There are one or two Zach' s in this forum !
Though they are generally called out when the start spouting !
Though they are generally called out when the start spouting !
Smithsonian Article plagued by revisionism comments
- Thread starter GrauGeist
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Point out to him that following the defeat of Germany Japan still had 5,000,000 men under arms, 2,000,000 of them in the home islands. These figures are from the minutes of meetings of the Interim Committee, discussing the atomic bomb in June 1945. It's how the Americans perceived the problem of an invasion.
The US Navy was openly opposed to an invasion, preferring to strangle Japan to death by sea and by air. How many JAPANESE would have died had this option been taken?
MacArthur pressed for an invasion, initially of Honshu in November 1946, and this became policy on June 18th. He did not believe that Japan could be defeated without boots on the ground. In conventional terms he may have been correct.
At this meeting there was considerable discussion of political means of ending the war and potential American casualties should a military option be adopted. This was NOT a post war justification but a real concern in the period leading up to the decision to use the bomb. This was also discussed at the meeting, but there were fears that it might prove 'a dud'
The facts always get in the way of a good revisionist story
Cheers
Steve
The US Navy was openly opposed to an invasion, preferring to strangle Japan to death by sea and by air. How many JAPANESE would have died had this option been taken?
MacArthur pressed for an invasion, initially of Honshu in November 1946, and this became policy on June 18th. He did not believe that Japan could be defeated without boots on the ground. In conventional terms he may have been correct.
At this meeting there was considerable discussion of political means of ending the war and potential American casualties should a military option be adopted. This was NOT a post war justification but a real concern in the period leading up to the decision to use the bomb. This was also discussed at the meeting, but there were fears that it might prove 'a dud'
The facts always get in the way of a good revisionist story
Cheers
Steve
- Thread starter
- #23
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
I fully agree.
Imagine the destrustion the Japanese cities had been suffering by way of conventional bombing by the time Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hit.
Now, consider just how many more cities would have received the same devestation had the war continued on through 1946 (as estimated). With continual bombing and a desired naval blockade that would deprive Japan of food and essentials...what would the scale of human suffering have been, then, over the course of the next ten or so months that was estimated to take the homeland?
Imagine the destrustion the Japanese cities had been suffering by way of conventional bombing by the time Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hit.
Now, consider just how many more cities would have received the same devestation had the war continued on through 1946 (as estimated). With continual bombing and a desired naval blockade that would deprive Japan of food and essentials...what would the scale of human suffering have been, then, over the course of the next ten or so months that was estimated to take the homeland?
parsifal
Colonel
The Japanese were at the brink of surrender, because the Allied war machine was going flat out to destroy it. Take the foot of the gas pedal and you give them the chance to stage some sort of recovery. The Japanese were not trying to surrender because they wanted to.
Applying peacetime ethics to wartime situations really gets me mad. There are rules of war, but this aint a breach of those rules as they existed at that time.
Oh I forgot, Truman wrote everybody elses histories as well....
Applying peacetime ethics to wartime situations really gets me mad. There are rules of war, but this aint a breach of those rules as they existed at that time.
Oh I forgot, Truman wrote everybody elses histories as well....
See you need to think 'Tall boys' and 'Grand Slams'.
I reckon that fewer Japanese people were killed by the two atomic bombs than would have been killed by a naval blockade and continued air assault followed by an allied invasion in late 1945.
I know that fewer allied personnel died.
In a perverted way the atomic bombs saved lives on both sides.
Steve
I know that fewer allied personnel died.
In a perverted way the atomic bombs saved lives on both sides.
Steve
mikewint
Captain
David nice try but a closed mind is CLOSED and logic and facts are immaterial to them. You might as well put toothpaste back in the tube.
I admire your patience
I admire your patience
- Thread starter
- #28
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Thanks Mike, but it's so difficult to sit by and watching the growing numbers of misinformed, misguided and just plain stupid people on the internet.
The internet was originally conceived as a medium for information exchange, not as a fountain of disinformation.
Hopefully, when challenging these people, it plants a seed of doubt in their own convictions and they will do a fact-check (quietly of course, when no one's looking) and at the very least, the undecided onlookers may be steered towards true history instead of following these conspiracy nuts...
