No more God Bless America?

[Amelia]

If everyone whould visit the church website and poke around, you'll understand more of where this pastor is coming from. The church format is "Afrocentric".

Personally I feel the president of the United States needs to be "inclusive". He/she has to govern all faiths, cultures and colors. Any kind of "exclusivity/separation" thinking would certainly cause problems.

[fccool]

Once again, I don't deny it, but the love/hate for the country is usually proportional to what you'd get out of it. If you get nothing but poverty, resentment, violence... you obviously would not have a positive view of the country. There are unfair and unbalanced views in both camps. I think Dr. King is a great and positive example for dealing with injustice peacefully. On the other hand we do have MalcomX who did approach it differently. Both approaches had their triumphs and failures.

I don't think that pastor honestly hates America. He used strong words to make a strong point, which may only address a certain aspect of the actions and policies of the country. If I killed a person, I think it would only be fair for suffering family to criticize and hate me as a killer, while they may still respect me as a human being who makes mistakes.

[John317]

“We bombed Hiroshima. We bombed Nagasaki. And we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye,”

Once again, I don't see anything false about the statement, other than a tone of bitterness. To this day no public apology was made to the families of the civilians killed by atomic blasts, which were the only time in history atomic bomb was ever used on both military and civilian population unilaterally.

One has to consider the historical and military context of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Go back and read what was happening and what would have happened if we hadn't bombed Japan. Over one million people would have died in an invasion of the main Japanese islands, not only hundreds of thousands more Americans but up to a million Japanese, and would have necessitated hand to hand combat door to door and street by street. The Japanese were prepared to fight to the death using every weapon at their disposal. We bombed Hiroshima and then waited several days for them to surrender. They continued to fight.

[fccool]

Yes, it's quite ironic that we have things like BET, Black History Month, and Afrocentric churches. Not to say that there's anything wrong with cultural diversity, but these are for the most part exclusive organizations of things.

[fccool]

You don't know what would happen if Japan would not have been bombed. It was an already failing country on the brink of economic collapse as the embargos were causing food and fuel shortages. To justify killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians based on "would have been" is by far not a fair approach. Especially to say that it was better for Japan to experience nuclear explosions two times over.

[Amelia]

OOPS, I didn't mean for my comments to be negative. I just ment that since the pastors preaching/teaching focus was Afrocentric, that his comments and thoughts might likely follow that same track. Am I making a racist comment with that?

[Dr. Shane]

Obama was interviewed on Hannity and Combs this evening and presented himself very well. He came across sincere and did not sound like he was spinning anything. If he has more interviews like it on more media outlets, it should actually help him as he came across as a committed Christian talking straight.

[Amelia]

Quote:

You don't know what would happen if Japan would not have been bombed. It was an already failing country on the brink of economic collapse as the embargos were causing food and fuel shortages. To justify killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians based on "would have been" is by far not a fair approach. Especially to say that it was better for Japan to experience nuclear explosions two times over.

Ahh but John didn't come up with that. It's exactly what our military decided.

[John317]

You don't know what would happen if Japan would not have been bombed. It was an already failing country on the brink of economic collapse as the embargos were causing food and fuel shortages. To justify killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians based on "would have been" is by far not a fair approach. Especially to say that it was better for Japan to experience nuclear explosions two times over.

Here are the facts surrounding the bombings:

On July 26, Truman and other allied leaders issued The Potsdam Declaration outlining terms of surrender for Japan. It was presented as an ultimatum and stated that without a surrender, the Allies would attack Japan, resulting in "the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the Japanese homeland" but the atomic bomb was not mentioned. On July 28, Japanese papers reported that the declaration had been rejected by the Japanese government. That afternoon, Prime Minister Kantaro Suzuki declared at a press conference that the Potsdam Declaration was no more than a rehash (yakinaoshi) of the Cairo Declaration and that the government intended to ignore it (mokusatsu). The statement was taken by both Japanese and foreign papers as a clear rejection of the declaration. Emperor Hirohito, who was waiting for a Soviet reply to noncommittal Japanese peace feelers (see July 17 Allied discussion of the Japanese offer), made no move to change the government position. On July 31, he made clear to Kido that the Imperial Regalia of Japan had to be defended at all costs.

In early July, on his way to Potsdam, Truman had re-examined the decision to use the bomb. In the end, Truman made the decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan. His stated intention in ordering the bombings was to bring about a quick resolution of the war by inflicting destruction, and instilling fear of further destruction, that was sufficient to cause Japan to surrender.

After the Hiroshima bombing, President Truman announced, "If they do not not accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air the likes of which has never been seen on this earth." On August 8, 1945, leaflets were dropped and warnings were given to Japan by Radio Saipan. (The area of Nagasaki did not receive warning leaflets until August 10, though the leaflet campaign covering the whole country was over a month into its operations.)

The Japanese government still did not react to the Potsdam Declaration. Emperor Hirohito, the government and the War council were considering four conditions for surrender: the preservation of the kokutai (Imperial institution and national polity), assumption by the Imperial Headquarters of responsibility for disarmament and demobilization, no occupation, and delegation to the Japanese government of the punishment of war criminals.

[John317]

Quote:

You don't know what would happen if Japan would not have been bombed. It was an already failing country on the brink of economic collapse as the embargos were causing food and fuel shortages. To justify killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians based on "would have been" is by far not a fair approach. Especially to say that it was better for Japan to experience nuclear explosions two times over.

Ahh but John didn't come up with that. It's exactly what our military decided.

Yes, and President Truman.

