What Has Your Country Ever Done For Us?!

[DSQ]

As for stuff my country has given you? Well, lets take a look at how Scotland has carried the world's ass into the modern century: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_inventions_and_discoveries

My fellow scott has done all he work for me. Read it and weep people, scotland gave you TV and the phone!
Not to mention the vaccine for typhoid fever, insulin (John J R Macleod had help though) AND Penicillin.

Your Welcome.

But course that is only if one country can take credit for what it's inhabatents create. SO yeah.

 

[mrvenom]

Heineken!

That is all.

 

[Warforger]

There's more to history than America is the good guy and anyone who opposes it is the bad guy.

Not that I ever said that or believed that like ever, since it's something you ignorant foreigners don't seem to realize about American books.

Let me try another approach. You won't find a South African who'll agree with " The Apartheid Government was worse than the Communists." It's simply ludicrous, I'd need to write a mini-thesis explaining the depths to which it is ignorant.

It's a big world, I'm sure I can.

It was bad but I find it highly offensive when someone makes a claim like this.

It's like an opinion man.

The reason I mentioned the US was to highlight that the greatest and most democratic country on earth actively supported and protected the Apartheid regime and only LATER opposed it based on self-serving political, NOT humanitarian grounds. You can't separate the protectionism.

Well yah no American is under the impression that we don't support assholes, we supported Saddam Hussien because he fought the Communists and their allies after all, we appointed fascists like those in Greece and South Vietnam to rule etc. etc. so by no means am I saying America is innocent but this by no means is saying what the Apartheid governments did was right.

Let me give you some perspective just so that you don't think I'm some kind of pro-Apartheid nut. My family came to a homeland in protest of Apartheid, my father was on a watch-list. I went to public schools where maybe 40 - 50 of the 600 children were white or Afrikaans; I WAS THE MINORITY. I do not in any way condone or agree with the actions of the previous regime. By the way, I studied Russian history under a Russian Professor.

Exactly, but we haven't even said anything of what the Angolan Communists did or what their intentions were.

The reason why I found your comment so offensive is because of the blatant and hypocritical ignorance behind it. If the Apartheid regime was worse than the communists then the US was the evil empire. You said "you ignorant foreigners", you probably didn't mean it this way but you do realize that the meaning of that the words mean "non Americans are ignorant by definition". I mentioned your statement to a Tswana co-worker this morning and he laughed.

*sigh* it wasn't meant as an insult, it was meant to mirror what you were saying to show you how you sounded using the same words you did. I do it with pretty much everyone who insults me on the forum just for disagreeing with me.

You didn't grow up here, you didn't live the history, you weren't exiled; you have no right to spout it. You ignorant fucking bigot. You do not even know.

Consequently you didn't live under the Communists you haven't told me what they did if you do know. All you do is change the topic back to America as to insult it over and over or as if America's support meant the Apartheid government was the good guys.

 

[Buleet]

oh right i forgot about the beer.
How could i forget such an important part of belgium.
Well.Knowing me i proberbly forgot around 200 other things.
My memory is about as good as my spelling.Semi-ok overall but with HUGE glaring holes.

 

[TerribleAssassin]

We gave you Pink Floyd.

Nuff said.

Oh and Porcupine Tree.

Do I really need to say more?

 

[aei_haruko]

There was nothing humane about those bombs. Rationalising it as 'the only way to end the war', as many historians do, is as offensive and dehumanising as rationalising 9/11 as America reaping what America had sowed. If you ever make it to Hiroshima, go to the bomb museum and you will see. Japan's total war effort had already broken the country. It's leadership was fragmented and on the verge of major change. Other avenues were being investigated to end the war. Those bombs was the only way to end the war with the outcome America wanted.

The concept that Japan was a culture in which revolt was impossible is almost mythical. Less than 90 years earlier, Japan had successfully revolted against iron fisted Shoganate rule and its rigid and regimented feudal caste system. Within a few decades, the nation had accomplished perhaps the most unprecedented cultural and social revolutions this world has yet seen. It's entirely possible that many more Japanese would have suffered if their war effort had gone on much longer, but they were already greatly suffering. A ship like the Yamato was sent out without enough fuel to return. The war would have ended. The bombs ended it sooner, but no amount of rationalisation can make them in any way 'humane', or not a war-crime.

But yeah, as for nuclear weapons, the USA can take that claim to fame, if it wants. It has the most of them anyway.

Yeah because we all know that a joint USSR and USA invasion of Japan would have saved so many lives of the Japanese. If you want to use number of Japanese lives than nuclear bombs were the way to go. If you want humane deaths of the Japanese people again nuclear bombs were the way to go.

