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: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Back on topic. People in office face difficult choices from time to time. Choices that any one of us would not want to make, ever. I guess my question on the original topic , for all the armchair QBs on here, what would you have done ?

My opinion , no , no one deserves that . Was it the lesser of the evils ? Probably.
edit on 8-9-2015 by Gothmog because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 10:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I never said that it makes it right. But for the time, for the mindset, for the period, it was right for them.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 10:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Well myself having a grandmother with two sons in Europe and my wife having a grandfather in the pacific, I might have a unique perspective. I can pretty much guarantee that both of them living during that time would have pulled the trigger on any weapon if they thought it would end the war. Right or wrong doesn't really make much difference.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 10:54 PM
link   
I'm going to answer a question with another question;

If they hadn't firebombed Dresden and Nuked Japan, how much longer would the war have lasted, and how many casualties on all sides would have piled up?

The original question is moot, because we cannot change the outcome. It happened. The world was in a terrible war that was dragging on and on. Those events were pivotal in ending it fair or not.

ETA, just as an FYI, I just looked up approximately how many people are dying every day from war. The stats are old, but an estimated 378,000 per year was a number I saw - that's more than 1,000 lives ended with guns, bombs and hatred every single day of the year.

abcnews.go.com...
edit on 8-9-2015 by markosity1973 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 10:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I never said that it makes it right. But for the time, for the mindset, for the period, it was right for them.


Right for whom? Was it right for those women?

A thousand examples abound. It's basically privileging the powerful of a given time, but neglecting the fact that very real people really suffered or died.

It's like saying that "it was right for the Catholic Church" to wipe out the Cathars because of their own bigotry combined with power at the time, "that for the time, for the mindset, for the period, it was right for them."

I think that it is a very dangerous line of thinking.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 11:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Well myself having a grandmother with two sons in Europe and my wife having a grandfather in the pacific, I might have a unique perspective. I can pretty much guarantee that both of them living during that time would have pulled the trigger on any weapon if they thought it would end the war. Right or wrong doesn't really make much difference.


Okay, but then you have to grant that to people facing powerful forces now. Do you justify it when someone in Iraq targeted US soldiers? Or when Al Queda blew up the towers (just for the sake of argument let's say the OS 911 is true)? Because many on their side say the same thing you are saying.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 11:05 PM
link   
What the hell kind of question is that? I can't believe anybody would even ask a question like that.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 11:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14


Was al queda justified in killing 3000 civilians? I say no.
Civilians die in wars, always have. That's the unfortunate truth of war.
That doesnt make it any more pleasant.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 11:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14


Was al queda justified in killing 3000 civilians? I say no.
Civilians die in wars, always have. That's the unfortunate truth of war.
That doesnt make it any more pleasant.


I agree that they were not, but do not see Al Queda's acts as qualitatively more evil than what the West did in such wars.

See, I condemn both for such tactics.
edit on 8-9-2015 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-9-2015 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 11:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
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.


Funny how the apologists for Germany and Japan/USA bashers always like to totally ignore that fact!



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 11:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Grimpachi
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.


Funny how the apologists for Germany and Japan/USA bashers always like to totally ignore that fact!



They also forget that Russia was ready to invade Japan from the north and split Japan just like Germany.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 11:26 PM
link   
A lot comes from technology or lack of. There were no smart bombs, GPS etc so the navigator picked the highest point with primitive navigation tools and let the bombs rain down taking out not just the target but everything around it. The fire bombing of Japan were worst than the nukes so I guess it is just a word (nukes) that we demonized while other tactics were much worst in nature.

V2 rockets from Germany was about the best example of just pure terrorizing with no military objective....

Kind of hard to put 2015 goggles on and comment on WWII where maybe putting 1942 goggles on things would look much different...


edit on 8-9-2015 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 11:34 PM
link   
On a side note...

Winning WWII brought a lot of good to Japan in the long run... Women suffrage to name one, and how successful both countries became after WWII was due to direct influence of America on how they entered a new era of after the war to become the countries they are today. I spent 5 years in Tokyo and the older people do not look at Americans as evil westerners, they see us as saviors of a horrid system.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 11:50 PM
link   
Why did they drop 2 bombs on Japan.



Because they didn't have more.




It is a horrible joke now, but it wasn't that long ago it was considered as truth and funny.

Perspective changes with time.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 12:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass

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...
I do understand your line of thinking.
That may have been one of the biggest decisions that any one man ever had to make.
Japan didn't know we only had two of them at the time.
I would have fired a stern warning blast, and then tell them are a thousand more where that came from.
Sign the treaty or else we will sink your tiny island.
It saddens me deeply that so many innocents had to die.

edit on 9-9-2015 by skunkape23 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 12:14 AM
link   
The peoples of Germany and Japan did not deserve to have Leaders of Mass Destruction, but they were conditioned to love having them and waged war under oaths of loyalty to them. They got what they deserved in the end, total annihilation of their societies.

Todays mamby pamby Politically Correct way of looking at things is totally disconnected from all out World War that was waged then. It is doubtful todays peoples would have the fortitude to stomach it and prevail, they would rather get marched off to the death camps in disbelief after believing a series of feel good treaties and other phony pieces of paper they would place all of their faith in after disarming and giving everything away.

Just hope you die of natural causes before the liberals surrender the Free World.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 12:15 AM
link   
Did they deserve to be bombed?

No, they didn't.

Could it be avoided? That's a question that's a bit harder to answer.

Technology of the day didn't allow for much in the way of precision. That's why you had 1000 bomber, or more, raids by the USAAF, and Bomber Command. Many of those civilians were considered to be part of the infrastructure. Workers, skilled and otherwise were considered legit targets. Rightly or wrongly, it's what it was.

As the technology has changed, so to, to a degree, has the attitude towards targeting civilians. In war, there are few rules, civilians have always been targets of opportunity, WWII was hardly unique in this, save in numbers.

Now then, let me add to the question... Did the British deserve to be bombed during the Blitz?



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 12:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

I suppose they mean the firebombing of Dresden.

That would also imply the firebombing of Tokyo were also WMD.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 12:18 AM
link   
a reply to: seagull

USING ICBMs as well?
Drones and civilian targets usually.
We bombed to wreack their industry,war is a nasty buisness,if you want to win YOU WILL compromise your values to beat an enemy who is worse.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 12:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: seagull

USING ICBMs as well?
Drones and civilian targets usually.
We bombed to wreack their industry,war is a nasty buisness,if you want to win YOU WILL compromise your values to beat an enemy who is worse.

I know this to be a fact.
It is, nevertheless, appalling.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join