Edited by MrBrisbane: 17/3/2016 08:39:31 PM

Edited by MrBrisbane: 17/3/2016 08:39:37 PM

[youtube]Urtiyp-G6jY[/youtube]

Heading down to the march soon. 50k+ expected to line the Strand here in Townsville.

-PB

Edited by MrBrisbane: 17/3/2016 08:39:43 PM

Was a nice dawn service. We will remember them.

quiet one at home. my respects to you for national service.

disgusting really.

Edited by MrBrisbane: 17/3/2016 08:39:59 PM

Edited by MrBrisbane: 17/3/2016 08:40:12 PM

Public holiday in some places on monday

Not here though \:d/

Shop opening and closing hours are varied too, shops arent open until 1pm here today, while its all closed to the Villagers of Perth :-#

working all day, surprised its been moderately busy so far

What the fuck.

Useless cunts.

Thought all shit had to be shut by then?

-PB

Good, fucking idiots.

On a local note, was good to see the massive crowds out today to see all our past and present service men and women.

Very proud today of my city and its people.

-PB

Massive crowds at local RSL clubs across sydney for dawn services. Thousands of people rocked up in Coogee, Bondi, Rooty Hill and other locations.

I took my family to the Victoria St Barracks Dawn Service in Paddington.
Being 100 yrs never to happen again for us - I was proud and sad but what a experience for my wife and 3 kids.
RIP, Lest We Forget !

Australia is still sending troops to their deaths in Afghanistan and now Iraq

it happens again and again

Australia is a war nation just like the USA

look at all the ads running recruitment drives in the breaks of all this weekend's sport

Scott McIntyre SBS football reporter went nuts on Twitter calling the Anzacs rapists and murderers. I guess some people just can't help themselves to be iconoclasts and take sick pleasure in hating on their country and those who fought to defend it.

The ANZACS and their involvement in WW1 had nothing to do with defending Australia.

That doesn't make them rapists and murderers though. If you don't think highly of those who took bullets and shed blood for their country you don't have to rain on the parade of those who do. Of course Scott McIntyre just wanted see his name in the headlines, and shitting on the Anzacs was the best thing he could think of to acheive.

What a goose.

Herald Sun having a field day.

True, WWI was awful for all concerned. That said, we don't do ANZAC Day for the sake of the geopolitics of 1915.

Edited by paladisious: 26/4/2015 03:57:26 AM

I saw Scott's tweets as they happened and was pretty disgusted with what he said. This prompted me to do a little research on some of the war crimes and I have to say I've learned a lot of nasty stuff that isnt taught back home. Anzac soldiers engaged in executing prisoners on a frightening scale, kidnappings, rape, gang rape, child rape & killing babies.

His views are twisted and gross generalisations in part but there is sadly a basis of truth to them.

My grandfather told me the most important thing about remembering is not to forget the pain and suffering and insure people never have to be put through it again.

I guess some only have the stomach for remembering certain parts of history.

Edited by fourfiveone: 26/4/2015 04:37:54 AM

It's almost like war is bad or something. Thank you Scott McIntyre for being the first person to notice this.

Edited by paladisious: 26/4/2015 05:18:41 AM

No shit Sherlock.

The point I'm trying to make is while disrespectful I learned something from it so it makes the whole twisted excercise at least somewhat worthwhile.

Try looking at something from different angles rather than just jumping on the news corp outrage train to shittown.

rc, my "never to happen again for us" was that I'll doubt I'll attend with my family the 200yr ceremonies :(

its clear now....

mumbruz is Scott Mcyntire...case closed


:lol:

in WW2 and kokoda it was though.

Scott McIntyre, is a major presenter on football for SBS

I always lol at any person, who talk about USA using nukes on Japan as a major war crime ..USA should have let LeMay keep firebombing Japanese cites

those 2 nukes save millions of Japanese lives, that would have been lost in a USA invasion of Japan

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Wazzir

We should be honest enough to say that some of our troops behaved badly at times. As did troops from every nation in that war. The German, French and British Army used poison gas, the Turks massacred Armenians, the Russians sent prisoners of war to Siberia, the French executed their own troops for mutiny, and German U-boats sunk civilian vessels in the Atlantic Ocean. French and German airships bombed civilians.

Equally there were acts of compassion, like the 1914 Christmas truce.

He shouldn't have tarred every soldier with the same brush.