Iwo jima:
little over 8 miles overall, give or take a few
21,000 japanese casualties
26,000 american
dug in fighting. lasted a bit over a month.
X-day, proposed invasion of mainland Japan.
Allied leaders proposed that if the main assult would last 90 days, there would be 456,000 casualties, if another 90 days were needed, then there would be upwards of a million casualties
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall
The japanese were already using suicide soldiers, and the fighting in the pacific
The battle of okinawa 62,000 casualties not including 12,000 killed or missing, 82 days.
If the war would've gone on longer, ore and more people would be killed, the japanese almost never surrendered in the pacific campaign. It was considered a disgrace to the emporer, and to do so would be unthinkable.
now tell me, how is that humane to either side?

However it is presumptuous to assume that this wasn't all about to end regardless. Japan was broken, economically and spiritually. As I said above, the citizens were in suffering, so many cities were already devastated by conventional bombing, the fighting forces were demoralised and without resources (Yamato was sent out without enough fuel to return), and the leadership was already splintering. And with Russia entering the Pacific, apparently it had those splinters in a panic.

Japan did make attempts to broker peace but ultimately they were rejected. However, it can be argued that the USA was not going to tolerate any peace not on their own terms, especially via Russia. They also saw the tactical advantage of overcoming Japan on American terms. They had long lusted over the nation historically and were instrumental in prompting it to revolt against feudal caste oppression by the Shogonate, ironically in favour of the Emperor - and we know how that turned out.

In regard to the bombs, there are many well documented quotes and comments from the US and allies which clash rather strongly with the accepted version of events from the USA, such as the 'humane motivations' and 'need' for the bombs, and also the factually challenged assertion that the allies air dropped warnings before dropping the bombs and not after. And this view also hinges on the idea that the Japanese were all unyielding, unreasonable fanatics, incapable of revolt. In the 80 years that had passed from the nation's 'opening to the West' (through bloody revolution no less), it underwent perhaps the most daring and incredible technological, cultural and societal revolutions ever witnessed.

This begs the question -

If your government had just unleashed the two most powerful weapons ever created, thereby literally flattening two major cities and bringing upon the the survivors severe pain, death, cancers and then generations of congenital affect, wouldn't you try as hard as you could to paint yourself in as positive a light as possible? I think so. History is written by the victors, after all.

the closer the war came to ending, the more fanatical fighting became. Sure baataan was horrible and all, but in okinawa it was monstrous. There was no surrenduring, it was fight and die, not fight or die. kamikaze fights didn't occour in mass amounts until okinawa, when the US was invading Japanese islands. The people in saipan Jumped off of cliffs to avoid US capture, as ordered by Hirohito.
The reason for the allied quotes ( I assume yo're talking about Eisenhower?)
Was because he just wanted an unconditional surrendur, The Japanese wouldn't have given up, it was like that on other Islands too, heck, even in the schools people were trained to die rather than surrendur. The 2 atom bombs were awful, but I don't see the logic in denying that hundreds of thousands were been saved, and that as awful as those raids were, that they needed to be done

 

[loc978]

The US... so,

Spoiler: this

Spoiler: this

Spoiler: and eventually this

Without which modern machinery (and, by extension, all of the first-world conveniences you enjoy) would still be cost-prohibitive to manufacture. You're welcome.

but does it blend?

If you make a blender with it, sure...

what exactly does it do?

The three machines I linked are a metal lathe [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeN1etkFsbk], a milling machine [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U99asuDT97I] and a CNC (computer numerical control) milling machine [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SUQKGu7F5w]. The simplest answer for what they do is "shape lumps of metal and plastic into parts for use in machinery"... in the right hands, of course.

 

[DSQ]

Penicillin, and of course the Robinson's screw and screwdriver. The best screw you can use simply because your screwdriver or drill won't go flying into your knee cap making one embarrassing trip to the hospital where a nurse questions your manhood and handyman skills at the same time.

Australia came up with penicillin.

"The discovery of penicillin is attributed to Scottish scientist and Nobel laureate Alexander Fleming in 1928"

sourse:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penicillin

I think you mean the discovery that penicillin could be used as a medicine:

"The development of penicillin for use as a medicine is attributed to the Australian Nobel laureate Howard Walter Florey together with the German Nobel laureate Ernst Chain and the English biochemist Norman Heatley."

These kind of discoveries rarely come down to one nation or person. Which is why if i see one more country claim they 'won WWI/WWII' I'll scream.

It mostly came down to russia's manpower (lest we forget 2/3's of the german army was on the easten front, which was held only by the russian army) and america's money (The US baled out almost all the allie's during and after the war). But the ALL other counrtys played a key part as well.

