Charlottesville: Race and Terror – VICE News

[aujeff11 6,243]

3 hours ago, Bigbens42 said:

Are you aware Churchill used the war as cover to institute an Imperial policy in India to clamp down on resistance to the Raj? For getting so much admiration these days, instituting a policy that killed around 2,000,000 sure didn't dent him.

That's a stretch. Keep trying to justify those atomic bombs! 

[aujeff11 6,243]

https://mobile.twitter.com/Stump4TrumpPAC/status/898307769698140161/video/1

https://mobile.twitter.com/President1Trump/status/898230334558543877

https://mobile.twitter.com/hectormorenco/status/898196525104349184/video/1

 

More videos. I don't even know what to think rn. Every time, the video is kids ganging up on others in very public settings. I hope they're fake in all seriousness because if it isn't fake, then I'd be worried that the msm is as crooked as what Raptor kept saying it is. 

Also, this is like the third time where the so-called journalist got beat up for filming it. 

[homersapien 11,396]

17 hours ago, Bigbens42 said:

I should note that Homer is better read on this topic than me. Give me 35 years to catch up to him.

Well, that is a huge advantage.

Also, many of those years were in the "golden age" for reading (pre-technology).  I traveled a lot in my job - which before the age of laptops - meant you had a lot of time to read on the plane and in airports.  

When laptops entered the scene, all of sudden all that "personal reading time" turned into work time.  Thus, the productivity associated with technology I suppose.   

[AUDub 11,158]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

Well, that is a huge advantage.

Also, many of those years were in the "golden age" for reading (pre-technology).  I traveled a lot in my job - which before the age of laptops - meant you had a lot of time to read on the plane and in airports.  

When laptops entered the scene, all of sudden all that "personal reading time" turned into work time.  Thus, the productivity associated with technology I suppose.   

I've gotten my money's worth out of my kindle app. If you ever get a tablet it should be the first thing you install.

[homersapien 11,396]

3 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

I've gotten my money's worth out of my kindle app. If you ever get a tablet it should be the first thing you install.

My Goddaughter swears by hers.  She commutes by train.

[AUDub 11,158]

On 8/17/2017 at 5:46 PM, aujeff11 said:

That's a stretch. Keep trying to justify those atomic bombs! 

Read Mukerjee's Churchill's Secret War: The British Empire and the Ravaging of India during World War II and Poverty and Famines, and essay by Nobel prize winning economist Amartya Sen. (Link. Page 60 goes into detail on the famine) Around 2 million people starved to death while British officials begged Churchill to direct food supplies to the region. He bluntly refused. His colleagues were appalled. Leo Amery, the Secretary of State for India during the famine, despaired at what he called Churchill's "Hitler-like" attitude toward the Indian people. Churchill claimed that it was their own fault for "breeding like rabbits, saying at times that such things were "merrily culling the population." Public outcry forced his hand and his tone became more conciliatory after the fact, but after millions dead it's a bit late to walk it back.

This attitude was nothing new. He oversaw the subjugation of the Kikuyu during his premiership of Kenya after the wars in Africa, forcing 150,000 of them into what can easily be described as gulags at gunpoint after they rebelled. Torture was routine in these camps. 

When Gandhi launched his campaign of nonviolent resistance, Churchill said that he "ought to be lain bound hand and foot at the gates of Delhi, and then trampled on by an enormous elephant with the new Viceroy seated on its back." As the resistance grew, it is said he claimed "I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion."

He unleashed the brutal Black and Tans upon Ireland, not to mention British policy also worsening a tremendous famine of their own.

In some ways, he was a brutal rival to Hitler rather than a staunch defender of the free world. He was not a good man. His attitude that the countries subjugated under colonial rule should be grateful is laughable. 

BUT

That was exactly what the world needed at the time. For all his brutish attitudes toward others he may have had, for all the campaigns of brutal subjugation in which he participated and oversaw, for all the pain he caused local populations under colonial rule and war, he knew a greater evil when he saw one. He knew that we could not appease Hitler. He roused a nation like few could to action. He was the right man for the job at the right time.

Even after all I said above, I am grateful for Churchill. Without him, Europe could have become Hitler's personal killing field, and we would be looking at a very different world. He was booted out of office in a landslide in the waning days of the war, and for good reason, as he and his party were expected to be a terrible domestic policymakers during peacetime, but having fulfilled his duty in saving his country.

History is messy. Morality is blurred. Good and evil are not so sharply contrasted as we are taught, they are shades of grey. Great people did terrible things, and terrible people did great things. It's often hard to apply our standard of morality to a situation like a total war, but harbor no doubt that the allies had the just cause, and thus the moral high ground.

[aujeff11 6,243]

2 hours ago, Bigbens42 said:

Read Mukerjee's Churchill's Secret War: The British Empire and the Ravaging of India during World War II and Poverty and Famines, and essay by Nobel prize winning economist Amartya Sen. (Link. Page 60 goes into detail on the famine) Around 2 million people starved to death while British officials begged Churchill to direct food supplies to the region. He bluntly refused. His colleagues were appalled. Leo Amery, the Secretary of State for India during the famine, despaired at what he called Churchill's "Hitler-like" attitude toward the Indian people. Churchill claimed that it was their own fault for "breeding like rabbits, saying at times that such things were "merrily culling the population." Public outcry forced his hand and his tone became more conciliatory after the fact, but after millions dead it's a bit late to walk it back.

This attitude was nothing new. He oversaw the subjugation of the Kikuyu during his premiership of Kenya after the wars in Africa, forcing 150,000 of them into what can easily be described as gulags at gunpoint after they rebelled. Torture was routine in these camps. 

When Gandhi launched his campaign of nonviolent resistance, Churchill said that he "ought to be lain bound hand and foot at the gates of Delhi, and then trampled on by an enormous elephant with the new Viceroy seated on its back." As the resistance grew, it is said he claimed "I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion."

He unleashed the brutal Black and Tans upon Ireland, not to mention British policy also worsening a tremendous famine of their own.

