Thread: German Victimization, WWII

Originally Posted by Never

I think too much blame is on Germany in WWII; and just about everything else. People always default to that, as if the US is a great beacon of greatness; the cowardly greatness that willingly obliterated an entire Japanese civilian population.....TWICE.

The Nazis did some terrible things; so did just about everyone else.

Is American greatness responsible for Japan taking over the Pacific, invading China, and bombing Pearl Harbor? Is American greatness responsible for the Holocaust and Germany spreading its borders through most of mainland Europe? Germany holds the ultimate responsibility for the start of WWII in Europe, and Japan in the Pacific. What makes us cowardly?

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I'm almost certain he meant "an entire Japanese civilian population...TWICE" meaning two populations...two cities, not the entire population.

Still only a fraction of the populations of those two cities were killed during the atomic bombings. It was an overstatement.

200,000+ Deaths and that is an overstatement?

Fuck you.

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

200,000+ Deaths and that is an overstatement?

Fuck you.

Out of a total population of about a million = about 2/10 of population.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Out of a total population of about a million = about 2/10 of population.

That is two times decimation.

Okay people, there are two sides to every story.

One side, the history taught in U.S. schools, is that the U.S. got dragged into WWII with the bombing of Pearl Harbor. The result is eventually Hiroshima.

Another side is that the reason Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and its pilots were going kamikaze is because if they failed, their empire would fall. It was an act of desperation. The U.S. provoked Japan by attempting to cut off Japan's oil supply. Japan's thinking wasn't "Oh no, if we fail, Hitler won't prevail.".

Why do you people think we are in the Middle East right now? We are already in a World War. Everyone right now is setting up the playing field for the perfect move. It is only a matter of time before the big boys go to war against each other militarily instead of economically.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I'm sure the two are pretty close to equal.

In terms of fascism? Ehh maybe. It was less explicit in the US though.

Originally Posted by tkdyo

No...the op specifically asks about our teaching of what happened in germany. not comparing what happened at the time in both countries.

Actually it was about the sentiment of Germany going blameless for what happened during WWII. Obviously the sentiment is not just confined to Germany itself. Try harder to make me look foolish. What you are doing now isn't working.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Those bombings ended the war, as they were meant to. They prevented years of continued fighting on the Japanese mainland. I don't think the Nazis were ever out to end the war until they had to surrender.

That assumes that the US couldn't end the war before the bomb droppings. They could of done it. They wanted surrender without conditions. Even before the bomb droppings, they firebombed Tokyo which killed more civilians then both Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Is American greatness responsible for Japan taking over the Pacific, invading China, and bombing Pearl Harbor? Is American greatness responsible for the Holocaust and Germany spreading its borders through most of mainland Europe? Germany holds the ultimate responsibility for the start of WWII in Europe, and Japan in the Pacific. What makes us cowardly?

Still only a fraction of the populations of those two cities were killed during the atomic bombings. It was an overstatement.

Let me ask you this:

Who kills children?

There were 33 schools in the blast radius of Hiroshima. They weren't empty.

Who do you think were under those bombs being dropped? Who lived in the streets of Tokyo when they were firebombed? Women, children, innocent men. Can you think of a more cowardly, despicable action?

Don't edit my work when it isn't inflammatory or insulting.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Let me ask you this:

Who kills children?

There were 34 schools in the blast radius of Hiroshima & Nagasaki. They weren't empty.

Who do you think were under those bombs being dropped? Who lived in the streets of Tokyo when they were firebombed? Women, children, innocent men. Can you think of a more cowardly, despicable action?

To sum it up, what you are trying to say is that it was to cause terror. In this day and age it would be called Terrorism. The bombing wasn't strategic to destroy military capabilities etc.. Taking this into account, it is actually a violation of the Law Of Armed Conflict (LOAC).

Originally Posted by ArcanumNoctis

To sum it up, what you are trying to say is that it was to cause terror. In this day and age it would be called Terrorism. The bombing wasn't strategic to destroy military capabilities etc.. Taking this into account, it is actually a violation of the Law Of Armed Conflict (LOAC).

It wasn't meant to cause terror. That is just a positive side effect. It was meant to kill indiscriminately. That is the whole point of a nuclear/atomic bomb.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

It wasn't meant to cause terror. That is just a positive side effect. It was meant to kill indiscriminately. That is the whole point of a nuclear/atomic bomb.

It wasn't meant to cause terror? If it didn't completely demoralize Japan, then Japan wouldn't have surrendered. The whole point of Terrorism is to demoralize a populace.

