Presidential vapor in Hiroshima....

[whichphilosophy]

Nobody cared much about atrocities in the 19th century.

The US war of aggression ended in 1902. And of course the US held the Philippines as a colony until after the war. MacArthur's famous return was to a colony won and maintained through brutal violence where the indigenous people despised him.

And I think the people in the Philippines that were murdered and harmed by US aggression cared.

But you for some reason don't.

History has to be sanitized before getting taught.

There's a lot of debate as to how many Filipinos died but it was not a few.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine–American_War#Irreconcilables
Casualties
The total number of Filipino who died remains a matter of debate. In 1908 Manuel Arellano Remondo, in General Geography of the Philippine Islands, wrote: "The population decreased due to the wars, in the five-year period from 1895 to 1900, since, at the start of the first insurrection, the population was estimated at 9,000,000, and at present (1908), the inhabitants of the Archipelago do not exceed 8,000,000 in number."[101] However, it is not known where Remondo derived his figure for 1895, the official Spanish population estimate was less than 6 million.[102]

John M. Gates estimates that at least 15,000~20,000 Filipino soldiers were killed,[not in citation given] with up to an additional 200,000 civilian deaths, mostly from a cholera epidemic.[103] Filipino historian E. San Juan, Jr. argues that 1.4 million Filipinos died during the war and that constitutes an act of genocide on the part of the United States.[104] E. San Juan Jr's source quotes a far lower figure [102] Most sources cite a figure of 200,000 to 250,000 total Filipino civilians dead with most losses attributable to disease.[105][106][107][108][109][110][111][112] The United States Department of State states that the war "resulted in the death of over 4,200 American and over 20,000 Filipino combatants", and that "as many as 200,000 Filipino civilians died from violence, famine, and disease".[113]


American atrocities

Enraged by a guerrilla massacre of U.S. troops on the Island of Samar, General Jacob H. Smith retaliated by carrying out an indiscriminate attack upon its inhabitants.[114] His order "KILL EVERY ONE OVER TEN" became a caption in the New York Journal cartoon on May 5, 1902. The Old Glory draped an American shield on which a vulture replaced the bald eagle. The bottom caption exclaimed, "Criminals Because They Were Born Ten Years Before We Took the Philippines". Published in the New York Journal-American, May 5, 1902. Smith was eventually court-martialed by the American military and forced to retire.[114]

A newspaper depiction from 1902 of water curing by Macabebe Scouts under the United States.
American operations into the countryside often included scorched earth campaigns[88] in which entire villages were destroyed; the use of torture including the water cure;[115] and the concentration of civilians into "protected zones".[116] In November 1901, the Manila correspondent of the Philadelphia Ledger wrote: "The present war is no bloodless, opera bouffe engagement; our men have been relentless, have killed to exterminate men, women, children, prisoners and captives, active insurgents and suspected people from lads of ten up, the idea prevailing that the Filipino as such was little better than a dog..."[117]

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

But a million people died, no?

That's what the left would have you believe.

What Ev.

Most of that million was Sunni vs Shia violence by nation-backed forces but it wasn't a "war" and thus doesn't show up as war dead.

So civil wars are not included?

 

[whichphilosophy]

That's what the left would have you believe.

What Ev.

Most of that million was Sunni vs Shia violence by nation-backed forces but it wasn't a "war" and thus doesn't show up as war dead.

So civil wars are not included?

A million dead through conflict can't just be a local neighbourhood dispute. A lot less die in recorded wars. Sounds like the figures cannot be trusted.

 

[Will Wiley]

The President just made another of his vaprous bullshit speeches in Hiroshima.

From about the 1.10 minute mark is worth watching.
[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahEdcuxlN1o[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Tristan Scott]

Correct because the Japanese wanted to end the war and their approach was just the same as any losing force. Semantics and word play in themselves do not alter this. A thousand or thereabouts executed shows the farce in the whole affair where the ring leaders got away scot free along with most others. Not much for an international effort to bring justice for the Japanese host of war crimes.

The ring leaders? Most of the ring leaders committed suicide after the surrender, and the Bix comments you cited refer to the Emperor, and if you had actually read Bix's book on Hirohito you would know that his complicity and that of his family's were not known until after Hirohito's death. Did some get away, sure, but as your cited article in Wiki points out Yamashita didn't, and his execution was considered by many to be unfair because he did not condone the horrible treatment of POWs and civilians by his subordinates. You have a very superficial understanding of the Japanese military during WWII. Junior officers took a lot upon themselves and didn't always act as their superiors ordered them to. Many superior officers were assassinated if their behavior didn't meet the bushido standards of their junior officers.