In some ways, he was a brutal rival to Hitler rather than a staunch defender of the free world. He was not a good man. His attitude that the countries subjugated under colonial rule should be grateful is laughable. 

BUT

That was exactly what the world needed at the time. For all his brutish attitudes toward others he may have had, for all the campaigns of brutal subjugation in which he participated and oversaw, for all the pain he caused local populations under colonial rule and war, he knew a greater evil when he saw one. He knew that we could not appease Hitler. He roused a nation like few could to action. He was the right man for the job at the right time.

Even after all I said above, I am grateful for Churchill. Without him, Europe could have become Hitler's personal killing field, and we would be looking at a very different world. He was booted out of office in a landslide in the waning days of the war, and for good reason, as he and his party were expected to be a terrible domestic policymakers during peacetime, but having fulfilled his duty in saving his country.

History is messy. Morality is blurred. Good and evil are not so sharply contrasted as we are taught, they are shades of grey. Great people did terrible things, and terrible people did great things. It's often hard to apply our standard of morality to a situation like a total war, but harbor no doubt that the allies had the just cause, and thus the moral high ground.

That has nothing to do with WW2 even if it occurred during it other than praising him for being the perfect wartime leader for Britain. There are no shades of gray of morality in dropping two atomic bombs, even during war. The contrasts are pretty sharp at that point. 

Im not budging; you're not budging. Nobody on this site ever budges. Might as well call the conversation off again.

[AUDub 11,158]

10 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

That has nothing to do with WW2 even if it occurred during it other than praising him for being the perfect wartime leader for Britain.

The Bengal Famine of 43 has nothing to do with the war? Have your read anything concerning the period?

Read the relevant portion of the essay I linked right now and cure yourself of your ignorance. It won't take long.

Quote

There are no shades of gray of morality in dropping two atomic bombs, even during war. The contrasts are pretty sharp at that point. 

No, you have deluded yourself into thinking the bomb is somehow inherently the ultimate evil, and you justify it with special pleading.

Quote

Im not budging; you're not budging. Nobody on this site ever budges. Might as well call the conversation off again.

I've changed my position as a result of discussions here in the past.

[aujeff11 6,243]

1 hour ago, Bigbens42 said:

The Bengal Famine of 43 has nothing to do with the war? 

 

Not directly, no. Both are independent events. Maybe Churchill shifted his priorities to military support and told the empire to fend for itself and lifted the shipments of food. Whatever the case, how about I pick another ally or a Quaker? America doesn't own the high ground and it wasn't a just war to begin with. The cause wasn't just and neither was the conduct. We even helped Stalin grow his tyrannical empire. Not to mention the Manhattan project was started before we even entered the war. Now, every country seeking to defend itself has to have bombs just for legitimacy. America opened a pandora box of problems when they dropped the bombs. 

 

1 hour ago, Bigbens42 said:

No, you have deluded yourself into thinking the bomb is somehow inherently the ultimate evil, and you justify it with special pleading.

It is one of the top two war crimes, ever. We are in the same company as Hitler and the holocaust...I'd hate to know what other atrocities you'd be willing to justify.

1 hour ago, Bigbens42 said:

I've changed my position as a result of discussions here in the past.

And you still failed which should come to no surprise given that I already asked you to drop it three times now. 

[Strychnine 1,802]

17 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

It is one of the top two war crimes, ever. We are in the same company as Hitler and the holocaust...I'd hate to know what other atrocities you'd be willing to justify.

And you still failed which should come to no surprise given that I already asked you to drop it three times now. 

 

For the record, I consider the atomic bombings to be a war crime, and I do encourage debate and discussion on alternatives.  That said, the atomic bombings do not put the United States in the same company as Hitler and the Holocaust, not in intent or results.

The United States had no Einsatzgruppen, no purpose-built death camps, and most importantly, no desire to exterminate any race of people.  If there had been such a desire, possession of atomic bombs left the United States in a unique position to conveniently exterminate anyone they saw fit.  At no point did the United States ever engage the machinery of military or state to the express purpose of executing people.

Japan had clearly lost.  Japan had been warned.  The fact that it took two atomic bombs, and three days between them, for Japan to surrender only reinforces the logic behind dropping them in the first place.

[Mims44 1,882]

On 8/16/2017 at 5:08 PM, aujeff11 said:

Herp derp something something

Really I think the problem you have is believing people on this board are ok with most violence and for some reason only against fascist/racist violence.

 

Rest assured, if I run across a gun control meme about violent commies... I will post it as well.

[aujeff11 6,243]

13 minutes ago, Strychnine said:

For the record, I consider the atomic bombings to be a war crime, and I do encourage debate and discussion on alternatives.  That said, the atomic bombings do not put the United States in the same company as Hitler and the Holocaust, not in intent or results.

 

Their war crimes put them right up there next to Hitler's as a distant second. Next could be the combination of America, Britain, and allied socialists playing holocaust with bombs on Dresden, Germany. A city with no military importance near the end of the war.

13 minutes ago, Mims44 said:

Really I think the problem you have is believing people on this board are ok with most violence and for some reason only against fascist/racist violence.

I don't know what you're talking about and don't care. 

 

16 minutes ago, Strychnine said:

Japan had clearly lost.  Japan had been warned.  The fact that it took two atomic bombs, and three days between them, for Japan to surrender only reinforces the logic behind dropping them in the first place.

They waited too long so we showed them who is boss and bombed more noncombatants! Yuck.

[Strychnine 1,802]

1 minute ago, aujeff11 said:

Their war crimes put them right up there next to Hitler's as a distant second. Next could be the combination of America, Britain, and allied socialists playing holocaust with bombs on Dresden, Germany. A city with no military importance near the end of the war.

I don't know what you're talking about and don't care. 

 

They waited too long so we showed them who is boss and bombed more noncombatants! Yuck.

 

Thank you.  We will not speak again.

[aujeff11 6,243]

Just now, Strychnine said:

 

Thank you.  We will not speak again.