Killing indiscriminately is a violation of LOAC, though I don't know if the U.S. had that back then.

Originally Posted by ArcanumNoctis

It wasn't meant to cause terror? If it didn't completely demoralize Japan, then Japan wouldn't have surrendered. The whole point of Terrorism is to demoralize a populace.

Killing indiscriminately is a violation of LOAC, though I don't know if the U.S. had that back then.

The Japanese were already trying to surrender but they wanted to do it on conditions. The US wasn't willing to settle on conditions so they bombed them.

There once use to be a mentality of 'civilized' warfare through the middle ages. However, those codes were effectively disregarded in the 19th century with imperialist nations and the US war of souther secession.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

The Japanese were already trying to surrender but they wanted to do it on conditions. The US wasn't willing to settle on conditions so they bombed them.

There once use to be a mentality of 'civilized' warfare through the middle ages. However, those codes were effectively disregarded in the 19th century with imperialist nations and the US war of souther secession.

The code you are talking about is the LOAC.

Nuking a country doesn't just kill indiscriminately. It destroys structures and it poisons the land years upon years. They are completely useless in war, except to cause fear or be used as a suicide switch to prevent being invaded. Kind of makes sense why smaller countries would want nukes, yeah?

From my understanding, the conditions were fair, but it was the only chance for the U.S. to actually test nukes to get real world data. Not possible during peacetime.

Really, no one is in the right. Not the U.S., Europe, Japan, Germany, China, Russia, no one. Just evaluate whats currently happening in the world. It hasn't changed.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

That is two times decimation.

And still 8/10 less than the entire population.

Originally Posted by ArcanumNoctis

Okay people, there are two sides to every story.

One side, the history taught in U.S. schools, is that the U.S. got dragged into WWII with the bombing of Pearl Harbor. The result is eventually Hiroshima.

Another side is that the reason Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and its pilots were going kamikaze is because if they failed, their empire would fall. It was an act of desperation. The U.S. provoked Japan by attempting to cut off Japan's oil supply. Japan's thinking wasn't "Oh no, if we fail, Hitler won't prevail.".

The Empire of Japan was not in danger of falling. Japan had big plans for the Pacific, America got in the way of those plans, that's why they bombed Pearl Harbor. It was a preventive strike, which is an unprovoked attack on a perceived threat, technically "illegal" by todays terms. What was America supposed to do in this case? Crawl away with its tail between its legs and nurse its wounds while Japan commits genocide in the South Pacific and spreads its influence across the entire span of the Pacific Ocean? This is one of the only wars in history that is truly lopsided.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

That assumes that the US couldn't end the war before the bomb droppings. They could of done it. They wanted surrender without conditions. Even before the bomb droppings, they firebombed Tokyo which killed more civilians then both Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

If you are saying we could have negotiated terms of surrender, you are dead wrong. Japan's terms were unreasonable and they were obviously defeated at this point in the war, which means they were in no position and had no right to negotiate terms. Their options were 1.) Accept terms, live peacefully. 2.) Reject terms, suffer consequences. Very simple. Our attack was not a suprise like Pearl Harbor, they knew what was coming, yet remained defiant. They brought that destruction upon themselves. If you say we should appease Japan by lightening our terms, you are foolish. That isn't how things work and they (and you) should know that. Japans terms were conducive to retaining power and rebuilding their empire, and what do you think that would lead to? When they rejected our terms for surrender, they accepted responsibility for whatever happened to their people. The more stubborn the nation, the greater the force needed to break it.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Let me ask you this:

Who kills children?

There were 33 schools in the blast radius of Hiroshima. They weren't empty.

Who do you think were under those bombs being dropped? Who lived in the streets of Tokyo when they were firebombed? Women, children, innocent men. Can you think of a more cowardly, despicable action?

Don't edit my work when it isn't inflammatory or insulting.

You can't drop an atomic bomb on a city and not kill innocent people. Technology in the 1940's didn't allow for precision air strikes so obviously collateral damage will always be high in WWII bombing raids. Despicable? Very much so. Cowardly? Not at all. (Necessary? Absolutely.)

Originally Posted by Caprisun

And still 8/10 less than the entire population.

So people who get angry about 9/11 must be a really making an overstatement since it didn't kill 60 million people (roughly 2/10ths the pop. of US)?

