Nagasaki calls on leaders to visit atomic bomb site

[ShamelessHussy]

(AFP) – 15 hours ago

TOKYO — Nagasaki's mayor, marking the 64th anniversary of his city's atomic bombing by the United States, called on Sunday on the leaders of nuclear-armed powers to visit the site and build a nuclear-free world.

Tomihisa Tanoue urged world leaders from both declared nuclear powers and others such as Iran, Israel and North Korea to visit the city in southwestern Japan.

"I am sure anyone who visits here would feel the sorrow of the victims and be shaken by it," the mayor said in an address at an annual ceremony commemorating the 1945 bombing.

A minute of silence was observed at 11:02 am (0202 GMT), when the US bomb exploded above the city, killing roughly 74,000 people. The bombing followed one a week before in Hiroshima and hastened Japan's surrender in World War II.

source...
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jq3Tqg9VBFSM2zbHHlovcW4wVH5w

No U.S. President has ever visited either site, I hope one day soon, one will.

[Obamanaut]

1. Is the mayor of Nagasaki also requesting leaders to visit Guam,

or Nanjing, or the Philippines, or Korea, or the other sites where the local inhabitants were killed by the Japanese forces? Or has he himself done so?

It is true that these places did not have a nuclear weapon dropped on them, but the dead are just as dead.

[WeDidIt]

2. +100

[virginia mountainman]

4. +1000

[inna]

35. -10,000

[BuyingThyme]

10. Evil non-sequitur.

[ProfessorGAC]

16. Why?

GAC

[BuyingThyme]

17. The poster is using murder to justify murder.

[ProfessorGAC]

18. I Didn't Read It That Way

Difference in interpretation, i guess. I still don't see why it's a non sequitur though. It's a totally related subject, isn't it?
GAC

[BuyingThyme]

19. No, not related at all.

Unless you're a bigot and believe all Japanese people are the same or something.

[DireStrike]

68. I don't see where you're coming from

If the Japanese guy is right to request respect for their war dead, it can only be right to request Japanese respect for others' war dead as well.

Or are you saying something mind-blowing, like "we shouldn't look at this from a perspective of nations/peoples/cultures at all, because such things are artificial constructs that keep us from seeing each other purely as human beings"? Cuz if so, Ok, I can see that from a philosophical viewpoint.

[BuyingThyme]

81. One has nothing to do with the other.

The objective is to belittle the anti-nuke message based solely on the fact that the mayor is Japanese.

[DireStrike]

83. Dead is dead

I don't think the numbers even compare. A nuke is worse than any other single bomb. But is it worse than an occupying, oppressing army? That's surely open for debate.

[Strong Atheist]

113. No, it's about who did what in WWII, atomic bombs versus the multiple

Japanese atrocities resulting in great death tolls/suffering...

[Ignis]

105. Not only are all Japanese exactly the same...

Each individual Japanese life is apparently worth something less than 1/20th of an American life.

Who says you can't learn new things on DU? :shrug: I'm learning some very interesting things about our fellow DUers in these Hiroshima/Nagasaki threads.

[proteus_lives]

32. +10,000

[crikkett]

41. You're missing the point, which is that the better part of 100K civilians were murdered

by a single radioactive bomb, and the consequences of exploding another one will not just affect a city but the world.

[closeupready]

59. Yup. You nailed it.

n/t

[Bill McBlueState]

82. I think he's just requesting that there not be any more nuclear war.

I agree with this request.

[noamnety]

3. k&r

(but already canceled out - there's an ongoing campaign here to systematically vote down anything commemorating the victims of hiroshima and nagasaki)

[ShamelessHussy]

6. I know it is human nature to ignore or shift blame for our own mistakes

But it is surprising to see such attitudes on a 'progressive site'.

What is truly bizarre though is that folks often raise the issue of Japan's Imperial Government's crimes against civilians while refusing to see the very same thing done by our government. Especially when we continue to do it to this very day.

Take Nanking for example and compare that to Fallujah, or many other cities in Iraq, where we have caused the death of over 1 million Iraqi civilians now, and counting.

The other bizarre thing is the use of the word, 'illegal combatant'... where did that originate from? The imperial Japanese fighting, in their words 'terrorist', in China.

Everyone who is excusing our use of such terrible weapons against innocent civilians should realize that one day, those same excuses, will be used against us.

"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just" - Thomas Jefferson

[dysfunctional press]

37. using nukes on japan to end ww2 was not a mistake.

i'm not saying that we haven't made them- obviously we have. but hiroshima and nagasaki are not among them.

