available as well.

all of it is SICK, hello...

peace

[DoNotRefill]

61. so, there are AC-130 gunship videos...

of the US shooting people who have already surrendered? Got a link to that?

It's one thing to shoot people from the air who just ambushed your column and haven't surrendered. It's quite another thing to tie POWs to stakes, and then use them for bayonet practice while taking pictures, or to cut them apart, trying your best to keep them alive for as long as you can, in front of cameras, et cetera.

How many tens of thousands of Iraqi POWS have the US deliberately killed? How many tens of thousands of chinese POWS did the Japanese kill?

You say that there are thousand of torture pics out there. You're right. But taking pictures of naked people to humiliate them is a FAR cry from taking pictures of people as you run swords through their bodies over and over again while they're tied to posts unable to resist. Humiliation is bad, but at the end of the day, the person being humiliated is generally still alive. Not so if you're lopping off body parts.

[bpilgrim]

63. yep

unarmed folks running for their lives... just google it you'll find it.

and do you realize who you sound like with your whitewash of the REAL RAPE TURTURE AND MURDER of POWS in our care?

:puke:

peace

[DoNotRefill]

66. I've seen the video...

including the part whene one guy throws down the RPG-7 launcher before they start shooting. I STILL have seen NO indicator that they had surrendered. Therefore, they weren't POWs.

How am I whitewashing anything? I'm saying that what happened at Abu Ghraib was bad, but what the Japanese did in Nanking and other places was MANY orders of magnitude WORSE.

[bpilgrim]

69. wrong one

there is no RPG-7, just unarmed folks running for their lives.

you sound just like the imperial japanese when they tried to justify their WAR CRIMES.

psst... we NUKED a DEFEATED about to surrender nation's CITIES CIVILIAN POPULATION, twice.

that horror hasn't been topped yet.

peace

[DoNotRefill]

81. fine, then give me a link.

I think you'll find that the video you saw was edited. If you look at the unedited video, you'll see the RPG being discarded. Just to make sure, we're talking about the video of the three guys by the trucks, one of whom tries to crawl under the truck after being hit, right?

[bpilgrim]

86. here you go

http://www.military.com/NewsContent?file=FL_threat_091102
this is footage from our behavior in afghanistan, busy busy busy

good night

peace

[DoNotRefill]

89. Got one that doesn't require membership?

that's not the one with the discarded RPG, which was in Iraq.

[bpilgrim]

never mind

you are obviously the type who will never appologize for or accept blame for any of our own sins no matter how recent, obvious or horrible.

peace

[Rex]

190. Historically it can be argued that the worst horror to be visited

on mankind by his fellow man was the Nazi genocide of Jews. Or, one can say Stalin's reign of terror on his own people ranks right up there with the Nazis.

My money is on the Mongolian Empire of the 13th century. You know him, you love him, Genghis Khan. Not only would he place hundreds of thousands of captured civilians in front of his troops (while sieging their cities), he has the distinction of wiping out an entire civilization of Chinese by destroying almost everything they ever built/created.

Not to be outdone, how bout them Conquistadors (still smarting at being ruled by the Moors for centuries)? They laid waste to entire civilizations in Latin America. When so many Indians had died that no one was left to mine the silver, they imported millions of slaves from West Africa to do their bidding.

Of course in North America we have our own great legacy, we destroyed countless Indian tribes in the name of progress and land allocation.

I see the use of the A-bomb as just a modern way to kill in mass, we couldn't used diseased blankets or liquor on the Japanese, and by no means did they seem to have a problem killing and murdering their Asian brothers and sisters.

Killing and murdering for a cause seems to be what we do best as a species (thank Zod we reproduce faster then we kill).

[Raskolnik]

167. Yes, in fact that's EXACTLY what they did.

If you give me a choice between having my city be destroyed by a nuclear weapon or destroyed in the fashion that Japan destroyed Nanjing, I will pick the nuclear EVERY DAMN TIME.

Japanese activities like those in Nanjing make it absolutley clear that the world is a much better place for Japan having lost that war decisively.

[JohnLocke]

33. Please supply links that demonstrate that Japan was "about to surrender."

[bpilgrim]

42. here ya go...

* In his memoirs Admiral William D. Leahy, the President's Chief of Staff--and the top official who presided over meetings of both the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Combined U.S.-U.K. Chiefs of Staff--minced few words:

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. . . .

In being the first to use it, we . . . adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children. (THE DECISION, p. 3.)

more...
http://www.doug-long.com/ga1.htm

:hi:

peace

[DoNotRefill]

49. So Leahy was privvy to what the Emperor was up to???

What about the military coup that almost caused the surrender announcement NOT to be read, even AFTER two nukes were dropped?

If Japan was so goddamned ready to surrender, they WHY THE FUCK DIDN'T THEY FUCKING SURRENDER?????

You can parrot "they were willing to surrender" all you want. It doesn't change the SINGLE FUCKING FACT THAT THEY HAD NOT YET SURRENDERED.

[bpilgrim]

53. we had been reading their 'mail' for a long time by then...

the FAILED military coup attempted by a small band of extremist officers at the end is not suprising when you consider the bushido tradition/charector of the japanese warriors.

anyways it was well known even by our own military that japan was defeated and ready to surrender.

* The commanding general of the U.S. Army Air Forces, Henry H. "Hap" Arnold, gave a strong indication of his views in a public statement only eleven days after Hiroshima was attacked. Asked on August 17 by a NEW YORK TIMES reporter whether the atomic bomb caused Japan to surrender, Arnold said:

The Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell, because the Japanese had lost control of their own air.

In his 1949 memoirs Arnold observed that "it always appeared to us that, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse."

* Arnold's deputy, Lieutenant General Ira C. Eaker, summed up his understanding this way in an internal military history interview:

Arnold's view was that it was unnecessary. He said that he knew the Japanese wanted peace. There were political implications in the decision and Arnold did not feel it was the military's job to question it.

Eaker reported that Arnold told him:

When the question comes up of whether we use the atomic bomb or not, my view is that the Air Force will not oppose the use of the bomb, and they will deliver it effectively if the Commander in Chief decides to use it. But it is not necessary to use it in order to conquer the Japanese without the necessity of a land invasion.

* On September 20, 1945 the famous "hawk" who commanded the Twenty-First Bomber Command, Major General Curtis E. LeMay (as reported in THE NEW YORK HERALD TRIBUNE):

said flatly at one press conference that the atomic bomb "had nothing to do with the end of the war." He said the war would have been over in two weeks without the use of the atomic bomb or the Russian entry into the war.

