Vj Day

[Nobby]

Understand that, perhaps they could've set it off 10 miles from the coast though?

They didnt surrender after the first one so a good soaking was hardly likely to get them running up the white flag !

[phart]

Who is they? The Woman children and old folk of Hiroshima?who had no vote or say in their government?

[phart]

Understand that, perhaps they could've set it off 10 miles from the coast though?

the bomb being dropped had little to do with getting Japan to surrender. As soon as reporting restrictions were off the US Press (as shown by me earlier in the thread) had front page stories about Japan's back channel diplomacy months before Truman even got in power.

[Nobby]

Who is they? The Woman children and old folk of Hiroshima?who had no vote or say in their government?

I dont disagree that the women, children and old folk suffered horrendously. Unfortunately for them the job of the allied commanders was to protect the loss of life on their side and as previous an invasion of japan wouldve cost a huge toll on both sides, probalby IMHO more than the bombs took.

[Nobby]

the bomb being dropped had little to do with getting Japan to surrender. As soon as reporting restrictions were off the US Press (as shown by me earlier in the thread) had front page stories about Japan's back channel diplomacy months before Truman even got in power.

Presumably the Japanese govt could at any point over those months told their troops to lay down their weapons and surrender or were they looking for "can we call it a draw and keep some of our weapons ?" probably wasnt the smartest move by picking on the biggest kid on the block !

[phart]

The paper reported the terms of the surrender were the same as those proposed months earlier.So no quantitative differences. Making up "demands" in lieu of knowing the actual ones doesn't work when we're discussing a subject grounded in reality. Hard to respond to a set of circumstances that only exist in someones mind.

[Nobby]

The paper reported the terms of the surrender were the same as those proposed months earlier.So no quantitative differences. Making up "demands" in lieu of knowing the actual ones doesn't work when we're discussing a subject grounded in reality. Hard to respond to a set of circumstances that only exist in someones mind.

The papers reported it, it must be true then, bit different from the usual TAMB view of the media ;-) The circumstances in my mind are fairly straightforward, there may well have been talk of surrender but at the point the bombs were dropped the Japanese armed forces were fully engaged in open warfare as a consequnce of them declaring war on USA. They were losing and probably the more sensible heads in their govt realised this and wanted to jack it in but nothing really happened. Instead of committing thousands of troops to fight an extremely costly land battle (a bit like the one you mentioned when the allies fought across europe) the yanks took the decision to drop the bomb. Not a very nice decision, but one that had to be taken to protect the lives of their troops. Actions have consequences and as previous picking on the biggest kid on the block probably wasnt the smartest move the japanese ever made.

[phart]

The papers reported it, it must be true then, bit different from the usual TAMB view of the media ;-) The circumstances in my mind are fairly straightforward, there may well have been talk of surrender but at the point the bombs were dropped the Japanese armed forces were fully engaged in open warfare as a consequnce of them declaring war on USA. They were losing and probably the more sensible heads in their govt realised this and wanted to jack it in but nothing really happened. Instead of committing thousands of troops to fight an extremely costly land battle (a bit like the one you mentioned when the allies fought across europe) the yanks took the decision to drop the bomb. Not a very nice decision, but one that had to be taken to protect the lives of their troops. Actions have consequences and as previous picking on the biggest kid on the block probably wasnt the smartest move the japanese ever made.

If you had read the thread you'd see MacArthur did as well as the papers. He reported 5 separate attempts through numerous allies to establish a dialogue to bring about the end of the war. or as you inaccurately describe it (but nothing really happened).

Indeed just like Dean Acheson(started Korean war, and helped create problems in indo-china) decision to unilaterally (his superiors were attending other business) cut of 95% of Japan's oil supply guaranteeing a Japanese attack. We know this cause Roosevelt said the reason he only put restriction on it previously as otherwise it could be seen as an act of war(Japan was following the previous European model of empire building) if it went to an Embargo. Which proved prophetic as Japan attacked a US military base in retaliation for the Embargo.

Hawks in the US were saying if Putin cut off all gas to Europe that was provacation etc etc.

Anyway i'm choked with man-flu, and not really in mood to argue , so for once i'll just agree to disagree, i dont know for certain anyway.

[Nobby]

If you had read the thread you'd see MacArthur did as well as the papers. He reported 5 separate attempts through numerous allies to establish a dialogue to bring about the end of the war. or as you inaccurately describe it (but nothing really happened).

