64 years since Hiroshima...

[old.user4556]

... give or take a few days.

Hiroshima, 64 years ago - The Big Picture - Boston.com

Man.

 

[ECA]

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the two biggest single war crimes of the 20th century.

It pisses me off even thinking about it.

If you read american JCS generals and others memoirs basically the americans dropped the bombs because

A) Japan wanted to surrender but not unconditionally
B) American wanted to demonstrate its new power to abuse as a thread against other countries.

And ofc its retconned as "The fanatical japanese wouldnt surrender unless we made them face total annihilation" which is ofc bullshit.

 

[Bugz]

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the two biggest single war crimes of the 20th century.

It pisses me off even thinking about it.

If you read american JCS generals and others memoirs basically the americans dropped the bombs because

A) Japan wanted to surrender but not unconditionally
B) American wanted to demonstrate its new power to abuse as a thread against other countries.

And ofc its retconned as "The fanatical japanese wouldnt surrender unless we made them face total annihilation" which is ofc bullshit.

I am interested as to why you would label those two the two biggest single war crimes, if you wouldn't mind expanding further.

 

[00dave]

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the two biggest single war crimes of the 20th century.

It pisses me off even thinking about it.

If you read american JCS generals and others memoirs basically the americans dropped the bombs because

A) Japan wanted to surrender but not unconditionally
B) American wanted to demonstrate its new power to abuse as a thread against other countries.

And ofc its retconned as "The fanatical japanese wouldnt surrender unless we made them face total annihilation" which is ofc bullshit.

Worse than the holocaust? The eugenics project? The Japanese treatment of POWs? Stalin's genocide of 23,000,000 people? etc

I understand how you feel about this but it's hardly the 2 biggest warcrimes of the 20th century.
Also imagine how the cold war would have turned out had there never been a demonstration of the destructive force of an atomic bomb on a very real target.

 

[ECA]

I am interested as to why you would label those two the two biggest single war crimes, if you wouldn't mind expanding further.

What other incidents killed more civilians in single strikes?

I'm not saying they were worse than non-singular war crimes like the holocaust or the gulags.

 

[soze]

I have made my mind up on this at Japan would not surrender, dropping the bomb cost a lot of lives in one go but more would have been lost though incendiary bombs if they had not dropped them.

 

[fettoken]

I guess America and what they stand for will pay one day...

 

[Bugz]

What other incidents killed more civilians in single strikes?

I'm not saying they were worse than non-singular war crimes like the holocaust or the gulags.

So you're basing it purely on magnitude?

 

[Gray]

Remember reading about this guy not long ago Tsutomu Yamaguchi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lucky in the unluckiest of circumstances!

 

[ECA]

I have made my mind up on this at Japan would not surrender, dropping the bomb cost a lot of lives in one go but more would have been lost though incendiary bombs if they had not dropped them.

This is a historical lie of convenience for both sides.

Japan had wanted to Surrender before it was bombed but not unconditionally.

It's historically documented in JCS memos that Japan wanted to end the war from mid 1945 onwards, and wanted to negotiate a settlement.

Walter Trohan was sent papers by the joint chief of staff William Leahy on Jan 20th 1945 outlining japanese peace proposals and Truman acknowledged he was aware of Japanese peace proposals in May 1945.

 

[fettoken]

But to think that they actually justified killing civilians that did not do anything. I'd say drop a nuke in New York / Washington D.C and justify it by saying its a preemptive strike to stop further aggressive acts from the U.S government.

 

[Bugz]

The Japenease gang-raped up to 80,000 women and children and killed 300,000 civilians, often cutting them up into little pieces...(in one province)

 

[fettoken]

The Japenease gang-raped up to 80,000 women and children and killed 300,000 civilians, often cutting them up into little pieces...(in one province)

Was it civilians that gang raped other civilians? no?

 

[soze]

This is a historical lie of convenience for both sides.

Japan had wanted to Surrender before it was bombed but not unconditionally.

It's historically documented in JCS memos that Japan wanted to end the war from mid 1945 onwards, and wanted to negotiate a settlement.

Walter Trohan was sent papers by the joint chief of staff William Leahy on Jan 20th 1945 outlining japanese peace proposals and Truman acknowledged he was aware of Japanese peace proposals in May 1945.

