To loosely quote Bomber Harris, "If Britain had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal."

At least Harris had the ability to slip out of the self-rightous, double standards with which many US citizens are hypnotized.

It makes me sick to have several of the above discussants describe the crimes of Japanese or Axis military personnel.

First, many of these criminals were converted into US intelligence, space program, military engineering and torture technician assets following the Cold War. (For example, Klaus Barbie was recruited to teach torture to eager students in Latin America.)

Many Japanese medical doctors who were live vivisectors of Russian and Chinese prisoners- of-war became the leading medical specialists in Japan with US knowledge.

Last, none of you know what would have happened if Soviet troops invaded Japan. Stalin and his leading bureaucrats were not any more predictable than we were. As you know, the Red Army occupied Austria...and they left.

I do know that the Soviet military would have fought Japanese soldiers ruthlessly. And I do know that there was a growing Communist and Socialist presence in Japan's resurgent labor movement in the late-war period.

This Japanese born radical movement could have also contributed to the US elite's final decision to A-bomb two civilian cities. They didn't want radical changes taking place in Japanese society.

And as we all know, the US oligarchs were in position ,after WWll, to become the world's leading force of global reaction/regression. Of course, Stalin's regime was a semi-independent part of this hierarchy of regression.

At first, the US elite used liberal methods (the carrot) to implement their global and antional hierarchy. However,as industrial competitors emerged and cheaplabor filled Third World cities, the US elite increasingly used conservative and increasingly right-wing policies (the stick) in attempting to maintain the post-war hierarchy...while maintaining their profits and power.

When an oligarchy goes extremely right-wing, it has to build an immense media infrastructure to hide the naked fact: profits come before people (and the planet).

Paul Tibbets has gone to his grave, doubtless greatly relieved at not having to listen to the ghoulish entreaties of people armed with sixty years of hindsight wanting him to show some remorse.
Why should he have? He was one of the finest four-engine pilots of the day, veteran of numerous special and clandestine missions, and because of this it became his fate to be chosen for the Hiroshima mission.

Give it up. He's dead.

RickinSF:

You expressed yourself well with better economy of words than I.

gde:

Stinnet made a strong case and, yes, I knew about it years ago. But if "FDR and his gang of 35, who developed a plan to incite the Pearl Harbor attack" hadn't done so, does this mean Japan would not have eventually attacked us? If FDR did egg them on like you and others say, did he also perpetrate the beheading of American pilots by Japanese soldiers, suicidal banzai charges, kamikaze attacks, the Bataan Death March, mass executions and slavery in the Phillipines and Burma and so on? Japan had been flexing for empire building since it defeated Russia at war in 1905. Its navy was patterned directly after Britain's and its army was trained in perverse adaptations of the ancient Samurai warriors. By the 1930's Japanese fanaticism was virtually inbred.

MeAlsoToo

I'm not so naive as to think racism and manipulation by Americans towards the Japanese didn't exist before Pearl Harbor. The very fact our government interned Japanese-
Americans proves this bigotry and condescension. But my graduate work in Germany was not "curicula-approved" Western international relations, as you imply. And a PhD from Harvard or Cal-Berkeley or Wisconsin or even Tokyo for that matter, would not dissuade me from believing our country had every moral, ethical and legal right to defeat Japan as decisively as it did. Our nation's history is riddled with dubious reasons for military action but WWII was not one of them.

Kempatrick,
It's CONFUCIAN as in the wisdom tradition originating in China with the teachings of the Master Kongfuzi. Having read your last post I think I had misunderstood some of your previous posts. I also think that it would be unfair to merely blame the pilot for what he did. We can't expect everyone to be moral saints, and he was just simply following orders. But I think we can hold him accountable (although I don't think the previous posts suggesting he is burning in hell fire are helpful in the least) for his actions. Some orders ought to be disobeyed..but the sad fact of the matter is if not him then someone else would have been happy to jump in his place. What I am critiquing is the overwhelming majority of Americans (though apparently not you from your last post) of both past and present who hold double standards by suggesting that the war crimes of the Japanese led to their deserved bombing, whereas our war crimes of the 20th century can in no way be brought up when discussing something like why the terrorists would hate the US enough to take innoccent lives on 911. As for Pilot Tibbits, I agree with RickinSF and hope that he rests in peace. But would also add that we should try and rewrite our nations accepted history so as to do justice to the atrocities commited on BOTH sides during WW2. Doing thus might help us abolish war once and for all, or atleast get our citizenry thinking twice before electing a warmonger for president.

