View Full Version : Pearl Harbor
Sat, 7th Sep '02, 6:16pm
Well, Since I wached the movie, Pearl Harbor for the first time last night, I thought I post a few questions.
1. What are your thoughts on what happened Dec. 6, 1941?
2. What are your thoughts on how the US fought back? (i.e. the dropping of the 'A' bomb)
In my opinion, I think the Japps were stupid for being allied with Hitler in the first place. I also think the US should have dropped one more 'A' bomb on those bastards...right in the heart of Tokyo. :rolling:
[ September 07, 2002, 18:19: Message edited by: Kitrax ]
Sat, 7th Sep '02, 7:42pm
I thought it was December 7, 1941.
My thoughts: I still don't understand why Japan thought attacking us was the way to go. And I don't understand how it came as so much of a surprise to us. I would have thought we would have been more on top of things, but apparently Pearl Harbor was a disaster waiting to happen.
As for the A-bomb, a harsh retaliation. I hate that we resorted to that.
But in the end, I am glad we now have a good relationship with Japan, and Germany for that matter.
Sat, 7th Sep '02, 7:52pm
1. First of all, it was December 7, 1941. Just a correction, no insult intended.
As for my feelings about it, I think it was a sneaky, cowardly, underhanded attack on a country that didn't want to get involved with the war any more than they already had (provididing materials to England and such, but not being directly involved with the war).
That said, I can also see WHY Japan attacked us. They felt threatened, pushed into a corner, so to speak. I don't know the exact details, but I know that Japan felt it had reason to do what it did. If their intelligence (not personal, but military) had been a bit better, the attack might have succeeded in totally crippling the U.S. Navy. As it was, all our carriers were out to sea, and I firmly believe that for that reason alone we were able to go forward with our response. Otherwise, Japan would have been able to control the Pacific for years longer than they did. This would seriously delayed the end of the war, because we needed to be within a certain distance to even consider dropping the bombs.
I don't hate the Japanese, though. Like England, we fought a war with them and used whatever means we could to win. With Japan, it was the A-Bomb, with England, it was guerrilla tactics. We are all now pretty good friends, and Japan has given us more than we would have on our own.
A friend of mine once said that Americans come up with great ideas, but it takes the Japanese to actually DO something with them.
2. We couldn't have dropped a third bomb if we wanted to. There was only enough weapons-grade plutonium and uranium for three weapons, and one of those was used at the Trinity test site. At the time, it was a much more costly and time-consuming process than it is now, relatively speaking. This was not well-known and the implication that we had more of these weapons was enough to convince the Emporer to surrender.
There is also the firebombing to consider. That had been going on for quite awhile before the A-Bombs were used, and in a few cases, were more destructive than the A-Bomb. But it was more costly overall, in terms of men, planes, and other materials. We were looking to end the war as soon as possible, and the A-Bomb was a means to that end. The consensus is that an invasion would have cost more American and Japanese lives than both bombs put together. While that is the major reason given for the justification of using the bomb, I don't think it's the only reason. We were also trying to show the world (the Soviet Union in particular - sure, we were allies, but we were never friends) that they had better not mess with us again, in the way Japan did in 1941.
Nowadays, we're a bit more mellow. If America had the same mind-set one year ago as we did 61 years ago, Afghanistan would be a smoking, radioactive hole in the ground.
[ September 07, 2002, 19:55: Message edited by: MaxxQ1 ]
Sat, 7th Sep '02, 7:54pm
An invasion of Japan would probably have killed more people than those two bombs did.
Sat, 7th Sep '02, 8:53pm
An excellent, in depth analysis of Pearl Harbor can be found in a book titled "At Dawn We Slept", by Gordon Prange. He interviewed many of the survivors on both sides, including some of the Japanese officers that planned the attack. A great read. :book:
Sat, 7th Sep '02, 10:14pm
Well, Since I wached the movie, Pearl Harbor for the first time last night, I thought I post a few questions.
1. What are your thoughts on what happened Dec. 6, 1941?
2. What are your thoughts on how the US fought back? (i.e. the dropping of the 'A' bomb)
In my opinion, I think the Japps were stupid for being allied with Hitler in the first place. I also think the US should have dropped one more 'A' bomb on those bastards...right in the heart of Tokyo.
Well, for the first question, i think that it was a cowardly attack that almost put the USA out of the war. It was just because the navy's air craft carriers were at a different port that the navy wasn't completely wiped out.
