Last Hiroshima bomb crewman dies

[JacChang]

"Van Kirk said he had "no regrets" about the mission and defended its morality, saying it helped to end the Second World War."

 

Booo

 

As much as I hated how the Japanese did the sneak attack, it was military to military. However, the bomb, is an easy way out of a problem at the cost of innocent civilian lives. Remember individuals are still individuals regardless of their nationality. It could have been any one of us, but we are not responsible for the pearl harbor attack.

 

It's just like dropping a bomb in the south of Thailand because of insurgent attacks. A crime is a crime.
 

[KarenBravo]

"Van Kirk said he had "no regrets" about the mission and defended its morality, saying it helped to end the Second World War."

 

Booo

 

As much as I hated how the Japanese did the sneak attack, it was military to military. However, the bomb, is an easy way out of a problem at the cost of innocent civilian lives. Remember individuals are still individuals regardless of their nationality. It could have been any one of us, but we are not responsible for the pearl harbor attack.

 

It's just like dropping a bomb in the south of Thailand because of insurgent attacks. A crime is a crime.
 

 

Read the whole thread. Especially the alternative, if the Americans didn't drop the bomb, then, make a comment that is worthy of an adult.

[JacChang]

 

"Van Kirk said he had "no regrets" about the mission and defended its morality, saying it helped to end the Second World War."

 

Booo

 

As much as I hated how the Japanese did the sneak attack, it was military to military. However, the bomb, is an easy way out of a problem at the cost of innocent civilian lives. Remember individuals are still individuals regardless of their nationality. It could have been any one of us, but we are not responsible for the pearl harbor attack.

 

It's just like dropping a bomb in the south of Thailand because of insurgent attacks. A crime is a crime.
 

 

Read the whole thread. Especially the alternative, if the Americans didn't drop the bomb, then, make a comment that is worthy of an adult.

 

Nah, I'll just read the first page.

 

Obviously you think you could change the past. I can't.

You can die like this man with "no regrets", and I'll keep my views of human rights.

[arjunadawn]

I am remarkably pro military and had always presumed the dropping of the atomic bomb[s] was the only way to stop the war. I have recently read a number of things suggesting the majority of our military leaders did not want the bomb dropped nor did they think it was any longer necessary. Notwithstanding the stories that taking of Japan would result in massive casualties (one estimate 500,000), on both sides, these generals felt the bomb was not needed. They were well aware of the tests and the results. The stuff I read generally implied it was a totally political decision to basically warn Russia. I love my country but this is the stuff that constitutes a war crime, at least insofar as it should be deliberated in a country that has as its mandate to govern "In our name." This is Pandora's Box.

[Yahooka]

"Van Kirk said he had "no regrets" about the mission and defended its morality, saying it helped to end the Second World War."

 

Booo

 

As much as I hated how the Japanese did the sneak attack, it was military to military. However, the bomb, is an easy way out of a problem at the cost of innocent civilian lives. Remember individuals are still individuals regardless of their nationality. It could have been any one of us, but we are not responsible for the pearl harbor attack.

 

It's just like dropping a bomb in the south of Thailand because of insurgent attacks. A crime is a crime.
 

 

The fanatical way in which the japanese military fought even on the brink of the defeat and the potential for 10`s or maybe 100 of thousands of american lives lost did make this 2 bombings neccesary.

And don`t forget that the japanese military during WW 2 was the nastiest little bunch of war criminals of ALL the participating nations(as many others here on this thread has pointed out,too) !!

[chuckd]

Maybe this little story will put the discussion to bed:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

...quoted from the link below...

 

More than 30,000 Japanese soldiers died, along with an untold number of civilians, many of whom committed suicide by jumping off the cliffs near Marpi Point. In front of the 105th's positions on the Tanapag plain were 2,295 dead Japanese. Another 2,016 bodies lay in the rear of the 105th's position, for a total of 4,311 Japanese killed in the attack on the beaches at Tanapag.

 

American casualties were also heavy. The 1st and 2nd battalions of the 105th were virtually wiped out. In slightly more than 12 hours of fighting, those units sustained losses of 406 killed and 512 wounded. In the 1st Battalion, only one officer, Lieutenant John Mulhearn of Company B, emerged unscathed. Major McCarthy of the 2nd Battalion survived, but all his staff and company commanders were either killed or wounded.

 

http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-saipan

 

I read elsewhere the estimated civilians death were as many as 24,000 with many of them committing suicide rather than be taken prisoner.

 

This was one small island in the Pacific campaign.

 

Now imagine this scenario if an invasion of the mainland had been required but try and imagine the devastation on the mainland that would have taken place when the combined air forces of the European Theater of Operations and the Pacific Theater were combined and utilized.

 

The death toll of an invasion of the mainland of Japan could have been in the millions.

