Israel forced to apologise to Japan over offensive Hiroshima comments - Polidicks

[QUOTE=BusterBluth;41938605]Sweeping generations are only okay when it comes to Isreal[/QUOTE] Well, jews aren't a race, they're a religion, so it's not racist!

[QUOTE=deltasquid;41938169]On a side note, this "Japanese aggression" was a direct result of the USA and the Philippines' economic strangling of Japan that forced them to "attack now and maybe win, or wait and slowly lose" [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Events_leading_to_the_attack_on_Pearl_Harbor[/URL] I'm not saying Japan isn't to blame (they were imperialistic and fascist and invading Asia) but the USA was forcing them into war, too.[/QUOTE] So the Japanese aggression into China and other parts of Asia starting in the 1930s that caused events such as the Nanking Massacre was due to the embargo that was placed by the US in 1940. Ok. [editline]23rd August 2013[/editline] Hmmm, someone already posted something similar.

I still say that the nukes were an overkill. I mean they could've nuked a deserted island near japan, they would've pissed their pants. Or just use the Bat Bomb. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_bomb[/url]

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;41938454]again, there's no way of knowing how costly the invasion would have been, but i believe an invasion wouldn't have been necessary, because either japan would have surrendered or they could have just been cut off from the world, they did not have the means to continue waging the war anywhere else other than their own soil.[/QUOTE] Then why was pretty much everyone in the US Military planning for an invasion. The US definitely would have had to invade and they'd be experiencing a war they weren't equipped for. The Japanese would have definitely used guerrilla tactics and it would have been a bloodbath for both sides. Just look at the few soldiers who refused to surrender after WWII.

[QUOTE=matt000024;41939503]Then why was pretty much everyone in the US Military planning for an invasion. The US definitely would have had to invade and they'd be experiencing a war they weren't equipped for. The Japanese would have definitely used guerrilla tactics and it would have been a bloodbath for both sides. Just look at the few soldiers who refused to surrender after WWII.[/QUOTE] they were preparing to invade because they wanted to. i'm saying an invasion wouldn't have been necessary. japan was no longer capable of fighting a war anywhere else but on their own soil and their entire war plan involved suicide attacks. they were beaten and desperate.

A forced apology isn't really an apology in my book.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;41937294]nothing justifies purposely dropping atomic weapons on purely civilian targets. and saying a conventional invasion would have caused less damage/death is pure conjecture, the other side of the conjecture is that japan was planning to surrender anyway[/QUOTE] more people died in the fire bombing of Tokyo than the atomic bombs Tokyo was nearly erased as well but not many people remember this.

[QUOTE=Riller;41938665]Well, jews aren't a race, they're a religion, so it's not racist![/QUOTE] [QUOTE=BusterBluth;41938605]Sweeping generations are only okay when it comes to Isreal[/QUOTE] My remark is true and it was directed at Israelis not Jews in their entirety. Speaking of sweeping generalizations, that's something many Israelis do all the time.

[QUOTE=Riller;41937237]He's kinda right in saying "Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the consequence of Japanese aggression". Very insensitive, but right. And I'm sure that the nukes actually spared a lot more lives than they took, in that a conventional invasion of the Japanese mainland would have killed towards millions of civilians.[/QUOTE] This is diplomacy, so my guess is that the "I'm sick of the Japanese" part is what really caused the offense. Countries criticize each other all the time over disagreements. One thing you don't do is use language like that though, it's not diplomatic in the least. For instance if he had said something like "The Hiroshima and Nagasaki commemorations also serve to remind us of the price of war and aggression", it gets the same point across without saying you are 'sick' of an entire people and that they are "self-righteous", which is another insult.

[QUOTE=Rofl my Waff;41940531]more people died in the fire bombing of Tokyo than the atomic bombs Tokyo was nearly erased as well but not many people remember this.[/QUOTE] and? so another act i don't consider justifiable, what's your point?

[QUOTE]"Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the consequence of Japanese aggression. You reap what you sow."[/QUOTE] Then there's a bloody harvest indeed coming for Israel one of these days.

