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.

 

The Atomic Bombings on Japan were war crimes and here is why!

page: 12
89
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by milominderbinder
 



The sooner the Americans come, the better...One hundred million die proudly. - Japanese slogan in the summer of 1945.

Because Japanese "Suicide" Is a Kinder, Gentler way to end a war, right?

Here's a taste of what the Russians were going to do. Here's a taste of what Japan did to its OWN people.

And you talk about War Crimes?




Read the LAST line slowly..........


Many Japanese settlers committed mass suicide as the Soviet army approached. Mothers were forced to kill their own children before killing or being killed themselves. The Japanese army often took part in the killings of its civilians. The commander of the 5th Japanese Army, General Simidzu, commented that "each nation lives and dies by its own laws."



And while we address "War Crimes"...


Wounded Japanese soldiers who were incapable of moving on their own were often left to die as the army retreated. The Soviets laid claim to Japanese enterprises in the region and took valuable materials and industrial equipment.[16] US and British reports indicate that the Soviet troops that occupied Manchuria (about 700,000) looted and terrorized the people of Mukden, and were not discouraged by Soviet authorities from "three days of rape and pillage". In Harbin, Chinese posted slogans such as "Down with Red Imperialism!" Soviet forces ignored protests from Chinese communist party leaders on the mass rape and looting.[17][16][18][19][20][21] Konstantin Asmolov of the Center for Korean Research of the Russian Academy of Sciences dismisses Western accounts of Soviet violence against civilians in the Far East as exaggeration and rumor and contends that accusations of mass crimes by the Soviet army inappropriately extrapolate isolated incidents regarding the nearly 2,000,000 Soviet troops in the Far East into mass crimes. According to him, such accusations are refuted by the documents of the time, from which it is clear that such crimes were far less of a problem than in Germany. Asmolov further deflects critics by pointing out that whereas the Soviets prosecuted their perpetrators, German and Japanese prosecution of "rapists and looters" was virtually unknown



Soviet invasion of Manchuria

They were NEVER going to surrender under Allied terms. You really don't know your history. Surrender was not a term used in Japan, at that time.




posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 01:09 PM
link   


though they clearly violated international law at the time. It boggles my mind


So basically this thread is a slap on the wrist of the hand of America and a promotion of International Law and the Globalist plan of the One World Totalitarian govt. It goes perfectly with your avatar and persona.
edit on 24-12-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed

Originally posted by jhn7537

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed

Originally posted by jhn7537
Well what happens when a country mixes civilian populations with their military, should you just leave it alone? Military s should separate the two if they TRULY care about their own people...


That has to be one of the stupidest things I have ever heard


How would you feel if San Diego or any other city that has mixed military/civilian populations got nuked? Would you say it served them right?


So basically the only thing USA will ever need to do is to mix civilian and military populations together, right? And by doing so NO ONE would ever be allowed to attack US soil, right? Many countries over time have mixed the two for that exact reason, if we have civilians here no one will ever attack us. Well... In Japan's case that isn't always true and they paid the ultimate price by picking a fight with a country they couldn't handle... Everyone wants to blame USA for what was done, maybe you should blame Japan for picking a fight with the wrong country and picking the WRONG side to fight on back in WWII...


Your avatar must be blowing derivatives of a certain cactus because I only responded to YOUR post based on your logic, and then explained a few things according to how I perceived your interpretation of a few other posts.

You are the one who implied that the death of civilians in Japan was justified due to their use of mixing civilian and military infrastructure...so I mentioned the fact that this happens modern day, including in the USA, so let's say the USA attacked some one first (which they have done a lot of lately) and the attacked country decided to strike back, it would be justified, your logic says so so do not try and twist my words.

Perhaps we have reached a misunderstanding somewhere along the road, if so please clarify, until then piss off with your shenanigans.
edit on 12/24/2012 by Corruption Exposed because: cactus


In war, all bets are off, so yes, if USA attacked another country first and they decided to take out a US city where military personnel are being housed I would consider it justified. If I choose to fight someone to the death, I don't expect the person I'm fighting to follow any sort of guidelines to what they can or can't do. If they choose to bite me, gouge my eyes out, kick me in the nuts and do cheap shots, then so be it. Because ultimately I'm trying to do the same to them. Killing within guidelines is funny if you ask me, war is not supposed to be done out of respect, war is done to eliminate your enemy...