The text of the press conference provides these details:

LEMAY: The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb.

THE PRESS: You mean that, sir? Without the Russians and the atomic bomb?
. . .
LEMAY: The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.

* Personally dictated notes found in the papers of former Ambassador to the Soviet Union Averell Harriman describe a private 1965 dinner with General Carl "Tooey" Spaatz, who in July 1945 commanded the U.S. Army Strategic Air Force (USASTAF) and was subsequently chief of staff of the U.S. Air Force. Also with them at dinner was Spaatz's one-time deputy commanding general at USASTAF, Frederick L. Anderson. Harriman PRIVATELY noted:

Both men . . . felt Japan would surrender without use of the bomb, and neither knew why the second bomb was used.

Harriman's private notes also recall his own understanding:

I know this attitude is correctly described, because I had it from the Air Force when I was in Washington in April '45.

* On the 40th Anniversary of the bombing former President Richard M. Nixon reported that:

MacArthur once spoke to me very eloquently about it, pacing the floor of his apartment in the Waldorf. He thought it a tragedy that the Bomb was ever exploded. MacArthur believed that the same restrictions ought to apply to atomic weapons as to conventional weapons, that the military objective should always be limited damage to noncombatants. . . . MacArthur, you see, was a soldier. He believed in using force only against military targets, and that is why the nuclear thing turned him off. . . .

* The day after Hiroshima was bombed MacArthur's pilot, Weldon E. Rhoades, noted in his diary:

General MacArthur definitely is appalled and depressed by this Frankenstein monster . I had a long talk with him today, necessitated by the impending trip to Okinawa. . . .

* Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet, in a public address at the Washington Monument two months after the bombings stated:

The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war. . . .The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan. . . .

* Admiral William F. Halsey, Jr., Commander U.S. Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946:

The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment. . . . It was a mistake to ever drop it. . . . had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. . . . It killed a lot of Japs, but the Japs had put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before.

more...
http://www.doug-long.com/ga1.htm

peace

[DoNotRefill]

68. Very nice, but totally IGNORES the FACT....

that Japan HAD NOT FUCKING SURRENDERED.

What part of that statement do you have problems with?

If I don't pay my taxes, and they're way overdue, and the IRS comes after me, can I say "Wait! Don't prosecute me, I was ABOUT to pay them!!!"? Of COURSE NOT.

How long should we have waited for them to surrender, while they continued to kill chinese, and while American POWs continued to drop like flies due to mistreatement?

[bpilgrim]

75. they had 1 condition

just think how many lives could have been saved if we had accepted before IWO JIMA.



peace

[DoNotRefill]

82. Just think about how many lives would have been saved....

if we'd surrendered after Pearl Harbor.

[bpilgrim]

88. we weren't ready to

they were, hello...

i'm otta here

peace

[DoNotRefill]

90. One Hundred Million Will Die for the Emperor and Nation

That sounds like they were ready to surrender, doesn't it?

You keep quoting Leahy. Why don't you quote his American casualty predictions?

[bpilgrim]

95. zzZZ

more quotes for those who are interested in learning more about what the military leaders at that time thought about the decision...

http://www.doug-long.com/ga1.htm

peace

[Forkboy]

104. The ghost of Muddle still haunts these threads

:)

[bpilgrim]

109. more like a shadow

;->

peace

[TankLV]

122. You are terribly wrong.

Read my post above.

Read and learn.

[Raskolnik]

162. About to surrender?

Honest people can disagree about the morality of dropping the two nuclear weapons on Japan.

What there is really no doubt about however, is the reality that Japan was FAR from surrendering in the summer of '45. They had no chance of winning, that much is true, but for the Japanese of WWII, that had little bearing on when to stop fighting.

[Burma Jones]

12. You are right

The sanctions against Japan were the result of their butchery in China. This knee-jerk USA was always wrong crap is bullshit. We were right in WWII. The foolish excesses in fighting the Cold War (Viet Nam in particular) is where we started to go terribly wrong.

We are so wrong NOW that it is sickening, particularly given that we have been right in the past.

We killed more people in Tokyo with conventional weapons than we killed in Hiroshima. Had the war continued, millions more would have died, Japan butchered millions of Chinese, we responded by trying to starve their mechanism of butchery, they attacked Pearl Harbor in retaliation.

[liberalhistorian]

17. Exactly!

"The sanctions against Japan were the result of their butchery in China. This knee-jerk USA was always wrong crap is bullshit. We were right in WWII. The foolish excesses in fighting the Cold War (Viet Nam in particular) is where we started to go terribly wrong."

Very well put. The farther away we get from WWII, the dumber people seem to get about it. Part of that is due to our stupidity in Vietnam.

[Art_from_Ark]

41. You should read of the history of events before WWII

specifically, starting from the 1840s or so when Britain waged the Opium Wars against China to force it to buy opium. Then you can go on to the 1850s, when the Western powers were moving into China and setting themselves up with lucrative trade contracts at the expense of the locals. You should also read about Perry's forced opening of Japan, which eventually led to a civil war in that country. Also read about American and European attitudes toward "slant-eyed" peoples during that time, and how they treated their Chinese "subjects". Read about the 1870s jingoism and Indian Wars and imagine the effect that they had on Japan, which began to seek its own empire.

After that, you should read about how Hawaii lost its queen (1893), and how Japan invaded Taiwan the next year to provide a buffer against the encroaching American empire. Then read about the Spanish-American War of 1898, and the nice little Pacific islands that the US got out of it. Then read about the Boxer Rebellion in China of 1900. Then ask yourself why the US was willing to give Cuba its independence in 1902, but in the same year used force to put down a Philippine insurrection that sought the same thing. Gauge the Western reaction to the Japanese defeat of the Russian navy in 1905. Then read about the "Gentleman's agreement" in 1907 that effectively ended Japanese immigration to the US (after San Francisco schools started segregating Orientals from whites the previous year), and ask yourself why it was OK in Japan for caucasians to marry Japanese, while it was prohibited in most, if not all, of the US. Then read about the immigration act of 1924 that ended all immigration to the US from East Asian countries.

There is plenty of blame to go around.

