NEWS: Hiroshima group plans peoples tribunal over US atomic bombings

Originally posted by just_a_pilot
If Japan had nukes at the time they would have used them.

And being that you were Emperor of Japan at that time, I clearly understand how you came to that assumption.

Originally posted by Reverie

Originally posted by just_a_pilot
If Japan had nukes at the time they would have used them.

And being that you were Emperor of Japan at that time, I clearly understand how you came to that assumption.

Well that about says it all. You don't start a fight to loose. If you pick a fight with me, I am not going to worry about whats fair. I am going to use what I have so that I win the war and not just the battle.


[edit on 12/6/2004 by just_a_pilot]

After staring blankly at my screen for a few seconds, I think I understand what you're trying to say.

But my point is, you are were not the Emperor of Japan, you ARE not the Emperor of Japan, you are most likely not a expert on Japanese thinking and history, and you're probably not even Japanese. Therefore you can not tell us what the Japanese would or would not have done if they had possession of nuclear weapons.

This story amazes me to know end.

It is down right pure stupidity on their part, makes one wonder if they have brains. No I am not talking about all Japanesse just the fanatics that are putting on this mock trial.

I wonder if they will have defense lawers at this joke of a trial stating that it was a known fact that Japan was also working on an atomic bomb?

Do you think for one minute if they had one first and the ability to deliver one, they would not have used it. No of course not.

Let us not forget the US captured a German U boat enroute to Japan with their plans and some materials to help them make a bomb. I bet we will never hear about that either.

I stand corrected. I should have said that the Japanese 'probably' or at least would have considered using nukes if they could have.

Would they have? Of course.


[edit on 12/6/2004 by just_a_pilot]

I found this... check it out.

www.thenausea.com...

Originally posted by marg6043
Not, used of the nuclear bomb was not justify, US was doing an experiment and Japan happend to be an agressor.
Plain and simple, the results of those two bombs was beyond US dreams at the time.

As a student of the Manhattan Project marg, I totally disagree (im debating to do my Masters in History Thesis on it) They knew the bombs would work. The Trinity test proved that and had a good idea about the yeaild and power of the bombs.

People loose sight some 50-60 years from the events. The bottom line is that to take Japan would have involved one of 2 unsavory options: A blockade to starve them to death, or an all out bloody assult island by island. People forget that LeMay's bombers killed more that the atomic bombs did. Would have firebombing every city to the ground made everybody feel better. Before you all break out the morality stick, it was an accepted practice of the time frame.

Thats why I love revisonist historians. You try to fit world events into you narrow moral view totaly ignoring the facts and realities of the time you are talking about.



[edit on 12/6/04 by FredT]

How about we make a lawsuit against them for starting the fight and for attacking us in Pearl Harbor while claiming they wanted to have peace?

As for the question of wether or not the Japanese would have used atomic bombs if they have them...let's think it through....

The Japanese attacked us stealthily while still playing politics and making us think they wanted peace.... Let me repeat it again in case anyone forgot already.....they were talking, and making us think they wanted peace while they prepared for the attack against the U.S.....

Back then the Japanese military was full of suicide bombers who supposedly were bound by honor, but followed the orders of their commanders to use a stealthy, "unhonorable" attack on another country....

If the Japanese, who were supposedly "honorable" used a stealthy tactic and attacked us while claiming to want to achieve peace, would they have used anything in their arsenal to attack us?.....

Well, what military equipment did they have back then that they didn't use on the attack?

interesting and factual article, ...
i don't think anyone here is saying that the bomb was dropped to save millions of lives...
it did save thousands to hundreds of thousands of our American lives...
and that is the point of war, to make the other die for his cause, instead of us dying for ours...
I am not in the military, nor do i want to be. I do not support the war in Iraq... like so many would have assumed. I do not believe the propaganda our nation uses all too often. I have studied in depth the actual accounts of Einstein and others that were involved in the decision.
IMO It was a mistake in hindsight to use the bomb, but we were totally justified in doing so at the time. Pearl Harbor was an attack without declaration of war, and was so merciless, and so cruel in it's action, that the japanese were seen as predatory animals that were willing to eat their own babies to win the war. Our goverment was afraid of how much it would take to beat them... our leaders actually did think they would have to kill every last one to stop the war... surrender wasn't yet a possibility. So in essence, we can understand that this seen as an ideal solution to the possibility of an extended and bloody war for both sides.

so yes, when Bush and others say it saved millions... they are exagerating wildly, but it was initially done to "save" lives... and it did save americans lives... we weren't so worried about the "crazy suicidal japenese" of the time. We didn't understand that just because a government sends thousands of it's own people off to be human guided bombs, that they still loved thier children too.

Originally posted by Muaddib
How about we make a lawsuit against them for starting the fight and for attacking us in Pearl Harbor while claiming they wanted to have peace?

Or the Bataam death march, or the human experiments etc etc.

Can we sure for that no. Japan while too far behind had bomb ambitions of thier own as did nazi Germany. Had either developed the bomb, they no doubt would have used it.

As the previos poster said, the US was thinking baout its casulties and why not? The savings of Japanes lives were not part of the decision, but they were spared none the less.