[ShamelessHussy]

45. I would argue that using them on a defeated nation that was interested in negotiating a surrender is

Not to mention the great evil of the mass and indiscriminate targeting of civilians, which are tactics commonly ascribed to TERRORIST.

[TexasObserver]

54. That wasn't Japan in 1945. You're badly misinformed.

Not ready to surrender, by any stretch of your imagination.

[ShamelessHussy]

57. Our military leaders in theater at the time thought they were both military defeated & ready to

surrender.

Here are some of their quotes (as well as others)
http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

[TexasObserver]

61. You're in denial. The Japanese military opposed surrender.

Millions of lives were saved by the bombings which ended the war, and tens of millions were saved by bringing about the end of war as we knew it in the first half of the 20th century.

[ShamelessHussy]

64. Yes, but Japan did when her vital condition was met - protection of the emperor

Which history has shown to be a wise decision or we may still be fighting the Japanese, look at the mess we are in in Iraq.

Think about how many lives would have been saved if we had started talking conditions of surrender earlier, instead of demanding unconditional surrender, with no assurances for the safety and maintenance of the imperial institution? Maybe no Okinawa... that number always haunts me when considering this topic.

[felix45]

75. no that is completley wrong

that is an extremely overzealous estimate. the estimates were used to justify the nuclear attacks. they are completely false estimates used as propaganda at that time. Current estimates unaffected by the politics of 1945 put estimates of US casualties at the MOST around 50,000. this is significantly LESS than the millions they said would die should the war continue.

tens of millions of lives were not saved, you cant state this as fact. we will never really know how many lives were "saved", though it is safe to assume no matter what a million Americans would not have died. that is definitely completely false in every conceivable way.

[TexasObserver]

78. It's called History. Try reading some.

[inna]

77. complete and utter bs.

and on edit - it is you who is in denial.

[TexasObserver]

79. Another one that doesn't know History.

[felix45]

71. yes it was wrong in every concievable way

it was a state sponsored terrorist attack. We could have avoided killing tens of thousands of civilians. But instead truman was pressured by congress to blatantly violate jus in bello to save american lives. There is no getting around the obvious problem of complete violation of jus in bello in the nuclear attacks conducted by the US as well as the firebombings undertaken by the US and other allied nations during WWII. we could have easily avoided destroying hundreds of civilian hospitals, homes, and most importantly lives if neither the firebombings or nuclear attacks took place.

but of course in the name of ending the war as fast as possible we decided to commit the most evil deed anyone could ever do, and we did it twice. the clear violation of jus in bello was a moral disaster. this highly utilitarian way of addressing the issue of winning the war is unacceptable and unforgivable. this way of thinking justifies every terrorist attack taken out against every nation, yes that means it even justifies the 9/11 attacks on the US by terrorist. through this same utilitarian viewpoint adopted at the time to justify the use of nuclear weapons, their attacks on the US were justified. we were at that time no better than terrorists we face today.

The terrorist bombings of nagasaki and hiroshima were the biggest moral blunders ever made in the history of the US, and that is saying a lot considering everything done to the Native Americans.

[dysfunctional press]

80. your opinion is misguided and incorrect.

the planned land invasion of japan would have cost many more lives on both sides. the japanese were vicious bastards and unmerciful to ALL of their enemies- or weren't you taught about things like nanking, the philipines, etc...? and all that would have been multiplied many times towards an army invading their homeland.

try learning a little non-revisionist history sometime.

my wife's father was training and would have been among the first wave of invaders in the case of an assault on the japanese homeland. there's a fairly decent chance that my wife wouldn't have been born had that happened.

you're goddamn right we made the correct decision to drop those bombs.

twice.

[Strong Atheist]

114. Agreed!

:yourock:

[inna]

34. i noticed that too. absolutely amazing. kr, nt

[virginia mountainman]

5. You do realize many more people where killed in the fire bombing of Tokyo

The numbers from the Atomic Bombing are really not that staggering, in light of what fire bombing raids did..

Couple that with the fact of the massive and widespread atrocities committed by the Japanese during world war two..

And the fact that an invasion of Japan would have slaughtered exponentially more lives.

The whining about the Atomic bombs seem silly in review of the true facts and realities of the war. The Japanese people should be grateful that they surrendered when they did. Given the suicidally nationalistic nature of the Japanese people, They would have nearly been eradicated in the coming invasion.

[ShamelessHussy]

8. You do realize that the atom bombs kept killing and maiming long after their dentonation?

May I suggest some reading on this matter that will help you to see this critical issue from another perspective?

