japanese war crimes-- was hiroshima

They were the bad guys, thats a given. That is not the issue. The issue is, did we, the good guys, go down to the bad guys level.

Its my understanding that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were targeted because they were undamaged cities... it had nothing to do with their military production capacity.

"old hoodoo" wrote in message
...

They were the bad guys, thats a given. That is not the issue.
The issue is, did we, the good guys, go down to the bad guys level.

Given that we didnt tie wounded POW's to trees
with barbed wire and use them for bayonent
pratctise I'd say no we didnt.

Its my understanding that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were targeted
because they were undamaged cities... it had nothing to do
with their military production capacity.


Your understanding is deficient

Hiroshima was the HQ and base for one of the major
armies tasked with defending Japan. At least 3 divisions
were in the area when the attacked happened and the
aiming point was the HQ building. Moreover Hiroshima
was a major naval base.

Nagasaki was one of the centres of the Japanese armaments
industry with major Mitsubishi aircraft and munitions
plants which were destroyed in the attack.

The instructions issued by Harry Truman were that the
targets were to be military targets.

Keith

Keith Willshaw wrote:
"old hoodoo" wrote in message
...

They were the bad guys, thats a given. That is not the issue.
The issue is, did we, the good guys, go down to the bad guys level.

Given that we didnt tie wounded POW's to trees
with barbed wire and use them for bayonent
pratctise I'd say no we didnt.

Its my understanding that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were targeted
because they were undamaged cities... it had nothing to do
with their military production capacity.

Your understanding is deficient

Hiroshima was the HQ and base for one of the major
armies tasked with defending Japan. At least 3 divisions
were in the area when the attacked happened and the
aiming point was the HQ building. Moreover Hiroshima
was a major naval base.

Nagasaki was one of the centres of the Japanese armaments
industry with major Mitsubishi aircraft and munitions
plants which were destroyed in the attack.

The instructions issued by Harry Truman were that the
targets were to be military targets.

Neither of the cities bombed was "undamaged," either.

It is true that neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki had been bombed for some
months (three?) before the atomic bombings. I vaguely recall reading
that there was a request for this so that the effects of the bombs could
be studied closely. But I may be talking through my hat.

And of course, from the coincidence file, the submarine that sank the
cruiser USS Indianapolis (*after* she delivered the bomb core for Little
Boy to Tinian) was homeported in Hiroshima.
--
Marc Reeve
actual email address after removal of 4s & spaces is
c4m4r4a4m4a4n a4t c4r4u4z4i4o d4o4t c4o4m

Its my understanding that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were targeted because they were undamaged cities.

Read "Downfall". Increase your understanding. It won't take more than
a week of part-time study.

www.warbirdforum.com/downfall.htm

You won't gain a lot of understanding on the newsgroups. Lots of
intelligent stuff is posted here, but you have to know the background
before you are able to judge which to believe.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ...
"old hoodoo" wrote in message
...

They were the bad guys, thats a given. That is not the issue.
The issue is, did we, the good guys, go down to the bad guys level.

Given that we didnt tie wounded POW's to trees
with barbed wire and use them for bayonent
pratctise I'd say no we didnt.

No, we just interned Japanese-Americans for years in camps behind
barbed wire at home.

Its my understanding that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were targeted
because they were undamaged cities... it had nothing to do
with their military production capacity.


Your understanding is deficient

True, many wanted Tokyo on the top of the list of 7 initial targets...

Hiroshima was the HQ and base for one of the major
armies tasked with defending Japan. At least 3 divisions
were in the area when the attacked happened and the
aiming point was the HQ building. Moreover Hiroshima
was a major naval base.

Nagasaki was one of the centres of the Japanese armaments
industry with major Mitsubishi aircraft and munitions
plants which were destroyed in the attack.

The instructions issued by Harry Truman were that the
targets were to be military targets.

Keith

Note:

Nagasaki wasn't even the original target for the 2nd bomb. It was
Kokura but due to bad weather problems "Bock's Car" moved on to the
secondary target of Nagasaki.
The third bomb, of which components were on Tinian, lacked a plutonium
core and was stopped from recieving one (in transport) on Aug 11 by
military order. If a core had arrived, "Fat Man II" would have been
probably been dropped by the B-29 "Great Artiste" on a repeat mission
over Kokura around Aug 18-20, 1945.
So, I'd say Kokura was spared "twice". Lucky *******s.

In article ,
(robert arndt) wrote:

"Keith Willshaw" wrote:

Given that we didnt tie wounded POW's to trees
with barbed wire and use them for bayonent
pratctise I'd say no we didnt.

No, we just interned Japanese-Americans for years in camps behind
barbed wire at home.

Yep. We were pretty darned nice, for the times.

As opposed to, say, the Germans and Japanese of the times, we were
practically saints.

Thanks for pointing that out for us.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"robert arndt" wrote in message
om...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...
"old hoodoo" wrote in message
...

They were the bad guys, thats a given. That is not the issue.
The issue is, did we, the good guys, go down to the bad guys level.

Given that we didnt tie wounded POW's to trees
with barbed wire and use them for bayonent
pratctise I'd say no we didnt.

No, we just interned Japanese-Americans for years in camps behind
barbed wire at home.


Yep and as cruel in many ways as that was they survived
they mostly survived the war, which wasnt true for millions
of those interned by the Japanese and Germans.

Its my understanding that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were targeted
because they were undamaged cities... it had nothing to do
with their military production capacity.


Your understanding is deficient

True, many wanted Tokyo on the top of the list of 7 initial targets...

