Excellent posts.
I’d just like to point out on the issue of “cruelty vs. inefficiency” in the conduct of peace & war that, as TG points out, the Civil War and its resulting cruel peace (and cruel prosecution) are not forgotten TO THIS DAY in the South. After WWII, the USA and her Allies, largely for cold political reasons, but also for the purpose of preventing from happening again the nightmare the world had just been through, helped rebuild the nations of their former enemies. Today they are economically 2 of the most powerful economies on Earth, both are good friends of the USA; powerful allies of the US; and one (Japan) has the world’s only Constitution renouncing War as an instrument of foreign policy. Now, I dunno about you, but considering WWII, WWI, the Franco-Prussian War, the American Civil War and countless other wars throughout history, I’d say the side of “limited cruelty” and “compassion for the vanquished” has been the better long-term choice, as well as the best preventer of future war. A great General tries not only to defeat the enemy and end the war as quickly as possible, but to prevent future war with that enemy.
As far as the use of the Bomb goes, that is an extremely difficult moral issue to tackle. I hate what happened, but I also can’t imagine being in the shoes of the Washington decision-makers at that time with a possible choice between the possible unnecessary destruction of an entire generation of young American men (which an invasion of the Home Islands might have caused), and the eternal damnation of responsibility for the unleashing of mankind’s most terrible weapon. If only there HAD been a clear-cut alternative, but at the time there just wasn’t. Speaking of course as an American; to a degree, I think USA’s mercy for her former enemies after the war partially exhonerated us of some of the ignominy for the horror of the nuclear decision–but we still did it, we are the only power that has ever done it, and we sacrificed others in order to save ourselves. I personally think it WAS justified in the circumstances, but I can totally understand the POV that disagrees. Whose “fault” it was almost doesn’t matter–at that point so much ugliness had occured it is difficult for us (younger people) to comprehend the mindset of the times.
However I know one thing which no one can deny: the Japanese & Germans in WWII also had the experience of conquering vast foreign enemies. And their record was, shall we say, somewhat less compassionate than the Western Allies…
Ozone27
“A great General tries not only to defeat the enemy and end the war as quickly as possible, but to prevent future war with that enemy.”
No, usually great generals are never satisfied with such hastily thrown “peace” as they still know there’s a war left to be fought (Patton, Macarthur being fine examples). Merely calling the game over when the “end” is within reach is not very fulfilling to them. However, fine political strategists are the category you’re looking for. It was very Bismarck of you to make that statement (though I prefer making Allies of your Enemies). “Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.”
“As far as the use of the Bomb goes, that is an extremely difficult moral issue to tackle. I hate what happened, but I also can’t imagine being in the shoes of the Washington decision-makers at that time with a possible choice between the possible unnecessary destruction of an entire generation of young American men (which an invasion of the Home Islands might have caused), and the eternal damnation of responsibility for the unleashing of mankind’s most terrible weapon.”
Funny, I would of thought of it that way, too. I hate to be the President responsible for making the decision on whether or not to use nuclear weapons. The resolution would’ve haunted me forever and would be the controversy of the media and scholars even today. But not in Truman’s case. When asked if he had any regrets of dropping the bomb, he merely snapped his fingers together and said he made the decision like that.
“And their record was, shall we say, somewhat less compassionate than the Western Allies…”
Let’s not forget the Russians! Lord knows what happened last time we made them angry. :wink:
Boosk is right… When the japanese start the restructuration of their country, they take the prussian model of army and make shintoism the prime religion to reinforce patriotism, and in shintoism the emperor is the incarnation of a kami (gods), the bomb were clearly not usefull, a little bomb on an unhabited island and the emperor would have stop the war, and if america were a little more comprehensive in the first place it would never have happened.
Hey guy, They dropped 2 bombs.
After the first bomb did japan surrender?
No.
How would have a bomb on an empty island made them surrender?
Japan got exactly what it desevered.
Pearl Harbour was a sucker punch.
Unconditional surender was completely justified, just like 9/11 is.