BRUCE1313 ...
you complain (?) about the fact that very often in this discussion you only here about the US warcrimes, but not about the deeds of the Japanese or German folks. I have one answer for you: maybe it is about time to act so?

You see, in one way it took the German people 60 years to realize that they were victims of war crimes, too. At least for the generations born after '45 ... it was somewhat always clear that their parents, their country were the criminals. End of discussion.
Nowadays, 50, 60 years later the situation is somewhat changing in the sense that we Germans are now realizing that both was true: there were German criminals committing terrible crimes; and German victims suffering from terrible crimes.

So, and what has this to do with your statement ... very well: at least from the outside the US folks always regard themselves as the victims. End of discussion.

Remember Vietnam? You know, when all the poor GIs were killed and tortured by Vietcong? How many mainstream US movies do you know that kept up the impression that there were soooo many poor GIs still in custody in the years later? How many US people know about the millions of non US people killed during that time ...

In other words: maybe it is time for the US to take a look at the dark side of their wars. Regarding yourselves as victims or heros is the easy part; now it is time for the real work.

most of the nazis were also unrepentant till they died of old age. so what else is new?

Thank you RADICALCONFUSION, for your understanding and excellent and well written posts.

ASCOLTI, It is shame to me that one who apparantly is very intelligent, is so one sided in their opinions. I don't believe I need you to tell me what to write either BTW.

Where is it you get your wisdom from, how do you know what crypto secret discussions Truman and his staff had concerning the war?
The things I posted were not just my opinions, the information I got was from reading reports and articles written by people who are more informed upon the subject than the averge person. Naturally there are differing opinions on almost any subject, but I don't insult those who may offer one diverse from mine.

I do at times react in a negaitive manner, if one insults me for some reason of their own. I also don't pretend to be an expert on much of anything, or pretend I'm smarter than others. I am well informed on some subjects and once taught world history and Geopolitics. I am also a 23 year disabled veteran and have some insight of what war really is all about. It really is all about killing other people and it is not ever justified for whatever reasons. It is justifiable to respond when one is attacked for whatever reason.

And finally, I don't believe comparing Tibbets to the Nazis is fair or sensible, to do so could make one question your credibility on any subject KALIA.

No one said 'the US started the aggression' (and, I imagine that-honor goes to whatever tribe first organized for the slaying of Neanderthals, or to some city-state before Ur).
My point, regards the oil-embargo, was to counter the popularized and false Mythos that "Pearl Harbor was an unprovoked/sneak-attack" -- an unpredictable and unexpected outcome or blowback -- and due solely to Japanese aggressive-intentions (at that juncture) against the US. [It was deliberately-provoked and welcomed, as a contrived-intent to accrue popular/internal-support for US-entry into WW-II, and by the exact-same Anglo/US/Zionist/Wealthy/conjoined-'interests' that had supported/pre-cursed the rise and empowerment of the Axis-powers, initially]
My overall-'point' was not fault-finding, btw -- the pursuit of Interests, at the inevitable expense of others, is an aspect of our shared Human Nature. Obviously, no particular race/nationality/creed/religion 'holds the patent' on such 'evil'. Fortunately, no human-society is bereft of those counter-balancing qualities that can negate or elevate those-pursuits for the Common Good.
If your goal is to promote the latter rather than the former, those made-Wealthy 'Interests' must be denied the public-acceptance of such Mythos that breed and shelter them -- like "Exceptionalism", "Manifest Destiny", "God's Chosen/Blessed", and all-such other nonsense.
[And let's give Tibbets his rest...given his 'shoes to walk in...']