[QUOTE=deltasquid;41938169]On a side note, this "Japanese aggression" was a direct result of the USA and the Philippines' economic strangling of Japan that forced them to "attack now and maybe win, or wait and slowly lose" [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Events_leading_to_the_attack_on_Pearl_Harbor[/URL] I'm not saying Japan isn't to blame (they were imperialistic and fascist and invading Asia) but the USA was forcing them into war, too.[/QUOTE] Rarely do you hear about the reasons of the enemy.

[QUOTE=deltasquid;41938169]On a side note, this "Japanese aggression" was a direct result of the USA and the Philippines' economic strangling of Japan that forced them to "attack now and maybe win, or wait and slowly lost[/QUOTE] Because Japan was paving a path of 20 million corpses in their invasion of China ? Not a fan of intervention but an embargo can kind of be justified.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;41937386]it's hard to find direct sources or sources that appear unbiased this one seems reasonable but i only skimmed it [url]http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html[/url] another argument though is that despite the emperor wishing to surrender many of the japanese high command still wanted to continue the war. even then i still don't feel there is any real justification for use of atomic weapons let alone against what i feel were largely civilian targets (and also with little or no regard to the after effects which are still being felt today) [editline]23rd August 2013[/editline] and it's not like a conventional invasion of japan would even be necessary, it's an island nation, it's fleets had been either destroyed or rendered useless. they could have just been bottled up until terms of surrender that both parties would accept were reached[/QUOTE] Alright, let me bust out me boots. There was no strong evidence that the Japanese were seeking an end to the war. There is evidence that they attempted a further truce with the USSR, and evidence that they planned to arm their population and were pulling back fighters and using civilian aircraft to make a massive kamikaze army in preparation for the American invasion, which they guessed would be in the correct spots. The Americans planned Operation Downfall to take Kyushu and Tokyo, [I]possibly concurrent with up to seven nuclear strikes against Japanese military targets, and having troops on the ground 48 hours after the barrage[/I]. We were taking the homeislands regardless. The Japanese were prepared for a full on fight to the death- making the cost of taking Japan too much, and forcing the Americans to seek a conditioned peace. Japan was not going down without a fight, and their Operation Ketsugo correctly predicted American troop movements and landings. Effectively, the Japanese had prepared and would have effectively caused massive damage to American invading forces. Estimated death tolls: lowest common response- half a million Americans, and up to 800,000 Americans in the first 120 days. Up to 10 million Japanese casualties by the end of the war. Hiroshima and Nagasaki? 240,000 at largest estimate. The site you posted is the Institute for Historic Review, a historical revisionist organization. That is to say, they believe in the use of falsifying or revising history "for the greatest good", which to them is the fascist cause- the IHR are holocaust deniers and fascist sympathizers. They are the only true source for the claim that the Japanese were seeking viable surrender with the Allies under favorable terms. They were not. We were going to invade Japan and Japan was going to fight on. The death tolls were going to be much higher and that is an undisputed fact. The options were: seek a conditioned surrender of Japan which maintained the Japanese status quo, drop the atomic bombs to seek a shock-caused surrender, or invade the home islands and lose millions while atomic bombing all the way. You think that there wouldn't be massive casualties? Do you know why we kept Hirohito in power? It was to pacify the civilians who were prepped to fight a long and brutal guerrilla war against the imperialist pigs who were there to rape their children and wives and burn their villages. Necessary? No, we could have sought a conditioned peace and went home, leaving Japan a fascist dictatorship seeking to take Asia. But since that wasn't an option for the Americans at the time, then either we bombed them or invaded them. Fact is, the invasion was going to be the worse of the option in terms of costs and casualties. We made enough purple hearts for Downfall that we still have enough left over from that operation that units in Iraq and Afghanistan are/were keeping boxes full of them laying around for when they're needed. That gives you an idea.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;41940660]and? so another act i don't consider justifiable, what's your point?[/QUOTE] It's conjecture to say Japan was going to surrender before the bombs were dropped. It isn't conjecture to point out that naval bombardment of Japan was costing more lives than the atomic bombs before the atomic bombs.

