Hiroshima: 57 years

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (HellToupee @ Aug. 08 2002,08:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">well there were lots of british american and other forces that were in china beatin up the japs, u would need a naval blockade thru that area cause the land could easliy be occupied if you think it was a good thing bombing japan y not just nuke vetnaim and korea in each war, hell y dont u just nuke iraq, palastine and any other contry USA considers an axis of evil, more like an axis of muslim people, i have a friend from iraq he isnt exactly a terrorist.<span id='postcolor'>

yes, they were in China, but they weren't any significant numbers to actually make difference. most were there as advisors. and mainland China itself was in big war, and Chang Kai-seik and Mao were both fighting against JPN forces there. they had hard time though. so it's impossible to divert resrouces to set naval blockade.

let's see.

Vietnam: no major metropolitan to nuke. most battles were spread out over various ares. i.e. useless

Korea: carpet bombed. most cities were already destroyed by carpet bombing already.

Iraq: using A-bomb would be a VERY BAD image projection.

[Col. Kurtz 0]

In Vietnam they could have nuked Hanoi. But there is another option they could have taken. If they completely bombed the Norths Irrigation system flat, it would have overspilled and killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in a huge flood that would have been from side to side of the country.

[Guest]

I've heard now many times during this discussion that  people say that it wasn't a war crime. By WW2 standards, it is hard to say since the ideas were a bit different then. For instance the V2 bombing of London by the Germans would also be considered a war crime today, but AFIK nobody was tried for it in the Nürnberg trials.

What constitutes a war crime then? Well, the list is long.

The Geneva convention of 1949 lists the following:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

willful killing; torture or inhuman treatment (including medical experiments); willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health; extensive destruction or appropriation of property not justified by military necessity; compelling a prisoner of war or civilian to serve in the forces of the hostile power; willfully depriving a prisoner of war or protected civilian of the rights of a fair and regular trial; unlawful deportation or transfer of a protected civilian; unlawful confinement of a protected civilian; and taking of hostages

<span id='postcolor'>

In 1977 with the Protocol 1 added to the Geneva conventions these were also added to the list:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

certain medical experimentation; making civilians and nondefended localities the object or inevitable victims of attack; the perfidious use of the Red Cross or Red Crescent emblem; transfer of an occupying power of parts of its population to occupied territory; unjustifiable delays in repatriation of POWs; apartheid; attack on historic monuments; and depriving protected persons of a fair trial. <span id='postcolor'>

There are more definitions, but I think these will suffice for you to see that by today's

standards it was indeed a war crime. Take a look at what people are being charged with

in ex-yugoslavia. There is very little tolerance for civilian casulties today.

I found an article written by a ceratin  Brian Quail. I think it is very interesting and he expresses exactly my point of view. Look especially at the quotes from Churchill, Eisenhower and some others:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

HIROSHIMA

The following letter by Brian Quail was printed in the Herald:

Circumstances of the Hiroshima bombing

If there was even one occasion in the past when the use of a nuclear weapon was justified, it would be foolish and irresponsible ever to get rid of them, since there is no way of knowing when and where a similar set of circumstances might not arise in the future and their use would once again be necessary. Thus every country in the world should have atom bombs forever.

It follows that our judgment of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is not merely a dispute about a past event but a matter of utmost relevance regarding the conduct of this and every other country in the world now and in the future.

The common justification is that the use of the atom bombs shortened the war and saved Allied lives. There are two replies to this argument.

First, and most important, it must be recognised that even if this were historically factual, it would not justify the use of the bomb. The end does not justify the means. The deliberate targeting of the civilian population is always a war crime. It is not permitted even if it is believed to bring victory nearer.

If it were permissible, then the logical conclusion is that we should keep all our soldiers in their barracks, and annihilate the enemy population en masse. That way, any war could be reduced to a day or two and our casualties eliminated altogether.