[bpilgrim]

20. iraq reminds me of the GREATER EAST AISA CO-PROSPERITY SPHERE

they even used the term ILLEGAL COMBATANTS especially in china.



peace

[2Design]

27. Iraq did not start the war....usa funded and gave iraq wmd and chemicals

we are the enemy....we started it.....

[Just Me]

31. Interesting. I didn't know Japan STARTED World War II.

I must be on a different planet.

:silly:

[x-g.o.p.er]

37. As far as the US was concerened,

WWII actively started for us by Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor.

Sorry for the grammatical error and confusion. But yes, WWII proper was started by Germany.

[Just Me]

47. And the neocons got their "Pearl Harbor", too!!! Interesting history. n/t

[Raskolnik]

165. Nope. Same planet.

Japan didn't start the European theater of WWII, but certainly started the Pacific war in 1931. If you consult at a calendar, you'll see 1931 is well before 1939.

[maggrwaggr]

56. good post, ex-g.o.p.er

And as far as the U.S. using the nuclear bomb, well, somebody had to do it.

The genie was out of the bottle, and nobody would know the horror of nuclear weapons unless they were used on humans.

This is sad but true.

Better that somebody used them to end a war rather than to start one.

[bpilgrim]

58. 'well, somebody had to do it.' - gross

yeah, that attitude will be the death of us all :crazy:

peace

[maggrwaggr]

71. would you have rather somebody started a war with nukes?

because that's what would have happened.

WWII was a horrible thing, it went badly, it ended badly, but the good guys won.

Had nukes not ended WWII, they would have been used in the next war, most likely in Korea, and by both sides, or perhaps not until the Cuba-U.S. face-off.

I might not be here to type this, nor you, if we hadn't used nukes to end WWII

[bpilgrim]

78. no and i am even more horrified that we used it at the end on a defeated

trying to surrender, civilian population. just like BARBARIANS.

and i also believe that it's devestating effects have kept it from being used since the last and first time we DID though not because we dropped it... that only made it much WORSE unless you have forgotton the terrible arms race that has led to this very dangerous situation all of us are in now.

peace

[No2W2004]

62. Truman wrote in his diary on July 25, 1945

We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world. It may be the fire destruction prophesied in the Euphrates Valley Era, after Noah and his fabulous Ark.

Anyway we "think" we have found the way to cause a disintegration of the atom. An experiment in the New Mexico desert was startling - to put it mildly. Thirteen pounds of the explosive caused the complete disintegration of a steel tower 60 feet high, created a crater 6 feet deep and 1,200 feet in diameter, knocked over a steel tower 1/2 mile away and knocked men down 10,000 yards away. The explosion was visible for more than 200 miles and audible for 40 miles and more.

This weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10th. I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop that terrible bomb on the old capital or the new.

He and I are in accord. The target will be a purely military one and we will issue a warning statement asking the Japs to surrender and save lives. I'm sure they will not do that, but we will have given them the chance. It is certainly a good thing for the world that Hitler's crowd or Stalin's did not discover this atomic bomb. It seems to be the most terrible thing ever discovered, but it can be made the most useful...

[maggrwaggr]

72. wow. Well I guess they couldn't "find" any military targets

no?

[K-W]

74. Bombing 2 cities is a great way to avoid civillian targets.

He compared this weapon to a biblical power, they had no idea what the longterm effects would be, they didnt know exactly what would happen at all. They used human beings to test out a weapon of massive and unknown power.

[No2W2004]

96. Here's what Truman was working with.

Although much of the Japanese naval fleet and air force had been destroyed by Allied raids, their ancient Bushido tradition prevented a surrender. His military advisors were telling him an invasion of the mailand would cost over a million American lives and millions more Japaneese lives. The invasion of Okinawa had cost the lives of 40,000 soldiers. An ultimatum was issued and rejected on July 29, 1945. Truman did not know of thousands of deaths that would be caused by radiaton. It is the decision that no one would want to make, and Truman was forced to make it. Should the US have asked for unconditional surrender? Should the second bomb have been dropped? Should more research have been done about the effects of the bomb before it was used? All this can be argued. One thing can't. Harry S Truman made the best decision he could, based on what he knew, and never blamed anyone else for it after. He always said that it was the President's decision.

[bpilgrim]

101. more details... "THE DECISION TO USE THE ATOMIC BOMB"

for inquiring minds
http://www.doug-long.com/debate.htm

peace

[TankLV]

123. The 4 cities targeted were major war munitions centers.

The Japanese & Germans were known for hiding their war machines behind women and children and other innocents by locating their war machines in these areas. Also, more to the point, is that the civilian populations gravitated towards these centers of war manufacture and storage for the generous employment they generated.

Think "Long Beach" or "Norfolk" - not exactly small cities here.

That's why Pearl Harbour was such an inviting target. No warning, no apologies. Nada.

And they didn't just limit the attacks to the military installations on Oahu. They straffed and bombed their way across Oahu to their targets on the way to and from. the attack.

I personally know many people who related personal stories of what they lived thru.

Unfortunately, the history of war has progressed from a time when only soldiers were the main casualties and targets, to where the civilian populations are now the main targets.

[K-W]

70. The atomic weapons were a demonstration to the world.

That the US could wipe out cities. Even if you buy that the Japanese were so dedicated that they needed to be shown that the US could erase them off the map, why did we drop 2 bombs?

So your the president, you feel like youve got the war for the pacific in hand, but the indidications are that the cost is going to be enormous, you feel you must finish the job. You decide that you must use the bomb to show that you can end the war in a day.

Fine, its not proven, but its possible that is how it happened. So why are there two bombs dropped? He could have cut the collateral damage in half and still done devestating damage and shown Japan the apocalypse. Even if you feel they might not be convinced by one, dont you owe it to humanity to try one first, and then give Japan a chance to surrender?

[Baltimoreboy]

76. Two bombs were dropped

He ordered one dropped and Japan didn't surrender. That's why there were two.

[K-W]

77. after 3 days?!

it seems to me he had an itchy a-bomb finger.

[stavka]

80. Had to prove we had more than one.

..and we barely had enough for three.

Russia had to know we had more than one, and fear we had dozens of them.

Great chance to test a second design too.

[Forkboy]

94. I see

We killed hundreds of thousands to test a design and scare another country.

Great chance to test a second design too.

Gotta love it huh? :puke:

[stavka]

117. Yes - I'm not defending that position - but yes

Dat's the Fact's Sir!