[robblok]

 

Strange that something like that is not seen as a war crime. It did end the war of course.

 

I am sure they did see the bombing of London as a war crime and not the fire bombing of Dresden.

 

In war there is no good side.. the Brits, Germans Russians French Americans all executed POW's  But when I was young in war movies it was always the Germans doing it until I saw some good documentaries that showed both sides did it.

 

Unbelievable.

 

The Germans instigated unrestricted submarine warfare and the indiscriminate bombing of civilians in WW1. Something they expanded on in WW2. The murdered POW's from the early stages of WW2 (British soldiers in Norway for instance), throughout the war right up until the end. They targeted civilians quite deliberately, ignored the Geneva Convention and carried out unspeakable horrors in the camps, murdering millions. The allies never came anywhere close.

 

The Japanese murdered, tortured, raped and robbed at will starting before WW2 in China. Have a trip  to the war graves at Kanchaaburi for  some history. POWs were slave labor abused at will. The allies came nowhere close.

 

The Japanese and German regimes in WW2 got no more than they deserved. Unfortunately they took their peoples with them. But to suggest that the allies carried out anything like the inhuman acts of these 2 countries is historical nonsense.

 

Yes and those were war crimes too.. do the war crimes of an other make your own war crimes any less ? If Germans killed English pows and the English did the same (there is evidence of that and the US did it too) are both not war crimes then ? 

 

I feel that bombing civilians (now frowned upon) is bad. I think its a war crime and everyone did it. What I am saying there is no moral high ground and the "allies were better" is B.S they did war crimes too and bombing of civilians is one of them. 

 

I am happy that the Germans and Japanese lost, just a bit tired of the moral high ground claimed by the allies. They killed countless civilians too and both sides often killed POWS. Now the Japanse and Germans probably were worse but that does not exclude your own countries. Do you think they were angels of any kind ? In war all soldiers commit crimes.

[JacChang]

 

"Van Kirk said he had "no regrets" about the mission and defended its morality, saying it helped to end the Second World War."

 

Booo

 

As much as I hated how the Japanese did the sneak attack, it was military to military. However, the bomb, is an easy way out of a problem at the cost of innocent civilian lives. Remember individuals are still individuals regardless of their nationality. It could have been any one of us, but we are not responsible for the pearl harbor attack.

 

It's just like dropping a bomb in the south of Thailand because of insurgent attacks. A crime is a crime.
 

 

The fanatical way in which the japanese military fought even on the brink of the defeat and the potential for 10`s or maybe 100 of thousands of american lives lost did make this 2 bombings neccesary.

And don`t forget that the japanese military during WW 2 was the nastiest little bunch of war criminals of ALL the participating nations(as many others here on this thread has pointed out,too) !!

 

Personally I hated what the Japanese did with regards to their honor and integrity. Of course, the whole world at that time, wanted them to be wiped off the face of the earth. They were like demons. We've seen it, the horrible things they've done during world war, mainly the Japanese and the germans.

 

However, we have to remember 1 point. We need to separate military and civil. The government controls the military, and they can do whatever they like without regards to the civilian's wants. So with regards to military, we are technically not able to care less about the casualties of each countries soldiers. We have war machines versus war machines. Every general knows, in war, there is no such thing as good side or bad side. There is only a loser and a winner. There will always be an outcome.

 

But civilians are different. They have the right to live and the right to not be interfered with the affairs of the military. They are not responsible for war. That being said. My statement stands. Japanese lost their honor when they made the sneak attack on pearl harbor. The US lost theirs in my viewpoint, when they did what they did. You could always turn the perspective around, the Japanese dropped a bomb equivalent to the percentage of the comparative size. Many states in the US would be wiped out, mostly civilians.

 

A noble soldier knows he must do what others don't want to do during war. But he lives to regret what he has done.

I don't blame him for dropping it. But the attitude towards universal human rights, thus the direct quote of that statement only. Those people could have easily been any of our family members.

[KarenBravo]

Jeez.....you're naive. Civilians not responsible?

I suggest you read how the Nazis came to power.

I suggest you read up on the militarization of Japanese civil society starting in the 1920's.

[transam]

 

 

Strange that something like that is not seen as a war crime. It did end the war of course.

 

I am sure they did see the bombing of London as a war crime and not the fire bombing of Dresden.

 

In war there is no good side.. the Brits, Germans Russians French Americans all executed POW's  But when I was young in war movies it was always the Germans doing it until I saw some good documentaries that showed both sides did it.

 

Unbelievable.

 

The Germans instigated unrestricted submarine warfare and the indiscriminate bombing of civilians in WW1. Something they expanded on in WW2. The murdered POW's from the early stages of WW2 (British soldiers in Norway for instance), throughout the war right up until the end. They targeted civilians quite deliberately, ignored the Geneva Convention and carried out unspeakable horrors in the camps, murdering millions. The allies never came anywhere close.