We have no doubts that those who killed civilians during the war in the former Yugoslavia are war criminals; we cannot act on the assumption that we are exempt from the same rules of war because we are British.

If Allied troops had systematically made their way through the streets of Hiroshima with flamethrowers and incinerated every man, woman, and child in sight, who would attempt to justify such a war crime ? But because the bomb makes a distance - literally - between cause and effect, agent and action, guilt is denied.

Secondly, the belief that using the bomb shortened the war is contradicted by serious historical analysis. Having invested astronomical sums in the Manhattan Project, there was no way the US Government was not going to use the bomb.

This commitment to actual use necessitated evading any possibility of accepting surrender until such time as the bomb could be dropped. This meant a prolongation of the war and a consequential increase in Allied casualties. Let me produce some very reputable military witnesses for this interpretation.

In Volume VI of his History of the Second World War, Winston Churchill writes: It would be a mistake to suppose that the fate of Japan was settled by the atomic bomb. Her defeat was certain before the first bomb fell and was brought about by overwhelming maritime power.

Field Marshal Montgomery wrote in his History of Warfare: It was unnecessary to drop the two atom bombs on Japan in August 1945, and I cannot think it was right to do so .... the dropping of the bombs was a major political blunder and is a prime example of the declining standards of the conduct of modern war.

General Eisenhower himself said: Japan was at that very moment seeking some way to surrender with minimum loss of face.It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.

Truman’s Chief of Staff, Admiral Leahy, wrote: 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 already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons ... In being the first to use it, we adopted an ethical standard common to the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in this fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.

Nor can the use of the atomic bombs be justified by evoking racist stereotypes of Japanese fanatics fighting on regardless of orders to surrender. Bushido, the Japanese military code, demanded absolute unquestioning obedience every bit as much as it did bravery. If the Emperor says surrender, then that is what must be done, at once and without question.

After the surrender of Nazi Germany in May, it was obvious to all that Japan was doomed. By late 1945, Japan did not have one single plane left, and American pilots could fly and bomb at will. Toyko, Nagoya, Osaka, Kobe, Yokohama were already utterly destroyed. Japan was defeated, on the point of surrender, and known to be so.

The Japanese Foreign Office had officially notified Moscow on May 13 that the Emperor is desirous of peace.

The Soviet Union ignored these moves because under the Yalta agreement it was due to enter the war against Japan three months after the surrender of Germany, and it was keen to do so.

US intelligence knew of these approaches to Moscow. Work on the Manhattan Project was speeded up in fear that Japan might surrender before the bomb could be used.

The two target cities had been left undamaged throughout the war because they were already selected for the experiment - the actual word used by Truman and Major Groves (head of the Manhattan Project) at the time.

On August 8 the Soviet Union declared war on Japan, and invaded Manchuria. A Soviet invasion of mainland Japan was now a distinct possibility. This would have meant a joint occupation, as in Germany. It was the determination to prevent this that caused the Americans to accept now the continuance of the Emperor as Head of State - the one and only condition which the Japanese had been asking for since May - and also induced the Japanese to accept the humiliation of a formal unconditional surrender.

The use of the bomb was not so much the final act of the Second World War, as a spectacular demonstration of American power in the opening moves of the new Cold War. Indeed, the then US Secretary of War, Stimson, admitted that the bomb was used to get a political advantage over the Soviet Union in the post-war situation.

The widespread national comfort-myth about the use of the atom bomb must be abandoned once and forever. Hiroshima was our Original Sin. We will never be at peace with ourselves and with the world until we find the honesty and courage to admit our guilt, apologise to the Japanese people, and forever forswear any threat to repeat such an appalling war crime.

<span id='postcolor'>

[Col. Kurtz 0]

Thank you Denoir! Our saviour! They can argue and try and justify it all they like, but you have the proof that it is against the rules of war. Just one thing I noted, it is against the Geneva convention to target Historical buildings. What if the building was been used as the headquarters for a countries military?