[Forkboy]

138. Yeah,I know that's the facts

that's why it pisses me off.(Not pissed at you,the stupidity of it all)

[Baltimoreboy]

112. If a nuclear bomb doesn't make you surrender

In three days, it is YOUR mistake.

[Forkboy]

136. How nice

[Baltimoreboy]

151. Nothing nice about war

Good reason not to start one -- as Japan did.

[TankLV]

124. Thank you.

Sometimes the obvious still eludes people who will not listen to the facts when they have already made up their minds.

[stavka]

79. Tom Cruise's agent

[number6]

91. nuking; hiroshima and nagasaki are NOT ACCEPTABLE

period. :nuke:

[x-g.o.p.er]

148. The Rape of Nanking, the enslavement of millions...

the Bataan death march and Pearl Harbor are NOT ACCEPTABLE.

Period.

[number6]

178. I have no Argument with that

they weren't ...

[0rganism]

93. When are You going to FORGIVE them?

As long as you want to hold resentiment in your heart, what good does it do for the Japanese to apologize for the crimes of 60 years past?

[maggrwaggr]

98. he was making a point about another thread

is all, by making this post.

[bpilgrim]

103. which is against du rules

btw

peace

[Saeba]

108. Then it’s right to use atomic

Bombs on US cities? After all US is an imperialist power starting war, then with your arguments, US citizens, without exception, are legitimate targets…

But there is big difference between us. I’m really sorry for the exaction of the Japanese army, you, you’re proud of the American’s one.
Oh sorry, I forget. If foreign soldiers kill civilians is war crime (and it's war crime) but when American soldiers do the same, it’s very morale…

[bpilgrim]

110. zactly

welcome to DU :toast:

peace

[TankLV]

125. And I suppose you never heard of MAD?

That is unfortunately THE point of the success of the "peace" for this post WWII period.

Every sane leader of every other country KNOWS that if they start something, then the other will respond IN KIND - hence - "Mutually Assured Destruction".

That is way bunkerboy is sooooo dangerous now - he and his gang of criminals think that there is no one left to challenge us.

Unfortunately, we may yet "live" (and then die) to find out how wrong he is if him and his kind are not removed from positions of power FOR EVER MORE!

[hertopos]

113. What is this all about?

Why do you have to attack Japan now? Because Koizumi is supporting Bush?

Japan paid a huge price for its aweful mistake. Compared to that most of European countris never paid any apologies to thier former colonies.

I just don't understand why you single out Japan and only single out pacific war.

Hertopos

[TankLV]

115. Absolutely fucking YES. I heartily agree with your sentiments on this!

nt

[Zero Gravitas]

121. Germany started WWII

Ummm... it was actually Germany that started WWII in 1939 by invading Poland, why do you think Japan started it?

[Bridget Burke]

133. Thanks for mentioning this little detail...

Germany really did get the ball rolling. Are we the only people at DU who are aware of the fact?

Japan did finally get the USA into the fight.

And I'm glad that somebody in the thread did track down Curtis LeMay's opinion--among the many that thought the A-bombs were not needed. But he was just another dove....

[T_i_B]

134. They started it.......they invaded Poland

The US stayed out for as long as it possibly could. Japan brought the US into play quite a bit after it started.

[x-g.o.p.er]

145. WW II started for the US...

officially, anyways, when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. Yes, I am fully aware that WWII started on Sept 1, 1939, when Germany invaded Poland.

I should have been more concise in my use of grammar. My apologies.

[Raskolnik]

169. Read a little.

Germany started the European theater of war in 1939 when they invaded Poland. Japan started the Pacific theater of war in 1931 when they invaded Manchuria.

Which happened first?

[ironflange]

197. OK, here's the solution

Japan needs to apologize to Poland.

[wickerwoman]

139. So fair play to any Iraqis who get a nuke into the US.

After all, we started it...

[Ottmar]

141. They should apologize to the peoples of south east asia

Japan started a war in south east asia, Germany started a war in Europe. With the attack on Pearl Harbor and the German declaration of war to the U.S., it became a world war. So the question if Japan or Germany started the world war is kind of nitpicking.

In my opinion the use of nuclear weapons is only justified as a retaliation of an attack with WMDs. Just think of the long-term consequences. Further more that Japan was already defeated. I think the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a demonstration of power towards the Soviet Union.

[hertopos]

142. Are you anti-Japan or something?

I hope you are of other Asian origin. I can accept their anti-Japanese feeling towards Japan even today because always ass-kissing US Japanese LDP has been neglecting formally dealing with Japan's atorsity towards Asian people. Only good thing is some part of younger Asian generatios started accepting more 'typical Japanese' culture. Japan is not an expansionist nation historically. Only twice in its 2000 old history she broke her norm, once in Azuchi-momoyama period, 'Invasion of Korea by Hideyoshi', then WWII period.

I really don't see the point of the post. So called democratic Europe invaded, exploited and oppressed many countries in both Asia and Africa prior to Imperial Japan's expansion. Japan followed those expansion from its own economic desparation. Remember great depression triggered the rise of fasism.

Japan has to do something to improve its 'official relations' with surrounding Asian countires. At the same time, its unofficial relationship has been improving. Majority of Japanese are against Iraq war. Unfortunately, many younger generations in Japan does not see politics as their important right to make use out of.

In today's world, Japanese people are one of most peace loving people.
They are much less obsessed with money than Americans.

Hertopos

[x-g.o.p.er]

146. No, I am sick of US apologists who think

the US needs to apologize for using the atomic bomb on Japan. Japan was responsible for the rape of Nanking, the sexual enslavement of Korean women for their occupying troops, countless war crimes against allied POW's, including the infamous Bataan Death March, and they are responsible for bringing the US into WW II by their barbarous attack on Pearl Harbor.

Japan was responsible for having the atomic bomb dropped on them for what they did to the Pacific Rim, and they brought that upon themselves.

If anything, the Japanese government needs to apologize to their people for starting a war that left their country in ruins.

[bpilgrim]

149. NUKING a defeated nation's cities that was trying to surrender

is TERRORISM.

and you can raise all the crimes the japanese commited during that war and yet nothing compares to the horror and indescrimante killing of civilians as the nuking of their two cities especially after they were already militaryily defeated.

it is SICK and ALL our military leader in theater at that time AGREE that it wasn't necesary and barbourous.

* Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet, in a public address at the Washington Monument two months after the bombings stated:

The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war. . . .The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan. . . . (THE DECISION, p. 329; see additionally THE NEW YORK TIMES, October 6, 1945.)