The internet was originally conceived as a medium for information exchange, not as a fountain of disinformation.
Hopefully, when challenging these people, it plants a seed of doubt in their own convictions and they will do a fact-check (quietly of course, when no one's looking) and at the very least, the undecided onlookers may be steered towards true history instead of following these conspiracy nuts...
Oh boy, this kind of threads never turn well. Too many emotions and private opinions.
I am always surprised by such rhetoric's pulled. "We cant apply peacetime policy at war"
Particularly as a lawyer I see no excuse for such thinking. War is not a normal situation, but by any means it should be done with as small as possible harm to those who cannot protect themselves and with obedience to the rules. We are not animals, and thinking that we are allowed to turn into animals at war because its completely different situation and peacetime rules do not apply doesn't seem to be proper. It doesn't matter if you are Japanese, German, Russian or American. If you commit a crime in the eyes of your countries or international law you should be sentenced to death and executed.
The rules created under a peacetime are for such situations. And saying that peacetime ethics cannot apply ... well, that is why we are not learning and we have crimes over and over again. A civilization which creates civilized foundations and then decides not to follow them is just asking for self-destruction.
Now for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Or all the bombings of Japan, Germany, Britain or any other place. From legal point of view it could be a breach of Article 25 of Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land signed in Hague in 1907, also by United States :
Art. 25. The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.
The natural question raises, if Tokio or Nagasaki or Nagoya can be considered as undefended. The doctrine precised it to :
- existence of Anti-aircraft armament, which indeed was deployed around cities. An obvious thing in this case.
- existence of military units in sufficient numbers on the grounds. In this case I dont think Japanese treated cities as garrisons and so there was not that many soldiers.
- existence of sufficient and capable fighter units - we all know Japanese lacked planes capable of intercepting B-29's and in many cases bombings were simply out of Japanese pilots capability to intercept them.
From legal point of view article 25 is not precise, although the literal explanation of it is not the only and best way of understanding it. We should also follow the intentions of the authors. And by that and doctrinal view it was undefended. Or could be considered as one knowing weakness of Japanese defense against such targets as B-29.
Much better it is shown in Hague Air Warfare Rules from 1923, Article 24 Point 2 and 3 :
2) Such bombardment is legitimate only when directed exclusively at the following objectives: military forces; military works; military establishments or depots; factories constituting important and well-known centres engaged in the manufacture of arms, ammunition, or distinctively military supplies; lines of communication or transportation used for military purposes.
3) The bombardment of cities, towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings not in the immediate neighborhood of the operations of land forces is prohibited. In cases where the objectives specified in paragraph 2 are so situated, that they cannot be bombarded without the indiscriminate bombardment of the civilian population, the aircraft must abstain from bombardment.
Interestingly a lot of the rules from the Hague Air Warfare Rules were directly implemented into internal legal systems. As I'm aware the Regulations of USAF, RAF or even Luftwaffe contained the principles taken from it. The Luftwaffe Instruction from July 1939 allowed for terrorist bombing but it could only be conducted if military situation will show it necessary and with the approval of the Luftwaffe Commander. Obviously the Instruction was not a problem to bomb Warsaw or any other city in 1939, 1940 and later. But that was simply a personal decision. Not lack of regulation. Also Goering later "payed" for that.
The League of Nations recognized this problem also, in the resolution from 30 September 1938, "Protection Of Civilian Population Against Bombing From the Air in Case of War" :
" Recognizes the following principles as a necessary basis for any subsequent regulations:
1) The intentional bombing of civilian populations is illegal;
2) Objectives aimed at from the air must be legitimate military objectives and must be identifiable;
3) Any attack on legitimate military objectives must be carried out in such a way that civilian populations in the neighborhood are not bombed through negligence"
Yes yes, I know United States were not member of League. But still were a civilized country.
The last step before the war was shown in Draft Convention for the Protection of Civilian Populations Against New Engines of War created in Amsterdam in 1938.
"Article 4 - Aerial bombardment for the purpose of terrorizing the civilian population is expressly prohibited."
Aerial bombardment with incendiary bombs of Tokio cannot be considered otherwise as terrorizing. And Atomic bombs also had a purpose of terrorizing the nation.