Edited by lastbroadcast: 26/4/2015 09:27:26 AM

any time Australia fights for Britain, and now for USA , this has everything to do with defending Australia..if USA, (Britain in past) didn't control the seas lanes around Australia, then Australia would be fucked

The awful truth nobody wants to say.

The conventional fire bombing of mainland Japan in the last 7 months of the war killed 500,000 people and left 5 million homeless.

A full scale invasion of the Japanese mainland was estimated to kill at least 2 million people. Most of course would've been Japanese civilians. The US army invaded the island of Okinawa and this caused the death of 12,000 US soldiers, 107,000 Japanese soldiers and 150,000 Japanese civilians. Together, the nuclear weapons killed somewhere between 150,000 to 300,000 people.

The awful, controversial truth that no-one wants to acknowledge is that the nuclear bombs saved lives.

When you "frightening scale" you imply that a great proportion of ANZACs were involved in rape, murder etc.
There is no such basis to this claim.
Sure there many have been rape, murder, infanticide (really?) committed by some ANZACs, but there is not a military force in the world that is without sin. The horror of war can make legends and heroes out of people and it can also turn them into vile criminals.
If you choose to taint the ANZAC legacy based on the actions of a few rogues that's your choice, it's not about not having the stomach to accept the uncomfortable parts of history it's about recognising and commemorating the greater better more important truth and that is the ANZACs and all servants of were brave soldiers and their sacrifice was not in vain nor will be forgotten.

It's a bit like doing a eulogy for a dead loved one. Do you talk about what wonderful people they were or do tell the unvarnished literal truth and point out all their faults and shortcomings? It's a bit like Australia Day as well, so you celebrate being an Australian and recognise all the great things about this country or do you burn the flag because of the less palatable parts of our history. McIntyre and sadly some folks on here are flag burners and consumed by the negatives.



Edited by rusty: 26/4/2015 11:39:40 AM

The references to Hiroshima and Nagasaki were particularly crass. If the allied forces were run by folks like McIntyre we'd be all overrun by Nazi's and singing the German national anthem. But because pacifism has never been tested in war some like to play the moral card by suggesting dropping bombs is always wrong.

Scott McIntyre's comments were pretty stupid. I thought he was more intelligent than that. I don't mind people making controversial claims but they should back it up with evidence.

I suspect he was drunk and is probably ashamed this morning.

And now out of a job.

Has he been sacked?

Far out.

I don't think he was drunk he is just a fucking asshat.

Good riddance if he was sacked, total disgrace to SBS and football.

Possibly saved lives? Maybe.

The Americans embarked on a bombing campaign across Japan but deliberately left Nagasaki and Hiroshima untouched because they wanted to see what these new weapons would actually do to a full scale city.

There was absolutely no reason America could not have dropped an atomic bomb in the harbour or in some adjacent countryside to show the consequences of not surrendering. (Had Japan still not acquiesced they then could easily have followed up with bombs on those cities.)

The facts are that America dropped these bombs as a giant experiment into the effects of an atomic weapon on a heavily populated city.

The real reason Japan surrendered, and it's only been coming to light recently, was Russia's entry into the war against Japan.

The atomic bombing of Japan as a reason for the war ending has been vastly overstated. (Some even arguing that it was a war crime.)

Jump up and down and flame away but do some reading before you do. (Even a link from the bastion of conservatism Fox news.)

http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2011/08/07/why_did_japan_surrender/
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/08/14/historians-soviet-offensive-key-japans-wwii-surrender-eclipsed-bombs/
http://japanfocus.org/site/view/2501
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan

As they say "history is written by the victors".

Ha ha. Not true.

oh well i wonder if 442 are hiring. 😀

If the atomic bombs were war crimes then the 7 months of fire bombing that preceded it was also a war crime given it killed twice as many people. As was the invasion of Okinawa, which also killed more people.

Not arguing any of that.

Just that the "fact" that the dropping of the atomic bombs led to the Japanese surrender. That's been the justification for their use for 70 years.

As for war crimes you be hard pressed to beat the bombing of Dresden.

Fortunately for the Allied commanders their side won and they didn't end up in court like the Nazi hierarchy.

lol no more Scott on SBS Podcasts thank fark.

His over commentary on the UEFA highlights was shit as well, over pronouncing shit.

