| |
fastmover
|
Quote: from expatchuck on 2:30 am on Sep. 6, 2003
If you are making irresponsible statements, as this appears to be, you should be prepared to back them up.
Does the Japanese government not share some responsibility also? They started the war on December 7, 1941!!!
Speaking of irresponsible statements, the war did not 'start' on Dec. 7, 1941.
Why don't you ask the Koreans, Chinese or Taiwanese in Asia when the war started. Or for that matter, in Europe, the Czechs, Poles, Dutch, French, and Brits--just to name a few. Does September, 1939 ring a bell?
America failed to live up to its sense of freedom for all, until it got its nose bloodied at Pearl. They did the same thing in WWI.
As usual, nothing starts until America says it starts.
For Japan, it's road to modern war started in 1868 when a group of Japanese samurai overthrew the Togugawa shogunate positioning Emperor Meiji as divine ruler of Japan, and begining it's imperialistic drive for power in Asia.
Japan reached out and touched Korea, Manchuria (China), Taiwan, Russia all by 1904. There is nothing like a bit of confidence to spur you on.
And yes America had it's priorities even then.
On Sept. 5, 1905 - The Treaty of Portsmouth (New Hampshire, USA) was signed. The U.S.A. recognized Japanese interests in Korea and southern Manchuria, and Japan recognized American interests in the Philippines.
President Teddy Roosevelt let Japan have Korea and Manchuria.
It's really great to know who your friends are.
Asian people have long memories.
Historically speaking of course.
|
Thai Girls : Meet Sexy Thai Girls
Posted on: 10:18 pm on Sep. 6, 2003
|
|
expatchuck
|
FM:
I was under the impression the posts were about the US bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. İCorrect me if I am wrong but I thought the US did this. İTherefore, my statement is correct when I said the Japanese started the war in 12/7/41.
Thank you for proving my point that somebody would dream up an excuse to blame the US for WWII. İThe very obscure Treaty of Portsmouth signed in 1905 can be directly traced to WWII in your minds eye. İTherefore the US caused the Japanese aggression of 35 (or so) years later.
At least you didn't blame the CIA since it wasn't in existence in 1905.
I guess we should have taken on Japan in 1868 to really get to the cause of WWII but we were kind of occupied at that time.
You have just taken this thread to ridiculous heights.
|
Bangkok Women : Meet Sensual Bangkok Women
Posted on: 11:35 pm on Sep. 6, 2003
|
|
Smegma
|
Quote: from Minder on 9:22 am on Sep. 7, 2003
You are a source of excellent historical material and I have already cut and pasted some of your earlier posts but you remind me of the character in the film "Titanic" who has the computer simulation of the sinking and fails to see that these were real people with real emotions.
General Groves ....... but his real reason may have been as personal as it was the hometown of the General whose division killed his best friend - we'll never really know.
Minder,
I do not dispute that I may remind you of such character. However if you try to imply that I fail to see that those were real people and emotions, I would say you are wrong.
I think that the reason I may remind you of such a scene perhaps is because I believe that when one is to have an intelligent debate, it has to be suported by sound reasoning and not by emotions themselves.
Before I go more into the matter of emotions and the general feelings of different populations at different times, lets go back to General Groves. As you say, we may never know. But I would expect that a soldier that makes it to such a position, would do target selection based on the things that matter for the task he is supposed to perform. Looking back at the target selection process now looks even more detached, when one reviews what was said and discussed and how small things ended up affecting who died where and when.
Hiroshima was second on the final 4 target list (Nagasaki was last). But at the end of July General Spaatz, CG of USASTAF telexed Washington:
"Hiroshima according to prisoner of war reports is the only one of the four target cities .... that does not have allied prisoner of war camps"
Nest day he received the following reply:
"Targets assigned ....remain unchanged. However if you consider your information reliable Hiroshima should be given first priority among them"
Its fate was now sealed.
On the matter of emotions, there is a lot of absurdity on how the masses perceive tragedies. A tragedy that is made "to appear close" by virtue of any association seems greater. That association may be brought by greater media coverage, or some other link. Be close geographical proximity or langauge or culture or anything else.