Agreed with Moses, Ozone, and to a lesser degree with Ghoul (i’d agree with you more wholeheartedly, but my heart is just a little eaten up with the shear amount of devesation that was wrought upon those too cities, in spite of their silly emperor’s naive pride.
oh, and yes FinsterniS, i know you never said that - the implication was there, however, by criticizing the nations that saved Europe from the maniacal whimsy of the Germans by the few ways that they had at their disposal.
Hey guy, They dropped 2 bombs.
After the first bomb did japan surrender?
No.
How would have a bomb on an empty island made them surrender?
I perfectly know that, but the American want something the Japanese where not ready to accept easily, the Emperor himself was not a danger, with a little more tolerance and maybe a little “show of power” maybe this could have end more easily.
Also they 2 bombs were send to kill civilians, to show how their little toy were powerfull. I am not sure it save life, american life; yes.
Japan got exactly what it desevered.
That is very cruel, there is pre-war issues you seem to forget, Japan did’nt attack just for the fun of killing peoples.
Pearl Harbour was a sucker punch.
It was far less barbarian than the 2 bombs !!! At least not directed after civilians….
Also CC a lots of generals made war crimes; they only go in trials when they loose…
Hey guy, They dropped 2 bombs.
After the first bomb did japan surrender?
No.
How would have a bomb on an empty island made them surrender?Quote from" FinsterinS"
I perfectly know that, but the American want something the Japanese where not ready to accept easily, the Emperor himself was not a danger, with a little more tolerance and maybe a little “show of power” maybe this could have end more easily.Well its easier to say that in hindsight.
It was a war, Japan was completely viscous with its attacks and to the prisoner they took, civilian and military.
We should have America shown tolerance? Because Japan has an honor system and the terms of surrender were unfair…Cry…its war, no mercy, especially after Pearl harbour.
They were an angry nation that was “stabbed in the back”
It so easy to take the moral high ground on things like this!Quote from FinsterinS"
Also they 2 bombs were send to kill civilians, to show how their little toy were powerfull. I am not sure it save life, american life; yes.American(ailled) lifes is all they should have been concerned with.
If they thought they could land on Japan and walk up the beaches pounding back the Jap army with minimal casualties, they would have done it. And Im sure they would not have cared how many Japan soldiers they kill along the way.Japan got exactly what it desevered.
Quote from “FinsterinS”
That is very cruel, there is pre-war issues you seem to forget, Japan did’nt attack just for the fun of killing peoples.Yes, and America was just killing Japanese for the “fun” of it.
Pearl Harbour was a sucker punch.
Quote from “FinsterinS”
It was far less barbarian than the 2 bombs !!! At least not directed after civilians….Im pretty sure civilians were killed at Pearl Harbour as well.
Also CC a lots of generals made war crimes; they only go in trials when they loose…
@Mr:
Unconditional surender was completely justified, just like 9/11 is.
As I pointed out before, there were pros and cons to unconditional surrender [“US]. For example, one con would be the war might’ve been shorter since “US” forced Hitler’s and Tojo’s many of men to fight to the death. Also, “US” made it more difficult for the underground to stage a successful coup in order to oust the dictators and secure a favorable peace or at least an armistice. One pro of unconditional surrender would be without it, there might still have been Nazi or Imperial Japanese rule in those countries. It depends on how you look at it.
@FinsterinS:
That is very cruel, there is pre-war issues you seem to forget, Japan did’nt attack just for the fun of killing peoples.
Yes, I’m sure the 369,366 Chinese that were butched by the Japanese in the Rape of Nanking was not at all out of “sadist fun.” Nor were the estimated 80,000 women and girls who were raped; many of them were then mutilated or murdered. :( Thousands of victims were beheaded, burned, bayoneted, buried alive, or disemboweled.*
And lets not forget the barbarous torture the Japanese endured on our American POWs (many of them used for “bayonet practice” or forced into hard labor in Japanese mines :evil:). Oh, I forgot, the Japanese said they never “signed” the Geneva Conventions. As for “prewar” actions, what America did with the embargos on Japan was justifiable (prevent further war with China).
@FinsterinS:
I perfectly know that, but the American want something the Japanese where not ready to accept easily, the Emperor himself was not a danger, with a little more tolerance and maybe a little “show of power” maybe this could have end more easily.
