Compare: Hiroshima to Terrorism

[Sayonara]

oh, i agree that the rape of nanking and the bataan death march was much worse than the whole sherman carpet thing. hey, if youre looking for atrocities think of the tens of millions of innocent chinese the japanese killed during imperialistic days.

Well anything sounds worse if you call it "The Rape of ~" or "The Death March".

 

As for the death of Chinese people due to Imperial Japan, are we to assume you are simply choosing to ignore the invasion and occupation of Japan by China? You know, the socially intrusive event that fashioned much of their present culture, including their language.

[john5746]

No doubt, Japan killed millions, Stalin & Hitler killed millions. Lots of killing in this time period.

 

Japan became imperialistic as a direct result of conflict with Europeans. They realized the "old" ways of keeping to themselves would always keep them weak. They were doing the same thing Europeans had been doing for years. Thankfully, somebody was there to stop them.

 

Still, we seemed to have an easier time killing Japanese as opposed to Germans. We locked them up in our country and dropped atomic bombs on them. Some of this was due to cultural differences, some just outright racial bigotry.

 

What I hope we learn from history is that any government, if unchecked, will eventually commit atrocities in the name of God, Country or "the children". It is patriotic to question your government, even during war.

[budullewraagh]

eh, they didn't start becoming imperialistic when they noticed their need for imperialism; they were imperialistic hundreds of years prior. they realized they needed to become stronger when the mongols knocked on their doors. i can remember that in 1591 the korean admiral yi sun shin completely dominated the japanese navy after years of japanese imperial raids that left countless innocent chinese and koreans dead. of course, when commodore matthew perry came, the japanese became involved in the global economy, but this was not the true reason for japanese imperialism

[john5746]

Yes, I contradicted myself. Imperialism springs from human nature, especially if you live on a small island... Any group of people, given power will be tempted to overtake others, sometimes with good intentions. Europeans didn't invent it, they were just very good at it.

[budullewraagh]

karl marx, freiderich engels, thomas more, a bunch of romans and perhaps plato all frown upon you.

[atinymonkey]

Along with a legion of Shogun and the Khans.

[budullewraagh]

i doubt that

[atinymonkey]

i doubt that

 

You 'doubt' that, Mr 'a bunch of romans and perhaps plato'?

 

Genghis Kahn was the most effective exponent of imperialistic expansion in history, his campaign against Japan caused the feudal society to adapt resulting in the definition of the Shogun and the creation of a imperial military structure in Japan. The foundation of the imperial Japan has nothing whatsoever to do with Karl Marx, Frederic* Engels or Thomas More. Thomas More in particular did not include aggressive military might in his definition of a Utopian culture, he when so far as to say war was a last resort. Neither Karl Marx nor Frederic Engels had even the slightest impact on Japanese culture, the comments made by both about colonialism and imperialism in capitalist countries supporting an expanding economy did not apply to Japan, a feudal society with no colonies.

 

* not Freiderich

[budullewraagh]

of course i know about the mongol empire. i've read books about khubilai and have read quite a bit into jengiz/chingghis/genghis/timuchin/any of his other 28 other names' conquests.

 

i think we both were interpreting different things. i was responding to the quote:

Imperialism springs from human nature

thomas more and john locke especially would cry at hearing that, then write even more books with opposing opinions.

 

by the way, many people spell engels' name "freiderich". timuchin had 32 different spellings of his name.

 

also, i quote myself:

all frown upon you.

by saying that i mean the people mentioned above all did not appreciate the concept of natural law stating that humans are capitalistic economically.

[john5746]

karl marx, freiderich engels, thomas more, a bunch of romans and perhaps plato all frown upon you.

 

I'll just shoot them.

 

karl marx? a complete loser as is his philosophy.

 

I must admit I don't understand the romans part

 

Humans are animals with a big brain. In groups we are easily swayed into the pack mentality "us" vs "them". We can be very good to "us" and be very bad to "them" and have no problems with it whatsoever. This can be observed all the time anywhere.

[budullewraagh]

karl marx? a complete loser as is his philosophy.

justify your position. have you read das kapital? if not, you should before you make such a statement.

 

We can be very good to "us" and be very bad to "them" and have no problems with it whatsoever.

sure, humans can be this way. have you read more's utopia? if not, read it and then discuss this with me.

[Guest gematt]

One of the best points your missing is the fact that allied firebombing in germany killed many more than the atomic blast did. February 13, 1945 the Allies begin firebombing Dresden, Germany, killing at least 135,000.January 27, 1945 Soviet troops liberate the Auschwitz and Birkenau concentration camps, discovering hundreds of corpses and the earthly remains of approximately 1,000,000 men and women.