America also warned the citizens. [quote]At the same time, newspapers and leaflets in the Japanese language were printed on Saipan. From there, Air Force B-29s flying at 20,000 feet dropped 500-pound M-16 fire bomb containers converted into leaflet casings. These opened at 4,000 feet to deploy millions of leaflets, effectively covering a whole Japanese city with information. In just the last three months of formal psychological warfare, OWIproduced and deployed over 63 million leaflets informing the Japanese people of the true status of the war and providing advance warning to35 cities targeted for destruction.3 Postwar surveys showed that the Japanese people trusted the accuracy of the leaflets and many residents of the targeted cities prepared immediately to leave their homes.4 The Japanese government regarded the leaflets with such concern that it ordered the arrest of those who kept or even read the leaflets and did not turn them in to their local police stations. Outside Japan, leaflets promoting the surrender of individual Japanese soldiers and civilians were dropped near cave and tunnel hideouts on islands that had been captured by the Allies.[/quote] This is the leaflet. [quote]“Read this carefully as it may save your life or the life of a relative or friend. In the next few days, some or all of the cities named on the reverse side will be destroyed by American bombs. These cities contain military installations and workshops or factories which produce military goods. We are determined to destroy all of the tools of the military clique which they are using to prolong this useless war. But, unfortunately, bombs have no eyes. So, in accordance with America’s humanitarian policies, the American Air Force, which does not wish to injure innocent people, now gives you warning to evacuate the cities named and save your lives. America is not fighting the Japanese people but is fighting the military clique which has enslaved the Japanese people. The peace which America will bring will free the people from the oppression of the military clique and mean the emergence of a new and better Japan. You can restore peace by demanding new and good leaders who will end the war. We cannot promise that only these cities will be among those attacked but some or all of them will be, so heed this warning and evacuate these cities immediately.” [/quote] Oh yeah, and: [quote]The Japanese government regarded the leaflets with such concern that it ordered the arrest of those who kept or even read the leaflets and did not turn them in to their local police stations.[/quote] [url=https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol46no3/article07.html]Source.[/url]