I guess I just don't get what you mean by saying it is an overstatement because they only killed 200,000 people. What is being overstated? Do you really think 200,000 people killed deserves being trivialized? Or is it that you don't think 100,000 people qualifies as an entire population? I will admit, the statement was a vague one; but he didn't say, as has been mentioned, "the entire japanese population".

I will admit though, that I interpretted the post to mean that we killed every person in the cities we bombed, which also isn't true. I just think the basic point still stands that it was an atrocity. I don't agree with your assertion that it was necessary, either. I actually wrote a paper on the issue a long while back and compared the deaths caused by the bombs to numbers of deaths caused by the war in general over a period of time and how long it was projected for the war to continue if the bombs hadn't been dropped. The numbers definitely didn't compare, and a lot more people died in the bombings than would have if the war had lasted. Also, the majority of those that died in the bombings were civilians as opposed to military, and the long term deaths caused by the bombings have reached far beyond the 200,000 dead in the initial explosions.

Originally Posted by ArcanumNoctis

The code you are talking about is the LOAC.

Nuking a country doesn't just kill indiscriminately. It destroys structures and it poisons the land years upon years. They are completely useless in war, except to cause fear or be used as a suicide switch to prevent being invaded. Kind of makes sense why smaller countries would want nukes, yeah?

Yea call me heartless but I tend to value humans more then the environment. I'm more worried about the indiscriminate killing rather then buildings and land. I see your point though.

Originally Posted by ArcanumNoctis

From my understanding, the conditions were fair, but it was the only chance for the U.S. to actually test nukes to get real world data. Not possible during peacetime.

Really, no one is in the right. Not the U.S., Europe, Japan, Germany, China, Russia, no one. Just evaluate whats currently happening in the world. It hasn't changed.

Of course I agree with you there. War can never truly be abolished but at least it could be made 'civil' and keep out people who are not involved.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

And still 8/10 less than the entire population.

Well gosh that makes it so much better.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

The Empire of Japan was not in danger of falling. Japan had big plans for the Pacific, America got in the way of those plans, that's why they bombed Pearl Harbor. It was a preventive strike, which is an unprovoked attack on a perceived threat, technically "illegal" by todays terms. What was America supposed to do in this case? Crawl away with its tail between its legs and nurse its wounds while Japan commits genocide in the South Pacific and spreads its influence across the entire span of the Pacific Ocean? This is one of the only wars in history that is truly lopsided.

You fail to recognize the root of the issue. Why did Japan become an imperialist nation? Because:
A.) Association with Western influences specifically the premise that to be a great nation, one needs an empire. Britain, France, Russia, Spain, the US. All great western powers, all imperialist in nature.
B.) Witnessing the Chinese mainland become the punching bag of Western nations.
C.) Realizing that in order to sustain Japanese hegemony on their mainland, Japan recognized that it must become a great nation in order to prevent Western nations from doing to Japan what they did to China.
D.) The misguided economic theory in the West that capitalism requires the forceful opening of foreign markets in order to sustain prosperity.

Something for you to think about. Obviously the Japanese aren't naturally a barbaric people nor did they just suddenly get up one day and say 'I want to expand my nation.'

Originally Posted by Caprisun

If you are saying we could have negotiated terms of surrender, you are dead wrong. Japan's terms were unreasonable and they were obviously defeated at this point in the war, which means they were in no position and had no right to negotiate terms.

That's strange because you just said before they were in no danger of falling. Which is it? Now if I recall correctly, one of the main conditions that they had was that the Emperor would retain power over Japan. There maybe little tits for tats but that was the main issue and the Emperor did retain power in Japan even after they dropped the bombs. And think about what you are saying, they were in no position to negotiate? Then what was the point of dropping the bombs? A subtle reminder of such a fact?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Their options were 1.) Accept terms, live peacefully. 2.) Reject terms, suffer consequences. Very simple.

How quaint. You speak as if Emperor Hirohito speaks for all Japanese, especially those willing to have an atomic bomb dropped on them. Tell me, does Obama speak for you?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Our attack was not a suprise like Pearl Harbor, they knew what was coming, yet remained defiant.

And who wouldn't?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

They brought that destruction upon themselves.

Explain how that happened. Explain how the children who died in the firebombs brought this on themselves. The women, the elderly, hell even the average Japanese individual. You either have to concede that the government represents every citizen even at the best of times, which Japan definitely wasn't, or your comments are erroneous.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

If you say we should appease Japan by lightening our terms, you are foolish. That isn't how things work and they (and you) should know that.