H I R O S H I M A : WAS IT NECESSARY?
http://www.doug-long.com

That site contains many links to important articles and books that contains some of the most up-to-date information we have on this matter.

I think it is vitally important that we fully understand the reasoning that went into that decision to help us to prevent another use of these terrible weapons in our time.

[ieoeja]

88. You do realize we knew nothing about radioactive poison?

A large percentage of the Americans working on early nuclear experiments died as well because they had no idea that radioactivity was dangerous. American service members routinely went onto the ships we tested nukes on as soon as they cooled down enough to permit them.

Shore stores used unshielded X-Ray machines at the time to check your fit. Parents would let their kids play with the machine everytime they went by the store. Was that evil? Did American parents hate their children?

[LostInAnomie]

7. Maybe Japan should face their own atrocities before they start throwing around the indignation.

[ShamelessHussy]

9. How is asking leaders to visit 'throwing around the indignation."?

[TexasObserver]

56. True. Ask the Chinese. They've been waiting for 70 years.

Japan was a terrible, terrible state until 1945, visiting untold harm to everyone in their region for decades. They got their butts kicked all over the Pacific in WWII, and still clung to their belief that they were God's favored people, and that everyone else was inferior.

[Obamanaut]

70. Here are some that resulted in many, many deaths

http://www.ww2pacific.com/atrocity.html Here are four excerpts from this link. There are many more examples


Nanking, China. Over 200,000 Chinese men used for bayonet practice, machine gunned, or set on fire. Thousands more were murdered. 20,000 women and girls were raped, killed or mutilated. The massacre of a quarter million people was an intentional policy to force China to make peace.


Korean Comfort Women "forced by the Imperial Japanese Army to repeatedly provide sex for Japanese soldiers throughout Asia are said to number between 80,000 and 200,000.


Singapore. Japanese soldiers bayonet 300 patients and staff of Alexandra military hospital 9 Feb 1942. British women had their hands behind their backs and repeatedly raped. All Chinese residents were interviewed and 5,000 selected for execution.


Philippines. Any soldier captured before the surrender was executed.
The Bataan Death March -- 7,000 surrendered men died. Those that could not keep up the pace were clubbed, stabbed, shot, beheaded or buried alive.
Once the prison camp had been reached, disease, malnutrition and brutality claimed up to 400 American and Filipinos -- each day.

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

Note that the Nanjing killings were an effort to "...force China to make peace...', but the policy failed. The bombims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki DID work. Not a pretty picture, but it worked.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Taitertots]

20. Why don't you bask in the wealth

stolen from the people your countrymen genocide and tell me you are innocent?

They knew about and directly supported the actions of the Japanese imperial government.

[BuyingThyme]

22. Hell, you live in a democracy. Should you be executed for what Bush did?

[Taitertots]

24. Are you really going to compare what Bush did to Imperial Japan?

You are the one who is insane.

[BuyingThyme]

26. Let's see... Compare imperialism to imperialism...

I don't know. That might be a bit of a stretch.

Worse yet, it might not be supportive of your thesis.

I'll think on it.

[Taitertots]

31. Wow, you really are insane

Yeah, because the Iraq war was just like the rape of Nanking.


I mean grapes are ball bearings because they are both round. Water is diesel fuel because they are both fluids.

[stranger81]

36. Dead is dead, right? [n/t]

[ShamelessHussy]

40. Think of just 1 destroyed city in Iraq - Fallujah

Think of all the rape, murder, and torture, even of children, in front of their parents in Iraq... think of over 1 million civilians dead, and counting, all because of our need of their fossil fuels.

There are plenty of similarities and that is EXACTLY why these discussions are critical to have.

[Taitertots]

44. Except it is absolutely different from WWII Japan

So we committed genocide against everyone in Fallujah like the Japanese did?
Did we go through Fallujah and systemically kill everyone, rape every women, and steal every penny?
They are absolutely nothing similar.


So if it was for fossil fuels, how many million barrels did the US government steal?

[ShamelessHussy]

47. as BuyingThyme already pointed out, imperialism is what imperialism does

First of all the Japanese did NOT kill EVERYONE in Nanking.

And yes, from what I have read, we had systematically gone through Fallujah and killed everyone who was there, even in their own beds, even if they were men women or children and we even used banned weapons to help us be more efficient in our task.

Please, may I suggest keeping your emotions in check, and do a little reading on both (our actions in Iraq AND Afghanistan and the imperial gov of Japan in Asia) and you will be horrified.

I hope that I am clear that I am against ALL targeted killing of civilians, no matter who does it, US or 'THEM'.