Wait a minute... The Japanese ambassador to Lithuania actually handed out a lot of visa's to Jews so they could flee to Japan. Japan really didn't understand the whole racial cleansing thing going on in Germany. [editline]23rd August 2013[/editline] Hell that one ambassador saved approximately 40,000 people from the holocaust.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];41942644']Alright, let me bust out me boots. There was no strong evidence that the Japanese were seeking an end to the war. There is evidence that they attempted a further truce with the USSR, and evidence that they planned to arm their population and were pulling back fighters and using civilian aircraft to make a massive kamikaze army in preparation for the American invasion, which they guessed would be in the correct spots. The Americans planned Operation Downfall to take Kyushu and Tokyo, [I]possibly concurrent with up to seven nuclear strikes against Japanese military targets, and having troops on the ground 48 hours after the barrage[/I]. We were taking the homeislands regardless. The Japanese were prepared for a full on fight to the death- making the cost of taking Japan too much, and forcing the Americans to seek a conditioned peace. Japan was not going down without a fight, and their Operation Ketsugo correctly predicted American troop movements and landings. Effectively, the Japanese had prepared and would have effectively caused massive damage to American invading forces. Estimated death tolls: lowest common response- half a million Americans, and up to 800,000 Americans in the first 120 days. Up to 10 million Japanese casualties by the end of the war. Hiroshima and Nagasaki? 240,000 at largest estimate. (...) Necessary? No, we could have sought a conditioned peace and went home, leaving Japan a fascist dictatorship seeking to take Asia. But since that wasn't an option for the Americans at the time, then either we bombed them or invaded them. Fact is, the invasion was going to be the worse of the option in terms of costs and casualties. We made enough purple hearts for Downfall that we still have enough left over from that operation that units in Iraq and Afghanistan are/were keeping boxes full of them laying around for when they're needed. That gives you an idea.[/QUOTE] Except the Japanese [B]were[/B] trying to negotiate peace with the the Americans through the Soviet Union, their terms were: no allied occupation of the home islands and that they would oversee their own disarmament and trials of war criminals. This would indeed be a victory for the allies as it would have liberated all of Indochina, most of South East Asia and huge occupied territories in China, which is after all what the war was over to begin with. These terms were however deemed unacceptable for the Americans and so the war waged on, indeed the Japanese had intended to make an invasion so costly that the allies would have to call for something other than [I]unconditional surrender[/I] (emphasis because this was their main reason for not wanting peace, the prospect of destroying the Imperial line was unacceptable for the Japanese. However after the first atom bomb on Hiroshima the Soviet Union (In rupture of their previous neutrality pact which should have remained in force until at least 46) declared war on Japan and simply wiped the floor with them in Manchuria and northern (then) Japan (Karafuto/Southern Sakhalin and the Kurils) truncing the Kantogun which still numbered over a million men. In view of this (The Soviet entry into war, which was totally unexpected) the Japanese realised the hopelessness of their war even more so and had no more intermediary for negotiations, not entirely because of the Atom bombs. It's a myth that they single-handedly just caused the war to end and that the only other option was to have a bloodbath or just let them keep all of Asia. Japanese cities and industrial centres were already obliterated by conventional strategic bombing. The atomic bombs were peanuts compared to the horrors of Tokyo's firebombing (This is why Tokyo was not a target, as it was already in ruins, the Americans needed an unaffected city to prove and test the effects of the atomic bomb). Ultimately the war ended after personal intervention from the emperor when the Americans implied that he could remain as head of state and that Imperial lineage would continue. Had they not, the war would have dragged on. So we DID end it with a conditioned peace, but didn't go home, and would have done so A-bomb or not, and without an invasion of the main land thanks to our good friend Stalin. I'm not questioning the morality behind the atomic bombs as the fire bombing could be seen as "worse" in terms of death toll, suffering and destruction. Nor am I questioning whether or not the Japanese deserved it. But it simply isn't true that they were necessary to end the war and that the only alternative was Downfall, mainly because of the Soviets and our reluctance to accept any terms of Japanese surrender (which we later would implicitly, hence the end of the war). [editline]24th August 2013[/editline] Oh and as for the article itself that guy's a dick, not just this but also the other facebook posts he made [editline]24th August 2013[/editline] Oh yes, AND we were intending to use an Atom bomb despite the costs of downfall, not as an alternative, indeed the plans of Downfall involved the use of additional A-bombs as you've mentioned. The original target was in fact Berlin but the war in Europe ended too soon for the Germans to be nuked so the intent to use an atomic bomb was always there - high cost of invading the Japanese mainland or not. So it's not like our hand was forced into using the atom bombs.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];41942644']Alright, let me bust out me boots. There was no strong evidence that the Japanese were seeking an end to the war. There is evidence that they attempted a further truce with the USSR, and evidence that they planned to arm their population and were pulling back fighters and using civilian aircraft to make a massive kamikaze army in preparation for the American invasion, which they guessed would be in the correct spots. The Americans planned Operation Downfall to take Kyushu and Tokyo, [I]possibly concurrent with up to seven nuclear strikes against Japanese military targets, and having troops on the ground 48 hours after the barrage[/I]. We were taking the homeislands regardless. The Japanese were prepared for a full on fight to the death- making the cost of taking Japan too much, and forcing the Americans to seek a conditioned peace. Japan was not going down without a fight, and their Operation Ketsugo correctly predicted American troop movements and landings. Effectively, the Japanese had prepared and would have effectively caused massive damage to American invading forces. Estimated death tolls: lowest common response- half a million Americans, and up to 800,000 Americans in the first 120 days. Up to 10 million Japanese casualties by the end of the war. Hiroshima and Nagasaki? 240,000 at largest estimate. The site you posted is the Institute for Historic Review, a historical revisionist organization. That is to say, they believe in the use of falsifying or revising history "for the greatest good", which to them is the fascist cause- the IHR are holocaust deniers and fascist sympathizers. They are the only true source for the claim that the Japanese were seeking viable surrender with the Allies under favorable terms. They were not. We were going to invade Japan and Japan was going to fight on. The death tolls were going to be much higher and that is an undisputed fact. The options were: seek a conditioned surrender of Japan which maintained the Japanese status quo, drop the atomic bombs to seek a shock-caused surrender, or invade the home islands and lose millions while atomic bombing all the way. You think that there wouldn't be massive casualties? Do you know why we kept Hirohito in power? It was to pacify the civilians who were prepped to fight a long and brutal guerrilla war against the imperialist pigs who were there to rape their children and wives and burn their villages. Necessary? No, we could have sought a conditioned peace and went home, leaving Japan a fascist dictatorship seeking to take Asia. But since that wasn't an option for the Americans at the time, then either we bombed them or invaded them. Fact is, the invasion was going to be the worse of the option in terms of costs and casualties. We made enough purple hearts for Downfall that we still have enough left over from that operation that units in Iraq and Afghanistan are/were keeping boxes full of them laying around for when they're needed. That gives you an idea.[/QUOTE] a whole lot of words to again, justify nothing. don't waste your time man, nothing you can say could ever justify dropping atom bombs on people to me