 

The Japanese murdered, tortured, raped and robbed at will starting before WW2 in China. Have a trip  to the war graves at Kanchaaburi for  some history. POWs were slave labor abused at will. The allies came nowhere close.

 

The Japanese and German regimes in WW2 got no more than they deserved. Unfortunately they took their peoples with them. But to suggest that the allies carried out anything like the inhuman acts of these 2 countries is historical nonsense.

 

Yes and those were war crimes too.. do the war crimes of an other make your own war crimes any less ? If Germans killed English pows and the English did the same (there is evidence of that and the US did it too) are both not war crimes then ? 

 

I feel that bombing civilians (now frowned upon) is bad. I think its a war crime and everyone did it. What I am saying there is no moral high ground and the "allies were better" is B.S they did war crimes too and bombing of civilians is one of them. 

 

I am happy that the Germans and Japanese lost, just a bit tired of the moral high ground claimed by the allies. They killed countless civilians too and both sides often killed POWS. Now the Japanse and Germans probably were worse but that does not exclude your own countries. Do you think they were angels of any kind ? In war all soldiers commit crimes.

 

 

The Japs and Gery's started it. Blokes were taken from their jobs, families to die to sort it. We sorted it.

[robblok]

 

 

 

Strange that something like that is not seen as a war crime. It did end the war of course.

 

I am sure they did see the bombing of London as a war crime and not the fire bombing of Dresden.

 

In war there is no good side.. the Brits, Germans Russians French Americans all executed POW's  But when I was young in war movies it was always the Germans doing it until I saw some good documentaries that showed both sides did it.

 

Unbelievable.

 

The Germans instigated unrestricted submarine warfare and the indiscriminate bombing of civilians in WW1. Something they expanded on in WW2. The murdered POW's from the early stages of WW2 (British soldiers in Norway for instance), throughout the war right up until the end. They targeted civilians quite deliberately, ignored the Geneva Convention and carried out unspeakable horrors in the camps, murdering millions. The allies never came anywhere close.

 

The Japanese murdered, tortured, raped and robbed at will starting before WW2 in China. Have a trip  to the war graves at Kanchaaburi for  some history. POWs were slave labor abused at will. The allies came nowhere close.

 

The Japanese and German regimes in WW2 got no more than they deserved. Unfortunately they took their peoples with them. But to suggest that the allies carried out anything like the inhuman acts of these 2 countries is historical nonsense.

 

Yes and those were war crimes too.. do the war crimes of an other make your own war crimes any less ? If Germans killed English pows and the English did the same (there is evidence of that and the US did it too) are both not war crimes then ? 

 

I feel that bombing civilians (now frowned upon) is bad. I think its a war crime and everyone did it. What I am saying there is no moral high ground and the "allies were better" is B.S they did war crimes too and bombing of civilians is one of them. 

 

I am happy that the Germans and Japanese lost, just a bit tired of the moral high ground claimed by the allies. They killed countless civilians too and both sides often killed POWS. Now the Japanse and Germans probably were worse but that does not exclude your own countries. Do you think they were angels of any kind ? In war all soldiers commit crimes.

 

 

The Japs and Gery's started it. Blokes were taken from their jobs, families to die to sort it. We sorted it.

 

Yes they started it.. and that makes it all right.. simplistic view. I feel as much for a civilian dying in a bombing raid in London as one in Dresden of Nagasaki. Civilians should not be targeted that is a war crime. We are so appalled when terrorist target civilians now.. how is that different from then ?

[transam]

Rob, my mum was bombed out of two houses in London in 1940, civilian targets, dodged in doorways avoiding spent fighter rounds, NOT 1945, I say again, NOT 1945, 1940. Japs follow their leaders and Germans voted for their eventual grief. War is a shit experience and the ordinary folk always pay the price.

[robblok]

Rob, my mum was bombed out of two houses in London in 1940, civilian targets, dodged in doorways avoiding spent fighter rounds, NOT 1945, I say again, NOT 1945, 1940. Japs follow their leaders and Germans voted for their eventual grief. War is a shit experience and the ordinary folk always pay the price.

 

Then as your mum was bombed out of two houses you see that civilians should not be the target. Can you imagine all the kids who have nothing to do turned into ashes by the bombs or scarred for life.

 

Targeting civilians is just not done. That is nothing to celebrate about. Soldiers attacking other soldiers.. sure.. but going after civilians.. just not done and a shame. 

 

And if you think that civilians follow their leader.. just look how people vote now and people are never unified about war you got always those against it.

[chuckd]

I received this satirical e-mail a couple of years ago around D-Day time.  Thank God it is only a sarcastic letter to today's media and was not a reality at the time, 1944.

