I call it being morally bankrupt, to be honest.
No, you tried to put people into a false position in order to score some obscure points that only you seem to be able to see, to keep this hijack of the thread going along the lines that seem to amuse you for some odd reason.
[/QUOTE]
Is this your first time attending an episode of The Dio Show?
You want to play? Great. I honestly can’t figure out what the heck the point is you’re trying to make, but anyway:
First, cite please showing a comparison of suicide rates for German leaders and Japanese leaders in the aftermath of WWII. I don’t accept or reject your claim (given the killing of some six million Jews I don’t have a hard time believing that for some their conscience got to them). But either way, cite please.
You claim that suicide in Japan is not any more common than in other countries. Yet list after list shows Japan as having one of the highest suicide rates in the world - and by far the highest rate among the industrialized world. Just what part of these lists aren’t you getting? We’ve already seen that Japan’s suicide rate is 40% higher than France, more than double Canada and the US, and almost triple that of the UK and Spain. Are you really claiming that Japan’s suicide rate is ‘not out of line’ with these other countries?
Third - you keep saying that other countries have high rates of suicide, too. Yes, if you count countries such as Lithuania, Kazakhstan, Guyana, and Sri Lanka. Are you seriously saying that economic, cultural, social, and religous factors have no bearing on suicide rates?
Finally - we have cite after cite noting Japan’s centuries-old tradition of accepting suicide as a means of atonement. Are you saying these are all wrong? Can you find even one cite that denounces all of this, that it’s all lies and legend, and that Japan’s high suicide rate is merely random ‘noise’?
Yes, but again, you are an uninformed shopper who seemingly doesn’t know much about the subject
[/quote]
Did Eisenhower and MacArthur know much about the subject? Because they both said the bombings were unnecessary and that Japan would have surrendered anyway.
Because Japan was already on the verge of surrender. Dwight Eisenhower and Douglas MacArthur are better authorities than you are.
I didn’t say “anyone.” I said toddlers.
This is not a pit thread, and I have not personally attacked or insulted anyone. Please give me the same courtesy.
Let’s not forget the individual Japanese soldiers who refused to surrender for years, even decades. There’s a Straight Dope column on it.
Says the guy who claims we should not even have fought back when Japan and Germany declared war on us. :rolleyes:
BTW, an invasion would likely kill civilians as well – more people would have died had the bomb not been dropped. Truman’s aim was to end the war with fewer LIVES lost, period. War isn’t a tea party.
No, you’ve only tried to insinuate that people who supported U.S. involvement in WWII also supported burning toddlers.
Japanese war crimes killed millions of Chinese civilians. If you are incapable of comprehending that failing to halt their expansion would result in the Japanese military killing millions more civilians in places like India and Australia and having more time to kill more Chinese people, this is a failing on your part.
:dubious: Do you have a cite for this? Because the air force dropped leaflets urging people to flee the cities prior to many of the bombings. Also, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were all key military targets, rail heads, logistics centers and manufacturing centers that were certainly part of Japans military system.
-XT
[/QUOTE]
The Potsdam Ultimatum explicitly said that the alterantive to surrender was the complete and total destruction of Japan. The secretary of War explsicitly said that the bomb was a “psychological” weapon. If Japan had not surrendered, the US fully intended to continue dropping atomic bombs, at the the rate of at least three per month until either the Japanese surrendered or the population was completely destroyed.
The Hiroshima bomb was dropped directly on the city’s hospital. Military target, my ass.
I didn’t insinuate it, I said it straight out. That’s also indisputably true. It’s not an insinuation that they like it or want it, but it’s indisputable that they think it has to be done. I don’t condemn them for seeing things morally differently than I do, but I’m also entitled to my own moral view.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
The Hiroshima bomb was dropped directly on the city’s hospital. Military target, my ass.
[/QUOTE]
The aiming point (“target”) was a bridge (the Aioi Bridge) over the river, easy to see from 31,000 feet. It missed by 800 feet due to an unexpected crosswind.
Then it’s also a failure on Dwight Eisenhower’s part, as well as several other major figures in the US High Command (MacArthur, Leahy, Nimitz), all of whom said the use of the A bomb was unnecessary and that Japan had already lost.
The aiming point (“target”) was a bridge (the Aioi Bridge) over the river, easy to see from 31,000 feet. It missed by 800 feet due to an unexpected crosswind.
[/QUOTE]
Sure it did.
I support burning toddlers to the same extent you support the Holocaust and the death and torture of millions of Asians and the enslavement of millions upon millions of Slavs and Asians.
