76 years since greatest terror act in history - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15184326
Saying that all sides did bad things does not mean they are morally equivalent unless you are saying that all the crimes are equal to each other. Is that what you're saying @Politics_Observer? Do you think the treatment of German POWs and the violence perpetrated by Soviet soldiers against German civilians is equivalent to the Holocaust? That's what it sounds like you're saying and if so it's you who is ignorant.
#15184379
@Red_Army

Red_Army wrote:Saying that all sides did bad things does not mean they are morally equivalent unless you are saying that all the crimes are equal to each other. Is that what you're saying @Politics_Observer? Do you think the treatment of German POWs and the violence perpetrated by Soviet soldiers against German civilians is equivalent to the Holocaust? That's what it sounds like you're saying and if so it's you who is ignorant.


I think all prisoners of war should be treated humanly no matter how evil a regime they had to or willing to fight for. This includes Soviet soldiers who were POWs and German soldiers who were POWs. Of course, even the U.S. didn't always treat German POWs very well either and to get around the Geneva conventions, they called them "disarmed enemy forces." They weren't POWs but "disarmed enemy forces."

That meant if they were "disarmed" they were no longer POWs and didn't fall under the Geneva conventions. We all know that's bullshit though. And of course, not very many Japanese soldiers were taken alive as prisoners in the war in the Pacific (let's not forget their was some serious fighting in the Pacific too during World War II and that Europe wasn't the only theater of combat) given they viewed the idea of surrender as "dishonorable." Personally, I think all violence is bad and wrong quite frankly speaking and there are better ways to solve problems rather than the use of violence.

Moreover, Stalin's regime killed quite few people themselves just like Hitler's regime so I really don't consider Stalin and Hitler and their regimes that much different from each other given the number of their own people they killed and starved and the level of state repression. Both regimes were pretty darn evil. But I am not into the game of saying some people or regimes are more moral than others given that plenty of blame can go around to everybody. We like to think we are better than others but in most cases, our shit stinks just like everybody else's.
#15184432
Rakshasa wrote:Translation: ru-en
Telegram channel "Sons of Monarchy" @SonOfMonarchy specially for @rt_russian

In the 21st century, the West is trying to convince us that our grandfathers, who defeated German Nazism and Japanese militarism, are the same war criminals as the Nazis.

And you know, war criminals were indeed among the victors in World War II ...

Only these were not Russians, but Americans.

On August 6 and 9, 1945, they dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, cities of almost defeated and ready to surrender Japan.

What moved the pitiful mind of the Gopnik Truman, who accidentally became president of the United States because of the death of Roosevelt?

Wanting to scare the USSR on the eve of the impending cold war? Write your name in history in such a pathetic way? Test weapons of unprecedented power at any cost?

Perhaps all together.

But the fact remains: the main culprits of the Second World War were the German Nazis and Hitler, but one of the main war crimes, comparable to the Holocaust or genocide of the Slavic population of the USSR, was committed by the Americans, with the support of the British, who unleashed a fiery nuclear tornado on Japan.

Unlike the Nazi bosses, they were victorious and escaped the dock. But isn't it time to condemn them today, in the 21st century?

Listen to the executioners themselves - there is not a bit of remorse in their words!

Truman to Enola Gay Commander Paul Tibbets: “Never feel guilty. This is my decision. You are a soldier and you had no choice. This is the greatest thing in history! "

“I was the one who had to decide where and when the atomic bomb should be used. Let people not be deceived: I have always considered this bomb to be a military weapon, and I never doubted that it was my duty to use it. When I consulted with Churchill, he said without hesitation that he was in favor of using the atomic bomb if it could hasten the end of the war. "

Robert Oppenheimer told the president that after the barbaric bombing of Japanese cities, he and his colleagues felt "blood on their hands," to which Truman replied: "Nothing, it is easily washed off with water."

Before the flight, Pernell turned to the pilot Sweeney (the commander of the plane that dropped the atomic bomb on Nagasaki):

“Young man, do you know how much this bomb is worth?

- I know: about $ 25 million.