Also they 2 bombs were send to kill civilians, to show how their little toy were powerfull. I am not sure it save life, american life; yes.
Everybody is entitled to his or her opinion. But I also like to note that America’s “show of power” was not confined to atomic bombs. In terms of causalities (short term at least), the incendiary raids on Tokyo were much more devastating (in terms of lives lost and structural damage) compared to the Atomic bombers dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Each day, tens of thousands (sometimes even hundred of thousands) of Japanese died due to these bombings (and starvation, disease, fire).
American(ailled) lifes is all they should have been concerned with.
If they thought they could land on Japan and walk up the beaches pounding back the Jap army with minimal casualties, they would have done it. And Im sure they would not have cared how many Japan soldiers they kill along the way.
I’m not sure if I can agree with this. I don’t kill people after they have surrendered.
@Mr:
We should have America shown tolerance? Because Japan has an honor system and the terms of surrender were unfair…Cry…its war, no mercy, especially after Pearl harbour.
They were an angry nation that was “stabbed in the back”
It so easy to take the moral high ground on things like this!
Even being “stabbed in the back” does not always justify the killing of millions of Japanese civilians. What did they have to do about it? There is no “moral high ground,” only how we see fit.
It really annoys me when Americans talk about how after Pearl Harbor, America should have shyown no mercy. It’s alway Pearl Harbor this or Pearl Harbor that! enough is enough! Pearl Harbor wasn’t such a devastating attack in terms of casualties. Military personnel did die, but not that many! The deaths in Pearl Harbor number in the hundereds, I believe, and people make it out to have been a horrible masacre, which it wasn’t. America makes a big deal out of it because it got caught with its pants down by the Japanese.
America should not have dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Hiroshima had some military value but Nagasaki had NO MILITARY VALUE whatsoever. It was pure revenge. About the number of deaths there, it depends on whose records you look at. Official Japanese records claim that 300,000 people died at hiroshima and another 100,000 at Nagasaki.
As for the crimes that Japan did, why dont we talk about America’s crimes? You won’t find this in official American government documents, but the Us government’s policy toward natives was to force them onto reserves and starve them into submission. Read an old Soviet document and you will find it.
The winners in history write history, and that’s why our view of it is sometimes distorted. Winston Churchill himself once said that history would not look badly upon him, because he would be the one writing it.
“It really annoys me when Americans talk about how after Pearl Harbor, America should have shyown no mercy. It’s alway Pearl Harbor this or Pearl Harbor that! enough is enough! Pearl Harbor wasn’t such a devastating attack in terms of casualties. Military personnel did die, but not that many! The deaths in Pearl Harbor number in the hundereds, I believe, and people make it out to have been a horrible masacre, which it wasn’t. America makes a big deal out of it because it got caught with its pants down by the Japanese.”
Americans do show mercy. If it were otherwise, we would’ve never taken any prisoners and would not have helped rebuild the countries we shattered. Would any other not country do otherwise for its former “enemy?” Also, I’m interested in seeing what you define “horrible massacre” as. Maybe we should throw in a few thousand Americans– a few hundred thousand Americans – maybe even a million Americans – would that satisfy your need for a “horrible massacre?”* We did get caught with our pants down – so did Poland, so did France, so did China, so did many countries overrun by the Axis warmachine. Tell me, should they not have made such a “big deal” out of this? Amusing how we were still making negotiations with the Japanese diplomats when the attack happened.
“America should not have dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Hiroshima had some military value but Nagasaki had NO MILITARY VALUE whatsoever. It was pure revenge. About the number of deaths there, it depends on whose records you look at. Official Japanese records claim that 300,000 people died at hiroshima and another 100,000 at Nagasaki.”
Although many figures are quoted, it’s generally agreed that some 70,000 to 80,000 people died in the attack on Hiroshima with a like number injured (140,000 casualties). At Nagasaki 40,000 died with another 60,000 injured (100,000 casualties). [Make sure not to confuse deaths with casualties] These figures are the immediate deaths and don’t include subsequent deaths. By years end 140,000 people had died in Hiroshima from the bomb. The on Tokyo by B-29 bombers on the night of March 9/10, 1945 released 1660 tons of incendiaries. The official Japanese count found 83,793 dead and 40,918 injured. A total of 267,171 buildings were destroyed leaving one million people homeless. 15.8 square miles of the city had been burned to the ground, including 18% of the industrial area, and 63% of the commercial center. [My sources do not go into how many Japanese died of after-immediate causes].