While i think dropping the A bombs was a horrific thing i also think it was for the best. Japan would never had surrendered and it saved alot more than it killed. (It was costing the USA half its invasion force with each Japanese isle they took.
And for that final statement, i don't see how you could possibly say such an awful thing. I think you're missing the whole point of the A-bomb attacks. They were dropped to show the crazy rulers that the USA had the power to wipe out all of Japan. They wern't dropped to try and kill as many as possible.
[ September 07, 2002, 22:14: Message edited by: Z-Layrex ]
Sat, 7th Sep '02, 10:57pm
"Well, for the first question, i think that it was a cowardly attack that almost put the USA out of the war."
Z, the U.S. wasn't in the war to be put out of. We entered the war after the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Sat, 7th Sep '02, 11:00pm
Big B America was preparing for war anyway. They were going to enter either way. German u-boats had been attacking civillian ferrys. America had been preparing an army for years.
Sat, 7th Sep '02, 11:42pm
Z, the US wants preparing for war for many years, as you say it.
The US had just gotten out of the Great Deppresion in 1939. They couldnt have been preparing for years.
Sat, 7th Sep '02, 11:46pm
Cade strai that was when they finally got out of the deppression and COULD enter the war. They'd been training soldiers properly for 5 years!
Sun, 8th Sep '02, 12:04am
Why Japan attacked USA?!?
100 years before Pearl Harbor the US marine attacked Japan and forced to trade with the rest of the world (before that the only western country they were trading with was Holland).
Japan waited then for the right moment to strike back. The American government ofcourse denies this.
What I donīt understand about Pearl Harbor is this:
A hour before the real attack a Japanese submarine acting as scout was sunk by the U.S. navy, the captain of this U.S. ship reported this and asked for full alert on Pearl. But nothing happened, like Roosevelt was waiting to be attacked and then having a pretty damn good excuse to start war with Japan and Germany
Oh and the movie, it sucked horribly. When I saw it, I just needed to puke.
Come on, why does there have to be romance in a warmovie. Ainīt the blood and dead bodies enough. No!! they need a female crowd too!
Sun, 8th Sep '02, 12:45am
Getting involved in WWII is what got the US out of the Depression, not the other way around. Also, The US was deeply into isolationism at the time. FDR was NOT planning on getting involved until Pearl Harbor occured and the public was jolted out of its false sense of secure detachment.
I am really disgusted by the bigoted statements made in the topic and shamelessly printing here on a site that is frequented by Japanese people. Calling them Japps, or Italians Wapps, or Polish Pollacks, or Spanish Spiccs.... is insulting. :flaming:
[ September 08, 2002, 00:49: Message edited by: scarampella ]
Sun, 8th Sep '02, 12:45am
One of the reasons of the attack that you have not mentioned is that Japan was afraid to attack Soviets from behind, as the Germans wanted, because the japanase army had suffer humilating defeat from Soviets in Manjuria and so they decided to attack american and commonwealth forces.
As for the A-bomb there are two reasons:
1)To reduce the cost of lives of a possible invasion (Japanese would have fought to the last man)
2)To send a message to the Soviet leaders
Sun, 8th Sep '02, 12:49am
BOC i'd already said number 1
The Deviant Mage
Sun, 8th Sep '02, 2:27am
MaxxQ1, Japan did not feel threatened by the United States, it did not feel pushed into a corner. Japan had been waging war on China for years before they struck Pearl Harbor; they needed to expand to gain resources, something the Japanese islands are not well-stocked with. They especially needed rubber, for which they spread south into the Indonesian area. They felt that eventually this would put them at odds with the US...they knew that due to the industrial potential of the United States, they could not win a prolonged conflict. They decided to strike before the US could start gearing up for conflict, and saw an opportunity to eleminate the Pacific fleet at the same time. They took it. They tried to give us about a half an hour of notice through their embassy, but some bungling resulted in our getting the message after the fact.
Morgoth, the idea that the United States' opening of Japan to the West is directly responsible for their attacking us in Hawaii is absolutely ludicrous. We did not resort to violence to open Japan; we sailed our black ships into a Japanese harbor and declared that they were now open for business. Obviously, there is a threat of violence implied in this action, but it was never necessary to actually carry through. At this time the Japanese were still under the control of the samurai system, their katanas were no match for Western firepower. The Japanese did not respond to this with resentment, but rather decided never to be in such a weak position again. The opening of Japan ushered in the Meiji era, an amazing transition to a modern state. Their war in China is a result of this drive to be a powerful Western nation...the same Imperialism that led to the division of Africa among the European nations and US control of Pacific and Caribbean islands.
