USA - WW2 War crimes never addressed and held accountable!

Originally posted by GodIsPissed
"It's war, and in war it's KILL or BE KILLED. A country or a people will do everything by any means necessary to insure it's survival. Politics and political correctness goes out the window the second the first bullet goes whizzing by your head. Just ask any veteran of any nation who's seen combat".

Why can't they just come out and say that?They could use that excuse for everything.

I understand it's kill or be killed but if you're the one starting these wars how would that apply then?If you didn't start a war there wouldn't be a kill or be killed situation.I'm not saying what the Japanese did is right but you can't tell me killing hundreds of thousands in minutes is the right thing to do.Whether they dropped warnings or not hundreds of thousands of people were killed.

America won't be remember for killing hundreds of thousands in 1945 because apparently they had a reason to..but the Arabs will be remembered for killing 3000 on 9/11..even though I'm sure they had their reasons.

Both had their reasons for doing what they did.Yet only the Arabs are considered terrorists?Hundreds of thousands compared to 3000.

"They did it for survival".

Yeah because killing people insures your survival(yes that was sarcasm).

Now I can see if they were starving and had to kill to live but it wasn't like that,so why say it?You're telling me they did it so they wouldn't invade and end up killing more people in the long run...like you could predict the outcome...please.

The whole point to this thread is were the bombs dropped on Japan necessary,and should that be considered war crimes?

And I don't think "we did it for survival" would be the best answer in a court room.How can you justify killing hundreds of thousands of people by saying you THINK they would have invaded and caused more deaths in the long run?That's the weakest excuse I've ever heard.

Ummm, the Japanese killed over 25 million Chinese.

Japan was the last Divine Right ruled major power on earth. Do you think they were going to give up?
Even the Germans tried to take Hitler out when they saw that the war was unwinable..... the Japanese believed their leader to be a god incarnate, so again, do you really think they were going to give up? A land invasion would have resulted in much greater losses for both sides and would have also dragged out the war much longer. The US knew this because of the island campaign on the way to Japan. Look up the names, Iwo Jima and Guadacanal and read about the Japanese fighting to the last man..... and those were not even the home islands!
And even scarier, they were pulling Japanese soldiers out of the jungles for 30+ years after the war who would not surrender! I think that mentality pretty much rules out an island by island war going through the Japanese home islands.

Was it right that the Japanese killed 25 Million Chinese? You want to talk about war crimes? How about marching thousands of US, British and Aussie troops to their deaths?
Experimenting on thousands of Chinese with weaponized Bubonic plague and Cholera? Do you know that their WMD stockpiles are still being found in China and making people sick to this day?

The war crimes are only defined and enforced by those who won. If the US had lost, the Japanese probably would have been beheading Americans by their definition of war crimes. Two wrongs don't make a right, but don't try to confuse the issue.

It's called war. There are NO RULES.

reply to post by GodIsPissed
I guess I think the Japanese government should be held accountable to a large degree, since we liberally saturated the areas to be bombed warning of impending doom. We also offered repeatedly to end the war if Japan would agree to surrender, which they did, eventually.

The event? Our use of nuclear weapons.

oHHH, more historical rewrites, whodathought here at ATS?

One event I dont think has been addressed here.

The fire bombing of Dresden by the allies. Vast majority of casualties were civies.

en.wikipedia.org...

The Bombing of Dresden was a military bombing by the British Royal Air Force (RAF) and the United States Army Air Force (USAAF) as part of the allied forces between 13 February and 15 February 1945 in the Second World War. In four raids, 1,300 heavy bombers dropped more than 3,900 tons of high-explosive bombs and incendiary devices on the city, the Baroque capital of the German state of Saxony. The resulting firestorm destroyed 15 square miles (39 square kilometres) of the city centre.[1]

Adam Tooze, the British economic war historian states, "Wreaking havoc on the German home front was the essence of Britain's strategy and the atomic bomb was the ideal weapon for that job. On 7 May 1942, the British cabinet formally agreed that the RAF Bomber Command was to destroy 58 of Germany's largest towns and cities."[2] It was Britain's policy to destroy German cities. This was well known. The River Rhine was not crossed until 23 March 1945, after the Dresden raid. German V rockets were dropping on London and Antwerp at the time of raid.