 

[mrdude2010]

the atomic bomb- yea we're cool guys


yes i know einstein and oppenheimer were german but they were working in the US, for the US at the time

 

[commodore96]

But we don't know. However, I find the attitude that the bombs were dropped to 'save the Japanese' laughable. If the shoe was on the other foot, say, LA and San Francisco, the treatment in history might be a lot different. I understand that war is war, but there's no way one can paint those bombs in a positive light, especially with the 'humane' brush.

Anyway, just a quick Google found this (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0805-24.htm). I thought it was interesting, but it's not where I have gotten my information. But it does cover American misconceptions and inaccuracies about the bombs and why that could be so.

My views on all this are largely based on primary experiences here in Japan. But I think that a spade should be called a spade. Atrocity in war are not just for the losers to accept. Japan has much to answer for itself in terms of that too. Anyway, don't think I am out to demonise any nation or culture here.

I would rather that grade of nuclear weapon be dropped on one or two cities to end the war than have a massive German/Japan invasion force land on the shores of the US killing millions in a massive military campaign.

 

[charlest92]

Well being from america we spawned the Jersy Shore and Charlie Scheen so I apologise for that.
Edit: As well as the start-up capital for the taliban, and a whole slew of other things we should be sorry we did/made/created/ignored

 

[UberNoodle]

There was nothing humane about those bombs. Rationalising it as 'the only way to end the war', as many historians do, is as offensive and dehumanising as rationalising 9/11 as America reaping what America had sowed. If you ever make it to Hiroshima, go to the bomb museum and you will see. Japan's total war effort had already broken the country. It's leadership was fragmented and on the verge of major change. Other avenues were being investigated to end the war. Those bombs was the only way to end the war with the outcome America wanted.

The concept that Japan was a culture in which revolt was impossible is almost mythical. Less than 90 years earlier, Japan had successfully revolted against iron fisted Shoganate rule and its rigid and regimented feudal caste system. Within a few decades, the nation had accomplished perhaps the most unprecedented cultural and social revolutions this world has yet seen. It's entirely possible that many more Japanese would have suffered if their war effort had gone on much longer, but they were already greatly suffering. A ship like the Yamato was sent out without enough fuel to return. The war would have ended. The bombs ended it sooner, but no amount of rationalisation can make them in any way 'humane', or not a war-crime.

But yeah, as for nuclear weapons, the USA can take that claim to fame, if it wants. It has the most of them anyway.

Yeah because we all know that a joint USSR and USA invasion of Japan would have saved so many lives of the Japanese. If you want to use number of Japanese lives than nuclear bombs were the way to go. If you want humane deaths of the Japanese people again nuclear bombs were the way to go.

Iwo jima:
little over 8 miles overall, give or take a few
21,000 japanese casualties
26,000 american
dug in fighting. lasted a bit over a month.
X-day, proposed invasion of mainland Japan.
Allied leaders proposed that if the main assult would last 90 days, there would be 456,000 casualties, if another 90 days were needed, then there would be upwards of a million casualties
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall
The japanese were already using suicide soldiers, and the fighting in the pacific
The battle of okinawa 62,000 casualties not including 12,000 killed or missing, 82 days.
If the war would've gone on longer, ore and more people would be killed, the japanese almost never surrendered in the pacific campaign. It was considered a disgrace to the emporer, and to do so would be unthinkable.
now tell me, how is that humane to either side?

However it is presumptuous to assume that this wasn't all about to end regardless. Japan was broken, economically and spiritually. As I said above, the citizens were in suffering, so many cities were already devastated by conventional bombing, the fighting forces were demoralised and without resources (Yamato was sent out without enough fuel to return), and the leadership was already splintering. And with Russia entering the Pacific, apparently it had those splinters in a panic.

Japan did make attempts to broker peace but ultimately they were rejected. However, it can be argued that the USA was not going to tolerate any peace not on their own terms, especially via Russia. They also saw the tactical advantage of overcoming Japan on American terms. They had long lusted over the nation historically and were instrumental in prompting it to revolt against feudal caste oppression by the Shogonate, ironically in favour of the Emperor - and we know how that turned out.

In regard to the bombs, there are many well documented quotes and comments from the US and allies which clash rather strongly with the accepted version of events from the USA, such as the 'humane motivations' and 'need' for the bombs, and also the factually challenged assertion that the allies air dropped warnings before dropping the bombs and not after. And this view also hinges on the idea that the Japanese were all unyielding, unreasonable fanatics, incapable of revolt. In the 80 years that had passed from the nation's 'opening to the West' (through bloody revolution no less), it underwent perhaps the most daring and incredible technological, cultural and societal revolutions ever witnessed.