BOC, it can be argued that your number 2 is a far more realistic, if cynical, reason than number 1. The Russians were driving the Japanese out of mainland Asia far faster than the US had expected. If we had not forced the Japanese to surrender quickly, the Russians would have launched the invasion, then occupation, of Japan, rather than the United States. Stalin knew that the nuclear explosions were a message to back off...he didn't take it very well. Here comes the Cold War.
Sun, 8th Sep '02, 2:52am
MaxxQ1, Japan did not feel threatened by the United States, it did not feel pushed into a corner. Japan had been waging war on China for years before they struck Pearl Harbor; they needed to expand to gain resources, something the Japanese islands are not well-stocked with. They especially needed rubber, for which they spread south into the Indonesian area. They felt that eventually this would put them at odds with the US...they knew that due to the industrial potential of the United States, they could not win a prolonged conflict. They decided to strike before the US could start gearing up for conflict, and saw an opportunity to eleminate the Pacific fleet at the same time. They took it. They tried to give us about a half an hour of notice through their embassy, but some bungling resulted in our getting the message after the fact.Exactly. The Japanese are nothing if not long-term thinkers. They realized that in order to have these resources they needed, that they had to get what they percieved as their greatest threat out of the way. For whatever reason, they felt backed into a corner because they figured we would not allow them to get the materials they needed. Therefore, a preemptive strike was deemed necessary. Yes they also knew our wartime industries could be up and running very quickly, but not fast enough to replace most of the Pacific Fleet, if they had managed to take it completely out. Actually, I admire them for the planning that had to go into that operation, but not for the act itself. Like I stated above, if their intel had been just a bit better, things would be very different now, or at least the Pacific war would have gone on much longer than it did.
The fact of the matter is, if they hadn't felt threatened (whether real or perceived), they wouldn't have attacked us.
Sun, 8th Sep '02, 3:00am
The consensus is that an invasion would have cost more American and Japanese lives than both bombs put together.The thing that you're all forgetting here is that those lives lost would have been soldiers, not civilians. A solder's duty is to die for his country.. and the whole reason for that is to ensure that others will NOT have to die for their country. The people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were to at least 95% not soldiers. There is a difference between killing innocents and killing soldiers, one is an act of war, the other is a warcrime.
The attack on Pearl Harbour harbor was indeed cowardly, but it was an attack by one country's army, on another country's army. Thus, it was an act of war, and war is seldom noble... The "brave" way to attack pearl harbor would have been to make a formal declaration of war first, I suppose... but surprise, surprise, it's tactically stupid to do that, since you're warning your opponent. The US did not make a formal declaration of war before attacking Afghanistan, for example. Was that cowardly?
My point here is that while bombing pearl harbor may have been cowardly, so was nuking thousands of civilians.
The Deviant Mage
Sun, 8th Sep '02, 5:43am
Something generally overlooked by most people is that the United States was actually put on trial for War Crimes for those bombings. I'm gonna go look it up, see if I can get some results or something.
EDIT: Sadly, no luck for the amount of effort I am willing to put into this. Oh well. :p
[ September 08, 2002, 07:38: Message edited by: The Deviant Mage ]
Sun, 8th Sep '02, 10:58am
To declare war openly against Amarica would have been so friggin stupid that they would have had their asses blasted halfway and back across the Pacific before they could launch their attack. It was not cowardly, but intelligant. Well, I take that back, any attack on Amarica is stupid, but against any other country, it would have been intelligent.
Sun, 8th Sep '02, 12:59pm
Wait a minute.
I don't see why attacking USA is stupid and attacking other countries isn't?
If it wasn't the nuke, it would be some chemical weapon, don't you think? The only thing I can see here is that decision on exterminate people or not with consequences that will feel in years after depends on only few persons. These persons should be sent to those Nine Hells you have in your sig.
I forgot to add something. IIRC Bin Laden is still alive and well somewhere on holidays. And the person who attacked my country is in jail and prosecuted for war crimes. Now I ask you again, why is stupid to attack USA, and wasn't stupid to attack other countries? I don't see any difference, I see only stupidity to attack anyone, USA or someone else. Unless, of yourse, the attacker has a sick need to fill magazine covers and major TV shows.