 

One thing some of our members should remember is wars are no longer fought on battlefields with two armies approaching each other on foot and slugging it out.  They are fought in the cities, towns and countrysides of combatant enemies with the last army standing as the winner.  They are long distance battles from the air, land and sea and are often two unseen enemies battling each other over vast distances.

 

Political correctness was not the thing back then (1944) and should never be attached to wars.  Wars are horrible events and should be avoided, but when one occurs, all bets are off and the object is to win..as quickly as possible with the minimal number of casualties on both sides.

 

Here is the E-mail I received:

 

 

NORMANDY, FRANCE (June 6, 1944) Three hundred French civilians were killed and thousands more were wounded today in the first hours of America's invasion of continental Europe. Casualties were heaviest among women and children. Most of the French casualties were the result of artillery fire from American ships attempting to knock out German fortifications prior to the landing of hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops. Reports from a makeshift hospital in the French town of St. Mere Eglise said the carnage was far worse than the French had anticipated, and that reaction against the American invasion was running high. "We are dying for no reason, "said a Frenchman speaking on condition of anonymity. "Americans can't even shoot straight. I never thought I'd say this, but life was better under Adolph Hitler."

 

The invasion also caused severe environmental damage. American troops, tanks, trucks and machinery destroyed miles of pristine shoreline and thousands of acres of ecologically sensitive wetlands. It was believed that the habitat of the spineless French crab was completely wiped out, thus threatening the species with extinction. A representative of Greenpeace said his organization, which had tried to stall the invasion for over a year, was appalled at the destruction, but not surprised. "This is just another example of how the military destroys the environment without a second thought," said Christine Moanmore. "And it's all about corporate greed."

 

Contacted at his Manhattan condo, a member of the French government-in-exile who abandoned Paris when Hitler invaded, said the invasion was based solely on American financial interests. "Everyone knows that President Roosevelt has ties to 'big beer'," said Pierre LeWimp. "Once the German beer industry is conquered, Roosevelt's beer cronies will control the world market and make a fortune."

 

Administration supporters said America's aggressive actions were based in part on the assertions of controversial scientist Albert Einstein, who sent a letter to Roosevelt speculating that the Germans were developing a secret weapon -- a so-called "atomic bomb". Such a weapon could produce casualties on a scale never seen before, and cause environmental damage that could last for thousands of years. Hitler has denied having such a weapon and international inspectors were unable to locate such weapons even after spending two long weekends in Germany. Shortly after the invasion began, reports surfaced that German prisoners had been abused by American soldiers. Mistreatment of Jews by Germans at their so-called "concentration camps" has been rumored, but so far this remains unproven.

 

Several thousand Americans died during the first hours of the invasion, and French officials are concerned that the uncollected corpses will pose a public-health risk. "The Americans should have planned for this in advance," they said. "It's their mess, and we don't intend to help clean it up."

 

Think about it.

 

 

 

[robblok]

 

I received this satirical e-mail a couple of years ago around D-Day time.  Thank God it is only a sarcastic letter to today's media and was not a reality at the time, 1944.

 

One thing some of our members should remember is wars are no longer fought on battlefields with two armies approaching each other on foot and slugging it out.  They are fought in the cities, towns and countrysides of combatant enemies with the last army standing as the winner.  They are long distance battles from the air, land and sea and are often two unseen enemies battling each other over vast distances.

 

Political correctness was not the thing back then (1944) and should never be attached to wars.  Wars are horrible events and should be avoided, but when one occurs, all bets are off and the object is to win..as quickly as possible with the minimal number of casualties on both sides.

 

Here is the E-mail I received:

 

 

NORMANDY, FRANCE (June 6, 1944) Three hundred French civilians were killed and thousands more were wounded today in the first hours of America's invasion of continental Europe. Casualties were heaviest among women and children. Most of the French casualties were the result of artillery fire from American ships attempting to knock out German fortifications prior to the landing of hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops. Reports from a makeshift hospital in the French town of St. Mere Eglise said the carnage was far worse than the French had anticipated, and that reaction against the American invasion was running high. "We are dying for no reason, "said a Frenchman speaking on condition of anonymity. "Americans can't even shoot straight. I never thought I'd say this, but life was better under Adolph Hitler."

 

The invasion also caused severe environmental damage. American troops, tanks, trucks and machinery destroyed miles of pristine shoreline and thousands of acres of ecologically sensitive wetlands. It was believed that the habitat of the spineless French crab was completely wiped out, thus threatening the species with extinction. A representative of Greenpeace said his organization, which had tried to stall the invasion for over a year, was appalled at the destruction, but not surprised. "This is just another example of how the military destroys the environment without a second thought," said Christine Moanmore. "And it's all about corporate greed."

 

Contacted at his Manhattan condo, a member of the French government-in-exile who abandoned Paris when Hitler invaded, said the invasion was based solely on American financial interests. "Everyone knows that President Roosevelt has ties to 'big beer'," said Pierre LeWimp. "Once the German beer industry is conquered, Roosevelt's beer cronies will control the world market and make a fortune."