It is unfortunate, but war is sometimes a necessary evil! I don't see where the US had a whole lot of choice in the story! But, a lot of people like the writer here love to forget that. As I remember clearly. It took two atom bombs for Japan to finally surrender. And they still weren't going to surrender. Can you for once imagine the outcry and scandal from the American public if they would have discovered we had a secret weapon to end the war and didn't use it???? If anywhere from 100,000 to 500,000 American servicemen maybe more would have died needlessly in order to end the war. Some of them possibly my Uncle's who were in that war all the way through it. So therefore I can not agree with the writer of this article at all. I don't think we had a whole lot of choice under the circumstances. We were stuck in a war that was forced upon us by Japan. It had to be ended as quickly as possible. I didn't have an opinion about the Viet Nam War at the time even though I have developed one since. But, I have been against the Iraq War from the very beginning. I was against invading Afghanistan I thought it was a big mistake and still believe it was. It was the Russian's Viet Nam and it's going to be ours too. I tried telling people before he invaded Iraq it was being based on lies and deception. But, most people I knew didn't want to hear the truth. They were being worked into a frenzy by King of the 'nut jobs' to prepare them for war! He is still doing it. They would not listen to the voice of reason.

Kalia;

My father was a bomber crewman in WWII and dropped tons of bombs, many likely caused "collateral damage," and he never expressed regrets.
He was proud to the end of his part in defeating fascism.

Are you saying that all our WWII vets, who didn't have misgivings, are Nazis?

KEM P
---------------------------------------------
"..I don't believe comparing Tibbets to the Nazis is fair or sensible."

Intriguing..! Why not?

"ASCOLTI, It is shame to me that one who apparantly is very intelligent, is so one sided in their opinions."

Ever heard the quaint phrase: pot calling kettle.. etc.?
:)
---------------------------------------------

The problem here is one of scope: will those who want to exhibit their knowledge/experience of WWII minutiae move to the RIGHT. The rest of you that want to look at the broad implications of what Tibbets did from a humanist perspective? To the LEFT!

There! That wasn't difficult, was it?!

:)

Not difficult at all, Observant.

Subtract history from the discussion and it all becomes quite easy.

Were nazis, who didn't have misgivings, Nazis?
Do we really want to hold all 'grunts' responsible for wars started/welcomed by their 'superiors'?
As far as I can tell, all modern-wars (if not 'all', period) were, at some point, avoidable and ultimately "unnecessary" -- except for those-few who profited, or intended-to...
WW-I began due to a whole-lot of money-lenders spurring-business for a whole-lot of arms-suppliers (and petty-ass/prideful 'nationalists' taking the bait).
WW-II largely due to how WW-I was settled, and the supports-for and 'bad-examples'-to the protagonists afterwards.
If the Japanese were so needful of 'de-militarization' and absolute-surrender (and nuking was not for benefit of advancing/'awful'-Russians), how is it large, still-armed segments of the Japanese-military were able/made-willing to be used to restore French-colonialism in VietNam -- against the wishes of Allies there who had fought against-them?
Did that not lead to that later-war?
And Korea...just a pawn batted-around betwixt 'emerging-Powers'...to energize all-parties popular-support at home...
Grenada/Panama/Lebanon/E.Timor/2-wars-each for Iraq/Afghanistan...were not ALL 'avoidable'? Did not someone 'influential' eventually profit from all -- directly or as-prelude?

I'd get less carried-away with any notions of 'Rightful-wars' or "needful national-Interests". And I'm inclined towards sympathizing with most who get caught-up in them...on all-sides. Comparisons/'judgments' are for the Victors, but the wise look to who will benefit from such-destruction before it becomes inevitable, and act to 'control/channel' their energies before they do these-harms...

THE OBSERVANT INTELOPER. I don't believe the troops who fought in Africa, France, Germany, Italy, etc and the Japanese in the Pacific theatre of the war were Nazis or should in any manner whatsoever be compared to them.

Nor do I find that belief to be intriguing. ___ Why not you ask? ____ Because it doesn't make a lick of sense to do so. And personally, I prefer to stay in the middle and choose which side, so called left or right, I may support on ANY issue.

I also don't feel it is right to blast one who has a diverse opinion from one I choose to support. I may disagree with one, but I don't blast them for theirs, or say they should go to hell as some have done to me here. I do believe in saying some are not being reasonable. For example, no one here knows all that Truman discussed with his advisors and stafff prior to Dec 6, 1945 and never will know. The fact that Truman was aware of the nuclear shipment in that German sub should have been a subject of much concern and of the highest priority. To believe otherwise is not sensible. Any discussions of that nature, at that time would most certainly have been classified with the highest security as was the Manhatten project. So for one to now state that Truman never considered what Japan may have had in regards to an atomic weapon is not logical and I say that to ASCOLTI with no regreats or with the feeling I am the pot calling the kettle black.

