user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Like, if they rape your wife, it's her fault, 'cause she didn't surrended to their pretensions...
It has to be Japan. Japan was given a warning to surrender a waring that if they don't they would see terrible destruction and what did they do?
Then everyone now a days call foul when Everyone hears that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuked. Worse yet they were given another chance to surrender after Hiroshima and they still wouldn't and said that Hiroshima was a weather accident and they let Nagasaki happen. The ball was in Japan's court many times to stop the bombings but they bropped on two occasions, it's there fault there cities layed in ruin!
Buzzer sort of like the Rape of Nan King by the Japanese solidears?
Your comparision is absurd, it has no relationship with the agrument since both were equally fighting for 4 years before the bombgins and rape is a sneak attack, like Pearl Harbour, but you didnt mention that.
** karma **
Pearl Harbour was not a sneak attack, but a fake sneak attack (rooslvet provoked japan and knew they were coming, that's history, it was an excuse to get in the war- only americans don't know it); my argument is that atomic bomb has nothing to do with 'normal' war, is way more cruel and absurd, and unbearble. Therefore, no 'bad' behavior of a nation can justify it-
The bombs actually saved lives because an invasion have estimates ranging from 1/2 to a full million casulities.
Hiroshima, fair enough. After that they knew you weren't bluffing.
But Nagasaki?
The Japanese were also developing nuclear weapons - do you suppose they wouldn't have used them against us?
Japan started the war by invading China, Southeast Asia and attacking US and British navies at Pearl Harbor, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc. What should we have done, surrendered?
Nuclear bombs weren't "way more cruel and absurd, and unbearble". Regular firebombing of Tokyo and other cities killed far more people. If you're dead, you're dead.
But, because of their awesome and shocking power, they ended the war much sooner, thus saving many lives, perhaps millions.
Politically incorrect is totally correct with the regular bomb atomic bomb coralation.
No pun intended, it just came out that way.
it was the bombs fault, nobody else is to blame
Shlock
The two countries were on a collison course fro a long time and with or without Roosevelt's cunning the war would of happened. But that's not the question, the question is who is to blame for Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Roosevelt
The Germans would not have continued with a war either without the japs or with the US coming in.Hitler was not so stupid as to wage a war he knew he could not win.Roosevelt attacked the japs giving them no choice but to invade and then made it look like a sneak attack which it wasnt.
The Japs also offered to to surrender
I say give Roosevelt the death penalty
On amazon :
The New Dealers' War: FDR and the War Within World War II by Thomas Fleming
A japanese reviewer of Day of Deceit wrote :
At the court of the Tokyo Trial, the Prosecutors actually failed to prove Japan?fs evil intention to go for the war with China, the U.S.A. and the British and other Allied countries, let alone to ?gconquer the world?h. They had to admit that the world famous forged document; Tanaka Memorial, which allegedly announced Japan?fs cunning plan of conquest of the world, was in fact a forgery.
As for Japan?fs starting war against China, the defense counsels almost succeeded to prove Japan had been provoked and harassed by the Chinese Communists with Red Russia behind them, if the trial?fs final judgments of guilty verdicts on all defendants had been already fixed from the first. Japan was not Aggressor there, either.
According to some judges who presented dissentient judgments to the trial, like Judge Radhabinod Pal of India and Judge Bert V.A. Roling of Holland, all the verdicts of guilty charges, including Death by Hanging to seven men, was ?gpresumed guilty?h being against the decent law practice. With no perjury applied to the prosecutor?fs side, the trial accepted all evidences presented by the prosecutors even though most of them were in fact groundless hearsay or even mere rumors, while the evidences that would work in favour of the defendants were plainly dismissed altogether.
The trial was just a ?gvictor?fs justice?h.
I have no intention to jump to the conclusion that Japan was pure innocent with all those warfare in the past, but, having seen those undeniable evidences of provocation of Japan by the U.S.A. that Stinnett has revealed before us, I think it is sensible for us all to, at least to say, re-examine whole issue of the war in the light of truly decent International Laws of War and history studies. This is about Calumny made against Japan by the Allied Powers under the name of the ?gInternational justice?h. Does the International community recognise the responsibility towards the defamation on a country for half a century long? At least, I think, the false accusations on the Japanese individuals should be recognised and in that light true history should be re-studied to see if any other ?gtrue?h aggressors have been overlooked for the sake of the world?fs peace seeking.
With all that out of the way and being specific to your question ONLY
There are two factors to look at
1 The admission by various people such as oppenheimer that they had already planned well in advance to test and drop the bomb regardless of need or circumstance. (Research also western governments conducting chemical, radiation and biological weapons experiments on WESTERN populations let alone ethnic slopes, ragheads and gollywogs )
2) Research fully Japan offering to surrender ( British Cabinet Minister Tony Benn )
Japan wasn't going to surrender. Hirohito wasn't in control and it was shown by a coup that was only stopped by coincidence of an American air raid. This idea of them not surrendering is supported by the Kamikazee's in the Pacific and the Battles of Iwo Jima and Okinawa. Also the Bishito code that japan was ruled under stated that it was better to die fighting than surrender. This theory was latered confirmed when it was discovered that Japan put suicide boats on the only possible beaches fro possibel invasions.