You keep saying the Japanese were trying to surrender. It is you that is playing with words. Some Japanese were trying to surrender, but the Japanese government was not trying to surrender. That is a fact.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

While an earlier peace treaty would have saved lives there's no reason to think it could have happened. Until we showed it wouldn't work Japan was still going for a negotiated end of the war, not a surrender.

As for the site retransmitting--irrelevant. Repeating crackpottery is no more trustworthy than originating crackpottery.

We did give Japan what it wanted. It retained its emperor and then most war criminals walked. All media reports are retransmitted to all types of media. I don't think Eisenhower and other leaders were crackpots in saying what they said.

There is every reason an earlier peace treaty could have taken place or the Japanese wouldn't have bothered. The Russians were not interested because secretly they were going to invade Manchuria. What we hear from the US is simply a media spin from the 1940s which is now a bit worn.

The warmongers were no longer in charge of Japan. That's the big difference between what happened and what you're talking about.

- - - Updated - - -

That's what the left would have you believe.

What Ev.

Most of that million was Sunni vs Shia violence by nation-backed forces but it wasn't a "war" and thus doesn't show up as war dead.

So civil wars are not included?

Because it was never considered a war. It was terrorism from both sides.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

We did give Japan what it wanted. It retained its emperor and then most war criminals walked. All media reports are retransmitted to all types of media. I don't think Eisenhower and other leaders were crackpots in saying what they said.

There is every reason an earlier peace treaty could have taken place or the Japanese wouldn't have bothered. The Russians were not interested because secretly they were going to invade Manchuria. What we hear from the US is simply a media spin from the 1940s which is now a bit worn.

The warmongers were no longer in charge of Japan. That's the big difference between what happened and what you're talking about.

- - - Updated - - -

That's what the left would have you believe.

What Ev.

Most of that million was Sunni vs Shia violence by nation-backed forces but it wasn't a "war" and thus doesn't show up as war dead.

So civil wars are not included?

Because it was never considered a war. It was terrorism from both sides.

Do you have evidence of your assertions?

 

[whichphilosophy]

Correct because the Japanese wanted to end the war and their approach was just the same as any losing force. Semantics and word play in themselves do not alter this. A thousand or thereabouts executed shows the farce in the whole affair where the ring leaders got away scot free along with most others. Not much for an international effort to bring justice for the Japanese host of war crimes.

The ring leaders? Most of the ring leaders committed suicide after the surrender, and the Bix comments you cited refer to the Emperor, and if you had actually read Bix's book on Hirohito you would know that his complicity and that of his family's were not known until after Hirohito's death. Did some get away, sure, but as your cited article in Wiki points out Yamashita didn't, and his execution was considered by many to be unfair because he did not condone the horrible treatment of POWs and civilians by his subordinates. You have a very superficial understanding of the Japanese military during WWII. Junior officers took a lot upon themselves and didn't always act as their superiors ordered them to. Many superior officers were assassinated if their behavior didn't meet the bushido standards of their junior officers.

You keep saying the Japanese were trying to surrender. It is you that is playing with words. Some Japanese were trying to surrender, but the Japanese government was not trying to surrender. That is a fact.

Of course some Japanese didn't want to surrender and there was a short lived attempted military coup on 14 and 15 August 1945. The Japanese military code forbid surrender and some were bound to rebel or disobey orders. The prevailing argument is that the Emperor himself had ordered it so that should be obeyed. Nonetheless, this is irrelevant to the fact that peace talks could have been held months earlier and saves hundreds of thousands of lives. The peace feelers in Switzerland and to Russia were not done just for fun or as a hoax.

 

[whichphilosophy]

We did give Japan what it wanted. It retained its emperor and then most war criminals walked. All media reports are retransmitted to all types of media. I don't think Eisenhower and other leaders were crackpots in saying what they said.

There is every reason an earlier peace treaty could have taken place or the Japanese wouldn't have bothered. The Russians were not interested because secretly they were going to invade Manchuria. What we hear from the US is simply a media spin from the 1940s which is now a bit worn.

The warmongers were no longer in charge of Japan. That's the big difference between what happened and what you're talking about.

- - - Updated - - -

That's what the left would have you believe.

What Ev.

Most of that million was Sunni vs Shia violence by nation-backed forces but it wasn't a "war" and thus doesn't show up as war dead.

So civil wars are not included?

Because it was never considered a war. It was terrorism from both sides.

Re Japan, the Warmonger himself Hirohito was no longer a warmonger. It's a bit like leaving Hitler in power if he had not committed suicide. So much for the mass killings to achieve an unconditional surrender which was in fact far from that. What a farce.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Re Japan, the Warmonger himself Hirohito was no longer a warmonger. It's a bit like leaving Hitler in power if he had not committed suicide. So much for the mass killings to achieve an unconditional surrender which was in fact far from that. What a farce.