 

Wars are fought in context of the current "age." They are calling US troops war crimanils for taking embarasing pictures of people. Tell that to the maids in the 1960's Hanoi Hilton. I'f telling some guy he'll be electrecuted if he falls off a box is a war crime than yea.. war it is.

[budullewraagh]

both are inhumane. both are not just.

[john5746]

justify your position. have you read das kapital? if not' date=' you should before you make such a statement.

 

 

sure, humans [i']can[/i] be this way. have you read more's utopia? if not, read it and then discuss this with me.

 

Well, I have some reading to do. I base my statement on Marx on his life.

He wanted war and revolution

He was a racist and anti-Semite (even though he had Jewish heritage)

Couldn't make a living for himself or his family

Didn’t clean himself or his surroundings very well

 

His ideas sound good and I know that Capitalism has major drawbacks. But, capitalism will never die because it is in the nature of man. People work for themselves and their family first. No revolution or war needed.

 

Speaking of communism, Stalin committed the worst atrocities of WWII. The reason I picked Hiroshima is the similarity with terrorist events (very sudden, no warning) and is looked upon very differently between Americans and Japanese.

 

I heard someone on the radio bring up this point: If twenty terrorists were found to be in a New York building with 300 civilians, should we bomb it? If the same thing happens in Iraq what is the answer?

[Duke]

I thought only 40,000 people died in the dresden firestorm

[fourier jr]

I hope this doesn't degenerate into a capitalist/anticapitalist thread because it's supposed to be about Hiroshima. (& Marx's Capital is ~1500 pages, so yeah, someone's got some reading to do)

 

Here's the dissent from that guy Radhabinod Pal, the only independent Asian justice at the Tokyo trial (an Indian) and the only person there with any experience in international law:

http://member.nifty.ne.jp/sv/history/Hall-content.htm

summary:

"The author, Radhabinod Pal was a judge as the representative of India in Tokyo Trial. His judgement document is appraised as a book of complete fairness and best judgement in 20th century. It became famous later to the scholar of law in the world. But the document was not read in Tokyo Trial court from its complete fairness, and prohibited to publish by japan-ocupation forces. He denied the "Crime for Peace" and "Crime for Humanity" as a law which the winner side built after war as they like. He considered fundamentally from the already established law. He judged, there was no group-conspiracy in japan and also judged A-class 25 japanese war criminals as innocent."

 

So what is a war crime? Something that the losers did that the winners didn't do. So the Hiroshima bombing wasn't a war crime, because the winning side did it. Just read that other link I put up above to find out the truth about the political reasons for nuking Hiroshima & Nagasaki.

 

an excerpt:

"If it is really law which is being applied I would like to see even the members of the victor nations being brought before such tribunals. I refuse to believe that had that been the law, none of the victors in any way violated the same and that the world is so depraved that no one even thinks of bringing such persons to book for their acts."

[Skye]

Saying that a law only has the authority of the authority behind it is asinine.

[AL]

Saying that a law only has the authority of the authority behind it is asinine.

Asinine in principle, but quite descriptive of political reality.

[Chem-Maniac]

The whole topic is, at least in my eyes, tasteless. Sorry guys!

[LucidDreamer]

I don't know if I would necessarily consider this justification for Hiroshima, but I can see how America's action might have prevented further bloodshed. If the war between America and Japan had dragged on eventually the Japanese might have developed atomic weapons of their own. If this had occurred then America and Japan would have started the first nuclear war, which would have caused more bloodshed then just the two bombs that were dropped.

[Sayonara]

Japan were already ****ed by the time the bombs dropped. They knew it, and so did the rest of the world.

[budullewraagh]

yes, but they would have killed plenty of soldiers on the beaches of tokyo

[Sayonara]

"Plenty of" is a bit vague.

 

More than the total death toll from both bombs?

[budullewraagh]

many have speculated that there would be millions of casualties.

 

i had thought that you implied the war was almost over before the bombs were dropped. i believe the alles would defeat japan swiftly, but not easily.

[Sayonara]

My intention was to illustrate that the Japanese were worlds away from being able to build nuclear weapons, however since you mention it I seriously doubt there could have been millions of casualties in a mainland invasion at that time.

 

Firstly I don't believe the US navy had the capability to land that many troops in a single invasion, and secondly the Japanese forces would have lacked the capacity for killing that many people. But then I am not a historian.