Indeed just like Dean Acheson(started Korean war, and helped create problems in indo-china) decision to unilaterally (his superiors were attending other business) cut of 95% of Japan's oil supply guaranteeing a Japanese attack. We know this cause Roosevelt said the reason he only put restriction on it previously as otherwise it could be seen as an act of war(Japan was following the previous European model of empire building) if it went to an Embargo. Which proved prophetic as Japan attacked a US military base in retaliation for the Embargo.

Hawks in the US were saying if Putin cut off all gas to Europe that was provacation etc etc.

Anyway i'm choked with man-flu, and not really in mood to argue , so for once i'll just agree to disagree, i dont know for certain anyway.

Fair enough although I believe the allies wanted "unconditional surrender" anything else was just an opening gambit !

Drink some Gin for your man flu !!!

[wellyman]

So because one group of Japanese brutalised a city, some other group of Japanese should have got eradicated.

You do realise the Allies raped their way across Europe too? starved entire cities. Would the people living in Glasgow deserve to have the bomb dropped on them.

the Allies also Pardoned the perpetrator of the Nanking Massacre, so it's OK to pardon the officer in charge and OK to drop a bomb on civilians that had nothing to do with it.

I'd suggest dropping bombs on children and turning them into shadows on a wall will never be the correct thing to do.

Sacking populations in war is as old as war. It's trait of our species not individual nations.

Unfortunately its war , I do not condone innocent people being used or killed on which ever side they are but as someone else mentioned on here if you had been a soldier at the time and they gave you the option of fighting on the japanese mainland or dropping a bomb to end the war I am sure all would have gone for the bomb option.

The commander of the Japanese army was not pardoned, as a member of the Japanese royal family and under an agreement drawn up between the allies and Hirohito at the end of the war all members of the Japanese royal family gained immunity from any prosecution for war crimes.

As for the Allies raping there way across europe, I presume you mean from east to west ? - again innocent people suffered but if you look at what the Nazi's did while invading Russia then you can see why.

Having visited Japan some 6 years ago , the people were friendly and gracious and the peace park in Hiroshima was a solemn place to walk round but the world is a different place to what it was some 70 years ago and hopefully lessons have been learnt from that time. While travelling back to Tokyo on the train and looking at the landscape, all six of us agreed that dropping that bomb was the way to put an end to WW2 .

[phart]

One thing that appears to be forgotten here is what the Japanese did to the Chinese from 1937 through to 1945 , they raped the city of Nanjing killing upto 300,000 people. That was not done by carpet bombing but actual troops on the ground, in total the loss of the Chinese throughout that period was 6 million.

I think it is important to remember VJ day as to what the Japanese did not only to western people but also to asian people who suffered .

Unfortunately its war , I do not condone innocent people being used or killed on which ever side they are but as someone else mentioned on here if you had been a soldier at the time and they gave you the option of fighting on the japanese mainland or dropping a bomb to end the war I am sure all would have gone for the bomb option.

What's the difference between using a bomb or using bullets, a stealth bomber or suicide bomber to give it it's modern context.

You're saying in a post earlier to remember Japanese atrocities against civilians, then offering justifications for allied atrocities by saying it's war.

Yeah he was granted immunity rather than officially pardoned, that wasn't my point though. the point was the officer in charge of the Massacre was not punished and that's OK and it's also OK to drop bombs on them for the massacre.

No I mean west to east as well. I'm not talking about the Soviets i'm talking about the British, French and Americans, British troops were sexually abusing of children in France/Belgium, children of the families that were housing them, Sean Longden talks about it in his book To the victor the spoils. "it came to the attention of the authorities that there was a "rise of indecency with children" where abusers had exploited the "atmosphere of trust" that had been created with local families"

"Sean Longden highlights that "Some officers failed to treat reports of rape with gravity." He provides the example of a medic, who had a rape reported to him. In cooperation with the Royal Military Police, they were able to track down and apprehend the perpetrators who were then identified by the victim. When the two culprits "were taken before their CO. His response was alarming. He insisted since the men were going on leave no action could be taken and that his word was final."

It's a straw-man argument that the only choices were costly land invasion or drop nukes. We had no choice is just another self-serving propaganda move.

We (US and UK) organised a violent over-throw and coup against Democratically elected Iran in 1953 for re-nationalising their oil after BP(it's forefather AIOC) refused to let Iran inspect it's books. So just 12 years later nationalising your own oil (UK had did it's own coal not long before) is a cause for war and regime change, but denying a country their whole supply bar 5% is grounds for a good nuking.

The reasoning is clearly inconsistent and self-serving. Viewed in the context of other world events.