Well that's not cool but ok. Feel free to PM me.

[Mims44 1,882]

1 hour ago, aujeff11 said:

I don't know what you're talking about and don't care.

Could you tell me then what is your point with all these comments on the anti nazi threads?

[aujeff11 6,243]

1 minute ago, Mims44 said:

Could you tell me then what is your point with all these comments on the anti nazi threads?

There are several points. Can you expand on what you meant though? I don't think people are ok with "most violence" at all. Some have admitted to thinking that violence may not be a bad idea to countering the other side though. 

[Mims44 1,882]

4 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

There are several points. Can you expand on what you meant though? I don't think people are ok with "most violence" at all. Some have admitted to thinking that violence may not be a bad idea to countering the other side though. 

A lot of what I have read have followed the lines of.... If you hate these guys. Do you/why don't you hate these guys (ANTIFA,Commies, random other derps)

[AUDub 11,158]

4 hours ago, aujeff11 said:

Not directly, no. Both are independent events. Maybe Churchill shifted his priorities to military support and told the empire to fend for itself and lifted the shipments of food.

Once again, one can lead a horse to water but can't make him drink. I provided you with sources. I can't make you read them. 

Quote

Whatever the case, how about I pick another ally or a Quaker? America doesn't own the high ground and it wasn't a just war to begin with. The cause wasn't just and neither was the conduct.

This is stupid. How is the difference not obvious to you? How is the fact that our cause was just lost on you? We did not start a war, did not kill millions of people on some on some notion of racial superiority and lebensraum, did not invade other countries and enslave their populations. Japan, Italy and Germany did. We did what we did to put them back in their box and make sure they never did it again. This was a good thing. 

Quote

We even helped Stalin grow his tyrannical empire.

An ally of convenience, but one that at the time we considered the lesser evil, mostly out of ignorance. Churchill knew what time of day it was though, as did Truman. (FDR kept his feelings to himself.)

Prior to the war the USSR was an international pariah. They came out of isolation in the late 1930's and only once it became apparent what a growing threat Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan would become, beating the brakes off of the latter in Khalkin-Gol and leading to the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality pact. They attempted to coordinate with the allies to contain the threat, but the west was disinclined to work as closely as Stalin hoped. With the west maintaining its policy of appeasement, the Soviets decided the best policy was to come to terms with the Germans, leading to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.

The USSR was pleased to have this agreement, but that changed when Germany overran France in the blink of an eye. They had counted on the Germans having a long war with France as they had in WW1. With the French defeated, the USSR feared the Germans would attack them next, which they did. It was this that made the USSR a member of the Allies. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. 

When the war ended, the USSR was concerned about preventing anything like the German invasion from ever happening again. To the USSR this meant grabbing territories in Eastern Europe and create a buffer of friendly communist states. The western allies had wanted these countries to be liberated, not made into satellites, and felt betrayed by this self-interested move. This sense of betrayal, combined with evidence that the USSR had been actively spying on us, created a lot of distrust between the allies. Thus begins the Cold War.

Quote

Not to mention the Manhattan project was started before we even entered the war. Now, every country seeking to defend itself has to have bombs just for legitimacy. America opened a pandora box of problems when they dropped the bombs.

And add the Manhattan project to the list of things to which you are ignorant. We entered the war in December 1941. While there was cursory research beforehand, the Manhattan project was only formalized in January 1942.

Here's a question for you. What do you think would happen if Britain had gotten the bomb first?

Trick question. They did. More accurately, we did.

In 1932, Leo Szilard discovered the possibility of using a neutron to start a chain reaction which would cause Uranium-235 to fission, thereby releasing massive amounts of energy. He also realized this could be weaponized.

In 1934, he filed a patent application for the bomb. He then gave the patent to the British War Office. He did this in an attempt to cause the patent to become classified information, which would prevent Germany from creating it first. It wasn’t until 1936 that the BWO accepted the gift, but luckily this was before the internet, so Germany never found out.

Afterwards, when the U.S. entered the war, a research arm was formalized. Britain shared the patent with the U.S. and a multinational group of scientists, all working to create an atomic bomb in the hopes of preempting the Axis powers. This was the Manhattan Project.

With their aid, we built it. With their blessing, we used it. We did what they could not, and delivered it to the Japanese. Not because they didn't want to, but because they didn't have the capability.

How about Russia? Japan? Germany? The idea that they would not use them, that they would be as discerning in their use is laughable. 

That box was opening one way or another, as every major belligerent (not including Italy because they turned out to suck at war) during the war was actively researching it. We simply got there first. And thank the Lord it was us and Britain, and not Germany or Japan, that did.

Quote

It is one of the top two war crimes, ever. We are in the same company as Hitler and the holocaust...I'd hate to know what other atrocities you'd be willing to justify.

Laughable. The atrocities visited upon the Chinese, Koreans, Pacific Islanders, Jews, Gypsies and Slavic peoples by Germany and Japan dwarf anything we could have ever dreamed of doing.

About 2000000to 3000000 Russian POWs were either shot or starved to death by the Germans in WWII, along with 5000000 non-Jewish and 6000000 Jewish undesirables. 

10000 Dutch starved to death during the last winter of the war because the Germans had confiscated all their food and the Allies hadn't broken through the formidable German defenses. The Canadians sent a couple of officers to negotiate (successfully) to allow food shipments during a ceasefire, saving 10s of thousands of civilian lives. When people make all those silly jokes about how nice Canadians are, this is what I think of.

The Nazis accelerated their effort to eradicate the Jews in the closing months of the war, sending their camp operations into overdrive.