"Art. 5. 1. Aerial bombardment is prohibited unless directed at combatant forces or belligerent establishments or lines of communication or transportation used for military purposes.
2. In cases where the objectives above specified are so situated that they cannot be bombarded without the indiscriminate bombardment of the civilian population, the aircraft must abstain from bombardment. "
Well, again. High altitude bombings of big formations of B-29's caused unavoidable civilian losses. The bombers were simply inaccurate. Not to mention about Atomic bombs which turned the whole city into ruins.
Maybe there is something in Curtis Lemay words :
"Killing Japanese didn't bother me very much at that time... I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal.... Every soldier thinks something of the moral aspects of what he is doing. But all war is immoral and if you let that bother you, you're not a good soldier."
I simply, as a person who spent some time studying this subject and a person whose family was deeply affected by the war cant see any excuse for the Atomic bombs, nor for any other kinds of bombings of cities in Japan or anywhere else. As I said at the very beginning, it is meaningless if a man was Japanese, German or Russian. If he committed a crime he should be sentenced to death.
And approval of the civilian killing, a justification of one crime with another or speculations are one of the worst things a person can see. It is immoral and also illegal.
But not much can be said if even a Nuremberg trials were a negation of the rule of law. A victors cannot judge the defeated - its not fair or objective. Yet they did.
Now please forgive me if that was too long, or was too deep. I only wanted to make my point, even if this opinion is against others I simply think there always should be second side and a defender.
I am always surprised by such rhetoric's pulled. "We cant apply peacetime policy at war"
Particularly as a lawyer I see no excuse for such thinking. War is not a normal situation, but by any means it should be done with as small as possible harm to those who cannot protect themselves and with obedience to the rules. We are not animals, and thinking that we are allowed to turn into animals at war because its completely different situation and peacetime rules do not apply doesn't seem to be proper. It doesn't matter if you are Japanese, German, Russian or American. If you commit a crime in the eyes of your countries or international law you should be sentenced to death and executed.
The rules created under a peacetime are for such situations. And saying that peacetime ethics cannot apply ... well, that is why we are not learning and we have crimes over and over again. A civilization which creates civilized foundations and then decides not to follow them is just asking for self-destruction.
Now for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Or all the bombings of Japan, Germany, Britain or any other place. From legal point of view it could be a breach of Article 25 of Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land signed in Hague in 1907, also by United States :
Art. 25. The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.
The natural question raises, if Tokio or Nagasaki or Nagoya can be considered as undefended. The doctrine precised it to :
- existence of Anti-aircraft armament, which indeed was deployed around cities. An obvious thing in this case.
- existence of military units in sufficient numbers on the grounds. In this case I dont think Japanese treated cities as garrisons and so there was not that many soldiers.
- existence of sufficient and capable fighter units - we all know Japanese lacked planes capable of intercepting B-29's and in many cases bombings were simply out of Japanese pilots capability to intercept them.
From legal point of view article 25 is not precise, although the literal explanation of it is not the only and best way of understanding it. We should also follow the intentions of the authors. And by that and doctrinal view it was undefended. Or could be considered as one knowing weakness of Japanese defense against such targets as B-29.
Much better it is shown in Hague Air Warfare Rules from 1923, Article 24 Point 2 and 3 :
2) Such bombardment is legitimate only when directed exclusively at the following objectives: military forces; military works; military establishments or depots; factories constituting important and well-known centres engaged in the manufacture of arms, ammunition, or distinctively military supplies; lines of communication or transportation used for military purposes.
3) The bombardment of cities, towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings not in the immediate neighborhood of the operations of land forces is prohibited. In cases where the objectives specified in paragraph 2 are so situated, that they cannot be bombarded without the indiscriminate bombardment of the civilian population, the aircraft must abstain from bombardment.
Interestingly a lot of the rules from the Hague Air Warfare Rules were directly implemented into internal legal systems. As I'm aware the Regulations of USAF, RAF or even Luftwaffe contained the principles taken from it. The Luftwaffe Instruction from July 1939 allowed for terrorist bombing but it could only be conducted if military situation will show it necessary and with the approval of the Luftwaffe Commander. Obviously the Instruction was not a problem to bomb Warsaw or any other city in 1939, 1940 and later. But that was simply a personal decision. Not lack of regulation. Also Goering later "payed" for that.