Everything I have been able to find online in the past 24 hours just reiterates what I remember reading previously....Japan's nuclear program was stalled, going nowhere, and was not considered an imminent threat (they had gotten as far as building cyclotrons). I am not preaching clairvoyance regarding Truman et al. I'm sure every possibility crossed his mind at some point. But in all my readings, including Aperovitz's book, which includes extensive documentation of discussions surrounding the Truman's decision to use the bomb, I can't recall ever finding concern among any of the parties involved that Japan was about to have its own bomb...this is conspicuous, given the race to have a bomb before Germany. Of course Japan WANTED to have one, but most knowledge of its actual (and failed) program is after the fact.

We must remember what IS on the very well-established record. MacArthur opposed the use of the bomb and said so beforehand. Eisenhower also opposed it. Most in the administration who supported its use felt a demonstration should be given first, and that surredender terms should be clarified.

Given that November was the earliest date for a U.S. land invasion - why not try clarified surrender terms, including retention of the emperor, followed by or paralleled with a demo of the bomb?

I notice that no one has addressed the obvious incentive Truman had to demonstrate the bomb to the Soviets on civilians. No one has addressed Trumans known, well-documented delays of the Potsdam conference. Much to the deep annoyance of Churchill and Stalin who wanted to meet as early as May to deal with Japan, Truman stonewalled to give the bomb time to be ready (Trinity July 16 - Potsdam begins July 17). He of course did not disclose this reason.

Explain that...why prolong the war, unless his purpose was to MAKE SURE the bomb could be used.

bligh,

I don't know if you are responding to me, but I did not say that the U.S. "started" agression with the embargo. I said the embargo was the reason for Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor. These are fundamentally different statements.

Saying that Japan "started it" 10 years earlier by its agressions in China and Manchuria is equally inaccurate. Like it or not, Japan faced a stark choice in the first half of the twentieth century: eat or be eaten. They did not make these rules. Japan spent 250 years (the Shogun era) in total isolation from world - the very same period that most other powerful nations were expanding their global empires. Their expansionist period began with a realization of their own vulnerability - they could not defend their own sovereignty without extending their power elsewhere. What would you do, if you looked to East Asia, and saw that it was controlled entirely by slave-trading white superemicists?

Oh, sure, now I'll get accused of being an apologist of Japanese imperialism. No. I oppose all state violence and coercion. I'm trying to point out the huge, hideous double-standard that continues to plague discussions of East Asian history. Discussion of western crimes and violence and imperialism are always couched in terms of how history is "complicated", and that there were "good effects as well as bad." This nuance goes out the window in discussions about Japan, which is almost universally described as "savage" and "barbaric" for doing EXACTLY the same things the western nations had been doing and were still doing for hundreds of years before. At least Japan's most brutal period was comparatively brief - fifteen years or so. Compare that to 300 years.

Even if you were to support the decision to use the bomb on Japan, there is a big difference between saying that the bomb was strategically necessary, and saying (as some have) that they "deserved" it for the horrible things they did.

Hindsight, hindsight, oh how clear it is, oh how free of responsibility...

I'm really glad I wasn't given Tibbets' task, or Truman's choice. Cause while condemning war and any killing, in the heat of battle I recognize I might go in any direction, depending on the quality of advice and support given by my surroundings, and what notions I'd been inundated with.

A reason we all quibble over Tibbets' deed now, is our worry over use of atomic weapons again. Clearly they shouldn't be used. Clearly they exist. And clearly the Bush-adm. is threatening to use nukes. That's bad. That's an issue. A very important issue.

If a discussion of Tibbets' life and death can contribute to reducing the risk of nukes ever being used again, no matter what the individual attitudes in the discussion are, I say: Bring it on.

I'll take a discussion about old killings rather than new killings any day. And dialogue before rash action any time.

Over to you.

One more and last time ASCOLTI. Truman only knew prior to Dec 6,1945, that Japan was working on developing the atomic bomb. He did NOT know how far along they were in that regard. The things you stated on that subject were not know until after Japan surrendered. Truman also knew they had the means of delivering the bomb, if not here in the U.S. for certain on any invasion fleets.