Ok
im going to have a proper look into this then.Due to conflicting reports.
About the bushito code.That i presume relates to soldiers only.The japanese populace could not be considered for that code.Surrendering would mean that the gov / soldiers know there is nothing they can do to prevent innocent civilians being annihilated.
The code applied to everyone, have you ever seen the films of japanesse mothers throwing there children off of the cliffs and then themselves, why, because of the code. There is also films that have been discovered that showed youths learning how to fight in many sttings and with many tools.
Yep, I've seen that footage. It happened on Okinawa, the first of the Japanese home islands to be invaded. But rather than implying that those Japanese civilians had some Bushido-driven inherent desire to die for the Emperor, they had been led to believe (by Japanese propaganda) that Allied soldiers would brutalise and murder them. So yes, the likelihood is that in the event of an Allied landing, Japanese civilians would have defended their homeland with desperate ferocity.
But my point is this: since Japan folded immeediately after the bombing of Nagasaki, surely a second *demonstration* of the poower of the Atomic bomb, e.g. offshore in Tokyo Bay, may have been sufficient to bring about the Japanese surrender?
Seeing something and feeling it are to different things, no i dopn't know why they didn't bomb outside the tokyo harbour, but something is to be said by living Tokyo and the huge population alone; away from the Atomic Bombs.
leaving*
The bombs were dropped to scare the Russians and everybody else. Japan was already beaten.
Ten why didn't they surrender when they were given the chance?
In January 1945 - MacArthur forwarded to the President a Japanese offer to surrender which was exactly what was accepted 7 months later. Had it been accepted when first offered, there would have been no heavy loss of life on Iwo Jima (over 26,033 Americans killed or wounded, approximately 21,000 Japanese killed) and Okinawa (over 39,000 U.S. dead and wounded, 109,000 Japanese dead), no fire bombing of Japanese cities by B-29 bombers (it is estimated that the dropping of 1,700 tons of incendiary explosives on Japanese cities during March 9th-10th alone killed over 80,000 civilians and destroyed 260,000 buildings), and no use of the atomic bomb (200,000 killed).
"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were almost defeated and ready to surrender...in being the first to use it, we...adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages."
Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy,
Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during World War II
www . geocities . com / Pentagon / 6315 / truman.html
George W. Bush was...
both
Hey, three poeple think i'm a MOROn, that's lower than I Thought.
What? Were you asking for more?
Okay, doen5167, you're a moron!(but I'm not kidding)
Heretic, any japanese offer to surrender did not go far enough. None of the offers included clauses to completely dismantle their military, to allow allied forces to occupy japan, nor were they taken seriously because the offers were put in place without the knowledge of the japanese emporer, who was all powerful at that time.
Basically they were worth all of a bit of toilet paper.
doen5167: then you believe USA is responsible for 9/11 as they haven't surrender to the extremists threats
doen5167: then you believe USA is responsible for 9/11 as they haven't surrender to the extremists threats
What are you trying to say? That the terrorist actually "Declared War" and they followed the Geneva convention.
The terrorist are responsible for the actions and the tragedy that is 9/11. Who flew the planes into the buildings? The terrorist!
Demands are meaningless when they come from a group of poeple that don't even have a country to live in, no one is willing to say I support Osama Bin Ladin and that I will protect him. So how can we take any demand with considerations when it's from a person that his followers say he can not stay in there country.
Nobody's FAULT really...it was inevitable. The Japanese could not surrender because the emperor is seen as a GOD over there and having your God surrender is worse than a bomb...also with the way the Japanese faught (kamikaze) projected death tolls were so freaking huge that a bomb was seen as the only real alternative to a land assault which would cost a mind boggling amount of lives. The bomb was inevitable and unavoidable.
japan brought it on themselves
japan brought it on themselves
by ajira on Dec 12, 2004
So, all those innocent civilians who were slaughtered by the USA's dropping of a horror weapon on them have only themselves to blame? For what? Being born in Japan???
Besides, the Japanese government was about to surrender anyway, and the US government's leaders KNEW THAT!
Besides, the Japanese government was about to surrender anyway, and the US government's leaders KNEW THAT!
Possible. All of the information is ex post facto. The US did not know wether or not they were going to surrender they saw two of the most bloodiest battles ever witnessed in Iwo Jima and later Okinowa. And this was a total war a term coined by General Willaim Sherman, this ment that no one was spaared and nothing was left out of bounds.
If you walk up to someone and punch them in the nose out of nowhere, then don't be suprised if they get pissed and beat the living hell out of you.
I'm sure we Canadians had something to do with it.
the americans its all their fault
its not right that the U.S killed many innocent children
|
|
