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: 7
7
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 07:55 PM
link   
As someone pointed out, then why was Tokyo firebombed (and Dresden)?

And again, nobody here is answering my critical question: why do we as the West then get to continue to justify our current wars against "terrorists," because they target civilians?




posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 07:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

Its called collateral damage...and is part of war. Whats not to understand? No one deserves to die that way....but it's what it is. Sooooo.....


So then there are no such things as terrorists right? Because dead civilians are part of war?
edit on 9-9-2015 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 08:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
Cracks me up how this generation thinks war has rules, using words like "deserve". The last war we won was because of nukes. All the other wars since then have ended after decades of blood and agreeing to end it. Something that could have been done before a war.


This is partly because of the modern hypocrisy talking about rogue regimes targeting civilians OR terrorists targeting civilians, which we often use to justify us having our way with such entities.

Do you not see the hypocrisy there?

The West is ALWAYS talking about "rules" when others are being judged.



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 05:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14


As someone pointed out, then why was Tokyo firebombed (and Dresden)?

And again, nobody here is answering my critical question: why do we as the West then get to continue to justify our current wars against "terrorists," because they target civilians?


Because your premise if a false equivalence.

They are not the same thing period

And you are being idiotic by trying to compare the two.

That is why we are all ignoring you

You position is absurd and illinformed



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 05:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: InverseLookingGlass


I am familiar with Nagasaki and Hiroshima, but when and what WMD's were German civilians hit with?


Nighttime strategic bombing by Britain.
After the first load of bombs were accidentally dropped on London by a lost German bomber crew the RAF were ordered to hit Berlin in retaliation. The RAF continued bombing German cities at night while the US 8th Air Force dropped their bombs over Germany by day hitting military targets. The British aim was to break the will of the German people to fight.
edit on 10-9-2015 by Asktheanimals because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-9-2015 by Asktheanimals because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 05:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
After the first load of bombs were accidentally dropped on London by a German bomber crew the RAF were ordered to hit Berlin in retaliation.


Before that Poland, France, Norway, Holland, and Belgium cities were bombed by the Germans.



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 05:47 AM
link   
I sometimes wonder if these sorts of arguments are the result of some perverted wish that the Axis powers had won WWII.

An example of the difference between two cultures

POW deaths in British custody were 0.03%

POW deaths in German custody were 30.5% Taking away the Russian POW's leaves 3.4%

POW deaths in Japanese custody were 28.9% A mean of US and British/Commonwealth.

Source

The above alone illustrates the horrors that our forces were fighting against. Anything that shortened the war was justified.
edit on 12pThu, 10 Sep 2015 06:10:12 -050020152015-09-10T06:10:12-05:00kAmerica/Chicago30000000k by SprocketUK because: Daily sex....I mean Dyslexia



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 05:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: SprocketUK
I sometimes wonder if these sorts of arguments are the result of some perverted wish that the Axis powers had won WWII.


A very good statement, also history revisionism is very strong in some people!



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 05:55 AM
link   
Point of information: WMD or "Weapons of Mass Destruction" is a rhetorical phrase used by George W Bush to justify his unprovoked attack on Iraq. It is an extremely vague phrase chosen to elicit an irrational reaction. Gasoline, spread over a large area, is a weapon of mass destruction. Opening gaps in dykes and flooding the land is a weapon of mass destruction. WMD is a meaningless phrase.

The current term of art for weapons that inflict high casualties, especially among the civilian population is CBN: Chemical, Biological, and Nuclear. These are banned by specific treaties, but most nations keep one or more in reserve.

The term used during the Second World War for weapons designed to break the will of the civilian populace was "terror weapons." The German rockets were terror weapons, as they had no real tactical use.

Some members here are trying to create an equivalence between intentional use of weapons against civilians and the accidental civilian casualties that are inevitable in wartime. The former is terror, the latter collateral damage. The first is now considered a crime, although it was not during World War Two. There was no concept of "war crimes" until the Allies decided to punish the Germans and Japanese for their use of terror. (And yes, that was hypocritical.)

The Geneva Conventions only apply to uniformed soldiers. They also applied to non-combatants like medics and journalists, but not to civilians. If a civilian took up arms he was considered a "partisan" and could be killed.



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 05:56 AM
link   
a reply to: InverseLookingGlass did British citizens deserve to be targeted during the blitz, innocent men women and children? War is ugly business and should be avoided at all costs. Horrible things happen during wars.



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply tao: Quetzalcoatl14

Of course there are terrorists. OF COURSE dead civilians are a part of war...it's used as leverage...

Example: Drop a nuke on Japan...kill hundreds of thousands at once.
US-"Ok. NOW are you gonna surrender? No?" BOOM. Drop 2nd bomb, kill another hundreds of thousands of Japanese.
US-"How about now? We got a lot of these nukes and if you don't we will keep killing your people until there are none left."
Japan-"Ok, ok...just don't blow up another city. We give up!"

War is never directly army against army. We dont seek out just soldiers and tanks-locations to bomb or invade. They intermingle with the population, we bomb them all-just collateral damage in wartime.

Germany bombed entire English cities. The Allies bombed entire German cities.

In the Bible, many times armies were told to go into a city and destroy every living thing, animals, man woman and child...until nothing remained.

But to the original question...of course no one deserves to die..but its how its played out. You kill us, we kill you. You destroy cities, we destroy cities...and we each keep at it until one of us gives up.

Collateral damage...innocents killed in the name of war. Right? No. Deserve it? Of course not. How it is? Absolutely.

Its "WAR".



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: johnwick

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14


As someone pointed out, then why was Tokyo firebombed (and Dresden)?

