Why does nobody pay any attention to the fact that Russia had been fighting Japan and was just about to attack Japan itself? We dropped the bombs because we didn't want the Russians to get any part of the island. The US knew the cold war was coming, and saw it in Germany already. We secured our dominance by doing this.
Examples of terrorist atrocities committed by the United States government on foreign peoples are in no short supply. One does not even need to debate the justifications of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings because so many other blatantly unjustified terrorist attacks exist.
Buchanan is a lying rightwing historical revisionist. Read up on Operation Ketsu-Go, Japan's plan for a counter offensive in case of amphibian invasion by the USA. It was basically a plan for mass kamikaze by the entire Japanese people against the American forces – to cause such utter devastation in a final last battle that better conditions for surrender could be achieved.
@IhateNEOconservatism hiroshima photos-no crater-vatican priests suuvived-no radiation-it was fire bombed--no nuclear attack--and japaa surrendered fully on september 11-american time-septembr 12 japan pacific time with its armed forces--and osama quoted the japanese after septemeber 11-study japan-so called friend of america-japan raped and stole trillions-study GOLDEN LILY-thats how they got rich after 1945-left asia poor
You argue most of what goes on in wars is a kind of terrorism. The USA has committed terrorism for decades now. The atomic bombings were not the ending shots of WWII, but the opening shots of the cold war. The USA wanted to see what would happen if an industrial city, relatively untouched by prior bombings, were hit with such a weapon. With this threat the western world could threaten the forces of communism with awesome destruction.
@Ponerology hiroshima photos-no crater-vatican priests suuvived-no radiation-it was fire bombed--no nuclear attack--and japaa surrendered fully on september 11-american time-septembr 12 japan pacific time with its armed forces--and osama quoted the japanese after septemeber 11-study japan-so called friend of america-japan raped and stole trillions-study GOLDEN LILY-thats how they got rich after 1945-left asia poor
Pat Buchanan also doesn't think the Holocaust happen. As to the Japanese they had been fighting and not giving in to that point. Thousands had already killed in bombing prior to the two bombings, many more people than in those attack with no signs of surrender. Maybe they were close, but inflicting such awesome damage in war brought things to an end. You can justify 9-11 all you want, but the bottom line is they hit us, but didn't wipe us out, and we need to keep fighting! Our cause is just!
i think the best way to describe this video is "war is bad. we should have let japan and germany conquer every inch of earth to save us from doing bad things." if you want to straw-man your oppositions arguments, i'll straw-man yours.
they differ in that our way was objectively the right thing to do... unless you believe that there's no difference between the taliban and american style democracy. this entire video occurs in a historical vacuum and consequential vacuum. japan BARELY surrendered even after the bombs. this entire video is troll-bate. i'm going to stop talking now.
Harry Truman should be tried posthumously as a war criminal - after that we should go on down the list of war criminals who were presidents , and try them , along with their henchmen for their participation - - - - - BUT , that'll never be mentioned !
@IhateNEOconservatism The deliberate mass slaughter of civilians weather it be by carpet bombing, fire bombing, or atomic bombing was against the then established rules of war. We made it a viable act of war and therefore are in no position to decry it.
@IhateNEOconservatism we broke the conventions you talk about the moment we decided to mass slaughter civilians. The Nazis rounded people up and delivered them into ovens, The USAF bypasses the need to round people up and delivers the ovens directly to the people. Past is prologue. We never realised the precident we were setting. Today, we reap the bitter harvest of descisions made back then.
@IhateNEOconservatism Once again, it is only as good as ones ability to enforce it. War is the result of of one trying to enforce ones will upon another. Hiroshima and Nagasaki violates every aspect of the conventions you talk about. As did Dresdyn, Cologne, Tokyo, Osaka, Pyongyang, Hanoi, Hiaphong, and every tothr city the USAF bombed. 9-11 was us getting a small taste of our own medicine.
@IhateNEOconservatism Terrorism is a relative word. One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. One nations terrorism is anothers viable act of war.
A nation whose Air Force has murdered more civilians than all of the so called terrorists is in no position to cry about someone returning the favor.
@IhateNEOconservatism As it was, the conditions they would have agreed to were honored anyway. With "Their call" The mass slaughter of civilians is now a viable act of war and we cannot blame anyone who returns the favor.
@IhateNEOconservatism Lawsonly both sides agree to. And since we burned the books and went ahead and fire bombed and atomic bombed civilians, we cannot decry anyone who returns the favor.
@IhateNEOconservatism Governments and courts are only as good as thier ability to enforce it. When one refuses to obey the dictates of governments and courts, you have war. We have established that the mass slaughter of civilians is a viable act of war and therefore cannot blame others for returning the favor.
BTW Curtis La May admitted that if he were to be under any legal scrutiny, he would hang as a war criminal.
@IhateNEOconservatism For the third time. General McArthur claims he was on the verge of negotiating a conditional surrender. As such, there was no need. If an opponent being too tough justifies the mass slaughter of his civilians, then you just justified the actions of anyone who is unable to beat us on the battlefield.
@IhateNEOconservatism War in and of its self is an unlawful act. So you cannot decry one being unlawful in conducting an anlawful act.Since atomic bombing civilians is ok, we cannot blame any enemy who chooses to return the favor.
@IhateNEOconservatism Terrorism is a form of warefare. the bypassing of ones military and mass slaughter of their civilians is terrorism. Weather by hijacked planes, cruise missiles, fire bombs, or atomic bombs. Roasting a "Jap" on a Pacific Island is one thing, Atomic bombing his family is another.
One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.
One mans act of terrorism is another's "Strategic bombing"
@IhateNEOconservatism The rules of war are that we can carpet bomb, fire bomb, atomic bomb, or cluster bombs any city in the world killing civilians by the tens of thousands and that is OK, if anybody returns the favor, it terrorism. Sorry, but as long as we continue to try and impose our permissive ways upon the world which only leads to our drugs, gangs, pregnant teens, abortions, and other godless ways, people will retaliate.
@IhateNEOconservatism So, the mass slaughter of civilians is ok as long as a government does it? Wrong! And who says only governments can declare war?
The USAF has murdered more civilians than all of your so called terrorist combined.
The USAF used to have an entire command dedicated to bypassing the enemies combat forces and killing its civilian population. It was called SAC.
Sorry, but I refuse to join your outrage when all that was done was an enemy who returned the favor.
By our own strategic bombing doctrine, the WTC was a viable target because there were defense contractors and other companies with military connections.
91 was no more or less evil than what we did to Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and many other cities.
@IhateNEOconservatism Either the bypassing of ones military and slaughtering their civilian population is a viable act of war or it is not. We established that it is and as such, cannot blame an enemy for returning the favor. Pearl Harbor was as surgical strike against a military target which even by today's standard using smart bombs and cruise missiles stands out as a well planned and carried out operation. Reguardless of the cause.