It is not surprising you cannot find where any dscussions concering Japan and a nuclear weapon were conducted, for any would have been totally and forever classified as far as Truman was concerned and limited to a VERY few people. Even Truman was unaware of the Manhatten project until after Rossevelt died. MacArthur and Eisenhour were unaware of it until just prior to it's use. Of course they protested, it was not the manner West Pointers fought war, it wasn't 'noble'. They didn't even display a high regard for the Army Air Force or navy, except for transports. Had it been possible, they would have preferred the war was fought on horseback, with swords handguns and bayonetts. The men in the trenches however preferred the war would end as soon as possible. ___ That was the choice Truman made.

ULLERN, ___ excellent points. In my opinion at least.

Explain this ASCOLTI. Why prolong the war by not using it? BTW, after it was used, Truman decided to not use the second. Simpson gave the Okay for the second behind Truman's back. Finally, how did a 40 to 50 day delay in the Postdam conference prolong the war? I'm sure soneone can "explain" it. ___I'm done.

As long ago as 1864, General Sherman knew what a good many of the knuckleheads that contribute to this board don't. "War is hell and cannot be refined". Failing to use all the weapons in your arsenal is a restraint that rarely occurs and the most notable (virtually the only example) example is the lack (mostly) of chemical warfare during WWII.

Claiming to "know" that the Japanese were ready to surrender is hogwash. A member of the War Council tried to intercept the messenger carrying the recording of the Emperor declaring the surrender, on his way to the radio station. These people (not the Japanese people, but the militarists) were vicious fanatics and they and the Nazis had to be thrown from power in the most forceful manner.

For the moron who made the comment about the Japanese, the bomb, the West Coast cities, etc. You can bet, sure as hell, they would have used it if they had invented it first. After all, they were the only ones to employ chemical and biological warfare during the conflict.

I am glad the bombs were used. My father may well have been killed in any invasion. I would like to echo sentiment already expressed above - I am more ashamed of the treatment of the Japanese Americans. They were loyal to a fault and demonstrated great courage as soldiers. The Nisei regiment, the 555th, was the most decorated combat unit of the war.

I would not say that a generous opinion about dropping nuclear bombs on civilians is a progressive opinion. It's not forward-looking or evolved. But it is valid, I'd say. Progressives need to have answers to these types of opinions if we're to part of changing the world for the better. The fact that folks who feel those bombs should, without question, have been dropped, and who feel (60 years later) that the Japanese people desrved those bombings demonstrates that a lot of new types of people are identifying as progressive nowadays -- or, at least they're seeking out progressive discussions. This is a good thing, and a good reason to keep these discussions thoughtful and informed.

To THE OBSERVANT INTELOPER
I don't think I have ever been in agreement with KEM on anything... but I feel he's right on this one. Paul Tibbetts rest in peace.

Golly Imfedup, I agree wth more than half of your commments. Sometimes you're rght. 55% is better than not half bad.

This has NOTHING to do with hindsight! We are talking about what WAS KNOWN AND DEBATED BEFORE the bomb was dropped!

KEM,

This is pointless. You're not reading what's already been written. Your two questions are self-contradictory.

They evidence strongly suggests that the war was prolongued 40 to 50 days so the bomb COULD be used. Obviously, and earlier meeting - as requested by Truman and Stalin - would've lead to an earlier issuance of surrender terms. Do you dipute this well-known historical fact KEM? That Truman delayed the meeting until he knew of the successful Trinity test? If Truman's goal was to end the war AS SOON AS POSSIBLE...why did he DELAY the meeting just for the benefit of a new weapon? It would have been ready in July EITHER WAY, and could've been used had a May Postdam failed to get the right result. But if clarified terms in May had succeeded...the bomb would've gone unused. Hmmmm.

Simple thought experiment...suppose it turned out the bomb was necessary to end the war, only Truman didn't know it? What harm in issuing new surrender terms in May? June? The Bomb WASN'T ready then...but what's to lose? His delay of an attempt to end a war which you claim needed to end ASAP makes NO sense unless your suppose he WANTED to use the bomb to impress the Soviets - otherwise, he would have been willing to meet sooner to end the war.

He refused to issue terms until he knew the bomb was ready, and he refused to issue terms which had any chance of being accepted. Why? Why not try to end the war 2 months earlier?

kendpotter,

Your first paragraph is nonsense. It doesn't work that way and never did.

I'd never ever think or say, that the Japanese people deserved being bombed with atomic bombs, ___ or fire bombs. I detest the idea of fire bombing cities full of civilians, wives and mothers, the elderly, and children. My God, there were hospitals burned to a crisp. I detest the idea of atomic bombs and or, any war.