If i remember right the sticking point was the Emperor and Japan not wanting him to stand down or lose power? Its been a while since i looked at it though. But even after the first bombing the Military in Japan still did not want to stand down?

 

[Bugz]

Was it civilians that gang raped other civilians? no?

I have no idea the point you are trying to make with that question?

 

[00dave]

What other incidents killed more civilians in single strikes?

Really doesn't make a difference tbh. Happened all in one go or over a duration of years, the end result is lots of people died.
The only difference is that most of the people at hiroshima and nagasaki were vaporized in the blast wave, the POWs in Japanese hands were forced to work with no food, in terrible conditions, rife with disease, and constantly beaten by people who believed in a sort of one way bushido respect system ie c*nts. And the Jews in the death camps, well we all know what happened there.

 

[fettoken]

I´ll say this. People that justify dropping nukes in the middle of cities are clueless fucking prats and shouldn't be alive. Nothing more to it. If you happen to be one of those, please kill yourself and let someone up a photo of your death here, and i´ll be amused for a while.

 

[Bugz]

I´ll say this. People that justify dropping nukes in the middle of cities are clueless fucking prats and shouldn't be alive. Nothing more to it. If you happen to be one of those, please kill yourself and let someone up a photo of your death here, and i´ll be amused for a while.

Noone has justified dropping nukes here - sounds like you're putting words into mouths.

 

[ECA]

The Japenease gang-raped up to 80,000 women and children and killed 300,000 civilians, often cutting them up into little pieces...(in one province)

Yes they did, does what the Japanese military did justify the response vs Japanese civilians? Or are you trying to say "Japanese did bad things = we're ok to do bad things back?"

If i remember right the sticking point was the Emperor and Japan not wanting him to stand down or lose power? Its been a while since i looked at it though. But even after the first bombing the Military in Japan still did not want to stand down?

From the diaries and memoirs I've read basically the American government was in no mood to negotiate a settlement with a nation that had committed a pre-emptive strike to start a war of aggression ( which in retrospect now.... lol ).

Really doesn't make a difference tbh. Happened all in one go or over a duration of years, the end result is lots of people died.
The only difference is that most of the people at hiroshima and nagasaki were vaporized in the blast wave, the POWs in Japanese hands were forced to work with no food, in terrible conditions, rife with disease, and constantly beaten by people who believed in a sort of one way bushido respect system ie c*nts. And the Jews in the death camps, well we all know what happened there.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here besides the Japanese military did bad things to POWs so nuking two cities was ok, as well as somehow trying together Japanese POW camps with Nazi concentration camps.

 

[Bugz]

I am not trying to justify any response against another.

I am merely trying to find out what makes you so passionate about the fact the dropping of the bombs were the greatest war crimes in 20th century. It seems to me you are arguing from the sheer magnitude of the event, which in my opinion, is not a sizeable reason to label them war crimes. 7/11's death toll count wasn't massive (in comparison to disasters around the world) but it is seen as one of the greatest acts of terrorism in the world. War crimes come down to more than sheer magnitude and IMO, stem from the pure evil, misguided thoughts & actions of people. None of us can know the 'thoughts' that ran through some of the Americans minds when they developed & released that bomb, indeed one of the creators, if I recall, committed suicide as he was so disgusted with himself.

I am not trying to justify in any way the response America took to Japan's actions. If I'm honest, I wouldn't even know where to start such an argument.

 

[fettoken]

Noone has justified dropping nukes here - sounds like you're putting words into mouths.

The Japenease gang-raped up to 80,000 women and children and killed 300,000 civilians, often cutting them up into little pieces...(in one province)

Then i reeeally can't see the point of this post you made earlier.

 

[ECA]

The holocaust, the gulags, the rape of nanjing, cambodia, east timor, were not single incidents, they were mass crimes committed by thousands/tens of thousands of responsible parties.

The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were single attacks that were responsible for huge numbers of deaths, it's really just a semantic differentiation of type of war crimes , that I think you're misinterpreting as me saying they were the worst war crimes of the 20th century ( which I'm not ).

