Skip to comments.Commemorating a Major U.S. War Crime
Posted on 08/10/2010 5:42:30 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
click here to read article
Yes, you are right. I reposted the criticism after I realized what he was up to. He kind of led me down the primrose path there, but it’s my duty to be sure before I post.
I wonder how Japan would have liked being the Western Pacific’s Berlin.
My father spent time in Japan shortly after the end of the war. He told me how polite the people were to him. He even had pregnant ladies try to get up and give him their seat on public transportation.
One lady told him they didn’t hold the U.S. responsible for the actions it had taken.
And now we have some blithering idiot trying to set the record straight about 65 years later.
Makes my blood boil.
The author above is an Hiroshima cultist if ever there was one.
You are assuming that our Commanders did not know the Japanese mindset which had an ultranationalist government and a state religion which worshiped the emperor.
Our Commanders knew how radical those people were and how willingly they would kill—even themselves in battle. They were brutal, inhumane and ruthless to all their enemies which made a joke of the Geneva Convention and made water boarding look like paradise. ANY regard for individual rights, life, women, and their people, was non-existent.
Our Commander knew that they would probably give up only under a dire situation and he was willing to drop that bomb and create that situation to get the insane Japanese to surrender. They didn’t care about their own people, but, our Commanders DID care about their people. They had to force the Japanese to give up and, thus, not only saving many of our men from a brutal insane tortured death, but also theirs. “Them or us” was Truman’s ONLY decision. He said “Them!”, thank God.
I see no moral ambiguity at all. Neither did my father who went onto the Island after the surrender. He was the next in line to engage in battle, and would have probably been killed, if the bomb was not dropped.
That meant that the U.S. leadership was formally participating in evil. It does not matter if the attacks of Hiroshima and Nagasaki could (through some stretch of the imagination) be justified in themselves. The fact is that they were used to send a message telling the Japanese government that we would kill massive numbers of the military and civilian population, without discrimination. That message is evil, and to knowingly and deliberately send that message is to formally participate in evil.
That made these attacks war crimes.
The above paragraph is where the essay turns to bunk. It is gratuitous to say that America is guilty of War Crimes. I gratuitously deny that fact.
The Japanese were a totally mindless mass, bent on and rejoicing in the act of suicide. Their treatment of Nanking alone gives credence that they deserve to cease as a people. But we do not think such things nor do we say such things.
America, as a nation, is not guilty of War Crimes in WWII.
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
I think the author forgot to mention that the US dropped leaflets in both cities and the surrounding areas telling people to leave! The leaflets told the civilians that a horrific weapon was going to be used on the city!
Too bad they didn’t believe us, maybe they could have saved a few more of their people.
This was NOT a war crime!
My dad served in Europe and his unit was on the way to the Far East when the bomb was dropped.
It is a fact that about 50% of the casualties in the Pacific Theater came after the start of officially sanctioned suicide attacks (kamikaze etc.), it is a fact that the Japanese authorities were preparing their women and children to conduct suicide attacks against invading troops and it is a fact that the die-hards were hoping too incur such horrendous losses to Allied invaders as to force a negotiated settlement in 1946-47.
The stark choices facing the Allies 65 years ago were an invasion with millions of casualties and a real possibility of stalemate, a blockade and de facto low-level war-without-end that would have civilian starvation in Japan going into incredible numbers OR the SHOCK of a new weapon that could wipe out large cities without using more than a single airplane. It took the latter to break the military dictatorship and allowed/convinced the Emperor and the civilians to surrender. Thus I disagree with the author, a weapon is a weapon is a weapon and while ideally a civilized person does not want innocent deaths, war is a profoundly uncivil activity and all of his rationale fails to convince me.
The entire argument decorrellates into a diatribe against atomic energy, and is rendered invalid by its own subterfuge.
Nice of the author to clarify. Because the author could not possibly be more wrong.
There's no doubt that the atomic bombings were a horrible human tragedy. But virtually everyone in a position of responsibility with the Japanese government admitted that without the atomic bombings, Operation Downfall, or the invasion of the Japanese mainland, would have been necessary and that the Japanese nation might have been completely destroyed.
The cost in human lives, both Japanese and Allied, would have been infinitely worse had an invasion been needed to end the war. The moral responsibility of everyone involved in war is to end it as soon as possible. That meant using the atomic bombs.
It was two exhausted nations and dropping the bomb was a merciful coupe de grace. I don't see why he can't just take a step back and see that.
He's so wrong that he's not even wrong. His argument doesn't have standing. It would be a waste of words to rebut him.
We thank God that it has come to us, instead of to our enemies; and we pray that He may guide us to use it in His ways and for His purposes.” President Truman
Thank God we had a President ready to do whatever it took to end the War. Apparently this author's view of a “just war” is one that goes on needlessly. Is it any wonder that people had reservations about handing the Presidency to the disciple of such a doctrine? Our entire nuclear deterrence is BASED upon the President's willingness to “commit war crimes, apparently.”