 

Administration supporters said America's aggressive actions were based in part on the assertions of controversial scientist Albert Einstein, who sent a letter to Roosevelt speculating that the Germans were developing a secret weapon -- a so-called "atomic bomb". Such a weapon could produce casualties on a scale never seen before, and cause environmental damage that could last for thousands of years. Hitler has denied having such a weapon and international inspectors were unable to locate such weapons even after spending two long weekends in Germany. Shortly after the invasion began, reports surfaced that German prisoners had been abused by American soldiers. Mistreatment of Jews by Germans at their so-called "concentration camps" has been rumored, but so far this remains unproven.

 

Several thousand Americans died during the first hours of the invasion, and French officials are concerned that the uncollected corpses will pose a public-health risk. "The Americans should have planned for this in advance," they said. "It's their mess, and we don't intend to help clean it up."

 

Think about it.

 

 

 

 

Because its so good to kill civilians precision weapons have been developed and terrorism is frowned upon.. Sure wars are bad but targeting civilians is a war crime. We try to turn away from killing civilians.. what they did in WW2 all sides were war crimes. 

 

Should soldiers die or children ?

[chuckd]

 

 

I received this satirical e-mail a couple of years ago around D-Day time.  Thank God it is only a sarcastic letter to today's media and was not a reality at the time, 1944.

 

One thing some of our members should remember is wars are no longer fought on battlefields with two armies approaching each other on foot and slugging it out.  They are fought in the cities, towns and countrysides of combatant enemies with the last army standing as the winner.  They are long distance battles from the air, land and sea and are often two unseen enemies battling each other over vast distances.

 

Political correctness was not the thing back then (1944) and should never be attached to wars.  Wars are horrible events and should be avoided, but when one occurs, all bets are off and the object is to win..as quickly as possible with the minimal number of casualties on both sides.

 

Here is the E-mail I received:

 

 

NORMANDY, FRANCE (June 6, 1944) Three hundred French civilians were killed and thousands more were wounded today in the first hours of America's invasion of continental Europe. Casualties were heaviest among women and children. Most of the French casualties were the result of artillery fire from American ships attempting to knock out German fortifications prior to the landing of hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops. Reports from a makeshift hospital in the French town of St. Mere Eglise said the carnage was far worse than the French had anticipated, and that reaction against the American invasion was running high. "We are dying for no reason, "said a Frenchman speaking on condition of anonymity. "Americans can't even shoot straight. I never thought I'd say this, but life was better under Adolph Hitler."

 

The invasion also caused severe environmental damage. American troops, tanks, trucks and machinery destroyed miles of pristine shoreline and thousands of acres of ecologically sensitive wetlands. It was believed that the habitat of the spineless French crab was completely wiped out, thus threatening the species with extinction. A representative of Greenpeace said his organization, which had tried to stall the invasion for over a year, was appalled at the destruction, but not surprised. "This is just another example of how the military destroys the environment without a second thought," said Christine Moanmore. "And it's all about corporate greed."

 

Contacted at his Manhattan condo, a member of the French government-in-exile who abandoned Paris when Hitler invaded, said the invasion was based solely on American financial interests. "Everyone knows that President Roosevelt has ties to 'big beer'," said Pierre LeWimp. "Once the German beer industry is conquered, Roosevelt's beer cronies will control the world market and make a fortune."

 

Administration supporters said America's aggressive actions were based in part on the assertions of controversial scientist Albert Einstein, who sent a letter to Roosevelt speculating that the Germans were developing a secret weapon -- a so-called "atomic bomb". Such a weapon could produce casualties on a scale never seen before, and cause environmental damage that could last for thousands of years. Hitler has denied having such a weapon and international inspectors were unable to locate such weapons even after spending two long weekends in Germany. Shortly after the invasion began, reports surfaced that German prisoners had been abused by American soldiers. Mistreatment of Jews by Germans at their so-called "concentration camps" has been rumored, but so far this remains unproven.

 

Several thousand Americans died during the first hours of the invasion, and French officials are concerned that the uncollected corpses will pose a public-health risk. "The Americans should have planned for this in advance," they said. "It's their mess, and we don't intend to help clean it up."

 

Think about it.

 

 

 

 

Because its so good to kill civilians precision weapons have been developed and terrorism is frowned upon.. Sure wars are bad but targeting civilians is a war crime. We try to turn away from killing civilians.. what they did in WW2 all sides were war crimes. 

 

Should soldiers die or children ?

 

 

There were no precision munitions in use during WW2.   Everything was sent "To Whom it May Concern" and addressed to General Delivery.

 

You very likely didn't live through that period but I did.  I lost an older brother on Guadalcanal, my father was in the Merchant Marines (too old for the military) and my mother worked for Boeing making landing gears for B-17s.