-PB

mcyntire is entitled to his opinion, but to do it on anzac day was plain idiotic and dishonorable.
its a day for mourning not to to go out and insult the people serving .
lol how dumb is he

Edited by Socawho: 26/4/2015 01:28:09 PM

One of the most knowledgeable people in Aus media about Asian Football, a big loss to SBS imo.

All for sharing an opinion that isn't what the public want to see on Anzac day (not saying I agree with what he's said).



So if he did it today it would all be OK?

Edited by jlm8695: 26/4/2015 01:37:14 PM

They executed prisoners on a frightening scale. In some theatres 1% of captured soldiers made it alive to a pow camp. Rapes were also commonplace in occupied Japan.

I'm aware of the war crimes records of other countries however that's not relevant to this topic. I'm not choosing to taint he Anzac legend I'm trying to learn a little about history.

Kind of ironic given the average man in the street thinks Anzacs fought for our freedoms.

Interestingly it seems those "freedoms" don't extend to having a distasteful opinion.

i dont agree with what he says but if he did it on any other day then he might still have a job if he was lucky
although if he said something similar about china and he was in china he would be lucky if he didnt find himself sitting in a cell

Edited by Socawho: 26/4/2015 01:43:22 PM

They don't extend to expressing those opinions publicly on a Twitter account that clearly associates you with your employer. Two references to SBS in his Twitter profile, including a link to The World Game website.
To do so on Anzac Day was so disrespecful, he deserves everything he got.
Won't be missed anyway.

its like if i worked for mcdonalds and i said their burgers tasted like shit or something similar.

he'll never work in media in Australia again.

thats what you get

Re:Scott McIntyre, he's always tried to be edgy in the name of speaking his mind. He thought he'd just up it to another twenty notches and it backfired big time.

There's some slithers of truth in what he tweeted but:
* They were far too generalised in some cases and exaggerated in others
* The language used was far too aggressive

I also think the concern over the glorification of the ANZACs is overblown. There is an element of it and it's peddled by quite a few "influential" people in politics and the media but I see the majority of people see it for the day of mourning it is.

:lol: Give me a bit more credit than that.

I believe in freedom of speech above all, and indeed McIntyre should and does have the freedom to say that (it's not like he's been arrested or whatever) but as a professional journo surely he would know that his employers also have the freedom to not employ him anymore if they wish, and the public have their freedom of speech to react to what he had to say with their own opinions.

It was unfortunate he didnt use his once in a lifetime opportunity to highlight the role anzac day centenary celebrations have had in burying the Armenian genocide reporting and recognition.

Instead he choose to refer to Turkey as a nation we had no quarrel with.

As for the timing, it couldnt have been better otherwise the level of controversy generated would've been minimal. Thats how you do a protest and thats how you bring attention of the eyes of many to an issue only the few are aware of.

He may only be a football journalist, but I'd wish more people employed as journalists stood by their principles instead of selling out their morals to the almighty dollar. They end up being the writers of history and the informers of present so it is a great responsibility they have.

Jesse Fink was also fired by SBS for voicing an opinion not popular with the station - one that highlighted actual corruption.

Freedom of speech does not equal freedom of consequences

His comment about Australia being responsible for Hiroshima is just wrong. Australia had no knowledge of that decision and did not participate in the action. That decision was made by U.S. President Truman and was carried out by American Air Force crew. Even Stalin, who had a network of spies, was in somewhat in the dark about the mission. Only some of the Brits knew.

My grandfather is a WW2 veteran and he never forgave the Americans for using Nuclear weapons. He even avoided buying American consumer products in protest. MacIntyre is wrong to imply that Anzacs shared blame.

Australian troops have certainly committed atrocities, but that was not one that we were directly responsible for. A good list of crimes we were actually responsible for can be found here: http://www.solidarity.net.au/reviews/australian-atrocities-at-war/

Let's also remember that we had more than our fair share of war crimes committed against us - including the use of captured Australian nurses as comfort women and the treatment of our soldiers in PoW camps by the Japanese.

Edited by lastbroadcast: 26/4/2015 04:33:19 PM

freedom of speech should be exercised with respect. Mcyntire did not show respect, just like the muslim protesters who attacked police in sydney over that youtube video a few years ago denigrating the prophet mohamed

They dropped the first bomb on Hiroshima and the Japs did not surrender straight away so makes you think dropping a bomb onto some cow paddock would have the desired effect?

