Untold History of the United States

[klr]

Oh dear. I thought I'd seen the last of links to IHR articles. The last time I saw the IHR referenced was during a previous debate on Hiroshima & Nagasaki. You do know that (amongst other things) IHR is anti-semitic, holocaust denying and neo-Nazi leaning?

Are we or are we not the good guys? ARE WE OR ARE WE NOT THE FUCKING GOOD GUYS? If we're not the good guys, then take the goddamn Constitution and the Bill of Rights and throw them in the fucking trash because they're worthless.

Stop whining and give us a reasonable alternative that would've ended the war quicker.

Who gives a shit what I'd do? I don't know what I'd do. I don't know everything. I'm not Doctor bloody Bernofski. What I'd do is completely irrelevant. The important thing is what I would not do, what I would never do, what no civilized nation or people should ever do. You mentioned other instances of genocide in an earlier post. Yes, that's exactly my point. Heinous acts, weren't they, perpetrated by the scum of the earth, weren't they? And then we did the same. Making us scum also. Forgive me if that doesn't sit well with me, and I consider it, oh, I dunno, wrong in some way.
If we're going to justify the unjustifiable, reconcile the irreconcilable, then we are no longer the good guys, and the American dream, which used to actually mean something, and should still mean something, is dead. Put a fork in it, it's done. The grand experiment has been concluded, and it is a failure.

Eh? It's almost as if you've never heard of the fire raids on Japan (100,000+ killed in the March 9/10 raid on Tokyo alone), or that the Japanese were being gradually starved into oblivion? Why aren't those and other actions judged to the same standard? Never mind that an invasion would have caused casualties in the millions (mostly Japanese, mostly civilians), or that civilians were dying in massive numbers in Japanese-occupied Asia at the time ...

[Jason]

Ratskep rejects.

As if that was some valid metric.. but I rejected Ratskep, not twother way around.

[klr]

Ratskep rejects.

As if that was some valid metric.. but I rejected Ratskep, not twother way around.

Ditto. Not that I have anything against the regulars there at all.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Ratskep rejects.

As if that was some valid metric.. but I rejected Ratskep, not twother way around.

Ditto. Not that I have anything against the regulars there at all.

I walked away.

As usual, Sandi fails even at insults.

[Ian]

Sandinista, I can't see your post WITH ALL THE FLAGS WAVING IN MY FACE.

Who the fuck is waving a flag?? Who here is claiming anything honorable or glorious about the bombs? Not me. I'm sure not saying it was one of America's prouder moments (Sandi probably thinks I am, but he does not know how to think). I'm only saying that they were necessary evils, and by far the lesser evil compared with the other choice. There was no good choice, unfortunately.

And you again ducked the question about what would've been a better thing to do. So all you're doing is reacting to history with emotion rather than objective thought, i.e. you're just whining.

[JimC]

An interesting point to consider is whether ethical judgements should be made in terms of the zeitgeist of the times, our current ethical position, or some sort of unchanging ethical absolute.

If decisions were made, particular in warfare, that the majority at that time were ethically comfortable with, but in hindsight, from our current stance, they look ethically dodgy, how are we to judge?

And is there any real point in judging past actions? One can argue that judgement is required when deciding what actions to take in the future. Judging an unchangeable past, in any direction whatsoever, has an air of futility to it...

Studying the context of past decisions is another matter; we may learn useful lessons to help our current decision making. But retrospective judgement serves little purpose at all...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Sandinista, I can't see your post WITH ALL THE FLAGS WAVING IN MY FACE.

Who the fuck is waving a flag?? Who here is claiming anything honorable or glorious about the bombs? Not me. I'm sure not saying it was one of America's prouder moments (Sandi probably thinks I am, but he does not know how to think). I'm only saying that they were necessary evils, and by far the lesser evil compared with the other choice. There was no good choice, unfortunately.

And you again ducked the question about what would've been a better thing to do. So all you're doing is reacting to history with emotion rather than objective thought, i.e. you're just whining.