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;41949876]a whole lot of words to again, justify nothing. don't waste your time man, nothing you can say could ever justify dropping atom bombs on people [B]to me[/B][/QUOTE] Well... At least you take a shorter time getting your point across? Pretty much no matter how you put it, nuking was quantifiably the best, though morally very dubious, choice.

i can't agree with that

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;41949876](..) nothing you can say could ever justify dropping atom bombs on people to me[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Riller;41949963](...) Pretty much no matter how you put it, nuking was quantifiably the best, though morally very dubious, choice.[/QUOTE] You two are essentially the caricature of the Mass Debate subtitle. "Become further entrenched in your own views by defending them against people entrenched in their own"

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;41949876]a whole lot of words to again, justify nothing. don't waste your time man, nothing you can say could ever justify dropping atom bombs on people to me[/QUOTE] Morality is hard sometimes. We begin to value certain lives over others. Bigger numbers begin to justify horrible action. Either way I see it, war is war. Awful, terrible, disgusting shit will happen and it will destroy thousands if not millions of lives. Though I would hope nothing EVER has to justify another atomic bombing.

[QUOTE=JJ Isaac;41950076]Morality is hard sometimes. We begin to value certain lives over others. Bigger numbers begin to justify horrible action. Either way I see it, war is war. Awful, terrible, disgusting shit will happen and it will destroy thousands if not millions of lives. Though I would hope nothing EVER has to justify another atomic bombing.[/QUOTE] the only time i can see atomic bombs being justified is like, if we were at war with aliens or some shit

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;41949876]a whole lot of words to again, justify nothing. don't waste your time man, nothing you can say could ever justify dropping atom bombs on people to me[/QUOTE] I think the whole damn war was unjustified, and the use of atomic bombs was a war crime (not that we knew in total about the effects- we were planning to put our own people in the radioactive rubble), but if you think the American cause was just, then you either need to look at taking the route that would case the least death, or the route that causes the most. The atomic bombs caused the least. ...except for the conditioned peace I discussed lightly and chum expounded on by correcting me that there was no attempt for peace by Japan. We could have went with that.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];41950612']I think the whole damn war was unjustified, and the use of atomic bombs was a war crime (not that we knew in total about the effects- we were planning to put our own people in the radioactive rubble), but if you think the American cause was just, then you either need to look at taking the route that would case the least death, or the route that causes the most. The atomic bombs caused the least.[/QUOTE] the war was justified. japan and nazi germany wanted to take over the whole world and do genocides on races they didn't like. war against them was fully justified because they were literally doing straight evil shit but that doesn't mean using nukes on everyday people is ever right