[HellToupee 0]

right on brother, and with iraq thy wont nuke it cause then they cant drill for its oil.

[HellToupee 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ Aug. 08 2002,23:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Thank you Denoir! Our saviour! They can argue and try and justify it all they like, but you have the proof that it is against the rules of war. Just one thing I noted, it is against the Geneva convention to target Historical buildings. What if the building was been used as the headquarters for a countries military?<span id='postcolor'>

monte casino, the americas destroyed that historical place but the irony is it did nothing but provide the germans with more cover in the rubble another of wars blunders destorys a peice of history. My advice arm all soldiers with sum super tranquliser with renders people asleep faster than bullets kill and war and death will become a thing of the past, i can dream.

[WhoCares 0]

Sorry, but it is wrong to argue with the Geneva convention from 1949 on something that happened in 1945. However, there must be some other conventions on war valid for this time, since the use of gas was already banned.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WhoCares @ Aug. 08 2002,11:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sorry, but it is wrong to argue with the Geneva convention from 1949 on something that happened in 1945. However, there must be some other conventions on war valid for this time, since the use of gas was already banned.<span id='postcolor'>

I disagree. We have to judge it by today's standards and not by the local conditions that were present. Otherwise you could argue that the persecution of Jews in Germany was OK since it was supported by the German government at the time.

The Geneva conventions of '49 were formulated directly from experience from ww2 and are supposed to stop things that happened there from happening again.

[WhoCares 0]

Well, imagine an ultra-conservative party would govern Sweden in ten years, adding an article, that declares wanking as murder on millions of potential children. And the next day they are going to start to sue you

Not that I want to call you anything, but you get the point

This is generally a controversial discussion, we might start now about 'Siegerjustiz', eg. sueing the guards at the german-german boarder for acting according to laws of east Germany.

[Ruud van Nistelrooy 0]

Whats the point in using todays standards to judge something that happened ages ago. Its pointless, what does it matter if america nuked someone, who would stop them? Who would stop them doing it again today? No one. As far as i see it, the A-Bomb ended WW2, if they hadn't used an A-bomb, then it'd easily be another 2-3 years of war, and in that 2-3 years, many more people would die. No one if they are honest really cares about those Japanese civilians, all that people (humanitarians more specifically) care about is having a pop at the human race because we're all so barbaric and evil and they're all great and just etc...

I for one believe we should just leave this alone and accept it was a major atrocity, a mistake? No, i don't think so. I for one am thankful the US dropped the bomb. IT was a tragedy, we can all accept this, we should should all know only comiserate the dead rather than debate how evil the human race is.

[Guest]

6--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WhoCares @ Aug. 08 2002,126)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, imagine an ultra-conservative party would govern Sweden in ten years, adding an article, that declares wanking as murder on millions of potential children. And the next day they are going to start to sue you  

Not that I want to call you anything, but you get the point  

This is generally a controversial discussion, we might start now about 'Siegerjustiz', eg. sueing the guards at the german-german boarder for acting according to laws of east Germany.<span id='postcolor'>

Whocares:

Yes, it is a controversial issue, and I'm not saying that we should press war crime charges against those who were involved with the a-bombs and are still alive today. I only think we should realize that we have outgrown such behaviour and that today that would indeed be considered a war crime. A point that is obviously missed on those who defend the using of weapons of mass destruction on civilian centers. That's what I find very worrying.

Ruud van Nistelrooy:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Whats the point in using todays standards to judge something that happened ages ago. Its pointless, what does it matter if america nuked someone, who would stop them? Who would stop them doing it again today? No one. As far as i see it, the A-Bomb ended WW2, if they hadn't used an A-bomb, then it'd easily be another 2-3 years of war, and in that 2-3 years, many more people would die. No one if they are honest really cares about those Japanese civilians, all that people (humanitarians more specifically) care about is having a pop at the human race because we're all so barbaric and evil and they're all great and just etc...