Edited August 18, 2015 by phart

[wellyman]

I never mentioned anything about japanese atrocities against civilians, I commented on the Rape of Nanjing, which was a military conflict and think you would agree that the japanese army went far beyond what was required to win that conflict.

The officer or to give him his correct title Prince Asaka got away with his part of the massacre because he was royalty, basically who he was not what he was and yes he who should have been brought to justice for what he did. You could argue that the person who ordered the dropping of the bomb could be brought to justice but he was on the winning side and to the winner the spoils as they say.

In reference to the book "To the victor the spoils" - I cannot comment as I have not read it [although i will look it out] - I am sure there were things that happened and again i do not condone that but i hardly think you can put it in the same concept as to what happened in Nanjing

After that point you have gone off on a world tour of the rights and wrongs of the usa and uk. That is not what this thread was about it was about VJ day and what happened 70 years ago , it is easy for you and I to sit behind a keyboard in 2015 and say who was right or who was wrong but those days were far far different to today

[phart]

I never mentioned anything about japanese atrocities against civilians,

One thing that appears to be forgotten here is what the Japanese did to the Chinese from 1937 through to 1945 ,...

think it is important to remember VJ day as to what the Japanese did not only to western people but also to asian people who suffered "

I'm too ill to continue the conversation...

I knew his name and i know why he got off, we're not debating the identity of the person, i'm debating the reasoning in which he got off scott-free and the citizens of Hiroshima did not. After you said:

"think it is important to remember VJ day as to what the Japanese did not only to western people but also to asian people who suffered "

Not on the same scale but certainly in same context, we're talking about British soldiers sexually assaulting the children of people allowing them to live with them,

No i went to one place Iran, not a world tour at all. One place Iran, and to juxtapose the differences in thinking regarding energy supply and what is allowed to secure it, which is directly related to events just over a decade earlier. No rights and wrong just one wrong.

Anyway i think i'm the only one in this conversation actually following it correctly, and with this man flu i just dont have the inclination to keep making corrections for gaps in memory and misinterpretations.

Here's what you described i wrote.

"After that point you have gone off on a world tour of the rights and wrongs of the usa and uk."

Here's what was written

"We (US and UK) organised a violent over-throw and coup against Democratically elected Iran in 1953 for re-nationalising their oil after BP(it's forefather AIOC) refused to let Iran inspect it's books. So just 12 years later nationalising your own oil (UK had did it's own coal not long before) is a cause for war and regime change, but denying a country their whole supply bar 5% is grounds for a good nuking."

Edited August 18, 2015 by phart

[wellyman]

I'm too ill to continue the conversation...

I knew his name and i know why he got off, we're not debating the identity of the person, i'm debating the reasoning in which he got off scott-free and the citizens of Hiroshima did not. After you said:

"think it is important to remember VJ day as to what the Japanese did not only to western people but also to asian people who suffered "

Not on the same scale but certainly in same context, we're talking about British soldiers sexually assaulting the children of people allowing them to live with them,

No i went to one place Iran, not a world tour at all. One place Iran, and to juxtapose the differences in thinking regarding energy supply and what is allowed to secure it, which is directly related to events just over a decade earlier. No rights and wrong just one wrong.

Anyway i think i'm the only one in this conversation actually following it correctly, and with this man flu i just dont have the inclination to keep making corrections for gaps in memory and misinterpretations.

Here's what you described i wrote.

"After that point you have gone off on a world tour of the rights and wrongs of the usa and uk."

Here's what was written

"We (US and UK) organised a violent over-throw and coup against Democratically elected Iran in 1953 for re-nationalising their oil after BP(it's forefather AIOC) refused to let Iran inspect it's books. So just 12 years later nationalising your own oil (UK had did it's own coal not long before) is a cause for war and regime change, but denying a country their whole supply bar 5% is grounds for a good nuking."

What has your last paragraph got to do with VJ day ????

You did well to continue with another 300 odd words, especially with your illness !!!

[phart]

What has your last paragraph got to do with VJ day ????

You did well to continue with another 300 odd words, especially with your illness !!!

Since you used 4 question marks i'd better answer.

what has the rape of Nanjing got to do with VJ day? Answer that and you'll have answered your own question. Hint

Heehaw

Right i'll let you get back to doing a word count i'm away to feel sorry for myself.

[macy37]

Anyhow.....

Can anyone answer the question of how did Eddie get the medals???