- So, try not to waste this money.

“One bomb or thousands of bombs. Who cares?" (Van Kirk, co-driver of Enola Gay)

However, there was also one worthy person.

Chief of Staff of the US President Admiral William Lehey: “In my opinion, the use of these barbaric weapons in Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not provide significant assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. Personally, I believe that by applying it first, we thereby adopted the ethical standard characteristic of the barbarians of the Middle Ages. I was not taught to wage war in this way, and a war cannot be won by destroying women and children. "

So, I will repeat my question.

Isn't it time today to try Americans for this war crime against Japan and humanity?‌‌


Sir, I think you must be ignorant.
According to my reading of the history of how Japan surrendered, the Army tried to arrest the Emperor for his own protestion to stop the surrender.
If this is true, then Japan was not ready to surrender, even after the A-bombing. Just counting possible Japanese killed, an Allied invasion would have killed at least 5 times more Japanese than the A-bombs did, even including the rediation deaths. The IJA intended to send teenage girls into banzai charges armed with spears. The IJA leaders intended to take actions that would kill many Japanese while still losing the war, because they could not allow the nation to surrender. They didn't even kill themselves to avoid personally surrendering. IMHO, the A-bombing was totally their fault. Pres. Truman could have sent the same message to Stalin by droping a bomb on a mountain top after giving fair warning so they could be sure to see it.

Of course, John Tolland may be lying. But, his Japanese wife helped him do the research. So, she lied too.

I agree with the many who have said on the 1st page here that WWII was a dirty war. War crimes by the authorities included hearding civilians into camps and killing them, the bombing of cities, and subs sinking merchentmen without warning, etc.
.
#15184435
Steve_American wrote:Sir, I think you must be ignorant.
According to my reading of the history of how Japan surrendered, the Army tried to arrest the Emperor for his own protestion to stop the surrender.
If this is true, then Japan was not ready to surrender, even after the A-bombing. Just counting possible Japanese killed, an Allied invasion would have killed at least 5 times more Japanese than the A-bombs did, even including the rediation deaths. The IJA intended to send teenage girls into banzai charges armed with spears. The IJA leaders intended to take actions that would kill many Japanese while still losing the war, because they could not allow the nation to surrender. They didn't even kill themselves to avoid personally surrendering. IMHO, the A-bombing was totally their fault. Pres. Truman could have sent the same message to Stalin by droping a bomb on a mountain top after giving fair warning so they could be sure to see it.

Of course, John Tolland may be lying. But, his Japanese wife helped him do the research. So, she lied too.

I agree with the many who have said on the 1st page here that WWII was a dirty war. War crimes by the authorities included hearding civilians into camps and killing them, the bombing of cities, and subs sinking merchentmen without warning, etc.
.


@Steve_American , I know what both you and @Rakshasa are saying, and you Steve make a good point. The Japanese were planning on continuation of resistance.

However, there is a deep silence regarding the Soviet victory in the Far East over Imperial Japan,the total defeat of the 2 million strong Japanese Kwantung Army by the Red Army. It is this crushing defeat in Manchuria by Russian forces, not so much the Atomic weapons, which withered the Imperial Japanese desire to fight on.
#15184438
annatar1914 wrote:@Steve_American , I know what both you and @Rakshasa are saying, and you Steve make a good point. The Japanese were planning on continuation of resistance.

However, there is a deep silence regarding the Soviet victory in the Far East over Imperial Japan,the total defeat of the 2 million strong Japanese Kwantung Army by the Red Army. It is this crushing defeat in Manchuria by Russian forces, not so much the Atomic weapons, which withered the Imperial Japanese desire to fight on.


So, as I read the above, you assert that the Soviet invasion would have started before winter made it more difficult, and that this alone would have convinced the IJA leadership to let the nation surrender.
However, we need tocount/estimate the number of Lapanese who would have died beteen Early Sept, '45 and whenever Japan did surrender. I hove no estimaye of these deaths, but if the US kept fire bombing cities it would have been many, to which we need to add deaths by starvation over these several months.
.
#15184444
Steve_American wrote:So, as I read the above, you assert that the Soviet invasion would have started before winter made it more difficult, and that this alone would have convinced the IJA leadership to let the nation surrender.
However, we need tocount/estimate the number of Lapanese who would have died beteen Early Sept, '45 and whenever Japan did surrender. I hove no estimaye of these deaths, but if the US kept fire bombing cities it would have been many, to which we need to add deaths by starvation over these several months.
.