The League of Nations recognized this problem also, in the resolution from 30 September 1938, "Protection Of Civilian Population Against Bombing From the Air in Case of War" :
" Recognizes the following principles as a necessary basis for any subsequent regulations:
1) The intentional bombing of civilian populations is illegal;
2) Objectives aimed at from the air must be legitimate military objectives and must be identifiable;
3) Any attack on legitimate military objectives must be carried out in such a way that civilian populations in the neighborhood are not bombed through negligence"
Yes yes, I know United States were not member of League. But still were a civilized country.
The last step before the war was shown in Draft Convention for the Protection of Civilian Populations Against New Engines of War created in Amsterdam in 1938.
"Article 4 - Aerial bombardment for the purpose of terrorizing the civilian population is expressly prohibited."
Aerial bombardment with incendiary bombs of Tokio cannot be considered otherwise as terrorizing. And Atomic bombs also had a purpose of terrorizing the nation.
"Art. 5. 1. Aerial bombardment is prohibited unless directed at combatant forces or belligerent establishments or lines of communication or transportation used for military purposes.
2. In cases where the objectives above specified are so situated that they cannot be bombarded without the indiscriminate bombardment of the civilian population, the aircraft must abstain from bombardment. "
Well, again. High altitude bombings of big formations of B-29's caused unavoidable civilian losses. The bombers were simply inaccurate. Not to mention about Atomic bombs which turned the whole city into ruins.
Maybe there is something in Curtis Lemay words :
"Killing Japanese didn't bother me very much at that time... I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal.... Every soldier thinks something of the moral aspects of what he is doing. But all war is immoral and if you let that bother you, you're not a good soldier."
I simply, as a person who spent some time studying this subject and a person whose family was deeply affected by the war cant see any excuse for the Atomic bombs, nor for any other kinds of bombings of cities in Japan or anywhere else. As I said at the very beginning, it is meaningless if a man was Japanese, German or Russian. If he committed a crime he should be sentenced to death.
And approval of the civilian killing, a justification of one crime with another or speculations are one of the worst things a person can see. It is immoral and also illegal.
But not much can be said if even a Nuremberg trials were a negation of the rule of law. A victors cannot judge the defeated - its not fair or objective. Yet they did.
Now please forgive me if that was too long, or was too deep. I only wanted to make my point, even if this opinion is against others I simply think there always should be second side and a defender.
- Thread starter
- #30
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Hiromachi, I might mention that the Japanese did have fighters capable of bringing down the B-29 at higher altituded (and did), however, if you may recall, the B-29s started operating at lower altitudes to improve bombing accuracy which enabled more types to intercept the bombers.
Anyway, the fighters used successully to intercept the B-29s were:
Kawanishi N1K2-J, Ki-44-II, Ki-45-Kai, Ki-46-III-Kai, Ki-61-I, Ki61-I-Hei, Ki-84-Ko, Ki-100-I, Ki-100-1-Otsu, Ki-100-1-Ko
As far as military targets in amd around the targeted cities, yes, there were as well as industrial targets.
At Hiroshima, you had both the Second Army Group Command (southern Japan defense command), the Second Army Division Command and troop assembly centers. You also had numerous industrial targets such as Mitsubishi Heavy Industries along with munitions depots, storage facilities and transport centers. Add to this, the extensive naval facilities at Kure.
At Nagasaki, you had communications centers, ordnance depots, transportation hubs, shipping facilities and industry.
So the assumption made by some people, that the U.S arbitrarily bombed "non-essential" targets is further from the truth. Several factors used for city target was size and military value. With the secrecy and expense of these new weapons, the U.S. just wasn't going to attack a random civilian target, it had to be a strategic target that would demonstrate that continuing the war was futile AND they had no idea if it would work and did not have back up atom bombs in the event that the first two failed either in function or demoralizing effect.