We left Hirohito, we didn't leave the whole military structure that controlled their society.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Re Japan, the Warmonger himself Hirohito was no longer a warmonger. It's a bit like leaving Hitler in power if he had not committed suicide. So much for the mass killings to achieve an unconditional surrender which was in fact far from that. What a farce.

We left Hirohito, we didn't leave the whole military structure that controlled their society.

Since the peace proposals several months earlier included Hirohito, talks could have been conducted months earlier to avoid allied deaths prior to the A Bomb.
There are always differences when people meet to discuss peace, hence peace talks.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We left Hirohito, we didn't leave the whole military structure that controlled their society.

Since the peace proposals several months earlier included Hirohito, talks could have been conducted months earlier to avoid allied deaths prior to the A Bomb.
There are always differences when people meet to discuss peace, hence peace talks.

You still don't get it--they weren't ready to give up control of Japan.

 

[arkirk]

Since the peace proposals several months earlier included Hirohito, talks could have been conducted months earlier to avoid allied deaths prior to the A Bomb.
There are always differences when people meet to discuss peace, hence peace talks.

You still don't get it--they weren't ready to give up control of Japan.

Oh, all seeing Loren, you seem to need to keep chiming in on this issue with a negativity that to say the least is suspiciously self serving. I have a friend who suffers from chronic depression. She is like you...always saying negative things about what might be going on in other peoples' minds. The world has never needed an atom bomb and today it doesn't need more hydrogen bombs or childish leaders recommending the destruction of human beings. You really ought to adopt a more mature and responsible attitude toward the problems of the world. Your solutions are always so draconian. Try to think something positive about the people in this world. Start out with say the Russians and then when you get more tolerant, you can try a few good thoughts about the Palestinians. You just seem set on locking us in perpetual conflict and then denying any hope we might have for a nonviolent solution. Do you sell weapons for a living?

 

[whichphilosophy]

You still don't get it--they weren't ready to give up control of Japan.

Oh, all seeing Loren, you seem to need to keep chiming in on this issue with a negativity that to say the least is suspiciously self serving. I have a friend who suffers from chronic depression. She is like you...always saying negative things about what might be going on in other peoples' minds. The world has never needed an atom bomb and today it doesn't need more hydrogen bombs or childish leaders recommending the destruction of human beings. You really ought to adopt a more mature and responsible attitude toward the problems of the world. Your solutions are always so draconian. Try to think something positive about the people in this world. Start out with say the Russians and then when you get more tolerant, you can try a few good thoughts about the Palestinians. You just seem set on locking us in perpetual conflict and then denying any hope we might have for a nonviolent solution. Do you sell weapons for a living?

Many in the US (Per quotes which have been referenced on this thread) knew the actions of the US were wrong. Fortunately the US did not adopt the attitude of using an atomic bomb just because the peace proposals were not to its liking. For Loren's purpose such points could have been discussed of course in peace talks.

 

[Tristan Scott]

The ring leaders? Most of the ring leaders committed suicide after the surrender, and the Bix comments you cited refer to the Emperor, and if you had actually read Bix's book on Hirohito you would know that his complicity and that of his family's were not known until after Hirohito's death. Did some get away, sure, but as your cited article in Wiki points out Yamashita didn't, and his execution was considered by many to be unfair because he did not condone the horrible treatment of POWs and civilians by his subordinates. You have a very superficial understanding of the Japanese military during WWII. Junior officers took a lot upon themselves and didn't always act as their superiors ordered them to. Many superior officers were assassinated if their behavior didn't meet the bushido standards of their junior officers.

You keep saying the Japanese were trying to surrender. It is you that is playing with words. Some Japanese were trying to surrender, but the Japanese government was not trying to surrender. That is a fact.

Of course some Japanese didn't want to surrender and there was a short lived attempted military coup on 14 and 15 August 1945. The Japanese military code forbid surrender and some were bound to rebel or disobey orders. The prevailing argument is that the Emperor himself had ordered it so that should be obeyed. Nonetheless, this is irrelevant to the fact that peace talks could have been held months earlier and saves hundreds of thousands of lives. The peace feelers in Switzerland and to Russia were not done just for fun or as a hoax.

Peace feelers were authorized but there was no intention of surrendering. The Japanese wanted conditions that the allies were not going to give them. You are either being dishonest by not acknowledging that or you truly don't know what you are talking about. When you keep repeating things that aren't true, that are purposely misleading it makes having a discussion on a subject impossible.

 

[arkirk]

Hope you're comfy.
Maybe have a Snickers bar?

I already got my answer, and it was as expected.