A 1953 United States Air Force report written by Joseph W. Angell defended the operation as the justified bombing of a military and industrial target, which was a major rail transportation and communication centre, housing 110 factories and 50,000 workers in support of the Nazi war effort.[3] Against this, several researchers have argued that not all of the communications infrastructure, such as the bridges, were in fact targeted, nor were the extensive industrial areas outside the city centre.[4] It has been argued that Dresden was a cultural landmark of little or no military significance, a "Florence on the Elbe," as it was known, and the attacks were indiscriminate area bombing and not proportionate to the commensurate military gains.[5][6]

In the first few decades after the war, some death toll estimates were as high as 250,000, which are now considered unreasonable.[7][8][9] An independent investigation commissioned by the city council in 2010 reported a minimum of 22,700 victims with a maximum total number of fatalities of 25,000.[10]

In direct comparison with the bombing of Hamburg in 1943, which created one of the greatest firestorms raised by the RAF and United States Army Air Force,[11] killing roughly 50,000 civilians in Hamburg and practically destroying the entire city, and the bombing of Pforzheim in 1945, killing roughly 18,000 civilians,[12] the bombing raids over Dresden were not the most severe of World War II. However, they continue to be recognised as one of the worst examples of civilian suffering caused by strategic bombing, and have become exposed among the moral causes célèbres of the Second World War.[13] Post-war discussion, popular legends, historical revisionism and Cold War propaganda of the bombing includes debate by commentators, officials and historians as to whether or not the bombing was justified, and whether its outcome constituted a war crime.

We understand it's war and you do what you have to but the thing that should be looked at the most is HOW these wars get started and to figure out exactly who was justified in their actions.

This is where traditions and beliefs from different cultures get involved.What's considered wrong to one country or culture might be considered right to another.This is why a lot of times holy wars get started.

So because of the different beliefs you can't justify who's right and who's wrong..there is no right to war.

Oh and I forgot to add..was the second bomb really necessary?

Honestly?

reply to post by GodIsPissed


Of course, we are the good guys, it is shock and awe. Had it been another country dropping the bombs, it would surely be terrorism.

Originally posted by Havick007
Hello ATS,

Yes so first of all i will admit and understand this is a touchy subject for both people of the US and Japan. However, to get straight to the point. Although Japan was the first to break the rules of engagment with the sneaky and blatant attack on Pearl harbour, along with all the fighting and trench battles of WW2 that followed. Does this justify the means that stopped the war with Japan?


The means i speak of is the Atomic weapons used on the population of Hiroshima and Nagasaki!

Now fair enough there were some military casualties in these missions but what needs to be addressed are all the civilian casualties. How could the US governement at the time justify such a radical use of force against a majority civilian population??

That is the question? They have never been held accountable and i believe it is a disgrace!

Here are some videos and also statistics on deaths, it was a sad day for humanity!


The precurser - Pearl Harbour ( Military targets only )

Then we have the Atomic bombing ( civilian cities )

First the bombing of Hiroshimi and Nagasaki -

Then we have the aftermath -

Also a re-inactment - also USAF pilot and and civilian interviews

Do you think you would deserve this, if you were a civilian stuck in the middle of a war your government had started?


Here are some stats on death tolls:

www.atomicarchive.com...

Also form Wiki we have this:

According to the U.S. Department of Energy the immediate effects of the blast killed approximately 70,000 people in Hiroshima.[44] Estimates of total deaths by the end of 1945 from burns, radiation and related disease, the effects of which were aggravated by lack of medical resources, range from 90,000 to 166,000.[1][45] Some estimates state up to 200,000 had died by 1950, due to cancer and other long-term effects.[2][7][46] Another study states that from 1950 to 1990, roughly 9% of the cancer and leukemia deaths among bomb survivors was due to radiation from the bombs, the statistical excess being estimated to 89 leukemia and 339 solid cancers.[47] At least eleven known prisoners of war died from the bombing.[48]

en.wikipedia.org...


