Hiroshima, 6 August 1945

Hmmm ... ever hear of "The Rape of Nanking" ... or "The Code of Bushido" ... I didn't think so.

Yes, I know about the rape of Nanking. I know about the Saumuri code. Anybody who is remotely interested in history knows about it.

I never point to the Nazis and Imperial Japanese Army to excuse any actions the USA might consider. I hold USA to a higher standard than the low bar the Nazis and the Kwangtung Army set.
 
So. Your Plan was for America to lay down and become part of Greater Japan?

Japan was doomed.......the B-29's were already burning their major cities down, killing hundreds of thousands

pick your poison......the nukes saved thousands of American lives, we were in it to win it
 
Yes, I know about the rape of Nanking. I know about the Saumuri code. Anybody who is remotely interested in history knows about it.

I never point to the Nazis and Imperial Japanese Army to excuse any actions the USA might consider. I hold USA to a higher standard than the low bar the Nazis and the Kwangtung Army set.

Those are the guys you are fighting with.
 
Japan was doomed.......the B-29's were already burning their major cities down, killing hundreds of thousands

pick your poison......the nukes saved thousands of American lives, we were in it to win it

I agree. Only Phantasmal is saying she will fight for nothing ... no idea, no family, no philosophy.
 
Those are the guys you are fighting with.

A certain amount of civilians are going to be killed in any war.

The Nazis were totally indiscriminate and ruthless about it.

Which in the long run undermined their cause and contributed to their defeat.

Our obligation as a liberal western democracy is to really consider how much damage to civilian populations is acceptable in the context of our strategic goals, and how much should either be avoided or mitigated to the extent possible.

Those are the questions people ask about the fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo, and the nuclear strikes.
 
B-29s were capable of flying in the stratosphere and were virtually untouchable by what little remained of Japanese air defenses in August 1945.

Tell that to those who were killed flying those missions, not all of whom were combat losses. Let's not forget that these missions were flown by 20somethings in new tech that was being maintained by teenagers in aircraft using high octane aviation gasoline. The losses were horrendous both in the air and on the ground. Let's not forget all of those starving in Japanese POW camps.

http://pippaettore.com/Horrific_WWII_Statistics.html
The worst B-29 mission, against Tokyo on May 25, 1945, cost 26 Superfortresses, 5.6 percent of the 464 dispatched from the Marianas..

On average, 6,600 American servicemen died per month during WWII, about 220 a day. By the end of the war, over 40,000 airmen were killed in combat theatres and another 18,000 wounded. Some 12,000 missing men were declared dead, including a number "liberated" by the Soviets but never returned. More than 41,000 were captured, half of the 5,400 held by the Japanese died in captivity, compared with one-tenth in German hands. Total combat casualties were pegged at 121,867.
 
I’m very sorry. It’s why I hate war. The civilians suffer because of the egos of the leaders who sit in their comfortable places and decide what happens to the rest of us.

I always liked the story from World War 1 about how German and French soldiers abandoned the trenches, told their officers to get f+cked, and decided to stop fighting and celebrate Christmas eve together.

They got tired of being pawns.
 
A certain amount of civilians are going to be killed in any war.

The Nazis were totally indiscriminate and ruthless about it.

Which in the long run undermined their cause and contributed to their defeat.

Our obligation as a liberal western democracy is to really consider how much damage to civilian populations is acceptable in the context of our strategic goals, and how much should either be avoided or mitigated to the extent possible.

Those are the questions people ask about the fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo, and the nuclear strikes.

I support your ideology, but that wasn't the thinking in 1945. A history teacher one pointed out to my class that "Gunsmoke" wasn't a historical drama about a 19th century man in a 19th century American town. It was a fictional story about a 20th century man in a 19th century town. It used 20th century values to judge 19th century people and that was erroneous. It's like condemning everything Jefferson did because he was a slave rapist.

Judge them based on their times. Nuking Japan was the best call given the circumstances.
 
I agree. Only Phantasmal is saying she will fight for nothing ... no idea, no family, no philosophy.

She's a Christian, unlike the assholes who claim to be Christians but never act like one.

54v3hz.jpg
 
I support your ideology, but that wasn't the thinking in 1945. A history teacher one pointed out to my class that "Gunsmoke" wasn't a historical drama about a 19th century man in a 19th century American town. It was a fictional story about a 20th century man in a 19th century town. It used 20th century values to judge 19th century people and that was erroneous. It's like condemning everything Jefferson did because he was a slave rapist.

Judge them based on their times. Nuking Japan was the best call given the circumstances.