I for one believe we should just leave this alone and accept it was a major atrocity, a mistake? No, i don't think so. I for one am thankful the US dropped the bomb. IT was a tragedy, we can all accept this, we should should all know only comiserate the dead rather than debate how evil the human race is. <span id='postcolor'>

Did you bother the read my post on the previous page? I believe that your young age is an excuse for ignorance, but please at least pay attention to the discussion:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In Volume VI of his History of the Second World War, Winston Churchill writes: It would be a mistake to suppose that the fate of Japan was settled by the atomic bomb. Her defeat was certain before the first bomb fell and was brought about by overwhelming maritime power.

Field Marshal Montgomery wrote in his History of Warfare: It was unnecessary to drop the two atom bombs on Japan in August 1945, and I cannot think it was right to do so .... the dropping of the bombs was a major political blunder and is a prime example of the declining standards of the conduct of modern war.

General Eisenhower  himself said: Japan was at that very moment seeking some way to surrender with minimum loss of face.It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.

Truman’s Chief of Staff, Admiral Leahy , wrote: 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 already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons ... In being the first to use it, we adopted an ethical standard common to the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in this fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.

<span id='postcolor'>

Here is another interesting article:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why The U.S.A. Dropped The A-Bomb on Japan

by Michael W. Stowell [2-27-2001]

"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom." (Thomas Payne "Common Sense" 1776)

On July 17, 1945, U.S. President Harry Truman, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and the Soviet Union's Joseph Stalin met in Potsdam, Germany to discuss surrender terms for the Japanese and Russia's planned entry into the Pacific campaign. Stalin had received communications outlining a conditional surrender that would allow Japanese Emperor Hirohito to remain as a ceremonial functionary.

Hours earlier, approximately 230 miles from Los Alamos, New Mexico in the Jornada del Mueto valley at the "Trinity" test site, the world's first atomic bomb was detonated. After viewing the horrific explosion the director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, J. Robert Oppenheimer, quoted the Bhagavad-Gita: "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."

Scientists working on plutonium production at the "Metallurgical Project" laboratory at the University of Chicago debated whether the atomic bomb should be used against Japan. A committee chaired by Nobel laureate James Franck urged the United States to demonstrate the new weapon on a barren island. Conversely, another all-civilian group named the "Interim Committee", chaired by Secretary of War Henry Stimson, advised that the weapon be used directly.

However, Stimson also stated

"I am inclined to think that there is enough such chance to make it well worthwhile our giving them a warning of what is to come and a definite opportunity to capitulate. We have the following enormously favorable factors on our side, factors much weightier that those we had against Germany: Japan has no allies; Her navy is nearly destroyed and she is vulnerable to a surface and underwater blockade which can deprive her of sufficient food and supplies for her population; She is terribly vulnerable to our concentrated air attack upon her crowded cities, industrial and food resources; She has against her not only Anglo-American forces but the rising forces of China and the ominous threat of Russia."

"During his (Secretary of War Henry Stimson's) recitation of the relative facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings: first, on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly, because I thought that our country should avoid shocking the world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of "face." The secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude." (General Dwight D. Eisenhower)

President Truman's private journal and correspondence written at the time of the bombings indicate that contrary to his public justification of the bombings as the only way to end the war without a costly invasion of Japan, Truman had already concluded that Japan was about to capitulate. Whether or not he was correct in this estimate of when the war would end, the fact that he held this view at the time he made his decision to use the atomic bombs is clearly set down in his own hand.

"I cannot speak for the others but it was ever present in my mind that it was important that we have an end to the war before the Russians came in...Neither the President nor I were anxious to have them (the Soviets) enter the war after we had learned of this successful (atomic) test." (James Byrnes, Secretary of State 1945-47)

"Mr. Byrnes did not argue that it was necessary to use the bomb against the cities of Japan in order to win the war...Mr. Byrnes view (was) that our possessing and demonstrating the bomb would make Russia more managable in Europe." (Leo Szilard, Nuclear Physicist)

"The use of the atomic bombs was precipitated by a desire to end the war in the Pacific by any means before Russia's participation. I'm sure if President Roosevelt had still been there, none of that would have been possible." (Albert Einstein)

According to Admiral William D. Leahy, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and President Truman's Chief of Staff: "The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... In being the first to use it [the atomic bomb], we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages."