But the Japanese still take the prize. 100000 Chinese were dying every month during the last year of the war. These dwarf the casualties of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, most of them dying more slowly. And this was after everybody knew that the Japanese couldn't win, but they kept on fighting in hopes of a noble death. Unit 731, which if you have never heard of you need to look in to. But of course the one that sticks out to me is the Rape of Nanking. It was killing for killing's sake. Rape for rape's sake. Torture for torture's sake. Utter depravity of the worst order. When I said our commanders were more gracious in victory than the Japanese deserved, I meant it. I chuckle any time someone says the Japanese were treated unfairly after the war. I would show them. Had I been in command, the emperor, his top brass and hundreds of thousands of his citizens were immediately making a trip to Nanking with me. I would show them every festering corpse, every mass grave, every monument to their depravity during their excursion into China. Maybe the selective amnesia and historical revisionism common in their society today wouldn't be a thing.

Quote

And you still failed which should come to no surprise given that I already asked you to drop it three times now. 

Then stop replying. 

[aujeff11 6,243]

6 hours ago, Bigbens42 said:

We did not start a war, did not kill millions of people on some on some notion of racial superiority and lebensraum, did not invade other countries and enslave their populations.

Please. School yourself. You and I both know we weren't at risk to be invaded anytime soon. We also know America was itching to go to war for well over two years after the world war officially started. We also inflicted more than minimal damage than necessary while forgoing any right to immunity for the enemy noncombatants when we area bombed and atomic bombed Germany and Japan. 

Just Cause- no

Just Conduct -no

Proportionality -no

Immunity to noncombatants- no

 

 

6 hours ago, Bigbens42 said:

An ally of convenience, but one that at the time we considered the lesser evil

Lol. How has your moral highground glasshouse not been shredded to pieces, yet? Don't tell me Japan's grievances of torture and murder when our same country allied up with a dictator that was equal to Benito and Hitler. America also let Stalin's men rape, and pillage, and plunder and torture Germany while killing 13 million of their civilians after the war. 

 

6 hours ago, Bigbens42 said:

mostly out of ignorance

Give me a break. This seems to be becoming a common theme for you. "Oh I'm sorry I ****** up your bodies for life while also poisoning your atmosphere for decades. I didn't know!" Or "I'm sorry I sided with a dictator; we thought the fake news were telling fibs about his mean streak. We didn't realize that defeating tyranny with tyranny was a bad idea!"

6 hours ago, Bigbens42 said:

Afterwards, when the U.S. entered the war, a research arm was formalized. Britain shared the patent with the U.S. and a multinational group of scientists, all working to create an atomic bomb in the hopes of preempting the Axis powers. This was the Manhattan Project.

Fake news, Einstein wrote FDR as soon as 1939 and research was already well under way, committees formed, and funding already started prior to the war. As a matter of fact:

1941

• February 25: Conclusive discovery of plutonium by Glenn Seaborg and Arthur Wahl.^[16]
• May 17: A report by Arthur Compton and the National Academy of Sciences is issued which finds favorable the prospects of developing nuclear power production for military use.^[17]
• June 28: Roosevelt creates the Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD) under Vannevar Bush with the signing of Executive Order 8807.^[18]OSRD absorbs NDRC and the Uranium Committee. James B. Conant succeeds Bush as the head of NDRC.^[19]
• July 2: The MAUD Committee chooses James Chadwick to write the second (and final) draft of its report on the design and costs of developing a bomb.^[20]
• July 15: The MAUD Committee issues final detailed technical report on design and costs to develop a bomb. Advance copy sent to Vannevar Bush who decides to wait for official version before taking any action.^[21]
• August: Mark Oliphant travels to USA to urge development of a bomb rather than power production.^[22]
• September 3: British Chiefs of Staff Committeeapprove nuclear weapons project.^[23]
• October 3: Official copy of MAUD Report (written by Chadwick) reaches Bush.^[22]
• October 9: Bush takes MAUD Report to Roosevelt, who approves Project to confirm MAUD's findings. Roosevelt asks Bush to draft a letter so that the British government could be approached "at the top." ^[24]
• December 6: Bush holds a meeting to organize an accelerated research project, still managed by Arthur Compton. Harold Urey is assigned to develop research into gaseous diffusion as a uranium enrichment method, while Ernest O. Lawrence is assigned to investigate electromagnetic separation methods. Compton puts the case for plutonium before Bush and Conant. ^[25]
• December 7: The Japanese attack Pearl Harbor. The United States and Great Britain issue a formal declaration of war against Japan the next day

6 hours ago, Bigbens42 said:

How about Russia? Japan? Germany? The idea that they would not use them, that they would be as discerning in their use is laughable.

They haven't used them yet. We are the only country that has used it. 

6 hours ago, Bigbens42 said:

When I said our commanders were more gracious in victory than the Japanese deserved, I meant it. I chuckle any time someone says the Japanese were treated unfairly after the war. I would show them. Had I been in command, the emperor, his top brass and hundreds of thousands of his citizens were immediately making a trip to Nanking with me. I would show them every festering corpse, every mass grave, every monument to their depravity during their excursion into China. M

That's funny( and irrelevant) because before we entered the war, we weren't in the World Police business. It took a Pearl Harbor Attack for us to finally go to war which was well after the gruesome activities were already taking place.As a matter of fact, when the war started, humanitatian aid was quickly dished out to the Jews and the like. As the atrocities got more gruesome, the aid became less and less prevalent because nobody wanted to touch those problems. Next, it is shockingly disgusting to hear anyone advocate answering atrocities with atrocities. 

I forgot about the Japanese war crimes of their own though so I'll end there. Now, we are in a league with Germany and Japan and I'll give you fascist Italy and Socialist Stalin too! The good guys, maw! 

 

 

FDR, 1939:

Two years later, in his September 1, 1939, appeal at the outbreak of World War II in Europe, President Roosevelt beseeched the belligerents to refrain from the “inhuman barbarism” of attacking civilian centers. In the recent past, he noted, such assaults had “resulted in the maiming and in the death of thousands of defenseless men, women, and children.” These bombings, the President said, had “sickened the hearts of every civilized man and woman, and has profoundly shocked the conscience of humanity.” FDR, however, would soon authorize development of the nuclear weapon as well as germ warfare, and sanction terror bombing. Hull, who didn’t hesitate to condemn Japanese atrocities, later praised FDR “for making the tremendous decision to go the length of spending $2-billion in developing the atomic bomb.”