[ September 08, 2002, 13:03: Message edited by: Extremist ]
Sun, 8th Sep '02, 1:06pm
To declare war openly against Amarica would have been so friggin stupid that they would have had their asses blasted halfway and back across the Pacific before they could launch their attack. It was not cowardly, but intelligant. Well, I take that back, any attack on Amarica is stupid, but against any other country, it would have been intelligent. You just don't get it do you zaknafein??? By that post i think you're one of those complete idiots who thinks the USA is better than everywhere else just because they are currently the wealthiest nation. In the 30s, most of Europe had a better economy than the USA, America couldn't have 'blasted their asses' because all their army had involved was some horses and a few pistols. Sure they'd already started preparing, but they wer'nt ready.
Sun, 8th Sep '02, 5:18pm
Ex, you mean Milosevic, right?!?
Sun, 8th Sep '02, 6:13pm
The thing that you're all forgetting here is that those lives lost would have been soldiers, not civilians. A solder's duty is to die for his country.. and the whole reason for that is to ensure that others will NOT have to die for their country. The people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were to at least 95% not soldiers. There is a difference between killing innocents and killing soldiers, one is an act of war, the other is a warcrime.I recall reading somewhere that leaflets were dropped either several hours or several days before the dropping of the first bomb, to warn people of what was going to happen. Of course, most didn't believe or heed them. I'm not making an excuse to justify the use of the bomb, just stating a fact that I recall.
Another thing I had also read somewhere was that Japan was willing to defend their island down to the last man, woman, and child. Do you think an invasion would have had fewer civilian losses than the two bombs caused? Their "divine wind" of pilots proved that they were willing to throw their lives away to defeat us...why would that mindset be limited only to their pilots, or their military in general?
The attack on Pearl Harbour harbor was indeed cowardly, but it was an attack by one country's army, on another country's army. Thus, it was an act of war, and war is seldom noble... The "brave" way to attack pearl harbor would have been to make a formal declaration of war first, I suppose... but surprise, surprise, it's tactically stupid to do that, since you're warning your opponent. The US did not make a formal declaration of war before attacking Afghanistan, for example. Was that cowardly?No, admittedly, the US did *not* make a formal declaration of war. But damn near everyone knew it was going to happen. No one but the Japanese knew what was going to happen at Pearl. We didn't hide the preparations for going into Afghanistan, and anyone who can think knew we were going in there. The Taliban had enough warning, and the Afghan civilians would have as well, if the Taliban hadn't been controlling what they heard on the news.
My point here is that while bombing pearl harbor may have been cowardly, so was nuking thousands of civilians.As I stated above, they were warned. Did Bin Laden warn us? Civilians were killed a year ago, in case you hadn't heard. Also, civilians were killed at Pearl. For that matter, more civs were killed last year than civilian *and* miltary combined at Pearl. You said yourself that war is seldom noble. By that statement alone, you make a justification for everything we are discussing.
There is no such thing as a war where no civilians were killed. Hehehe...I can just see the disclaimer: "No civilians were harmed in the making of this war." Again, I'm not trying to justify the killing of innocents - it's just a fact that it happens. War is not perfect, smart bombs or not. We try not to kill civilians, hence the development of more accurate weapons, but it happens. Usually because they happen to live near the target, or possible work at the facility that is being targeted. Speaking of which, are those civs that work at the bomb factory, or the comm center any less of a threat than the military personnel that use what the civs make? Go to any US Air Force base in the world and you will find a civilian population, either working or living there.
Z-Layrex - your response to zaknafein is pretty right on, except that our military was a bit more developed than what you state. I'll assume you were just trying to make a point with that. :)
Sun, 8th Sep '02, 7:02pm
:lol: ok maybe some horses and pistols was a teeny bit exagerated. :) But the army couldn't have gone to war, they were barley able to liberate Africa at first because of the poor quality of soldiers.
Sun, 8th Sep '02, 8:40pm
Did Bin Laden warn us The Ukranian(sp) version of the FBI did!
Mon, 9th Sep '02, 9:02am
Erm, your missing the point, they did blow there asses halfway across the pacific, and they might have done so earlier if Japan had have declared war openly.
Making war is rather stupid, but making war against people with nukes is even more stupid. Other chemical weapons would not have done any more damage than two nukes could have done. Using my sig as fuel for that attack on what I said is pretty lame, maybe you should keep you attacks topic related.
Mon, 9th Sep '02, 4:57pm
Um....zaknafein, just so you know, no one had any nuclear devices in 1941. The Germans and the Allies were in a race to develop one.