"It would be a mistake to suppose that the fate of Japan was settled by the atomic bomb. Her defeat was certain before the first bomb fell." (Winston Churchill)

"The real purpose of building the bomb was to subdue the Soviets." (Gen. Leslie Groves, chief of the Manhattan Project)

In early 1946, Undersecretary of State Dean Acheson appointed a committee charged with drafting an international agreement to avert a nuclear arms race. Under the terms of the plan, the U.S. would stop making nuclear weapons, dismantle existing weapons, and transfer its nuclear materials to an international authority after the Soviet Union had agreed to an in-depth inspection and verification program. The Soviets were developing nuclear weapons and wanted dismantlement first and inspections later. The disagreement has led to the largest and most dangerous military extravaganza the world has ever seen. The U.S. alone has spent approximately five trillion dollars on nuclear weapons.

Moreover, a few months before the atomic bombing of Hiroshima the U.S. convened the Bretton Woods Conference, out of which the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank evolved. Control of world finance, combined with a military option no prospective opponent dared contemplate, insured the consolidation of what Henry Luce deemed the "American Century." Fifty-five years have passed since those early days in August 1945 and Washington D.C. remains the citadel of military/economic domination and capitalist imperialism.

*all but one quote taken from "Hiroshima's Shadow" edited by Kai Bird and Lawrence Lifschultz from Pamphleteer's Press, Stony Creek, Connecticut http://codoh.com/review/revhirosh.html http://historians.org/new/hiroshima/ http://www.tgarden.demon.co.uk/writings/articles/Hiroshima.html http://www.wpunj.edu/~newpol/issue25/scarlo25

*the Admiral William D. Leahy quote is taken from an essay entitled "Why the atomic bomb wasn't necessary to end the war" by Janet Bloomfield, British Coordinator of the Atomic Mirror and a consultant to the Oxford Research Group in Oxford <jbloomfield@gn.apc.org>

<span id='postcolor'>

[Frizbee 0]

Warin: It was printed in an article of Australia's Courier Mail. Unfortunately it was a while ago, and I never considered having to save the article to prove a point months later. I am sure if you did some research you would be able to find other documents to back up this claim.

Okay, one other point.. Japan was one of the countries that did not sign the Geneva convention. Therefore, just as they did not recognize it in application to any Prisoners of War, the Geneva convention did not apply to any Japanese prisoners of war, or civilians.

Despite that fact, Japanese prisoners were still treated decently by the allies, though the Japs believed that being captured brough great shame upon themselves and their families.

As for the statments by Montgomery and Eisenhower, who are they really to talk? They were generals, therefore they didn't have to risk their lives retaking all the Islands from the Japanese. Ask the footsoldiers, Naval personal and airmen who fought in the Pacific theatre, and I am sure the majority of them will agree that it was necessary to drop the bombs. It is those people, the people who were in the thick of it whose words should be trusted.

[Ruud van Nistelrooy 0]

Yes i did, and quite uninteresting it was too. Maybe if you didn't have your head so far up your ass you'd realise i was only refering to your post breifly.

I also feel compelled to point out your moderator status is no excuse for being a dickhead.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Frizbee @ Aug. 08 2002,12:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Warin: It was printed in an article of Australia's Courier Mail. Unfortunately it was a while ago, and I never considered having to save the article to prove a point months later. I am sure if you did some research you would be able to find other documents to back up this claim.<span id='postcolor'>

Germany had a nuclear program, not Japan. You must have read wrong. This is a simple fact, not a debating point. You can look around the net and in books and you will see that Japan didn't have a nuclear program during ww2.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Okay, one other point.. Japan was one of the countries that did not sign the Geneva convention. Therefore, just as they did not recognize it in application to any Prisoners of War, the Geneva convention did not apply to any Japanese prisoners of war, or civilians.