...

* In his memoirs Eisenhower reported the following reaction when Secretary of War Stimson informed him the atomic bomb would be used:

During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him 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. . . . (THE DECISION, p. 4.)

more...
http://www.doug-long.com/ga1.htm

peace






peace

[x-g.o.p.er]

150. No, it's not...

and we will have to apparently agree to disagree. It was justified militarily, and the atrocities cmmitted by Japan far outweigh a military decision to drop the bomb, which expedited the end of the war and saved American lives by making an invasion of Japan unnecessary.

Japan brought that upon herself, and no matter how much bleating is done, that is the undeniable truth. Japan started it, and the US finished it.

Sorry, you're not changing my opinion on this, although I admire your staunchness in your beliefs, and the gentlemanly way you have made your case.

You seem like a true pacifist, which is a noble belief. I wish more of mankind were to embrace your belief system, as I think the world would be a far better place.

[bpilgrim]

152. i am QUOTING all our top military leaders in theater at the time

who disagree with the decision and who are on record saying it wasn't necessary from a military standpoint.

those men are certainly not pacifist.

and i will not let any of the old propaganda go by unchalenged ie 'it saved lives'

that is simply not true... just think if we had accepted their one condion earlier how many lives may have been saved. possibly IWO JIMA could have been avoided and certainly okinawa were we lost many including Ernie Pyle.


http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/mcn2000.nsf/lookupstoryref/200442615921

do you realize how low we set the standard for the use of nukes and that you are supporting that standard... it will be the death of us all.

i am very disapointed that the quotes from the military leaders in theater at the time apparently has 0 influence on anyones opinion since they would know better than any of us what the facts on the ground were at that time i had hoped that at least it would make some take another look at the information.

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought,
but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." -- Albert Einstein

peace

212. You know what Vonnegut says

"There is only one nation that has been insane enough to use nucelar weapons against a civilias population."

I heard him say this in a speech a couple of years ago.

[Avonrepus]

156. Why is nuking worse?

How is instantly vaporising people who would have killed any AMericans that set foot on their soil if the Emperor commanded worse than the Japanese treatment of the PoW, the Chinese and the rest of S-E Asia?

In both terms of numbers of civilians killed and the way in which they were killed. HOW IS IT POSSIBLY WORSE?

And as for Iraq having the legitimate right to nuke the US , well that doesn't hold up at all, sure the US has commited minor attrocities (if you can even call them that) on a small scale . But how does Abu-Grahib stand up to the rape of NAnking?

[bpilgrim]

159. it's the bomb that keeps on killing years after it's initial detonation

for starters... the last time i checked the city of hiroshima had listed over 200k deaths attributed to the bomb though less than half that number died that day.

the japanese were suing for peace.

it is TERRORISM to indiscrimantely kill innocent civilians, men, women and children.

radiation illness can be a very slow painful way to die.

RAPE TORTURE AND MURDER are NOT fucking 'minor attrocities' helloooo

ALL our current behaviour in the ME compares to the japanese imperial gov behavior during wwII in ASIA from the 'PLAN' forcing OUR WAY OF LIFE - peace prosperity and our gov - providing security and stability to the rigion - securing their 'INVESTMENTS' - right down to employing the legal tactic of ILLEGAL COMBATANTS.

they called there plan the 'Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere'.

read up on it then think about our actions in the ME.

:hi:

peace

[Wilber_Stool]

166. If the brunt of this

information came out in 1990, I'm ashamed to say that I'm 14 years behind in my education. It sure does seem to have been a bad call.

[Saeba]

153. I guess I was wrong

to have been horrified and feel so sorry about victims of 2001/09/11… My bad…
After all one could argue that USA has done enough bad to merit it.

But I forget again, we were only Japanese. Then it was right to destroy cities, kill men, women and children in atrocious suffering because the junta of our country had an imperialist policy and had dared attacking an American military base. It’s not as we were Americans isn’t it?
Bombarding Hiroshima and Nagasaki (and in fact near all Japan) was a just retribution for Pearl Harbour I guess. A capitulation was not enough, you needed one without condition to avenge the affront of Pearl Harbour isn’t it? Of course after coup, it’s easy to evoke all the crimes of the Japanese army, but the USA didn’t care too much about Chinese and Korean until Pearl Harbour (Nanking was in 1937, a lot of time before the American intervention isn’t it?)

But you’re right that Japan was responsible of the Pacific War and that the Japanese army has committed a lot of exactions, as all imperialist army… Ironically, it’s the USA now that push for the deployment of Japanese troops outside Japan. In regard of the terrible behaviour of the Japanese army, we should never be allowed to deploy it again.

You’re right too about how criminal were our “leaders” of this time. Happily they were judged and executed for this. But the crimes committed by the allied gone unpunished. This one of the number privileges of the winner.

But we don’t have grievance against USA, and we don’t need apologize about past actions. It’s better to work together to a better future than to keep ancient grudge. However, you could at least have some decency and don’t glorify the slaughter of ten of thousands of civilians. But once again it was only Japanese, and I’m sure that you prefer to mourn American soldiers who died, even if they are now occupying a country, with all that it means…

[Baltimoreboy]

157. The U.S. was ill-prepared for war

And no nation eagerly enters into the conflict that was WWII. Even then, America sent aid to China through the Flying Tigers, supplies, etc. Prior to Mao, Americans had a much better view and relationship with China.

As for the rest of your comments, NO you weren't Americans. Your nation was the self-declared enemy of America and pretty much everybody that dared to challenge it. Japan did a hell of a lot more than just attack an American military base. It launched a full-scale assault against American territory everywhere it could.

America responded as all nations would, by fighting back.

"Bombarding Hiroshima and Nagasaki (and in fact near all Japan)" was about winning that war. Forget this silly complaint about "one demand." It was a negotiation and while both sides would have been negotiating, thousands more would have died.

Japan had a choice -- end the war it had begun or not. Japan chose not to and the U.S. continued to fight until it did so. If you have a complaint, it is against that military junta that ruled your country.

Oh yeah, and with all those many millions of Japanese that supported it.

I don't ever see Americans glorifying the bombings of Hiroshima or Nagasaki. They are viewed as necessary ways to end the war.

I do ultimately agree that we need to work together for the future.

[Saeba]

164. Question.

Why it's a crime when Japanese killed civilians but it's right when it's Americans?