The bombings on the cities is still a hotly debated subject even today. I think the attacks on industrial or military centers would be a much more “justifiable” target. However, many experts say that the attacks would’ve left a much more lasting impression of the Japanese (forcing them with no other alternative but to end the war) if the attack had occurred on cities that were virtually unscathed by the war. However, since much “logical” targets were already bombed out ruins by the US Airforce, the list of “bombable” cities was relatively shorts. It’s too bad that Hiroshima and Nagasaki had to be ones chosen.
“As for the crimes that Japan did, why dont we talk about America’s crimes? You won’t find this in official American government documents, but the Us government’s policy toward natives was to force them onto reserves and starve them into submission. Read an old Soviet document and you will find it.”
It is foolish to think that America was innocent. However, it is just as foolish to make the level and intensity of American war crimes comparable to Nazi and Imperial Japanese war crimes. Also, natives on the islands (and SE Asia) America “liberated” were also subject to brutality (it is hard to find the correct “word) by the Americans (though this was mainly associated with the firefights their villages were caught up in). But if it makes you happy, why don’t we round up all the countries that served in WWIII (assuming there will be any left) and all put them on trial for war crimes? Who would be presumed fit to judge? We might need the ICC for this.
It really annoys me when Americans talk about how after Pearl Harbor, America should have shyown no mercy. It’s alway Pearl Harbor this or Pearl Harbor that! enough is enough! Pearl Harbor wasn’t such a devastating attack in terms of casualties. Military personnel did die, but not that many! The deaths in Pearl Harbor number in the hundereds, I believe, and people make it out to have been a horrible masacre, which it wasn’t. America makes a big deal out of it because it got caught with its pants down by the Japanese.
.
i disagree with you my fellow canuck. I highly doubt that the Pearl Harbor American naval and army personnel were there as an offensive military force, but rather a way to protect American (civilian) lives. A surprise attack in the vein that was committed is less than one that was committed under the auspices of war against a military aggressor? Those American “military” lives were worth less than those of civilians?
Although i can not come out and say that the bombings on H and N were justifiable, if my father, brother or son was in Hawaii that fateful day, i am guessing that my ability to justify the bombings would be much easier than sitting in the comforts of Canada, a million years and miles from the events of that day and time. I believe that outside of declared hostilities war-time, a military action against military personnel is no less “rude” for lack of a more appropriate word, than a terrorist act against a civilian population.
Quote from TG "Even being “stabbed in the back” does not always justify the killing of millions of Japanese civilians. What did they have to do about it? There is no “moral high ground,” only how we see fit.
What I’m saying is, its easy to say what a horrible thing the bombing was today.
If you lived back then, your perspective would have been much different.
It was a military decision that made sense and saved American lifes.
Civilians casualties are part of war.
How many Nations during WW2 carpet bombed a city? Just because it wasn’t an A-bomb, dosen’t make it any less “terrible”.
A Nation, any Nation will do what it has to, to win a war.
Maybe the Americans did drop the A-bomb for revenge.
So what if that was the reason?
Why did Japanese pilots slam themselves into America ships?
@Mr:
Quote from TG "Even being “stabbed in the back” does not always justify the killing of millions of Japanese civilians. What did they have to do about it? There is no “moral high ground,” only how we see fit.
What I’m saying is, its easy to say what a horrible thing the bombing was today.
If you lived back then, your perspective would have been much different.
It was a military decision that made sense and saved American lifes.
Civilians casualties are part of war.
How many Nations during WW2 carpet bombed a city? Just because it wasn’t an A-bomb, dosen’t make it any less “terrible”.A Nation, any Nation will do what it has to, to win a war.
Maybe the Americans did drop the A-bomb for revenge.
