USA - WW2 War crimes never addressed and held accountable!

page: 2
21
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by BigTimeCheater
 


i think the main word here is surrender. conditional surrenders happen quite regularly in wars and it would have saved thousands of lives, do you think these lives had any value or do you just think they were neccesary casualties just for a show of strength.




posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Havick007
Hello ATS,

Yes so first of all i will admit and understand this is a touchy subject for both people of the US and Japan. However, to get straight to the point. Although Japan was the first to break the rules of engagment with the sneaky and blatant attack on Pearl harbour.......



A long long time ago Japan had a Civil War and their Samurai fought vicious battles killing each other. After they were done they executed all foreigners and closed Japan off to the outside world.

The US Navy rolled in and told them to open up to Trade or the US Navy would bomb Japan into the sea.

THAT'S what forced the Japanese to modernize from a rural society and they grew and Traded with the United States. They started to spread around the Pacific using OUR same tactic to get other people to Trade with them.

Then WE stopped trading with them and cut Japan off. They couldn't get Crude Oil from us anymore.

So THEY used OUR same tactic and said either WE open up to Trade or THEY would bomb us into the sea.
We refused to trade with them and evacuated all military dependents from Guam leaving only a skeleton crew there. We thought they would only take Guam. Well they bombed Pearl Harbor.

Did Japan have a right to bomb Pearl Harbor? You Betcha.

But it was a heckuva political action to get America out of Isolationism and into fighting a global war wasn't it?

One day the Samurai will get us back for what we did to them. They will never, ever, ever, ever forgive us for what we did...and continue to do to them.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Havick007

This organisation in there own eyes is a type of para-military and yes they acted in the wrong way and did a bad thing against it's own race, they killed innocent people that did not fight wars or agress against a foriegn nation. They were going to work, doing an average days work as per we do today. Now lets go back to Hiroshima, put yourself in that exact position during WW2, in the midst of a war that your government had started and got involved with, yet at the same going about things normally, then suddenly a bomb drops on you, not just any bomb but the worlds most devastating weapon.

Yes we won the war, the allied nations. But AT WHAT COST! Was there a better way this could have been handled?


Would it have been better to drop 5000 coventional bombs on Hiroshima rather than one large bomb?

Do you have any idea how many regular folks japan killed in China and other places? Not to mention Japans connection with the nazis who really started this war on civilans buriing WWII.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by lewman
 


I'm just they had value to their loved ones, but were they valuable to you or me? Of course not.

Just like my life and yours wont be valuable to the next generation.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 


iraqi people have been oppressed, tortured and killed by us,uk and israeli forces so by some peoples reasoning here, all 3 nations should get nuked so we dont have to get invaded.
its utter crap.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigTimeCheater
reply to post by lewman
 

I'm just they had value to their loved ones, but were they valuable to you or me? Of course not.

I respect your right to an opinion but don't label others with it. It is part of my philiosophical belief system that all people are equally valuable to me regardless of who they are and what they may have done.

This may sound like a strange concept but to unconditionally love everyone is the only path to a universal and sustained peace in my opinion.

The dropping of nukes on Japan was a calculated strategy in order to save the lives of Allied soldiers by destroying two civillian targets. This was not a war crime at the time but it would be if done now. This does not mean it was not a crime against humanity which I would say it was.
edit on 27-12-2010 by shakennotstirred because: correction



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANNED
At the time it was not a war crime to use nuclear weapons.

And the list of war crimes that japan had committed could not be listed in this thread as it would be way to long.

Ask any WW2 veteran that fought in the pacific what they think about bombing the Japanese with nuclear weapons


Like this for example?

en.wikipedia.org...


The Bataan Death March (also known as The Death March of Bataan) took place in the Philippines in 1942 and was later accounted as a Japanese war crime. The 60 mi (97 km) march occurred after the three-month Battle of Bataan, part of the Battle of the Philipines (1941–42), during World War II. In Japanese, it is known as Batān Shi no Kōshin (バターン死の行進?), with the same meaning. The "march", or forcible transfer of 75,000 American and Filipino prisoners of war,[1] was characterized by wide-ranging physical abuse and murder, and resulted in very high fatalities inflicted upon prisoners and civilians alike by the armed forces of the Empire of Japan.[2] Beheading, throat-cutting, and shooting were common causes of death, in addition to death by bayonet, rape, disembowelment, rifle-butt beating, and deliberate starvation or dehydration on the week-long continual march in the tropical heat.[citation needed] Falling down or inability to continue moving was tantamount to a death sentence, as was any degree of protest. Route of the death march. Section from San Fernando to Capas was by rail. The treatment of the American prisoners was characterized by its dehumanization, as the Imperial soldiery "felt they were dealing with subhumans and animals."[3] Prisoners were attacked for assisting someone falling due to weakness[citation needed], or for no reason whatsoever. Trucks were known to drive over those who fell or succumbed to fatigue,[4] and "cleanup crews" put to death those too weak to continue. Marchers were harassed with random bayonet stabs and beatings.[5] Accounts of being forcibly marched for five to six days with no food and a single sip of water are in postwar archives including filmed reports.[6] [hide] v • d • e Philippines Campaign (1941–1942) Bataan – Death march – Corregidor – Mindanao The exact death count is impossible to determine, but some historians have placed the minimum death toll between 6,000 and 11,000 men; other postwar Allied reports have tabulated that only 54,000 of the 72,000 prisoners reached their destination — taken together, the figures document a rate of death from one in four up to two in seven of those on the death march. The number of deaths that took place in the internment camps from the delayed effects of the march is considerably more