I'm not sure what the major experiment would have been in dropping a nuke on a major city. Were they wanting to see if there would be major destruction or not? Were they dissatisfied with the first effort on Hiroshima that they decided to drop one on Nagasaki to test their theory that nukes cause major destruction?

Isn't it decidedly convenient then that a few days after dropping nuke #2 that Japan surrended, providing the the perfect excuse for conducting their nuke = destruction experiment. Great timing!

if Australia new about the nuke bombs, Australia government of the day would have said, why only 2 bombs, and why not Tokyo

if the doping of the 2 nuke bombs had no effects on Japanese surrender, then why are you calling for the yanks to drop the nukes in a Japanese harbour

I'm not sure if you are a genuine dill or just wilfully ignorant.

All the links are there for you to do your own reading. The Japanese war council did not even deem it important to convene after the first bomb was dropped.

Only after Russia decided they would invade Manchuria did Japan decide to surrender.

It's all diarised, noted, cross-checked and confirmed by those actually there.

Don't take my word for it Russ. Do your own reading. The links are all there. It's not my history, it's not tin foil hat history, it's actual proper history.

Perhaps you'd rather stick with the narrative because it's embarrassing to admit the wool has been pulled over your eyes.

Conventional bombing of the individual cities was actually killing more people per attack than either of the atomic bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima.


Edited by MUNRUBENMUZ: 26/4/2015 09:33:05 PM

I'm not. (I assume you mean dropping not doping.)

Learn to read. The justification for 70 years has been that the US had no choice but to wipe out two whole cities of civilians to end the war.

If they were all about "shows of force" they could have easily dropped a bomb in the harbour or continued with their conventional air campaign which was actually claiming more lives than either atomic bomb attack.

Just because the truth is uncomfortable doesn't make the truth wrong.

Can any of you blokes read?

Don't take my word for it. Read the links.

Go to bloody wikipedia or any proper historical website.

There's even a Fox news link there and they couldn't be more pro-American.

Your ignorance, and Russ's and adrtho and whoever else's doesn't make the facts wrong.

Read the links.

Correct.

I think McIntyre meant as America were our Allies we were somehow complicit.

Obviously an error on his part.

Tokyo had already been firebombed to the ground, with more people killed there than Hiroshima, just like other cities all over Asia and Europe. Bombing cities full of civilians was old news, just the technology got an upgrade.

Yes Russ that is exactly it.

Up until that point they had only blown up empty islands and bits and pieces of the desert.

The bombing(s) provided a perfect opportunity to see the effects on a populace including blast radii, death zones, radiation effects, etc etc.

There's was a reason these cities were bypassed for months whilst cities all around them were blown to kingdom come.

i did read , and you statement of I can only guess this is your own opinion , yes?

if the Japanese didn't surrender after bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, why start with bombing of the harbour ?

I'm not saying they shouldn't have done it by the way. I'm fairly ambivalent about it.

On the one hand poor bloody civilians in cities with no strategic or military importance got wiped off the face of the earth but then on the other hand the things the Japanese did to allied POW's (and the locals in Thailand, Burma, Philippines, Malaysia, China etc) defies belief.

I'm just saying that the reason for the surrender was Russia's declaration of war against Japan.

One of the justifications for the attack was that it was a demonstration of how powerful these weapons were and Japan better surrender sharpish.

If that were the case there would have been no problem dropping one in the harbour or in a bit of empty countryside.

They deliberately left these cities untouched so they could see the effects of an atomic attack.

it was more of a metaphor, what the Australian government views would have been, if they new about the nuke bomb, I should have said, why not nuke the Imperial Palace :) ..but you're right about Tokyo been firebombed to the ground

GENERAL DWIGHT EISENHOWER
(Supreme Commander of Allies Forces in Europe)

". . . the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63.

GENERAL DOUGLAS MacARTHUR
(Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers in Japan)

MacArthur biographer William Manchester has described MacArthur's reaction to the issuance by the Allies of the Potsdam Proclamation to Japan: ". . . the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction'. MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the general's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary."

William Manchester, "American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964", pg. 512.

ADMIRAL WILLIAM D LEAHY
(Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman)

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

William Leahy, "I Was There", pg. 441.