Anyway, the fighters used successully to intercept the B-29s were:
Kawanishi N1K2-J, Ki-44-II, Ki-45-Kai, Ki-46-III-Kai, Ki-61-I, Ki61-I-Hei, Ki-84-Ko, Ki-100-I, Ki-100-1-Otsu, Ki-100-1-Ko
As far as military targets in amd around the targeted cities, yes, there were as well as industrial targets.
At Hiroshima, you had both the Second Army Group Command (southern Japan defense command), the Second Army Division Command and troop assembly centers. You also had numerous industrial targets such as Mitsubishi Heavy Industries along with munitions depots, storage facilities and transport centers. Add to this, the extensive naval facilities at Kure.
At Nagasaki, you had communications centers, ordnance depots, transportation hubs, shipping facilities and industry.
So the assumption made by some people, that the U.S arbitrarily bombed "non-essential" targets is further from the truth. Several factors used for city target was size and military value. With the secrecy and expense of these new weapons, the U.S. just wasn't going to attack a random civilian target, it had to be a strategic target that would demonstrate that continuing the war was futile AND they had no idea if it would work and did not have back up atom bombs in the event that the first two failed either in function or demoralizing effect.
Last edited:
Njaco
The Pop-Tart Whisperer
Ummm, so who does? If the victors can't judge the defeated, then why have laws at all?
Maybe we should remember this.....
Battle of Nanking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
.
How anybody can apply 2010s morals against a 1940s government is amazing.
parsifal
Colonel
cicero said ''silent enim inter arma'....'laws are silent in war"
"Moderation in war is imbecility" Lord Fisher.
Civilians have always died in war and long before the introduction of the strategic bomber.
Can someone explain what exactly the target of a naval blockade might be? When a city was besieged in medieval times the citizens starved too, just as they would in a blockaded country.
The British drew a fine line between bombing civilians and bombing their dwellings. The infamous paper by Cherwell goes to great lengths to demonstrate how the RAF could destroy German homes, concluding that it should be possible to turn about a third of the German population "out of house and home".
Basing his opinion on evidence from the victims of German bombing in Britain, and entirely erroneously, he went on. "Investigation seems to show that having one's house demolished is most damaging to morale. People seem to mind it more than having their friends or even relatives killed."
Some, not least Tizard, disagreed but the die was cast. It is a fine moral line between bombing someone's house and bombing someone. The lawyers can argue about that one. It's why I said before that I believe that the German civilian population was the implicit rather than explicit target of Bomber Command.
Personally, I'm with Admiral of the Fleet Lord Fisher. Moderation is imbecility, if you have to kill every living German to win the war then that's what you try to do. You can leave it to later generations to agonise over the moral arguments. You will have won them the right and liberty to do so.
Cheers
Steve
Civilians have always died in war and long before the introduction of the strategic bomber.
Can someone explain what exactly the target of a naval blockade might be? When a city was besieged in medieval times the citizens starved too, just as they would in a blockaded country.
The British drew a fine line between bombing civilians and bombing their dwellings. The infamous paper by Cherwell goes to great lengths to demonstrate how the RAF could destroy German homes, concluding that it should be possible to turn about a third of the German population "out of house and home".
Basing his opinion on evidence from the victims of German bombing in Britain, and entirely erroneously, he went on. "Investigation seems to show that having one's house demolished is most damaging to morale. People seem to mind it more than having their friends or even relatives killed."
Some, not least Tizard, disagreed but the die was cast. It is a fine moral line between bombing someone's house and bombing someone. The lawyers can argue about that one. It's why I said before that I believe that the German civilian population was the implicit rather than explicit target of Bomber Command.
Personally, I'm with Admiral of the Fleet Lord Fisher. Moderation is imbecility, if you have to kill every living German to win the war then that's what you try to do. You can leave it to later generations to agonise over the moral arguments. You will have won them the right and liberty to do so.
Cheers
Steve
The USA did not have to use the A bomb, they could have invaded the whole of Japan which would have cost millions of lives or they could simply have cut Japan off, invaded one island large enough to use air power to deny the use of the sea or any transport system. In an article I read (it was in a link posted here)surrender by Japan was not only because of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki but also the Russian invasion of the Kurile Islands. As many posters have said threatening and killing civilians is and always has been a part of war, people are generally not born into the military a soldier is just a civilian trained to fight. Jericho had walls around it to protect its citizens for a reason. My fathers job (engine room) in the Navy was no different to a civilians, it was just he was on a fighting ship not a freighter that made a difference.