With World War Two, Truman had an optinon of using the atomic bombs to end the killing, and or, take the chance that Japan did not have them also or could have them at some time in the future and invade their homeland. He made the decison to not invade and therefore to prevent the killing of not only millions of Japanese, both military and civilians, but also perhaps more than a million American troops.

A hard decision it would have been for me at the age of 60 some, but I would have done the same damned thing Truman did and I doubt that I would not have wished later I had not.
I most certainly would have wished it were not necessary. ___ How Truman felt? I have no idea. I know he was appalled of the results after the first one and didn't want to use the second.

I would have never ever have allowed the fire bombings of their cities, both in Japan and Germany. I personally doubt that action helped end either war by a day. Heavy selective bombing on military targets and industries should have been suffecient and very well may have been far more productive. I never did admire General Curtis E. LeMay, he was an egotistical barbarian, and the decent things he did for the enlisted airmen after the war, will never makeup for the brutal decisions he made during the war, both against the enemy and his own flight crews.

Perhaps that may sound like a double standard if one does not thoroughly think it out. The use of the atomic bombs did end the war. Truman may have finally authorized the use of the second if Japan had not surrendered within a few more days. He was spared that decision by the Secretary of War, Simpson.

It's history. History is just that and cannot be reversed. History can be only altered by fabrication. Hundreds of books have been published on the subject. like I posted previously, if a good writer knows the beginning and the end of a story, the bulk of it can be written however it may please the author.

If I am not mistaken, Truman learned of the test results at Trinity while on his way by ship to the conference. If that is so, he didn't know the test was successful when he did begin the voyage. Therefore, your argument is rather pointless.

Truman was not going to negoiate any surrender terms with the Japanese. It was unconditional only, which I have no problem with and I doubt the vast majority of us didn't either at that time. He knew they would never surrender and again was unsure of how far along they were in developing the atomic bomb. That is so in spite of what you may think. That is the entire point and is unarguable by any sensible person.

I cannnot keep up with your writing, it seems to be that you are fighting, to just justify your first posts and you don't make much sense to me. You accuse me of not answering your points, to me, your points are pointless and you don't answer mine for your own reasons. We are not getting anyplace, except some may read these posts and make up their own minds as to who is correct, or if both are full of it. Thank you for the debate ASCOLTI it was fun. ___ I am finished now.

Oops, one more. How could my TWO questions be contradictory, when I only asked one?

Ga-nite.

Oops again. I see em, was looking at the wrong post, Sorry for the inconvenience. I don't see any confusion between the two. Of course e-mails are not like sitting together and discussing a subject, often there are misunderstandings with e-mails. ___ Gotta go.

I wonder what the Japanese (or the Germans) would have done with an atom bomb if they had developed one before us?

Impressed by the intelligence trying to measure the forgivable number of civilian casualties from (inhuman) science.

It's nothing but absurd to defend the mass-murder of civilians with unconventional WMDs even in wartime.

Why do you have to defend the unjustifiable? But I believe all sins resides not in the U.S., but in human stupidity.

If Americans in general have been unrepentant, why would this human scum repent?

Dropping these two bombs was so typically American, no other nation had killed so many, in so little time and in such a barbaric manner.

The most ironic thing is, they teach their kids in school that it saved lives! Can you believe the BALLS of such statement? The war had been over and Japan had been defeated.

Mandela had it right in 2003: "If there is a country that has committed unspeakable atrocities in the world, it is the United States of America. They don't care for human beings. Fifty-seven years ago, when Japan was retreating on all fronts, they decided to drop the atom bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki; killed a lot of innocent people, who are still suffering the effects of those bombs...