At the time of the bombing, over a million American soldiers were gathering in California and training for the invasion of Japan. The fact is, too, that even after warning Japan of the consequences of refusing to surrender, and after dropping leaflets, Japan still continued to fight on. This was before the first bombing. They even went on fighting and refused to surrender after the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima.

Anyone who says we don't know what would have happened if Japan had not been bombed does not know the history of the war against Japan. We do know: they would have kept fighting, just as they did after the atom bomb destroyed Hiroshima. It was an agonizing decision on the part of Truman to decide to drop the bomb. It wasn't something that he took lightly or wanted to do. The circumstances compelled him to decide as he did. Look at the alternative. Look at Iwo Jima, a little island, and then compare that to the big islands where there were millions of defenders that had many years to build tunnels and fortifications. At least a million would have been killed, not to mention the American invaders who would have died by the hundreds of thousands.

[fccool]

John,

Believe me, I know what was at stake as I have studied the issue in depth. The truth is that US was acting primarily in self interest and not in interest of japanese population when it dropped these bombs. I'm not arguing that it was not good strategic choice for US, but overall there are a lot of people suffered needlessly because of this decision who would not have to do so.

In time before the bombing, Japan was failing and loosing the war. It did not have resources to keep up building war supplies, it was isolated from the allies and did not have anything coming in or out due to the embargo. They were in shortage of skilled military pilots and out of desperation were resorting to kamikaze strategies because they did not have time nor resources to train any fighter pilots. The isolated firebombing missions that US was conducting were very effective on predominantly wooden Japanese structures. The bombs were by far an overkill, literally, as US entered and left the airspace virtually untouched at that point. So they could have easily carried out isolated bombing missions and destroyed any remaining infrastructure without much loss of life on American side.

The use of atomic bombs were not necessary. Either way, the "would have been" became the way of justifying the preemptive warfare of today. Today in fact US is spending more money on military than the rest of the world combined. Does that indicative of a peace loving country, or a jingoistic country... in the similar way Japan was when it got nuked?

[John317]

John,

Believe me, I know what was at stake as I have studied the issue in depth. The truth is that US was acting primarily in self interest and not in interest of japanese population when it dropped these bombs.

Of course we were acting in self-interest. That is what you usually do when you are fighting a war for your very survival against an enemy such as the Japanese proved to be. It was all-out war. If we hadn't won, you would be speaking either German or Japanese. But if we weren't interested in humanity and in the Japanese at all, consider what we might have done, and what other conquering powers in the past have done. We didn't have to warn the Japanese, and when they did surrender, we didn't mistreat them but actually helped make them into a great country. We could have bombed them many more times.

If you study Japanese tactics in WW II, you have to agree that the Japanese military would not have been as good to us as our military and government was to Japan. In China, during the early 1930s, Japanese forces used the city population for target and bayonet practice. They were absolutely ruthless. Look at what happened during the Bataan Death March: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bataan_Death_March

Quote:

I'm not arguing that it was not good strategic choice for US, but overall there are a lot of people suffered needlessly because of this decision who would not have to do so.

How many died in the bombings? How many was it estimated would die in a full scale invasion of Japan?

Quote:

In time before the bombing, Japan was failing and loosing the war.

Yes, Japan was losing the war because Americans were doing everything in our power to make sure they lost the war. That is what you do in war: you fight to win it, especially when you are fighting for your way of life and your life and liberty. The British and Australians were helping us, but America had by far the greatest burden in fighting the war against Japan between 1942 and 1945. The Russians were involved in the war with Germany, until only a few months before.

Quote:

It did not have resources to keep up building war supplies, it was isolated from the allies and did not have anything coming in or out due to the embargo.

Their brightest military minds knew ahead of time that if they didn't win quickly by sinking our whole Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor, Americans would defeat them because the Japanese had virtually no natural resources, so they were not wise to start the war in the first place. We were just very fortunate that some of our aircraft carriers were not in port that day.

Quote:

They were in shortage of skilled military pilots and out of desperation were resorting to kamikaze strategies because they did not have time nor resources to train any fighter pilots. The isolated firebombing missions that US was conducting were very effective on predominantly wooden Japanese structures. The bombs were by far an overkill, literally, as US entered and left the airspace virtually untouched at that point. So they could have easily carried out isolated bombing missions and destroyed any remaining infrastructure without much loss of life on American side.

The Japanese showed no indication they were planning to surrender no matter how much of the infrastructure was destroyed. They didn't even surrender after the first bomb destroyed over 90 percent of a large city. They were not interested in surviving. That is why they committed suicide rather than surrender. They taught their people to get ready to die. The Japanese taught the people on the islands that they should commit suicide rather than surrender to the Americans. So many of their civilians threw themselves down the cliffs. The Japanese were prepared to fight with pitchforks and anything else they could get their hands on. They certainly were not preparing to surrender.

What evidence do you have that the Japanese would have surrendered unconditionally as a result of isolated bombing missions?

Do you know of a book by a well-respected military leader who has argued this and shown it to be true from all the evidence?

Quote:

The use of atomic bombs were not necessary.

This is a claim but it has not been shown to be true. Unfortunately the bombs were necessary if the war was to be brought to an end in August instead of dragging on for months.

What American military expert on WW2 agrees with you?

Can you name one respected American military leader of that time who was actually there, and having studied the situation, has concluded what you say here?

Quote:

Either way, the "would have been" became the way of justifying the preemptive warfare of today.

Let's say you are in a military struggle and you are told that if you use a bomb, you will kill 100,000 people, but if you don't use it, and have to invade, 1,000,000 of the enemy is likely to die, and 200,000 of your own soldier could die? What are you going to choose? Those are your only options. You decide. President Truman did.