Nuclear fission was discovered late in 1938 in Germany. Yet it was not until the autumn of 1941 that scientists in Britain developed a theory that explained how an atomic bomb could be developed within a few years. Immediately after that information was transmitted to America, the U.S. government established an atomic bomb program, the Manhattan Project. This delayed beginning had a powerful influence on the end result. Fearing that German scientists had a head start in the race for the atomic bomb, scientists in Britain and America strove to convince Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill that the war could be lost if Germany got the bomb first.
The first testing of an atomic weapon was on July 16, 1945. The argument that the Japanese attacked without warning because the US could have blown Japan out of the water is entirely false. Not only was there no usable nuclear weapon in the world, let alone in the US, but at that time in history Japan had a far superior navy and military. The two greatest military powers of that time were the Axis: Germany and Japan (Italy was a member of the so-called Axis powers, but was no where as near as powerful). The Allies (all of Great Britain (the UK, Australia, and Canada), Russia, the US and the remains of the French forces then stationed in Britain) were very much overpowered, and continued to be up until the later years of the wars.
In late 1942 and early 1943, the Allies were on the verge of being defeated when a few key events occured: the Japanese code was cracked, which gave the US the edge it needed against Japan in the Pacific; the defeat of Rommel in North Africa by the British; the defeat of the German Sixth Army at Stalingrad. Up until those events the US had already surrendered the Phillipines and Japan was preparing to invade Australia and Hawaii; Rommel had continually stimmied the Brits in Africa and Germany controlled virtually all of Europe and Africa; Russia had been decimated by the German advance, and was making a last stand in Stalingrad after a devastating retreat across it's own homeland.
And a clarification of a few other things.
On the casualty estimates of an invasion of Japan, something that might shed a little perspective:
The least imaginative alternative, the invasion of Japan, requires historical clarification. Truman recorded in his memoirs that such an invasion would have cost "half a million American lives," and he cited Gen. George C. Marshall as the source of this estimate. But recently declassified documents indicate that no such official estimates existed. The casualties projected by the army for the planned invasion in November 1945 ranged from a high of forty-six thousand Americans killed to a low of about twenty-five thousand. "The claim of a half million American lives [saved by the atomic bombings]," historian Barton Bernstein has written, "was a postwar creation."
About the destructiveness of the A-Bombs, up until they were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagaski, no one had a very realistic idea of just how destructive they would be. It was a huge eye-opener for everyone, including the scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project.
At Hiroshima, almost 130,000 people were killed, injured, or missing, and 90% of the city was leveled.
As for destructiveness, the fire bombing of Dresden, Germany in Feb. of 1945 completely decimated the city (ranked as one of the world's most beautiful cities before World War II) with deaths estimated between 35,000 and 135,000. The fire bombing was carried out using conventional weapons. Dresden was not a military city (other than some prisoners of war kept there) nor even a major industrial centre and had virtually no military significance. I use this comparison simply to point out that, while use of the atomic bombs on Japan had devastating and horrific effects, the fire bombing of Dresden is often completely forgotten - the effect of the fire bombing *was* known, and was entirely uncalled for. The fire bombing of Dresden was unnecessary, un-called for, and often forgotten.
Mon, 9th Sep '02, 5:41pm
You forget years of children mutations and cancer expansion in area where the nuke was dropped. I'm unsure that you've added that number in statistics.
"Conventional" bombing is just as bad when it happens, however it can't be felt by generations after it.
No, I don't mean the rebuilding here. Both types of bombings need the rebuilding. But both types are not the same and can't be the same. When we talk about consequences.
But bombing of any kind I take as a crime (because there is NO WAY you'll avoid civil victims unless you drop the bomb in a desert, but even there you could kill an accidental tourist). And all of those who can't say "No." to their superiors when asked to kill civilians should be "electrified". Oh, "electrified" before their superiors who should watch the process of the "barbecue".
And afterwards those superiors should get a medical treatment on inquisition machines.
[ September 09, 2002, 17:43: Message edited by: Extremist ]
Mon, 9th Sep '02, 6:02pm
Yes, the U.S. forced open Japanese harbors, a resentment that was no doubt still felt at the time of WW2. But a more immediate sting was that Americans were unofficially fighting on behalf of the Chinese well before Pearl Harbor, most notably as fighter pilots. Japan knew we would enter on the side of the Allies, as that was where our sympathies clearly were.
Regardless of the "American lives saved" argument, the bombings of Dresden (even more horrific than Gnolyn has described), Hiroshima, and Nagasaki were inexcusable. Those were civilian centers. There were no doubt thousands of people who did not wish to be in a war against the Allies and were just trying to live their lives as best they could.