This begs the question -

If your government had just unleashed the two most powerful weapons ever created, thereby literally flattening two major cities and bringing upon the the survivors severe pain, death, cancers and then generations of congenital affect, wouldn't you try as hard as you could to paint yourself in as positive a light as possible? I think so. History is written by the victors, after all.

the closer the war came to ending, the more fanatical fighting became. Sure baataan was horrible and all, but in okinawa it was monstrous. There was no surrenduring, it was fight and die, not fight or die. kamikaze fights didn't occour in mass amounts until okinawa, when the US was invading Japanese islands. The people in saipan Jumped off of cliffs to avoid US capture, as ordered by Hirohito.
The reason for the allied quotes ( I assume yo're talking about Eisenhower?)
Was because he just wanted an unconditional surrendur, The Japanese wouldn't have given up, it was like that on other Islands too, heck, even in the schools people were trained to die rather than surrendur. The 2 atom bombs were awful, but I don't see the logic in denying that hundreds of thousands were been saved, and that as awful as those raids were, that they needed to be done

I'm not denying that alternatives might have caused a creator death toll. I never said anything remotely like that. I am objecting to the normalisation of the act of dropping two atomic bombs on largely civilian cities as 'humane'. There was nothing humane about it and to even use that word is to dehumanise the Japanese people, treating them almost like sick animals. If the same 'humane' option was used for on the USA ... well, it wouldn't, would it. It would be 'criminal'.

 

[UberNoodle]

But we don't know. However, I find the attitude that the bombs were dropped to 'save the Japanese' laughable. If the shoe was on the other foot, say, LA and San Francisco, the treatment in history might be a lot different. I understand that war is war, but there's no way one can paint those bombs in a positive light, especially with the 'humane' brush.

Anyway, just a quick Google found this (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0805-24.htm). I thought it was interesting, but it's not where I have gotten my information. But it does cover American misconceptions and inaccuracies about the bombs and why that could be so.

My views on all this are largely based on primary experiences here in Japan. But I think that a spade should be called a spade. Atrocity in war are not just for the losers to accept. Japan has much to answer for itself in terms of that too. Anyway, don't think I am out to demonise any nation or culture here.

I would rather that grade of nuclear weapon be dropped on one or two cities to end the war than have a massive German/Japan invasion force land on the shores of the US killing millions in a massive military campaign.

But that's not what I am saying here. I am referring to the normalisation of dropping two atomic bombs on largely civilian cities as humane, when the term humane in this context is actually dehumanising. Read above. You can talk all you like about lesser evils and so on, but at least acknowledge the indiscriminate destruction and damage caused by the bombs, not only on the cities and their residents, but on the culture, spirit and even genome of Japan. Those bombs can not be called 'humane', and I am greatly sceptical that a care for 'humanity', at least in terms of defending the Japanese's, was a true motivation for dropping the bombs. That's something retrofitted onto it later.

 

[tsb247]

My absolute favorite American contribution to the world is...

Powered flight!

We went from sticks and cloth to the moon in under 100 years!

 

[aei_haruko]

There was nothing humane about those bombs. Rationalising it as 'the only way to end the war', as many historians do, is as offensive and dehumanising as rationalising 9/11 as America reaping what America had sowed. If you ever make it to Hiroshima, go to the bomb museum and you will see. Japan's total war effort had already broken the country. It's leadership was fragmented and on the verge of major change. Other avenues were being investigated to end the war. Those bombs was the only way to end the war with the outcome America wanted.

The concept that Japan was a culture in which revolt was impossible is almost mythical. Less than 90 years earlier, Japan had successfully revolted against iron fisted Shoganate rule and its rigid and regimented feudal caste system. Within a few decades, the nation had accomplished perhaps the most unprecedented cultural and social revolutions this world has yet seen. It's entirely possible that many more Japanese would have suffered if their war effort had gone on much longer, but they were already greatly suffering. A ship like the Yamato was sent out without enough fuel to return. The war would have ended. The bombs ended it sooner, but no amount of rationalisation can make them in any way 'humane', or not a war-crime.

But yeah, as for nuclear weapons, the USA can take that claim to fame, if it wants. It has the most of them anyway.

Yeah because we all know that a joint USSR and USA invasion of Japan would have saved so many lives of the Japanese. If you want to use number of Japanese lives than nuclear bombs were the way to go. If you want humane deaths of the Japanese people again nuclear bombs were the way to go.

Iwo jima:
little over 8 miles overall, give or take a few
21,000 japanese casualties
26,000 american
dug in fighting. lasted a bit over a month.
X-day, proposed invasion of mainland Japan.
Allied leaders proposed that if the main assult would last 90 days, there would be 456,000 casualties, if another 90 days were needed, then there would be upwards of a million casualties
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall
The japanese were already using suicide soldiers, and the fighting in the pacific
The battle of okinawa 62,000 casualties not including 12,000 killed or missing, 82 days.
If the war would've gone on longer, ore and more people would be killed, the japanese almost never surrendered in the pacific campaign. It was considered a disgrace to the emporer, and to do so would be unthinkable.
now tell me, how is that humane to either side?