[John317]

Estimates at the time was that possibly tens of millions of Japanese would die and over a million Allied soldiers would die in an invasion.

Japan's geography made this invasion plan obvious to the Japanese as well, who were able to accurately deduce the Allied invasion plans and adjust their defensive plans accordingly. The Japanese planned an all-out defense of Kyūshū, with little left in reserve for any subsequent defense operations. Casualty predictions varied widely but were extremely high for both sides: depending on the degree to which Japanese civilians resisted the invasion, estimates ran into the millions for Allied casualties, and tens of millions for Japanese casualties.

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

[John317]

As late as July 31, Emperor Hirohito issued an order that Japan was to be defended at all costs. This came after the Japanese rejected an appeal by the allies for Japan to surrender.

On July 28, Japanese papers reported that the declaration had been rejected by the Japanese government. That afternoon, Prime Minister Kantaro Suzuki declared at a press conference that the Potsdam Declaration was no more than a rehash (yakinaoshi) of the Cairo Declaration and that the government intended to ignore it (mokusatsu). The statement was taken by both Japanese and foreign papers as a clear rejection of the declaration. Emperor Hirohito, who was waiting for a Soviet reply to noncommittal Japanese peace feelers (see July 17 Allied discussion of the Japanese offer), made no move to change the government position. On July 31, he made clear to Kido that the Imperial Regalia of Japan had to be defended at all costs.

In early July, on his way to Potsdam, Truman had re-examined the decision to use the bomb. In the end, Truman made the decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan. His stated intention in ordering the bombings was to bring about a quick resolution of the war by inflicting destruction, and instilling fear of further destruction, that was sufficient to cause Japan to surrender.

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

[fccool]

Your idea of victory is only when the other party declares surrender . You don't have to invade a country to fight them. There are more non violent resolution to things than an invasion. And you are correct... invasion of Japan would not have worked, as it is hard to invade any country without substantial bloodshed.

Of course Japanese self proclaimed "god" would not surrender. With your mindset... the only way to resolving war is to fight it and win it by forcing other party into surrender. The truth is that regimes like Japan are self defeating, and giving enough time and isolation... these would collapse on their own, just like Soviet Union did. There are other options outside of the war.

If you study the history carefully outside of the American patriotic view of it which at times avoids the American blunders, you will find certain things that are not being discussed to the extend these should be discussed. US did not want to get into the war. Believe it or not, Japan did not want to get into that war. You have to understand the reasons it made these decisions to go to war and even attacking the Pearl Harbor which was a suicide. To oversimplify and ovoid the reasons for this war to begin with would make it easy justifying dropping two nukes to end an unnecessary war.

Every country desires independence, and Japan was no different. There are several people who traveled to Japan and back at that time, like Hamilton Holt, assuring the public that Japan just wants to be left alone and has no desire to get into wars. Just dig through the newspaper archives and you will find it to be true, and you will also find that this was the reason that 80% of American public stood on the way of US joining the war and had no desire for US to fight overseas.

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-fre...amp;oref=slogin

So what happened, and why the "surprise attack" on Pear Harbor?

Japan, just like Britain was desiring to seek independence in building colonies. I'm not defending their invasion of other countries, just like I would not defend British Imperialism. The truth is that in case OPEC would embargo US and refuse to sell oil to US, us would do more than threaten with military actions even in today's day and age. That's exactly what happen then. The president knew that as he was seeking public aproval to get into war.

The discovery of president handwritten private diary, for example, revealed that on July 18, 1945, he had read a "telegram from Jap Emperor asking for peace…. Believe Japs will fold up before Russia comes in. I am sure they will when Manhattan appears over their homeland." And again, on Aug. 3, 1945, Walter Brown, an aide to Secretary of State James F. Byrnes, noted in his diary that Truman and his aides "agreed Japs looking for peace…. "

Believe me, I'm not defending Japan and its barbaric actions committed in Manchuria, and even during the war, forcing women into prostitution... and using children as a walking bombs, while teaching them to throw themselves under tanks to explode. But, nevertheless US has lowered themselves to the Japanese way of doing things when they dropped the bombs. As a result, US find ourselves in the same "rationalization" national history class as the Japanese, trying to justify the wrongful historical actions. So to say that the dropping of the Bombs was purely to end the war is to be naive. No one would justify dropping a smaller nuke on Iraq for example to "avoid carnage". Yet US decided to show other countries it's nuclear might, and flex the muscle without seeking allies to solve that problem via diplomacy and other means. It's a complex issue, and you are trying to rationalize the carnage based on "would have been" simply because US would not except a peace treaty and leave the things as they were before. As I demonstrated it, Japan was willing to solve these issues peacefully. It is not until their independence was threatened, they reacted in such manner... and any independent country will react this way, not seeking surrender. Vietnam is just a minor example, and of course nobody dropped nukes on Vietnam because of fear of Soviets doing the same to US.

The same with Cuba. People were having a fit when Russians installed rockets in Cuba, yet US practicing this today and has no problems installing military bases around the world. Would you expect other countries to be happy as their national interests are threatened and pressured? To justify instantaneously murder of hundreds of thousands because of would have been, is the "eugenics approach" to doing things. If US wanted peace, it would not have seek to solve things by means of war. This is the criticism that we receive worldwide today, for being flag waving and jingoistic when it comes to international disputes, while we are ignoring the needs of other countries and "knowing" what's best for them. And this is the approach I generally see. People "know" what's best for other people, while providing a false dichotomy types of alternatives.

Nevertheless, this went way off topic, and I apologize for that.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

The truth is that regimes like Japan are self defeating, and giving enough time and isolation... these would collapse on their own, just like Soviet Union did. There are other options outside of the war.

Indeed, President Reagan defeated the USSR without ever firing a shot.

[jasd]

I think that y'all will soon discover, to your dismay, that the USSR was only playing 'possum.

The USSR may not emerge from its strategic hiatus in its prior guise - but 'emerge it will - to America's detriment.

Addendum:

Though legitimately frightening in its aspects, the nuke is only another tool in the arsenal of nations.

More people died in the firebombing of Dresden than died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. That’s without mention of Hamburg.

Oh yeah, twenty years worshipping with this insanity of hyphenated 'centrism' and Liberation Theology - and not separating oneself from it - is reason enough to lose the confidence of the good American people.

Where was AmericanCentrism?

[Dr. Shane]

Let's not confuse Russia with the USSR. The USSR is over. I don't expect it to ever emerge.

[jasd]

"The USSR may not emerge from its strategic hiatus in its prior guise..."

[Bravus]

What would AmericanCentrism look like? How would it differ from EuroCentrism? How would it differ from WASPy Washington business as usual?

[jasd]

>>What would AmericanCentrism look like?<<

Well, gathering from the apologies for the incontinence of another hyphenated-centrism, I might say it's all about shuckin' and jivin' to lessen the impact of the already noted incontinence; y'know, excuse the hate America, hate the rich white man, hate the crack-pushin' government, hate the American people for developing and using THE NUKE! hate, hate, ... excuse, excuse, excuse,

EEAHHH! [/Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean]

>>How would it differ from EuroCentrism?<<

Well, hopefully, except for a portion of America - it is absent the narcissistic weeny-whine of the Europeans ;-)

>>How would it differ from WASPy Washington business as usual?<<

Well, to begin, it would not be a minority as is WASP.

(just being edgy for literary effect - such as it is)

[John317]

Your idea of victory is only when the other party declares surrender . You don't have to invade a country to fight them. There are more non violent resolution to things than an invasion. And you are correct... invasion of Japan would not have worked, as it is hard to invade any country without substantial bloodshed.

Of course Japanese self proclaimed "god" would not surrender. With your mindset... the only way to resolving war is to fight it and win it by forcing other party into surrender. The truth is that regimes like Japan are self defeating, and giving enough time and isolation... these would collapse on their own, just like Soviet Union did. There are other options outside of the war.

This is all theory. Let's talk about what actually happened and what the options were for the people then living and making the decisions both in Japan and in the United States. We can't re-write history. History is what actually happened, not what we wish would have happened or what might have happened.

Quote:

If you study the history carefully outside of the American patriotic view of it which at times avoids the American blunders, you will find certain things that are not being discussed to the extend these should be discussed.

Do I hear a tone that wants to dump on love for America at the same time that the people doing it want to exploit every great and good thing about America? Patriotism does not prevent one from looking at the facts squarely in the face. The patriotism of Americans is what made this a great nation, so that you enjoy living here, and so that many more millions want to come. There must be something good about it, so don't knock patriotism. It must be able to see the truth pretty well.

So let's look at it coldly and analytically. Let's check out what was really going on in Japan and in the United States at that time. No one wants to avoid American blunders or the blunders made by any other country for that matter. In any war of that magnitude there are plenty of blunders to go around for everyone.

Quote:

US did not want to get into the war.

This is true. The U.S. had a very small military force before it got into the war. We obviously had no plans to attack anyone.

Quote:

Believe it or not, Japan did not want to get into that war.

The ordinary Japanese citizen did not, but he was willing to do anything his Emperor asked him to do. It was a militarized society. Military leaders held most of the chief government positions.

This from the World Book Encyclopedia:

"In Japan, military officers began to hold political office during the 1930's. By 1936, they had strong control of the government. Japan's military government glorified war and the training of warriors. In 1941, General Hideki Tojo became premier of Japan.

Aggression on the march.

Japan, Italy, and Germany followed a policy of aggressive territorial expansion during the 1930's. They invaded weak lands that could be taken over easily. The dictatorships knew what they wanted, and they grabbed it. The democratic countries responded with timidity and indecision to the aggression of the dictatorships.

Japan was the first dictatorship to begin a program of conquest. In 1931, Japanese forces seized control of Manchuria, a region of China rich in natural resources. Some historians consider Japan's conquest of Manchuria as the real start of World War II. Japan made Manchuria a puppet state called Manchukuo. In 1937, Japan launched a major attack against China. It occupied most of eastern China by the end of 1938, though the two countries had not officially declared war. Japan's military leaders began to speak about bringing all of eastern Asia under Japanese control....."

So your statement that Japan did not want to enter the war is just a little bit oversimplified to the point of being inaccurate.

Quote:

You have to understand the reasons it made these decisions to go to war and even attacking the Pearl Harbor which was a suicide. To oversimplify and ovoid the reasons for this war to begin with would make it easy justifying dropping two nukes to end an unnecessary war.

So why did Japan attack Pear Harbor? In doing so, they deliberately intended to destroy the US Navy and prevent us from keeping them from taking over the Pacific. We were the only power standing between Japan and the empire they coveted. Study the following, also from the World Book Encyclopedia:

"The United States opposed Japan's expansion in Southeast Asia. In 1940, Japanese troops occupied northern Indochina (today part of Laos and Vietnam). In response, the United States cut off important exports to Japan. Japanese industries relied heavily on petroleum, scrap metal, and other raw materials from the United States. Tension rose after Japan seized the rest of Indochina in 1941. Roosevelt then barred the withdrawal of Japanese funds from American banks.

General Hideki Tojo became premier of Japan in October 1941. Tojo and Japan's other military leaders realized that only the United States Navy had the power to block Japan's expansion in Asia. They decided to cripple the U.S. Pacific Fleet with one forceful blow.

On Dec. 7, 1941, Japanese aircraft attacked without warning the U.S. Pacific Fleet at anchor in Pearl Harbor in Hawaii. The bombing of Pearl Harbor was a great success for Japan at first. It disabled much of the Pacific Fleet and destroyed many aircraft. But in the long run, the attack on Pearl Harbor proved disastrous for Japan. It propelled enraged Americans to arms.

The United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom declared war on Japan on Dec. 8, 1941..... "

Quote:

Every country desires independence, and Japan was no different. There are several people who traveled to Japan and back at that time, like Hamilton Holt, assuring the public that Japan just wants to be left alone and has no desire to get into wars. Just dig through the newspaper archives and you will find it to be true, and you will also find that this was the reason that 80% of American public stood on the way of US joining the war and had no desire for US to fight overseas. http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-fre...amp;oref=slogin

Yes, America at that time believed that Japan did not want war with the US. But it is foolish and inaccurate to say that the Japanese leaders and government only wanted to be left alone.

Here is the proof that Japan did not want to be left alone in December of 1941:

(Some of what follows has already been stated but it needed to be reiterated because of your statement here that Japan only wanted to be left alone.)

Aggression on the march.

Japan, Italy, and Germany followed a policy of aggressive territorial expansion during the 1930's. They invaded weak lands that could be taken over easily. The dictatorships knew what they wanted, and they grabbed it. The democratic countries responded with timidity and indecision to the aggression of the dictatorships.

"Japan was the first dictatorship to begin a program of conquest. In 1931, Japanese forces seized control of Manchuria, a region of China rich in natural resources. Some historians consider Japan's conquest of Manchuria as the real start of World War II. Japan made Manchuria a puppet state called Manchukuo. In 1937, Japan launched a major attack against China. It occupied most of eastern China by the end of 1938, though the two countries had not officially declared war. Japan's military leaders began to speak about bringing all of eastern Asia under Japanese control..."

Also:

"Nanking Massacre is a name for the brutality committed by Japanese troops against the people of Nanking (Nanjing), China, in 1937, during the second Chinese-Japanese War. This war led into, and became part of, World War II (1939-1945). Also called the Rape of Nanking, the massacre began on December 13-the day after the Japanese entered Nanking, at that time the capital of Nationalist China-and lasted for six weeks. During that period, Japanese forces engaged in widespread cruelty, rape, looting, arson, and murder of unarmed Chinese. Sometimes acting on orders, and often marauding in small groups, Japanese troops burst into businesses, private homes, and even areas under foreign protection to search for Chinese men of military age and for young women. Many of the men, and prisoners of war captured earlier, were gathered together and then murdered. Many women were raped by Japanese soldiers.

Experts disagree about the number of Chinese injured or killed by the Japanese during the Nanking Massacre. The full extent of this atrocity can never be determined precisely. At the time, the Japanese had no interest in counting the dead, and the Chinese had no way of accurately totaling up their losses. Neutral observers of many nationalities, shocked by what they witnessed, recorded the horrifying details in reports, letters, photographs, and even motion pictures. The death toll probably exceeded 100,000 at Nanking, though some estimates now place the figure as high as 300,000. Rapes of women may have numbered 20,000 or more. Many of these victims were then killed or died from their assaults.

The Nanking Massacre occupied a central place in Chinese efforts to win international support for their cause in the war against Japan. The Chinese stressed the cruel behavior of the Japanese invaders. The wartime Japanese government, in contrast, told its people only that the capture of Nanking, the enemy's capital and symbol of Nationalist China, was a grand achievement.

After the war, many Japanese were charged with war crimes and punished for the massacre after Chinese military trials were held. The International Military Tribunal for the Far East sentenced the Japanese commander at Nanking, General Matsui Iwane, to death. He was hanged on Dec. 23, 1948...."

I wonder if the thousands of victims of Nanking would believe that the Japanese merely wanted to be left alone. I'm sure not, and neither do I believe it.

[John317]

Quote:

So what happened, and why the "surprise attack" on Pear Harbor?

Japan, just like Britain was desiring to seek independence in building colonies. I'm not defending their invasion of other countries, just like I would not defend British Imperialism.

Compare the way the British treated their colonies with the way Japan treated theirs. If you had to be under a foreign power, would you choose to be under British rule or Japanese? I'd choose British any time.

What do you think would have happened if Gandhi had tried his tactics against either Stalin or the Japanese Imperial Army? Why was Gandhi successful in gaining his people freedom from Britain? Because the British didn't believe in whole-sale slaughter like the Japanese did. That had something to do with it. In other words, Gandhi's tactics of peaceful resistance can be successful only when your opposition is civilized and has a sense of morality.

Quote:

The truth is that in case OPEC would embargo US and refuse to sell oil to US, us would do more than threaten with military actions even in today's day and age. That's exactly what happen then. The president knew that as he was seeking public aproval to get into war.

You need to explain this a bit more. Do you mean that President Roosevelt was asking public approval to go to war? When? He certainly was seeking it when he went to Congress on Dec. 8. 1941, the morning after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.

Is that what you talking about?

Quote:

The discovery of president handwritten private diary, for example, revealed that on July 18, 1945, he had read a "telegram from Jap Emperor asking for peace…. Believe Japs will fold up before Russia comes in. I am sure they will when Manhattan appears over their homeland." And again, on Aug. 3, 1945, Walter Brown, an aide to Secretary of State James F. Byrnes, noted in his diary that Truman and his aides "agreed Japs looking for peace…. "

You went from talking about the President seeking public support to go to war, to what happened near the end of the war. One president was Roosevelt and the next president was Truman. Could you explain? What does the one have to do with the other?

It's true that Japan was close to defeat before the Atom bombs were dropped on the two Japanese cities. However, the Japanese government and its military was still determined to continue fighting. Only a few days before the bombs were dropped, Japan rejected an American plea to surrender unconditionally and the Emperor issued orders to his military to defend Japan at all costs.

Quote:

Believe me, I'm not defending Japan and its barbaric actions committed in Manchuria, and even during the war, forcing women into prostitution... and using children as a walking bombs, while teaching them to throw themselves under tanks to explode.

Good point there. You might add what they did on the Bataan Death March, and the medical experiments they did on POWs, which was nothing short of murder by torture. These were similar to what their buddies the Nazis were doing at the same time in Europe.

Quote:

But, nevertheless US has lowered themselves to the Japanese way of doing things when they dropped the bombs. As a result, US find ourselves in the same "rationalization" national history class as the Japanese, trying to justify the wrongful historical actions.

Let's go over the facts, the facts that the US military and President Harry Truman were faced with. They had to decide what to do to save the most lives and cut the war short.

They could either stop the war by killing between 120,000 and 140,000 Japanese or they could kill between 1,000,000 to 4,000,000 Japanese and at least 1,000,000 American servicemen. If you think I am exaggerating, go read the history books that discuss the possible invasion of Japan, which was to occur in November of 1945. What were the military planners saying? What were they telling president Truman the cost in casualties would be in an all-out invasion of the Japanese homeland?

I have already posted some of this information on this thread, information which you can easily verify in any military history of those events.

This, from the World Book Encyclopedia: "

"By the summer of 1945, some members of Japan's government favored surrender. But others insisted that Japan fight on. The Allies planned to invade Japan in November 1945. American military planners feared that the invasion might cost as many as 1 million U.S. lives. Some Allied leaders believed that Soviet help was needed to defeat Japan, and they had encouraged Stalin to invade Manchuria. However, the Allies found another way to end the war."

Quote:

So to say that the dropping of the Bombs was purely to end the war is to be naive.

You may claim it is naive but I have the history and the data to back up what I am saying. All you have is a claim that is not backed up by any historical authority or evidence. It is a fact that the military experts of that time estimated that the cost in casualties of an invasion of Japan would be upwards of 1,000,000 American soldiers and several millions of Japanese dead, whereas the two bombs that brought the war to an end killed a total of between 120,000 and 140,000 people. Those are facts that cannot be denied.

(To put this in perspective, let us keep some facts and figures in mind: The total number of casualties of World War II came to about 72,000,000 deaths. There were between 17 to 25 million military casualties. The USSR alone lost about 11 million soldiers, and the total losses of both civilian and military of the USSR came to 26.6 million. Japan lost 2,100,000 in the war [a war which Japan started], and German military deaths were 5, 300,000. The United States lost 416,800 in the entire war.)

If the President had gone ahead with the invasion in November, and it turned out that over one million American soldiers were killed and two million Japanese were killed, what would he say when the nation eventually found out that he could have avoided those three million deaths by detonating two atom bombs? That is what the president was faced with. He was willing to let history be the judge. So far he has been judged by Americans fairly well. He is always rated as one of the top 10 American presidents when historians are asked who the best American presidents were.

[John317]

Quote:

No one would justify dropping a smaller nuke on Iraq for example to "avoid carnage".

Are we faced in Iraq with the same alternatives as were faced with in Japan? Of course not, and therefore it does not make sense to make the comparison.

Quote:

Yet US decided to show other countries it's nuclear might, and flex the muscle without seeking allies to solve that problem via diplomacy and other means.

Yes, the USSR was trying to help and so was China and Britain.

"About 350,000 Japanese soldiers died during the campaign in the Philippines. American casualties numbered nearly 14,000 dead and about 48,000 wounded or missing. Japan was clearly doomed to defeat after losing the Philippines. But it did not intend to surrender."

"In January 1945, Major General Curtis E. LeMay took command of the air war against Japan. LeMay ordered more frequent and more daring raids. American bombers increased their accuracy by flying in low during nighttime raids. They began to drop incendiary (fire-producing) bombs that set Japanese cities aflame. A massive incendiary raid in March 1945 destroyed the heart of Tokyo. By the end of the month, about 3 million people in Tokyo were homeless.

Japan's military leaders went on fighting, though they faced certain defeat."

"Roosevelt died in April 1945, and Vice President Harry S. Truman became president of the United States. Truman met with Churchill and Stalin in Potsdam, Germany, in July, shortly after Germany's defeat. At the Potsdam Conference, Truman learned of the successful test explosion of the atomic bomb and informed the other leaders of it. The United States, the United Kingdom, and China then issued a statement threatening to destroy Japan unless it surrendered unconditionally. In spite of the warning, Japan went on fighting.

On Aug. 6, 1945, an American B-29 bomber called the Enola Gay dropped the first atomic bomb used in warfare on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. The explosion killed from 70,000 to 100,000 people, it is estimated, and destroyed about 5 square miles (13 square kilometers). After Japanese leaders failed to respond to the bombing, the United States dropped a larger bomb on Nagasaki on August 9. It killed about 40,000 people. Later, thousands more died of injuries and radiation from the two bombings. Meanwhile, on August 8, the Soviet Union declared war on Japan and invaded Manchuria. Soviet troops raced south toward Korea.

Victory in the Pacific.

Although Japan's emperors had traditionally stayed out of politics, Hirohito urged the government to surrender. On August 14, Japan agreed to end the war. Some of the country's military leaders committed suicide...."

Quote:

It's a complex issue, and you are trying to rationalize the carnage based on "would have been"

I am not the one who is saying what would have happened. I am going by the historical facts of the case which are easily established by the records. I do not know of any military historian who questions them.

Quote:

simply because US would not except a peace treaty and leave the things as they were before.

Accept what peace treaty? Leave what things as they were before what time?

Quote:

As I demonstrated it, Japan was willing to solve these issues peacefully. It is not until their independence was threatened, they reacted in such manner... and any independent country will react this way, not seeking surrender.

When were they willing to solve these issues peacefully? How did Japan demonstrate their willingness? Who threatened their independence, and how did that happen?

Did they try to solve them peacefully by invading China and other areas during the 1930s? By attacking and raping Nanking?

"Japan was the first dictatorship to begin a program of conquest. In 1931, Japanese forces seized control of Manchuria, a region of China rich in natural resources. Some historians consider Japan's conquest of Manchuria as the real start of World War II. Japan made Manchuria a puppet state called Manchukuo. In 1937, Japan launched a major attack against China. It occupied most of eastern China by the end of 1938, though the two countries had not officially declared war. Japan's military leaders began to speak about bringing all of eastern Asia under Japanese control...?

Quote:

Vietnam is just a minor example, and of course nobody dropped nukes on Vietnam because of fear of Soviets doing the same to US.

There is no evidence that the US ever considered such a move or that we would have even if the USSR never existed. That is unfair to say Americans would have dropped nuclear weapons on Vietnam. You have no reason to say this except out of pure conjecture.

Quote:

The same with Cuba. People were having a fit when Russians installed rockets in Cuba.

The Russians could not be permitted to come onto the American continent and install nuclear weapons on an island run by a communist dictator who was openly hostile to the United States. We simply could not allow that, and President Kennedy made the only possible decision that he could under the circumstances. He obviously made the right decision, as I am sure you agree. Those nuclear weapons would have been pointed squarely at American cities. (I clearly remember our class at school practicing around the time of the Cuban missile crises for what we would do in case of a nuclear attack.) It is public knowledge now that Castro and Che were hoping the USSR would be provoked into war with the USA. They were disappointed that the Soviet Union leadership turned back its ships at the last moment instead of trying to break the US embargo.

Quote:

yet US practicing this today and has no problems installing military bases around the world. Would you expect other countries to be happy as their national interests are threatened and pressured?

None of this has anything to do with what happened in WW2 or the bombing of Japan in 1945.

[John317]

Quote:

To justify instantaneously murder of hundreds of thousands because of would have been, is the "eugenics approach" to doing things. If US wanted peace, it would not have seek to solve things by means of war.

So, if you had been in charge, would you have invaded Japan? Or would you have asked the USSR to do something to help? As it is, of course, the USSR declared war on Japan two days after we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima. Just in time to help us defeat Japan. Everyone knows the USSR did this in order to be able to claim some of their rights as combatants in the war against Japan.

"On August 8, the Soviet Union declared war on Japan and invaded Manchuria. Soviet troops raced south toward Korea."

Some people talk about how America doesn't care about other nations. Here is an example of America's treatment of Japan after we conquered that nation which had waged such a cruel war against us for 4 years. You be the judge whether we did right by Japan. Ask the Japanese people today.

Here are the facts:

The Surrender of Japan.

Impressed with the futility of resisting the American bombardment of the home islands, in July, the Suzuki Cabinet advanced suggestions for a conditional surrender through Soviet Russia. As a result, on July 26, the President of the United States, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, and the President of the National Government of China issued the Joint Potsdam Declaration demanding unconditional surrender of Japan as proposed in the Cairo Declaration in 1943. On August 10, the Suzuki Cabinet accepted these terms with the "understanding that the said declaration does not compromise any demand which prejudices the prerogative of His Majesty as a sovereign ruler." The American Government, which already had expected to make use of the Emperor in the occupation of Japan, persuaded its Allies to accept this proviso. At the same time, in President Truman's answer of August 11, the Japanese were told plainly that the authority of the Emperor and the Japanese Government to rule the state would be subject to the directive of the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers. On August 14, President Truman announced the surrender of Japan under these terms and the appointment of General Douglas MacArthur as Supreme Allied Commander.

Immediately, General MacArthur issued orders for the formal surrender of Japan forces on Japanese soil. On August 20, the American arrangements for the surrender and occupation of Japan were conveyed to high Japanese officers who had been flown to Manila. The surrender ceremony finally took place on September 2, on board the U.S.S. Missouri.

By the surrender terms, the Japanese Government, in the name of the Emperor, agreed to abide by the provisions of the Potsdam Declaration; to proclaim the unconditional surrender of the Imperial General Headquarters and of all Japanese military forces; to command the obedience of all Japanese forces to the Allies; to enforce all the proclamations, orders, and directives, of the Supreme Commander for the Allies; and to liberate all prisoners of war.

Japan After the War:

American Program for Japan.

Although General MacArthur acted as Supreme Allied Commander, his orders came from the President of the United States. On September 22, the State Department published the text of the directive prepared by the Departments of State, War, and Navy and approved by President Truman on September 6. This directive defined the objectives of the United States as.

1. To insure that Japan will not become a menace to the peace of the world; and

2. To establish in Japan a peaceful and responsible government conforming to principles of democratic self-government.

The objectives were to be achieved by the following means.

1. Japan's sovereignty was to be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, and Shikoku and adjacent islets, in accordance with the Declaration of Cairo.

2. Japan was to be completely disarmed and demilitarized.

3. The Japanese people were to be encouraged to develop respect for fundamental human rights and to form democratic and representative organizations.

4. The Japanese people should be afforded opportunity to develop for themselves an economy which would permit the peacetime requirements of the population to be met.

This fundamental directive implied that the United States had no intention of dethroning the Japanese Emperor. The future of the Imperial Throne was left to the Japanese people to decide. War criminals were to be tried and punished. The economic system was to be purged of its military aspects. Production of aircraft and shipbuilding was to be curtailed. Heavy industry was to be limited in order to prevent the development of munitions works. Restitution of looted property was to be made, and reparations for Japanese aggression should be paid by transfer of Japanese property held abroad and by the export of goods from Japan. Control over Japanese imports and exports would be maintained for some time.

Directives of General MacArthur.

Under his authority as Supreme Allied Commander, General MacArthur issued a series of directives to the Japanese Government that profoundly affected the political, economic, and cultural life of the nation. On September 9, after issuing a stern warning to American and Allied troops to refrain from looting and violence, he declared that the Japanese Government, including the Emperor, was subject to his orders. He called for free elections in the future. On September 10, he directed the Emperor to abolish the Imperial General Headquarters, and he placed a censorship on Japanese press and radio. On September 11, he ordered the arrest of forty alleged war criminals, including General Tojo. In November, 300 more criminals were arrested.

On September 16, as a prelude to reparations payments, General MacArthur ordered Premier Higashi-Kuni to impound and report to him all property, assets, and records owned by the Japanese Government and by Germany, Italy, and the Axis satellites. On September 22, another directive ordered the Japanese Government to furnish complete information on all banks, insurance companies, and even the finances of the Imperial Household. Under this directive it was intended that the Supreme Allied Commander would be given a control over the zaibatzu or great financial houses such as the Mitsui and the Mitsubishi. On September 25, in a number of sweeping orders, the Allied Headquarters placed all Japanese foreign trade and exchange under the control of the government of occupation. In the meanwhile, a limited importation of necessities was permitted. Another order, on September 29, required the Japanese Government to remove all censorship over the press and radio.

On October 1, on orders from General MacArthur, American troops closed the doors of the Bank of Japan and twenty-one other financial institutions, while the Japanese officials were ousted. This act gave the military government complete control of the great banking combines that had exploited the empire by armed force. On October 11, General MacArthur gave Shidehara's government an order to.

1. Give Japanese women the ballot;

2. Encourage labor unions;

3. Liberalize Japanese education;

4. Abolish attempts to suppress "dangerous thoughts" and

5. Democratize Japanese economic institutions and monopolies.

On October 22, the Allied Headquarters gave the Japanese Government a plan for liberalizing the school system. A ban was placed on military training and chauvinistic instruction. Three days later, General MacArthur ordered Japan to close all Japanese embassies, legations, and consulates abroad. On October 31, Allied Headquarters ordered the Japanese Education Ministry to investigate 400,000 teachers in 39,000 schools, and to expel all militarists. On November 21, the Allied Headquarters banned the stirring play "The Forty-Seven Ronin." On November 21, General MacArthur ordered the Government to impose a graduated capital tax up to 70 per cent and to abolish the military pension system under which payments were made to a million persons. On December 10, he ordered the Government to submit a program of land reform designed to free the peasant from his feudal bondage. Four days later, the final 1945 directive for reforms was issued, demanding the abolishment of Shinto as a state religion.

Japanese Reforms.

The Emperor and the Japanese Cabinet offered ready obedience to all the MacArthur directives. On November 6, the Government ordered the dissolution of Mitsui, Mitsubishi, Yasuda, and Sumitomo, and thus brought to an end the four largest of the zaibatsu or family trusts. Decrees restricting free speech were annulled. On November 10, eight decrees restricting labor unions were repealed. The Cabinet annulled the Conscription Law, froze all assets of the Household of Emperor Hirohito, and in December hurried through the Diet a landreform bill, a new Election Law permitting women to vote, and a bill legalizing the collective bargain. It also began a study of revision of the Constitution of 1889.

Position of the Emperor.

In China and even in the United States there were loud clamors for the abolition of the Imperial Throne, and even for the punishment of Emperor Hirohito as a war criminal. The United States, however, rejected these demands. In effecting the surrender of Japan, the Imperial Throne proved exceedingly useful to the Allies. Furthermore, by prompt compliance with the directives of General MacArthur, the Emperor undoubtedly won for the Japanese people more favorable consideration than otherwise would have prevailed.

In every respect the Emperor admirably performed the role of guardian of his people. On September 27, he astonished them by paying a formal call upon General MacArthur at the American Embassy. This action, which overturned Court etiquette, emphasized the representative character now claimed by the Throne. The democratization of the Throne was also shown on September 25 by the first interview of a newspaper man permitted with the Emperor in the Imperial Palace.

In December, the Emperor made a decision to place the Throne upon a modern basis by a spectacular denial of the Emperor-worship myth. This decision was expressed in a rescript to be issued on New Year's Day.

"The ties between us and our people have always stood upon mutual trust and affection. They do not depend upon mere legends and myths. They are not predicated on the false conception that the Emperor is divine and that the Japanese people are superior to other races and fated to rule the world. The Tenno is not a living God."