The day I read about Nanking was the day any feeling of guilt over Hiroshima was forever swept away.
The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were definitely acts of war
directed to the destruction of whole cities orat leastvast areas
with their inhabitants.
Funny (i.e., ironic) that folks forget the firebombing the proceeded
the atomic bomb drops.
IIRC, more civilians (some wartime workers) were hideously fried by firebombing
than by the two nukes.
When you have an adversary that refuses to surrender and is ready to
send all its’ men (the ones remaining), women and children at you
with a “take one with you” on steroids attitude...
extreme measures are indicated.
What has always baffled me is that it took TWO bombs to get the Japanese
leaders to face the truth that they were done.
And for those that think the US forces were barbarians...heck, we
bombed the most Christianized city in Japan (Nagasaki) instead of
Kobe, the cultural capital of Japan.
Talk about “cultural sensitivity”.
Watch the films of japanese civilians throwing themselves off of cliffs when the U.S. took Saipan. They had been told by their leaders that the U.S. troops would brutalize them. Now imagine those scenes played out thousands of times if we had invaded Japan. The atomic bombs saved hundreds of thousands of japanese lives.
Well, then you have a poor knowledge of history then. Japan was NOT going to surrender. In fact it took two A bombs before they did surrender and there was a plot by military leaders to scotch that surrender but it didn't work out.
The US was expecting a million US troop casualties and Japan about the same. The people were gearing up to fight alongside the Japanese armed forces in order to protect their homeland.
The bombs were necessary in order to save millions of lives.
I cheer what he had done as well.
My dad was in the Army during WWII - ended up in Europe just after the Battle of the Bulge, so he was fortunate enough to be involved in a somewhat less deadly time (as compared to, say, the Normandy invasion). There is no doubt that had the US not had and used the Atom bomb, he would have been involved in the invasion of Japan. Hundreds of thousands would have died for no good reason. The bombs saved the lives of many, American and Japanese.
Truman did the right thing.
To use the quote from Billy Madison:
“Mr. Akin, what you have just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”
No one with an IQ even approaching room temperature would think that Obama would use a nuclear weapon to deter attack on the United States. Obama is about causing the destruction of the country, not protecting it.
You need to look at the Japanese plans for civilian resistance to an invasion -- civilians using spears and such if that's all they had -- and consider who a "noncombatant" would be.
The protest is really about one plane dropping one bomb and killing all those people. Then it was done again a few days later.
If five hundred planes had dropped firebombs on the same cities and killed the same ammount of people nothing would have been said about it.
A few days after the bombing of Nagasaki a large raid was done with conventional bombs on (I believe) Tokyo. Tens of thousands were killed yet no one remembers them because all people remember is the BOMB!
I would like to take every one of the protesters and eurowenies, then place them in the front wave of landing craft heading into Japan just so they can feel good about not dropping the BOMBS.
This guy, atkin, is a revisionist moron. I happily would volunteer him to be in the front of the Japan invasion uf I had a time machine. I think he’s drinking too much free wine at the altar.
Try 1974 when Lt. Hiroo Onoda surrendered to local authorities on Luzon, Philippines, after getting official orders to do so from Tokyo! There were multiple other Japanese holdouts, mostly where the conditions allowed them to be self-sufficient.
Well dandy, wasn’t vatican II implemented AFTER WW II??
I don't think I buy Mr. Akin’s analysis.
It was not our intention to kill civilians indiscriminately. Here, Mr. Akin gets it wrong. We specifically warned the Japanese to get the heck out of Dodge, cause a really big ugly thing was coming their way.
The purpose of the bomb was two-fold: to destroy anything that could be remotely used for war materiel, and to show the Japanese that we could destroy everything they had that could be used for war materiel. And without breaking much of a sweat.
If the intention of the American government was to show that we could kill lots of Japanese in one, fell swoop, it wouldn't have warned them to get out of their cities before the bomb fell.
Agree! What kind of crimes would these same utter fools be accusing Truman of if he had left the atomic bombs on the shelf and invaded Japan after months of preparatory bombing on cutoff of all supplies? Millions of women and children would have died needlessly.
The war needed to be over, and over in a way that it would not be repeated, as the war in Europe was ended in 1918, only to rekindle in 1939. And the proof is in the pudding. Japan has not had a war in 65 years.
There is no pleasing these fools until they surrender themselves and all their listeners to a violent death at the hands of the thugs of the world. Ignore them. Or, in time of war, lock them away.
Unbelievable and they continued to wage “war” against the locals. Nuts.
Interesting that the catechism blurbs were written after the fact. This screed is from the same trashheap as the “Just War” knucklehead Catholics working with Commies.
the real war crime would have been not to use the bomb and allow a million allied and american, soldiers to be killed and wounded and many more thousands of japanese to be killed on top of that.
Here’s my .02, which is not infallible.
The writer, a fool, cites a portion of the Catechism relating to the indiscriminate destruction of cities and areas. “Indiscriminate” is an enormous loophole, by the way, and probably intended to be.