I said in one of the first posts in this thread that we have the benefit of 77 years of hindsight, and none of us were there in 1945.

So I agree with the point that projecting our life experiences backwards seven decades is anachronistic-thinking.
 
Japan was doomed.......the B-29's were already burning their major cities down, killing hundreds of thousands

pick your poison......the nukes saved thousands of American lives, we were in it to win it

The nukes saved hundreds of thousands of American lives and American leaders would have been derelict in their duties not to try to save all of them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall#Estimated_casualties
On 15 January 1945, the U.S. Army Service Forces released a document, "Redeployment of the United States Army after the Defeat of Germany." In it, they estimate that during the 18 month period after June 1945 (that is, through December 1946), the Army would be required to furnish replacements for 43,000 dead and evacuated wounded every month.[95] From analysis of the replacement schedule and projected strengths in overseas theaters, it suggested that Army losses alone in those categories, excluding the Navy and Marine Corps, would be approximately 863,000 through the first part of 1947, of whom 267,000 would be killed or missing.[96] This likewise excludes wounded who would be treated in-theater during an initial window of 30 days, later to be expanded to 120 days.
 
I said in one of the first posts in this thread that we have the benefit of 77 years of hindsight, and none of us were there in 1945.

So I agree with the point that projecting our life experiences backwards seven decades is anachronistic-thinking.

Agreed. Therefore it's silly to backbite the decisions much less start conspiracy theories about ending the war.

What we can agree upon is that over 75 years have passed and no one has set off another nuke...yet.
 
I’m very sorry. It’s why I hate war. The civilians suffer because of the egos of the leaders who sit in their comfortable places and decide what happens to the rest of us.

Ummmmm...it takes two to make peace and only one to make war.

What was FDR supposed to do after Pearl Harbor, in your opinion?

c9c388_c0c0558f565d4e6685ac1c8f216ce768~mv2.gif
 
Yes, I know about the rape of Nanking. I know about the Saumuri code. Anybody who is remotely interested in history knows about it.

I never point to the Nazis and Imperial Japanese Army to excuse any actions the USA might consider. I hold USA to a higher standard than the low bar the Nazis and the Kwangtung Army set.

Agreed on the higher standard. FDR dropped it a bit with the internment of Japanese-Americans and some German-Americans.

Nonetheless, if someone brutally breaks into your house and attempt to kill all the occupants and you have the opportunity to blow them away with a 12 gauge shotgun, what would you choose to do? I'd choose self-defense just like FDR and Truman did.
 
True, but you're still pining for them like Putin does.

You use that insult a lot yet you don't understand it. I'm not pining for Goldwater like you are for Putin. I'm simply advocating that a conservative party use more logic and less emotion, that they become proponents for national security and the economy, not divisive assholes attacking both Americans and our Constitution.
blah blah blah..you dont want to "get it" but we ARE DIVIDED.
Making nice with Dems on the Infrastructure Bill doesnt mean they arent STILL GOING TO RAM THRU RECONCILIATION

And that is a nightmare, complete amnesty for illegals, with no trade offs on border security
Green New Deal -gawd knows what else..It makes S-1 look like child's play

I've tried to be bi-partisan -it doesnt work; Dems has no interest in bipartisanship. it is what they are.
Look at their obstructionism with Trump ( you can hate Trump but still see how they operate)

Then the Progs literally take over, and Goldwater be damned
~~

as to da Russians ( not "soviets") we always worked for detente during the Cold War.
Russiaphobic assholes like yourself and others wont do that with Putin,
though the USSR was a far greater threat then modern Russia

see my sig
 
I wasn't there in 1945, and I would never want to be in the position to make the decision. We all have the luxury of hindsight, looking back at it from a distance of 77 years.

My instinct leans towards feeling that while it was morally reprehensible, it may have been the least bad option. USA, Britain, Germany, USSR deliberately killed a lot of civilians from 1939 to 1945. All of it, strictly speaking, was morally reprehensible.

We did what needed done. Period. No matter if you think it's reprehensible or not.
As was stated, we were in it to win, and our commanders knew that.
 
A certain amount of civilians are going to be killed in any war.

The Nazis were totally indiscriminate and ruthless about it.

Which in the long run undermined their cause and contributed to their defeat.

Our obligation as a liberal western democracy is to really consider how much damage to civilian populations is acceptable in the context of our strategic goals, and how much should either be avoided or mitigated to the extent possible.

Those are the questions people ask about the fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo, and the nuclear strikes.


Our ONLY obligation ... is Winning.
If we DON'T win, there will be no 'liberal western democracy'.
 
Back
Top