Sorry, roasting a "Jap" on a Pacific Island is one thing, Atomic bombing his family in Hiroshima and Nagasaki is another. Either the mass slaughter of civilians is a viable act of war or it is not. I refuse to blame an enemy for returning the favor.
Excellent, excellent, excellent, excellent, excellent, excellent video! We need to kill these myths about one of the most notorious slaughters in history!
The only thing I'd point out is that it wasn't just the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We had been mass-murdering the Japanese since the beginning of 1945, firebombing their major cities. Morally, it doeesn't matter whether mass murder is committed by firebomb or atom. It is still mass murder.
theres no rules in love and war. japan attacked first by slapping us and us retaliated by kicking japan in the nuts. 9/11 however we did not slap iraq or provoke slaughter of innocents in any way shape or form. you may say its childish but they did start it.
"japan attacked first by slapping us and us retaliated by kicking japan in the nuts."
I know. It's a good thing the US overthrew the sovereign Kingdom of Hawaii 50 yrs earlier so we could get bombed at Pearl Harbor. But hey, we got to keep it...might is right in imperialism and incessant war, right? We wanted that harbor and we kicked the Hawaiian's in the nuts. Ooorah!
@dontyoutouchmybelt So you're saying that the actions of the government deserve punishment to given to it's people? In case you're entirely ignorant of it, the atomic bombs killed over 500,000 innocent men, women, and children. Not the militia or the leaders who committed war crimes.
If you were lying on a cot dying of radiation poisoning with everyone you loved and knew dead, you'd be singing a very different tune.
A terrible event but they WERE NECESSARY and Buchanan is not someone who can be seriously be cited as a reliable source of anything remotely close to actual American history.
All fire bombings including Dresden were morally wrong as were all wars beginning with World War I. We have no business killing people that did not hurt us. This is why 9/11 happened. We hurt people and they hurt us back.
Hypocrisy on the most pathetic scale. Calling others "terrorists" when it is them, the imperial and corrupt capitalists who have lead the way with their holocausts and 911's on the world. Their narcissism has either blinded them or they have indeed sold their souls to the king of darkness. Oh, and let me remind you: they call themselves Christians. Little do they know that Christianity has nothing to do with violence and political power. Their sense of superiority is not the humility of Christ.
Didn't we drop the bombs to show the USSR what we had? Why didn't we drop it on Mt. Fuji or someplace that the people will see and have few casualties and then say, "you're next unless you surrender"? LottoWinner999, (angryyouth) is a typical Chinese Nationalist with nothing better to do than to spout off his vebal laduze (Chinese for Diarrhea)
I also remember that the USA was involved in the Dresden firebombing that took over 25,000 lives according to recent estimates. I think it follows the same line since thousands of innocents were killed.
Furthermore, I think terrorism is any act that strikes fear into any person. A person waving a gun around in a restaurant is a terrorist. A thug robbing an elderly woman of her purse is a terrorist. Even a gun-toting vigilante like the one played by Jodie Foster in "The Brave One" could be too
Truman, like many Presidents in the past and in the future are remembered fondly for their murderous actions and causes no matter how valid or invalid and in my opinion deserve none of their praise and all of their damnation.
Just to post a view though, one of my Poli Sci teachers believes that the Bombing of Hiroshima & Nagasaki were meant as a warning for the Russians instead of ending the war in the Pacific.
while i agree the bombings were not necessary i do not forget that Japan invaded mainland Asia and spent over a decade torturing, raping, and murdering innocent men, women and children. Japan started the fight and we decided how it would end. i have absolutely zero sympathy for anybody who lived in Japan during WW2. they brought it on themselves, as did america with our foriegn policy of bombing innocent arabs since the 1950s
that's completely moronic. People who did not make the descision to rape/pillage asia where NOT at fault. They were, by definition, innocent. Go away.
Southern Avenger, you disappoint and miss one BIG detail, we were in a declared state of War with Japan even after they attacked Pearl Harbor in a surprise "terrorist" style attack. Japan had more casualities from the conventional carpet fire bombing of her major cities and more people died in Tokyo than in either Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. So why are the atomic bombs considered terrorist and not the others? Many more American and Japanese lives were spared from the a-bombs used.
your psychological evaluation is a poor one keptyeti, because as always you are another one sided idiot that doesnt understand true war. first you declare it, like we did. then you attack your enemy. terorists dont and intentionally target women and children. the US targeted heavy military industrious cities. unfortunately civilians were always killed in every bomber attack in WW2. the real difference? Nazis & imperial japan enjoyed killing children, just like terrorists who hide behind them.
They did it with glee, the Nazis and Imperial Japanese killed millions of civilians in ethnic and political cleansing campaigns. Look it up it is in the historical record. The Islamo-facists not only didn't declare war or fight with uniforms on, they are focused on killing us, not to get us to surrender. Southern Avenger, I've lost a lot of respect for you on this one!
Hiroshima and Nagaskaki are only indefensible if the United States is held to the same standards to which all other countries should be held. The reason so many Americans cannot recognize the illogic necessary to justify such acts is their quasi-religious belief that America is innately good. These faithful Americans can only ever view events that outwardly illuminate America's capacity for indifference, or immoralilty from behind the presumption on which their reality is based.
I define terrorism as warfare through fear. Not necessarily against civilians. Scaring the crap out of enemy combatants would count too, though few things are as frightening to people as killing their loved ones.
To quip, SA, we killed more people in carpet bombing Tokyo and Dresin (German city, though I think that was the UK's handy work). A lot of little bombs can be just as bad as one big one. Though WWII was just messed up. EVERY ONE did horrible things in that war. No innocence there.
weren't hiroshima and nagasaki both major military equipment producing cities? im pretty sure both cities were full of tank factories and such. we wouldn't have chose them at random based on an idea to just attack civillians. thats absurd. and also prior to the bombing weren't tons of pamphlets warning civillians to leave the city for immenent bombing. i would double check that before saying we bombed kids, just to "terrorize" japan in to surrender
Well all proof does point that it saved many more lives. You cant call it a "terrorist attack" However you can call it a warcrime or something along those lines. It has been taught in this nations military academies ever since their founding in the early to mid 19th century that targeting civilians is wrong. It was also outlawed by the Geneva Convention which the US signed even prior to WW1. We have seen these crimes many times before. Gen Sherman in the Civil War for example.
"Terror attack"? Probably not because of two nations at war. However warcrime? Yes no doubt. Was the warcrime in the nature of a "terror attack" though? Well since it did specifically target civilians yes you could say that. Regardless of how many more it saved.