Peace

[Taitertots]

51. Oh, that makes me feel so much better about the rape of Nanking

They didn't kill everyone, some people when to slave labor (death) camps and some fled to be hunted down later. It was an imperfect genocide, but a genocide none the less.

I would like to read the documents indicating that Americans murdered everyone in Fallujah. I would like to see the evidence before I continue to comment on that.


I don't consider the people directly responsible for the horrors committed by the Japanese civilians. They knew exactly what Japan was doing and directly advocate it.

The people of America at the very least don't have an idea what is going on, and the rest of us actively oppose it.

[ShamelessHussy]

55. Why would it? The killing of civilians is wrong no matter who does it.

Here are a couple of good links on some of the atrocities committed there...
http://www.democracynow.org/2005/11/8/u_s_broadcast_exclusive_fallujah_the
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10907.htm (VIDEO - GRAPHIC)

Not sure what you are saying in the 2nd half of your post, but if you are saying that the civilians (American and Japanese) are not as a whole responsible for the crimes of their governments, committed in our names, then we are on the same page and I agree entirely.

War and Violence against innocent civilians everywhere and every time, needs to end!

:hi:

[Taitertots]

63. The second part means

I don't have the information to comment on what happened in Fallujah. I'm going to watch those clips, look to some outside sources and comment later when I have some idea what I'm talking about.

I'm saying that civilians are not de facto responsible for the actions of their governments. However, when their actions raise to the level of involvement seen in Japan then they are responsible. The actions of the Japanese showed they were not innocent, but conspirators in the atrocities.

If I pay someone to beat up an old lady, I'm just as guilty as someone who did it for me. You don't have to be the one holding a gun to be guilty.

[ShamelessHussy]

69. OK - and I appreciate your honesty and effort to learn more about the matter

And I am certainly no expert on the matter either but I know that I have read truly shocking accounts of what has gone on over there over the years and desperately hope that we will bring our troops home from the ME soon.

And I fully agree with you that it would be much cheaper and wiser to simply buy the oil we need instead of fighting for it, which is a lesson I think Japan has learned from their miss-adventures as well.

Nice chatting with you Taitertots :toast:

[ShamelessHussy]

29. It is a VERY apt analogy, especially since we are using some of the very same legal arguments

Right down to the wording e.g. "Illegal Combatants" is exactly the terminology used by the Japanese against the Chinese to try them in their military (AKA Kangaroo) courts.

It is eerily similar, the justifications used in their resource war, when compared to ours.

[Taitertots]

39. Oh, I see

They called their tooth brushes, tooth brushes just like us, we are exactly like them.

Oh yes, the resource war. So how many tankers filled with Iraqi oil did the US government take? Many many billions of dollars in Chinese gold alone was taken from them?

[ShamelessHussy]

42. We are not discussing tooth brushes sir, we are discussing WAR CRIMES

And, yes, they are VERY similar, right down to detention without trial and being TORTURED to DEATH.

Our imperial nation is using the very same justifications that the imperial Japanese of WWII used (copied from the west, remember) to STEAL others resources.

Why do you think we are expending so much blood and treasure for over there? To bring peace, prosperity and security to the region? (The OFFICIAL reason given)

Guess what, that is EXACTLY the very same thing imperial Japan said about their adventures in Asia.

Think about it.

[Taitertots]

46. So, Iraq was to steal resources?

How many tons of steel has the US government gotten?
How many million barrels of oil?

Strange way to have a war for resources when the cost of the war far exceeds the expected gains.

[ShamelessHussy]

48. If I may quote Alan Greenspan, YES.

“I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece

Before we went in NO western companies had rights to their oil fields, now we do, and the pumps are flowing and will continue to into the future.

Remember oil is above $70 a barrel and will only get higher in the future, not to mention that our current industrialized society DEPENDS on it flowing.

[Taitertots]

50. World wide oil is a fungible resource

It does nothing to benefit us or America in general. Saddam kept the pumps flowing, the Iraq war slowed this. If anything the Iraq war denied America resources.


Alan Greenspan doesn't even work for the federal government. He had no say in the matter.

[ShamelessHussy]

52. Eager to Tap Iraq's Vast Oil Reserves, Industry Execs Suggested Invasion

http://www.truthout.org/070309J?n

Suffice it to say that modern industrialized nations are totally dependent on oil, which in turn makes it a valuable resource, especially to us since we consume most of it.

Iraq oil production has caught up to pre-invasion levels and is expected to climb.

The Bush admin was predominately made up of direct oil interests.

Most people believe it was about oil.