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;41950645]the war was justified. japan and nazi germany wanted to take over the whole world and do genocides on races they didn't like. war against them was fully justified because they were literally doing straight evil shit but that doesn't mean using nukes on everyday people is ever right[/QUOTE] Yea but the powers at the time cared little for that. We didn't really know in full the scale of the holocaust at the time and other nations in Europe were complacent in the expropriation and "export" of the Jews. As far as the Japanese actions, few Americans today even know about their atrocities. America and the Allies turned a blind eye when the Japanese massacred, raped, and tortured hundreds of thousands of Chinese. For 3-4 more years after, we were complacent in letting the most vile regime ever to come about do what it would to a race the American people cared little for. Only when we ourselves were attacked did we suddenly care. The biological and chemical weapons use? The torture sites where the Japanese did experimentation worse than most war crimes? We pardoned the majority of those involved and let them work with us. The eugenic and racist opinions of Hitler were generally smiled upon by Americans, as these ideas were widespread in upper American culture at the time as it was and had been for some time. Hitler, to most Americans, was seen to be a good thing with good goals. American business interests were all over the Nazi regime, because the Nazi corporate state was up and coming, there was much for Americans to invest in, and Hitler was willing to do business. Like the Japanese most of the German chemical and biological weapons researchers were safe after the war, many living in America with new identities working for NASA or the Army. We turned a blind eye to our "ally" the USSR when it raped its way from Moscow to Berlin, and then raped Berlin specifically after the war was done. Frequent rape occurred until 1947, well after the war ended and into the occupation phase, and even then with often only minor punishment if any at all. We ourselves firebombed French villages and made massive bombing raids against civilian targets in Germany, like Dresden and Hamburg. We obviously cared little for war crimes or the actions of nations in that area. As far as the evil of the atomic bomb, you have to realize two things: conventional bombing was more effective over time and more damaging- the firebombing of Tokyo killed more than either Hiroshima or Nagasaki (more than either one at highest death estimates, more than both combined at lowest). Similar results in Dresden. Fact of the matter is that conventional bombings are more destructive at that point. But the use of the atomic bomb to wipe out entire cities in a single bomb was the shock factor we needed. Then, there was the fact that we didn't fully understand the effects of the atomic bomb. Obviously we do today. The dropping of the bombs were as much a test as an actual attack for us. We had only ever dropped one bomb- Trinity- and we knew little about the full effects on real cities and people, and even less about radiation and such. We were still marching our troops into radioactive bomb sites in the 50s. Our ignorance isn't really an excuse but we still had little real understanding about the real effects of the bombs.

[QUOTE=Riller;41937237]He's kinda right in saying "Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the consequence of Japanese aggression". Very insensitive, but right. And I'm sure that the nukes actually spared a lot more lives than they took, in that a conventional invasion of the Japanese mainland would have killed towards millions of civilians.[/QUOTE] The bombs could have been used on a less populated place or military base than a city known to be of cultural significance to the Japanese.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;41937294]nothing justifies purposely dropping atomic weapons on purely civilian targets. and saying a conventional invasion would have caused less damage/death is pure conjecture, the other side of the conjecture is that japan was planning to surrender anyway[/QUOTE] whether or not it's conjecture, that conjecture changed the way World War II ended. go do some research and you'll find that all of Truman's advisors estimated a [i]minimun[/i] of 250,000 casualties on the japanese mainland. are you even aware of how the japanese fought? they used "total war" tactics and that included using its civilians to hide themselves. japan was not fucking planning to surrender at all. they were preparing for an all out war on their own soil [editline]24th August 2013[/editline] the soviets would have probably killed 400,000 on their side of japan during the initial invasion as well

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;41938244]military estimates done by the same military that wanted to drop the bombs to show how strong they are. you can't just say 'well we totally know more people would have died if we didn't drop the bombs' because you DON'T know that. there's no way of knowing it's done now. but no matter what there is no justification (in my mind at least) for use of atomic weapons on civilians (or anyone to be honest) [editline]23rd August 2013[/editline] i personally think it's more of a direct result of them siding with the nazi's and dividing the world between them and hitler[/QUOTE] I'd like to point out, that Fatman and Little Boy caused far less death and destruction than Curtis LeMay brought to the Japanese people with just napalm. Curtis LeMay made it his personal mission during the war to relandscape as much of Japan as possible to resemble the surface of the moon, while teaching the Japanese people the wondrous smell of barbecued human flesh. Remember that most buildings in Japan were still made mostly out of wood and rice paper. Also remember that Japan didn't have any solely military targets, because they were nestled in the middle of copious civilian populations. You couldn't bomb the Japanese military without also hitting the Japanese people. Folks always remember the nuclear weapons we dropped on Japan, but they forget how we brought tenfold the horror down on Japan with "conventional" weapons.