I'm not sure how I "twisted" you words either. Your initial response to my earlier point was that it was the stupidest thing you ever read... I'm glad you felt that way. I stand behind what I said and I stand behind what USA did. Japan should have NEVER of picked a fight with a country they couldn't handle. Japan put all their people in harms way when they started attacking all these countries around them..

Oh yea, and telling someone to piss off because they don't agree with you is always mature...

edit on 24-12-2012 by jhn7537 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrRobertson
reply to post by daaskapital
 


Thank you OP S&F

It has always struck me a little bit odd, how the USA, the ONLY country to use this vile instrument of mega mass destruction in an aggressive act is allowed to dictate who can have what when it comes to defending themselves

War is a crime full stop we need a more grown up solution


And yet everyone still seems to keep coming back to us for help.


Rebels fighting to oust Libyan leader Moammar Khadafy sent out an S.O.S. Wednesday pleading with the West to blast the dictator's hired guns.
"We call on the international community to carry out pinpointed airstrikes on the mercenaries," Abdel Hafiz Khoga, a spokesman for the rebels in the city of Benghazi, told Al Jazeera.


www.nydailynews.com...

Here's a request that got lost in the shuffle


New York, Sep 22 (IANS) Denying that Pakistan is fomenting trouble in Kashmir, Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi has asked the United States and the international community to help resolve the Kashmir issue.


www.india-forums.com...

Maybe the OP recommends digging up corpses after all


Soon after NATO started bombing Yugoslavia, Slobodan Milošević allegedly ordered that all bodies in Kosovo that could be of interest to The Hague Tribunal should be removed.[78] According to allegations, the Yugoslav Army systematically transported the corpses of Albanians to the Trepča Mines near Kosovska Mitrovica, where their remains were allegedly cremated


en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 24-12-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by MisterMaster
 




Every CITIZEN became a soldier, with the Emperors Decree.

Nuff said.



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Good luck getting anywhere official with this ..



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Just as an aside; I had the opportunity to talk to a man 30+ years ago who said he was the navigator on the camera plane that followed the Nagasaki bombing plane. He said that the bombs were brought over on board ships and that the crews were understandably terrified they would go off without warning. When I asked why they dropped the second bomb rather than wait for the Japanese to react, he said it was because they didn't want to take them back again; basically, that the second bomb was dropped to get rid of it.
edit on 24-12-2012 by signalfire because: typo



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by signalfire... that the second bomb was dropped to get rid of it.


That's the consensus. They got to the target, and both primary and secondary were under total cloud cover. The options were to try to disarm the bomb and land with it, which was sort of spooky because the general thought was it was so heavy that to try to carry it back would leave them without enough fuel, and if they DID get back, the plane might buckle or the release mechanism let the bomb go during landing due to the weight being so close to the redline. They were also afraid to bail out and let the plane just crash with the bomb because it might go off.

It got down to try to disarm it and drop it in the ocean, or drop by radar. So they made up a story about this miraculous circular hole in the clouds appearing right over the target, just long enough to get a bombsight picture.

The miss distance was the sort of thing you'd get from a radar drop, and some of the crew supposedly said they were ordered to drop by radar. Heck, it's a nuke, how close do you need to be?



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   
OK, you have declared it a war crime. Now what? Is someone going to bring charges? 99% of everyone involved are dead. You can't exact reparation, as reparations would then have to be levied upon every other nation involved in WWII.

The U.S. didn't need to drop atomic bombs to end the war, as Japan would likely have surrendered in a few weeks anyway (they were already beaten by the time the bombs were dropped). It was just a show of force for the benefit of The Kremlin. But declaring it a war crime almost 70 years after the fact is just stirring some pot that has long since lost its contents.

/TOA



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Even if what you state is correct. Number 1 we had to show the world one thing... Enough is enough lookie what we have. Second we could never win a ground war in Japan. And by the way They attacked us first and the Chinese as well as many other countries. So please lets get off the poor Japan band wagon. They were not innocent by standers that did nothing. P.S. we helped rebuild Japan and thier new constitution.
edit on 24-12-2012 by ratpunk because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   
The whole atomic bomb senerio has been played out over and over in the smallest of detail with nothing more to add. We can go on and rehash the same information, kicking the dead horse for another 100 posts, or maybe since the the OP spent so much time on this he can also do a good job on Japan's war crimes and then Germany's followed by Russia's too to get a good picture of WWII and ALL that went on across ALL sides.