For more information, I recommend that so-called paleoconservatives research the Potsdam Declaration. Anyone who mistakenly thinks that the Japanese were ready to surrender before the bombings needs to learn about how the Japanese responded when we demanded a surrender. SouthernAvenger, that includes you as well.
The difference is that "civilians" in Japan were being gradually being trained to be combatants to repel a final U.S. invasion. The civilians who died on 9/11 were not in the process of being trained as combatants. What Truman was concerned about was having to fight a Leningrad type battle in each Japanese city. The Japanese government needed to understand that we wouldn't need to do that in order to pacify Japan.
This is where your analogy fails. Unlike our bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which were intended to conclude a war, Al Qaeda intended to inflict as many casualities as possible in the U.S. in order to spark a war.
Ok. So for us to end racism, we should go kill every man, woman, & child who are/is being trained to be racist. So the ends justify the means. Right?...
Most Americans today are not ready to really consider this issue. Most are so caught up in their daily lives that they have no clue at all what their government does to them and to others around the globe. It's a very sad state of affairs indeed.
I like your videos, but i think this is your worst. This is moral inversion at its worst...if you cant tell the difference between a US air force plane droping a bomb during a war and people who board a civilian plane posing as members of the public who then hijack and pilot the plane into buildings ...then there is no hope for us.
Do you realize what you just said? So killing 120,000 women, children, & men who ARENT soilders is NOT terroism. But what Al Queada did, IS terroism? It doesnt matter if they're at war or not. Truman still made the decision to murder innocent people.
Uh, I dont really understand what you're getting at in the first statement. I understand that we're at war, but how do the ends justify the means? Saying it was ok for us to bomb women & children to end a war, is like saying it was ok for Hitler to kill 6 million jews. Why couldnt we just keep kicking their asses until their military might just runs out?
I dont doubt the horrific nature of it, and i trust it will never happen again. You understand the we're at war...but yet you still cant see the difference b/w those US soldiers and jihadists who blow themselves up on a commuter train in madrid, or london...or on a bus, or in a shopping mall in tel a viv...there's no difference?
I totally agree with this on one hand, but I can't help but feel that, as the son of a WWII veteran of the Pacific Theatre, we can't know the feelings of those in power after all those years of brutality and death. People were exhausted by all the emotion of dead and wounded family and friends, husbands, fathers, brothers and sons gone for years, and endless work in factories for those at home.
Also, we were just out of a terrible depression when war came. But strictly defined, it was terror....
See Wade Frazier's website for some history on Hiroshima. I believe the truth is that the Japanese had already tried to surrender, and hard as it is to believe that our gov't would do something so shocking, they attacked anyway, as that suited their goals more than a negotiated peace.
My dad was in Europe fighting the Nazis on D-Day. He was then scheduled to be deployed to the Japanese front when they were bombed and then surrendered. My mom was so happy & relieved to have her husband home safely that it never entered her mind to feel sorry for the innocents who were killed. Back then there wasn't national coverage of world affairs like there is now. I'm not defending what happened, but there was also a lot of innocent people sitting in Pearl Harbor when it was bombed
Pearl Harbor was ALLOWED to be bombed. Your government knew the japanese were coming before they arrived yet they stood back and did nothing so they could have an excuse to go to war. Face it, your countries leaders are Masons, Buildenburg members, and illuminate henchmen that work for international bankers and NOT the american people. Don't take my word for it though, do some independent research and you will realize why a revolution is needed if america wants to remain a soviern nation.
OK, let's say you are right, that the "puppet masters" knew that the Japanese war planes were coming and allowed the attacks. Did our government drag the Japanese over here and force them to bomb us? All I'm saying is that there were some very happy people when the wars ended and I probably wouldn't have even been born if my Dad had been sent to the Asian war front.
But, he wouldn't have been. The story that Hiroshima shortened the war, simply isn't true, though like you no doubt, I'd heard it over and over, and was utterly horrified to learn several years ago, what this video doesn't bring into enough prominence, but does mention. "The Japanese were ready to surrender" Eisenhower.
In fact, that wasn't just a guess, ~they had already tried to surrender`. Also FDR didn't just know the Japanese were going to attack, he provoked it relentlessly.
If Truman had wanted to impress the Japanese in to surrendering all he would have had to do is drop one bomb a short distance out to sea between China and Japan. He really didn't need to destroy two cities to get the same effect. Oh well, that's history, or not.
Do not forget that this ended a war that had been going on for years. It is easy now to say it was wrong because you were not going through the trauma of the time. On the other hand the Islamist had just been trying to find ways to kill us and this one worked out. We were not attacking them or killing them as was going on in world war II. One other side many more civilians were killed by conventional weapons during World War II then were killed by the Atom bombs. This does not forgive it but it
I never understood why they didn't surrender after the first bomb was dropped. Did we not give them the chance to? They were dropped days apart. I don't support dropping those bombs on Japan, it was a horrible thing to do, but I never understood why if Japan was so ready to surrender they didn't do so after Hiroshima.
You don't need to go back that far to find US terrorism. Your country funded and supported anti-cuba terrorists. Post ww2 your country has been on of the biggest supporter of nation states who commonly use terrorism.
The definition that you use for terrorism is idiotic. Seriously, what is your differentiating criteria?
The best definition of terrorism is as follows: "The belief that the initiation of force against symbolic targets by a non-state organization is an effective means of achieving political change."
This definition encompasses the three dominate perspectives on terrorism, the full range of terrorist organizational complexity, and addresses issues of degrees of affiliation.
Of course, then naturally bombing Germany during World War Two, was an act of terror on a smaller scale. Any aerial strikes in any war so on land, and making sure that those we are shooting at are for sure shooting at us is necessary.
So, therefore, women and children are innocent, and non-combatant men, while in some cases combatant men can be fought. As long as we are not invading their country. Unless only to fight their military.
willmatrix is right, hundreds of Thousands wore killed by the us air force in japan! i recommend every one to watch the documentary 'the fog of war' if you wanna understand what i am talking about in terms of deaths the nukes wore not all that especial
Thousands were dying because of the firebombs on Japan by Superfortress. The US was supposedly targeting the industrial sectors of Japanese cities, which were made up of non-combatant civilians working in factories. The US also killed Germans in much the same way. But I doubt the US would have used the atomic bomb on Germany if they did not surrender, because they are white Europeans.
The atomic bomb was designed TO incinerate Germany. Einstein was disappointed that the bomb was used on Japan and not Germany. The fire bombings of German cities killed far more white Europeans that you seem to resent. After the war there was no plan to exterminate Japanese through intentional hunger and ethnic cleansing. There were plans for Germany. See "The Kaufmann Plan" and the "Morgenthau Plan". Untold numbers of Germans were intentionally exterminated AFTER the war.