In short revisionism makes me sick, it is all very well to label everything the allies did as a war crime but they should acknowledge that if the allies lost then they wouldn't be allowed to pontificate with such freedom.
In short revisionism makes me sick, it is all very well to label everything the allies did as a war crime but they should acknowledge that if the allies lost then they wouldn't be allowed to pontificate with such freedom.
You know, there is a basic principle of law - impartiality. Coming all the way, back to Ancient Roman law. None of the countries involved in tribunal was impartial, and they could be. There were countries in Europe like Switzerland or Sweden not involved, neutral. Ans also countries outside of Europe. And objective and fair tribunal was a possibility, but obviously was not what Victorious countries wanted.
This made it a parody, bringing as one of the judges a Iona Timofeevich Nikitchenko who presided over some of the Stalin's show trials during the Great Purges in late 1930's, where he among other things sentenced Kamenev and Zinoviev. Overall it is said that he is responsible for death of 30 000 people.
The Soviet Prosecutor, Roman Rudenko was also a Prosecutor in political process over Polish Underground Army and politicians, the Process of Sixteen. He was also the one who tired to bring a Katyn Massacre as a German crime during Nuremberg Trial.
From legal point of view it was a Tribunal in which Soviet criminals judged German criminals, with addition of Western representatives.
Yes yes, pull it few times more because I don't know what happened in Nanking. If you would read the text I was very specific that every war criminal should be punished. Nationality doesn't matter.
And I'm not applying modern morals but morals and what is more, legal acts from the 1920's and 1930's. There is nothing amazing in it, since large part of civilized countries has some Christian foundations giving a moral guidance. I didn't bring anything that didnt exist at that time.
Yes, we can stick to it and justify everything any time. Or justify our crimes, judging only the ones who lost. Very logical, very moral.
Japanese intercepted B-29's occasionally. Loosing a lot of planes themselves in that actions. And yes, they were operating later at lower altitudes. But with escort of Mustangs if I recall.
N1K2-J was powered by Homare engines, known for bad high altitude performance. 343 Kokutai pilots claimed that they could fight at 30 000 feet, but practically the best performance was achieved at 20 000. Anything above was not good enough.
Ki-44-II - a machine with outstanding performance but at lower altitudes. And with armament consisting only four 12.7 mm machine guns at best. The great climb rate was up to 5000 meters, but getting to 8000 meters took almost 10 minutes. Ha-104 was simply a low to medium altitude engine.
Ki-45 - were trying to do the job, but it was another plane with lack of turbocharger or at least 3-stage supercharger. With a climb time of 7 minutes to 5000 meters and weak engines above that 5000 meters I simply see it problematic for them to intercept the B-29 formation.
Ki-46 - was a recce aircraft, only sometimes equipped in armament.
Ki-61 - yes, that was one of the very few machines Japanese had, that could actually get to high altitude and maintain high performance. Other was Navy J2M Raiden. And 244th Sentai did that, although the amount of units equipped in Hiens was never high so its hard to call them effective.
Ki-84 - suffered in same way as N1K2-J due to same engine.
Ki-100 - emmm, with almost 11 minutes to 8000 meters and top speed of 535 km/h at 10 000 meters I also see it quite complicated for Goshikisen to fight there. Though possible.
Yes, there was plenty of military targets. But they were surrounded by civil homes, hotels, restaurants, shops ... anything you name.
No. There was no such assumption. US carefully chose a strategic targets, crucial for Japanese war effort. But didn't care about thousands of civilians living near/around/inside those targets. And contrary to that, they have tested one bomb before. Yes, there could be a technical failure. But you can use a same argument for conventional bombings or even some torpedoes or artillery shells.
Njaco
The Pop-Tart Whisperer
And there is a concept in American law that says when someone attacks you, you are allowed to use the same amount of force as the attacker to defend yourself. Taught in Police Academies all across the United States on the use of Deadly Force. The Allies didn't start this but they sure as 'ell finished it. So revisionists can be as angry as they want - still doesn't alter the truth.