Seems to me I remember a time on this board when you couldn't respond to a valid argument with "fuck off."


Oh well. Times change.

It was more than 55 years ago when I was in High School that my history teacher explained the situation that led to the war thus:

Japan was building a trading empire in the Pacific. The U.S. in fact was playing Monopoly with them for fueling stations in the Pacific and that is why there was so much heavy hardware stationed in Hawaii. (A large number of Battleships and Destroyers and Frigates). The aircraft carriers were at sea...in the Pacific. They U.S. forces were already pre-positioned for the start of the war. The issue was who would control the Pacific. At the time, where the U.S. controlled, the Japanese were not welcome. Japan and the U.S. were already headed for a collision. The Japanese just struck first. There had not been open hostilities, but there was a trade situation that would not accommodate BOTH OF THE IMPERIAL POWERS in the same turf. The reason Pearl Harbor was so loaded with warships to sink was not that the U.S. was worried about war with New Zealand or Borneo. All this was clearly explained in my history class in the 10th grade. (1959) Clearly Pearl Harbor was a sucker punch, but the ships were there to intimidate the Japanese and assert American power in that ocean.

In short, the Americans were not all that innocent in the Pacific or in fact even at home. Talk to the native Americans about that. World domination and hegemony has long been a white man's game and was practiced by the U.S. in the new world and in the Pacific, thanks to men like Teddy Roosevelt. This idea that the Japanese pulled a raid on a bunch of civilians in Hawaii is ridiculous. The U.S. in the not too distant past had taken Hawaii away from the Hawaiians and much of U.S. development in the Pacific was similar in military character to that of the Japanese. The U.S. did get caught flat footed and overextended in the Pacific and had to roar into production of war materials but they were not defenseless at the start of the war.

All of that notwithstanding, I accept that the U.S. was in a hot war with Japanese at the time the bombs were completed, though the Japanese were losing at an increasing rate at that time. A grown up person knows that wars are started by warmongers and we have seen enough of American warmongery to know our leadership is never really innocent...nor is the other side in most cases. The Gulf of Tonkin resolution....so much smoke and mirrors. 911 etc. etc. etc.
We have been as bad as anybody else in these wars of aggression. Wars of aggression based on lies according to those at Nuremburg were war crimes...oh but not our crimes...just the other guys.

The truth is that Obama could have opened a new book on Japanese-American Relations. His speech was vapor and not suggestive of our countries coming to some kind of understanding that nuclear weapons are not acceptable...not even if it is for the purpose of just threatening civilian populations in countries whose thug leadership opposes our thug leadership. Some people become so enamored of weaponry and vicious competition they keep this stuff going...often to feed an industry they have invested in. Our society cannot afford this. There is only so much air and water and soil on the planet to keep us alive and we cannot pollute it all for the sake of war mongering. Capitalists say there is only so much money and it all ought to be theirs. Warmongers say forget about the finite nature of our environment and let us spend trillions of dollars on nuclear bombs and plant. This is just plain insanity.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Peace feelers were authorized but there was no intention of surrendering. The Japanese wanted conditions that the allies were not going to give them. You are either being dishonest by not acknowledging that or you truly don't know what you are talking about. When you keep repeating things that aren't true, that are purposely misleading it makes having a discussion on a subject impossible.

He's repeating the revisionist crap because he doesn't want to accept that the bomb was the right answer.

 

[arkirk]

Peace feelers were authorized but there was no intention of surrendering. The Japanese wanted conditions that the allies were not going to give them. You are either being dishonest by not acknowledging that or you truly don't know what you are talking about. When you keep repeating things that aren't true, that are purposely misleading it makes having a discussion on a subject impossible.

He's repeating the revisionist crap because he doesn't want to accept that the bomb was the right answer.

Loren: Bombing civilians is NEVER THE RIGHT ANSWER. When it happens to us, we call it TERRORISM.

 

[Tristan Scott]

He's repeating the revisionist crap because he doesn't want to accept that the bomb was the right answer.

Loren: Bombing civilians is NEVER THE RIGHT ANSWER. When it happens to us, we call it TERRORISM.

It was the only answer. There is no right or wrong in all out war. Of course strategic bombing is terrorism. There is no other reason for it, you are trying to force the country you are fighting to quit fighting. Both Hitler and the Japanese military had ordered their people to fight to the last person. When this situation is confronted one must bypass the leader and convince the populace. Unless you want to fight them to the last person.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

He's repeating the revisionist crap because he doesn't want to accept that the bomb was the right answer.

Loren: Bombing civilians is NEVER THE RIGHT ANSWER. When it happens to us, we call it TERRORISM.

Then I take it you would prefer to live under ISIS than the American system.

Oops, ISIS is quite happy to bomb civilians.