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Havick007
 


Havick,
You are from Australia? You should do a little history of what the Japanese were doing to your Australian Navy and the islands leading from Japan all the way to the doorstep of Australia. Be held accountable? Are you crazy. We either were going to invade Japan, who refused to give up, just look at Pelilu, Solomon Islands, and any other no name island where the Japanese were camping refusing to give up, killing themselves before they surrendered. So needless to say if we invaded Japan, we would have had over a million plus casualties. So the dropping of the Atomic bombs was nothing compared to the devastation that would have taken place had we invaded mainland Japan. Secondly, we were nice Americans. We didn't drop it on Tokyo, or another large town. So please, stop with your US bashing rhetoric it is enough. Didn't the Prez of Australia just take a stand against Muslims and all nationalities in Australia. I don't know, I think I just remember hearing that. Who cares that was decades ago and they deserved every ounce of radiation that they got.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by CommandantLassard
 


Dont you think i know about Australian History and WW2? of course i do, that was not the point i was trying to raise.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by BigTimeCheater
 


Do you have proof of that, and which lives? Military or civilian?



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Lets see how Japan got to the point where Atomic bombs were used against them

China Estimated 7,000,000 civilans murdered low estimate, 16,000,000 high estimate

Dutch East Indies 3,030,000 civilians murdered low estimate, 4,030,000 high estimate

French Indo China 1,000,000 civilians murdered low estimate, 1,500,000 high estimate

India 1,500,000 civilians murdered low estimate, 2,500,000 high estimate

Philippines 500,000 civilians murdered low estimate, 1,000,000 and consider that these people are American citizens at the time

these are just the major instances of Japanese atrocities

Japan lost 580,000 civilians from 1933-1945 ,70,000 died in Hiroshima from the intitial blast, 40,000 died in Nagasaki from the intitial blast, high estimates for casualties from radiation and other causes from both bombs combined range from 90,000 to 166,000 including lack of medical services.


Everytime this evil Americans dropped atomic bombs thread comes up, which seems to be on a quarterly basis at a minumum, we seem to forget how japan got itself in the position they were in

Allied civilians killed by Japan low estimate in the 5 areas I have named above low estimate 13,030,000 and the high estimate 26,030,000.

Even with the atomic bombs the allies killed 580,000 Japanese civilians from 1933-1945


Projected American casuaties for Operation Downfall (the invasion of japan) From Wikipedia

Estimated casualties
Because the U.S. military planners assumed "that operations in this area will be opposed not only by the available organized military forces of the Empire, but also by a fanatically hostile population",[11] high casualties were thought to be inevitable, but nobody knew with certainty how high. Several people made estimates, but they varied widely in numbers, assumptions, and purposes—which included advocating for and against the invasion. Afterwards, they were reused in the debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Casualty estimates were based on the experience of the preceding campaigns, drawing different lessons:

In a study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April, the figures of 7.45 casualties/1,000 man-days and 1.78 fatalities/1,000 man-days were developed. This implied that a 90-day Olympic campaign would cost 456,000 casualties, including 109,000 dead or missing. If Coronet took another 90 days, the combined cost would be 1,200,000 casualties, with 267,000 fatalities.[40]
A study done by Adm. Nimitz's staff in May estimated 49,000 U.S casualties in the first 30 days, including 5,000 at sea.[41] A study done by General MacArthur's staff in June estimated 23,000 U.S. casualties in the first 30 days and 125,000 after 120 days.[42] When these figures were questioned by General Marshall, MacArthur submitted a revised estimate of 105,000, in part by deducting wounded men able to return to duty.[43]
In a conference with President Truman on June 18, Marshall, taking the Battle of Luzon as the best model for Olympic, thought the Americans would suffer 31,000 casualties in the first 30 days (and ultimately 20% of Japanese casualties, which implied a total of 70,000 casualties).[44] Adm. Leahy, more impressed by the Battle of Okinawa, thought the American forces would suffer a 35% casualty rate (implying an ultimate toll of 268,000).[45] Admiral King thought that casualties in the first 30 days would fall between Luzon and Okinawa, i.e., between 31,000 and 41,000.[45]
Of these estimates, only Nimitz's included losses of the forces at sea, though kamikazes had inflicted 1.78 fatalities per kamikaze pilot in the Battle of Okinawa,[46] and troop transports off Kyūshū would have been much more exposed.