@Steve_American , what I am saying is that the crushing of their Army in China by the Red Army (the whole reason for Japan's war in the first place was China!) was a greater motivator for Japanese surrender than the Atomic weapons-although they should not be exclusive to each other.
#15184452
annatar1914 wrote:@Steve_American , what I am saying is that the crushing of their Army in China by the Red Army (the whole reason for Japan's war in the first place was China!) was a greater motivator for Japanese surrender than the Atomic weapons-although they should not be exclusive to each other.


If I understand you correctly (IIUYC), you are saying both were NECESSARY to convince enough of the IJA leaders to let the nation surrender, even though some of its leaders still tried to block the surrender.
.
#15184455
Steve_American wrote:If I understand you correctly (IIUYC), you are saying both were NECESSARY to convince enough of the IJA leaders to let the nation surrender, even though some of its leaders still tried to block the surrender.
.


@Steve_American ;

I wouldn't go so far as to say ''necessary'', but the Japanese had to make a choice; surrender to one enemy (America) who might help preserve something of their system in their occupation, or face two enemies, one of which would not be inclined to preserve anything of the Japanese system at all.
#15184465
I think that what @Steve_American is saying is that it seemed necessary, at the time.

After the land war in Okinawa, an invasion of Japan, with 5 million soldiers on the island, seemed like the worst option imaginable.

People forget that the bombing of Tokyo in March, 1945, killed more people than both atomic bombs, combined.
#15184801
Politics_Observer wrote:@Juin





Politics_Observer <<I am descended of a Confederate ancestor who was a POW at Camp Douglas. My family has his pension records. He survived the war. Personally, I hold no ill will towards Sherman but I did not live during those times either. Sherman was doing his job. My family believes that my Confederate ancestor did not volunteer to fight but was actually conscripted to fight by the Confederate government at the time. He was conscripted in 1863 as the Union army moved on his home county.

He fought in several engagements around or close by Atlanta (I can't say for sure on Altanta) and in Nashville, Tennessee (he was definately in Nashville fighting and had participated in several engagements prior to being captured close by Nashville) where he was captured by Union forces. We think he was likely captured at the Battle of Shy's Hill. Another person who has ancestors that lived during the American Civil War talked about how the Union army stole all their lifestock and put their farm out of business and that the family almost starved to death. His direct descendant became angry and took revenge on Union soldiers and the Union soldiers eventually hunted him down and hung him. This particular person told me his ancestor rode with Confederate guerrillas after losing his farm to Union forces. So, it was a mess.<<



Politics_Observer,

Sorry, it took me a while to respond. It was very profound what you wrote. It did not merit a casual response. And it was cause for some reflection on my part.

As to whether your ancestor was a conscript or volunteer. If he was born in the South, I expect him to serve the Southern cause. Except for a very negligile fraction, by and large young men of military age, not the much older ones who make policy, have always fought the wars. And the duty to serve is almost never conditioned upon whether the young man being called to arms agrees with the cause. It is my estimation that if a white man was a resident of the South then his duty was to take up arms with the Southern cause. As equally, the white man born in the North's duty was to take up arms with the North. I see evidence that because Billy Yank wore the blue perforce he was more sympathetic to the plight of blacks than gray clad Johnny Reb.

My suspicion, Politics_Observer, is that there are more like you in your family going back up the tree to your ancestors: decent, anti slavery, upright to the highest degree. And even you, Politics_Observer, if you were born say in 1940, instead of today, you will be the same shining example of a human being. Yet, I expect you to have taken up arms for your State when it was under attack. I wont consider you less of a decent man for for taking up arms for the Confederate cause, given that, for better or for worse, that was the cause you State had taken up.