Nobody denies that Hiroshima happened, Thats what makes the Japanese case different, They deny their acts of genocide and rape on their conquered nations, Japan even used Chinese villager as guinea pigs for germ warfare in occupied Manchuria even ran Auschwitz style camps on the Manchu.
The bombing was unethical and overkill, War is barbarous period. The Germans were incinerated and burned alive in Dresden and that was the RAF war crime, But the thing I ask is if that was bombing was necessary for winning the war would you no longer oppose it?
The problem with language is that definitions slide over time. The difference was that we were in a declared war. Many parents of those Japanese children (who were innocent) were supporting the Japanese war machine with their livelihoods. Despite what many say to the contrary the US would have been fighting in Japan until the 1950's if it were not for the bombings. "I don't hate you, Cardassian. I hate what I became because of you." ST:TNG "The Wounded"
Nagasaki and Hiroshima had almost nothing to do with ending the war quickly. It was propaganda back then and it's propaganda still today. Anyone with eyes could see that Japan was close to surrendering. And no, it wouldn't have taken "a million American lives" to invade Japan(wouldn't have been necessary anyway).
People should really research stuff like this themselves; it's really clear as day.
911 was done by elements within our own gov't or a private organization like Blackwater (in cooperation with the CIA, for example). The official story of 911 is child's fantasy.
9/11 was not a inside job, The only "conspiracy I could accept as plausible" is that they ignored the warnings of the impending attack on purpose just as some say Roosevelt also did for pearl harbor.
Then again why would Bush compromise his image by having himself being in a classroom reading my pet goat?
Anyone who believes the official 911 story is a gullible child. Read through the 911 commision report. Read David Ray Griffin's many books on the subject.
Japan needs to fess up and repent for its own transgressions during the war, They still deny the heinous crimes and atrocities committed on china,Korea,Indonesia,Philippines ect..
Until they do acknowledge their war crimes, I see no reason to apologize for Hiroshima. I know many Chinese will share my sentiment.
The atomic bombs were NOT needed to "win the war". Truman decided to use the bomb because Russians were on the brink of invading Japan, ending the war but gaining a territory that the US wanted to control & to test the new toys.
The "reality" of 9-11 is that our own government used US businesses, the military & muslim radicals to set up the attacks. Our own government planted bombs in the Oklahoma City Federal building & GAVE "radicals" the live bomb in the first WTC attack.
We think differently about the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings than we do about 9-11 for one reason. Those who were bombed in 1945 were them, not us. Our outrage about 9-11 comes from the fact that it was we who were bombed. If it had been our government that bombed some other country on 9-11 and killed 3,000 civilians for some reason our government deemed justifiable, there would be less American outrage about it than there is about 9-11. It always means more when you're the victim.
Say what you will about Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks (of which I do question the morality of) but I call it par for the course after the horrors Japan inflicted on the Chinese in the Second Sino-Japanese War.
So do as they do? Is it ok to rape the daughter of a rapist? Because that is what you are arguing. Of course you can argue all you want- just remember that such belief closes the gap between you and AlQaida.
All this, the atom bomb attacks and allying ourselves with the Soviet mass-murders prove WW2 was not a moral mission to fight evil and liberate people from Nazi and Imperial Japanese oppression. It was used to bring about internationalism, or world government under the United Nations. Mr. Buchanan has certainly spoken of this fact.
Another great video. Thanks! It's also important to remember the terrorist bombing attacks against German civilians during World War 2. It is estimated 150,000 German civilians, including 70,000 children were murdered through intentional targeting of civilian population centers. Many thousands died after the war as well during the brutal Allied occupation, especially on the Soviet side.
The Flyboys has dropped gasoline on Tokyo for about two hours and forty minutes. The fires they set consumed almost 100,000 people. The largest single day killing in world day history had just taken place.
(loosely quoted from the book Flyboys. Firebombings are another example of intentional institutional mass murder of innocents. Bombs designed to kill widely and indiscriminately before Hiroshima or Nagasaki)
334 B-29s dropped 8,518 bombs weighing 500 pounds each, These bombs burst 2,000 feet over Tokyo and released a total of 496,000 individual 6.2 pound cylinders containing jellied gasoline.
The fires they lit were so hot, superheated vapors rushed ahead of the walls of flames and killed or knocked unconscious its victims before the flames reached them. Babies exploded on mothers' backs and cars on streets were consumed like crumpled paper.
When the M69 hit the ground, it lay still for five seconds. Then, with a bang, it shot out the cheesecloth bags. The bags could travel a distance of a hundred yards. If the cheesecloth struck an object, its force burst the bag and the flaming goo would seperate into small chucks that splattered in all directions. Other incindiaries burned intensely but in only one location. The M69 did not start one fire, it started hundreds.
The winner was a new bomb called the M69. The M69 did not look like a bomb, it looked like a section of pipe three inches long and three inches in diameter. Inside the pipe was napalm packed in cheesecloth bags. The pipe bomb was dropped from the plane and floated to earth attached to a three foot long streamer that slowed its descent to prevent it from falling so fast that it would go right through a building and into the basement.
It was commonly accepted logic of ending the war faster back then. Plus war itself wasn't a very accurate buisness back then either. That is why it was once said that 'Bomb a factory, it gets rebuilt in a 2 months. Bomb the factory workers, it takes 20 years to replace them.'
You're joking me? The US has never been invaded in its history, it has the most immense military power ever assembled, it spends more than the rest of the world combined on its armed forces. The US has never had an actual threat to its existence, possibly the British back in the day, but certainly no-one from the mid-19th century onwards.
perhaps roosevelt picked a fight with the japs but it was they who destroyed most of our naval fleet and about 3K american soldiers or civvies in pearl harbor. Say what you want about jumping in a war with Germany - bombing Japan and ending a war with them like that was effective. Comparatively losing that many civilians is chump change in WW2. Yamamoto, Chichibu & Hirohito ought've been wiser when asking themselves if the juice was worth the squeeze.
I disagree with this because then you'd have to call the V1 rocket attacks and the bombing of German cities or any city in any war, terrorism. Nuclear, carpet bombing, and fire bombing are all indiscriminate. The difference is the declaration of war between two States. It's not a sneak attack. It wasn't subversion in 1945. It was an open act of war in war time.
The Japanese attack of a military base (Pearl Harbour) was far more justifiable (still not) and far more moral (still not) than the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The Japanese had a crippling embargo put upon them by America, they also had the US Navy playing war games just off their coast, the US was openly advertising the fact that the war planes coming off the assembly line were ideally suited to the bombing of wooden Japanese cities.
"Denouncing one obvious act of terror while defending the other is not only illogical, but immoral."