So what if that was the reason?Why did Japanese pilots slam themselves into America ships?
i’m agreeing with you more and more Ghoul.
Germany got bombed something fierce. Poor poor German civilians . . . that’ll learn them to follow a madman into the depths of depravity and EVILHOOD (yes FinsterniS, i said evil). True, if we lost the war, i suppose even having opposed Germany and Japan would not have boded well for our countries, and our grandparents would likely be living in concentration camps. This would not have made what they did wrong though. I think many Germans and Japanese people today would have difficulty arguing with that (with the obvious exceptions of the right-winged racist ones, etc.).
Curiously, did those who bombed Coventry into desolation ever get tried for war-crimes? If they did, then i could see the engineers for the bombings in Japan and Germany being tried as well (which indeed would be hypocritical of us). If those responsible for Coventry bombing did not get tried, then this whole discussion becomes moot on the point of civilian bombing.
Germany got bombed something fierce. Poor poor German civilians . . . that’ll learn them to follow a madman into the depths of depravity and EVILHOOD (yes FinsterniS, i said evil).
…serious crime were made by other people, what about England who send people from their colonies to the front at the WW1 ? What about the two bombs launch in Japan ? What about Vietnam ? The Japanese attack in Korea ? It would always be a crime, not “evil”, but a crime against humanity, still you cannot take the fact without the context, that’s what you are doing by stating bombing german civilian “will learn them not to follow madman”. Serious, and dangerous, simplification.
“A surprise attack in the vein that was committed is less than one that was committed under the auspices of war against a military aggressor? Those American “military” lives were worth less than those of civilians?”
This is especially true. Many brave, American lives were lost on that eventful – they never stood a chance. We must not let their sacrifices be in vain. In fact, of those in the dwindling roaster of Japan who were involved at Pearl Harbor and survived the war, many later traveled back to Hawaii to pay their condolences to the American lives they took. They even admitted that such a surprise attack was dishonorable and not of the Code of Bushdio that many lived and died on.
“What I’m saying is, its easy to say what a horrible thing the bombing was today.
If you lived back then, your perspective would have been much different.
It was a military decision that made sense and saved American lifes.
Civilians casualties are part of war.
How many Nations during WW2 carpet bombed a city? Just because it wasn’t an A-bomb, dosen’t make it any less “terrible”.”
Okay, now I understand where you’re comming from. It’s so easy for emotions to cloud our judgement (though this doesn’t always makes things less “right,” and I’m sure any nation would resort to carpet bombing to win the war (see Germany, USA, Britain). Also, the comment on nuclear vs conventional bombing is true - like I pointed it out before, the raid on Tokyo inflicted more damage than either of the two A bombs.
“Poor poor German civilians . . . that’ll learn them to follow a madman into the depths of depravity and EVILHOOD (yes FinsterniS, i said evil).”
I wish there was some way to only bomb supporters of Imerpial Japan or Nazi Germany, however this just wasn’t people. I’m sure much of the anti-war population was bombed and killed (not to mention umpteem women and children). Also many of the people who tried speaking out against Hitler were quickly silenced and sent to political concentration camps as a sort of example to the rest of the population.
Germany got bombed something fierce. Poor poor German civilians . . . that’ll learn them to follow a madman into the depths of depravity and EVILHOOD (yes FinsterniS, i said evil).
…serious crime were made by other people, what about England who send people from their colonies to the front at the WW1 ? What about the two bombs launch in Japan ? What about Vietnam ? The Japanese attack in Korea ? It would always be a crime, not “evil”, but a crime against humanity, still you cannot take the fact without the context, that’s what you are doing by stating bombing german civilian “will learn them not to follow madman”. Serious, and dangerous, simplification.
i was mostly being facetious . . . basically its too simple to accuse the US of a crime against humanity for “the Bomb” when there were so many other factors involved - the Japanese atrocities, their “first strike”, the then-Japanese mentality. Further to my point the same things happened in other countries, other cities - i think that to simply point out the American’s bombing is inappropriate, considering that in war-time measure for measure, with every action there was an equal and opposite reaction (well, somewhat equal . . . ). Was it the German’s fault that they got the crap bombed out of them? Maybe. Were the allies guilty of war-crimes? Maybe. The fact is, it happpened everywhere on both sides. The fact is that no other bombing brought such a turning point to the war as those on Hiroshima and Nagasaki - not Coventry, no where. As for the English sending colonists to the front in WWI, well, if it helped the allies then win, than thank God that they did. Otherwise we might be speaking German now.
