Topic: War Crimes of Imperial Japan: A Lesson In Moral Equivalence for Mr. Obama (Read 1184 times)

Need to see it.

A while back I read in a Chinese on line newspaper about a billion dollar settlement(I think I had the translation right as that being US dollar equivalents) between Japan and China.  Seems Japan used large numbers of Chinese in a northwest province of China for biological agent and nerve gas tests.  They finally settled, and this never got into even one Western news release.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

http://www.dontow.com/2009/04/japans-biological-and-chemical-warfare-in-china-during-wwii/

Accusatory statements anti-US for our use of the Bomb on Japan are likely made by persons ignorant of the nature of the enemy we faced at that time. 

Also horrified by what he saw was the man who wound up leading the unsuccessful effort to maintain an international safe zone in Nanking, John Rabe. He was the head of the local Nazi Party.

I believe that.  These atrocities went far, far beyond what Germany did.  At least in my opinion.  Some of this is documented in Chinese films.  An example that comes to mind is the early Gong Li film, "Red Sorghum" should be a good translation.  Made during the Communist era and a bit heavy on the pro-Commie patriotic and propaganda, but I have to argue its still a great movie.

[...]
Imperial Japan approached its Chinese foes with the same strategy ISIS uses against its enemies today: maximum carnage and savagery, to terrorize the foe into submission. They used some of the exact same methods ISIS does, including burning captives alive, beheading them, and burying them alive in slaughter pits.

Also like ISIS, the Japanese occupiers were fond of taking triumphant photos of their atrocities, which is the only reason we know about many of them. They didn’t have Twitter or YouTube, of course, but Chinese working in photo shops smuggled out copies of photographs the Japanese government later attempted to destroy.

International visitors to Nanking tried to establish a safe zone for Chinese civilians, but it didn’t hold the Japanese at bay for long. One important chronicle of the occupation was the diary of an American woman named Minnie Vautrin, who wrote of girls as young as 12 being dragged away for rape, and piles of corpses burned to erase evidence of Japan’s crimes. Vautrin was one of the last victims of the Rape of Nanking. She killed herself in 1941.

Also horrified by what he saw was the man who wound up leading the unsuccessful effort to maintain an international safe zone in Nanking, John Rabe. He was the head of the local Nazi Party.

Unsurprisingly, China’s state-run media is very upset that Barack Obama didn’t mention Nanking, or other Japanese offenses against China, during his Hiroshima speech. “The death of Japanese civilians in the Hiroshima atomic bomb attack deserves global sympathy, but the tragedy was of Japan’s own making. Its then militarist government turned the city into the site of military headquarters, arsenals and camps and a vital part of its war machine that killed tens of millions in other countries,” writes Xinhua in a fiery editorial.

The Empire’s war on women was not limited to Nanking. For decades afterward, Japan has dealt with the legacy of the “comfort women,” girls forced into sexual slavery by the Japanese Army. Only last year, Japan and South Korea reached an agreement for roughly $8 million dollars in reparations to South Korean victims.


http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/05/27/war-crimes-imperial-japan-lesson-moral-equivalence-mr-obama/

Right, I understand that.  But consider, if you had had to make a decision, lose 100k troops (note these are NOT US, but US, russian, European, all over the place) or lose 1M japs.  That's the way those decisions are.  They are not exactly fun.   

The nature of war is that it constructs ethical paradoxes where you are in hell, period, no matter which course of action you take.  For example, the other side bombs your war factories.  So you move them right into the middle of the cities.  Now the other side has an ethical paradox of your making.  Leave the cities intact (and have more of it's people killed) or attack the cities to eliminate the factories (and accept the civilian deaths that result).  Who constructed the paradox, and who acted within that dimension is not relevant.  It's the nature of the beast.

61 years, more like.  Yep, a lot more information is certainly coming out.  A lot of things have changed, lol.  A lot yet to begin to understand.

Side note, Japanese fanaticism bears seems to bear remarkable resemblances to Islamic fanaticism, not sure if that has been studied much.

About the japanese nuclear programm:

It was pretty much not existing - although im not sure if the USA had detailed information about it at that time. Historical data shows us today that the japs were far behind the germans - and the germans were a lot behind the USA. Main problem was the needed fission material that japan didnt had.


About the leaflet:

That is the leaflet before the drop of the 2nd atomic bomb. There was no warning for the first one besides  the regularly dropped leaflets (fire bombings).

About my questions:

I dont know why you have that feeling, but my questions are involving politics and militaries at the same time. Im not trying to be a SJW here or whatever people might want to call it.

It is nearly 80 years ago - today we have a lot of facts which the people at that time didnt had because of censorship from the involving governments.

Look, I can't answer questions that are phrased to only have one politically correct answer.  That's ridiculous.  