A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7 to 4 million American casualties, including 400,000 to 800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan.[1]
Outside the government, well-informed civilians were also making guesses. Kyle Palmer, war correspondent for the Los Angeles Times, said half a million to a million Americans would die by the end of the war. Herbert Hoover, in memorandums submitted to Truman and Stimson, also estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 fatalities, and were believed to be conservative estimates; but it is not known if Hoover discussed these specific figures in his meetings with Truman. The chief of the Army Operations division thought them "entirely too high" under "our present plan of campaign."[47]

The Battle of Okinawa ran up 72,000 U.S casualties in 82 days, of whom 12,510 were killed or missing. (This is conservative, because it excludes several thousand U.S. soldiers who died after the battle indirectly from their wounds.) The entire island of Okinawa is 464 square miles; to take it, therefore, cost the United States 407 soldiers (killed or missing) for every 10 square miles of island. If the U.S. casualty rate during the invasion of Japan had only been 5 percent as high per square mile as it was at Okinawa, the United States would still have lost 297,000 soldiers (killed or missing).

Nearly 500,000 Purple Heart medals were manufactured in anticipation of the casualties resulting from the invasion of Japan. To the present date, all the American military casualties of the sixty years following the end of World War II—including the Korean and Vietnam Wars—have not exceeded that number. In 2003, there were still 120,000 of these Purple Heart medals in stock.[48] There are so many in surplus that combat units in Iraq and Afghanistan are able to keep Purple Hearts on-hand for immediate award to wounded soldiers on the field.[48]


Invasion of Japan would have doubled the number of Americans killed in combat during WWII probably taking the death count over 1,000,000.

Keep in mind that until after the bombing of Hiroshima the Soviet Union was an ally of Japan throughout the war it was only after Hiroshima that they declared war on Japan and invaded Manchuria. The US did not need to demostrate the Atomic bombs to the Soviets , thier spies already knew the US had the bomb. Teh US did not start the war in the Pacific that war had been going on since 1933 long before Pearl Harbor.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Hindsight is always 20/20. The government had little to no idea about the atomic weapon's effect used in an uncontrolled battlefield detonation event. Those in the government and on the ground thought of the A-Bomb as just that, a big bad ass bomb. And guess what, it ended the war in the Pacific with the complete surrender of the Japanese without the need of a costly land invasion by US forces which Japan lucked out in by not having to go through the horrors that civilians in Berlin experienced when the Red Army came raping through.

People can look back at WWII all they want and critique the rights and wrongs from the safety of their computer chairs yet they'll never fully realize what the state of the world was like when war between countries was being fought on damn near every single continent of this floating rock. The concept of a "gentleman's war" went out the door when the realities of WWI broke out and mankind entered an age of unseen savagery because of advancements in warfare technologies. After WWI while they made the necessary laws to prohibit the use of biological and chemical weapons that were used in the last war, but it's inconceivable to think that at that time they were writing the laws to include the use of nuclear weapons. So when the time came that the A-Bomb was prepped for use in battle, countries weren't really in a state of affairs to go over the specifics in regard to the use of such a weapon with a fine toothed comb. When you have a global war, especially in the Pacific Theater, where generations worth of lives have already been wiped from existence, the thinking on all sides wasn't to watch their footing to not tread on the lives of civilians in an enemy land but to end the damned thing for good!

I remember my grandfather telling me about when they first heard the news of the use of the A-Bomb. He was getting ready for the invasion of Japan (already outfitted with new equipment and vehicles) and he and his buddies were ecstatic that the Japanese had surrendered by the power of just two bombs. It wasn't until he took his train ride through Nagasaki that he witness how horrible the effects of the bomb was but, again, the thinking of the time wasn't one of restraint yet one of just getting the job done regardless of one's moral or ethical objections. The whole reason behind the Americans, British and Allied troops fighting was to finish the business that was supposed to have ended in the last war.

1. Did the war need to end against the Japanese? Yes.
2. Did "The Bomb" end the war with minimal loss of life relative to fighting in that theater? Yes.
3. As a result of it twice being used, did the US and the world witness the destructive potential of such a device? Yes.
4a. Has any nation used it since in the same capacity? No.
4b. Why is that? See #3.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Has anyone ever thought about what the Japanese would have done with a nuclear weapon if they had developed one before we had?