There are some confused time lines above re:the atomic bomb.
The Interim Committee reported to Truman on 1st June 1945 with it's recommendation for the use of the weapon and how that should be done, notably without prior warning.
The Trinity test was not until 16th July, more than six weeks later, and this is why fears of a 'dud' are raised in several meetings.
The original target proposed by the Interim Committee was to be "a military target surrounded by other buildings."
The actual targeting criteria adopted can be read in these minutes, and pretty brutal they are too.
Atomic Bomb: Decision -- Target Committee, May 10-11, 1945
Once again, moderation in war is imbecility.
Stimson wrote: "The conclusions of the Committee were similar to my own, although I reached mine independently. I felt that to extract a genuine surrender from the Emperor and his military advisers, they must be administered a tremendous shock which would carry convincing proof of our power to destroy the empire. Such an effective shock would save many times the number of lives, both American and Japanese, than it would cost."
There were many within the US administration, and particularly the scientific community who did not agree at the time, and there are evidently some still today. This, like it or not, is what happened.
Cheers
Steve
The Interim Committee reported to Truman on 1st June 1945 with it's recommendation for the use of the weapon and how that should be done, notably without prior warning.
The Trinity test was not until 16th July, more than six weeks later, and this is why fears of a 'dud' are raised in several meetings.
The original target proposed by the Interim Committee was to be "a military target surrounded by other buildings."
The actual targeting criteria adopted can be read in these minutes, and pretty brutal they are too.
Atomic Bomb: Decision -- Target Committee, May 10-11, 1945
Once again, moderation in war is imbecility.
Stimson wrote: "The conclusions of the Committee were similar to my own, although I reached mine independently. I felt that to extract a genuine surrender from the Emperor and his military advisers, they must be administered a tremendous shock which would carry convincing proof of our power to destroy the empire. Such an effective shock would save many times the number of lives, both American and Japanese, than it would cost."
There were many within the US administration, and particularly the scientific community who did not agree at the time, and there are evidently some still today. This, like it or not, is what happened.
Cheers
Steve
buffnut453
Captain
I would like to point out that the use of "revisionist" as an innately perjorative term is neither correct nor helpful. History can and should be revised, if for no other reason than to look at "accepted" facts from a different perspective - think of Sheffield's work on the First World War or Parshall and Tully's "Shattered Sword". True revisionist history is based on new data or plausible reinterpretation of existing data. Just because some idiot wants to trumpet an assinine agenda does not make them a revisionist...it just makes them an imbecile.
Well said, Mark.
Dave, I feel that although, like Mike said, your efforts are admirable and in your exacting way, truthful and factual, idots like this chap Zach are just tubthumping and riding on a wave of emotion, and the only point of view he sees is his own. True revisionists take facts uncovered since the incident and reveal them for the benefit of preserving history, whereas this chap and so many more on the net and indeed in book form - this is not a new thing after all - are boorish enough to push their own agenda and not take any notice of anyone else's, regardless of how accurate. Regardless of your good intentions, you might be p*ssing into the wind, I'm afraid. That doesn't mean you should stop, though!
Dave, I feel that although, like Mike said, your efforts are admirable and in your exacting way, truthful and factual, idots like this chap Zach are just tubthumping and riding on a wave of emotion, and the only point of view he sees is his own. True revisionists take facts uncovered since the incident and reveal them for the benefit of preserving history, whereas this chap and so many more on the net and indeed in book form - this is not a new thing after all - are boorish enough to push their own agenda and not take any notice of anyone else's, regardless of how accurate. Regardless of your good intentions, you might be p*ssing into the wind, I'm afraid. That doesn't mean you should stop, though!
Well, who said America is righteous and just country ?
Besides, name me one bombing Japanese did against American city ?
I'm not angry. What is more I'm not involved nor any part of my family was ever involved in that front. However I'm a close observer and I can't stand amount of hypocrisy which is pulled. It seems that some behave or want to behave like they would be superior to the others. They would be allowed to do more.
Thank you Steve for bringing it.
From this only it becomes pretty obvious that it was closer to terrorist attacks, with strict purpose of terrorizing the nation.
And absolutely, it happened Steve. I'm not debating on that. Nor anyone else.