Those bombs were not aimed against the Japanese, they were aimed against the Soviet Union to say, 'look, this is the power that we have. If you dare oppose what we do, this is what is going to happen to you'. Because they are so arrogant, they decided to kill innocent people in Japan, who are still suffering from that."

ascolti,

I don't know what planet you are from but it is not here. Sherman was absolutely right - War is Hell and when you are in the middle of the fighting, you will use any weapon at hand, rifle, bayonet, entrenching tool, or bared teeth. Man is a savage animal. Go off and live in your La-la land where it is otherwise. Debate there, in your world and save your opinions for them.

tetti tatti

You are an idiot. You call America the most barbaric conventiently forgetting who the true barbarians - the Nazis and Japanese militarists - were. They both killed, in cold blood, many times over the numbers that died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I applaud the fact that you are free to post such flagrant nonsense and I hope you always are. Be careful where you travel though, you could be beheaded in Saudi Arabia for "spreading un-Islamic propaganda", noted humanitarians that they are.

kendpotter you are a brainwashed, rotten human being. Just because the Nazis and the Japanese were horrible, in your sick mindset acting 100 times more horribly is perfectly acceptable. As disgusting as the Japanese and Nazi were, they never dropped an atomic bomb on another nation, for nothing, just for show, just to tell the world that they could.

That you can defend incinerating 300,000 in 10 seconds shows me the kind of contemptible scum that you are. And if I'm an 'idiot,' so is Mandela, at least I'm in great company.

Hi ya KEM!

Nice that your talking to me again!
Remember... If I don't agree with you it doesn't mean your wrong. I suffer every now and then from the old saying "don't let facts interfere with my opinion." So my apologies if I have been harsh in my comments.

kendpotter: You speak well! Hold your ground!

TETTI-TATTI, I must be rotton also, for I don't agree with you. My wife says I still smell good to her thourgh.

The only reason the Germans and Japanese didn't drop atomic bombs, is because they didn't have them. If you believe they would not have done so if they had that opportunity, you might also be from another world.

Perhaps you are unaware of the horrific crimes they committed during the war. We didn't use the atomic bombs because of what they did, it was because of what could occur if we didn't use them. Read the prior posts and perhaps you may see there are two sides to the issue. I and most don't like what happened, most did appreciate the war with Japan ended and the killing stopped. As far as how one dies, whether by a bullet, a brick, a hand grenade, mortor, fire bomb, bayonett, a rope, sword or an atomic bomb, really doesn't make a whole lot of differance.

Atomic weapons are horrible and should be banned world wide and never ever used again. In 1945, it was not looked upon that way, history is history and the war and fighting ceased.

IMFEDUP, You are a-Okay and so is KENDPOTTER and many many more. TETTI-TATTI probably is okay also, lots of aliens are.

JMACNEIL, do you have any decent refrences for your opinions that come from official documents, or are you just repeating opinions of those who wrote books on the subject? The true history is well documented.

I did just learn of some things about Paul Tibbets tht are not good, aparently he became a very disturbed in the head man after the war and bragged about what he'd done. That's sick. To brag about killing anyone or anything is sick, during a war or otherwise.

TITTI-TATTI, your description of me is way off, save it for yourself. Apparently you did not understand what I wrote in several posts. Of course you use sophistry to advance your opinions and would not listen to another wh has a differ opinion, no matter what they write or say. You don't know me and you never will, ___ which I am thankful for.

tetti_tatti

Honestly, if I were as dumb as you, I wouldn't go advertising it so proudly.

The only reason they didn't drop a bomb on us is because they didn't get the chance. They did have the chance to murder millions of jews, Chinese, and other undesirables, enslave millions, employ chemical and biological warfare (the Japanese on the Chinese), commit vivisection (with your intellectual wattage being that of a refrigerator bulb, I will define that for you - The disection of a live human) in the name of science, etc., etc.

P.S. Mandela wouldn't let you anywhere near him, the man has standards after all.

To defend the U.S. in having dropped the nukes for necessary reasons does not jive with the historical record and to claim such is to not know history or to argue from an agenda or an emotion. In such a situation it is best to investigate more and then present an opinion.

To believe or express the opinion that the U.S. was ever altruistic in it's wish to end the war is ridiculous. They dropped the nukes so that they could gain some advantage from it. The proof is in the pudding, so they say. During WW2 Vietnam fought with the allies, even though they had been suffering under the French colonial regime for over a hundred years, with the understanding and promises that they would be an independant country after the war if the allies were the victors. Ho Chi Minh saw his country proclaimed free but then the French decided that they wanted to still rule Vietnam and it's rich natural resources so they reneged on the deal and continued the war, only this time against their recent allies. And who do you think supported them in that effort right up until the pivotal battle at Dien Bien Phu? You guessed it, the good ole' U.S.A. So, in reality, Vietnam was a continuation of WW2 for colonial domination of a free country.