Wait, so merits should never be a consideration when determining the morality of an act of violence? That's retarded. It's not illogical to defend say, a store owner's decision to shoot at a robber while denoucing the robber's decision to do the same.
Exactly. All sides of the war were attacking eachother in open warfare. We carpet bombed germany. Germany sent rocket attacks on London. We got the bomb first and used it before the Axis so we are the bad guys according to SA.
It's defensive terrorism. The difference, the only difference, the most meaningful difference, is the merits. What you're doing is pretending there's a clear distinction in their actions rather than make a judgement off of what is the only relivant factor.
America did it to end a war with a tyranical goernment, Al Quaeda did it because they were convinced an invisible sky dady would reward them with cherry intact pussy to fuck.
"It's defensive terrorism." Listen to yourself man.
Terrorism is terrorism is terrorism. It is wrong when others do it, and it's wrong when we do it.
The reason is immaterial, what if Hamas said they only wanted to blow up a bus and didn't mean to kill the people that were on it, the intention does not matter. What if Israel said it only wanted to disperse the unarmed protesters and deaths were simply collateral, the intention, again, does not matter.
Those examples are completely different and absurd.
Killing peoople is wrong. But what if someone does it to save another's life? Does the person sacrificed always have to be the perp for killing to be justified? What if an evil man forces you to kill a stranger or he'll blow up your family. Would it be terrorism to kill the stranger?
This is one of the first arguments I had after 9/11. People hated my fucking guts. The truth hurts. I'm amazed now when people freak the fuck out about N.Korea having 'nukes' or Iran getting one (yeah right). Only one country has ever used nukes on civilians...
It was an act of open war. Germany and Japan would have done the same to us if they got the bomb first. Carpet bombing and rocket attacks were just as indiscriminate. War is not neat and clean like people wish it to be especially in that war. WAR IN AND OF ITSELF SHOULD BE ABHORED, PERIOD. The whole war was a travesty and breaking it down to its events of "disgust" is pointless.
Why does nobody pay any attention to the fact that Russia had been fighting Japan and was just about to attack Japan itself? We dropped the bombs because we didn't want the Russians to get any part of the island. The US knew the cold war was coming, and saw it in Germany already. We secured our dominance by doing this.
classicalgarse 5 months ago
Examples of terrorist atrocities committed by the United States government on foreign peoples are in no short supply. One does not even need to debate the justifications of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings because so many other blatantly unjustified terrorist attacks exist.
wildabeast11235 7 months ago
Buchanan is a lying rightwing historical revisionist. Read up on Operation Ketsu-Go, Japan's plan for a counter offensive in case of amphibian invasion by the USA. It was basically a plan for mass kamikaze by the entire Japanese people against the American forces – to cause such utter devastation in a final last battle that better conditions for surrender could be achieved.
shamusername 8 months ago
@IhateNEOconservatism hiroshima photos-no crater-vatican priests suuvived-no radiation-it was fire bombed--no nuclear attack--and japaa surrendered fully on september 11-american time-septembr 12 japan pacific time with its armed forces--and osama quoted the japanese after septemeber 11-study japan-so called friend of america-japan raped and stole trillions-study GOLDEN LILY-thats how they got rich after 1945-left asia poor
princefy 9 months ago
You argue most of what goes on in wars is a kind of terrorism. The USA has committed terrorism for decades now. The atomic bombings were not the ending shots of WWII, but the opening shots of the cold war. The USA wanted to see what would happen if an industrial city, relatively untouched by prior bombings, were hit with such a weapon. With this threat the western world could threaten the forces of communism with awesome destruction.
Ponerology 1 year ago
@Ponerology hiroshima photos-no crater-vatican priests suuvived-no radiation-it was fire bombed--no nuclear attack--and japaa surrendered fully on september 11-american time-septembr 12 japan pacific time with its armed forces--and osama quoted the japanese after septemeber 11-study japan-so called friend of america-japan raped and stole trillions-study GOLDEN LILY-thats how they got rich after 1945-left asia poor
princefy 9 months ago
Pat Buchanan also doesn't think the Holocaust happen. As to the Japanese they had been fighting and not giving in to that point. Thousands had already killed in bombing prior to the two bombings, many more people than in those attack with no signs of surrender. Maybe they were close, but inflicting such awesome damage in war brought things to an end. You can justify 9-11 all you want, but the bottom line is they hit us, but didn't wipe us out, and we need to keep fighting! Our cause is just!
NJburbsSeeker 1 year ago
i think the best way to describe this video is "war is bad. we should have let japan and germany conquer every inch of earth to save us from doing bad things." if you want to straw-man your oppositions arguments, i'll straw-man yours.
NATESOR 1 year ago
they differ in that our way was objectively the right thing to do... unless you believe that there's no difference between the taliban and american style democracy. this entire video occurs in a historical vacuum and consequential vacuum. japan BARELY surrendered even after the bombs. this entire video is troll-bate. i'm going to stop talking now.
NATESOR 1 year ago
What a horrible video! How many Chinese did Mao kill? 5 Millions!
limey36 1 year ago
Harry Truman should be tried posthumously as a war criminal - after that we should go on down the list of war criminals who were presidents , and try them , along with their henchmen for their participation - - - - - BUT , that'll never be mentioned !
rolynstone48 1 year ago
@IhateNEOconservatism Agreed.
rtgoodson 1 year ago
Si fuera japonés, no me hubiese rendido a los norteamericanos.
benitogarciaweblog 1 year ago
@IhateNEOconservatism The deliberate mass slaughter of civilians weather it be by carpet bombing, fire bombing, or atomic bombing was against the then established rules of war. We made it a viable act of war and therefore are in no position to decry it.
BernieEOD 1 year ago
@IhateNEOconservatism we broke the conventions you talk about the moment we decided to mass slaughter civilians. The Nazis rounded people up and delivered them into ovens, The USAF bypasses the need to round people up and delivers the ovens directly to the people. Past is prologue. We never realised the precident we were setting. Today, we reap the bitter harvest of descisions made back then.
BernieEOD 1 year ago
@IhateNEOconservatism Once again, it is only as good as ones ability to enforce it. War is the result of of one trying to enforce ones will upon another. Hiroshima and Nagasaki violates every aspect of the conventions you talk about. As did Dresdyn, Cologne, Tokyo, Osaka, Pyongyang, Hanoi, Hiaphong, and every tothr city the USAF bombed. 9-11 was us getting a small taste of our own medicine.
BernieEOD 1 year ago
@IhateNEOconservatism Terrorism is a relative word. One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. One nations terrorism is anothers viable act of war.
A nation whose Air Force has murdered more civilians than all of the so called terrorists is in no position to cry about someone returning the favor.
