Re: who really started ww2 in the pacific?

mtfester@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Marlock <marlockenator@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
David H Thornley wrote:

The presence of civilians in military zones is not the problem
of the attacking forces in military law, but the problem of
the defending forces. If this were done the other way, it would
be legal to defend military targets by surrounding them with
civilians.

Nobody has atacked the US for that...

This last sentece only tells that you have been reading the army
weekly reports, and that only :) lol:) are u for real about this? :)

Yes, and I do not understand your confusion.

I think you just answered my question.


btw, hiroshima and nagasaki were cities, not military zones. what
R U talking about!!!???
basically u r proposing that most of the World is a military zone.

Tell me, which Hague Convention agreement was violated by the attacks?

I guess nobody really ever breaks international law. You are right.


But yes, military targets are perfectly valid targets, and even the
Japanese people knew this. There is a reason Japanese evacuated the major
cities if they had somewhere else to go.

but, what I am saying is that the a-bomb was no response to the
Japanese.

Then you are wrong.

If the Japanese had accepted the Potsdam Declaration, or at least opened
negotiations at the time, the bombs would not have been dropped.

Consider this. Everybody was/is saying, the bombs were/are necessary
to brake the spirit of the Japanese people.

Who stated this, please?

Well everyone is saying that were it not for the A bombs droped
twice, the Japanese people would be fighting till the bitter end.
Read the posts.


a. Most of the bigger Japanese cities were already in flames. Fog of
War documentary gives u some clear statistical data on this. I

And yet the Japanese fought on.

seriously doubt that the common folk had the gut to continue
fighting after that, even if it was the "strong" Japanese.

Then you are unaware of the Japanese at the time.

Introduce some data, I am truly curious.
I do understand the influence of bushido code, and the love for
the emperor, but Japan at the time was one big rubble already...


b. If u read notes, letters and bibliographies of the average
Japanese soldiers, u can tell that NOT ALL felt they needed to
fight to the bitter end.

I have spoken to Japanese who were alive at the time; it didn't matter
how they felt. They were going to obey orders and fight on, if those
were the orders.

note on this: but I agree with Mike and others who are saying the
it was the emperor who had the last word. I have no idea what his
toughts were before the a bombs, but I am pretty sure he was not
considering surrender.

Again, you are wrong. While he took little direct action to intervene, he
successively manuevered more dovish people into the PM role.

However, if you read the words you wrote, you are stating that Hirohito
was against surrender before the dropping of the bombs, but for surrender
afterwards. Doesn't this imply a useful role for the bombs in the ending
of the war?

Yes. This is were I agree with you and the rest. But my argument
is in favour of a different choice of a target. I am not into
arguing the usage of the bomb. It makes no sense to talk about that.


Droping a bombs on isolated areas, with minimal civilian presence
would deliver the message to the emperor.

It wasn't his decision to make.


What do you mean???? Who then offered surrender? Who decided that
the Japan will surrender?

But droping a bomb on high civilian density targets, with a
possibility of "extensive" kill would spread the message further
away... even all the way to the Potsdam, where Stalin and Truman
were sitting around an oval table.

Again, your timeline is backwards; Stalin already knew about the bombs.

Fair enough. A little demonstration won't hurt though.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Japans surrender attempts before Hiroshima?
    ... of atomic bombs by the US against Japan in WWII. ... and had in fact made repeated attempts to surrender, ... Japanese diplomatic records show no "attempt to surrender" ...
    (soc.history.war.misc)
  • Re: "The Newsroom." Why I cant take boomers seriously
    ... splitting up the spoils of war as we did. ... I think since the Japanese wouldn't have surrendered without the bomb ... America didn't have anymore bombs to drop. ... "bare the unbearable" and surrender. ...
    (rec.arts.tv)
  • Nuking to end war
    ... Japanese people would never have witnessed such a demo, ... Were the Japanese ready to surrender? ... What would have happened without the bombs? ... Would the entry of the Soviets have meant anything? ...
    (rec.boats)
  • Re: who really started ww2 in the pacific?
    ... which Hague Convention agreement was violated by the attacks? ... the Japanese people would be fighting till the bitter end. ... the bombs were not needed to "break the spirit ... was against surrender before the dropping of the bombs, ...
    (soc.history.war.world-war-ii)
  • NAGASAKI REPLIES
    ... Aaron wrote:The Japanese did not believe that their emperor was a god. ... the dropping of the bombs, the USA dropped the bombs after Japan ... >So way off and so liberals, and so much hatred against their own Country, ...
    (alt.politics.bush)