It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Did German and Japanese civilians deserve to be attacked with WMD during WW2?

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 09:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: CalibratedZeus
So German and Japanese civilians were the only ones targeted? Never in WW2 did either of those two countries kill civilians of other nations?

What history lesson is this you intend to impart upon us? Millions of civilians were murdered by both Germany and Japan, look at what the Japanese did to China alone. Do not try to impart the moral standards of today upon decisions made almost 80 years ago, the world was a MUCH different place and a MUCH different respect of life was still present around the world.

A long story short, WW2 was a terrible global loss of life, civilian and combatant alike. And one can only hope to never see anything on the same scale again.


a necessary evil? To fight evil. Right? One can certainly do more than hope. --You stand corrected on that.
edit on 8-9-2015 by InverseLookingGlass because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 09:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: introvert
Japanese? No.

Germans? Yes, but that issue is much more complex. The US supported and funded Germany through it's Justice department and many corporations because it was fighting against the communist Soviet Union.

When the Soviet Union proved to be too much to handle for the Germans and the Allied nations, America allied with the Soviets and decided to ride their coat tails to victory.


Hmmm.

US deliveries to the USSR




Yep. Thanks for the further validation.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 09:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
Japanese? No.

Germans? Yes, but that issue is much more complex. The US supported and funded Germany through it's Justice department and many corporations because it was fighting against the communist Soviet Union.

When the Soviet Union proved to be too much to handle for the Germans and the Allied nations, America allied with the Soviets and decided to ride their coat tails to victory.


This is not correct.....

The American "containment policy" towards communism only began after the war. It didn't factor into American involvement at all. The sale of arms to Germany was just capitalism at work.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 09:58 PM
link   
If I had been in Truman's shoes, I would have dropped the first nuke on an unpopulated area.
Let them see what we've got and give them a chance to surrender.
Dropping the atomic bomb on a densely populated area was an unnecessary and barbaric act in my opinion.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 09:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass

originally posted by: muSSang
It's a hard call, Japan would not surrender unconditionally, so a invasion plan was drawn up, this would of cost the allies more lives than the WMD's had taken.

I think the nukes were justified, remember if it wasn't nukes it was going to be bats armed with insidinary timered bombs. So in hindsight the WMD's actually saved lives.


I think you are on to something. The unwillingness to surrender is, in a sense, submitting to annihilation. It should be no surprise.


Totally agree, now asked any Vet from the pacific campaign, And they will say the exact same thing. Japan would risk total annihilation rather than surrender. It was a tough call by a rough man but it was a means to an end.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 10:00 PM
link   
a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

Who is derailing your thread? Answer the question I posed.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 10:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog



Uhhh. The Germans were doing just fine until the US joined the war and made it a viable 2 front war.


Not really. Even when the US entered the war and invaded Normandy, most of the German resources were directed to the Eastern Front to combat the Soviet forces that were pounding Germany with amazing force.

If it weren't for the Eastern Front, D-Day would have been a black mark on US history as a monumental fail.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 10:00 PM
link   
I just want to say that I am so disgusted every time I hear that same old casual justification for dropping the bomb in Japan. "It saved lives". "It had to be done". F that. Would that justification still be okay if it had been the U.S. that had the bomb dropped on New York to "save lives"? Only a psychopath could allow that reasoning. I am a U.S. citizen, by the way.
edit on 8-9-2015 by notquiteright because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 10:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass
If you are American, this is a call to action. It's more than a game...

If you possess (at least) rudimentary knowledge of history, please be heard.
Defend your countries history program. You might recall what you learned in school? That's the program.
Give it your best shot.
Careful, you might incriminate yourself.

Call in the thinkers... operatives and the evildoers... State your case.

Did German and Japanese civilians deserve to be intentionally targeted in WW2?

No, because if one says that targeting the civilians of an enemy is just, then that goes for all conflicts.

The US has committed great evil across the world, including many Cold War excesses that many people have a right to be angry at.

"Terrorists" justify targeting civilians for exactly the same reasons I am sure that we will see given by the apologists here in this thread, as well as those in the public.

If it is justified to decimate German or Japanese civilians because their governments are aggressive, or building empires, or killing lots of people, then it can be considered justified by others to target let's say random European or American civilians.

One can't have it both ways.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 10:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Talorc



The American "containment policy" towards communism only began after the war. It didn't factor into American involvement at all. The sale of arms to Germany was just capitalism at work.


Correct. "After the war".

But we helped Germany after all.

Glad you agree.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 10:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Q33323
a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

Of course not. Incidents, such as the incineration of Dresden, were barbaric.
But once the blood starts flowing, it isn't easy to stop.