I can tell you this.  The US only had two bombs.  Japan was working on a bomb -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2170881.stm

All talk about massing forces, attack from the sea, options other than using the bomb become moot at the moment the adversary has a bomb, don't they? 

Check out the leaflet that was dropped on Japan.



TO THE JAPANESE PEOPLE:
America asks that you take immediate heed of what we say on this leaflet.

We are in possession of the most destructive explosive ever devised by man. A single one of our newly developed atomic bombs is actually the equivalent in explosive power to what 2000 of our giant B-29s can carry on a single mission. This awful fact is one for you to ponder and we solemnly assure you it is grimly accurate.

We have just begun to use this weapon against your homeland. If you still have any doubt, make inquiry as to what happened to Hiroshima when just one atomic bomb fell on that city.

Before using this bomb to destroy every resource of the military by which they are prolonging this useless war, we ask that you now petition the Emperor to end the war. Our president has outlined for you the thirteen consequences of an honorable surrender. We urge that you accept these consequences and begin the work of building a new, better and peace-loving Japan.

You should take steps now to cease military resistance. Otherwise, we shall resolutely employ this bomb and all our other superior weapons to promptly and forcefully end the war.

EVACUATE YOUR CITIES.

ATTENTION JAPANESE PEOPLE. EVACUATE YOUR CITIES.
Because your military leaders have rejected the thirteen part surrender declaration, two momentous events have occurred in the last few days.

The Soviet Union, because of this rejection on the part of the military has notified your Ambassador Sato that it has declared war on your nation. Thus, all powerful countries of the world are now at war with you.

Also, because of your leaders' refusal to accept the surrender declaration that would enable Japan to honorably end this useless war, we have employed our atomic bomb.

A single one of our newly developed atomic bombs is actually the equivalent in explosive power to what 2000 of our giant B-29s could have carried on a single mission. Radio Tokyo has told you that with the first use of this weapon of total destruction, Hiroshima was virtually destroyed.

Before we use this bomb again and again to destroy every resource of the military by which they are prolonging this useless war, petition the emperor now to end the war. Our president has outlined for you the thirteen consequences of an honorable surrender. We urge that you accept these consequences and begin the work of building a new, better, and peace-loving Japan.

Act at once or we shall resolutely employ this bomb and all our other superior weapons to promptly and forcefully end the war.

EVACUATE YOUR CITIES.

Source: Harry S. Truman Library, Miscellaneous historical document file, no. 258.

Well, that certainly rewrites the "Mutual Assured Destruction" deterrant strategy of the Cold War.  By that theory (and for the nuclears of that era) they were weapons that were very non-precise. 

Ah my bad it is called USAAF. United States Army Air Force. But that doesnt change much or?



Of course ^^" (i think corrrect use of grammar would be: invasion by the USA)


Are you saying this persons are all armchair generals without knowledgde about warfare:

General Dwight D. Eisenhower, General Douglas MacArthur, Admiral William D. Leahy, General Carl Spaatz and Admiral Chester W. Nimitz ?


Well that for sure didnt make the japs surrender faster!


I though the answers to my questions would show that the use of the bombs were not war deciding.

The Americans were planning to nuke the USSR and China as well, but they shelved those plans as these nations were able to create nuclear weapons themselves. And this is one of the reasons why the North Koreans are trying so hard to build the nuclear weapons and ICBMs. They know that the Americans have no inhibitions on using nukes on civilians.

I have no idea what some of the reasons for your questions were.  Some are subject to decisions of military commanders.  Re #2, there was no USAF in 1945.  There was the "Army Air Core."  Re this statement,

Capitulation was inevitable even without an invasion of the USA.

I think you mean "even without an invasion of Japan."

This falls into the category of "armchair generaling," you are claiming something is easy which men in the field at that time thought was extremely difficult.  Have fun with that.  It's more accurate to say that Japan would have accepted a conditional surrender but was prepared to fight it out rather than accept an unconditional surrender.

RE #4, they did this but in secret, in New Mexico.

From Einstein and friends with love:


Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara a.D. recalls General Curtis LeMay:

To counter-answer some of the comments in this thread.

Japan was weary of invading USSR after the lesson they were taught by Zhukov on Hahlin Gol in Mongolia. That victory was enough for USSR to not worry about Japan when Hitler invaded and to concentrate most of its forces in the Western direction. The neutrality pact was a formality

However, Soviet troops continued to fight in China during WWII and many were taken prisoner by the Japanese. The tortures and inhuman experiments that the Japanese conducted resulted after the war in a separate Khabarovsk Process over the Japanese war criminals (which is largely forgotten in  the West now).