[quote="TG Moses VI
Americans do show mercy. If it were otherwise, we would’ve never taken any prisoners and would not have helped rebuild the countries we shattered. Would any other not country do otherwise for its former “enemy?” Also, I’m interested in seeing what you define “horrible massacre” as. Maybe we should throw in a few thousand Americans– a few hundred thousand Americans – maybe even a million Americans – would that satisfy your need for a “horrible massacre?”* We did get caught with our pants down – so did Poland, so did France, so did China, so did many countries overrun by the Axis warmachine. Tell me, should they not have made such a “big deal” out of this? Amusing how we were still making negotiations with the Japanese diplomats when the attack happened.
“America should not have dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Hiroshima had some military value but Nagasaki had NO MILITARY VALUE whatsoever. It was pure revenge. About the number of deaths there, it depends on whose records you look at. Official Japanese records claim that 300,000 people died at hiroshima and another 100,000 at Nagasaki.”
Although many figures are quoted, it’s generally agreed that some 70,000 to 80,000 people died in the attack on Hiroshima with a like number injured (140,000 casualties). At Nagasaki 40,000 died with another 60,000 injured (100,000 casualties). [Make sure not to confuse deaths with casualties] These figures are the immediate deaths and don’t include subsequent deaths. By years end 140,000 people had died in Hiroshima from the bomb. The on Tokyo by B-29 bombers on the night of March 9/10, 1945 released 1660 tons of incendiaries. The official Japanese count found 83,793 dead and 40,918 injured. A total of 267,171 buildings were destroyed leaving one million people homeless. 15.8 square miles of the city had been burned to the ground, including 18% of the industrial area, and 63% of the commercial center. [My sources do not go into how many Japanese died of after-immediate causes].
The bombings on the cities is still a hotly debated subject even today. I think the attacks on industrial or military centers would be a much more “justifiable” target. However, many experts say that the attacks would’ve left a much more lasting impression of the Japanese (forcing them with no other alternative but to end the war) if the attack had occurred on cities that were virtually unscathed by the war. However, since much “logical” targets were already bombed out ruins by the US Airforce, the list of “bombable” cities was relatively shorts. It’s too bad that Hiroshima and Nagasaki had to be ones chosen.
“As for the crimes that Japan did, why dont we talk about America’s crimes? You won’t find this in official American government documents, but the Us government’s policy toward natives was to force them onto reserves and starve them into submission. Read an old Soviet document and you will find it.”
It is foolish to think that America was innocent. However, it is just as foolish to make the level and intensity of American war crimes comparable to Nazi and Imperial Japanese war crimes. Also, natives on the islands (and SE Asia) America “liberated” were also subject to brutality (it is hard to find the correct “word) by the Americans (though this was mainly associated with the firefights their villages were caught up in). But if it makes you happy, why don’t we round up all the countries that served in WWIII (assuming there will be any left) and all put them on trial for war crimes? Who would be presumed fit to judge? We might need the ICC for this.
Firstly, the source I used said 240 deaths at Pearl Harbor, which to me is not the huge massacre you make it out to be. Either you gained a0 or my source lost one of them. 2,400 is a massacre in my opinion. I wasn’t saying that Japan and Germany’s crimes were as bad as American crimes, but I was merely saying that when people look at horrible happenings in history, they rarely look at the winning countries. Some of them have done crimes as well. I think Hiroshima was a justifiable target since it had military value, but not Nagasaki. You can’t make the people pay for the military’s horrible acts. The Japanese military and government should have been hit hard for what they did in China. I’m saying that we have to be careful when we analyze history and look at the great countries, because sometimes the great countries are not as great as we think they are. Had the Americans bombed Frankfurt and Nuremburg (two random German cities), I would not be arguing about it because the German people helped Hitler in his mass genocides and crimes against humanity.