JOHN McCLOY
(Assistant Secretary of War)

"I have always felt that if, in our ultimatum to the Japanese government issued from Potsdam [in July 1945], we had referred to the retention of the emperor as a constitutional monarch and had made some reference to the reasonable accessibility of raw materials to the future Japanese government, it would have been accepted. Indeed, I believe that even in the form it was delivered, there was some disposition on the part of the Japanese to give it favourable consideration. When the war was over I arrived at this conclusion after talking with a number of Japanese officials who had been closely associated with the decision of the then Japanese government, to reject the ultimatum, as it was presented. I believe we missed the opportunity of effecting a Japanese surrender, completely satisfactory to us, without the necessity of dropping the bombs."

McCloy quoted in James Reston, "Deadline", pg. 500.

HERBERT HOOVER
(former President)

". . . the Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945 . . . up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped . . . if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs."

Quoted by Barton Bernstein in Philip Nobile, ed., "Judgment at the Smithsonian", pg. 142.

There is no widespread belief among historians that the Soviet invasion alone forced Japan to surrender. Posting lots and lots of internet links doesn't prove otherwise, the traditional, time tested narrative still stands as far as I'm concerned. Even the Emperor of Japan in his surrender speech cited the atomic bombs as being majorly influential in his decision to surrender. A smoking gun if you ask me, no mention of the Soviets at all. That's not to say that the Soviet involvement didn't hasten or influence Japans surrender, but to pin it all on the Soviets and completely dismiss the most devastating weapon ever created is a bit naive.

You sure seem to readily believe anything that challenges conventional understanding of things.

That's right Russ. Once again you have bested me.

I should just believe these attacks were necessary and ignore all the contrary evidence. (Including those pesky first hand accounts from members of the Japanese government and war cabinet.)

the only, only reason for the attack, was to ensure US-UK victory ...it didn't matter if they killed no Japanese, or 1 million, that was the only main goal....if they was able to gain other insights, then great

if you believe the Japanese didn't surrender because of the Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, then bombing a harbour would of been a waste of a nuke bomb , yes?

I'm not sure if you have a comprehension problem or whether you are just being silly.

As I said above.



They could have easily dropped one in an unpopulated area first and if that didn't work then they could have gone bananas after.

They didn't.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html (muz selected extracts below. But others should feel free to read the entire article.)

On the night of March 9-10, 1945, a wave of 300 American bombers struck Tokyo, killing 100,000 people. Dropping nearly 1,700 tons of bombs, the war planes ravaged much of the capital city, completely burning out 16 square miles and destroying a quarter of a million structures. A million residents were left homeless.

On May 23, eleven weeks later, came the greatest air raid of the Pacific War, when 520 giant B-29 "Superfortress" bombers unleashed 4,500 tons of incendiary bombs on the heart of the already battered Japanese capital. Generating gale-force winds, the exploding incendiaries obliterated Tokyo's commercial center and railway yards, and consumed the Ginza entertainment district. Two days later, on May 25, a second strike of 502 "Superfortress" planes roared low over Tokyo, raining down some 4,000 tons of explosives. Together these two B-29 raids destroyed 56 square miles of the Japanese capital.

Even before the Hiroshima attack, American air force General Curtis LeMay boasted that American bombers were "driving them [Japanese] back to the stone age." Henry H . (" Hap " ) Arnold, commanding General of the Army air forces, declared in his 1949 memoirs: "It always appeared to us, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse." This was confirmed by former Japanese prime minister Fumimaro Konoye, who said: "Fundamentally, the thing that brought about the determination to make peace was the prolonged bombing by the B-29s

It was only after the war that the American public learned about Japan's efforts to bring the conflict to an end. Chicago Tribune reporter Walter Trohan, for example, was obliged by wartime censorship to withhold for seven months one of the most important stories of the war.

In an article that finally appeared August 19, 1945, on the front pages of the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald, Trohan revealed that on January 20, 1945, two days prior to his departure for the Yalta meeting with Stalin and Churchill, President Roosevelt received a 40-page memorandum from General Douglas MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from high-level Japanese officials. (The complete text of Trohan's article is in the Winter 1985-86 Journal, pp. 508-512.)

This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 -- that is, complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor. Specifically, the terms of these peace overtures included:

Complete surrender of all Japanese forces and arms, at home, on island possessions, and in occupied countries.
Occupation of Japan and its possessions by Allied troops under American direction.
Japanese relinquishment of all territory seized during the war, as well as Manchuria, Korea and Taiwan.
Regulation of Japanese industry to halt production of any weapons and other tools of war.
Release of all prisoners of war and internees.
Surrender of designated war criminals.