BernieEOD 1 year ago
@IhateNEOconservatism As it was, the conditions they would have agreed to were honored anyway. With "Their call" The mass slaughter of civilians is now a viable act of war and we cannot blame anyone who returns the favor.
BernieEOD 1 year ago
@IhateNEOconservatism And with that, we threw away any moral high ground. Bin Laden is no more evil than Curtis La May or Ed "Bomber" Harris.
if we can do it, other can return the favor.
BernieEOD 1 year ago
@IhateNEOconservatism Lawsonly both sides agree to. And since we burned the books and went ahead and fire bombed and atomic bombed civilians, we cannot decry anyone who returns the favor.
BernieEOD 1 year ago
@IhateNEOconservatism Governments and courts are only as good as thier ability to enforce it. When one refuses to obey the dictates of governments and courts, you have war. We have established that the mass slaughter of civilians is a viable act of war and therefore cannot blame others for returning the favor.
BTW Curtis La May admitted that if he were to be under any legal scrutiny, he would hang as a war criminal.
BernieEOD 1 year ago
@IhateNEOconservatism For the third time. General McArthur claims he was on the verge of negotiating a conditional surrender. As such, there was no need. If an opponent being too tough justifies the mass slaughter of his civilians, then you just justified the actions of anyone who is unable to beat us on the battlefield.
BernieEOD 1 year ago
@IhateNEOconservatism War in and of its self is an unlawful act. So you cannot decry one being unlawful in conducting an anlawful act.Since atomic bombing civilians is ok, we cannot blame any enemy who chooses to return the favor.
BernieEOD 1 year ago
@IhateNEOconservatism Terrorism is a form of warefare. the bypassing of ones military and mass slaughter of their civilians is terrorism. Weather by hijacked planes, cruise missiles, fire bombs, or atomic bombs. Roasting a "Jap" on a Pacific Island is one thing, Atomic bombing his family is another.
One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.
One mans act of terrorism is another's "Strategic bombing"
BernieEOD 1 year ago
@IhateNEOconservatism The mass salughter of civilians is OJ by our standard so we cannot blame anyone who copies it.
BernieEOD 1 year ago
@IhateNEOconservatism The rules of war are that we can carpet bomb, fire bomb, atomic bomb, or cluster bombs any city in the world killing civilians by the tens of thousands and that is OK, if anybody returns the favor, it terrorism. Sorry, but as long as we continue to try and impose our permissive ways upon the world which only leads to our drugs, gangs, pregnant teens, abortions, and other godless ways, people will retaliate.
BernieEOD 1 year ago
@IhateNEOconservatism So, the mass slaughter of civilians is ok as long as a government does it? Wrong! And who says only governments can declare war?
The USAF has murdered more civilians than all of your so called terrorist combined.
The USAF used to have an entire command dedicated to bypassing the enemies combat forces and killing its civilian population. It was called SAC.
Sorry, but I refuse to join your outrage when all that was done was an enemy who returned the favor.
BernieEOD 1 year ago
@IhateNEOconservatism
By our own strategic bombing doctrine, the WTC was a viable target because there were defense contractors and other companies with military connections.
91 was no more or less evil than what we did to Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and many other cities.
BernieEOD 1 year ago
@IhateNEOconservatism Either the bypassing of ones military and slaughtering their civilian population is a viable act of war or it is not. We established that it is and as such, cannot blame an enemy for returning the favor. Pearl Harbor was as surgical strike against a military target which even by today's standard using smart bombs and cruise missiles stands out as a well planned and carried out operation. Reguardless of the cause.
BernieEOD 1 year ago
@IhateNEOconservatism
Atomic bombing a city....Viable act of war
Crashing planes into buildings....Terrorism
Sorry, roasting a "Jap" on a Pacific Island is one thing, Atomic bombing his family in Hiroshima and Nagasaki is another. Either the mass slaughter of civilians is a viable act of war or it is not. I refuse to blame an enemy for returning the favor.
BernieEOD 1 year ago
Excellent, excellent, excellent, excellent, excellent, excellent video! We need to kill these myths about one of the most notorious slaughters in history!
The only thing I'd point out is that it wasn't just the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We had been mass-murdering the Japanese since the beginning of 1945, firebombing their major cities. Morally, it doeesn't matter whether mass murder is committed by firebomb or atom. It is still mass murder.
seltian 1 year ago
we had them on the run not necessary.
smrkkrenz 1 year ago
theres no rules in love and war. japan attacked first by slapping us and us retaliated by kicking japan in the nuts. 9/11 however we did not slap iraq or provoke slaughter of innocents in any way shape or form. you may say its childish but they did start it.
dontyoutouchmybelt 2 years ago
Who's "they"?
MatthewLeee 2 years ago
"japan attacked first by slapping us and us retaliated by kicking japan in the nuts."
I know. It's a good thing the US overthrew the sovereign Kingdom of Hawaii 50 yrs earlier so we could get bombed at Pearl Harbor. But hey, we got to keep it...might is right in imperialism and incessant war, right? We wanted that harbor and we kicked the Hawaiian's in the nuts. Ooorah!
hartforest 2 years ago
@dontyoutouchmybelt So you're saying that the actions of the government deserve punishment to given to it's people? In case you're entirely ignorant of it, the atomic bombs killed over 500,000 innocent men, women, and children. Not the militia or the leaders who committed war crimes.
If you were lying on a cot dying of radiation poisoning with everyone you loved and knew dead, you'd be singing a very different tune.
Noel08Blueheart 2 years ago
A terrible event but they WERE NECESSARY and Buchanan is not someone who can be seriously be cited as a reliable source of anything remotely close to actual American history.
DarthByss 2 years ago 2
it was not a terrorist attack it was a war
collinreal 2 years ago
Osama would agree.
MatthewLeee 2 years ago 2
Great presentation. Thank you for it.
xpaderom 2 years ago
There is no excuse for the atomic bombings in my mind, but were the fire bombings of Tokyo and Dresden somehow superior morally?
Gen. Lemay and AM Harris killed more people by far.......Where was the outrage over firestorms burning people alive?
alogmail 2 years ago
All fire bombings including Dresden were morally wrong as were all wars beginning with World War I. We have no business killing people that did not hurt us. This is why 9/11 happened. We hurt people and they hurt us back.
ed2point0 2 years ago
Hypocrisy on the most pathetic scale. Calling others "terrorists" when it is them, the imperial and corrupt capitalists who have lead the way with their holocausts and 911's on the world. Their narcissism has either blinded them or they have indeed sold their souls to the king of darkness. Oh, and let me remind you: they call themselves Christians. Little do they know that Christianity has nothing to do with violence and political power. Their sense of superiority is not the humility of Christ.
reyesjaen07 2 years ago
Japan attacked us first.
paulaegraham 3 years ago
Didn't we drop the bombs to show the USSR what we had? Why didn't we drop it on Mt. Fuji or someplace that the people will see and have few casualties and then say, "you're next unless you surrender"? LottoWinner999, (angryyouth) is a typical Chinese Nationalist with nothing better to do than to spout off his vebal laduze (Chinese for Diarrhea)
ininper 3 years ago
I also remember that the USA was involved in the Dresden firebombing that took over 25,000 lives according to recent estimates. I think it follows the same line since thousands of innocents were killed.