That's right, tow the line. Diplomacy isn't how things work. We bomb those backward people till they shriek terror.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Japans terms were conducive to retaining power and rebuilding their empire, and what do you think that would lead to?

Where has the American empire lead?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

When they rejected our terms for surrender, they accepted responsibility for whatever happened to their people. The more stubborn the nation, the greater the force needed to break it.

What wonderful language. They needed to be broken, to be destroyed into submission. Again I'm interested to see how you think the government actually represents the people.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

You can't drop an atomic bomb on a city and not kill innocent people. Technology in the 1940's didn't allow for precision air strikes so obviously collateral damage will always be high in WWII bombing raids. Despicable? Very much so. Cowardly? Not at all. (Necessary? Absolutely.)

I guess we found out who justifies the death of children. They were disgusting cowards and in no position to claim the moral high ground of global security or freedom.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

In terms of fascism? Ehh maybe. It was less explicit in the US though.

What countries did we take over in the 1930's and 1940's? What did we do with Western Europe after the war? How many minorities did we execute? What Americans were killed for mere dissent? There is no comparison.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

That assumes that the US couldn't end the war before the bomb droppings. They could of done it. They wanted surrender without conditions. Even before the bomb droppings, they firebombed Tokyo which killed more civilians then both Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

We wanted surrender without conditions because we had to change the government of Japan. They were a major threat to the rest of the world. Should we have accepted Japan's conditions so that they could turn around and try to take over Asia again?

How do you suggest we should have handled Germany and Japan after they had gotten really far with their conquests?

There really wasn't any collateral damage at Hiroshima and Nagasaki... Because that was, in a roundabout way, the mission. 'Destroy the cities that their economy would crumble without.' I'm sure they would have avoided destroying the kids if they could. But the factories producing items of war and the civilians working within? Or corporate buildings? Naw, those had to go. It would be the equivalent of someone bombing New York.

Anyway, I hope everyone understands I'm not trying to say Germany was full of evil people and that the nation sucks or that something similar could never happen to America. I rather like Germany and would love to visit it for an extended period of time. My family's ancestry is German. I'm even starting to learning Deutsch. But I disagree that Germany as a whole wasn't guilty.

There are always going to be Hitler and they will come into power when enabled to do so. So just blaming Hitler's gets us nowhere. The nazi party was democratically elected to office. Hitler's hatered for Jews was not hidden. The fact that Hitler supported groups which were guilty of shooting communists like dogs in their free time should have tipped people off. And the nationalistic movement promised greater security but anyone who was educated at all in politics would have known that rights were going to be reserved, (not to waht extent, I'm sure,) but the nazis had already shown they didn't care about the order of the law at all with their pseudo-revolution years earlier. So anyone with a brain should have figured out that totalitarianism was very likely. And after it happened, the existance of camps, (as work camps,) and the elimination of journalists/politicians opposing Hitler was common knowledge. At that point, yeah, it becomes hard to oppose. But the citizens allowed it to happen.

I agree that the U.S. is often painted to look more innocent than it is in certain areas. (Though any similarities to Nazi Germany were on a much smaller scale. Yes, we persecuted communists. Yes, we put the Japanese in camps. These were terrible crimes that could have led to worse crimes but they happened on a vastly smaller scale.) But it makes sense to me why we would do that. There's a reason for it. Why we would do it to Germany doesn't.

I've known Germans. And WWII has come up, (though not by me,) and the impression I've got is that Germans accept that the nation was guilty of the holocaust and not just a few- and that they want to learn from it but mostly move on. I'm sure there are things like that in most countries. Almost anyone in the U.S. is sure to admit that slavery/segregation was terrible. But the impression I've receieved from most, (not all,) educators/popular media/Americans is that only those higher up in the Nazi party were truly guilty. Apparantly this isn't everyones expereience in the U.S. But it is mine.

Mis-representing the holocaust/WWII is a major emotional thing with me. And a big evil. So I'd like to understand the motives to it. Even things like downplaying Russia's involvement and things of that ilk irk me. But again, I see a reason for that. Why would we make the German people and the standard infantry nazi appear victimized? I haven't seen anyone make the Japanese soldier look like anything but raping psychos- so... why?

It never ceases to amaze me that I must post with such sophist precision that I must leave no room for a misunderstanding. I think some of you just wanted to argue my knowledge of history and not the issue; or just show your wit; there is no need to respond to this further.