AShould they have been held accountable for war crimes? Hell yes i think so!!

edit on 27-12-2010 by Havick007 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-12-2010 by Havick007 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-12-2010 by Havick007 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-12-2010 by Havick007 because: (no reason given)

It's been said before, and I will say it again.

Japan attacked Pearl Harbor because of the OIL blockade instituted by the USA. Let's not lie, okay?

HOWEVER, two ATOMIC bombs that killed a couple hundred thousand people is small in comparison to the MILLIONS of Chinese the Japanese Military killed during WWII.

Everyone seems to forget that fact.

Thanks, Oppenheimer.

Originally posted by GodIsPissed
Oh and I forgot to add..was the second bomb really necessary?

Honestly?

Apparently it was necessary.
It was all recorded for history.

We offered the Japanese multiple chances to surrender, they declined our offers....

until we dropped the second nuke.

It would seem that the second one convinced them of something.

Now, let's talk mean and vindictive. How about we had ignored Japanese pleas to surrender and kept making nuclear bombs just to drop on each and every one of their cities? Now that would have been ugly. But, as it was, they never plead, they just responded to our offer that had been on the table all along.

reply to post by Nutella

apan attacked Pearl Harbor because of the OIL blockade instituted by the USA. Let's not lie, okay?

What particular US vessels were involved in this 'blockade'?

I admit that oil (and other resources) had been involved, but I was unaware of the use of a blockade.

reply to post by butcherguy



I think he means to use the word "embargo"......

reply to post by Skippy1138
I guessed that.
But I just wanted to make sure I didn't miss anything in my history classes... so long ago.

Originally posted by butcherguy

Originally posted by GodIsPissed
Oh and I forgot to add..was the second bomb really necessary?

Honestly?

Apparently it was necessary.
It was all recorded for history.

We offered the Japanese multiple chances to surrender, they declined our offers....

until we dropped the second nuke.

It would seem that the second one convinced them of something.

Now, let's talk mean and vindictive. How about we had ignored Japanese pleas to surrender and kept making nuclear bombs just to drop on each and every one of their cities? Now that would have been ugly. But, as it was, they never plead, they just responded to our offer that had been on the table all along.

Hey butcherguy!

I think thats a 100 percenter ya got there. Honestly! I'll take the part of the shortloin with no eye also know as the T-BONE

reply to post by butcherguy


So what! The whole point of this thread is to show that any type of nuclear weapon, no matter how big or small should not have been necessary no matter what. It was total over kill! I tell you this right now! if my family had been killed or injured etc in those attckes i would hold a grudge against the US till this day.


People will say '' oh well it wasnt my fault, it was my government '' well that is what happened to the people of those cities! they only did what thier government told them too!

Yet they were the victims, they were the ones that suffered from that day onwards, right up untill the 90's when cancer's were killing them!

All i see on this thread is ignorance and denial! Somone like Clinton can be thrown out for having an affair, yet people like Trueman and his associates are praised because they one the war, but once again i ask at what cost?> i am sick of asking it and sick of the denial!!

Originally posted by Havick007
reply to post by butcherguy

 

So what! The whole point of this thread is to show that any type of nuclear weapon, no matter how big or small should not have been necessary no matter what. It was total over kill! I tell you this right now! if my family had been killed or injured etc in those attckes i would hold a grudge against the US till this day.


People will say '' oh well it wasnt my fault, it was my government '' well that is what happened to the people of those cities! they only did what thier government told them too!

Yet they were the victims, they were the ones that suffered from that day onwards, right up untill the 90's when cancer's were killing them!








































All i see on this thread is ignorance and denial! Somone like Clinton can be thrown out for having an affair, yet people like Trueman and his associates are praised because they one the war, but once again i ask at what cost?> i am sick of asking it and sick of the denial!!

Hey Havick!