To the best of my fallible understanding, the teaching derives from the Second Vatican Council and a pastoral document called Gaudium et Spes, which the Holy Father himself has taken exception to in some regards, so I would think it isn’t an infallible teaching.
There are parts of the Catechism that ARE considered infallible teaching, and parts that are not.
The part about indiscriminate destruction, cited here, is probably one of those that are not, and which are open to further exploration.
Isn’t that something. I remember that now that you mention it. I know that some of them surrendered decades after the war was officially over.
I think that, in the face of gut-wrenching deaths from all sides because of the Japanese vow to fight to the death, Truman made the best decision he could make.
To pretend that hindsight is better than his decision in the light of what was known and suspected at that time is a tragedy of human chutzpah.
dead on the money DC.
great thoughts O OK. thanks for you service for/to our Country. my God, men like you are few and far between. thank you.
Yes, the civilian/noncombatant excuse for moral superiority by those not involved in hell dictating those who were in hell. I wish these revisionist would actually tell us who exactly was innocent, pure, and righteous. Nagasaki was known as a vital trading post in Japan and the center of Roman Catholicism and Buddhism as well. Too bad the weather (Who controls that?) played a factor with the second target.
What exactly is a noncombatant anyway? A person working in a factory making bombs, bullets, armor and other instruments of war, say in a Mitsubishi Aircraft plant and maybe the Ohashi Arms factory? A child learning to shoot a gun with an accompanied bayonet? Who?
Self-defense, just like a pregnant woman with severe endometrial cancer who undergoes a hysterectomy due to the fact that both would not survive.
Nothing wrong with using superior firepower against the enemy, the Israelites made good use in their war with the Canaanites. Heck, they had to kill the little ones, the females, and the elderly by hand, not from an airplane.
The A bombs ended WWII, and unleashed an unbelievable amount of US effort to rebuild Japan, and Asia after the war!
??But more importantly, what - as a nation - are we now willing to do if a conventional assault on Iran or N-Korea lights up a nuclear response to us or our allies??
Have we become so wimpified that our government will cower underneath their desks, or will we have the resolve to kill their (innocent) citizens, as they will have killed ours??
The civilized world remains in the balance. Our leaders only get one vote, one time, and immediate!
This was no war crime. It was the only logical thing to do. Our military planners were expecting a million dead soldiers in their planned invasion of Honshu, which would have come after Okinawa. During Okinawa, we found that the Japanese would either commit suicide or be killed fighting, but in no case would they surrender- civilian or military. Had we plowed ahead, our soldiers would have been standing in a pile of ashes and the only Japanese who would be around today would be the children of the Japanese soldiers in China and Japanese-Americans. So we spared ourselves the horror of putting every inch of Japan to the sword, employed technology, and in fact, saved the lives of the Japanese- they lost two cities, but they survived.
War is terrible. Period. But if one comes you have exactly two choices- 1. fight and win or 2. surrender and suffer whatever the winner dishes out. Number 1 is far and away the better option.
Yes! It was a new weapon, much more powerfully destructive than any before, and that was appalling. In that regard, no different than the appalling new airplane, the appalling new submarine, the appalling new cannon, or the appalling new crossbow.
After Nanking, Bataan, Wake Island, Manila and Okinawa in the Pacific alone it would have been a war crime to not to end the war so quicky & decisively.
After the catastrophe in Italy, D-Day, Market Garden, Bastogne, the Bulge, Leningrad, Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk, battles for Romania & Poland & Hungary, and the insane standoff in Berlin just 3 months before, anything less than dropping the bomb would have resulted in an apocalypse making Stalingrad & Berlin look like picnics.
If little Jimmy had been a Marine who finally took Sugar Loaf Hill on Okinawa in 1945, which resulted in many casualties and effectively wiped out entire platoons and companies, and faced the prospect of landing on Kyushu next, he’d be damn happy that Truman dropped the bomb.
And every Marine I’ve talked to agrees.
In fact, during the Vietnam War he was in favor of using the bomb on North Vietnam.
Truman's big mistake in 1945 was letting the Soviets have half of Korea as an occupation zone.
Considering the death toll on Okinawa, I think the official estimates of how many Americans and Japanese would have died if Japan had been invaded are probably considerable underestimates. The combined death toll of Japanese soldiers and civilians on Okinawa (April-June 1945) may have been higher than the death toll from Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.
The US was putting together invasion plans & casualty estimates while observice the Soviet invasion of an insanely defended Berlin, at a cost of 1.5 million casualties including over 500,000 dead over a mere 2 week.
“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.”
“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). Admiral King thought that casualties in the first 30 days would fall between Luzon and Okinawa, i.e., between 31,000 and 41,000.”
“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.”
“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 IIincluding the Korean and Vietnam Warshave 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 on the field.”
One Marine first lieutenant led a group of 26 reinforcements up Sugar Loaf Hill on the evening of May 14, 1945. The next morning he was the only one of them still alive.
My father is alive today because we dropped the bombs. As a Result I and my brother were born and alive today and our children are alive today. Enough said?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.