 

I remember black outs at night, blimps anchored with cables to the ground as air defense against a Japanese air attack that never came, going to war bond drives at the Los Angeles Colosseum, touring the USS Hope after it arrived for repairs following a kamikaze attack, watching test pilots flying the latest aircraft on tests and I particularly remember both VE and VJ days.

 

We were at war with the German people and the Japanese people. Our troops made every effort to identify military from civilian but mistakes are made in the heat of battle and innocents die.  

 

Such is the way of war and that doesn't make them war crimes.

[Humberstone]

Mistakes are made in the heat of battle, no doubt about that. However, if you look at the bombing techniques used by British Bomber Command during the period of 'area bombing' (another great WWII euphemism) it was obvious that the use of high explosives to blow the roofs off houses followed up by incendiaries to burn them to the ground was meant to kill the populations of many German industrial cities. It was shameful.  

 

The allies could be amazingly accurate with bombing when they wanted to be in WWII. When they targeted the Axis synthetic oil plants or roads and bridges to stop them retreating etc. Then they went back to the same old area bombing techniques afterwards and because they had reduced most places to burnt out rubble they decided to target towns and cities with no strategic value apart from the fact they were still there.

   

[GentlemanJim]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

 

Strange that something like that is not seen as a war crime. It did end the war of course.

 

I am sure they did see the bombing of London as a war crime and not the fire bombing of Dresden.

 

In war there is no good side.. the Brits, Germans Russians French Americans all executed POW's  But when I was young in war movies it was always the Germans doing it until I saw some good documentaries that showed both sides did it.

 

As has been stated, the victors decide what is and what is not a war crime. I have little doubt that had the Germans won the war, Air Vice Marshal 'Bomber' Harris would have been tried and executed for war crimes for his role in Dresden etc etc, he was the Architect!

 

War has been proven over 3000 years to be very bad for all concerned and the consequences of a large nuclear conflict are unthinkable. The sooner we (the worlds population)  realise that the sooner we have the opportunity to become great.

[KarenBravo]

War has been proven over 3000 years to be very bad for all concerned 

 

Not at all.

WW II was, on the whole, very good for the USA.

Not only did the start of the war end the Great Depression, but, afterwards, cemented the USA as a super-power. It was undamaged and became an economic giant.

Without captured German scientists, they would never have started the Space Race, never got to the moon and never have developed the technologies that came from that program.

 

The USA was the big winner of WW II.

 

There are many, many examples throughout history of war being very good in the long run for the victors.

[robblok]

 

 

 

I received this satirical e-mail a couple of years ago around D-Day time.  Thank God it is only a sarcastic letter to today's media and was not a reality at the time, 1944.

 

One thing some of our members should remember is wars are no longer fought on battlefields with two armies approaching each other on foot and slugging it out.  They are fought in the cities, towns and countrysides of combatant enemies with the last army standing as the winner.  They are long distance battles from the air, land and sea and are often two unseen enemies battling each other over vast distances.

 

Political correctness was not the thing back then (1944) and should never be attached to wars.  Wars are horrible events and should be avoided, but when one occurs, all bets are off and the object is to win..as quickly as possible with the minimal number of casualties on both sides.

 

Here is the E-mail I received:

 

 

NORMANDY, FRANCE (June 6, 1944) Three hundred French civilians were killed and thousands more were wounded today in the first hours of America's invasion of continental Europe. Casualties were heaviest among women and children. Most of the French casualties were the result of artillery fire from American ships attempting to knock out German fortifications prior to the landing of hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops. Reports from a makeshift hospital in the French town of St. Mere Eglise said the carnage was far worse than the French had anticipated, and that reaction against the American invasion was running high. "We are dying for no reason, "said a Frenchman speaking on condition of anonymity. "Americans can't even shoot straight. I never thought I'd say this, but life was better under Adolph Hitler."

 

The invasion also caused severe environmental damage. American troops, tanks, trucks and machinery destroyed miles of pristine shoreline and thousands of acres of ecologically sensitive wetlands. It was believed that the habitat of the spineless French crab was completely wiped out, thus threatening the species with extinction. A representative of Greenpeace said his organization, which had tried to stall the invasion for over a year, was appalled at the destruction, but not surprised. "This is just another example of how the military destroys the environment without a second thought," said Christine Moanmore. "And it's all about corporate greed."

 

Contacted at his Manhattan condo, a member of the French government-in-exile who abandoned Paris when Hitler invaded, said the invasion was based solely on American financial interests. "Everyone knows that President Roosevelt has ties to 'big beer'," said Pierre LeWimp. "Once the German beer industry is conquered, Roosevelt's beer cronies will control the world market and make a fortune."