Furthermore, I think terrorism is any act that strikes fear into any person. A person waving a gun around in a restaurant is a terrorist. A thug robbing an elderly woman of her purse is a terrorist. Even a gun-toting vigilante like the one played by Jodie Foster in "The Brave One" could be too
mathgeek37 3 years ago
There was also chemical weapons experiments done in new york city, many people got sick.
dalejrfan800 3 years ago
Truman, like many Presidents in the past and in the future are remembered fondly for their murderous actions and causes no matter how valid or invalid and in my opinion deserve none of their praise and all of their damnation.
Just to post a view though, one of my Poli Sci teachers believes that the Bombing of Hiroshima & Nagasaki were meant as a warning for the Russians instead of ending the war in the Pacific.
KushinLos 3 years ago
while i agree the bombings were not necessary i do not forget that Japan invaded mainland Asia and spent over a decade torturing, raping, and murdering innocent men, women and children. Japan started the fight and we decided how it would end. i have absolutely zero sympathy for anybody who lived in Japan during WW2. they brought it on themselves, as did america with our foriegn policy of bombing innocent arabs since the 1950s
gibsun88 3 years ago
that's completely moronic. People who did not make the descision to rape/pillage asia where NOT at fault. They were, by definition, innocent. Go away.
keffbanan 3 years ago 5
Southern Avenger, you disappoint and miss one BIG detail, we were in a declared state of War with Japan even after they attacked Pearl Harbor in a surprise "terrorist" style attack. Japan had more casualities from the conventional carpet fire bombing of her major cities and more people died in Tokyo than in either Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. So why are the atomic bombs considered terrorist and not the others? Many more American and Japanese lives were spared from the a-bombs used.
buttermobile 3 years ago
Fantastic video. A++
Really shows how hypocritical some people can be.
nestrohn 3 years ago
your psychological evaluation is a poor one keptyeti, because as always you are another one sided idiot that doesnt understand true war. first you declare it, like we did. then you attack your enemy. terorists dont and intentionally target women and children. the US targeted heavy military industrious cities. unfortunately civilians were always killed in every bomber attack in WW2. the real difference? Nazis & imperial japan enjoyed killing children, just like terrorists who hide behind them.
greywolf478 3 years ago
you had something going until you said "Nazis & imperial japan enjoyed killing children". after that you lost all credibility.
DragonnSlayerr 3 years ago
They did it with glee, the Nazis and Imperial Japanese killed millions of civilians in ethnic and political cleansing campaigns. Look it up it is in the historical record. The Islamo-facists not only didn't declare war or fight with uniforms on, they are focused on killing us, not to get us to surrender. Southern Avenger, I've lost a lot of respect for you on this one!
buttermobile 3 years ago
Hiroshima and Nagaskaki are only indefensible if the United States is held to the same standards to which all other countries should be held. The reason so many Americans cannot recognize the illogic necessary to justify such acts is their quasi-religious belief that America is innately good. These faithful Americans can only ever view events that outwardly illuminate America's capacity for indifference, or immoralilty from behind the presumption on which their reality is based.
keptyeti 3 years ago 3
I define terrorism as warfare through fear. Not necessarily against civilians. Scaring the crap out of enemy combatants would count too, though few things are as frightening to people as killing their loved ones.
To quip, SA, we killed more people in carpet bombing Tokyo and Dresin (German city, though I think that was the UK's handy work). A lot of little bombs can be just as bad as one big one. Though WWII was just messed up. EVERY ONE did horrible things in that war. No innocence there.
Silvsilvchan 3 years ago
weren't hiroshima and nagasaki both major military equipment producing cities? im pretty sure both cities were full of tank factories and such. we wouldn't have chose them at random based on an idea to just attack civillians. thats absurd. and also prior to the bombing weren't tons of pamphlets warning civillians to leave the city for immenent bombing. i would double check that before saying we bombed kids, just to "terrorize" japan in to surrender
PentRw20 3 years ago
Well all proof does point that it saved many more lives. You cant call it a "terrorist attack" However you can call it a warcrime or something along those lines. It has been taught in this nations military academies ever since their founding in the early to mid 19th century that targeting civilians is wrong. It was also outlawed by the Geneva Convention which the US signed even prior to WW1. We have seen these crimes many times before. Gen Sherman in the Civil War for example.
Joseph565112 3 years ago
"Terror attack"? Probably not because of two nations at war. However warcrime? Yes no doubt. Was the warcrime in the nature of a "terror attack" though? Well since it did specifically target civilians yes you could say that. Regardless of how many more it saved.
Joseph565112 3 years ago
For more information, I recommend that so-called paleoconservatives research the Potsdam Declaration. Anyone who mistakenly thinks that the Japanese were ready to surrender before the bombings needs to learn about how the Japanese responded when we demanded a surrender. SouthernAvenger, that includes you as well.
laviciousness 3 years ago
well said...agreed
ulsterscot 3 years ago
The difference is that "civilians" in Japan were being gradually being trained to be combatants to repel a final U.S. invasion. The civilians who died on 9/11 were not in the process of being trained as combatants. What Truman was concerned about was having to fight a Leningrad type battle in each Japanese city. The Japanese government needed to understand that we wouldn't need to do that in order to pacify Japan.
laviciousness 3 years ago
Cont...
This is where your analogy fails. Unlike our bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which were intended to conclude a war, Al Qaeda intended to inflict as many casualities as possible in the U.S. in order to spark a war.
laviciousness 3 years ago
Ok. So for us to end racism, we should go kill every man, woman, & child who are/is being trained to be racist. So the ends justify the means. Right?...
Nawledge1 3 years ago
Most Americans today are not ready to really consider this issue. Most are so caught up in their daily lives that they have no clue at all what their government does to them and to others around the globe. It's a very sad state of affairs indeed.
RedShirtArmy 3 years ago
I like your videos, but i think this is your worst. This is moral inversion at its worst...if you cant tell the difference between a US air force plane droping a bomb during a war and people who board a civilian plane posing as members of the public who then hijack and pilot the plane into buildings ...then there is no hope for us.
ulsterscot 3 years ago
omigod you suck!
it is the same because you're killing innocence people not soldiers.