OK, a few questions for you.

Why do you think we are expending so much blood and treasure in the ME? To bring peace, prosperity and security to the region? (the official story)
Isn't it interesting that that is the very same thing imperial Japan said about their adventures in Asia?

Most wars throughout history were fought for resources, why would this one (ours) be any different?

Also consider, N. Korea... they now have nukes and have threatened to use them, and are considered part of the 'axis of evil'.

Why do you think we haven't invaded them? (supposing you agree with the official story noted above)

If you conclude, as many have, that ours is about resources, would you then condemn your fellow innocent American citizens to death, as you did the Japanese in your OP? Even the ones who didn't know this was about oil? Can you a least recognize that not all Americans are even aware of what exactly is going on over there, and if they were fully aware they would not support it. Well, the same can be said for the Japanese civilians during their time of empire and overseas adventures.

[Taitertots]

66. Why do I think we are in Iraq?

I don't know. I'm not sure anyone but Bush knows for certain. I'm not going into wild speculation as to its cause.


Oil is Fungible. We have deprived ourselves resources by invading Iraq. What kind of war is fought for resources and ends with less resources being available? It is 6 years later and the oil is just starting to flow at pre-war levels, significantly less oil flowed into the global market. What kind of resource war ends with less resources then they would have had without it?

[Fleet]

92. Apparently so.... some people have no perspective.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ShamelessHussy]

14. Excuse me

But I believe racial epithets are against DU rules, not to mention those of polite society.

Something to think about.

[Adsos Letter]

15. Yes. And then, in the interest of ending mass atrocities by armies

they should all visit Nanking.

[rug]

21. The B-29s carried a dozen crew and observers. That is not an army.

Would you still be cheerleading if this happened?

"The United States expected to have another atomic bomb ready for use in the third week of August, with three more in September and a further three in October.<65> On August 10, Major General Leslie Groves, military director of the Manhattan Project, sent a memorandum to General of the Army George Marshall, Chief of Staff of the United States Army, in which he wrote that "the next bomb . . should be ready for delivery on the first suitable weather after 17 or August 18." On the same day, Marshall endorsed the memo with the comment, "It is not to be released over Japan without express authority from the President."<65> There was already discussion in the War Department about conserving the bombs in production until Operation Downfall, the projected invasion of Japan, had begun. "The problem now is whether or not, assuming the Japanese do not capitulate, to continue dropping them every time one is made and shipped out there or whether to hold them . . . and then pour them all on in a reasonably short time. Not all in one day, but over a short period. And that also takes into consideration the target that we are after. In other words, should we not concentrate on targets that will be of the greatest assistance to an invasion rather than industry, morale, psychology, and the like? Nearer the tactical use rather than other use."<65>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#The_bombing_2

[Adsos Letter]

23. And what is it you think I am cheerleading?

Had I said "mass atrocities by nations" would that have been better? The B-29 was an extention of power, just as the Japanese Army was.

My point is that, just as nuclear armed nations, of which there are now many, need to be aware of the potential for indiscriminate destruction of life in a nuclear war, nations also don't get a pass on the actions of their military's. Not us, not the Japanese.

[rug]

33. Western mass murder to avenge Eastern mass murder.

Or is it Oceania's defeat of Eurasia?

[Adsos Letter]

38. Did you reread the edit on my post?

I condemned both.

[rug]

43. I have now. And I agree.

[deaniac21]

27. The Japanese have a very selective view of their own history.

[Robb]

28. To be fair, they're not unique in that as a nation.

They simply seem to get more traction in early August than most.

[ShamelessHussy]

30. That is true of most nations

Especially our own.

[deaniac21]

117. We are even close to the Japanese.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

49. I'd hate to think what would have happened if Japan had had nuclear weapons

I'm sure they wouldn't have stopped at two. And they wouldn't have accepted just the mere surrender of China, whose people they considered to be less than animals. Japan still had over 2 million soldiers fighting in China at the time the bombs were dropped. They were still killing Chinese. Had a sick, sadistic, psychotic, genocidal, murdering, racist, imperialist empire like Japan had the bomb, we might have seen the holocaust of holocausts throughout Asia.

And by the way, Japan was working on its own nuclear weapons program before and during the war and would have used nukes themselves had they made sufficient progress.

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

[TexasObserver]

53. Suggest the mayor read a book, read a book, read a Mother fuckin' book!

Context, mayor, context.