So, according to the 1939 edition of FDR, we don't own the moral high ground. Never fret though, Britain and Germany backed out of similar moral highpoints, too. Nevertheless, FDR's "arsenal of democracy" closer aligns with the current status quo with our military. 

6 hours ago, Bigbens42 said:

Then stop replying. 

Look at who is talking. Obviously I've been trying to agree to disagree for a while now. 

[homersapien 11,396]

22 hours ago, aujeff11 said:

It is one of the top two war crimes, ever. We are in the same company as Hitler and the holocaust...I'd hate to know what other atrocities you'd be willing to justify.

 

21 hours ago, aujeff11 said:

Their war crimes put them right up there next to Hitler's as a distant second.

 

Amazing.  Simply amazing.

Ben you are wasting your time.  At first, I gave Jeff the benefit of doubt and chalked up his opinions to his extreme ignorance of history.  I thought Jeff was simply too unread to understand and given enough education, he would finally "get it".  You've done an admirable job in making the case for their use, but Jeff has demonstrated he is immune to the facts.  Even the ignorant should doubt such a belief when confronted with the truth.  

So, I have come to conclude Jeff either has a problem with rationality in general or a pathological adversion to changing his position in the light of evidence.  

Either way, any appeal based on the actual facts becomes a waste of time.  You cannot reach a person who rejects the necessity of having to make choices and then refuses to see the moral superiority of choosing to use atomic bombs when every other alternative would have literally taken millions of more lives.

When I was his age, I actually thought there were alternatives that could have avoided their use - such a demonstration.   It was only after years of reading that I came to fully understand the reality of the choices.  I came to appreciat the decisions that were made as the right ones from a moral standpoint.  

Maybe - given enough study - Jeff will eventually come to understand, but I kind of doubt it. He refuses to acknowledge any consequences for not making that choice.  Hell, he even proposed forced starvation as being morally superior, even though millions more people would have died.  WTF?? 

Anyway, by now, it's obvious he's not going to reach understanding in this discussion, so I would spare yourself further effort. Let's just "agree to disagree" as he wants.  Let him continue to believe the way we ended the war with Japan is morally worse than what the Nazis did.   Time to move on.

Presumably, he's an Auburn grad, so we can only hope he keeps his opinion to himself in the future even at the expense of missing the incredulous expressions of the people who hear it.  

I suppose he will see this as condescension, but WTF, condescension is the natural response to such a position.

He's earned it.  

 

[aujeff11 6,243]

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

 

 

Amazing.  Simply amazing.

Ben you are wasting your time.  At first, I gave Jeff the benefit of doubt and chalked up his opinions to his extreme ignorance of history.  I thought Jeff was simply too unread to understand and given enough education, he would finally "get it".  You've done an admirable job in making the case for their use, but Jeff has demonstrated he is immune to the facts.  Even the ignorant should doubt such a belief when confronted with the truth.  

So, I have come to conclude Jeff either has a problem with rationality in general or a pathological adversion to changing his position in the light of evidence.  

Either way, any appeal based on the actual facts becomes a waste of time.  You cannot reach a person who rejects the necessity of having to make choices and then refuses to see the moral superiority of choosing to use atomic bombs when every other alternative would have literally taken millions of more lives.

When I was his age, I actually thought there were alternatives that could have avoided their use - such a demonstration.   It was only after years of reading that I came to fully understand the reality of the choices.  I came to appreciat the decisions that were made as the right ones from a moral standpoint.  

Maybe - given enough study - Jeff will eventually come to understand, but I kind of doubt it. He refuses to acknowledge any consequences for not making that choice.  Hell, he even proposed forced starvation as being morally superior, given that millions of more people would have died.  WTF?? 

Anyway, he's certainly not going to reach that point in this discussion, so I would spare yourself further effort. Let's just "agree to disagree" as he wants.  Let him continue to believe the way we ended the war with Japan is morally worse than what the Nazis did.   Time to move on.

Presumably, he's an Auburn grad, so we can only hope he keeps his opinion to himself in the future even at the expense of missing the incredulous expressions of the people who hear it.  

I suppose he will see this as condescension, but WTF, condescension is the natural response to such a position.

He's earned it.  

 

You didn't say one single thing in that novel that is worth reading. Just a bunch of bitching, name calling, and deferring to BigBen to make the argument for you. You keep talking about facts, but you never give any, and you ignored the plethora of facts that I've posted as well. 

Whatever the case, you're apparently unfamiliar with Operation Starvation. Otherwise, you wouldn't make such ridiculous claims. And the claim that "every alternative would have ended with millions of deaths" is the most ridiculous thing you've said today( and you've said plenty.)

-First, You don't even know all the alternatives that were available and the feasibility of them as alternatives. 

-Secondly, you don't know if any other stragic opportunities could've opened itself up if not for the bomb. How many times did life throw you a curveball? How many times have you ever had an unexpected but pleasant surprise? Stop dealing in absolutes, Homer!

-Thirdly, You're smart enough to make such ridiculous claims. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/ghb67.wordpress.com/2014/01/12/operation-starvation/amp/

Also,

"Unspectacular, discreet—and inevitably overshadowed by the detonation of two atomic bombs in August 1945—Operation Starvation was one of the great unsung successes of World War II. Operating from newly captured bases in the Mariana Islands (Tinian, Saipan, and Guam), the XXI Bomber Command flew 1,529 sorties and laid 12,135 mines in 26 fields on 46 separate missions. A total of 670 ships was sunk or damaged, accounting for more than 1.25 million shipping tons. Traffic in most of the main shipping lanes was halted, delayed, or diverted and Japan’s ports were left unusable. By August 1945 shipping had fallen to only one-quarter of May levels—themselves already dangerously low—and Japan’s economic collapse was all but inevitable. Indeed, the five-month operation was so effective that, had it been introduced earlier in the war, it arguably may have achieved Japan’s uncondi­tional surrender without the attention-getting destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Aerial mining demanded less than six percent of the XXI Bomber Command’s total sorties, and only fifteen B-29s were lost in the effort. In terms of damage per unit of cost, Operation Starvation surpassed the U.S. Navy’s anti-shipping submarine campaign and the USAAF’s strategic bombing of Japanese oil production facilities and urban, commercial, and manufacturing centers.