Your whole premise sucks. Add the reponses up to your stupid query. We won the argument and you lost. Go back to the country you came from because you definitely are not Australian. You say at what cost? So we could keep our heads ya JACKWAGON. My dad was there on Tinian. A radio operator on a b-29 called the Snugglebunny[look it up] and I wish he could of been the one who got to drop one of those bombs. They were preparing for the invasion of the islands of Japan when both the bombs were delivered. They new what the losses were going to be in the event allied forces would have to take those islands. Guys in the European Theatre were being shipped to all the allied held islands to get ready. I have his foot locker in the next room as i type this. It's filled with all the fear of young soldiers for what was about to happen. In fact Havick, my father was awarded the DISTINGUISHED FLYING CROSS. After a bombing run, their bomber was over the Sea of Japan and 2 racks of bombs got stuck. He left his station and with the bombay doors open, he stopped the arming vanes with cotter pins and knocked the bombs free into the sea. He was 17yrs old. You make me and all the other people who are true fighters for freedom sick with your MAMBY PAMBY crap! Happy New Year! Oh Yea! You can thank my Dad and all the others for the right to be living.

reply to post by lewman


This is a Lie..
Shame on you.

Originally posted by nivekronnoco
reply to post by lewman

 

This is a Lie..
Shame on you.

Thank You! Who the hell taught these guys this B.S.

Originally posted by Havick007
The whole point of this thread is to show that any type of nuclear weapon, no matter how big or small should not have been necessary no matter what.

Then this thread failed in your intention, as it has been proven it was not overkill, the bombs were dropped on valid military targets!

I tell you this right now! if my family had been killed or injured etc in those attckes i would hold a grudge against the US till this day.

Why not hold the grudge against the country that caused the bombs to be dropped, Japan?

All i see on this thread is ignorance and denial!

That was started by you in the first post you made!

Somone like Clinton can be thrown out for having an affair, yet people like Trueman and his associates are praised because they one the war,

as they should be praised.

but once again i ask at what cost?

the cost of saving hundreds of thousands of lives.

i am sick of asking it and sick of the denial!!

you are the one in denial here!

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by Havick007
The whole point of this thread is to show that any type of nuclear weapon, no matter how big or small should not have been necessary no matter what.

Then this thread failed in your intention, as it has been proven it was not overkill, the bombs were dropped on valid military targets!

I tell you this right now! if my family had been killed or injured etc in those attckes i would hold a grudge against the US till this day.

Why not hold the grudge against the country that caused the bombs to be dropped, Japan?

All i see on this thread is ignorance and denial!

That was started by you in the first post you made!

Somone like Clinton can be thrown out for having an affair, yet people like Trueman and his associates are praised because they one the war,

as they should be praised.

but once again i ask at what cost?

the cost of saving hundreds of thousands of lives.

i am sick of asking it and sick of the denial!!

you are the one in denial here!

edit on 1/1/11 by dereks because: (no reason given)

Havicks mad because the majority of us didn't agree with him. I new he wasn't from Australia. For all the freedom loving people who have read this thread and agreed that dropping the bombs were the right thing to do at the time........Thank You! From this Ozark Mountain boy to yall,may your god or who ever you believe in, bring you Peace in this new year.

reply to post by Havick007


To Havick and all the others in this thread who have never read a history book- you are what's called "Revisionists":

The people who are now questioning Truman’s motives are often known as Revisionists, because they attempt to revise common perceptions of history, proposing alternate theories and motives. As early as 1946 they begin to postulate new ideas, but their words only began to receive credence in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Revisionists contend that Truman either had ulterior motives in the dropping of the atomic bombs or that he used these bombs on Japan for an entirely different reason, one that had nothing to do with saving lives.

However, it is evident that in the “grand scheme of things” the use of the atomic bomb saved lives. About 105,000 Japanese lost their lives in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. While this is a high number, the number who died in the American bombing raids on the six largest Japanese cities is far greater, about 250,000. Consequently, such a large number of deaths is by no means unprecedented. An invasion of Japan would possibly have cost between 250,000 and three million Japanese and American lives and ended the war four months later, at the very earliest. It may be concluded that no more people died in the atomic bombings than would have in an invasion of Kyushu, and that said bombings did have the effect of ending the war more quickly.

Source:
www.essortment.com...