He's just compensating for not having a clue by making himself look foolish. It's the best he can do.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

An interesting point to consider is whether ethical judgements should be made in terms of the zeitgeist of the times, our current ethical position, or some sort of unchanging ethical absolute.

If decisions were made, particular in warfare, that the majority at that time were ethically comfortable with, but in hindsight, from our current stance, they look ethically dodgy, how are we to judge?

And is there any real point in judging past actions? One can argue that judgement is required when deciding what actions to take in the future. Judging an unchangeable past, in any direction whatsoever, has an air of futility to it...

Studying the context of past decisions is another matter; we may learn useful lessons to help our current decision making. But retrospective judgement serves little purpose at all...

I invite one and all to read how the decisions were made: http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlesto ... /index.php

[pErvinalia]

Sandi's claim that the bombs were "indefensible in any way" only shows the intellectual level he's operating on. Which is to say that he believes what he wants to believe, and there's no way facts are going to convince him otherwise.

I'm still pages behind in this thread, so I don't know what has been said in the meantime.... But the video produces actual quotes from all the top people involved in the war as evidence for the claim that the bombs didn't need to be dropped. So it's not true to say he's ignoring facts. He's looking at a different set of facts to your facts. What i'd like to see from the defenders of the bomb is addressing those specific points raised in the episode.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Sandi's claim that the bombs were "indefensible in any way" only shows the intellectual level he's operating on. Which is to say that he believes what he wants to believe, and there's no way facts are going to convince him otherwise.

I'm still pages behind in this thread, so I don't know what has been said in the meantime.... But the video produces actual quotes from all the top people involved in the war as evidence for the claim that the bombs didn't need to be dropped. So it's not true to say he's ignoring facts. He's looking at a different set of facts to your facts. What i'd like to see from the defenders of the bomb is addressing those specific points raised in the episode.

Which "top people"? I know Leahy guaranteed it wouldn't work. Eisenhower waffled.

In other words, quote mining.

[Ian]

OMFG Sandi... the Institute for Historical Review?!?!?!

You have hereby lost whatever shred of credibility you had here beforehand. I thought your intentions were good, that you were just reacting to this history with your usual hatred of anything and everything American while trying to make an honest case, but that's the source you use to back up your bizarre claim that Japan was trying to surrender?! Go to hell. That is just plain sick. Whatever argument you were trying to make is completely lost.

But nevermind for now the credibility of the source... I admit that I actually deigned to read it, and I still don't see any proof that Japan was attempting to surrender and that Truman was well aware of it. Hell, even the article questions the authenticity of Japan's almost-surrender document, and uses the term "supposedly" to describe what happened to it. And even if it's completely true (I can't find much in the way of other sources besides the despicable IHR to back it up), it's irrelevant: Japan's leaders knew exactly what their terms were after Potsdam, and yet they balked. Furthermore, if they were so willing to surrender, perhaps you'd care to hypothesize on why they didn't signal a goddamn word after the first bomb, or after the Soviet invasion? That IHR article didn't say anything about that. Perhaps you'd even care to speculate on the abortive "palace coup" which nearly thwarted the surrender after Nagasaki; in the end, only Hirohito managing to make it to a radio guaranteed the surrender.

[klr]

Oh, and that IHR "paper" contains several flagrant untruths, some concerning supposed peace overtures to MaCarthur, bogus secret memoranda, and so forth. It's all coming back ...

SNAP! Ian beat me to it.

Sandi's claim that the bombs were "indefensible in any way" only shows the intellectual level he's operating on. Which is to say that he believes what he wants to believe, and there's no way facts are going to convince him otherwise.

I'm still pages behind in this thread, so I don't know what has been said in the meantime.... But the video produces actual quotes from all the top people involved in the war as evidence for the claim that the bombs didn't need to be dropped. So it's not true to say he's ignoring facts. He's looking at a different set of facts to your facts. What i'd like to see from the defenders of the bomb is addressing those specific points raised in the episode.

No, he's ignoring lots of facts, and using others which are simply untrue, and therefore not facts at all. See above about the IHR article.