[ShamelessHussy]

58. May I suggest one?

"Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan" by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa. (2005)
http://www.amazon.com/Racing-Enemy-Stalin-Truman-Surrender/dp/0674016939

For all who are interested in learning more about this vital topic I recommend considering this highly regarded book (please see reviews at amazon)

[TexasObserver]

60. No. But you could do this.

You can go to Japan, visit the mayor, explain to him that Japan was second only to Nazi Germany in terms of heinous conduct in WWII, and when he's come to terms with that, the world is still waiting to hear from him.

If I don't share your opinion, why would I share your devotion to books you've found which agree with your point of view?

[ShamelessHussy]

62. Well, others may find it helpful

Since it is a balanced, up-to-date, and scholarly work on this vital topic.

I don't know about you but I have found that I am constantly learning new things, and not just on this topic, by reading works from respected scholars and experts on various topics. I am especially always eager to learn new things that cause me to have a new or different opinion on a matter that is of concern to me. In fact I consider those moments to be the best parts of life long learning.

:hi:

[TexasObserver]

65. You seem decent and well intentioned.

It's a tender subject for those of us who have seen the refusal of Japan to apologize for their misconduct, particularly to the Chinese, for decades.

[ShamelessHussy]

67. Thank you and likewise

And I too fully agree that Japan should formally apologize for her atrocities of that time, she was horribly wrong and I feel an apology would be a great start in helping to heal some of these old wounds that have been left to fester due to a lack of acknowledgment and apology of her past.

However, there have been unofficial apologies and acknowledgment of their past unspeakable behavior and I am hopeful that they one day soon will come out with an official recognition of their atrocities and a formal apology.

I also recognize how difficult that can be for countries to do sometimes especially when the crimes committed were so heinous.

Thank you again TexasObserver for your tone and grace, it is much appreciated :toast:

[inna]

72. you rock btw, thanks for your posts, and....

belated welcome to DU!!

:yourock:

:applause: :bounce:

[ShamelessHussy]

74. Thank you very much inna

That is very kind of you to say :hug:

And I am very happy to be here, there are so many great people here I often wish there was a neighborhood hangout where I could meet so many great folks in one place, but I am very happy to at least have a place online =)

:hi: inna

[snagglepuss]

110. Did you read this "highly acclaimed" book? Did your read reviews by scholars

as opposed to newspaper reviews?

Prof Michael Kort in a lengthy review in The Historical Society Bulletin states "Hasegawa fails to sustain his main arguments with the necessary evidence".


SNIP

The spuriousness of the “Truman did not want the Soviets to enter the war” thesis emerges even more clearly when one considers Truman’s reaction to Stalin’s demand (through Foreign Minister Molotov on July 29) that the Soviets receive a formal request to enter the Pacific War. Lisle Rose’s Dubious Victory provides an excellent analysis of this incident. As Rose correctly points out, “Here, in fact, was the perfect opportunity for the Americans to tell the Russians that they were no longer needed or wanted.” Of course, the Americans did no such thing; rather, on July 31, Truman, in a draft letter prepared for Stalin, insisted that Moscow already had pledged to enter the war and that the time had come to honor that pledge. This does not sound like a president trying to delay the Soviet entry into the war.


SNIP

Hasegawa rejects ...the critically important thesis that Japan could have been induced to surrender prior to the events of August 6-9, when atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima (August 6) and Nagasaki (August 9) and the Soviet Union declared war on Japan (August 8). Instead, Hasegawa attempts to resuscitate the revisionist critique of Truman by arguing that the United States wanted to use the atomic bomb against Japan prior to the Soviet entry into the war in order to thwart Moscow’s ambitions in the Far East... Hasegawa argues, Japan surrendered not because of what happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki but because of the Soviet declaration of war that took place between those two dreadful nuclear explosions.

SNIP

Despite Hasegawa’s sources in three languages, his evidence does not back up his claims...

SNIP

But the American (and Anglo-American) discussions at Potsdam regarding their difficult communist ally were not about keeping the Soviets out of the Pacific War. They were about the postwar price the U.S. would have to pay to get the Soviets into the war, and the problem was that Stalin’s price was turning out to be too high.


SNIP

At times, Hasegawa attempts to create his American race against the Soviet entry into the war by implying that something is in a document (or documents) when in fact it isn’t."




From The Historical Society Bulletin

Review by Michael Kort, professor of social science at Boston University’s College of General Studies. He has written several books on the Cold War and the Soviet Union, including The Columbia Guide to the Cold War (Columbia University Press, 1998).


http://www.bu.edu/historic/hs/kort.html

[LanternWaste]

86. Self-Delete

self-delete

[dflprincess]

73. Nagasaki's mayor is trying to make a statement against the use of nuclear weapons

I don't see anything wrong with that.