And again, nobody here is answering my critical question: why do we as the West then get to continue to justify our current wars against "terrorists," because they target civilians?


Because your premise if a false equivalence.

They are not the same thing period

And you are being idiotic by trying to compare the two.

That is why we are all ignoring you

You position is absurd and illinformed


You provide no actual intelligent response nor an explanation why the two are different, possibly supporting my view you guys haven't really thought this through. Instead, your post is an ad hominem attack and vague dismissal.

No your response shows all that is wrong and absurd about the west and your average armchair philosopher. People like you show an astounding hypocrisy and complete lack of perspective, buying into false dichotomies of the virtuous and justified west versus those evil enemies who target civilians.

The fact you think that it's okay for our side to kill countless civilians but if an enemy does it it's terrorism shows a serious lack of moral, ethical, and intellectual objectivity and depth.

You sir, are the absurd one.
edit on 10-9-2015 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply tao: Quetzalcoatl14

Of course there are terrorists. OF COURSE dead civilians are a part of war...it's used as leverage...

Example: Drop a nuke on Japan...kill hundreds of thousands at once.
US-"Ok. NOW are you gonna surrender? No?" BOOM. Drop 2nd bomb, kill another hundreds of thousands of Japanese.
US-"How about now? We got a lot of these nukes and if you don't we will keep killing your people until there are none left."
Japan-"Ok, ok...just don't blow up another city. We give up!"

War is never directly army against army. We dont seek out just soldiers and tanks-locations to bomb or invade. They intermingle with the population, we bomb them all-just collateral damage in wartime.

Germany bombed entire English cities. The Allies bombed entire German cities.

In the Bible, many times armies were told to go into a city and destroy every living thing, animals, man woman and child...until nothing remained.

But to the original question...of course no one deserves to die..but its how its played out. You kill us, we kill you. You destroy cities, we destroy cities...and we each keep at it until one of us gives up.

Collateral damage...innocents killed in the name of war. Right? No. Deserve it? Of course not. How it is? Absolutely.

Its "WAR".
So then both sides "terrorize" and all the hyperbole about the War on Terror is laughable?



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 06:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14
I will give you a few reason and not in any order Iran Hostage, Somalia, bombing of world trade center ( both times), Kolbart towers, USS Cole, Somalia pirates, and the list can go on and on, If I were a beating man that if I came into your home and Harassed you and your family you would fight back.



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 06:24 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.


Uh No because D-day would not have happened. They would have just kept bombing. The USA could continue the war long after anyone else. The USA seen the geo-political writing on the wall with communism threatening to break out in many places around the world, western europe and Japan are beachheads for the eurasia so they needed to become US vassal states in order to prevent communist geo-political domination worldwide. This could justify civilian bombings in order to save much greater worldwide suffering under soviet lead communism.

It's possible germany loses to ussr 1v1. Hitler was a very irrational man and in a long war germany who was already low on manpower would have simply ran out available males to fight. ussr marches to berlin by themselves, makes germany a soviet republic, installs communism in all western european countries. All of europe becomes a horrid place till the nonexistent berlin wall falls.

In Long game of the Grand Chessboard civilian casualties justified.



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 06:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
After the first load of bombs were accidentally dropped on London by a German bomber crew the RAF were ordered to hit Berlin in retaliation.


Before that Poland, France, Norway, Holland, and Belgium cities were bombed by the Germans.


How many of those countries bombed Germany ?
The Czechs didn't either.



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 07:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: 19KTankCommander
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14
I will give you a few reason and not in any order Iran Hostage, Somalia, bombing of world trade center ( both times), Kolbart towers, USS Cole, Somalia pirates, and the list can go on and on, If I were a beating man that if I came into your home and Harassed you and your family you would fight back.



This does not answer in any way, shape, or form, why it is okay for the West to target civilians but not okay for non-allies to target civilians..

Also, you neglect to mention that the West and a few other powers (Russia, China) have been stomping on and dominating the peoples of all of the places from which those terrorists came from.

In many of those examples, those people would argue that the the US was the person coming into their home and that "they and their family were fighting back." For example, the West has been manipulating and regime changing Iran since the 1950's, not the other way around.

So then, do they have the right to target not only the soldiers in question but also civilians, because they are under severe threat and attack by the West, or is that right only afforded to the West and our side, as in everyone on heres justifications for the nuclear bombings of Japan?

I'm STILL waiting for an actual answer to this question from a single person on this thread. It appears that no one has one.
edit on 10-9-2015 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-9-2015 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

We look at this with today's eyes and today's values, and without the hate that was instilled in us in those times.
What we did to the Japanese Americans living in Hawaii back then was representative of our lack of human understanding, and it was the writing on the wall as to how the Japanese civilian population would be treated later on. We were collectively convinced into hating them all, which is the mindset that allowed women and children to be burned alive.

It can never be un-done, and we have to live with that forever. I think we learned, but at a terrible cost. I was always convinced that there would have been other alternatives back then that would have both protected our soldiers, and at the same time, innocent civilians. However... we had the mother of all bombs, and the PTB at the time was hell bent on using it.
edit on 10-9-2015 by charlyv because: spelling , where caught



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 09:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: charlyv
I was always convinced that there would have been other alternatives back then that would have both protected our soldiers, and at the same time, innocent civilians.


Yes, the allies could have just surrendered to the poor, innocent Japanese!

Which obviously is what some people wanted to happen!
edit on 10-9-2015 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2015 @ 10:33 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

I don't see it that way. Surrender was certainly not as option, an we were kicking their butt before this occurred.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join