“Americans do show mercy. If it were otherwise, we would’ve never taken any prisoners and would not have helped rebuild the countries we shattered. Would any other not country do otherwise for its former “enemy?””
America barely took any prisoners in the Pacific because the Japanese fought to the death. Rebuilding the countries was very important in order to stop hate against America and to make sure that what happened to Germany after World War 1, when the Allied Powers did not rebuild Germany, won’t happen again.
Emugod
War is horrible, all countries, im sure, are guilty of war crimes to one degree or another.You do what is necessary to win a war and protect your interests, especially if you are the one stuck at first.
What someone calls a massacre another doesn’t.
Is 240 people( Your source is wrong in regards to the number of dead at Pearl harbour, way off) not a massacre?
It depends on who you asking, I guess.
If I line up 240 children and shoot them all in the head, is that not a massacre?
If I line up 300,000 children and shoot them all in the head is that not a massacre?
The number of dead doesn’t matter. Would it have been ok for the states to have killed 240 Japanese citizens with an A-bomb? No massacre?
Massacre or not, America did what they thought should be done to protect themselves.
Who are you to judge their actions?
You may say “How dare they drop A-bombs on innocent poeple!”
And I may say ’ How dare they attack the U.S without a formal declaration of war!"
Japan was doing what it thought had to do to protect it’s interests and win a war they new was coming. At the end of it all, so was the U.S.A.
Emu, here are sources that verify my number (2400 dead) was in fact correct:
http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq66-1.htm
http://www.buckeyewebdesign.com/pearl/pearlharbor.html
http://www.bluejacket.com/pearl_harbor_address.htm
http://www.nationalreview.com/nr_comment/nr_comment091101.shtml
http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/twhp/wwwlps/lessons/18arizona/18putting.htm
The list obviously goes one, but I think that 5 sources will verify my information. Your number of 240 servicemen dead is less than those who died aboard the battleships sunk by Japan. Hundreds were trapped inside the USS Arizona alone. The average age of those lost at Pearl Harbor was 23.
“America barely took any prisoners in the Pacific because the Japanese fought to the death. Rebuilding the countries was very important in order to stop hate against America and to make sure that what happened to Germany after World War 1, when the Allied Powers did not rebuild Germany, won’t happen again.”
When I was talking about POWs, the scope is also widened to all fronts. Hundreds of thousand (even millions?) of German POWs were kept inside of the United States - they weren’t forced into brutal slave labor, shot, straved, or maimed. Is this a sign of mercy? I would think so. As for Japan, we tried to take prisoners, but like you said, they fought to the death. And when they knew the couldn’t win, more often then not the committed vain banzi charges (Guadalcanal), committed suicide (Saipan), or blew themselves up with grenades (Attu). This was their mentality. The Japanese soldiers were “taught” that anybody who surrendered would be shot on sight by an American (and it was in their honor to die for the Emperor).
I think shooting 240 children is a massacre, but whnat I’m saying is that Pearl Harbor is blown out of proportion at times. Mr. Ghoul, you are saying that it’s fine to do anything in the interest of your country. I guess you are justifying Hitler’s Holocaust of 6 million Jews and also many many Gypsies, homosexuals and other minorites. It was “in the interest of his country” just like the atomic bombso n Hiroshima and Nagasaki. According to what you just said, what he did was justified and that is something that I cannot agree with.
I think shooting 240 children is a massacre, but whnat I’m saying is that Pearl Harbor is blown out of proportion at times. Mr. Ghoul, you are saying that it’s fine to do anything in the interest of your country. I guess you are justifying Hitler’s Holocaust of 6 million Jews and also many many Gypsies, homosexuals and other minorites. It was “in the interest of his country” just like the atomic bombso n Hiroshima and Nagasaki. According to what you just said, what he did was justified and that is something that I cannot agree with.
Thats a little extreme.
If America was dropping A-bombs on Japan before their attack on Pearl Habour, I would be singing a different tune.
Obviously, defending what is your interest at all cost has a limit.
I not saying what they did was “nice” but, in the interest of saving
America lives, it was what they thought should be done.
And I can understand and accept it.