However it is presumptuous to assume that this wasn't all about to end regardless. Japan was broken, economically and spiritually. As I said above, the citizens were in suffering, so many cities were already devastated by conventional bombing, the fighting forces were demoralised and without resources (Yamato was sent out without enough fuel to return), and the leadership was already splintering. And with Russia entering the Pacific, apparently it had those splinters in a panic.

Japan did make attempts to broker peace but ultimately they were rejected. However, it can be argued that the USA was not going to tolerate any peace not on their own terms, especially via Russia. They also saw the tactical advantage of overcoming Japan on American terms. They had long lusted over the nation historically and were instrumental in prompting it to revolt against feudal caste oppression by the Shogonate, ironically in favour of the Emperor - and we know how that turned out.

In regard to the bombs, there are many well documented quotes and comments from the US and allies which clash rather strongly with the accepted version of events from the USA, such as the 'humane motivations' and 'need' for the bombs, and also the factually challenged assertion that the allies air dropped warnings before dropping the bombs and not after. And this view also hinges on the idea that the Japanese were all unyielding, unreasonable fanatics, incapable of revolt. In the 80 years that had passed from the nation's 'opening to the West' (through bloody revolution no less), it underwent perhaps the most daring and incredible technological, cultural and societal revolutions ever witnessed.

This begs the question -

If your government had just unleashed the two most powerful weapons ever created, thereby literally flattening two major cities and bringing upon the the survivors severe pain, death, cancers and then generations of congenital affect, wouldn't you try as hard as you could to paint yourself in as positive a light as possible? I think so. History is written by the victors, after all.

the closer the war came to ending, the more fanatical fighting became. Sure baataan was horrible and all, but in okinawa it was monstrous. There was no surrenduring, it was fight and die, not fight or die. kamikaze fights didn't occour in mass amounts until okinawa, when the US was invading Japanese islands. The people in saipan Jumped off of cliffs to avoid US capture, as ordered by Hirohito.
The reason for the allied quotes ( I assume yo're talking about Eisenhower?)
Was because he just wanted an unconditional surrendur, The Japanese wouldn't have given up, it was like that on other Islands too, heck, even in the schools people were trained to die rather than surrendur. The 2 atom bombs were awful, but I don't see the logic in denying that hundreds of thousands were been saved, and that as awful as those raids were, that they needed to be done

I'm not denying that alternatives might have caused a creator death toll. I never said anything remotely like that. I am objecting to the normalisation of the act of dropping two atomic bombs on largely civilian cities as 'humane'. There was nothing humane about it and to even use that word is to dehumanise the Japanese people, treating them almost like sick animals. If the same 'humane' option was used for on the USA ... well, it wouldn't, would it. It would be 'criminal'.

What about the doolittle raid where tokyo was literally a firestorm?
To quote My Favorite general William tecumpsah sherman
" war is hell, it is therefore our utmost duty to make it as bitter and hellish as possible to end it as fast as we can"
I'm not saying it was perfect, and i'm not saying it was right. I respect the japanese people, they are industrious, and they have values, unlike many of my american counterparts they are strong.
I think that it had to be done though, there was no other option. I think that if you make hiroshima abd nagasaki a point, then point out What the japanese did to nanjing china, 20 million dead, a city in ashes, and hell on earth. The rape of nanjing, thats what happened, yet almost noboy I know even knew what happened.
Did you?
War is not just, and there are evils on both sides, google "the rape of nanjing" se what happened, then talk about defending sensless slaughter, i'm not saying it was just, I'm saying it was the only option we had

 

[Dakinks]

The Beatles, and consequently, most of all modern music.

Noooo, Rock is an American thing before it's British. Sorry ;P

 

[UberNoodle]

What about the doolittle raid where tokyo was literally a firestorm?
To quote My Favorite general William tecumpsah sherman
" war is hell, it is therefore our utmost duty to make it as bitter and hellish as possible to end it as fast as we can"
I'm not saying it was perfect, and i'm not saying it was right. I respect the japanese people, they are industrious, and they have values, unlike many of my american counterparts they are strong.
I think that it had to be done though, there was no other option. I think that if you make hiroshima abd nagasaki a point, then point out What the japanese did to nanjing china, 20 million dead, a city in ashes, and hell on earth. The rape of nanjing, thats what happened, yet almost noboy I know even knew what happened.
Did you?
War is not just, and there are evils on both sides, google "the rape of nanjing" se what happened, then talk about defending sensless slaughter, i'm not saying it was just, I'm saying it was the only option we had

Oh yes, I know about those events as well. Terrible, undeniably. However, I do find ironic the Chinese government's offense at those atrocities (especially at how conveniently it surfaces at times) when atrocity is a past-time the Chinese government is well versed at, still today.