[wellyman]

Since you used 4 question marks i'd better answer.

what has the rape of Nanjing got to do with VJ day? Answer that and you'll have answered your own question. Hint

Heehaw

Right i'll let you get back to doing a word count i'm away to feel sorry for myself.

Very poor response from such an educated person, - Nanjing was part of many conflicts leading upto and resulting in VJ day.

Iran has nothing to do with VJ day

Have a whisky and go to bed.

[wellyman]

Anyhow.....

Can anyone answer the question of how did Eddie get the medals???

Phart, can you answer macy's question ?

[hunchy]

His medals are feck all to do with military service and basically are commemorative medals or medals to do with being a knight of the garter and a night ofthe Victorian order. His military service consisted of 4 months of in the royal marines ( he pulled out before the end of training and was well known for getting his guards to finish his marches and runs)

Got more time for Andrew at least he took part in the Falklands conflict even if is was as far away from the front as they could. They wanted to keep him safe and give him a desk job but he refused and pushed to be near the front

[redstevie007]

His medals are feck all to do with military service and basically are commemorative medals or medals to do with being a knight of the garter and a night ofthe Victorian order. His military service consisted of 4 months of in the royal marines ( he pulled out before the end of training and was well known for getting his guards to finish his marches and runs)

Got more time for Andrew at least he took part in the Falklands conflict even if is was as far away from the front as they could. They wanted to keep him safe and give him a desk job but he refused and pushed to be near the front

Just looked up a picture of the odious turd wearing his medals and he appears to have been awarded the Golden Jubilee medal. This was awarded in 2002 to currently serving personnel with 5 years service behind them. A quick look at Eddie's military record shows he bailed on the Marines in 1987 (someone correct me if I'm missing something) so he's wearing a medal he was never properly awarded.

Just looked again and he's got what also looks like a silver jubilee medal too - awarded in 1977 ####in brass necked walloper

Edited August 18, 2015 by redstevie007

[exile]

The dropping of the atomic bomb in that period was the correct thing do at that time.

Seems fair enough, given "at that time" was in the middle (as far as they knew) of a brutal war against a nation that had committed atrocities and facing huge casualties ahead.

However I would hesitate to say it was the correct thing to do now.

Especially that they did not just drop 'the' atomic bomb, but they dropped a second bomb so soon after the first. Even if the first one was justified it would take a lot more to convince that the second one was justified.

[hunchy]

Just looked up a picture of the odious turd wearing his medals and he appears to have been awarded the Golden Jubilee medal. This was awarded in 2002 to currently serving personnel with 5 years service behind them. A quick look at Eddie's military record shows he bailed on the Marines in 1987 (someone correct me if I'm missing something) so he's wearing a medal he was never properly awarded.

Just looked again and he's got what also looks like a silver jubilee medal too - awarded in 1977 ####in brass necked walloper

Technically he still serves but it is more of an honery role as commander in chief or similar in a couple of regiments both here and in caneda

[redstevie007]

Technically he still serves but it is more of an honery role as commander in chief or similar in a couple of regiments both here and in caneda

Act, I know, but he's still a grade A khunt

[hunchy]

Act, I know, but he's still a grade A khunt

No arguments from me on that one

[phart]

Very poor response from such an educated person, - Nanjing was part of many conflicts leading upto and resulting in VJ day.

Iran has nothing to do with VJ day

Have a whisky and go to bed.

No it wasn't. The battle of Waterloo can be judged as part of the many conflicts leading up to and resulting in VJ day then.

Hopelessly cleaving to the idea that a thread must focus on "one action" in a universe of causation is just plain ignorant. As explained previously Japan came into the war because they had their oil supply shut off, so they attacked military targets to stop the US flanking them as they had to go and secure other oil supplies. This is then used a justification of dropping the bomb (picking on the biggest kid) , 12 years later Iran privatized their oil supply after our companies refused to be audited on how much they were taking, so we did a "Japan" to protect supply and staged a violent coup and put in a dictator after removing a democratic government. Let's hope Iran doesn't drop a couple of nukes on us, we'd only have ourselves to blame.

It's to do with VJ day because it shows how the: "Japan attacked America so deserved to be firebombed and nuked out of existence crowd" would suddenly cry foul if Iran dropped 2 nukes on us for attacking them over oil. It's classic my-side bias a logical fallacy.

For me it will never be correct to split the atom above cities and incinerate them. In the end we all must make our own judgements. loads of babies with birth defects, although as an interesting side Fallujah now has 14 times the amount of Birth defects as Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Iraq is littered with depleted Uranium causing untold damage to unborn babies and the such.