And you're a special kind of stupid if you think choosing to deploy atomic bombs is the "ultimately morally superior position." 

So sad. 

 

 

[aujeff11 6,243]

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

Hell, he even proposed forced starvation as being morally superior, given that millions of more people would have died.  WTF??

Go ahead and laugh at yourself.

[AUDub 11,158]

7 hours ago, aujeff11 said:

-First, You don't even know all the alternatives that were available and the feasibility of them as alternatives. 

Yeah, we do. The options were blockade and starve while pounding their cities into dust from the air, invade, demonstrate or drop the bomb, and the rationale behind the decision was obvious.

It was a combination of several factors.

• Unconditional surrender was the standard against all the Axis powers. Potsdam.
• The military projected casualties upwards of a million in the invasion of Japan. Where did they come up with such a ridiculous number? Okinawa and Iwo Jima. The invasions of these small islands resulted in casualties of 150,000 US service personnel. It was hard to imagine that an invasion of the mainlands of Japan would be less.  
• The notion that the Japanese would surrender without much fighting should we invade  was ridiculous to them because the Germans, significantly less brainwashed by religion and pride, never did so after Soviet, British and American soldiers entered their homeland. The way the Japanese soldiers fought to the death was worse than what the Germans did.  
• The notion that a military blockade would end the war wasn't believed any more than a military blockade without invasion of Germany would work. The notion that Japan was teetering on surrender is silly. They never were (as in, didn't even surrender after one of their cities was instantly vaporized). They were far more committed, ideologically and religiously, than the Germans ever were and Germany (reiterating) need a full-scale invasion by three superpowers. Furthermore, Japan's "peace-feelers" sent through different nations had all sorts of quid-pro-quos that sort of violated the "unconditional" portion of the Potsdam Declaration.  
• The Truman Administration was rightly worried about the fact that a million casualties would be too much for the American public and that even without massive public anger or a domestic revolt, his administration would be forced to confront the American public with the news of so many dead and be destroyed by the failure to save American lives while having the possession of a weapon that could end the war instantly. And that's the key. Can you imagine a sitting President going before the American people and congressional investigations saying, "Why yes, we did have this powerful weapon, the most expensive military invention in the history of humanity which plunged our nation into significant debt that could have totally obliterated the Empire of Japan in an instant and save your sons and daughters. No, Senator, we felt it was more important to save the lives of Japanese people than it was to save the lives of our people, even despite all the medical experiments conducted by Japan on innocent civilians as grotesque as those by the Nazis, and the marches of death that needlessly murdered many thousands of your sons, and the raping of women, the planned-industrial extermination and mass execution of MORE Chinese people (our friends and allies) than the Jews in German death camps. . . but. . . ahhhhh. . . we felt it prudent to look out for the welfare of their people more than our own and our allies who had been dragged ferociously into this bloody war through a sneak attack on our base in Hawaii."  Can you just IMAGINE the massive, beyond-your-imagination, public upheaval after the American public discovered that there was this "superweapon" that could have saved all of our lives and that the government decided NOT to use it out of some slavish devotion to saving their civilians? It would mean total and complete destruction of that presidential administration. The American people were tired of war. They would have been pissed and rightly so.
• The United States warned Japan in leaflets dropped all over that nation, warning of total destruction. The Potsdam Declaration had promised Japan that it wouldn't be a slave nation and that it would be able to retain control of the home islands and its own industries. They did not surrender on the terms provided. 
• This was a war between entire civilizations. The Japanese home islands were prepared for all-out war even if invaded. The civilians at home were as dangerous as the military at war. This was true in Germany and Italy, where neither "surrendered" until almost totally destroyed and occupied. 

The total destruction of cities in World War II wasn't something new. No German city was spared. The fire bombings of cities killed people in Germany and Japan already and the Atomic Bomb was simply affect the same result but only quicker.

7 hours ago, aujeff11 said:

-Secondly, you don't know if any other stragic opportunities could've opened itself up if not for the bomb. How many times did life throw you a curveball? How many times have you ever had an unexpected but pleasant surprise? Stop dealing in absolutes, Homer!

Laughable. Sit on our haunches while our boys, the Chinese, Koreans, other people in Japanese occupied territories and, consequently, the citizens of Japan die waiting for a curveball? That's hilarious.

Consider this, the bomb was the curveball.

7 hours ago, aujeff11 said:

-Thirdly, You're smart enough to make such ridiculous claims. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/ghb67.wordpress.com/2014/01/12/operation-starvation/amp/

Also,

"Unspectacular, discreet—and inevitably overshadowed by the detonation of two atomic bombs in August 1945—Operation Starvation was one of the great unsung successes of World War II. Operating from newly captured bases in the Mariana Islands (Tinian, Saipan, and Guam), the XXI Bomber Command flew 1,529 sorties and laid 12,135 mines in 26 fields on 46 separate missions. A total of 670 ships was sunk or damaged, accounting for more than 1.25 million shipping tons. Traffic in most of the main shipping lanes was halted, delayed, or diverted and Japan’s ports were left unusable. By August 1945 shipping had fallen to only one-quarter of May levels—themselves already dangerously low—and Japan’s economic collapse was all but inevitable. Indeed, the five-month operation was so effective that, had it been introduced earlier in the war, it arguably may have achieved Japan’s uncondi­tional surrender without the attention-getting destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Aerial mining demanded less than six percent of the XXI Bomber Command’s total sorties, and only fifteen B-29s were lost in the effort. In terms of damage per unit of cost, Operation Starvation surpassed the U.S. Navy’s anti-shipping submarine campaign and the USAAF’s strategic bombing of Japanese oil production facilities and urban, commercial, and manufacturing centers.