On July 12, Hirohito summoned Fumimaro Konoye, who had served as prime minister in 1940-41. Explaining that "it will be necessary to terminate the war without delay," the Emperor said that he wished Konoye to secure peace with the Americans and British through the Soviets. As Prince Konoye later recalled, the Emperor instructed him "to secure peace at any price, notwithstanding its severity."

The next day, July 13, Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo wired ambassador Naotake Sato in Moscow: "See [Soviet foreign minister] Molotov before his departure for Potsdam ... Convey His Majesty's strong desire to secure a termination of the war ... Unconditional surrender is the only obstacle to peace ..."

On July 17, another intercepted Japanese message revealed that although Japan's leaders felt that the unconditional surrender formula involved an unacceptable dishonor, they were convinced that "the demands of the times" made Soviet mediation to terminate the war absolutely essential. Further diplomatic messages indicated that the only condition asked by the Japanese was preservation of "our form of government." The only "difficult point," a July 25 message disclosed, "is the ... formality of unconditional surrender."

America's leaders understood Japan's desperate position: the Japanese were willing to end the war on any terms, as long as the Emperor was not molested. If the US leadership had not insisted on unconditional surrender -- that is, if they had made clear a willingness to permit the Emperor to remain in place -- the Japanese very likely would have surrendered immediately, thus saving many thousands of lives.

Justifications

President Truman steadfastly defended his use of the atomic bomb, claiming that it "saved millions of lives" by bringing the war to a quick end. Justifying his decision, he went so far as to declare: "The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians."

This was a preposterous statement. In fact, almost all of the victims were civilians, and the United States Strategic Bombing Survey (issued in 1946) stated in its official report: "Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen as targets because of their concentration of activities and population."

If the atomic bomb was dropped to impress the Japanese leaders with the immense destructive power of a new weapon, this could have been accomplished by deploying it on an isolated military base. It was not necessary to destroy a large city. And whatever the justification for the Hiroshima blast, it is much more difficult to defend the second bombing of Nagasaki.


General Douglas MacArthur, Commander of US Army forces in the Pacific, stated on numerous occasions before his death that the atomic bomb was completely unnecessary from a military point of view: "My staff was unanimous in believing that Japan was on the point of collapse and surrender."

General Curtis LeMay, who had pioneered precision bombing of Germany and Japan (and who later headed the Strategic Air Command and served as Air Force chief of staff), put it most succinctly: "The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war."


-----------------------------//---------------------

And on and on.





Edited by MUNRUBENMUZ: 26/4/2015 10:50:49 PM

my real world comprehension is just fine .. as i'm not the one who says the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasak didn't make japan surrender, but US should have bomb a harbour 1st

You're beyond hope.

At least Russ makes sense. I have no idea what you're on about.

You can't spell, your command of the English language is sub-par with regards to punctuation and you obviously cannot read.

On the plus side you can look forward to an exciting time when you start high school next year.

Edited by adrtho: 26/4/2015 10:53:39 PM

you say. USA should have nuke a Japanese harbour 1st , yes? before bombing Hiroshima and Nagasak, yes?

but then you say, bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasak had no effects on japan surrender, yes?

is my English good enough for you to comprehend those questions

you attacking my English skills , doesn't make you right, doesn't make you smart, doesn't make any of your posts, any less contradictory then they are

Edited by adrtho: 26/4/2015 10:57:48 PM

Correct. (If English is your second language I apologise. If English is your first language I most definitely do not.)



Incorrect. There's no contradiction. Learn to read.



Edited by MUNRUBENMUZ: 26/4/2015 11:05:02 PM

i can read...and you're 100% contradicting yourself

you believe (B) didn't achieve (C), but USA should have started at (A) to achieve (C) but if (A) didn't achieve (C) then USA can then move to(B) in the hope of (B) achieving (C)..but you say (B) didn't achieve (C)

that what you said


Edited by adrtho: 26/4/2015 11:36:46 PM

Looking at it from a utilitarian perspective, the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima saved many lives.

America also handed out tonnes of fliers telling people to gtfo of those cities.

A mainland invasion of Japan would have cost millions more lives of soldiers and civilians.