For info, I think that in any case targeting civilians it’s wrong. One could try to argue that the end justifies the mean, but it will be difficult to condemn his enemy for using the same methods.

About the thousands who could have died during negotiation, it will be difficult to justify as Japan had no more offensive capacity. Do you never wondering why there were kamikazes? It was only because Japan had no more pilots or planes to use. USA could have negotiate, it choose to be without mercy. There are a lot of explanations for this, but saying that it was to stop the war and save life is purely dishonest.

As I’ve no more time, I will ask you a last question:

You said:” Oh yeah, and with all those many millions of Japanese that supported it.”
Then you have no problem with terrorist attacks against USA, after all there are millions who support Bush too?

[Baltimoreboy]

170. WWII was a war nation against nation

Not just army against army.

Japan, Germany and Italy all made it so before we ever got involved. We played by those rules in order to survive.

There is an enormous difference between the deliberate insane butchery that went on in Nanking, simply for the warped fun of it, and the bombing of two cities that supplied the war effort.

Japan was bent on world conquest and subjugation of all other races. I have no problem doing what needs to be done to survive in that.

If you think that is at all similar to Iraq, you are being ridiculous.

[bpilgrim]

168. our carriers won the pacific war

and 'lucky' for us they weren't at pearl harbor.

and so-sorry HISTORY won't ignore the FACT that japan WAS suing for peace at the time when we committed our acts of TERRORISM.

it was a WAR CRIME.

and YES to condone HIROSHIMA or NAGASAKI is to CONDONE a nuclear responce to our current policies in the ME.

and that is just SICK :puke:

peace

[Raskolnik]

171. You are not presenting the whole picture.

When you claim that Japan was "suing for peace" at the time of the nuclear attack, you leave out some important details of their conditions.

1. Their leaders would not have been removed, and could not have been held responsible for their war crimes.

2. Their military would have been left intact, making it very probable that the war would have to be re-fought after they had rebuilt.

3. They would have retained the conquered territory they held at the time, thus condemning millions of Asians to the status of slave labor for the Japanese.

We had to defeat Japan to the point of unconditional surrender for the same reasons we had to do it to Germany: they were an aggresive, warlike nation that would have plunged the world into darkness had they been unchecked. Millions upon millions had to die because of that decision, but the world would be a far worse place today had it turned out differently.

[Baltimoreboy]

173. Oh, so you are a conspiracy person I see

So you'd have prefered if the aircraft carriers had been in Pearl?

Turning Japanese? I really think so.

How does one sue for peace? Do you get a lawyer? What takes so long? I thought you held up a white flag and surrendered. Anything other than that isn't suing for peace, it's asking for a better deal and prolonging the war. The war, let's all remember, that Japan began by attacking the U.S.

And no, condoning the ending of that war doesn't condone a nuclear response to the ME. That's a stretch so far out of left field that it is not even in the same ballpark.

You end the comment with "peace." What sort of peace do you think the Japanese would have given America if they had either won the war or developed nuclear weapons?

[x-g.o.p.er]

163. Yes, you were wrong, but this is what you were wrong about...

"After all one could argue that USA has done enough bad to merit it."

No, you can't. There is no way on this earth you can conceivably equate what Japan did to China, Korea, the Philippines, and Allied POW's during WWII to what the US was doing prior to Sept 11th. So stop, because you're flat out wrong on this one.

"Then it was right to destroy cities, kill men, women and children in atrocious suffering because the junta of our country had an imperialist policy and had dared attacking an American military base."

In a nutshell, yes. Your military junta was hell-bent on world domination, and the blood of those men, women, and children can be laid at the feet of Emperor Hirohito, Tojo, Yamamoto, et al.

Bombarding Hiroshima and Nagasaki (and in fact near all Japan) was a just retribution for Pearl Harbour I guess."

Partly, yes. But it was also a military decision by Truman that in the end definitely saved American lives, and probably saved Japanese lives. The human cost for an invasion of the Japanese mainland would have been far more costly than the havoc wreaked on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, havoc borne by the Japanese military junta.

"A capitulation was not enough, you needed one without condition to avenge the affront of Pearl Harbour isn’t it?"

No, a capitulation, or a surrender with conditions that would have left any of those murderous thugs in power or not prosecuted for their crimes was unacceptable. Again, JAPAN WAS THE AGGRESSOR.


"...it’s easy to evoke all the crimes of the Japanese army, but the USA didn’t care too much about Chinese and Korean until Pearl Harbour (Nanking was in 1937, a lot of time before the American intervention isn’t it?)"

It's no secret that Roosevelt felt Hitler was the bigger threat all along; even after Pearl Harbor the US policy was a defeat of Germany first. But to say the US didn't care about China or the actions of Japan was false. After Japan invaded China, the US cut off all raw material shipments to Japan, and increased arms and munitions shipments to the Chinese.

"But we don’t have grievance against USA, and we don’t need apologize about past actions."

Then don't expect an apology by the US for ending a war your country brutally started and forced upon the people of Asia. And yes, you do. Japan was responsible for what happened in the Pacific theater in WWII, no one else.

It’s better to work together to a better future than to keep ancient grudge."

I couldn't agree more. The world would be a far better place.

"However, you could at least have some decency and don’t glorify the slaughter of ten of thousands of civilians."

You could show some decency and compassion for the hundreds of thousands killed, raped, and tortured because of the actions of your country. I neither glorify or relish the death of anyone, but I will not apologize for what America had to do to end the war in the Pacific theater. I will honor it, and I will make sure my children honor the sacrifice.

[Ms. Clio]

175. Some people here just love the moral high ground

They also seem to be forgetting that our torture prisons in Iraq are starting look an awful lot like Japanese atrocities, as well.

Great post, welcome to DU.

[Avonrepus]

179. US torture in Iraq

looks like JApanese atrocities? Are you kidding? so sodomy, beatings and humilitation, although awful, are the same as skinning alive, starving and working people to death and using them as bayonette practice?

Hardly.

[Ms. Clio]

181. Yeah you're right

The U.S. is the kinder, gentler, torturer.

Seen the pictures posted today with the man covered with dog bites? See the blood all over him?

Did you hear that children were raped in front of their mothers?

You don't really know shit about what's happening there, do you?

[Raskolnik]

182. Acknowledging the worst isn't ignoring the current bad.

I don't think that anyone was suggesting that the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners was anything other than serious.