And that is wrong. Because at the individual level, for those directly affected, each individual case matters as much as any other. A bus that crashes where 10 people die in Turkey, is as big a tragedy as one where 10 people die in a town 100 miles away from yours. Though in most cases people would worry about those close by -even though they may not have know any of them, and would not even read the footnote in the paper about the Turkish one.
Just because the media gives greater coverage to some events, it doesn't make the human tragedy greater. From the point of the suffering of the actual victims, their pain is the same regardless of how many millions of people get to know about it.
My original point was that the politicians of that time (as well as those of all times) played and fueled the way they thought fit with the emotions of their people. But they often knew better, and didn't follow some of those same emotions when they had to make actual decissions that would have long lasting effects.
BTW, the Soviets were also very bad during WW II, but we were allies, so we couldn't criticize them so much and we had to turn a blind eye for a while. History is very selective when looking back at recent events. And yes, it is much easier for winners to hide their own sins.
|
Thai Girls : Meet Sexy Thai Girls
Posted on: 2:23 am on Sep. 7, 2003
|
|
Smegma
|
Quote: from Minder on 9:22 am on Sep. 7, 2003
If all their war crimes were known prior to the cessation of hostilities I doubt they would have escaped with the couple of "slaps on the wrist" that were Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The leaders of infamous unit 731 did not even get a "slap on the wrist", even after their crimes became extremely well known by the USA leaders. While the allies were tough with German war criminals, the USA let many (and worse) Japanese war criminals go easy -even after their crimes were well known.
There you have an example of the hypocresy of political leaders and how they play with the masses. Whether you let your (or any other) leaders and the media impress and influence you and how much .... is a personal matter depending on many factors. But that is another subject.
|
Bangkok Girls : Meet Sexy Bangkok Girls
Posted on: 2:58 am on Sep. 7, 2003
|
|
Mr Alan
|
"America failed to live up to its sense of freedom for all, until it got its nose bloodied at Pearl. They did the same thing in WWI."
The USA has never claimed to be the world's protector of freedom for all, unless their own national interests are in jeopardy. It is simply not possible, even it would be commendable, to defend the entire world against every wrong that has been committed. There is always the danger that ones own perception of righteousness can turn into folly, as happened in Vietnam.
However, the USA has done a lot to promote the freedom of many people (short of attacking other nations). The Japanese attacked Pear Harbor in 1941 because of a US imposed embargo on oil to Japan in protest of Japanese aggression in Asia (the US was a net exporter of oil back then). So the claim that the USA did nothing about Japanese aggression until December 7, 1941 is factually incorrect.
Even (or especially) when the USA takes specific military action, gratitude is almost always short lived. For example, it now seems that efforts to help France in WWI and WWII (both during the wars and in the rebuilding of the economy afterward) were in hindsight, a big mistake. So don't look for it happen again unless the national interests of USA are directly threatened.
|
Thai Women : Meet Matured Thai Women
Posted on: 3:16 am on Sep. 7, 2003
|
|
Arcadius
|
"I had set as the governing factor that the targets chosen should be places the bombing of which would most adversely affect the will of the Japanese people to continue the war. Beyond that..."
This reads to me like the comment of a guy with his eye very firmly on the ball, and I agree with Smeg that there's no need to attribute personal grudges to a guy at this level of professional responsibility without evidence. Lest we forget, Hiroshima and Nagasaki achieved their objectives.
I have never quite undestood why A & H bombs have been considered uniquely immoral. There are far worse ways to die in war than getting nuked. At any event, the humanitarian argument alone for dropping these things on Japan has always seemed to me decisive.
I'd go further, and say that nukes have been positively benign in rendering total war between major powers practically unthinkable for the future. There may still be wars at this level, but if so they will have to be the kind of formalised (and far less destructive) trials of strength which prevailed before the French Revolution.
Good. Is this not progress? I suspect warfare is an ineradicable part of the human condition, but total war was a cruel and uncivilised abomination and we are well rid of it.
|
Bangkok Women : Meet Beautiful Thai Girls
Posted on: 3:26 am on Sep. 7, 2003
|
|
Mr Alan
|
One can find many reputable scholars and commentators who think that President Harry Truman would have dropped the bomb regardless of the Soviet factor. One can find reputable scholars to support just about any proposition regarding the use of nuclear weapons against Japan.