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by daaskapital
 


33-degree Freemason Harry Truman was just following the NWO plan.



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by signalfire
 





Just as an aside; I had the opportunity to talk to a man 30+ years ago who said he was the navigator on the camera plane that followed the Nagasaki bombing plane. He said that the bombs were brought over on board ships and that the crews were understandably terrified they would go off without warning. When I asked why they dropped the second bomb rather than wait for the Japanese to react, he said it was because they didn't want to take them back again; basically, that the second bomb was dropped to get rid of it.


I can easily believe that was the general belief of the all crew members involved in the two strikes. However, I believe the official orders were vastly different, and I won't believe that the commanders cared much for the service members safety.

Japans acceptance of an unconditional surrender is the only human factor that could have stopped the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If they had not surrendered unconditionally, we likely would have kept firebombing their cities, until the 3rd atomic bomb was ready to be delivered to them. And would have repeated the cycle over and over, until either unconditional surrender or total annihilation of the Japanese people was achieved. I do not believe the decision makers were even considering a ground invasion of the Japanese mainland.

I had a great-grandfather who particpated in the invasion of Japan and the later occupation. I spent many days of my early childhood days hanging out with him, and his many "gook" fearing WW2 veteran brothers. I heard at least a few recollections featuring the nearly impossible task of clearing the Japanese from some of those islands. My great-grandfather said that he often prayed for the Japanese to surrender, before he was placed in line to invade another island.

My mother-in-law was born on September 19, 1945. My grandmother in-law told me how she was trained to resist the American invaders, and was more than willing to do so, despite being pregnant. She's was happy for the acceptance of unconditional surrender, and the later freedom to rebuild her life and her country.

I've never sensed any resentment towards me, from any Japanese, because of anything to do with the war. Occasionally, I encounter Japanese who seem to resent me, even within my generally accepting extended family. I have the general impression that any resentment is simply because I'm a very lucky foreign devil, who is fortunate enough to have kept the interest of a most excellent Japanese woman, while they have not.


edit on 24-12-2012 by tamusan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   
The is a lot of people convinced that Pearl Harbor was a great surprise. Well that is evidence to point that it was not. There is convincing evidence that the Japanese were goated into attacking PH so as to provide a "reason" to enter the war. 88% of the US population was against enter AGAIN into the meat grinder called "World War".

Book



It was not long after the first Japanese bombs fell on the American naval ships at Pearl Harbor that conspiracy theories began to circulate, charging that Franklin Roosevelt and his chief military advisors knew of the impending attack well in advance. Robert Stinnett, who served in the U.S. Navy with distinction during World War II, examines recently declassified American documents and concludes that, far more than merely knowing of the Japanese plan to bomb Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt deliberately steered Japan into war with America. Stinnett's argument draws on both circumstantial evidence--the fact, for example, that in September 1940 Roosevelt signed into law a measure providing for a two-ocean navy that would number 100 aircraft carriers--and, more importantly, on American governmental documents that offer apparently incontrovertible proof that Roosevelt knowingly sacrificed American lives in order to enter the war on the side of England. Although obviously troubled by his discovery of a systematic plan of deception on the part of the American government, Stinnett does not take deep issue with its outcome. Roosevelt, he writes, faced powerful opposition from isolationist forces, and, against them, the Pearl Harbor attack was "something that had to be endured in order to stop a greater evil--the Nazi invaders in Europe who had begun the Holocaust and were poised to invade England." Sure to excite discussion, Stinnett's book offers what may be the final word on the terrible matter of Pearl Harbor. --Gregory McNamee --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove
reply to post by daaskapital
 


It was necessary to inflict damage on Japan with Atomic weapons. The damage was also unavoidable. So, there was no war crime committed. And besides, rules for war are stupid to say the least. The idea behind war is to destroy your enemy by whatever means possible in order to be the victor.





edit on 24-12-2012 by Fromabove because: (no reason given)


the reason why it is not a war crime is because you said

"it was necessary to inflict damage on Japan with Atomic weapons"

seriously, this is it?