The odd thing about the whole debate nowadays is that - amongst serious historians at least - no meaningful dispute exists as to the salient facts, particularly about what the Japanese leadership was up to. This is the case regardless of where they sit on the ethics and morality of it all.

[pErvinalia]

Wait, are people here actually defending the use of two atomic bombs which obliterated two entire cities, erasing them from the face of the earth along with all their civilian inhabitants? Jesus fucking Christ!

yes, although you must take into context those defending it. Fucked I know, what someone will probably say something along the lines of |welcome to the real world" or some dumb shit like that.

A Secret Memorandum

It was only after the war that the American public learned about Japan's efforts to bring the conflict to an end. Chicago Tribune reporter Walter Trohan, for example, was obliged by wartime censorship to withhold for seven months one of the most important stories of the war.

In an article that finally appeared August 19, 1945, on the front pages of the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald, Trohan revealed that on January 20, 1945, two days prior to his departure for the Yalta meeting with Stalin and Churchill, President Roosevelt received a 40-page memorandum from General Douglas MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from high-level Japanese officials. (The complete text of Trohan's article is in the Winter 1985-86 Journal, pp. 508-512.)

This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 -- that is, complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor. Specifically, the terms of these peace overtures included:

Complete surrender of all Japanese forces and arms, at home, on island possessions, and in occupied countries.
Occupation of Japan and its possessions by Allied troops under American direction.
Japanese relinquishment of all territory seized during the war, as well as Manchuria, Korea and Taiwan.
Regulation of Japanese industry to halt production of any weapons and other tools of war.
Release of all prisoners of war and internees.
Surrender of designated war criminals.

Is this memorandum authentic? It was supposedly leaked to Trohan by Admiral William D. Leahy, presidential Chief of Staff. (See: M. Rothbard in A. Goddard, ed., Harry Elmer Barnes: Learned Crusader [1968], pp. 327f.) Historian Harry Elmer Barnes has related (in "Hiroshima: Assault on a Beaten Foe," National Review, May 10, 1958):

The authenticity of the Trohan article was never challenged by the White House or the State Department, and for very good reason. After General MacArthur returned from Korea in 1951, his neighbor in the Waldorf Towers, former President Herbert Hoover, took the Trohan article to General MacArthur and the latter confirmed its accuracy in every detail and without qualification.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/10/ ... tions.html

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were almost defeated and ready to surrender...in being the first to use it, we...adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages."

---Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy,
Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during World War II

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICL ... ruman.html

That's just like your opinion, man.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

When did he have any credibility? Did I miss something?

[pErvinalia]

So we can do whatever we like, then, no matter how heinous, because we're the United States and that makes it okay. We make our own rules *waves flag*

With this sort of attitude, we fucking deserved 9-11

I hope Iran makes some nuclear bombs and annihilates our piece of shit country. The last survivors will say, "Hey, that's not fair! Only we get to use nuclear bombs!" And they'll say that right before their skin sloughs off and the last of us fucking retards die of radiation poisoning. And we'll fucking deserve it, every fucking inch of it

Tat, of all the ways to end the war, this was the fastest, so it saved the most lives. And you can't put our current knowledge of the effects of radiation on the decision-makers back then. If you'd have read the thread you'd know better.

So the end justifies the means. And we can do whatever we want. Our actions happen in a vacuum and have no consequences. Jolly good. I'm off to rape someone right now. I'm horny and I need to get laid. The end result is the important thing. Best to buy a gun. When I get finished raping, I'll kill the useless cunt. That way she can't tell on me. Hey, I think I'm getting the hang of this new morality (or lack thereof). Whatever is in my own best interests is A-Okay. And fortunately EVERYTHING is in my own best interests

This is the ultimate truth about powerful states. They follow no moral code, other than outright genocide (although some probably wouldn't even care about that if the others wouldn't kick up a fuss about it). That's why we need to have international organisations and treaties to try and minimise this shit. At the moment the US and Russia (and others) totally undermine the usefulness of those international organisations.