Ultimately, the decision to use the bomb was made by one person. As Truman said, ìThe Buck Stops Here,î and only he and God know what really happened in making his decision. Actually, human nature being what it is, I am not even sure Truman knew.
|
Bangkok Girls : Meet Attractive Thai Girls
Posted on: 3:31 am on Sep. 7, 2003
|
|
Smegma
|
Quote: from Mr Alan on 3:16 pm on Sep. 7, 2003
..... gratitude is almost always short lived .....
Behavioral scientists have shown that gratitude is the shortest lived human emotion. Sad, but true.
In the case of inter-personal relationships, often gratitude last only a few minutes before it is totally forgotten. However, no matter how sad this may be, I think that it is actually worse at the personal level than in the case of countries.
Countries can not go on expecting to use a favor done in the past as way to expect the recipient of the favor to be subservient to their interest, regardless of their own views. That would make such subservient country to be a puppet state. And if the intention of that "help" was to convert the country into a puppet state, history has shown that there is no real gratitude. Just look at the former Soviet satellite countries.
If "something" is actually expected in return, then there is no reason for gratitude. It becomes more like .... a transaction: I do this for you now, but you will do this for me later.
If the USA acted out of purely altruistic motives, then it should be happy knowing it did something good and move on. If it expected something in return, then that would constitute a payment. Question is: has such debt been settled? So? What was it? Pure altruism? Or a transaction? Was the debt cancelled?
Not receiving the appropriate gratitude one would expect is sad. But one should move and stop complaining. Or else the moral ground one had thanks to the good actions of the past gets muddled with all this: "I was good to you but you now are not good to me. Why? Why? After all I did for you?" This sound like a sore party after a romantic breakup.
Anyway, it has happen before and will happen again. Countries who were enemies one day became allies next and then became enemies again and so on.
By the way, didn't the French first help the still not yet independent USA fight the English in the late 18th century? Maybe the French felt the USA was not grateful enough when they fought alone -without USA help- against the Prussians in 1870. Maybe. Just maybe. Or maybe the USA helping the French in the 20th century was a way for the USA to feel it was "paying back" the original favor -thus cancelling the debt. Or maybe the USA actually thought they were helping the English, who they in turn were the ones helping the French. What I mean is this "gratitude" thing between countries (over long periods of time) is nonsense.
|
Thai Girls : Meet Active Thai Girls
Posted on: 3:59 am on Sep. 7, 2003
|
|
Smegma
|
Quote: from Mr Alan on 3:31 pm on Sep. 7, 2003
.....scholars and commentators who think that President Harry Truman would have dropped the bomb regardless of the Soviet factor. One can find reputable scholars to support just about any proposition .....
True. But often there tends to be a consensus among a majority of the respectable scholars -lets not include the weirdo ones. And in the case we were discussing here, the majority of them and the evidence from letters, transcripts from the conversations, and memoirs of many of the players involved, do support the fact that the Soviet Union was a factor taken into consideration when making a decission -the majority view is that it was a key factor influencing the timing; what would have happened had the Soviets moved forward before the dropping? We will never know. But yes, I agree he may have dropped it anyway. Not that he minded impressing the Soviets. But better early rather than late.
But do not take my world for it on the timing -which is what we were really discussing, and on what the Soviets as a factor were key (IMO). I suggest you go and read the books and the scholars of your choosing and come to your own conclussion. However, if you do not care to find out and know more ..... then ... what is the point of you discussing the topic trying to appear as refuting views you seem to know little about?
|
Thai Women : Meet Matured Thai Women
Posted on: 4:20 am on Sep. 7, 2003
|
|
Neal Cassidy
|
Move beyond this. The next thing you'll be debating about is Hannibal's decision to deploy elephants on the battlefield.
|
Bangkok Girls : Meet Attractive Thai Girls
Posted on: 4:23 am on Sep. 7, 2003
|
|
| |
|