 

Administration supporters said America's aggressive actions were based in part on the assertions of controversial scientist Albert Einstein, who sent a letter to Roosevelt speculating that the Germans were developing a secret weapon -- a so-called "atomic bomb". Such a weapon could produce casualties on a scale never seen before, and cause environmental damage that could last for thousands of years. Hitler has denied having such a weapon and international inspectors were unable to locate such weapons even after spending two long weekends in Germany. Shortly after the invasion began, reports surfaced that German prisoners had been abused by American soldiers. Mistreatment of Jews by Germans at their so-called "concentration camps" has been rumored, but so far this remains unproven.

 

Several thousand Americans died during the first hours of the invasion, and French officials are concerned that the uncollected corpses will pose a public-health risk. "The Americans should have planned for this in advance," they said. "It's their mess, and we don't intend to help clean it up."

 

Think about it.

 

 

 

 

Because its so good to kill civilians precision weapons have been developed and terrorism is frowned upon.. Sure wars are bad but targeting civilians is a war crime. We try to turn away from killing civilians.. what they did in WW2 all sides were war crimes. 

 

Should soldiers die or children ?

 

 

There were no precision munitions in use during WW2.   Everything was sent "To Whom it May Concern" and addressed to General Delivery.

 

You very likely didn't live through that period but I did.  I lost an older brother on Guadalcanal, my father was in the Merchant Marines (too old for the military) and my mother worked for Boeing making landing gears for B-17s.

 

I remember black outs at night, blimps anchored with cables to the ground as air defense against a Japanese air attack that never came, going to war bond drives at the Los Angeles Colosseum, touring the USS Hope after it arrived for repairs following a kamikaze attack, watching test pilots flying the latest aircraft on tests and I particularly remember both VE and VJ days.

 

We were at war with the German people and the Japanese people. Our troops made every effort to identify military from civilian but mistakes are made in the heat of battle and innocents die.  

 

Such is the way of war and that doesn't make them war crimes.

 

Yes you were at war with the Japanese and German people I am sure the kids turned into ash in Hiroshima and Nagasaki posed a real threat to the USA. You locked up all the Japanese Americans in your own version of prison camps. Many died good thing they were Americans too. I can't understand that people don't see the difference between soldiers and civilians. That it MIGHT have been normal at that time does not mean it is a good thing nowadays. Nowadays if you had done what was done back then you would be brought before the war crimes tribunal. 

 

I am just showing that the US was committing war crimes just like every other nation in that conflict, and that it is a big shame to celebrate dropping of the atomic bombs. If you want to celebrate anything celebrate the battle at midway where you guys won a turning point in war. Soldier against soldier not soldier against civilian. If you cant see the difference then your too patriotic. 

 

I wonder how people would respond if my country was going to celebrate the taking of slaves and selling them to the USA. That something was ok back then does not make it a good thing now. 

[KarenBravo]

It's a big mistake to judge history through the lens of the present's morality.

Morality changes through time.

[GentlemanJim]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

 

 

War has been proven over 3000 years to be very bad for all concerned 

 

Not at all.

WW II was, on the whole, very good for the USA.

Not only did the start of the war end the Great Depression, but, afterwards, cemented the USA as a super-power. It was undamaged and became an economic giant.

Without captured German scientists, they would never have started the Space Race, never got to the moon and never have developed the technologies that came from that program.

 

The USA was the big winner of WW II.

 

There are many, many examples throughout history of war being very good in the long run for the victors.

 

 

I belong to Homo Sapiens I guess you must belong to Americanus Sapiens.

 

War is not good for anybody. Claiming or desiring economic supremacy at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives is hardly the ethos one would expect of a 'Christian Nation' is it.  America was lifted out of the economic depression not by war, but by the unconstitutional and criminal collaboration that allowed European banking families to 'print' money on behalf of the USA ie the Federal Reserve. You quote the 'capture' of German scientists being a good thing in that the USA went to the moon. Imagine if you will where humanity would be if all that creativity and genius were put to the benefit of mankind (that is Homo Sapiens!) in a world where peace was the norm rather than with the express purpose of the destruction of other humans. We would be traveling the stars by now.

[KarenBravo]

WWII did lift the USA from out of the Great Depression. That is an undisputed fact.

 

Do you advocate that the allies should not have fought Nazi and Japanese expansionism?

 

I'm afraid your fluffy bunny of a world never existed and it doesn't exist now.

[robblok]

It's a big mistake to judge history through the lens of the present's morality.

Morality changes through time.

 

 

Yes It is only we are talking about celebrating it NOW with our current morality. Saying NOW how good it was instead of saying that with current morality it was a crime. Just like the taking of slaves and selling them (50% dead during transport) was bad and nothing to celebrate about. 

[KarenBravo]

 

It's a big mistake to judge history through the lens of the present's morality.

Morality changes through time.