And as for any high minded ideas that the U.S. was ever adverse to using banned weapons, the U.S. had been using biological weapons against Cuba as recently as 1985.

Genocide apologists like kendpotter and kem patrick are truly despicable. These rotten human beings' cynicism and hypocrisy is staggering and their contempt for humanity knows no bounds. The fact that Germany and Japan didn't have the technology makes the Americans' crime even more cowardly.

Dropping 2 atomic bombs on innocent Japanese toddlers, women and men is perfectly fine, sure, their leaders were bad people. Yes, let's incinerate 300,000 because of 20 bastards. The same logic Bush is using in Iraq: it's perfectly OK to murder Iraqis because Saddam was a bad guy.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the 2 greatest terrorist attacks in history and Americans have in their record 2 of the most vicious CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY.

Certainly it can't be argued that such crimes as the nukes against Hiroshima and Nagasaki were among the most despicable actions in history. However there have been many deplorable acts such as the siege of Jerusalem in 70 ad. which surpassed in evil the events of WW2. Read "The Wars Of The Jews" by Josephus.

Of course, there is no way that the scumbags of the world should be allowed to wage war in urban settings, or even in suburban settings. If that human trash feels the need to war then they should have their armies confront each other in some desert or other wasteland.

kem patrick I understood very well what you wrote: "The only reason the Germans and Japanese didn't drop atomic bombs, is because they didn't have them."

As if THAT served as an excuse for such heinous crimes against humanity. Apologists like you are despicable, cynical and hypocritical. Yes, let's do the same in Iran. Let's use nukes on Iranian 2 year-olds, they would do the same to us if they had them! That's Dick Cheney's reasoning.

The American education system had to find some kind of reasoning for such disgusting, evil contempt for human life and they came up with this "it saved lives" crap they teach in schools to this day. kem patrick and others on this thread certainly are victims of shameless brainwashing. The rest of the world, however, thinks like Mandela:

"If there is a country that has committed unspeakable atrocities in the world, it is the United States of America. They don't care for human beings. Fifty-seven years ago, when Japan was retreating on all fronts, they decided to drop the atom bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki; killed a lot of innocent people, who are still suffering the effects of those bombs… If you dare oppose what we do, this is what is going to happen to you. Because they are so arrogant, they decided to kill innocent people in Japan, who are still suffering from that."

I don't know why I bother to reply to one, a name caller such as you, but I will one final time. That was not the only things I posted. As most like you, those who will take use a few words used by another and put their entire discussion out of context. Why don't you take the advice of LOBO72.

KEM PATRICK: dealing with people who think it was excusable to drop 2 atomic bombs on innocent children in Japan requires nothing less than name calling. In fact, curse words are too good for these people.

Your excuses are revolting.

tetti_tatti

I am not a genocide apologist, just a loather of stupidity. The genocide was being perpetrated by the nation the bomb was dropped on. I have no idea where you get your figures from (300,000 incerated) but it was only 100,000 (LD50 of the blasts probably claimed another 100,000) and that pales by comparison to the millions of Chinese and Koreans that the Japanese murdered. All war is brutal and I can guarantee you that the mother of a toddler does not give a damn if the toddler died in a bomb blast or at the end of a Japanese bayonet. The most revolting thing on this string is your single-minded butt-headedness. The only thing emanating the stench of decay is your brain (from the lack of care and feeding).

KENDPOTTER, At least it is possible we'e helped this RATTI-TATTI to think. If so WACKY-TATTI, keep thinkin, you may learn something.

KEM PATRICK,

It's kind of hard to believe that Tutti Frutti is allowed to sit at the adults table. Aren't you required to contribute something other than mere vitriol and histrionics?

Well, no requirement I 'm aware of, anyway Titty helped make it fun and it's Okay with me, as long as he/she, sits near the cream pie and can't quite reach it.

You must be pretty stupid to believe that Japan then maintained sufficient military power, given the fact that Enola Gay flew over the precise center of Hiroshima ("military base" in the words of Truman) in the middle of daylight.

You must be pretty stupid, or actually ignorant of why that was the case and has nothing to do with the ability of Japanese military to defend a land invasion and destroy any fleet that attempted such. They had three thousand fighter bombers and Baca aircraft hidden in caves and readied to accomplish that and did not attempt to shoot down our B-29 bombers or photo recon aircraft at that period of time during the war to any extent.