Yet somehow the West manages to escape the label of "rogue regimes" or "terrorists." At least they do to they and their allies. I know some countries and people consider them so.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 10:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: skunkape23
If I had been in Truman's shoes, I would have dropped the first nuke on an unpopulated area.
Let them see what we've got and give them a chance to surrender.
Dropping the atomic bomb on a densely populated area was an unnecessary and barbaric act in my opinion.


Let me lay it out for you.
This enemy is dangerous. The most dangerous country in the world.... It's only a matter of time before we are attacked with the same weapon. tick tock...



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 10:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: muSSang
It's a hard call, Japan would not surrender unconditionally, so a invasion plan was drawn up, this would of cost the allies more lives than the WMD's had taken.

I think the nukes were justified, remember if it wasn't nukes it was going to be bats armed with insidinary timered bombs. So in hindsight the WMD's actually saved lives.


Hold on a second, the moment you justify killing innocent civilians as part of a bigger strategy or pressing needs, then you justify many terrorists and heinous acts. This is also the "end justifies the means" problem.

I can tell you right now that many terrorists think that they are fighting for a just cause. Often these people ARE fighting against a much stronger force, often one oppressing their people historically. Because they do not have forces capable of combatting the superior conventional force, they use unconventional force including terrorism.

Unless you are willing to concede that then everyone can use this justification, the logic or ethics fall short.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 10:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Gothmog



Uhhh. The Germans were doing just fine until the US joined the war and made it a viable 2 front war.


Not really. Even when the US entered the war and invaded Normandy, most of the German resources were directed to the Eastern Front to combat the Soviet forces that were pounding Germany with amazing force.

If it weren't for the Eastern Front, D-Day would have been a black mark on US history as a monumental fail.


Uhh, no .the Russians were already in bad positions by 1941. Read up on your history. Do not count on your history teachers or certain media. And when The US entered the war , it wasnt necessarily the invasion of Normandy. Did you know a lot of Russian military equipment was manufactured right here in the good ol US? Do you know the Russians still owe us billions for that ?
Please , no more inaccuracies .They wouldnt have held out without the equipment and loans of gold bullion from the US.
edit on 8-9-2015 by Gothmog because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 10:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: Q33323
a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

Of course not. Incidents, such as the incineration of Dresden, were barbaric.
But once the blood starts flowing, it isn't easy to stop.



Yet somehow the West manages to escape the label of "rogue regimes" or "terrorists." At least they do to they and their allies. I know some countries and people consider them so.


escape? No. Redefine the label.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 10:09 PM
link   
a reply to: notquiteright

If it wasn't dropped, you probably wouldn't be here to cry about the unjustification of it.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 10:10 PM
link   
Germany and Japan didn't mind killing innocent civilians so just mark that one up to karma.
edit on 8-9-2015 by Bluntone22 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 10:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Talorc



The American "containment policy" towards communism only began after the war. It didn't factor into American involvement at all. The sale of arms to Germany was just capitalism at work.


Correct. "After the war".

But we helped Germany after all.

Glad you agree.


I'm not sure what you're trying to imply. It seemed like you were saying the U.S. was selling things to Germany for the explicit purpose of opposing communism. But that just isn't the case.

Communism wasn't considered a global threat until a few years after the end of WWII. When the Chinese nationalists were defeated and Mao's party took power, that was when people really started to worry. Before that- Soviet communism was not seen as an existential threat.

You can find pictures of Roosevelt sitting with Chiang Kai-shek, back when the nationalists still ruled China in name. It was a big, scary shock to the U.S. when they were defeated, and that's when America started to worry that the "Soviet system" was taking root and spreading.
edit on 8-9-2015 by Talorc because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 10:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: CalibratedZeus
So German and Japanese civilians were the only ones targeted? Never in WW2 did either of those two countries kill civilians of other nations?

What history lesson is this you intend to impart upon us? Millions of civilians were murdered by both Germany and Japan, look at what the Japanese did to China alone. Do not try to impart the moral standards of today upon decisions made almost 80 years ago, the world was a MUCH different place and a MUCH different respect of life was still present around the world.

A long story short, WW2 was a terrible global loss of life, civilian and combatant alike. And one can only hope to never see anything on the same scale again.

The problem is, that we justify all kinds of military action now against "terrorists" for using the very same kinds of logic you guys are defending.

It is quite hypocritical to bomb the sh$t out of countless German and Japanese civilians and then go off about how democratic, free, and human rights loving we are a few years later..... And decry all people who target civilians, no matter what their cause or justification.

Can you not get that?



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 10:13 PM
link   
Even after both bombs were dropped on Japan the Emperor who was going to surrender faced a military coup an narrowly escaped because the military wanted to keep fighting until every last man woman and child died.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join