I am glad to see however that I was completely wrong about my assumption that most people actually buy that nonsense about "the nukes potentially saved half a million American lives". This, in my view, is a gross exaggeration to justify a hasty decision made in a time of desperation and anger between two countries.

"Nobody is more disturbed over the use of atomic bombs than I am, but I was greatly disturbed over the unwarranted attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor and the murder of our prisoners of war. The only language they seem to understand is the one we have been using to bombard them. When you have to deal with a beast, you have to treat him as a beast." - Harry Truman

Because the Japanese could so easily be excluded from having any sort of right in this issue it was thus much more feasible to generalize the entire thing; which is what was necessary to justify the bombs' use in the first place; ethically speaking.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

In terms of fascism? Ehh maybe. It was less explicit in the US though.



Actually it was about the sentiment of Germany going blameless for what happened during WWII. Obviously the sentiment is not just confined to Germany itself. Try harder to make me look foolish. What you are doing now isn't working.



That assumes that the US couldn't end the war before the bomb droppings. They could of done it. They wanted surrender without conditions. Even before the bomb droppings, they firebombed Tokyo which killed more civilians then both Nagasaki and Hiroshima.



Let me ask you this:

Who kills children?

There were 33 schools in the blast radius of Hiroshima. They weren't empty.

Who do you think were under those bombs being dropped? Who lived in the streets of Tokyo when they were firebombed? Women, children, innocent men. Can you think of a more cowardly, despicable action?

Don't edit my work when it isn't inflammatory or insulting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre

EDIT: youtube won't let me embed this for some reason
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ygm3e0Gn9U

Japan has their messed up spotlight too.

Never, did you know that Japan tried to take over Asia and managed to take over multiple countries? Did you know that we fought them for more than three years before we used the nukes? That's hasty? What would you say we should have done to handle Japan in 1945?

Keep fighting until an acceptable resolution is reached; which is purportedly what we did. I however do not consider the means acceptable. If that means I die in the process then so be it. I would prefer to face my enemy in combat than snipe his wife and kids from afar. I would think that most soldiers would agree.

Originally Posted by Never

Keep fighting until an acceptable resolution is reached; which is purportedly what we did. I however do not consider the means acceptable. If that means I die in the process then so be it. I would prefer to face my enemy in combat than snipe his wife and kids from afar. I would think that most soldiers would agree.

We took control of the Pacific islands and made it to the Japanes mainland. How exactly should we have fought then? Remember that we were working on more than a ceasing of conflict that that point. We saw the need to change the government of Japan.

Originally Posted by Never

Keep fighting until an acceptable resolution is reached; which is purportedly what we did. I however do not consider the means acceptable. If that means I die in the process then so be it. I would prefer to face my enemy in combat than snipe his wife and kids from afar. I would think that most soldiers would agree.

Really? I mean, if you are faced with a choice between two evils in war- killing an enemy or letting him live and kill alot more people- you would say 'honor' is an important concern?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

So people who get angry about 9/11 must be a really making an overstatement since it didn't kill 60 million people (roughly 2/10ths the pop. of US)?

The motives and circumstances surrounding both attacks were very different.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I guess I just don't get what you mean by saying it is an overstatement because they only killed 200,000 people. What is being overstated? Do you really think 200,000 people killed deserves being trivialized? Or is it that you don't think 100,000 people qualifies as an entire population? I will admit, the statement was a vague one; but he didn't say, as has been mentioned, "the entire japanese population".

It was an overstatement because he said the entire populations of those cities were wiped out when actually only 2/10 were killed from each respective city. There is no need to misconstrue facts.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I will admit though, that I interpretted the post to mean that we killed every person in the cities we bombed, which also isn't true. I just think the basic point still stands that it was an atrocity. I don't agree with your assertion that it was necessary, either. I actually wrote a paper on the issue a long while back and compared the deaths caused by the bombs to numbers of deaths caused by the war in general over a period of time and how long it was projected for the war to continue if the bombs hadn't been dropped. The numbers definitely didn't compare, and a lot more people died in the bombings than would have if the war had lasted. Also, the majority of those that died in the bombings were civilians as opposed to military, and the long term deaths caused by the bombings have reached far beyond the 200,000 dead in the initial explosions.

I have written several papers on the very same topic but arguing the exact opposite point. I have studied the Pacific war rather extensively and I have read many expert opinions on the repercussions of an invasion of the Japanese mainland. There is almost a unanimous agreement among historians that an invasion of Japan by the Marines would have certainly killed more people than the atomic bombs. The estimated death tolls aren't just a little bit higher than the atomic bombs, they are in many cases upwards of ten times larger than the atomic bomb death toll (more than a million people.) You can never know for certain, but all evidence supported by the Pacific war up to that point indicates that dropping the atomic bombs actually did save lives and more importantly, put a quick end to the war.