Hiroshima was the HQ and base for one of the major
armies tasked with defending Japan. At least 3 divisions
were in the area when the attacked happened and the
aiming point was the HQ building. Moreover Hiroshima
was a major naval base.

Nagasaki was one of the centres of the Japanese armaments
industry with major Mitsubishi aircraft and munitions
plants which were destroyed in the attack.

The instructions issued by Harry Truman were that the
targets were to be military targets.

Keith

Note:

Nagasaki wasn't even the original target for the 2nd bomb. It was
Kokura but due to bad weather problems "Bock's Car" moved on to the
secondary target of Nagasaki.

Quite so, Kokura was also a major centre for military
production with the Kokura Arsenal being a major production
centre for weapons and munitions including chemical weapons.

The third bomb, of which components were on Tinian, lacked a plutonium
core and was stopped from recieving one (in transport) on Aug 11 by
military order. If a core had arrived, "Fat Man II" would have been
probably been dropped by the B-29 "Great Artiste" on a repeat mission
over Kokura around Aug 18-20, 1945.
So, I'd say Kokura was spared "twice". Lucky *******s.

Perhaps but Yokohama was also on the target list

The memorandum from the targetting committee and their reasons
for selection are available online at

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistle...xt/bma13tx.htm

Kyoto was removed from the list due to its cultural significance even
though it had become a major industrial centre


Keith

(robert arndt) wrote:

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ...
"old hoodoo" wrote in message
...

They were the bad guys, thats a given. That is not the issue.
The issue is, did we, the good guys, go down to the bad guys level.

Given that we didnt tie wounded POW's to trees
with barbed wire and use them for bayonent
pratctise I'd say no we didnt.

No, we just interned Japanese-Americans for years in camps behind
barbed wire at home.


You absolute imbecile...how could you possibly equate these
deeds?...certainly shows your sense of fair play doesn't it?...
--

-Gord.

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 17:04:54 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
(robert arndt) wrote:

"Keith Willshaw" wrote:

Given that we didnt tie wounded POW's to trees
with barbed wire and use them for bayonent
pratctise I'd say no we didnt.

No, we just interned Japanese-Americans for years in camps behind
barbed wire at home.

Yep. We were pretty darned nice, for the times.

As opposed to, say, the Germans and Japanese of the times, we were
practically saints.

Thanks for pointing that out for us.


To be fair, you'd have to be pretty damned awful to *not* be a saint
compared to the German's and Japanese acts of WWII.
By the standards of our own democracy, the internment was a positive
wrong for the following reasons.

1. while it was true that many Japanese were not american citizens,
this was because by law, no Asian could be naturalized in the U.S.
2. The citizens were detained with no evidence of wrong doing or
potential wrong doing, and in fact the FBI opposed the move.
3. There was no such detention in the one U.S. possession most
exposed to potential invasion.
4. There was no protection of their goods and lands from
expropriation-- most of Orange County used to be owned by Nisie
families. (and given California popular agitation against Asian land
ownership, I cannot help but think that at least some people saw this
as a very happy outcome).
and 5. At a time when the 442nd should have proven their loyalty
beyond a shadow of a doubt, they were kept in the interment
facilities.

Now, how is this different from Hiroshima? THere *were* other
options. The FBI's assuarnce that it had the situation under control
could have resulted in a more targeted sereis of internments, focusing
on those who were most likely to provide support to the Japanese
empire. Those interned could have had their property protected.

But the historian in me wishes to point out that the nation was
different at the time. We *were* a racist nation-- lynching was going
on in the south, segregation was the unchallenged law of the land in
many parts of the U.S., and the idea of racial inequality was
enshrined in many peoples mind-- hell, it took the discovery of the
deathcamps-- the natural outcome of such doctrines, to shake things
loose. In that time, bad as it was, it could have been much worse.

I do know we've gotten far, FAR better. When 9/11 hit, my first
thoughts were to bomb the SOB's who had done it. My second thoughts
were fearfully wondering if my Muslim and arab friends were going to
catch a backlash. Fortunately, for all my dislike of some of the Bush
administrations decisions, and with the misteps that ever government
makes, they came down firmly against any actions against American
Muslims/arabs as a whole, and those who decided to taket he law into
their own hands are now safe from Bin Laden, courtesy of hte Federal
and State Judiciary systems.

An intersting point from the meetings before the dropping of the bomb:

THE PRESIDENT then asked the Secretary of War for his opinion.

MR. STIMSON agreed with the Chiefs of Staff that there was no other
choice. He felt that he was personally responsible to the President
more for political than for Military considerations. It was his
opinion that there was a large submerged class in Japan who do not
favor the present war and whose full opinion and influence had never
yet been felt. He felt sure that this submerged class would fight ant
fight tenaciously if attacked on their own ground. He was concerned
that something should be done to arouse them and to develop any
possible influence they might have before it became necessary to come
to grips with them.

THE PRESIDENT stated that this possibility was being worked on all the
time. He asked if the invasion of Japan by white men would not have
the effect of more closely uniting the Japanese.

MR.STIMSON thought there was every prospect of this. He agreed with
the plan proposed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff as being the best thing
to do, but he still hoped for some fruitful accomplishment through
other means.

***

I find it interesting that there was a fear that should an invasion
occur, even those against the miltiarists might fight the U.S.

Thanks for that link, Keith--it's very interesting-- lots of stuff on
it.
The meeting was tkaen from this link:
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistle...xt/bmi11tx.htm