Despite that fact, Japanese prisoners were still treated decently by the allies, though the Japs believed that being captured brough great shame upon themselves and their families.<span id='postcolor'>

That is a morally inconsequential point. Just because they do a bad thing doesn't mean that we are free to do so too.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As for the statments by Montgomery and Eisenhower, who are they really to talk? They were generals, therefore they didn't have to risk their lives retaking all the Islands from the Japanese. Ask the footsoldiers, Naval personal and airmen who fought in the Pacific theatre, and I am sure the majority of them will agree that it was necessary to drop the bombs. It is those people, the people who were in the thick of it whose words should be trusted.<span id='postcolor'>

LOL! :o Was this a joke? I hope so. The regular footsoldiers know shit. They know what they have been told and ordered. People like Eisenhower, Montomery and Churchill are the people who knew the strategy of the war and the real stratego-political situation. Nobody in the world knew the situation better then they did. I certainly hope you were just kidding.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ruud van Nistelrooy @ Aug. 08 2002,13:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes i did, and quite uninteresting it was too. Maybe if you didn't have your head so far up your ass you'd realise i was only refering to your post breifly.

I also feel compelled to point out your moderator status is no excuse for being a dickhead.<span id='postcolor'>

And I feel compelled to remove your posting rights because of inappropriate behaviour towards a member/moderator.

[monkeygoat 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Aug. 08 2002,13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

That is a morally inconsequential point. Just because they do a bad thing doesn't mean that we are free to do so too.<span id='postcolor'>

That depends on your morals...

Edit:Stupid smilies

[KingBeast 0]

This post is getting quite feisty

I think that a few people are just not willing to discuss the matter so much as tell everyone what they think/know to be correct. Swearing at the mods wont get you anywhere, i think thats been proven far too many times

[Mora2 0]

I want to still see discussion on this and don´t want to turn it into a flame war but i think Denoir should revise his words and have a little respect about else´s opinions,forget about his age and don´t call him ignorant...

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mora2 @ Aug. 08 2002,14:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I want to still see discussion on this and don´t want to turn it into a flame war but i think Denoir should revise his words and have a little respect about else´s opinions,forget about his age and don´t call him ignorant...<span id='postcolor'>

You are free to call me ignorant, that is fully acceptable

As for his age, he is young and that's how I explained his post. I would have criticized much harder had he been an adult. His post was on the level of the posts mage on page one of this thread, and I think we have progressed further then that in this discussion. So if you have something to contribute then post, if you don't, then don't post. Simple as that.

Calling somebody a 'dickhead' is not acceptable. This is also not the first time he has attacked moderators, hence the 48h bye-bye to posting rights. As Kingbeast wisely said: Swearing at the mods wont get you anywhere.

Now, this discussion is supposed to be about Hiroshima, so let's keep it about that. I will delete any subsequent posts that stray entirely off-topic or close the thread if necessary.

[Col. Kurtz 0]

We must obey the moderators! We must never question their godly status! We must follow all the say! Well its the 9th of August and the 57th Aneversory of the 2cnd and last time nuclear weaons were used againt a city. I wonder what happened to 'Enola Gay', the B-29 Super Fortress used to drop the bomb on Hiroshima. It probably ended up in some museum in America to honour the 'heroic' deads of the pilots are the went forth to destry an 'evil' nation or some crap. I think we should all agree on one thing, we dont want another nuke dropped again on any inncoent civilians! Look at those pictures of Japenese civilians with the radiation burns. How their skin bubbled. Think of those people, but replace them with European and American civilians. Pictures your next door neighbour with those burns. It could happen. Hope that it dosnt. We must look at Hiroshima and Nagashaki and do all in our powe to make sure it DOES NOT happen again! Weither you belive it was for the best, or for the worst, it was a terrible thing.