Nuff said.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 04:03 PM
link   
i cant understand why people keep tarnishing civillians with the same brush as governments and soldiers, to some extent even the soldiers are innocent as many have been brain washed into believing things that are not true.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 04:31 PM
link   
The Tokyo incendiary raids inflicted more than 100,000 civilian casualties,yet Hirohito and co didn't exactly clamour to surrender to the US/Allies,the sad fact is while those at the top posture and expouse fighting to the death,civilians will always by far be the biggest losers,so should the US have deployed little boy and fatman?
knowing that the vast majority of casualties would be civilian?well if you had the means to end a horrendously bloody conflict that had the potential to cost further hundreds of thousands of US/ Allied lives ,there really was no choice.Plus,it kept Stalin in line too!



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Havick007
The means i speak of is the Atomic weapons used on the population of Hiroshima and Nagasaki!


you ignore the fact that there were both valid military targets, why ignore that fact?


it was a sad day for humanity


no, it was not a sad day, it directly resulted in the surrender of Japan


Then we have the Atomic bombing ( civilian cities )


Wrong, they were military targets.


Should they have been held accountable for war crimes?


What war crimes? The atomic bombing was NOT a war crime.

Just another apologist for Japan, and blame the USA post.
edit on 27/12/10 by dereks because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Havick007
reply to post by CommandantLassard
 


Dont you think i know about Australian History and WW2? of course i do, that was not the point i was trying to raise.


I agree with the other posters who have suggested you are trying to evaluate the strategic bombing of Japan in a modern context which does not apply.

Perhaps the true legacy of the atomic bombings will be the end of total war being an option for world leaders when diplomacy fails. When one bomb equals one city the consequence of strategic warfare seems to have become a price that none are willing to risk.

I would also recommend researching the allied bombing of Dresden Germany as a counterpoint to the horrors of the bomb, whether through the fissioning of atoms or a mixture of thousands of tons of conventional explosives and incendiary devices tens of thousands of innocents were left equally dead.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   
People seem to be missing the point here, they talk about the US,Japan,UK. The problem is it is not the people who start wars but the governments, they consist of a few power hungry wealthy slavers who do what they want regardless of what their populations want. They send soldiers to their deaths, put the lives of their and their alleged enemies civilians at risk while they sit miles away pushing tin soldiers round on a map. They nor their families are ever in danger. A lot of poeple here think that if the UK started a war against another country that the millions of civilians here are responsible for it so its ok to drop a nuclear bomb on us. Problem is, most civilians dont want war, they have no interest in it whatsoever so how should they be held responsible for their governments actions.

At the time of the bombing of japan I can understand the american public feeling angered by the bombing of pearl harbour, if they were asked or allowed to vote on bombing Japan with atomic weapons and knew the amount of civilians that would be killed I really dont think they would have voted for it. Anyone in this day and age from our generation who can look back and defend the American government for what it did must be totally bonkers, you cant defend that because it is just plain wrong. It was cowardly and showed no respect for others lives. if you want to join the army and fight against others armies thats fine by me,if soldeirs want to fight let them. I can even accept that their will be some civilian casualties in such fighting. But you CAN NOT drop atomic weapons on innocent civilians, you CAN NOT justify that in any way. Because if you do you are saying that it is fine for your government to do anything it wants (even if you dont agree with it) and that you and your civilian friends and family are prepared to die for it. I for one dont find that acceptable in any way, shape or form.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Harry S. Truman is no longer alive to stand trial for these so called war crimes. So what do you propose to do?



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Havick007
 
Do not forget fire-bombing of civilians as well.

en.wikipedia.org...

The first raid using low-flying B-29s carrying incendiary bombs to drop on Tokyo was in February 1945 when 174 B-29s destroyed around one square mile (3 km²) of the city.[citation needed] Changing their tactics to expand the coverage and increase the damage, 335 B-29s took off[3] to raid on the night of 9–10 March, with 279 of them[3] dropping around 1,700 tons of bombs. Fourteen B-29s were lost.[3] Approximately 16 square miles (41 km²) of the city were destroyed and some 100,000 people are estimated to have died in the resulting firestorm, more than the immediate deaths of either the Hiroshima or Nagasaki atomic bombs.[4][5] The US Strategic Bombing Survey later estimated that nearly 88,000 people died in this one raid, 41,000 were injured, and over a million residents lost their homes. The Tokyo Fire Department estimated a higher toll: 97,000 killed and 125,000 wounded. The Tokyo Metropolitan Police Department established a figure of 124,711 casualties including both killed and wounded and 286,358 buildings and homes destroyed. Richard Rhodes, historian, put deaths at over 100,000, injuries at a million and homeless residents at a million.[6] These casualty and damage figures could be low; Mark Selden wrote in Japan Focus:


These are only the figures for Tokyo, don't forget how many other innocents were murdered in the rest of the country.



Please don't say about the murderous Japanese people of WW2. Don't believe that every Japanese person supported the war. Look at todays support/opposition of modern conflicts.





new topics
top topics
 
21
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join