Feelings Toward Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[GoNative]

Originally Posted by termogard

Not worse. The same. Crimes against humanity.

But Japan started it. No one forced them to invade all of Asia and kill millions of people. The US didn't go to war with Japan unprovoked, they were attacked! I don't see how it's the same in that context.

[WingsToDiscovery]

Originally Posted by termogard

Not worse. The same. Crimes against humanity.

That was lame. We're obviously talking proportions here.

[termogard]

Originally Posted by GoNative

The US didn't go to war with Japan unprovoked, they were attacked! I don't see how it's the same in that context.

Let's see. Japan attacked the US naval base and fleet, right? The US bombed japanese cities.

[GoNative]

Originally Posted by termogard

Let's see. Japan attacked the US naval base and fleet, right? The US bombed japanese cities.

The Japanese would have bombed US cities if they'd had the capability. They bombed enough cities throughout Asia and slaughtered millions of civilians in their time there.

Plus this whole judement based on civilian targets it's not really accepting that during WWII civilian targets were generally considered legitimate targets. In Europe and the Pacific wars both axis and allied forces targeted civilian targets all the time. Carpet bombing of German cities wasn't just going after strategic targets!

Still you can't seem to see past one strategic attack on the US that had them enter the war and the dropping of atomic weapons. It's seems this is about the only knowledge of the war you have...sad really.

You seem to believe that the dropping of the bombs were purely in retaliation for the attack on Pearl Harbour. You do realise there was 4 years of intense and bloody fighting between the two events?

[princessmarisa]

Originally Posted by GoNative

The Japanese would have bombed US cities if they had the capability. They bombed enough cities throughout Asia and slaughtered millions of civilians in their time there.

Plus this whole judement based on civilian targets it's not really accepting that during WWII civilian targets were generally considered legitimate targets. In Europe and the Pacific wars both axis and allied forces targeted civilian targets all the time. Carpet bombing of German cities wasn't just going after strategic targets!

Still you can't seem to see past one strategic attack on the US that had them enter the war and the dropping of atomic weapons. It's seems this is about the only knowledge of the war you have...sad really.

You seem to believe that the dropping of the bombs were purely in retaliation for the attack on Pearl Harbour. You do realise there was 4 years of intense and bloody fighting between the two events?

Is it not true that it was not until after the a-bombs had been dropped on Japan that the treaty and new rules regarding bombing civilian areas were finalised?

Many people think that is was simple tit-for-tat, and on a place such a JF where you get lots of people who think zomg Japan and everything about it is the best ever (^_^) will defend anything to do with Japan to the nth degree without any true reasoning. Often they find the easiest way to do this to attack another nation, such as one that seems to have let them down personally.

[WingsToDiscovery]

Originally Posted by termogard

Let's see. Japan attacked the US naval base and fleet, right? The US bombed japanese cities.

This is the problem people have. They have this imaginary timeline in their head that goes:

embargos - Pearl Harbor - atomic bombs

[GoNative]

Originally Posted by princessmarisa

Is it not true that it was not until after the a-bombs had been dropped on Japan that the treaty and new rules regarding bombing civilian areas were finalised?

The a-bombs certainly would have played a major role. Such destruction from one single weapon changed many things. We are certainly very unlikely to ever see another world war occur with such weapons in the hands of most of the major players...

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by WingsToDiscovery

I more or less see your point of view over GoNative's but this is what I disagree with. It's not a "2 wrongs don't make a right" scenario. It's just acknowledging that more than just the atomic bombings happened in the east. Most people probably couldn't tell you Japan's agenda (if this thread is any indication) outside of Pearl Harbor and the A bombs. America somehow ends up getting guilted into being the bad guys, not because the atomic bombs, but because of people's lack of knowledge on the subject. Nanking is just one of the instances where you can step back and say "wow, the was f^&&$d up." But because it had no direct result (such as ending a war), it just gets glossed over and threads like these are made instead, calling the Americans into question.

The Americans get guilted into being the bad guys?

Whether that is true or not.. the answer is not to falsely portray them as the "good guys".

[termogard]

Originally Posted by GoNative

The Japanese would have bombed US cities if they had the capability. They bombed enough cities throughout Asia and slaughtered millions of civilians in their time there.

The key word - If

Originally Posted by GoNative

You seem to believe that the dropping of the bombs were purely in retaliation for the attack on Pearl Harbour. You do realise there was 4 years of intense and bloody fighting between the two events?

More correctly - 4 years of intense and bloody fighting between armed forces, naval forces of Allies and Axis. I believe that the dropping of the bombs weren't purely in retaliation. It was a demonstration of American military power to Soviets as well as a field experiment.
Something like "how many civilians you can effectively kill and how many buildings you can effectively destroy on certain area." As for "legitimate targets" - Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't mayor naval or air bases of japanese armed forces.

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by GoNative

My god this is the best you can do? This organisation was founded by an ex member of the British National Front (a white supremecy group) and the head of the now defunct Liberty Front which was an anti semitic organisation. They have been involved in denial of the holocaust in Europe and are not considered to uphold any of the established methods for mainstream historical research.
I really suggest you you check your sources a little better for information.

Or just do what so many do these days and find anything off the net (because you can easily find just about anything) to support your views. It's easy to post anything you want on the internet when you don't have to go through any peer review or have to go through any of the normal checks of your methodology to be published in a credible journal.

To be honest I just googled it and linked a page that supports the study I've done into the subject.

Let me find you a better source