On the other hand, I always make a separation between the leaders of a nation and its citizens. The citizens don't commit atrocity or wage war. The war machine does and leaders do. Those soldiers who committed those acts, I have trouble demonising, because war is indeed hell and the power over the mind held by propaganda, stress, violence, authority, etc is very powerful indeed.

And I consider also that resistance against any order in war is always high subordination, usually traitorous and earning imprisonment or death. But anyway, the people who died in those fire bombings and in the atomic bombings, who died in any bombings like that anywhere, were not the people actually out there fighting. Punishment for crimes on the battlefield shouldn't be laid on their heads. I certainly don't believe in any edict that one indiscriminate atrocity deserves another.

But, as you quoted, 'war is hell', for everybody. Yet with all the self-serving euphemism that abounds to normalise war and its practices, it really is time to wise up and call a spade a spade. The atomic bombings would be the subject of a trial at the Hague were it any other country. At least the Japanese are historically accountable for what they did at their worst (at their best, they saved hundreds of Jews from the Nazis by providing them with visas, safe passage and refuge), and they are paying that account. Shit like that takes a long time here in Asia, especially between three incredibly proud, stubborn ass countries like Japan, China and Korea. They are so genetically, culturally and historically entwined, yet they are so regularly at loggerheads. Reminds me of a certain other triumvirate perpetually in conflict.

 

[aei_haruko]

What about the doolittle raid where tokyo was literally a firestorm?
To quote My Favorite general William tecumpsah sherman
" war is hell, it is therefore our utmost duty to make it as bitter and hellish as possible to end it as fast as we can"
I'm not saying it was perfect, and i'm not saying it was right. I respect the japanese people, they are industrious, and they have values, unlike many of my american counterparts they are strong.
I think that it had to be done though, there was no other option. I think that if you make hiroshima abd nagasaki a point, then point out What the japanese did to nanjing china, 20 million dead, a city in ashes, and hell on earth. The rape of nanjing, thats what happened, yet almost noboy I know even knew what happened.
Did you?
War is not just, and there are evils on both sides, google "the rape of nanjing" se what happened, then talk about defending sensless slaughter, i'm not saying it was just, I'm saying it was the only option we had

Oh yes, I know about those events as well. Terrible, undeniably. However, I do find ironic the Chinese government's offense at those atrocities (especially at how conveniently it surfaces at times) when atrocity is a past-time the Chinese government is well versed at, still today.

On the other hand, I always make a separation between the leaders of a nation and its citizens. The citizens don't commit atrocity or wage war. The war machine does and leaders do. Those soldiers who committed those acts, I have trouble demonising, because war is indeed hell and the power over the mind held by propaganda, stress, violence, authority, etc is very powerful indeed.

And I consider also that resistance against any order in war is always high subordination, usually traitorous and earning imprisonment or death. But anyway, the people who died in those fire bombings and in the atomic bombings, who died in any bombings like that anywhere, were not the people actually out there fighting. Punishment for crimes on the battlefield shouldn't be laid on their heads. I certainly don't believe in any edict that one indiscriminate atrocity deserves another.

But, as you quoted, 'war is hell', for everybody. Yet with all the self-serving euphemism that abounds to normalise war and its practices, it really is time to wise up and call a spade a spade. The atomic bombings would be the subject of a trial at the Hague were it any other country. At least the Japanese are historically accountable for what they did at their worst (at their best, they saved hundreds of Jews from the Nazis by providing them with visas, safe passage and refuge), and they are paying that account. Shit like that takes a long time here in Asia, especially between three incredibly proud, stubborn ass countries like Japan, China and Korea. They are so genetically, culturally and historically entwined, yet they are so regularly at loggerheads. Reminds me of a certain other triumvirate perpetually in conflict.

Interesting, i like many of your points.
I'm just a tad bit confused, what about the atomic bombs do you object to? The use of them on civillians? if So every bombing raid is objectionable, yet if you think about it bombing raids are nessicary, factories that make munitions to kill people are usually located near civillian targets. So what issue do you have with the bombs? Because Bombing is nessisary in war. Without it tons of supplies would've reached both sides, and thus more people would've died. Yet, no matter how much it normalizes war, it still was needed, not right, but needed

 

[UberNoodle]

What about the doolittle raid where tokyo was literally a firestorm?
To quote My Favorite general William tecumpsah sherman
" war is hell, it is therefore our utmost duty to make it as bitter and hellish as possible to end it as fast as we can"
I'm not saying it was perfect, and i'm not saying it was right. I respect the japanese people, they are industrious, and they have values, unlike many of my american counterparts they are strong.
I think that it had to be done though, there was no other option. I think that if you make hiroshima abd nagasaki a point, then point out What the japanese did to nanjing china, 20 million dead, a city in ashes, and hell on earth. The rape of nanjing, thats what happened, yet almost noboy I know even knew what happened.
Did you?
War is not just, and there are evils on both sides, google "the rape of nanjing" se what happened, then talk about defending sensless slaughter, i'm not saying it was just, I'm saying it was the only option we had

Oh yes, I know about those events as well. Terrible, undeniably. However, I do find ironic the Chinese government's offense at those atrocities (especially at how conveniently it surfaces at times) when atrocity is a past-time the Chinese government is well versed at, still today.