Also keep in mind the number of weeks or months it took to take small islands like Iwo Jima, Guadacanal, Okinawa etc. Multiply that number in correspondence to the size and number of forces stationed on Japan and you'll see that an invasion could not possibly be quick and it could not possibly have a death toll less than 200,000. The longer a war goes on, the more people die, which means whichever plan ends the war quicker is usually by default the better plan. It is almost like a law of industrial warfare: Prolonging war= higher death toll. Fire bombing and carpet bombing would continue, civilians would certainly resist, and when you invade a densely populated, fanatically patriotic nation, the civilian population is bound to get hit hard. I could literally go on all day analyzing the situation.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Well gosh that makes it so much better.

No. Why don't you take a moment to understand the context of my argument before you chastise me.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

You fail to recognize the root of the issue. Why did Japan become an imperialist nation? Because:
A.) Association with Western influences specifically the premise that to be a great nation, one needs an empire. Britain, France, Russia, Spain, the US. All great western powers, all imperialist in nature.
B.) Witnessing the Chinese mainland become the punching bag of Western nations.
C.) Realizing that in order to sustain Japanese hegemony on their mainland, Japan recognized that it must become a great nation in order to prevent Western nations from doing to Japan what they did to China.
D.) The misguided economic theory in the West that capitalism requires the forceful opening of foreign markets in order to sustain prosperity.

Something for you to think about. Obviously the Japanese aren't naturally a barbaric people nor did they just suddenly get up one day and say 'I want to expand my nation.'

You fail to understand the dynamics of an industrial war. You can analyze the lead up to the war until you are blue in the face, Japan is ultimately responsible for their actions. You say the formation of an empire is the only way for a nation to become large and prosperous, I disagree but even so, none of the other empires you mentioned went about expanding their influence in the manner that Japan did.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

That's strange because you just said before they were in no danger of falling. Which is it? Now if I recall correctly, one of the main conditions that they had was that the Emperor would retain power over Japan. There maybe little tits for tats but that was the main issue and the Emperor did retain power in Japan even after they dropped the bombs. And think about what you are saying, they were in no position to negotiate? Then what was the point of dropping the bombs? A subtle reminder of such a fact?

Jesus Laughing Man, are we going to have a repeat of our last discussion? Japan was in no danger of falling before Pearl Harbor, the situation obviously changed after several years of war with America. I have thought well and hard about my statements, Japan was defeated but still had enough force to put up a fight and do some damage, and that is all the continuation of the war would be. Needless death and destruction.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

How quaint. You speak as if Emperor Hirohito speaks for all Japanese, especially those willing to have an atomic bomb dropped on them. Tell me, does Obama speak for you?

What the hell Laughing Man. Don't drink and use the internet.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

And who wouldn't?

People who value their lives.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Explain how that happened. Explain how the children who died in the firebombs brought this on themselves. The women, the elderly, hell even the average Japanese individual. You either have to concede that the government represents every citizen even at the best of times, which Japan definitely wasn't, or your comments are erroneous.

Government makes the decisions, they=government. Honestly I didn't think I would have to spell everything out but with you I guess I do.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

That's right, tow the line. Diplomacy isn't how things work. We bomb those backward people till they shriek terror.

It never ceases to amaze me how you can so horribly misconstrue my statements. Its like you cut a line out of my paragraph to quote it, then you immediately forget what paragraph it was connected to. A defeated nation does not negotiate, they follow instructions or face more pain. THATS HOW THE WORLD WORKS! And that is how it should work.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Where has the American empire lead?

America isn't an empire. But I don't know Laughing Man, where is American going?

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

What wonderful language. They needed to be broken, to be destroyed into submission. Again I'm interested to see how you think the government actually represents the people.

Would you rather I soften my language? Is reality too harsh for your tender conscious? What do you mean how the government represents the people? If you are suggesting the populace was at odds with the governemnt, that may have been true for some, but they showed no outward signs of it. Even if they did, an Empire will do what it needs to survive, meaning it lends no credence to public opinion.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

I guess we found out who justifies the death of children. They were disgusting cowards and in no position to claim the moral high ground of global security or freedom.

I'm really glad you decided not to go to Officer Candidate School.