Both were the envitable result of the policies we support - area bombing for me and isolationism for you.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Did Eisenhower and MacArthur know much about the subject? Because they both said the bombings were unnecessary and that Japan would have surrendered anyway.
[/QUOTE]
Again, you are changing the goal posts seemingly at random. Are we talking solely about the atomic bombs now or are we talking about the US not participating in the war at all?
If we are talking about the former, I should point out that MacArthur was opposed to dropping the bombs because he wanted to invade, instead, something that would have cost a lot more in terms of lives than the atomic bombs. I’m unsure what Eisenhower’s position was (do you have a cite, in context, of what he was saying? And when this comment came out? Was it before the atomic bombs were dropped or later?), but that he was more involved in the European side of things, so I’m unsure where his comments may have been coming from.
There were a lot of folks who supposedly were in the know about this subject who made random statements such as what you are claiming there, but most of the one’s I’ve tracked down in past threads like this were either taken out of context, said because the person making the comment had another agenda (such as LeMay wanting to continue the strategic bombing instead of using the bomb, or MacArthur wanting an invasion instead of using the bomb, etc).
Most actual experts agree that it was unlikely that Japan would surrender without either an invasion or the use of the atomic bombs. Hell, as has been pointed out in this thread, they didn’t seem inclined to surrender even AFTER the atom bombs were dropped, or even after Russia jumped into the war and started pounding on their army in Manchuria. It took direct intervention by the Emperor to finally bring the war to an end (and he admits that the fire bombings, as well as the atomic bombs were what convinced him to do so), and even then they almost had a military coup to keep the war going.
No, they weren’t on the verge of surrender, and no, if Eisenhower said they were he wasn’t more of an authority, since he is going against not only the majority opinion of his own time, but he’s going against the majority opinion of most historians of the non-revisionist type. As to McArthur, he wanted an invasion for his own personal motives.
It seems a distinction without any real meaning.
-XT
shrug
I don’t know what point you think your making by moving the aiming point 800 feet with a bomb whose “total destruction” radius is seven times that.
It was understood that civilians were going to die, whether the aim point was hit precisely or not.
False.
The notion that Tokyo was not a legitimate military target in WWII is too stupid to require refutation.
Regards,
Shodan
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Sure it did.
[/QUOTE]
You are right…they used precision bombing techniques they got from mutant space aliens to target a hospital from 30k feel, because they felt that anything less would ensure a clean miss of all those hospital patients, them using an atomic bomb and all.
Do you even believe the silly stuff you are writing in this thread?
-XT
Again, you are changing the goal posts seemingly at random. Are we talking solely about the atomic bombs now or are we talking about the US not participating in the war at all?
[/quote]
The atomic bombs.
Here is what Eisenhower said:
(from his memoir, Mandate For Change, pg. 380)
And he wasn’t the only one.
Admiral William Leahy (Truman’s Chief of Staff):
Admiral William Nimitz (Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet):
As for MacArthur, Norman Cousins wrote this in The Pathology of Power:
(The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70–71)
None of them were saying the wanted to invade instead. They were saying it was already over. MacArthur thought they just needed to tell them they could keep their Emperor and they would surrender.
These were the guys who were directly in the High Command of the US military (including the Pacific fleets) at the time. They weren’t exactly bleeding heart liberals either. Did they not know what they were talking about? Do you know better than they did?
Fine, I support burning toddlers. :rolleyes: Happy now?
Interesting that Leahy specifically mentions the conventional bombing campaign and the naval blockade that you consider to be cowardly, unjustifiable tactics.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Here is what Eisenhower said:
[/QUOTE]
Interesting. Did you actually read it?
So…Eisenhower is given a briefing in Germany (at his headquarters).
What does he base his assertion that ‘Japan was already defeated on’, exactly? He seemingly has no special knowledge, being the allied commander in EUROPE. His experience was with Germany, where, as the war drew to a close, German soldiers were increasingly more apt to surrender than fight to the death, and where civilians fled towards the allies (read: non-Soviet) for protection. Contrast this to the closing battles, such as Okinawa. The situation was completely different, and it’s understandable that Eisenhower, who was familiar with how things were in Europe, would make such an offhand statement, since, again, he had no special knowledge of the tactical or strategic situation in Japan.
You are basically just appealing to authority here by tossing around Eisenhower’s name and a brief comment he made.
As for the others, I don’t have the time or energy to go through each one right now (maybe another poster will be willing to play this game with you), but overwhelmingly the people who were in the know during the decision process agreed that Japan was far from defeated, and it was going to take either an invasion (which we were preparing to do) or dropping those bombs…or, worst case, both.
-XT