It is simply amazing that Japan and the U.S. are such friends now. I look at the culture and history of Japan and think it's one of the few other countries I could stand to live in. Even if they wouldn't allow me a gun, they have cool katanas. :)
Mon, 9th Sep '02, 6:08pm
Japan's a lovely place (as is America and Canada). cutest girls in the world. Video game crazy. Little crime. No litter (or very little anyway) nice government. Only downside i can think of is the earthquakes. I say it's the best country in the world. but i guess it depends what you like. You want a high-tec lifestyle go to Japan (if you could, they rarley allow immigrants) if you want to make a ton of money go live in America. If you want a simpler life, try Canada or western (and a few countrys in the East) Europe. Japan was alot different to how it is now in the 40s, they saw their Emporer as a god :rolleyes:
Mon, 9th Sep '02, 6:18pm
No, the casualty estimates given for Hiroshima only take into account the immediate effects, and usually (though I can't say for sure from that source) include deaths from radiation sickness up to a few months after the incident. As you say Extremist, they don't include the longer term effects of cancer, genetic mutations and death suffered years and even decades later.
The other main difference is that that the destruction of Dresden took several hours of bombing, while the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagaski took mere minutes from a single bomb. There's a very powerful quote from one of the crew members of Engola Gay (the plane that dropped the bomb) when he saw the bomb explosion, but I can't remember it off-hand, and haven't been able to find it.
The reason I gave Dresden for comparison wasn't really for the casualty numbers but to give a comparison of targets. There were military reasons for choosing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. First, to demonstrate that they could utterly annihilate any part of Japan. Second, the bomb was dropped days later on Nagasaki to emphasize the point that Japan could not win. The Allies (and the US in particular) had asked for complete, unconditional surrender from Japan, which until that moment was the sticking point - Japan was prepared to make a limited surrender only. Nagasaki was to make sure that there was no argument about the surrender. Dresden had no significance whatsoever. Again, I'm not justifying the bombings, just raising the point. I personally think that such destruction is utterly horrific.
P.S. No I didn't give the 'full' horror of Dresden. I don't think that I can, really. But "Slaughterhouse-Five" by Kurt Vonnegut will give you a chilling idea.
[ September 09, 2002, 18:25: Message edited by: Gnolyn Lochbreaker ]
Tue, 10th Sep '02, 2:13pm
as for the long term effects of conventionally annihilating a city, a few thoughts:
I live in the city of cologne, the only major city close enough to england to allow early large scale bombings, so they had the priviledge to be the first city in history *hosting* a 1000-bomber raid. We have parks here with extensive hills, built of the rubble of our ruined city. In this parks the trees grew surprisingly fast, a result of the amount of phosphorous dropped in cologne to induce firestorms. When I go through Colognes city centre I always notice the slots in the rows of the buildings, indicating a house not yet rebuilt, just like the large number of 1950s style houses in some areas and the total absence of anything older there. Large areas of Dresden's city centre aren't rebuilt even now, some 50+ years later - in a developed country. And there are still the memories of the children and people hiding in the shelters during the bombings. The terrible events of 9/11 are a weak joke compared to that.
The nazis build concentration camps to kill millions because of insane reasons and to burn them in crematories. The allieds were more generous and simply turned cities in crematories - to kill people because of being german. Where is the major difference? I couldn't care less if it takes a minute to drop a nuke or a week to fuel the fires of a burning city? Actually the firebomb raids on the wooden japanese cities killed more civilians than the nuclear bombs, just the fancy mushroom cloud and the radiation symptoms missed. Either way, it is just another atrocity - mass murder.
And as for Pearl Harbor:
The US knew what would happen but they had a nation not yet ready for war. Pearl Harbor had to happen to allow the US to enter WW-II. And the oil embargo against japan was the tool to drive the japanese to become even more agressive than they have been already. Eventually they had tried to conquer china since 1935, killing millions and doing atrocities like the use of biological weapons and the Nanking massacre ... but of course, it needed Pearl Harbor, the death of a few hundred US soldiers and a few burning battleships, to bring the US in the right state of mind.
[ September 10, 2002, 14:18: Message edited by: Ragusa ]
Wed, 11th Sep '02, 10:33pm
Shostakovitch string quartet #8 will also give you an idea of the tragedy of the bombing of Dresden.