I will give you another example. And keep in mind I am Roman Catholic. Pope Benedict XVI, before he was Pope, and as the kid Joseph Ratzinger, was in Hitler Youth and did a stint in a flak unit. Some, for that stint in Hitler Youth and in a flak unit, would place Benedict alongside Goebbels in the dock. I do not. As to serving in a flak unit, I expect him, like all German youth, to answer the call to arms. I dont believe he had a choice in the matter anymore than his American age mate answering the call to arms for America. The Hitler Youth thing was different, but it was nevertheless compulsory.

By now you can guess I am a far cry for those contemporary of ours, who go back a century and a half to pass judgements on warriors of another era. It is just plain silly.

Or another food for thought. Given the vehemence which you habour for Donald Trump; and many aside from you do, and some easily see in him Hitler inclinations. Ok. A question to you: if you were still serving in the US Army with Trump as commander in chief, would you have quit the Army and joined some foreign Army to fight against the US, so as to rid it of Trump? Should all soldiers who served in the Army while Trump was President be stripped of medals, purple hearts, and their graves desecrated?

As humans we are hostages to our circumstances. It just happens that the Southern economy depended on slavery directly, while that of the North did not. Some Northerners hated slavery as a concept, fought against it, but also despised the black man as a human. There were riots in northern cities like New York over blacks competing for jobs.

The devil is always in the details.

I also happen to be into the Civil War. I always liked to ponder over which of the Generals I would consider the greatest General. For a long time I leaned towards Grant. But then for much of my life I mostly was interested in the Union. But then, much later, I started looking at their performances with much less bias. Then my vote shifted from Grant to Lee. Lee was like a quarterback with a bag full of tricks. He always led his army into the field against greater odds. And pulled it off a few times. But tricks can only carry you so far.
#15184803
@Juin

I am not judging my ancestor for taking up arms for the Confederate Army. I didn't live back then. It's easy to judge from afar. The Union army was moving in on his home county when he was most likely conscripted in 1863. So, for some southerners, I can see where they would be fighting for their home more than any sort of political cause. Most soldiers fight for their home, country and fellow comrades. Not for a political cause. For me, 9/11 was an attack on our home and our country and we had to defend it. No place is perfect, but home is home and you have to defend and protect it.
#15184809
@Juin

Like you know, in most cases, soldiers don't always get to choose which side they fight for. Like you know the Japanese and German soldiers in World War II really didn't get to choose which side they fought for, for example. And no side is perfect. People just kinda end up fighting for their home and country whether the regime that rules or governs their country is bad or good. It's not about politics so much as it is about your country and your home.
#15184811
Politics_Observer wrote:@Juin

I am not judging my ancestor for taking up arms for the Confederate Army. I didn't live back then. It's easy to judge from afar. The Union army was moving in on his home county when he was most likely conscripted in 1863. So, for some southerners, I can see where they would be fighting for their home more than any sort of political cause. Most soldiers fight for their home, country and fellow comrades. Not for a political cause. For me, 9/11 was an attack on our home and our country and we had to defend it. No place is perfect, but home is home and you have to defend and protect it.




It was not so much you I had in mind. While you may not judge your ancestor for taking up arms for the Confederate Army, yet, we are living in a time when, if some have their way, all Confederate graves would be bulldozed over. Anyways it was your choice to share about your ancestor. I also hate the Confederacy with no less passion. The easier thing, and may be more rewarding thing to do is demonise every single Confederate to the last one. I hate to kick a dead man, but I have no doubt some of your liberal pals in the forum can do a number on dead Confederates :lol:
#15184813
Politics_Observer wrote:@Juin

Like you know, in most cases, soldiers don't always get to choose which side they fight for. Like you know the Japanese and German soldiers in World War II really didn't get to choose which side they fought for, for example. And no side is perfect. People just kinda end up fighting for their home and country whether the regime that rules or governs their country is bad or good. It's not about politics so much as it is about your country and your home.



