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

"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.

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.

In article ,
Charles Gray wrote:

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.

Depends on when they arrived. My wife's grandfathers were naturalized;
they arrived before the later laws that would have made it impossible.

I have friends who either spent the war at Manzanar and Tule Lake, or
their parents were interned there. The ones interned were citizens.

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

Nisei.

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.

In article ,
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.

If you think the two approaches were even very roughly comparable, you
have some serious problems.

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

As were the Canadians, around the same time, btw.

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

Thanks for pointing that out for us.

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

You neglected to mention that the internees were paid compensation and
given an apology. I don't recall that my friend Dick O'Kane got either
from the Japanese who starved and worked and beat him down to 98
pounds in one year.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

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

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 05:36:18 -0500, Cub Driver
wrote:


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

You neglected to mention that the internees were paid compensation and
given an apology. I don't recall that my friend Dick O'Kane got either
from the Japanese who starved and worked and beat him down to 98
pounds in one year.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

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

Or the Korean "comfort women", or the Korean slave workers, or the
American and British Civilians...or the literally tens of millions of
Chinese, filipino's and other's who had the misfortune to be
"liberated" by the Japanese.
Japan, with some exceptions (mostly personal, not governmental) has
a very large policy of forgetfulness with those actions...and in other
cases continues to try to justify them.
Especially egregious is the lawsuits that are dropped because you
cannot get compensation because "it was already settled" in
peacetreaties that never brought the matter up.

I believe that the internment camps were a disgrace, and an
unamerican act, especially as the 442nd was proving its loyalty in
blood.
But to imagine for the slightest moment that that injustice
compares-- can even be compared-- to the wholesale slaughter of
Germany and Japan's brutal occupations and death camps would be absurd
if it wasn't so popular a point of view.
The internment WASN'T comparable to those acts-- but it was a dark
moment in U.S. history because we are, and should be, judged to a
higher standard than the governments that only worshipped brute force.

I would also mention, that although I think the apology did come
too late, it was an act of congress, signed into law by the
president-- so it wasn't simply an apology by any single group, it was
an apology on behalf of the United States, and its' citizens, from our
elected leaders.