Not saying the Japanese state was some shrinking innocent violet, but nothing EVER warrants kids being incinerated.

Maybe someday a state will say, hey "FROMABOVE", I'm going to chuck your loved ones in a fire because it is necessary



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by tintin2012
 




Events such as the Panay incident, and the Nanking Massacre, are more likely the real motives behind the United States placing embargos on Japan. For me, those same too events are enough moral justifcation for the government misleading the American people, and right on through to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Japanese needed to be stopped at any cost.
edit on 24-12-2012 by tamusan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Credenceskynyrd
the reason why it is not a war crime is because you said ....


And the reason it is a "war crime" is .... some Japanese apologists/USA bashers say it is!



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by Credenceskynyrd
the reason why it is not a war crime is because you said ....


And the reason it is a "war crime" is .... some Japanese apologists/USA bashers say it is!


I don't bash the US, I am quite the fan, and I am honest enough to admit the failings of the nation- one of which was the mass incineration of men, women and children

Some stronger state will maybe someday decide to incinerate your family, and it will be a crime too



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by milominderbinder
And therein lies the hypocrisy. When WE do it...it's a "white crime" (pun intended???)...when somebody ELSE does it...it's "pure evil" or whatever.

The Japanese were well warned of the impending "prompt and utter destruction" to follow should they not surrender as Nazi Germany did. They ignored this plea.

The only other option was for a land invasion of a fundamentally fascist nation that was perfectly willing to sacrifice every man, woman and child to confront the invader. Such a military action was estimated to have cost Allied lives approaching six figures--something the world had little stomach for having just experience the most costly war the world has known.

So, the choices were clear and simple: bomb the Japanese into submission -or- immolate another generation of men (and women and children, in Japan's case) for the same ends.

No use of weapons that leave the legacy that nuclear weapons do can be wholly justified. But, if the choice is expunction of an enemy that willing to destroy even its own species for sake of the bent of a perceived demigod emperor, atomic / nuclear weapons are the only choice we have with our current technology.

To balance the argument, however, please watch this film, so then I may defy you not to weep for the Japanese,despite their 'evil' actions in WWII... LINK



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Dropping the bomb has never sat well with me, and I have thought long and hard about this particular topic. However, if it was not used? Japan would have become a meat grinder for any invasion force. A lot of us would not even be here, because our grandfathers died in action. Both of my grandfathers where veterans of WWII. One in the Pacific and one in Europe. I never had the opportunity to discuss this topic with them, and I wish I had. We can go back and forth with revisionist history and could of, should of, would of. Still, the fact remains, and that is the atomic bomb was detonated over Nagasaki and Hiroshima. It may have very well spared the lives of millions of Japanese civilians, millions of US servicemen, and preserved the Japanese culture as a whole? Of course, only in my personal opinion.

I believe every man, woman, and child would have been hurled at the Allie war machine, and it would have been a bloodbath to rival what was seen on the Eastern Front in Russia. Another war of attrition with unfathomable bloodshed and destruction. Just to put into perspective what the Allied leadership was expecting when a ground invasion of Japan was to take place, and what it entailed. Lets look at the Purple Heart medal.

Purple Heart


During World War II, nearly 500,000 Purple Heart medals were manufactured in anticipation of the estimated casualties resulting from the planned Allied invasion of Japan. To the present date, total combined American military casualties of the sixty-five 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. 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 in the field.


Now, those are sobering statistics, and something to keep in mind when reassessing the actions taken during WWII. Furthermore, it has been said that the Japanese military leadership wanted to keep on fighting even after the detonation of the atomic bomb. They were a stubborn foe and would have never surrendered until Japan was a grave yard. A prime example would be the Battle of Okinawa. That was a window into what was in store for an invasion force if it had gone through. Any and every abled body civilian would have been sent to their deaths. So the US and their allies would have annihilated the enemy, a culture, and a people under conventional means or by bringing the war to halt with atomic weapons? Thus sparing millions and a culture.Yet, still we would be having this discussion and pointing the finger at whatever side we so choose. Damned if you do, and damned if you don't! War is a hell of an ugly thing!
edit on 24-12-2012 by Jakes51 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
89
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join