Thu, 12th Sep '02, 9:04am
This reminds me of something our history rteacher told us a few weeks ago... She said that there has been found evidence that it was the Americans who shot first. Apparently, they sunk a Japanese submarine that has now been found near Pearl Harbour. I canät remember the details, though.
(Dentists are bad... very, very bad)
Thu, 12th Sep '02, 9:22am
Yeah, I also heard that one about the Americans shooting first.
Well, it doesn't matter. USA is too powerful, no American is ever gonna end up in Haag. They did the ultimate evil (atom bomb, kids in Hiroshima are even today born with 3 arms, one leg, etc.) and nobody got punished.
The English invaded Falkland islands and nobody got punished. But if it's some of the smaller countries in a fight they're bound to get punished, cos only America has heroes and all the others MUST have used criminal tactics to win a fight, right?
(btw, that is irony, sarcasm... The Americans think too much of themselves. They watch too many movies.)
[ September 12, 2002, 09:23: Message edited by: Corr Raven ]
Thu, 12th Sep '02, 10:48am
the english invaded the Falklands, yes, in 1833. After that they had maintained a constant presence there. Sure, the argentinians disagreed at the time of occupation but at that time the things were handled much different. No one can seriously doubt that the Falklands were actually a little more british han argentinian, not to mention that the people living there were mainly english too.
Now, when Argentina invaded the Falklands in this century (1981 iirc) the Falklands were under british control for approx 150 years. That was an attempt to gain nationalistic support for a sinking government.
But on the other hands there are people around who claim they have home-rights on some soil even after 2000 years. Hey, I have to remember to free west- and east prussia, posen and salesia from polish and russian ocupation soon ... we just had to leave some 80 to 55 years ago - that *right* is almost fresh compared to the argentinian one ... :rolleyes: Your point of view is a little twisted.
[ September 12, 2002, 10:48: Message edited by: Ragusa ]
Thu, 12th Sep '02, 11:28am
Maybe, Ragusa, but I just mentioned the Falklands to emphesize the point I was making about the USA (seems I took up the wrong thing to emphesize it).
However, about the English... They had been oppressing Ireland and Scotland (especially catholics) for centuries. It is not over yet, IRA will not stop nor will the English goverment. They brought it on themselves.
Anyway, the thread is about USA, and who are they to play world police and name countries of evil, when they have a history of about 200 years. Everybody knows Iraq is a potent threat with Saddam, but you cannot just decide to attack Iraq when you do not have support from NATO. And they do not. Wouldn't that make the USA the agressor again (like Vietnam)?
As far as I'm concerned, everything was fine til Bush became president. His politics are redicilous (especially asking that an American citizen cannot be tried in Haag simply because he's an American. Does that mean they are higher beings? Do Irish, Croat, Serb or German lives worth less?
(ok, I got a bit overdramatic, but you know what I mean...)
[ September 12, 2002, 11:29: Message edited by: Corr Raven ]
Thu, 12th Sep '02, 4:06pm
Ara, here's a link to an article (http://www.nationalpost.com/search/site/story.asp?id=737A5091-3284-4578-A66B-0312C999D8FB) about the Japanese sub that was found.
Thu, 12th Sep '02, 4:14pm
Uh. The Brits always had a claim to the Falklands. (Interesting that you call them that when, if your claim that they were Argentinian were true, everyone should be calling them by the Argentian name.) They just *****-slapped Argentina when they tried to take 'em over.
Your claim that kids today, almost 60 years later, are still born with 3 legs or one arm because of a relatively small nuclear blast are stunningly ridiculous.
Thu, 12th Sep '02, 7:03pm
i think morgoth is right. supposedly roosevelt wanted to be at war with hitler on moral grounds, but the US at the time had a laiser-faire attitude to the goings-on in other countries. what a great man. imagine having to make that decision!
saying that though, the US have been trying to play catch-up on wars based on principles ever since (vietnam?).
Thu, 12th Sep '02, 7:42pm
I'm glad I made you laugh, Shralp. Maybe they're not born with 3 legs but it was an overstatement to emphesize the claim. You didn't get that?
What is the difference between Hitler and the atom bomb? Both killed thounsands of innocent people. Anyone who uses nuclear weapons is stupid and irresponsible at the least.
Thu, 12th Sep '02, 10:22pm
Corr Raven, I sincerely hope that you do understand the difference between the actions of Adolf Hitler and the Allies' use of two atomic bombs. The atomic bombs were dropped as acts of war, with the intent of demonstrating without argument that Japan could not win, and that they must accept complete, unconditional surrender. Few people in the world had any notion as to the actual long-term effects of those bombs. Many of the scientists that had worked on the Manhattan Project also contracted various forms of radiation sickness, including cancer and sterility - because they didn't fully understand at the time what they were dealing with. Two bombs were dropped, and the war ended.