 

 

Yes It is only we are talking about celebrating it NOW with our current morality. Saying NOW how good it was instead of saying that with current morality it was a crime. Just like the taking of slaves and selling them (50% dead during transport) was bad and nothing to celebrate about. 

 

 

It was nowhere near 50% dead during transport. Please show your source.

From my readings it was 10% to 12% (though, that is horrific in itself).

 

I can believe that 50% died through capture, transportation and holding before they got to the plantations, but, that's not what you said.

[h90]

Strange that something like that is not seen as a war crime. It did end the war of course.

 

I am sure they did see the bombing of London as a war crime and not the fire bombing of Dresden.

 

In war there is no good side.. the Brits, Germans Russians French Americans all executed POW's  But when I was young in war movies it was always the Germans doing it until I saw some good documentaries that showed both sides did it.

 

First of all it did not end the war, because Japan wanted to surrender before but had some conditions. A nuke on an island would have done the trick as well. But USA want to show the world what they can do with 2 !! Bombs.

 

Who wins the war who writes the book of history.

 

Would have Germany won, bombing of London would be justified and bombing of Dresden would be an evil crime.

It has nothing to do with facts....It is a millennia old tradition to behead the looser.

[GentlemanJim]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

 

WWII did lift the USA from out of the Great Depression. That is an undisputed fact.

 

Do you advocate that the allies should not have fought Nazi and Japanese expansionism?

 

I'm afraid your fluffy bunny of a world never existed and it doesn't exist now.

 

What a rather twisted conclusion to arrive at when I said 'War is bad for all concerned' !

[robblok]

 

 

It's a big mistake to judge history through the lens of the present's morality.

Morality changes through time.

 

 

Yes It is only we are talking about celebrating it NOW with our current morality. Saying NOW how good it was instead of saying that with current morality it was a crime. Just like the taking of slaves and selling them (50% dead during transport) was bad and nothing to celebrate about. 

 

 

It was nowhere near 50% dead during transport. Please show your source.

From my readings it was 10% to 12% (though, that is horrific in itself).

 

I can believe that 50% died through capture, transportation and holding before they got to the plantations, but, that's not what you said.

 

Whatever.. point was that we now all agree taking slaves is bad nothing to celebrate about or be proud about. Just look how the people here are defending the bombs while we know with current morals it was an evil act against the generation living there and many born afterwards. 

 

It might have been a justifiable evil (can be debated) but evil it was. Seems that many Americans and English are just as bad as the Thais they always talk about being too nationalistic. Not thinking in good and bad but thinking my country can't make no errors.

[robblok]

 

Strange that something like that is not seen as a war crime. It did end the war of course.

 

I am sure they did see the bombing of London as a war crime and not the fire bombing of Dresden.

 

In war there is no good side.. the Brits, Germans Russians French Americans all executed POW's  But when I was young in war movies it was always the Germans doing it until I saw some good documentaries that showed both sides did it.

 

First of all it did not end the war, because Japan wanted to surrender before but had some conditions. A nuke on an island would have done the trick as well. But USA want to show the world what they can do with 2 !! Bombs.

 

Who wins the war who writes the book of history.

 

Would have Germany won, bombing of London would be justified and bombing of Dresden would be an evil crime.

It has nothing to do with facts....It is a millennia old tradition to behead the looser.

 

Yes the second bomb.. real needed after the first... NOT. But you are right victor writes the books. Before I always read about those brave Americans and evil Germans. The Americans would never kill of POWS that was only a German thing.. later I found out they both did it. More then a fair bit of rewriting of history and propaganda when I was young.

 

That does not mean I don't support the Allies, just see that they did evil Things too but that is something that is obviously not to the liking of many.

[chuckd]

 

Strange that something like that is not seen as a war crime. It did end the war of course.

 

I am sure they did see the bombing of London as a war crime and not the fire bombing of Dresden.

 

In war there is no good side.. the Brits, Germans Russians French Americans all executed POW's  But when I was young in war movies it was always the Germans doing it until I saw some good documentaries that showed both sides did it.

 

First of all it did not end the war, because Japan wanted to surrender before but had some conditions. A nuke on an island would have done the trick as well. But USA want to show the world what they can do with 2 !! Bombs.

 

Who wins the war who writes the book of history.

 

Would have Germany won, bombing of London would be justified and bombing of Dresden would be an evil crime.

It has nothing to do with facts....It is a millennia old tradition to behead the looser.

 

 

" Japan wanted to surrender before but had some conditions"

 

Perhaps the Japanese didn't understand this part of the Potsdam Declaration...

 

""We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction."

 

And now, since this thread has turned into yet another "Bash the US at any cost" thread, I am outta here.

 

I don't need the aggravation nor do I have any desire to read critical posts from all those that have enjoyed the benefits of freedoms earned with sacrifices made by those that protected freedom.