"Unspectacular, discreet—and inevitably overshadowed by the detonation of two atomic bombs in August 1945—Operation Starvation was one of the great unsung successes of World War II...."

That's correct. This is probably the closest to a large-scale siege in the modern era. Only Stalingrad was comparable in terms of resource denial.

"If it had been introduced earlier..."

But this says nothing about how long it would take and how many would die in the course of the campaign, only the start date of the campaign.

And do you know why it wasn't introduced earlier? We needed a foothold, a base of operations to drop those mines. That came in the form of Tinian in the Mariana Islands, which we captured in the battle of Saipan in July 1944, and put the B29s (full disclosure, my grandfather's role in the war was on these B29s in the Phillipines campaign) within range of the Japanese home islands. But we weren't ready to begin in earnest until the following year. Our focus was split with the battles of Leyte and Luzon yet to come, and the capture of Iwo Jima in November, which had the benefit of stopping the Japanese raids on our bombing operations, and the 313th Bombardment Wing arrived in December. 

I don't know what you're trying to prove here, but your article proves nothing. 

7 hours ago, aujeff11 said:

And you're a special kind of stupid if you think choosing to deploy atomic bombs is the "ultimately morally superior position." 

So sad. 

 You really don't know when to quit. 

[aujeff11 6,243]

1 hour ago, Bigbens42 said:

 You really don't know when to quit. 

Irony 

The argument started because I said America didn't have the moral high ground in WW2 and I have plenty of reasons for it. And all you have done is justify heinous war crimes and an unjust war.  Small but non-exhaustive list of grievances: 

Unjust war

Atomic bombs

Area bombs 

Lack of proportionality which aligns with the Just War doctrine.

The amount of noncombatant deaths 

Forced Starvation

Internment Camps

Teaming up with Stalin which allowed his own tyrannical government to grow after the war.

Did I say unjust war? 

 

1 hour ago, Bigbens42 said:

Laughable. Sit on our haunches while our boys, the Chinese, Koreans, other people in Japanese occupied territories and, consequently, the citizens of Japan die waiting for a curveball? That's hilarious.

 

Don't pretend to care about the citizens of Japan. 

1 hour ago, Bigbens42 said:

war wasn't believed any more than a military blockade without invasion of Germany would work. The notion that Japan was teetering on surrender is silly. They never were (as in, didn't even surrender after one of their cities was instantly vaporized). They were far more committed, ideologically and religiously, than the Germans ever were and Germany (reiterating) need a full-scale invasion by three superpowers

Starvation would've worked. Try going to the gym without eating in two days.. Much less,  going to war without eating in weeks. They're human. Bodies break down. 

From a Japanese Captain:  

“We agree that the mine warfare conducted by American planes during the greater East Asia War produced a very great strategical effect... When B-29s began to use Saipan as a base for mine warfare against our main islands they first interrupted communications in the Inland Sea Area and then by closing the Japan Sea ports they cut our communications and our food and raw material artery to the continent. The mine warfare coupled with the bombing raids prevented our utilizing our war strength and completely nullified our plans to the extent of forcing us to abandon them... It was indeed a far-sighted policy.”

1 hour ago, Bigbens42 said:

The military projected casualties upwards of a million in the invasion of Japan.

Hence the reason for Operation Starvation. Which was extremely successful in such a short period of time. 

 

1 hour ago, Bigbens42 said:

The Truman Administration was rightly worried about the fact that a million casualties would be too much for the American public and that even without massive public anger or a domestic revolt, his administration would be forced to confront the American public with the news of so many dead and be destroyed by the failure to save American lives while having the possession of a weapon that could end the war instantly. And that's the key. 

Again, Operation Starvation. Even without the operation, one political career isn't worth dropping atomic bombs on innocent citizenry. Stop. 

 

1 hour ago, Bigbens42 said:

don't know what you're trying to prove here, but your article proves nothing. 

It proves that we didn't drop atomic bombs to prevent using forced starvation, which is what you implied. 

"In July 1944, President Roosevelt traveled to Hawaii to meet with General Douglas MacArthur and Admiral Chester Nimitz, his senior field commanders in the Pacific. MacArthur and Nimitz were substantially in agreement. In their view, Japan could be defeated by blockade and bombardment, without the need for a costly invasion of the Japanese home islands. "

Also, in the same link, the idea wasn't tossed around until July 6th 1944. And the reason why Operation Statvation didn't start naval mining until so late wasn't because we needed a foothold. AAF officials were convinced strategic bombing was the quickest way out of the war without invasion and didn't come around to mining until late.

https://books.google.com/books?id=d5ZvCwAAQBAJ&pg=PT71&lpg=PT71&dq=why+didnt+operation+starvation+begin+sooner&source=bl&ots=ZR0JHleiNO&sig=08YJ3jOC_EXcof0GI6SH6X_F-l0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZrYXgg-XVAhWDOCYKHVwLCNMQ6AEITTAI#v=onepage&q=why didnt operation starvation begin sooner&f=false

1 hour ago, Bigbens42 said:

Why yes, we did have this powerful weapon, the most expensive military invention in the history of humanity which plunged our nation into significant debt t

Ok, well our nation came out of the war  more powerful than ever and completely out of the Great Depression. We separated from the pack by leaps and bounds. This sensationalism nonsense by you is getting old. Just get to the point. 

 

1 hour ago, Bigbens42 said:

Can you just IMAGINE the massive, beyond-your-imagination, public upheaval after the American public discovered that there was this "superweapon" that could have saved all of our lives and that the government decided NOT to use it out of some slavish devotion to saving their civilians?

 Is this what Homer calls facts? Guilt-ridden justifications after changing the fact patterns?