What you seem to be ignoring is the fact that Japanese atrocities in China were on a scale only rivaled in modern times by the Nazis. Millions upon millions of Chinese were starved, tortured, executed, raped, experimented on, used for bayonet practice, and basically any other thing that the human mind can concieve.

If you are going to be rude and say things like "you don't...know shit about what's happening there...", you should make sure that you are a little more well-versed in your history.

[Ms. Clio]

183. Don't condescend to lecture me in history

I'll put my degrees up against yours any day.

And I wasn't talking to you, but to someone who obviously did not know shit about what was happening in Iraq.

[Raskolnik]

191. You know you didn't actually refute any of my points, right?

If you've got a degree in History, then you should be aware that some of the U.S. actions in Iraq, while certainly and undeniably bad, are not even in the same league as the Japanese actions in WWII.

I think its obvious the people you were being rude to DO "know shit about" the situation in Iraq. Did any of them dismiss the Iraqi situation as unimportant? No. They (we, now) are simply pointing out that your assertion of equivalence between the U.S. in Iraq and the Japanese in China is a stretch at best.

[Ms. Clio]

195. awwww screw it

I'm also not in the mood for lectures on my language.

plonk

[Raskolnik]

198. This is going to sound really condescending, but...

instead of acting like you have some super-secret logic to back up your agument, but are just not in the mood to share, you COULD just admit that you might not have made the most accurate comparison.

If you have an argument to make about why you think that U.S. actions in Iraq are just as bad as the Japanese in China, then make it. I'm more than willing to listen and argue if I disagree.

[DoNotRefill]

180. Heh...

"But we don’t have grievance against USA, and we don’t need apologize about past actions. It’s better to work together to a better future than to keep ancient grudge. However, you could at least have some decency and don’t glorify the slaughter of ten of thousands of civilians. But once again it was only Japanese,"

Just like it was only Americans the Japanese slaughtered to use as food in the Phillipines. Just as it was only Americans and Phillipinos slaughtered during the Bataan Death March. Just as it was only Chinese that died during the Rape of Nanking. Just as it was only Korean women that your army used as "comfort troops". Just as it was only POWS the Japanese in Unit 731 used for their tests. Just like it was only Americans and British and Chinese and Korean and everybody else that the Japanese ran into that were treated atrociously, in gross violation of the norms of ANY civilized society. The list goes on and on.

Frankly, we should have gone the Nurenburg route with Japan after WWII. Instead, we kept the trials and executions low-profile. That was a mistake, and has greatly helped the historical revisionists deny what actually happened. Those who refuse to remember history are doomed to repeat it.

[Wilber_Stool]

147. The younger generation

of Japan is largely unaware of WWII. It is not part of its education curriculum. During the last anniversary of Hiroshima, a pundit made the comment that in another 10 years the Japanese with believe that it was they who were attacked.
http://www.gainfo.org/SFPT/Amnesia/JapanAcademicsLashOutOverTheWWIIHistoryOnHerAggressionNewYorkTimes14April2001.htm
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/japan.history/

[Ms. Clio]

174. Interesting post, thanks for your perspective

What you say about Japan's history of expansion in comparison to that of the European nations (not to mention the U.S.) is quite valid and I had never thought about that before.

[bushgottago]

176. I though GERMANY started WWII?

Or am I missing something?

[x-g.o.p.er]

177. see post #6 n/t

[flaminbats]

184. Good idea...

either they apologize meekly, or else we nuke Tokyo..and show those Japs and damned thumb-sucking liberal whiners what America really stands for!

sound fair? Next we should round up all the Japanese-Americans and detain them for anti-American, terroristic political activities.

[x-g.o.p.er]

192. This thread was in response...

to a post on whether or not the US should apologize for dropping the bomb to end WW II. I strongly feel we were right to use the a-bomb, regardless of the revisionist history that is going on today about the circumstances regarding the use of the bomb or not.


Truman was right then, he's right today, and he'll be right 100 years from now. America owes no one an apology for using the bomb in WW II. Japan, on the other hand, has yet to acknowledge the actions of their country, and I feel they should, as opposed to the US.

[Bridget Burke]

193. I'd like to see a detailed response to post #53...

Only "revisionists" doubt that nuking Japan was necessary? There are some definite doubts expressed by gentlemen with names such as Nimitz, Macarthur, Arnold & Lemay. Liberal peaceniks?

Hey, if the Japanese hadn't brought us into the war, Hitler might well have won in Europe. But that would be just fine with you.

How racist.

[Raskolnik]

194. Where the hell did that come from?

Don't call people racist if you have absolutely nothing to base it on. That's stupid.

Personally, I agree with you that uncertainty about the decision to drop the bomb doesn't automatically make one a "revisionist". I am of the opinion that the first bomb was necessary, but the second was not. Does that make me a racist too?

[x-g.o.p.er]

202. Truman, the Commander in Chief....

made the call. Not Nimitz, Arnold, LeMay, or anyone else. And there were many others within the senior military leadership, (Marshall, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs) who felt it was the right thing to do.

And how the hell is my opinion racist? I would say that throwing around rhetorical invectives such as "racist" is a way of deflecting off of the main argument, one on which you are on the wrong side of.

Your argument has been considered, and I disagree with it. That doesn't make me a racist. I suggest you take your false charge and accusation and re-examine it, because it's flat-out wrong, inaccurate, and unsubstantiated.

On edit: Since you were the one to throw the racism charge into the fray, I would submit to you that the Japanese culture during that time was one of the most racist in history. They considered themselves far superior to any race, which is why they felt they had carte blanche to murder, rape, and pillage their way across Asia and the Pacific Rim. Their abuse of Allied POW's was due to their feeling of superiority in their bushido warrior code, and their sexual enslavement of Chinese and Korean women as concubines for Japanese troops was directly related to their belief that they had a superior race, so it was their right, their privilege, and their destiny to make all of Asia a Japanese culture.

But I'm the racist. Whatever.

With all due respect, kiss my unapologetic, non-racist ass.

[flaminbats]

206. There are only losers in war...

this is more so today than in the past. It was wrong for Japan to attack Pearl Harbor, and it was wrong for America to nuke Japan. War is wrong because the innocent are always murdered, and peace is always right because people will not be subjected to additional mass murder and brutality. Truman and Carter are my favorite Presidents. Truman dropped the nuclear bomb on Japan, but mainly to limit the amount of American troops lost in the bloodiest war in history. I believe Truman did not seek vengeance or the enslavement of Japan. He only wanted to convert Japan from a Imperialist opponent to a democratic ally. And like Jimmy Carter, human rights was the cornerstone of Truman's postwar foreign policy.