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
interesting and factual article, ...
i don't think anyone here is saying that the bomb was dropped to save millions of lives...
it did save thousands to hundreds of thousands of our American lives...
and that is the point of war, to make the other die for his cause, instead of us dying for ours...
I am not in the military, nor do i want to be. I do not support the war in Iraq... like so many would have assumed. I do not believe the propaganda our nation uses all too often. I have studied in depth the actual accounts of Einstein and others that were involved in the decision.
IMO It was a mistake in hindsight to use the bomb, but we were totally justified in doing so at the time. Pearl Harbor was an attack without declaration of war, and was so merciless, and so cruel in it's action, that the japanese were seen as predatory animals that were willing to eat their own babies to win the war. Our goverment was afraid of how much it would take to beat them... our leaders actually did think they would have to kill every last one to stop the war... surrender wasn't yet a possibility. So in essence, we can understand that this seen as an ideal solution to the possibility of an extended and bloody war for both sides.

so yes, when Bush and others say it saved millions... they are exagerating wildly, but it was initially done to "save" lives... and it did save americans lives... we weren't so worried about the "crazy suicidal japenese" of the time. We didn't understand that just because a government sends thousands of it's own people off to be human guided bombs, that they still loved thier children too.

"Our" government was not afraid of anything let alone how much it would take to beat 'them'. A war, and thousands of AMERICAN lives saved because of two bombs. Don't strike if you do not like the possible outcome.

Japan had been trying to surrender, the US wouldn't listen. Russia, since Germany was beat, was getting ready to concentrate on the Pacific. People who think the A-bomb was necessary are the same ones who believe stuff like "Columbus discovered America". Popular history does not represent accurate history.

"Japan was at the moment seeking some way to surrender with minimum loss of 'face'� It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."
-General Dwight D. Eisenhower


"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 already defeated and ready to surrender� My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was taught not to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying woman and children."
-Admiral William D. Leahy
Former Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Nuclear Files

Apparently, some of this board feel they have a better grasp on the subject than General Eisenhower.



[edit on 6-12-2004 by curme]

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by Muaddib
How about we make a lawsuit against them for starting the fight and for attacking us in Pearl Harbor while claiming they wanted to have peace?

Or the Bataam death march, or the human experiments etc etc.

Can we sure for that no. Japan while too far behind had bomb ambitions of thier own as did nazi Germany. Had either developed the bomb, they no doubt would have used it.

As the previos poster said, the US was thinking baout its casulties and why not? The savings of Japanes lives were not part of the decision, but they were spared none the less.

I am not sure anyone could take Japan to trial for their war crimes and win.

They never signed the original Geneva convention. I have seen some claim they stated they would abide by the rules of the Geneva convention, however that was after the start of the war in 42 or 43 and not in writing as I understand, not sure to be honest. Just my two cents.

And quotes may be taken out of context and twisted to support your need at the time. Fat Man and Little Boy ended the atrocity started by Japan striking Pearl Harbor.

Don't hit with an open hand if you don't want brass knuckles back. There is no 'fair' fight, especially if you start the battle.



[edit on 12/6/2004 by just_a_pilot]

do they not realize, after 60 years, that MORE JAPANESE would have died if the bombs werent dropped? soldiers never surrendering, suicide attacks, countless taking their own lives rather be captured (women and children included) and around 2 million american boys. this is, obviously, absurd. they know this and should jsut let up.

Originally posted by just_a_pilot
And quotes may be taken out of context and twisted to support your need at the time. Fat Man and Little Boy ended the atrocity started by Japan striking Pearl Harbor.

And what do those quotes from Eisenhower and Leahy mean originally then??? If I might ask?

For those who are too shy to admit they don't know as much as they first thought, the Japanese had been trying to surrender for a while. They had conditions, the main one being, they wanted to keep their Emperor in place. The US wanted an unconditional surrender. That's all the US had to do was negotiate, and then the war would have been over. No more innocent deaths, but like the Treaty of Versailles in the previous world war, that's not where the money is.

Originally posted by Amorymeltzer
do they not realize, after 60 years, that MORE JAPANESE would have died if the bombs werent dropped? soldiers never surrendering, suicide attacks, countless taking their own lives rather be captured (women and children included) and around 2 million american boys. this is, obviously, absurd. they know this and should jsut let up.

Several have tried and tried again over the years to explain it to them, but they refuse to get it. Go figure.! But let us not forget they also were working on the bomb and had they dropped one first they would just be saying oh well such is war.

Originally posted by curme
Japan had been trying to surrender, the US wouldn't listen. Russia, since Germany was beat, was getting ready to concentrate on the Pacific. People who think the A-bomb was necessary are the same ones who believe stuff like "Columbus discovered America". Popular history does not represent accurate history.

"Japan was at the moment seeking some way to surrender with minimum loss of 'face'� It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."
-General Dwight D. Eisenhower


"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 already defeated and ready to surrender� My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was taught not to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying woman and children."
-Admiral William D. Leahy
Former Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Nuclear Files

Apparently, some of this board feel they have a better grasp on the subject than General Eisenhower.



[edit on 6-12-2004 by curme]

The facts speak for themselves. There were members of the Japanese Army and or Navy that tried to stop the Emperor from surrendering that is fact not fiction. Many would have fought to the death that is also a fact.

Some even fought for 20 years after the war ended on remote islands. Why, because they were not aware that Japan had surendered..

I might as well post this link again...

www.thenausea.com...