[felix45]

76. agreed

really I dont see why everyone is getting their panties up in a bunch because he thinks the use of nuclear weapons is an obvious moral blunder.

but apparently the fightin patriots gotta come out and wave about their warped sense of morality to claim terrorism is ok when the US does it just because someone in japan thinks using nuclear weapons is wrong. whatever.

[Obamanaut]

90. I would imagine the mayor of Nanjing would make a similar plea

for no more senseless slaughter - regardless of the method.

[Strong Atheist]

108. .

:yourock:

[Obamanaut]

109. You are too kind! nt

[dflprincess]

115. No doubt he would and he (or she) would also be correct to do so

The mayor of Nagasaki was born 11 years after WWII ended. He grew up in a city devastated by an atomic bomb. It is only natural that he would be more aware of the damage nuclear weapons do than have a real grasp of the horrors that happened elsewhere during the war. I will not slam him for being opposed to the future use of those weapons or for trying to be a voice for peace because of things that happened years before he was born.

[Strong Atheist]

84. Has he called on his leaders to visit nanking

and "...feel the sorrow of the victims and be shaken by it"?

Bet not...

[LanternWaste]

87. Self delete

self delete

[Ignis]

85. K&R. And shame on DUers cheering these bombings.

:thumbsdown: to our very own little crowd of armchair generals who use the same arguments that are used to excuse the prison rape of rapists.

[Strong Atheist]

91. I am glad that my grandfather, who was in the army at that time, did not have to

go for the land invasion of Japan...

Iwo Jima gave a taste of what THAT would have been like...

No shame here...

Shame to the historical revisionists/apologists...

[Ignis]

93. So your grandfather was worth 2 Japanese? 3? 12? 20?

:shrug:

[Strong Atheist]

94. You betcha. More than that. nt.

[Ignis]

95. Hey, at least your racism is consistent.

So that's one thing you have going for you. :hi:

[Strong Atheist]

96. Racist? Nah, just not an historical ignoramous on this

issue... ;)

Edited: ...but thanks for lowering the discussion with ad-hominems! Welcome to my permanent ignore list!

[Ignis]

101. You don't understand the argument ad hominem fallacy, do you?

Well, I'd take the time to spell it out S-L-O-W-L-Y for you, but why bother when you've taken the Ostrich option?

Enjoy your life free of opinions that differ from your own! :hi:

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

97. Racist? How is it racist to oppose one of the most virulently racist regimes in history?

How is it racist to hope that your own countrymen don't have to pay too high a price for ending the genocidal and racist war started by the Japanese?

[Strong Atheist]

98. Thank you. Well said, but probably a waste of your effort, in this case, probably went WAY

over the head...


:rofl:

[Ignis]

99. Oh yes, wail and beat your breast at what an awful idiot I am.

Whatever hobby floats your boat, I suppose.

Personally, I'm a progressive who opposes mass murder--whether "dirty" like the Rape of Nanking or "clean" like nuking two populated cities.

[Ignis]

104. Rather than spending all day editing your attack post...

Why not simply man up and call me stupid? Your puerile attempts to bend the DU rules--while you simultaneously accuse me of engaging in the argument ad hominem falacy--are laughable at best.

After all, the best way to counter an argument is to insult the poster after you've put them on Ignore. That takes real courage!

:patriot:

[Ignis]

100. It's racist to believe that you are worth Y # of "Insert Race Here"

It's not racist to hate Adolf Hitler.
It's racist to hate Hitler because he's German.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

102. The poster's comment was race neutral

Japan was a nation, a very sick and depraved nation that had to be stopped. Whether they were Asian, European, or anything else, they were the enemy, and their citizens were killing Americans and war mongering and murdering their way across the landscape of Asia. You're the one who brought race into this.

[Ignis]

103. "My grandfather is worth more than 20 Japanese" is race-neutral?

Please explain.

Then perhaps we can move on to the calculus of the Three-Fifth Compromise. Was that also race-neutral?

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

107. Absolutely race neutral

You mean we can't hope that we suffer fewer losses of our own countrymen than a brutal and sadistic enemy just because they happen to be of another race? If I were living in those times, I would have hoped that we would suffer far fewer losses than the Germans or Japanese suffered, because it would mean we were defeating them. That's what war is all about. It's about killing and defeating your enemy. You would actually have wanted the U.S. to suffer as high a casualty rate as the Japanese if they had invaded that country? Do you not realize that when nations fight nations, the other side is always going to be of a different race, nationality, or culture? Are you using your head at all in this?