As horrific as the results of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, they pale by far to the events known as the Holocaust. Simply put, the Holocaust sought the systematic annihilation of the Jews, along with other so-called 'lesser' races, nationalities, and those with disabilities. Children born blind or deaf were sent to 'special hospitals' for 'treatment' - they never went home again. It was not a reaction to Jews that showed any resistance to Hitler, nor Jews that rebelled against Nazi Germany. It was for all of them, simply because they were Jews. When lining them up by the hundreds and shooting them (a method which resulted in the death of several hundred thousand) proved to be too slow a process, the Final Solution was implemented: the gas chambers, and the industrial ovens used to burn the bodies. When the Allies began to approach Nazi Germany, the operations of the death camps were increased. If Hitler couldn't win the war, at least he could eradicate the Jews, or as many as he possibly could. By the end of the war some 6 million Jews had been methodically, systematically murdered. There is quite simply nothing in human history that compares to this industrial genocide, and God willing, there never will be.
[ September 12, 2002, 22:23: Message edited by: Gnolyn Lochbreaker ]
Thu, 12th Sep '02, 11:46pm
Yeah, yeah... Nobody's defending Hitler but Americans killed thousands of civilians. Wheather or not the Americans consider their actions criminal is clear. They don't. I don't. But look at it like this. The japanese soldiers killed american soldiers. American soldiers killed Japanese civilians. And that's it. The question is: Why weren't Americans tried for that? Answer: It was war time, the allies defended their own, blablala... Why then, are other countries tried in Haag?
I don't expect Americans to understand why they are irritating the world more and more with their overzelaous patriotism. There was a war in my country a few years ago, and while I don't like, but understand the Serbs, I don't understand the Haag Tribunal, which is enditing every croatian general, who really did defend their own country.
And the USA is supposed to be above the Haag Tribunal. And is.
I'm not saying Americans aren't good people, but you look at things too one-dimensional.
Fri, 13th Sep '02, 12:03am
First, the winner never gets tried. It has always been this way, and probably always will.
Second, you single out the use of atomic bombs on civilians. This allows you to single out the US. Would you care to give us your insight on the killing of civilians by the other nations involved in WWII? How about Japan (in China, another holocaust), England (in Germany), or Germany (in England, France, Russia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, etc.)? No country killed more civilians than Germany, but you don't seem to have a problem with that.
Third, about patriotism. Please help me understand why it bothers you that many Americans are patriotic. You're right, I don't get it. Why should it bother you? What is it to you? (Note, I am not talking about disgusting displays like the preening athletes at the Olympics in Sydney, that wasn't patriotism).
Fri, 13th Sep '02, 12:13am
History is always written by winners and winners don't put on trial themselves but their enemies.If Germans have won WWII, today everybody will be talking about the "great" Heinrich Himmler and the evil English, American and Russian war criminals.
I don't think that Americans irritate the world with their patriotism. What irritates the world, in my opinion, is the arrogance and the hypocritism of the american goverment. I have believed that the cause for this was the fact that they had not seen a war in their soil since their civil war but after the Laden attack I don't know.
Fri, 13th Sep '02, 1:01am
But on the other hands there are people around who claim they have home-rights on some soil even after 2000 years. Hey, I have to remember to free west- and east prussia, posen and salesia from polish and russian ocupation soon ... we just had to leave some 80 to 55 years ago - that *right* is almost fresh compared to the argentinian one ... [Roll Eyes] Your point of view is a little twisted. That's funny, this EXACT point of view is used by some guys (fortunately, not all, maybe not even a majority)in the Middle east's only non-muslim state to claim that the entire area from the tigris to the nile rightfully belongs to them, because 'God gave it to them' 2500 years ago.
Fri, 13th Sep '02, 2:43am
God I'm happy someone got that little joke, congrats :)
The Deviant Mage
Fri, 13th Sep '02, 4:14am
Corr Raven, I said earlier in this post that the US was, indeed, tried for war crimes for the use of nuclear weapons. This is true, though I can't go into details on the Japanese.
I read it in a book, I believe the title was Weird History 101, but I'm at college now and left the book at home. I'm sure that this fact could be verified online, but I already put as much effort into that as I am willing to. I don't doubt myself, why bother? :rolleyes: