You brought up Korea and Vietnam, not me, in a thread that has nothing to do with either.

You say the US is involved in conflicts that don't involve the US. However, all countries are supposed to support their allies in times of conflict. You really see who your friends are when the going gets rough. Should the US not come to the aid of its allies in times of conflict. Should we break treaties and agreements between governments because it's "not our problem"?

By how many votes? (Hint: It is negative number.)

Yes, that is why some higher ups in the Japanese command tried to stage a coup in order to steal the recording of the emperors surrender message to the Japanese people so that they would not be able to hear it in hopes that Japan would continue to fight on despite the dropping of two atom bombs. The fact of the matter is, is that those who were calling the shots would have preferred national suicide to surrender.

So you are blaming the US for Hitler? I love it. I bet it was Americans that killed Jesus, too.

Not entirely true.

Most were looking for an out.

Their primary concern was surrounding the status of the Emperor.

The US was only concerned with UNCONDITIONAL surrender though.

Which is another questionable decision on the part of the US.

I do not know if "most" is the proper assessment there. I would agree to "some".

Unconditional surrender was demanded because the conditional surrender at the end of WWI was part of what brought about WW2.

I would not call it questionable at all, it is what all the allies agreed upon to demand from the axis powers.

If you're referring to the treaty of Versailles.. there were no concessions made to the losers that I'm aware of. In fact I thought the lack of concessions was the reasoning that explains how WW1 created WW2.

I didn't mean questionable as in it was at odds with what the allies demanded (though I think I remember reading somewhere that some of the other allies that were heavily involved in the European war, were less enthusiastic about ending the Pacific war as absolutely as the US had planned)

I meant questionable in terms of what the agenda was. Defeat of Japan was all but imminent after all. US intelligence supported this view.

I have to say here that the USA came to our rescue in WW2 after the atack on Pearl Harbour.


Just think with war in Europe and in ASIA that took a heck of a lof of forces and men.



Japan At War In Colour [DVD]: Amazon.co.uk: DVD this dvd was very enlightening.

again sorta not
 

Unconditional Surrender policy was adopted following the Casablanca Conference in Jan 1943, the Allies announced an unconditional surrender policy with respect to the Axis powers - ( Japan was part of the Axis powers which included Germany and Italy )

In 1943' the Allies including US, UK and Soviet Union agreed on almost nothing. But on the single point of ending WW2 with not just victory but also the pursuit of forcing the Axis powers into “Unconditional Surrender.”

(.., really pleased Stalin, going a long way to allaying his fears that his Western Allies might make a separate peace with Hitler.)

Before Japan was defeated both of Japans allies - Germany and Italy accepted “Unconditional Surrender”.
The application of “Unconditional Surrender” not only applied to the respective military of each Axis power but also to the entire country.
"..it was to assure for the foreseeable future that these countries would be unable to wage war again."

And another thread like clock work turns (anti-American with the usual suspects leading the charge uphill with only 2 rounds left) and becomes a giant flame war.

I have so much to say (even though MMM said most of it for me) its just not even worth it now.

The usual suspects? In case you're referring to me I haven't once said anything "anti-American".

usual suspects is not pointing at anyone in particular. Its more in reference to the type of person who usual tries to blame the US for everything. Next ill hear "there's no air space and its Americas fault"

This crap just gets old man its been like this forever on this forum and it takes shutting a thread down to get any type normalcy back

And of course, the best way to help is to go and kill everyone from the opposite side. Why try and come to an agreement through the bureaucratic way when you can just devastate an entire nation. And on top of it all, US soldiers are being shot by people using weapons they got from the US.

Again, take the time to watch this and you'll understand where I'm coming from: Taxi to the Dark Side (2007) - IMDb

George Bush ran the government for 8 years. He got reelected after his first four years. That means he got to be president TWICE, hence he did get reelected.

Why are you so oversimplifying this? I can't even respond to such baffling opinion. It's not an overexaggeration, it is just... so mistaken.

I realize you don't live in America, but surely you have heard how Bush won with less votes than Gore in 2000.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html

THIS THREAD WAS NOT MADE TO BE ANTI AMERICAN
I only wanted to see if Jaan still held any grudge, I have no personal resentment to America or Japa since nothhing concerning WW2 effects me personally. I thank you for bringing up the bad Japan did as well. Good thingg that something like this wont happen again because we now know how definetly useless it is. I think that alone is settling enough so not too mny folks have any grudge about it, that or they don't care like you all said

Because it is that simple. No infinite amount of mass destruction weapons is reason enough to do what the US did to the Iraqi people. I know they think they had their reasons. Saddam was a bad guy and so on and so forth. But honestly, what your troops did there made it far, far worse. Killing a murderer makes you a murderer too. Everyone agreed that Saddam had to be put out of power but, really, that was no way to bring democracy to Iraq. They could have gone the diplomatic way instead of putting up a war. That simple.

I actually can't believe you're saying it's okay to brutally invade a country as long as you're doing it out of support for your allies. It has no possible justification.

Killing a murderer
 

At least, Saddam kept Iraq in relatively stable conditions. Neither terrorist actions with explosions in crowded places, nor clashes between various religious groups on streets.

I am not going to defend America's actions in Iraq, but that isn't what this thread is about. It is about WWII.

And no, it isn't that simple. You make it sound like America is of one mind, and they just walk into any situation like Rambo and blow everything up and ask questions later. That is simplistic and simply wrong.

If our ally is being attacked then it is not only our duty but a requirement to help them. If that help is in the form of military defense and is what is needed, then that is what happens. You pepper your language with words like "brutally" and it just clouds the point.

Allies help allies. That is all the justification that is needed.

Rambo style of asking questions
 

Using your own words - "and no, it's not that simple." :)
For instance, the USA supplied Georgia by various weaponry and even called georgian leader Mikheil Saakashvili as an "ally" but later refused to support Georgia by any sort of military actions during 2008 South Ossetia War

quote :

Mikheil Saakashvili (Georgian: მიხეილ სააკაშვილი, IPA: [mixɛil sɑɑkʼɑʃvili]; born 21 December 1967) is a Georgian politician, the third and current President of Georgia and leader of the United National Movement Party..........He is widely regarded as a pro-NATO and pro-USA leader who has spearheaded a series of political and economic reforms......President Saakashvili sees membership of the NATO as a premise of stability for Georgia and offered an intensified dialogue with the de facto Abkhaz and Ossetian authorities. Until the 2008 South Ossetia war, a diplomatic solution was thought to be possible. Saakashvili's administration doubled the number of its troops in Iraq, making Georgia one of the biggest supporters of Coalition Forces, and keeping its troops in Kosovo and Afghanistan to "contribute to what it describes as global security".[13]

Wiki

You are right to quote me. It is never as simple as we want it to be. The Georgia situation was a very touchy one, and careful choices had to be made. No matter what America did, there were going to be disappointed people.

So you are basically saying that the end justifies the means. The end being helping allies, the means being providing such help through military actions, no matter what. See? That's where we differ on our viewpoint. Such harsh statement on your part just sealed this discussion.

I believe all MMM is trying to say is that to pretend conflicts occur in a vaccuum is erroneous.

International politics is a complicated matter. While I'm no fan of the USA myself.. you're going about your criticism all wrong Suki.

The USA isn't at fault for interfering in the matters of others.

Did you know for example that elements of Pakistani's intelligence agency is aiding the Taleban. That the Taleban have been found using Chinese weapons and even Swiss ammunition (though I believe there was a vote in Switzerland regarding the ethics of their weapons proliferation that might have addressed that recently).

It's all a complicated web of relationships held together by power and profit.

What the US is guilty of is pretending that they operate from a moral high ground where things like "freedom" and "liberty" are paramount.

But the reality is that they are simply like every other nation that exists and has ever existed.

again sorta not
 

Japan unlike the other Axis powers - Germany and Italy was offered a modified " Unconditional Surrender " ..,that only applied to it's military not the entire country.
(ie; emperor, civilian government * excluding Imperial Advisory Council etc. excluded from " Unconditional Surrender" terms.)

The US, thru 'Ultra' and 'Magic' were already intercepting and decoding intelligence of both Japanese military and diplomatic codes .The US Identified the problem that the current Japanese government 'Imperial Advisory Council ' would have in accepting a " Unconditional Surrender " that also included the entire country.
The US made attempts to communicate the difference btwn the - modified " Unconditional Surrender " through diplomatic channels and even broadcasting the modified terms to Japan.

Japans government 'Imperial Advisory Council' failed to accept this offer and instead misinterpeted the US offer as a sign of weakness and especially the hardliners and the Army further entrenched themselves.

Your unforgiving tendency to bend someone else's words to fit your argument makes a mature discussion with you rather difficult.

I never said the ends justify the means... why would you even bring up a statement like that?

Address WHAT I SAID and not your simplified interpretations.

Or answer this question: Should the US not support and help its allies in times of conflict?



We don't always agree, but for the most part I can agree with this statement.

And did you know that USA aided the creation of Al Qaeda and funded them for a while through C.I.A. to fight against the soviet?

There isn't a country in this world with an entire white history behind it, but this is not what we are discussing about now, on this thread, it is just about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Can we return to that and see what the japanese feel about it. It doesn't really matter at this time if it was justified or not.

Yes, the OP is not about America and Iraq, and if someone feels like making a thread about it, they are free to do so.

Yes this thread is about Hiroshima and Nagasaki which has already been covered on a previous thread.


It is not about America now. I agree with the above comment re no country is innocent including UK and its British EMPIRE. After all wasn't the aim of japan to free their ASIAN neighbours from the BRITISH



I pray that no country will be stupid enough to set off another of these ghastly bombs.

Surely a modern version will have far more devastating results. THey have been used as a deterrent for many years-- GOD let them never ever be used again-- by any country.

I'm noticing some people having their comments ignored. Seems the arrogance still lives on Today. It takes me back to Battle Royale II, when all the countries bombed by America are being listed. There was a lot of countries there.

To answer the OP, I think Japan has forgiven the US for its attacks, but it is still greatfully remembered, & there is probably a few citizens that can't forgive the US for what they've done, like in other war involved countries

comments
 

You forgot to add, that japanese leader felt merely sacral fear of America in BRII.

Attachment 11306
Read this thread if you want to learn the reason why the war is not lost.

[quote=JamboP26;844002

"To answer the OP, I think Japan has forgiven the US for its attacks, but it is still greatfully remembered, & there is probably a few citizens that can't forgive the US for what they've done, like in other war involved countries[/QUOTE]




" How do you know if the Japanese have forgiven the US?

Many others cannot forgive what Japan did.


The point is that lessons should have been learned so that we never use those H bombs as an agressive act.

we need to learn from the past. Not sure what you mean by "Gratefully Remembered-- who gratefully remembers WHAT? Or do you mean that once the war ended, those who were suffering were freed from capture and the fighting. Yes I am sure that all those POW's and others in the hands of the Japanese were definitely relieved that at last there was an end to the terrible deeds of war.

There will always be arguments about the decision to drop those terrible A bombs. It seems to me it was like an awful experiment.

do we know if the hardliner Japanese in command would ever have stopped fighting?


So I do pray that We will learn and Not EVER use them or worse again.


Many Japanese people suffered terribly-- they had been drawn into war with the military eagerness to Conquer the world really--plus get rid of the British from HONG KONG Singapore etc. we were caught napping at that time. PLus as AMERICA had a Credit and OIL embargo on Japan in order to make them leave CHINA-- and many Japanese were starving, Japan attacked Pearl Harbour in what seems like retaliation. Please correct me if you know better.


There are many sides to this terrible war. too many innocents suffering apart from those final A bombs.


we just need to learn and remember." maybe this site will be informative.

Answers.com - Why did the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor

EXACTLY. Yes.

Truth is, I don't know. I can imagine so. Has Britain forgiven Germany? While few will always hate the US, the majority will have forgiven to an extent. It WAS 65 years ago

yes indeed JAMBO.

As I keep repeating its the lessons that SHOULD be learned

But we Humans Do we ever learn.


There are still survivors from that period

Time is relative.


even people in one street do not always get on together do they?

I don't blame the USA for Hitler. I said that he was a crazy...but he was a crazy person who got millions of followers for the conditions Germany was brought to.
LOL don't worry I am not gonna touch your precious country. Oh and no, it was us Italian who killed Jesus...I am not ashamed of saying what my people did. Like I am not ashamed of admitting for 2 wars we have been by the side of Germany. LOL in history I guess we did more nasty things than the USA. I do not defend my country by default like all American people I talk to here (I live in the USA) do.

I had a huge drawn out letter but decided for this.

Suki, watch the HBO series "The Pacific". It will show you, even a little bit, what the US was like then and still is in many ways. Americans thought the Japanese were blood thirsty monsters that would rape and pillage the homefront if we let them. They weren't seen as "people, or civilians" but more akin to bizaar apemen with swords and fangs. You don't coddle a monster that threatens your family, you kill it.

That's how Japan was seen at the time, an external threat that had to be illimated. For all that people decry what happened with the bombs, the brutality of that war changed the US forever. Is the world better because of that change? Only time will tell.


P.S. Chryuop Your wrong about the US in Germany's rise after ww1. Wilson, the president of the US at the time was against the treaty of versais, knowing that punishing Germany like that would lead to trouble. That was France and Britain. In fact the US didn't even get involved until 1917, when the war was almost over. the US nearly came in on the side of Germany in 1913..France and Britain did everything in their power back then to prevent the US ever forming alliances with three certain countries.. Germany, Russia, and Japan..Sad to say, they were successful...Who knows what the world would be like now if they had failed.

Perhaps WW2 never takes place because Germany with the US would have won ww1. Plus with a US Russian alliance, Stalin may not have ever come to power. With an American Japanese alliance, Imperial Japan may have been completely different than what it was.

[quote=Ryzorian;844220]I had a huge drawn out letter but decided for this.

Suki, watch the HBO series "The Pacific". It will show you, even a little bit, what the US was like then and still is in many ways. Americans thought the Japanese were blood thirsty monsters that would rape and pillage the homefront if we let them. They weren't seen as "people, or civilians" but more akin to bizaar apemen with swords and fangs. You don't coddle a monster that threatens your family, you kill it.

That's how Japan was seen at the time, an external threat that had to be illimated. For all that people decry what happened with the bombs, the brutality of that war changed the US forever. Is the world better because of that change? Only time will tell.

QUOTE]


Its interesting what you say here RyzoriaN Because according to the recent film I have watched "JAPAN i COLOUR" the Japanese were given similar propaganda about westerners. when some who had been hiding in caves eventually ventured out-- they were terrified of these MONSTER Americans.

Maybe that has been the way all along-- spread rumours and propaganda that are lies-- in order to inflame the population.

Many Japanese committed suicide rather than be taken prisoner by the Americans including parents killing their children due largely to the propaganda about how bloodthristy the Americans were.

All countries get involved in such propaganda when going to war. It easier to kill people when you barely think of them as human. Hitler denigrated the Jews to the point where the people partook in some of the worst atrocities ever committed and it certainly helped make the Japanese particularly vicious in their treatment of the peoples of Asian countries they invaded.

It's what governments do in times of war. And it can take generations before the rhetoric of hatred is forgotten. Racists though always hold onto it...

I have to agree with you GN.