 

[Zenith]

I laugh at the people trying to justify these things with the single argument that "it would cost more life's if they didn't drop the nukes". So basically you're actually trying to fucking justify killing of more than 140.000 people, with the big majority being civilian, on pure assumption, a guess?

No assumption, nothing at all, can take away the pure terror of these nukes.

And I see it as absolutely pointless to try to list up and divide the war crimes of the 21century in any kind of order, since its highly subjective and its utterly without value. They are all equally terrible to me.

 

[00dave]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here besides the Japanese military did bad things to POWs so nuking two cities was ok, as well as somehow trying together Japanese POW camps with Nazi concentration camps.

Basically instant death in a fireball vs tortured to death over a length of time. This was in respose to your comment about killing in a single strike.

What I'm having difficulty here is your attitude towards civilians and soldiers, they're both people, the only difference is during peace time soldiers volunteer to be put in harms way, during a full worldwide conflict they aren't given that choice. Yes they are mostly young men (except in the Soviet Union) but they're still people.

 

[00dave]

I think you're misinterpreting as me saying they were the worst war crimes of the 20th century ( which I'm not ).

Oh really?

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the two biggest single war crimes of the 20th century.

 

[ECA]

Oh really?

Yeah you see the word SINGLE in there?


lol you tard.

 

[Raven]

Oh really?

Biggest does not mean worst.

 

[DaGaffer]

The holocaust, the gulags, the rape of nanjing, cambodia, east timor, were not single incidents, they were mass crimes committed by thousands/tens of thousands of responsible parties.

The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were single attacks that were responsible for huge numbers of deaths, it's really just a semantic differentiation of type of war crimes , that I think you're misinterpreting as me saying they were the worst war crimes of the 20th century ( which I'm not ).

You said "The two biggest single war crimes of the twentieth century". Which actually doesn't make any sense, but moving on.

As for your quote above, the bombs weren't a single act, and were committed by thousands of responsible parties, from the politicians who signed it off to the scientists who built it, to the airmen who dropped it. So on the scale of "war crimes", how is it different from The Holocaust, the Rape of Nanjing or The Katyn forest? There's a politician at one end and a guy at the other pulling the trigger or firing up the ovens. So from that premise, the Bombs were nowhere near the "biggest war crimes of the twentieth century", they weren't even the largest deaths by bombing, the Tokyo firestorm tops them.

As for justification; sorry but the Japanese showed no inclination to surrender without leaving their existing government intact, and Saipan, Okinawa and The Philippines showed the Allies the likely cost of a land assault. After accepting the unconditional surrender of the Nazis, it wasn't even politically possible to accept anything less than unconditional surrender in Japan, both to the American public and because of the repurcussions of leaving a militarist Japan to rearm. Add in the fact the Soviets would have overrun Japan from the north if the Americans hadn't have forced their surrender, means I have very little sympathy for the Japanese. In fact because of the Soviet threat, there's even a argument that the bombs saved Japan from a worse fate (and don't kid yourself more Japanese lives than the bomb victims wouldn't have been lost if the war had gone on into 1946).

 

[00dave]

Yeah you see the word SINGLE in there?

Because it was one bomb? Well I imagine it was one signature that started the holocaust. One bomb that was dropped accidently on London that started the Blitz. One Arch Duke being assassinated that started the chain of events that lead to the great war, and how many died there?

I don't understand how because it was a single event it deserves it's own category of 'worst war crime' most war crimes can be traced back to a single event.

Anyway this is all getting silly now. Just be thankful the Americans got there first, imagine what the Nazis or the Japanese would have done with that sort of weapon had they got them first. They wouldn't have stopped at 2 cities. And anyone who knows the real story behind the heroes of Telemark know how close the Nazis got to it.

 

[Chilly]

Personally I dont regard the 7/11 london bombings as particularly major. Not many people killed and a pretty shoddy organisation executing it. More people probably die from drunk driving than a bomb like that. It's sensationalism at it's worst. OK, people were killed by nutters blowing themselves up but in the grand scheme of things it's pretty insignifcant. 9/11 was a few orders of magnitude bigger and the deathcount was accidental rather than intentional in that case (no way they planned to own both buildings like they did).

Meh Im just pissed off that such a "small" thing as terrorism can dictate so much of our lives and foreign policy and national expenditure. Spend it on schools