USSR was preparing a land operation in Japan in 1945 - for USSR the war did not end on the 9th of May - large amount of troops and materials were quickly transported to the East. Additionally, according to the outcome of the February 1945 Yalta Conference, USSR was to declare war on Japan 2-3 months after the end of the war in Europe.  USSR declared war on the 8th of August - 3 months after the end of war in Europe (when USSR was ready to start the land operation), but that happened 2 days after USA dropped the first bomb and the they before they dropped the second one.

During May-August Soviet command moved over 400000 men, 7137 artillery units, 2119 tanks in addition to the troops already station at the Far East. USSR was ready to open 3 fronts against Japan.
http://web.archive.org/web/20101111025952/http://www.cgsc.edu/carl/resources/csi/glantz3/glantz3.asp

In this bombing and then subsequently blocking Japan's signing peace treaty with USSR, USA did everything to leave a festering geopolitical wound on the Eastern border of USSR. As it stands now, Japan is still de juro in a state of war with Russia.

The primary goal of the nuking (just like the American fire-bombing of Dresden) was to intimidate USSR (and to leave scorched earth if USSR did venture into those territories).

Nuclear bombing of Japan is to be viewed in conjunction with the recently declassified US nuclear targets in USSR:
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb538-Cold-War-Nuclear-Target-List-Declassified-First-Ever/

I dont know where you have you information from but for example General Dwight D. Eisenhower, General Douglas MacArthur, Admiral William D. Leahy, General Carl Spaatz and Admiral Chester W. Nimitz were some of the high ranked militaries that opposed the use of the nukes.

It seems you dont understand the fact that japan had zero offensive capacities left and its implications:
Capitulation was inevitable even without an invasion of the USA.

Please try to answer this question first before you might want to change the topic:

1. So you deny that japan was already on the ground with pretty much nothing left?

2. USAF was liying by saying a conventional war would make japan capitulate in december 1945?

3. The studies about the possible victims of Operation downfall was changed several times - the original stated 25.000-50.000 victims and after the third of forth change it was over 1 million - why?

4. Why didnt the USA just used the atomic bomb over unhabitated land as a demonstration?

5. Why was there no warning for the first bomb?

6. The use of the bomb was decided on 16 july, recalled by eisenhower, who also was against the use, because he was the opinion the japanese would surrender when the soviets would join. Why was it decided long before the ultimatum of surrender?

7. Why do japanese historians and military say that the atomic bombs were not the reason for their surrender but the soviets joining the war?

In the war only winners deciding what is right and what is moral.
Looser have no rights or voice.
US government didn't care about any human rights in japan, they was only interested how to quickly finish WWII and save a lotr lives of American solders.
Their initial wish was right and legitimate but final decision, to use atomic bomb, is really not according to human and moral laws.
But, again, their decision was pragmatic and fulfilled final goal, to quickly finish war and save a lot lives.
100 000 people was sacrificed in order to save million.

Not at all.  Your concept of "no need" runs contrary to that of Allied military commanders of that era.  They viewed the Japan mainland as a tough problem.  The number often cited is a million total dead - military and civilian.  Sure, they might have moved on the beaches and found the Japanese military capitulated, but why should they have relied on that?  Their experience was these guys would fight to the last man, run at them with bayonets after running out of ammo, and such. 

If you were a military commander, and had relied on the most optimistic outcome for your decisions, you would have been an utter fool. 

That says nothing of the "Rape of Nanking," it says nothing of 80,000 rapes and 300-400,000 slaughtered, just to make a point.  The point made is that unless the enemy population submits, they will have the same happen to them.  If you want to suggest that the same point is made by Hiroshima, go ahead.

But then what happens to your argument about "there is no moral equivalence in using an atomic bomb?"  It's eliminated.  

You are saying whoever had the bomb first was going to use it.


We agree.

I still dont understand why you are making a connection between the use of atomic bombs and the atrocities of imperial japans army.

Following your argument we gotta nuke every nation on this planet and the usa would be one of the first in line.

As far as i know most militaries and historians are condemning the firebombing of dresden.

Additionaly Einstein was condemning the build and use of the atomic bomb after hiroshima and nagasaki too - you can read that in every Einstein biography.
Einstein was trying to force the build of the atomic bomb because he knew nazi germany and imperial japan were researching it and would have used it without a blink of an eye - something he didnt realize about the americans.


There is no moral (equivalence) in using atomic bombs.

Of course but where is the connection with using torture and cannibalism by the japanese troops on mostly civilians?

Or are you saying these civilians in berlin and dresden were directly involved in the atrocieties perpetrated all over europe by the nazi?

Was Einstein wrong to push for the atomic bomb?

Title of this thread:
A Lesson In Moral Equivalence

Of course but where is the connection with using nukes on mostly civilians?

Or are you saying these civilians in hiroshima and nagasaki were directly involved in the atrocieties perpetrated on mainland asia?