On the other hand, I always make a separation between the leaders of a nation and its citizens. The citizens don't commit atrocity or wage war. The war machine does and leaders do. Those soldiers who committed those acts, I have trouble demonising, because war is indeed hell and the power over the mind held by propaganda, stress, violence, authority, etc is very powerful indeed.

And I consider also that resistance against any order in war is always high subordination, usually traitorous and earning imprisonment or death. But anyway, the people who died in those fire bombings and in the atomic bombings, who died in any bombings like that anywhere, were not the people actually out there fighting. Punishment for crimes on the battlefield shouldn't be laid on their heads. I certainly don't believe in any edict that one indiscriminate atrocity deserves another.

But, as you quoted, 'war is hell', for everybody. Yet with all the self-serving euphemism that abounds to normalise war and its practices, it really is time to wise up and call a spade a spade. The atomic bombings would be the subject of a trial at the Hague were it any other country. At least the Japanese are historically accountable for what they did at their worst (at their best, they saved hundreds of Jews from the Nazis by providing them with visas, safe passage and refuge), and they are paying that account. Shit like that takes a long time here in Asia, especially between three incredibly proud, stubborn ass countries like Japan, China and Korea. They are so genetically, culturally and historically entwined, yet they are so regularly at loggerheads. Reminds me of a certain other triumvirate perpetually in conflict.

Interesting, i like many of your points.
I'm just a tad bit confused, what about the atomic bombs do you object to? The use of them on civillians? if So every bombing raid is objectionable, yet if you think about it bombing raids are nessicary, factories that make munitions to kill people are usually located near civillian targets. So what issue do you have with the bombs? Because Bombing is nessisary in war. Without it tons of supplies would've reached both sides, and thus more people would've died. Yet, no matter how much it normalizes war, it still was needed, not right, but needed

My objection to the atomic bombs is that there were a vulgar display of power. Never since has such indiscriminate destruction been unleashed in war in a single stroke. There was no escape. By the end, the city was flattened. That's literal. It was a desert of rubble with only some towers surviving which had profiles thin enough to survive the forces of the bomb.

The building beneath the hypocentre of the bomb also survived. Traditional bombings and blitzes are also incredibly destructive and at great loss of life, but they are not of this category of attack. And they don't have radioactive fallout, don't poison ecosystems and farms, don't cause deadly cancers and mutations for generations, or leave people alive, blind and with their skin hanging off in strips.

There was no time to get into shelters, though they probably wouldn't have helped much. Perhaps somebody heard a plane. There was a flash, and then a blast wave and wall of deadly ash and smoke erased everything.

One of the exhibitions at the museum is of a boy's watch, frozen at the time of the bomb. The message next to it is written by the man that boy became. He was out hunting for insects at the time. A man with a camera captured survivors black all over from burns, having to rub OIL on themselves to cool down because they had no water. Nobody knew what the heck had just happened. The city was gone. I can't imagine the shock and pain.

It sounds like I am hyping all this, but I'm not. I have been to the Peace Memorial Park a few times and I will be going next month for the anniversary. But you know what? It's not a place of judgement. There are no grudges (The first time I went there, an old lady prayed over me. It was really something). The message is simply never to let such weapons we unleashed again. The only way to do that is to get people to understand the truth of what such weapons can do, and those bombs were small compared to what's available today.

The way Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been normalised by 'accepted history' in the USA, is detriment to that. Yet I can see why this misdirection has been perpetrated. The USA has the most of these weapons and a lot of itself invested in their development. They also have a lot to gain in international image by lessening their involvement and the severity of the bombs, especially if it avoids inviting any serious calls for liability or responsibility.

 

[aei_haruko]

What about the doolittle raid where tokyo was literally a firestorm?
To quote My Favorite general William tecumpsah sherman
" war is hell, it is therefore our utmost duty to make it as bitter and hellish as possible to end it as fast as we can"
I'm not saying it was perfect, and i'm not saying it was right. I respect the japanese people, they are industrious, and they have values, unlike many of my american counterparts they are strong.
I think that it had to be done though, there was no other option. I think that if you make hiroshima abd nagasaki a point, then point out What the japanese did to nanjing china, 20 million dead, a city in ashes, and hell on earth. The rape of nanjing, thats what happened, yet almost noboy I know even knew what happened.
Did you?
War is not just, and there are evils on both sides, google "the rape of nanjing" se what happened, then talk about defending sensless slaughter, i'm not saying it was just, I'm saying it was the only option we had

Oh yes, I know about those events as well. Terrible, undeniably. However, I do find ironic the Chinese government's offense at those atrocities (especially at how conveniently it surfaces at times) when atrocity is a past-time the Chinese government is well versed at, still today.

