USA has the highest incarceration rate in the World.
From the beginning, many people who formed USA came from England’s criminal circles and pirates. From the very beginning USA had a very poor human rights track.
We’ve got a lot of criminals.
How high is our incorrect incarceration rate compared to other countries? How many of our inmates are there wrongfully? To me, that’s the only rate that matters. If we have a whole lot more laws than other places, well, don’t break the law.
There are certainly countries with far more political prisoners – either measured absolutely or per capita – than the U.S. (North Korea comes readily to mind…)
Most people who end up in prison have been failed by American society – unlike Scandinavia, USA has very poor welfare system and little help for the people who are insane.
I think it also matters how many of our criminals we incarcerate instead of executing quickly.
USA incarcerates about 700,000 mentally ill people. That is almost as bad as the Nazis who executed them.
So much ignorance, so little time.
I don’t have enough time to respond to all of the bad parts, so I’ve pick just a few.
This is one point that you got right for part credit. Japan did negotiate the surrender based on allowing them to retain the emperor, so it was a conditional, BUT it must be emphasized that there was confusion in Japan over the future status of the emperor. The Foreign Ministry took one translation of the English words and the Army another and was opposed to it, but finally gave in.
All in all, the exact nature is a minor detail, but the Emperor did not retain his full status.
If you are going to give lectures to other posters, make sure you know your facts first. This is incorrect and demonstrates a fundamental flaw in the understanding.
Stalin agreed to declare was within three months of Germany’s surrender. Hell, he could have declared war the next afternoon had he wanted, before Germany caved.
The previous error is not that significant. This one is, and shows why your entire reasoning is hogwash.
The Japanese “military high brass” were not hell bent on an honorable surrender. Full stop. The militants within the leadership, including Gen. Anami never would have surrendered. If you don’t know who he is, then there is no point in engaging with you and wasting my time.
Your statement is absurd. So, cite.
Everyone here in this thread, you included, with the exception of Dissonance, is abusing the terms “Japan” and “Japanese” as blanket statements when in fact the Big Six of the Supreme War Council, the only organization which brought together the people with real power, were split down the middle on the question of surrendering. As your arguments ignore this, they really aren’t worth responding to.
The US didn’t give a rat’s ass to that as they knew that the Soviets lacked the ability to transport troops to attack Japan.
Nope. Clearly wrong.
[quote=“asahi, post:75, topic:755893”]
IIRC, it took the government / military’s top advisers three days just to meet, at which point Japan was bombed again. And again, they didn’t act with the greatest of urgency even after that attack. The timing makes it seem like the bombs did all the work, but the evidence to support that theory is pretty flimsy.
See notes below. This is entirely without merit.
The Soviets did no such thing. The Japanese had asked them to intervine, but they had never giving a yes.
So, cite?
Bullshit.
Are you saying that Truman would surrender? I can’t parse your sentences.
This is so entirely wrong, that one cannot even begin to rebut it.
The Soviets did not have the ability to invade Japan. Full fucking stop. See notes below on the real reason that the Soviet entry to the war was significant.
The US did not merely “weaken” Japan, we damn near bombed it back to the stone age.
Nonsense. See below.
More bullshit than I have time for.
Pot, kettle.
Continually repeating the same garbage does not make it correct.
There is direct evidence that the Japanese surrendered because of the bombs. The captured government officials told the America interrogators that this was the case. The problem is that this evidence is suspect for a number of reasons, including the desire to tell the captors what they wanted to hear. The emperor also stated in his speech that they must give up because of the bombs.
OTOH, there is no direct evidence, suspect or not, that links the Soviet entry into the war to the surrender.
The simple reality is that these two events did not happen in separate vacuums and are inexorably intertwined.
One can argue which is more important, but not when one is saying “Japan” or “Japanese” and not “Hirohito,” “General Anami,” “Prime Minister Adm. Suzuki,” “Minister Togo,” or “Lord Keeper of the Privy Seal.” The depth required for such a discussion is beyond the capacity of people who haven’t actually studied the history.
What happened was the people who realized the war was completely lost, and wanted to save as much of Japan as possible, the “peace faction” were looking to surrender but the militarists, lead by Gen. Animi never wanted to surrender.
After the defeat in Okinawa, Adm. Suziki was brought in as prime minister to lead Japan to a surrender, but was in no real hurry. The militarists would never have accepted the occupation of Japan, nor did they want the governmental system changed, which is what happened in real life.
What the hell was Okinawa? Even Saipan and Iojima were considered part of Japanese territories.
And the Soviets had not begun to take Japanese territory when the surrender decision was made.
I’m finished. There’s too much trash here.
Yup, although Truman did insist that the cities have a “military purpose.”
The first apartment I lived at in Nagasaki was a few hundred meters from ground zero and the aiming point was close to where my second apartment was.
How difficult would it have been to use American ships to transport Russian forces to attack Japan?
Well I can see your point that there is a lot of ignorance there from some posters, but I did rely on historians that looked at the evidence too, the most recent one reads Japanese, Russian and English and looked at the available archives, so I would not dismiss him so nilly willy.
I called into attention your line there because the historians that do point at Russia’s declaration of war as being one very important factor in the surrender of Japan also point at the generals that were hell bent on continuing the war as the reason why the nuclear strikes were not minded much. Indeed, they did not care that the people did suffer or the cities were being destroyed. They in the end do cared that they (the ones that were not wanting to surrender) lost their final excuse to not surrender.
The idea that what it was stupid to depend on the Russians for relief was indeed stupid, but it was a reason and an excuse used by the Japanese in power that wanted to delay the inevitable, just like Hitler and Goebles thinking that the Allies would join with Germany to fight the Soviet Union. That was also stupid indeed, but it was a reason why the Germans did not surrender early.
Can we get back to the OP?
I more or less agree with this post, quibbling only on details,
Definitely – the XXth century USA has conducted a series of genocidal wars – Philippines 1902, Japan 1945, Korea, Vietnam. Hiroshima and Nagasaki stand out as a symbol.
You clearly do not know the definition of genocide.
I mean purposeful mass murder of civilians. It is democide.
I believed that was done by Republicans.
Both parties are responsible for fair share of human rights violations. The Solid South was Democratic.
I was being facetious. “Democide”, “Democrats”.
Congratulations. You “almost” win the Godwin award.
Let’s stay on topic, please.
I am sorry. Definitely the Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is symbolic of US bombing in Japan, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia.
The Philippines expected independence after the Spanish American War and didn’t get it. The US Army even adopted a new, more powerful pistol to shoot them with, but I would not consider it genocide.
Admiral Halsey did say of the Japanese, “When we are through with them, the only place Japanese will be spoken is in hell”, but again, that isn’t genocide. The Japanese did horrible things, but aside from Admiral Halsey, the death of every Japanese was not desired by the Americans, but an end to the war without more American sons and husbands dying.
I digress, but I met a Naval veteran of WWII while buying cigarettes Sunday. He wore a red baseball hat, proclaiming “Kamikaze Survivor.” He told me that out of 140 destroyers, the US Navy lost 100 to kamikaze attacks. He also told me that he was very grateful for the atomic bomb, for he believed it won the war, that there were not enough ships left to invade Japan. Perhaps he based that on his squadron’s losses. He was on the flagship of Admiral Burke.
Korea and Vietnam were the Northern country attacking the Southern ones, separated by the second world war. North Korea exists, and South Vietnam does not. Again, I would not call that genocide.
I am sorry – the word democide means mass murder of civilians. Not genocide.