[foxer 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ Aug. 09 2002,10:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We must obey the moderators! We must never question their godly status! We must follow all the say! Well its the 9th of August and the 57th Aneversory of the 2cnd and last time nuclear weaons were used againt a city. I wonder what happened to 'Enola Gay', the B-29 Super Fortress used to drop the bomb on Hiroshima. It probably ended up in some museum in America to honour the 'heroic' deads of the pilots are the went forth to destry an 'evil' nation or some crap. I think we should all agree on one thing, we dont want another nuke dropped again on any inncoent civilians! Look at those pictures of Japenese civilians with the radiation burns. How their skin bubbled. Think of those people, but replace them with European and American civilians. Pictures your next door neighbour with those burns. It could happen. Hope that it dosnt. We must look at Hiroshima and Nagashaki and do all in our powe to make sure it DOES NOT happen again! Weither you belive it was for the best, or for the worst, it was a terrible thing.<span id='postcolor'>

You don't have to replace them with americans and europeans just soo you feel sorry for those people.

[Blaegis 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Aug. 08 2002,08:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">shows how much you lack in that region's knowledge .

furthermore, AFAIK, Russia was concentrating its efforts in region north east of 4 northern most JPN islands.(currently occupied by Russians). Soviet did not attack JPN until 2 bombs were dropped. it would imply that they were not ready in timely manner.

and Japan had its power stretched all the way to Manchuria by early 30s. although they might not have stockpiling time, they had no problem getting supplies.<span id='postcolor'>

FYI, Ralph, here's a map of Soviet operations against Japan in 1945. The offensive began on August 9th and came to conclusion on Sptember 2nd when Japan surrendered. As you can see (I couldn't find a map with English markings, but it should be easy enough to read) the Soviet operation was certainly not constrained to the Kurile islands and would have effectively cut off any remaining sources of raw materials for Japan. The Japanese forces involved numbered approximately 710.000 men.

[Genesis 0]

At least I don't have to replace them with American or European peoples to be sorry. But there are lots of ignorant people who may have to replace them in their minds to understand, and they may not even then get the point.

It is a terrible fact that a lot of us human beings find it so hard to admit that we have made mistakes, be it in our everyday lifes or looking back at history. Some Japanese still won't admit that they have lost in WW2 and won't admit their committed atrocities. Same goes for alot of US people. I don't exactly know where it comes from, but I would believe that it comes from the "propaganda" which we all get during history lessons... I remember when I was at high school, all stories told about WW2 was something like: Nazi-Germany stepped on everybody's toes and killed 6 million jews. Then came the great allies, US, Great britain and Canada (very minor notification about Canada ) and brought freedom to Europe. Hurrah. Now that I have become older, by studying myself I have found much info about WW2 and interesting political information about it. It's funny that during high school, our teachers barely mentioned Stalins Soviet Union that was without doubt the biggest power to put Germany's expansion to a halt, and eventually crush the power of the NSDAP in Germany.

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a terrible tragedy, because it was in fact unnecessary. Come on you people, just right after the war a majority of your own generals, scientists (that developed the bomb) and political leaders admitted it, so why can't you. The world condemns your use of atomic bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki so why can't you just admit it was wrong, unnecessary, and murderous. By admitting the fact it was wrong you could earn the respect of many people outside of your country. Your choice, be wise.

[KingBeast 0]

You know what you say is qutie interesting, for when I had history in highschool we also learnt nothing of the Soviets. Mainly we were told about the Battle of Britain, the Blitz and the European theatre of war. Though I didnt study A level history, just GCSE.

[Col. Kurtz 0]

To the west, the USSR was always the big naughty naughty comunist country that did nothing but bad. That is why the left them out of all war movies and stuff. If the Soviets were not fighting the German Heer, the Western Allies would have faced roughly twice the amount of German forces and rescources.