On the other hand, I always make a separation between the leaders of a nation and its citizens. The citizens don't commit atrocity or wage war. The war machine does and leaders do. Those soldiers who committed those acts, I have trouble demonising, because war is indeed hell and the power over the mind held by propaganda, stress, violence, authority, etc is very powerful indeed.

And I consider also that resistance against any order in war is always high subordination, usually traitorous and earning imprisonment or death. But anyway, the people who died in those fire bombings and in the atomic bombings, who died in any bombings like that anywhere, were not the people actually out there fighting. Punishment for crimes on the battlefield shouldn't be laid on their heads. I certainly don't believe in any edict that one indiscriminate atrocity deserves another.

But, as you quoted, 'war is hell', for everybody. Yet with all the self-serving euphemism that abounds to normalise war and its practices, it really is time to wise up and call a spade a spade. The atomic bombings would be the subject of a trial at the Hague were it any other country. At least the Japanese are historically accountable for what they did at their worst (at their best, they saved hundreds of Jews from the Nazis by providing them with visas, safe passage and refuge), and they are paying that account. Shit like that takes a long time here in Asia, especially between three incredibly proud, stubborn ass countries like Japan, China and Korea. They are so genetically, culturally and historically entwined, yet they are so regularly at loggerheads. Reminds me of a certain other triumvirate perpetually in conflict.

Interesting, i like many of your points.
I'm just a tad bit confused, what about the atomic bombs do you object to? The use of them on civillians? if So every bombing raid is objectionable, yet if you think about it bombing raids are nessicary, factories that make munitions to kill people are usually located near civillian targets. So what issue do you have with the bombs? Because Bombing is nessisary in war. Without it tons of supplies would've reached both sides, and thus more people would've died. Yet, no matter how much it normalizes war, it still was needed, not right, but needed

My objection to the atomic bombs is that there were a vulgar display of power. Never since has such indiscriminate destruction been unleashed in war in a single stroke. There was no escape. By the end, the city was flattened. That's literal. It was a desert of rubble with only some towers surviving which had profiles thin enough to survive the forces of the bomb.

The building beneath the hypocentre of the bomb also survived. Traditional bombings and blitzes are also incredibly destructive and at great loss of life, but they are not of this category of attack. And they don't have radioactive fallout, don't poison ecosystems and farms, don't cause deadly cancers and mutations for generations, or leave people alive, blind and with their skin hanging off in strips.

There was no time to get into shelters, though they probably wouldn't have helped much. Perhaps somebody heard a plane. There was a flash, and then a blast wave and wall of deadly ash and smoke erased everything.

One of the exhibitions at the museum is of a boy's watch, frozen at the time of the bomb. The message next to it is written by the man that boy became. He was out hunting for insects at the time. A man with a camera captured survivors black all over from burns, having to rub OIL on themselves to cool down because they had no water. Nobody knew what the heck had just happened. The city was gone. I can't imagine the shock and pain.

It sounds like I am hyping all this, but I'm not. I have been to the Peace Memorial Park a few times and I will be going next month for the anniversary. But you know what? It's not a place of judgement. There are no grudges (The first time I went there, an old lady prayed over me. It was really something). The message is simply never to let such weapons we unleashed again. The only way to do that is to get people to understand the truth of what such weapons can do, and those bombs were small compared to what's available today.

The way Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been normalised by 'accepted history' in the USA, is detriment to that. Yet I can see why this misdirection has been perpetrated. The USA has the most of these weapons and a lot of itself invested in their development. They also have a lot to gain in international image by lessening their involvement and the severity of the bombs, especially if it avoids inviting any serious calls for liability or responsibility.

Thats war in general though, the doolitle raid incinerated tokyo, and those survivors were ashen as well. Pearl harbor had 2 thousand men died in an undeclared war, heck, they were just waking up, yet they still died too. Civilians in London dies during the blitz, etc...
There was a study done during veitnam that showed that napalm was responsible for higher cancer rates amongst civilians., and I'm sure burning fuel helped the ecosystem.
At pearl harbor people had little warning as well. no matter which way you spin it, war is war. Every action has a purpose. Did ya ever notice that nobody has used one since? It's because it is such a horrible weapon, and it was only used as a last resort against the Japanese.