[AUDub 11,158]

3 hours ago, aujeff11 said:

Irony 

The argument started because I said America didn't have the moral high ground in WW2 and I have plenty of reasons for it. And all you have done is justify heinous war crimes and an unjust war.  Small but non-exhaustive list of grievances: 

Unjust war

Unjust war my ass. How, after all this time, is the difference between the belligerents not obvious to you? It's been repeated ad nauseam. We did not start a war, did not kill millions of unoffending people on a whim, did not attempt to conquer other countries and enslave their populations. They did.

Quote

Atomic bombs

Which, while atrocious, were far from the the worst atrocity committed in the course of the war. 

Quote

Area bombs

Which, while atrocious, was far from the the worst atrocity committed in the course of the war. 

Quote

The amount of noncombatant deaths

Do a count by belligerent and get back to me. 

Quote

Forced Starvation

I don't recall America forcefully starving anyone. 

Quote

Internment Camps

At least they weren't extermination camps.

Quote

Teaming up with Stalin which allowed his own tyrannical government to grow after the war.

An unforeseen consequence, and not one of our making.

Quote

Did I say unjust war?

Forgetting your own words as well as mine now?

3 hours ago, aujeff11 said:

Lack of proportionality which aligns with the Just War doctrine.

Jeff, while it's nice to be an idealist, there are times when pragmatism must take hold. I agree it wasn't a white vs. black struggle, but we were definitely on the whiter side of a sea of grey.

Quote

Don't pretend to care about the citizens of Japan. 

Strawman

I did not say the US was motivated by any sort of concern for the Japanese. Saving millions of their citizens was merely a byproduct. Hence the "consequently" I put in there. 

Quote

Starvation would've worked. Try going to the gym without eating in two days.. Much less,  going to war without eating in weeks. They're human. Bodies break down.

From a Japanese Captain:  

“We agree that the mine warfare conducted by American planes during the greater East Asia War produced a very great strategical effect... When B-29s began to use Saipan as a base for mine warfare against our main islands they first interrupted communications in the Inland Sea Area and then by closing the Japan Sea ports they cut our communications and our food and raw material artery to the continent. The mine warfare coupled with the bombing raids prevented our utilizing our war strength and completely nullified our plans to the extent of forcing us to abandon them... It was indeed a far-sighted policy.”

It was working. They were in the process of starving, but bodies take time to break down. Sieges tend to be long, messy affairs. Starving to death is a long, painful process I would never wish on anyone. Cities have held out for months, even years against starvation, and they have littl measurable food production like an entire country.

The Japanese-held territories would be screwed. If the dying days of Nazi Germany is any example, their ethnic cleansing would accelerate to (even more) fanatical levels.

It could have taken months, a year, all while ours and other's soldiers died and our friends and allies were slaughtered because of our inaction.

Quote

Hence the reason for Operation Starvation. Which was extremely successful in such a short period of time.

I've not denied it.

Quote

 Again, Operation Starvation. Even without the operation, one political career isn't worth dropping atomic bombs on innocent citizenry. Stop. 

Even without the invasion, it's not any better when you say tens of thousands, along with potentially millions of our allies in occupied territories being slaughtered on an industrial scale.

Quote

It proves that we didn't drop atomic bombs to prevent using forced starvation, which is what you implied. 

No, I didn't. Not at all. I have said, time and time again, that we were not motivated by Japanese welfare. We wanted to end the war.

I've noticed you are chopping large portion of my replies. Maybe that's your problem.

Quote

"In July 1944, President Roosevelt traveled to Hawaii to meet with General Douglas MacArthur and Admiral Chester Nimitz, his senior field commanders in the Pacific. MacArthur and Nimitz were substantially in agreement. In their view, Japan could be defeated by blockade and bombardment, without the need for a costly invasion of the Japanese home islands. "

And they weren't wrong, but defeat is not the same thing as surrender. The Japanese were defeated by August 1945. They could no longer wage war effectively. We had them back in their box, with the exception of their forces on the continent and some outlying islands. However, they had not surrendered. The fight continued. Their atrocities continued. Their empire was still intact. The question for the allies was, how do you get from that scenario to one in which the Japanese political system has surrendered? The allies did not want to leave Japan as it was, in the same political circumstances that originally led to the war. Potsdam stipulated nothing less than unconditional surrender.

Quote

Also, in the same link, the idea wasn't tossed around until July 6th 1944. And the reason why Operation Statvation didn't start naval mining until so late wasn't because we needed a foothold. AAF officials were convinced strategic bombing was the quickest way out of the war without invasion and didn't come around to mining until late.

You mean in early July 1944, when the idea was thought up? That's my point. We did not mine them intensively until we claimed Tinian, which occurred shortly after Nimitz stroke of genius, got our airfields built, logistics set, could easily reach the Japanese mainland, and other priorities taken care of. We began raids on the mainland in earnest from there in November 1944, and the mining in late March the following year. Japanese shipping would have ground to a halt and they would have had an entire winter with no shipping had it begun mere months earlier, which would have been a very bad thing for them.

Quote

 Is this what Homer calls facts? Guilt-ridden justifications after changing the fact patterns?

You've ignored so many in this thread, I don't believe you'd know a one if it bit you.

What truly appalls me about you is that I hear nothing from you about the millions and millions of Gypsys, Jews, Slavs, Koreans, Chinese, Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, Maylays and Indonesians who were the victims of Japanese and German militarism. Yet you want to raise your horror over the atomic attacks to level of religious condemnation. 

The atrocities were still going on as the atomic bombs were dropped on Japan. Their navy had been destroyed. Their air forces had been destroyed. Almost all of the territory they had seized had been take back at a horrible cost to Americans, Australians, Dutchmen, Brits, Indians and the local populations. Their armies were either on the run or in hiding. Yet they would not ******* surrender.

But apparently, you don't care about those millions of victims, or even those those Japanese civilians whose deaths the bomb very likely prevented. Apparently you don't consider Japan's and Germany's years of attacking, slaughtering and enslaving their neighbors sufficient justification to take any means to end their madness.

You haven't thought this one through, and playing stupid philosophical games about the meaning of the word "fact" doesn't hide that glaring fault on your part.