And what race pray tell is the United States? I recently helped a friend write a screenplay about his father, who is half Native American and half Mexican American. He was a gunner on a Navy attack plane and was shot down by the Japanese in the Pacific. He later became one of the first Mexican Americans to win his wings during WWII as a Navy Mustang. In fact, there was a squad of Mexican pilots from Mexico that volunteered to fly in the American Navy in the Pacific Theater.

[Ignis]

111. That's hardly what the poster said.

Nevertheless, the argument that the life of one military man is of greater worth than 20+ civilians is one I find morally repugnant. If you really that this is a better interpretation of the "my grandad >>> 20+ Japanese" argument, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree.

Personally, I think that the ethical (and strategic) soundness of that sort of thinking was thoroughly tested and refuted during the Vietnam conflict. And the firebombing of Falluja put the nail in the coffin.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

116. I don't have the same view of warfare

I don't view civilians as all that innocent. Civilians have been targeted in countless wars. The U.S. blockaded the Confederacy during the civil war, causing a great deal of suffering among the civilian population. Sherman's march to the sea resulted in the devastation of agriculture, the burning of houses, and the raping of women. The bombing of Germany's cities during WWII while involving some factories was primarily targeted at killing German civilians to break the resolve of the German people and to affect their morale.

The fact is, the German and Japanese war machines could not have functioned without the full support of their citizens and civilian population. Towards the end of the war, German children as young as 13 were volunteering to fight, as well as old men. When Hitler had rallies before tens of thousands of civilians, telling them that Jews were not only Germany's problem but an international problem and that he would take care of this problem, the crowds cheered him on shouting "heil Hitler". Were those civilians innocent? When Hitler called the Jewish people vermin, rats, and sub-humans and the masses of civilians cheered, were they all that innocent? When Germany instituted its policies shutting down Jewish businesses, confiscated their assets, and forced them to wear stars on their clothing and the German people stood by and applauded it and participated in it, were they all that innocent? In Japan, many of its factories were divided up and production was transferred piecemeal into civilian homes in order to try to eliminate them as targets, were those civilians all that innocent? When Japanese soldiers, almost to a man, were raping and murdering their way across Asia, do you not think their stories were getting back to their families and that civilians knew what was going on? Yet, the mass of Japanese society worshipped their Emperor as a God and would have done anything that he wanted, including genocide.

My father was a B-17 pilot and shot down over Germany during World War II. The Germans machine-gunned his legs after he hit the ground. He was transferred on a train to the camp. He said that German children would come up to him and spit in his face. He said that Catholic Nuns shouted insults and curse words at him in German. On the train to the camp, a civilian train conductor was going through the rail car full of wounded American POWs and sadistically prodding them in their wounds with a stick. My father took one of his crutches and pushed that conductor out of the open car door while at full speed. Again, in modern warfare where entire civilian populations are actively supplying and supporting the war effort, they are not all that innocent. Is a Japanese civilian making the bayonet with which a Japanese soldier impales a baby in Nanking all that innocent? Is the one making the bullet that the soldier fires at Chinese civilians in mass executions all that innocent?

For me it's not an easy question and it takes a balancing of the values. It depends on the underlying cause. The war in Vietnam was clearly wrong and the U.S. merits condemnation for getting involved and in bombing the civilian population. The war in Iraq is wrong and Fallujah was an attrocity. But I look at the underying cause of World War II, where we were fighting fanatical racist, fascist, and imperialist regimes intent on mass slaughter. Anything to stop that, including killing civilans who were not all that innocent in the matter was a necessary evil. In Truman's memoirs, he did express self doubt over whether to use the bomb and where. America's intent was not to ravage an entire country and exterminate its population (unlike the Japanese and Germans). In the Ukraine, the Germans surrounded the cities and allowed no food to enter and no person to leave, resulting in mass starvation. In modern wars, civilians die and they are often the targets. They are complicit in national wars in helping their side win. In modern wars, civilians contribute to the war effort as much as the soldiers in the field. I'm genuinely sorry that Japanese civilians died. But maybe next time the civilian population will not walk hand in hand with bloody dictators or emperors intent on murder and genocide with their full support.

[defendandprotect]

89. k i c k

[MisterP]

106. in the words of some vet

"I have told my sons that they are not under any circumstances to take part in massacres, and that the news of massacres of enemies is not to fill them with satisfaction or glee.

"I have also told them not to work for companies which make massacre machinery, and to express contempt for people who think we need machinery like that."
--Slaughterhouse-Five

[Ignis]

112. Kurt was a sane man.

RIP