Japan paid the price for attacking Pearl Harbor, and America paid the price for the War in the Pacific. Neither price was easily paid, but these nations should seek something which will make them both winners.

[stavka]

207. War in the Pacific

Also set dozens of countries on the road to independence. Sure, it took France and us a while to understand that, but in the end, the world is probably better despite the rough spots.

I would have to put the defeat of Japan, and the switch from Imperial-militocracy to Corporate Democracy in the value added column - the big payoff was freeing all those little islands, Korea, and Manchuria so it could go Red.

What ever happened to that Japanese holdout who showed up on Gilligan's ISland?

[flaminbats]

208. Perhaps the price would have been lower if imperialism had not existed...

we did not gain from World War II, and Japan did not gain because of imperialism. If America becomes imperialistic we will pay a price for our crimes, and opponents would also pay when trying to stop this.

War brings only death and destruction to the world. The only benefits to be found in the lessons learned from human butchery is that mankind has the knowledge to both destroy and to save humanity.

To put it simply war is hell, and it is the use of destruction to halt destruction.

[FDRrocks]

186. Germany started World War 2

If you mean, who should Japan apoligize to for bombing Pearl Harbor, then its America.

The Tripartite agreement wasn't even signed when Hitler attacked Poland.

[tom_paine]

196. Well said, sir! Total agreement but for one thing...

I wish we'd dropped the first bomb not on the city, but perhaps from 10 mi. outside it or in a fairly empty area for demonstartion...THEN crushed Hiroshima or Nagasaki IF WE HAD TO.

But, I mostly agree with your point, given the situation and the appalling loss of life on both side from a Mainland Japan Invasion...

[Avonrepus]

199. To the person who claimed i knew "shit"

Firstly I don't appreciate a personal attack like that and second, yes I have seen those pictures and they are graphic , brutal and wrong but they DO NOT compare to what the JApanse did, I'm sure a high definition colour picture of a victim of Japanese attrocities would be considerably worse.

Fair enough if you are saying both countries' actions were torture, torture is torture no matter what. However I BELIEVE that what the Japanese did goes far beyond the torturing of detainees (guilty or not) and a general lack of respect to natives as the Americans are being accused of. It was the systematic, indiscriminate and brutal targetting of all people not Japanese. If anything it is closer to a genocide like the Nazi holocaust than the shameful actions of the AMericans.

To say I knew "shit" about Iraq seems to me you were suggesting that the two acts were comparable, I simply believe they are not. I do not, repeat do not, believe the Abu- Ghraib scandal can be brushed aside as no worse than the initiation into a fraternity as some freepers suggest. It is inexcusable but will not go down in history as a dark spot in humanity's history.

[Ms. Clio]

204. you rang?

It was the systematic, indiscriminate and brutal targetting of all people not Japanese. If anything it is closer to a genocide like the Nazi holocaust than the shameful actions of the AMericans."

Oh, then you mean it was more like the hundreds of years of warfare against the Native Americans? Before you try to claim that was not a deliberate genocide, be aware that I can cite numerous primary sources advocating and participating in "extermination" of the Indians.

And again, you really don't know what you are talking about in Iraq. Who do you think is being rounded up in these sweeps? The Red Cross says as many as 90% of them are just innocent people just caught up in "systematic, indiscriminate, and brutal targetting" (sic) of all people who aren't, effectively, American.

Most of all, none of us really know what is happening there, and none of us damn sure know how it will end.

You start off torturing innocent children in front of their mothers--where do you think that leads?

[tom_paine]

205. Methinks you have me confused with someone else

Or replied to the wrong post.

:shrug: :shrug:

[Baltimoreboy]

201. There were only two bombs

And it took two bombs dropped on cities to force the Japanese to surrender.

[x-g.o.p.er]

203. Hello again, Tom!!

Thanks for the support...and I think a demonstration in a deserted area wouldn't have had the effect intended. Plus, only two bombs existed at the time.

Anyways, I'm glad to see we agree on most of the salient points, though.

[IrateCitizen]

209. Drivel.

A few historical items cloud your rose-colored view of US history.

1. Japan's expansion prior to WWII was actually based on the WESTERN model. Japan's goal in avoiding the same fate as China -- carving up by Western Powers and imposition of very uneven trade terms (do the Opium Wars ring a bell, anyone?) -- resulted in its trying to adopt Western "civilization" in many ways. It is hardly a little-known fact that a big part of Western civilization was colonialism, so it would explain Japan's trying to solidify their colonial base as well. In fact, considering the fact that the US still held territories in the Pacific at that time (i.e. Phillippines), it could be argued that the Pacific War was really little more than a war between competing colonial powers. Japan didn't want to capture the US -- they just wanted the US out of the Pacific so that they could establish a truly "Asian" empire along the Pacific Rim.

2. Japan HAS apologized for many of its actions surrounding WWII. Of course, there are conservative elements within Japanese society who just want to pretend that all of the bad stuff never happened -- sort of like, oh, I dunno... the kind of logic exhibited on this thread.

3. Japan had actually contacted the United States several times prior to the dropping of the A-bombs, with the only condition being to allow them to keep their emperor. IIRC, that was pretty much exactly the term of surrender negotiated following the dropping of the A-bombs.

4. I'm not going to debate the logic behind Truman's decision, because it's difficult to do in 100% hindsight. However, I will say that anyone who views the unleashing of atomic weapons on a civilian populace, knowing what we now know about their true effects, as "100% right" has just rendered their opinion wholly without merit in my book.

5. The attitude of this post just reeks too much with the sentiment expressed by former President George H. W. Bush after the shooting down of an Iranian jet liner by US Naval Forces -- "I will never apologize for the United States of America. I don't care what the facts are." Well, to some of us here, facts and nuance DO matter.

[Raskolnik]

211. I don't think so.

If WWII was a war between colonial powers, then why didn't the U.S. keep the territory it took from the Japanese?

AND

The terms of surrender that the Japanese offered were much more complicated than you make them out to be. They didn't just want to keep their empire, they wanted to keep their military structure, their war-making capabilities, and a not insignificant amount of conquered territory.

[Wilber_Stool]

210. It may not ha been nessary

but they deserved it.
http://www.cnd.org/njmassacre/page1.html
WASNING!!! Very graphic.