Unfortunately, that is the long and short of it. I cannot agree with you more.
#15184815
@Juin @Politics_Observer

As information becomes more readily available, I think it is necessary to judge who is the real defender of your home before you decide to fight or not.

For one, I am not really convinced of the "taking up arms for your government / country as a means to defend your home" shit. If I am forced to fight for the country I am in, I might as well consider desertion, surrender or even suicide at the first available chance.
#15184816
@Juin

Well, my fellow liberals should remember that racism and white supremacy is not just in the south, but all over the U.S. Racism is pretty much anywhere you go. The Civil War was about money and preserving slavery for the south. But, you know to say that a white southern man could have easily just up roots, abandoned his friends and community that he grew up in all his life and just up and move to the North with his family and then join the Union army and turn his guns on his fellow family members who remained down south (and brother did fight brother too though, in particularly, in the border states) and community he grew up in like it's nothing is an overly simplistic view. Not all soldiers who fight for an evil regime or government are necessarily evil people. Some of them are there for a multitude of reasons, some of which could be simply to defend their home and family from a foreign invader that is destroying farms and livestock his family depends on (which this was a war strategy that was used by the Union army and was a very effective strategy). Wars are messy like that.
Last edited by Politics_Observer on 11 Aug 2021 02:45, edited 3 times in total.
#15184817
Godstud wrote:I think that what @Steve_American is saying is that it seemed necessary, at the time.

After the land war in Okinawa, an invasion of Japan, with 5 million soldiers on the island, seemed like the worst option imaginable.

People forget that the bombing of Tokyo in March, 1945, killed more people than both atomic bombs, combined.




The amount of Japanese civilians that would have died from an invasion would have made the death toll from the atomic bombs look like small change
#15184818
@Patrickov

Every situation is different and not the same. In my situation I was very proud to serve my country in the army and have no regrets at all. It was rough man, but I would do it again if I had a young body and was much younger. I learned a lot from the army. But the U.S. is not in the same situation as Hong Kong either so I can understand your feelings.
#15184819
Politics_Observer wrote:@Juin

Well, my fellow liberals should remember that racism and white supremacy is not just in the south, but all over the U.S. Racism is pretty much anywhere you go. The Civil War was about money and preserving slavery for the south. But, you know to say that a white southern man could have easily just up roots, abandoned his friends and community that he grew up in all his life and just up and move to the North his family and then join the Union army and turn his guns on his fellow family members who remained down south (and brother did fight brother too though, in particularly, in the border states) and community he grew up in like it's nothing is an overly simplistic view. Not all soldiers who fight for an evil regime or government are necessarily evil people. Some of them are there for a multitude of reasons, some of which could be simply to defend their home and family from a foreign invader that is destroying farms and livestock his family depends on. Wars are messy like that.




Again, I cannot agree with you more. And dont forget that there is never the same clarity at the time of the crisis as is the case afterwards. Dont forget that Lincoln at the beginning emphasised that he was only fighting to preserve the Union; that abolition was not the goal; promised border States who stayed in the Union that their slaves will not be taken from them..... What is a 17 year old Southern kid supposed to make of that at the time? That he should go join the Union? But the Union was at the time screaming to who will listen that it would not tamper with the institution of slavery!
#15184820
Patrickov wrote:@Juin @Politics_Observer

As information becomes more readily available, I think it is necessary to judge who is the real defender of your home before you decide to fight or not.

For one, I am not really convinced of the "taking up arms for your government / country as a means to defend your home" shit. If I am forced to fight for the country I am in, I might as well consider desertion, surrender or even suicide at the first available chance.




Except that information is, except in very rare cases, never available before the start of hostilities.

"Truth" is a very rare commodity in times of crisis. And even long after a war is over, what goes down as history is usually not so much the Truth as the victor's rendition of things.

Lets take a young Russian conscript into the Soviet Army in WWII. Should he have refused to fight for Stalin?

Moving the goalposts won't change the facts on th[…]

There were formidable defense lines in the Donbas[…]

World War II Day by Day

March 28, Thursday No separate peace deal with G[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Meanwhile, your opponents argue that everyone e[…]