FREEAMERICANOW69 3 years ago
Do you realize what you just said? So killing 120,000 women, children, & men who ARENT soilders is NOT terroism. But what Al Queada did, IS terroism? It doesnt matter if they're at war or not. Truman still made the decision to murder innocent people.
Nawledge1 3 years ago
The bombs in japan werent dropped in a vacuum....you seem to be ignoring the minor issue that there was a war between Japan and the USA at the time?
ulsterscot 3 years ago
Uh, I dont really understand what you're getting at in the first statement. I understand that we're at war, but how do the ends justify the means? Saying it was ok for us to bomb women & children to end a war, is like saying it was ok for Hitler to kill 6 million jews. Why couldnt we just keep kicking their asses until their military might just runs out?
Nawledge1 3 years ago
I dont doubt the horrific nature of it, and i trust it will never happen again. You understand the we're at war...but yet you still cant see the difference b/w those US soldiers and jihadists who blow themselves up on a commuter train in madrid, or london...or on a bus, or in a shopping mall in tel a viv...there's no difference?
ulsterscot 3 years ago
Aahhh. NOW I get what you mean:)
Nawledge1 3 years ago
I totally agree with this on one hand, but I can't help but feel that, as the son of a WWII veteran of the Pacific Theatre, we can't know the feelings of those in power after all those years of brutality and death. People were exhausted by all the emotion of dead and wounded family and friends, husbands, fathers, brothers and sons gone for years, and endless work in factories for those at home.
Also, we were just out of a terrible depression when war came. But strictly defined, it was terror....
christoJihad2 3 years ago
See Wade Frazier's website for some history on Hiroshima. I believe the truth is that the Japanese had already tried to surrender, and hard as it is to believe that our gov't would do something so shocking, they attacked anyway, as that suited their goals more than a negotiated peace.
givebirthathome 3 years ago
Dude, 9/11 Was an inside job, we did it to ourselves with help from Israeli Mossad.. Check out 9/11 mysteries for a good intro.
badfish301 3 years ago
My dad was in Europe fighting the Nazis on D-Day. He was then scheduled to be deployed to the Japanese front when they were bombed and then surrendered. My mom was so happy & relieved to have her husband home safely that it never entered her mind to feel sorry for the innocents who were killed. Back then there wasn't national coverage of world affairs like there is now. I'm not defending what happened, but there was also a lot of innocent people sitting in Pearl Harbor when it was bombed
HighPlainsWoman 3 years ago
Pearl Harbor was ALLOWED to be bombed. Your government knew the japanese were coming before they arrived yet they stood back and did nothing so they could have an excuse to go to war. Face it, your countries leaders are Masons, Buildenburg members, and illuminate henchmen that work for international bankers and NOT the american people. Don't take my word for it though, do some independent research and you will realize why a revolution is needed if america wants to remain a soviern nation.
UGOTDAJACK 3 years ago 3
OK, let's say you are right, that the "puppet masters" knew that the Japanese war planes were coming and allowed the attacks. Did our government drag the Japanese over here and force them to bomb us? All I'm saying is that there were some very happy people when the wars ended and I probably wouldn't have even been born if my Dad had been sent to the Asian war front.
HighPlainsWoman 3 years ago
But, he wouldn't have been. The story that Hiroshima shortened the war, simply isn't true, though like you no doubt, I'd heard it over and over, and was utterly horrified to learn several years ago, what this video doesn't bring into enough prominence, but does mention. "The Japanese were ready to surrender" Eisenhower.
In fact, that wasn't just a guess, ~they had already tried to surrender`. Also FDR didn't just know the Japanese were going to attack, he provoked it relentlessly.
givebirthathome 3 years ago 3
@UGOTDAJACK Agree, but it's not *my* government. The government is imposed on me by force of the paramilitarized police.
furyofbongos 1 year ago
If Truman had wanted to impress the Japanese in to surrendering all he would have had to do is drop one bomb a short distance out to sea between China and Japan. He really didn't need to destroy two cities to get the same effect. Oh well, that's history, or not.
bbburton 3 years ago
The USS Liberty in 1967 was attacked by a terrorist nation.
ManufacturedThoughts 3 years ago 2
Do not forget that this ended a war that had been going on for years. It is easy now to say it was wrong because you were not going through the trauma of the time. On the other hand the Islamist had just been trying to find ways to kill us and this one worked out. We were not attacking them or killing them as was going on in world war II. One other side many more civilians were killed by conventional weapons during World War II then were killed by the Atom bombs. This does not forgive it but it
endo1ver 3 years ago
I never understood why they didn't surrender after the first bomb was dropped. Did we not give them the chance to? They were dropped days apart. I don't support dropping those bombs on Japan, it was a horrible thing to do, but I never understood why if Japan was so ready to surrender they didn't do so after Hiroshima.
HungryDingo 3 years ago
ron paul is an idea
blargen3141 3 years ago
You don't need to go back that far to find US terrorism. Your country funded and supported anti-cuba terrorists. Post ww2 your country has been on of the biggest supporter of nation states who commonly use terrorism.
krammitAll 3 years ago
Good Vid! US is the terrorist now!
Reysinhell 3 years ago
Wrong... An entire country can never be a terrorist. Its the countries leaders that could be.
utubehayter 3 years ago
Can that be applied to Afghanistan and Iraq? Because it seems like the only ones being killed are the civilians.
ShiaAfghan 3 years ago
Who said Iraq or Afghanistan is a terrorist?
utubehayter 3 years ago
The definition that you use for terrorism is idiotic. Seriously, what is your differentiating criteria?
The best definition of terrorism is as follows: "The belief that the initiation of force against symbolic targets by a non-state organization is an effective means of achieving political change."
This definition encompasses the three dominate perspectives on terrorism, the full range of terrorist organizational complexity, and addresses issues of degrees of affiliation.
jwoodswce 3 years ago
would be nice if it didnt stink of jewery.
smoknjoe1971 3 years ago
Of course, then naturally bombing Germany during World War Two, was an act of terror on a smaller scale. Any aerial strikes in any war so on land, and making sure that those we are shooting at are for sure shooting at us is necessary.
So, therefore, women and children are innocent, and non-combatant men, while in some cases combatant men can be fought. As long as we are not invading their country. Unless only to fight their military.
MarkBH70 3 years ago
hmm. food for thought
hpso12xu 3 years ago
willmatrix is right, hundreds of Thousands wore killed by the us air force in japan! i recommend every one to watch the documentary 'the fog of war' if you wanna understand what i am talking about in terms of deaths the nukes wore not all that especial
magina23 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
im disappointed in you man. i feel like punching you in the face for making this video, you douchebag.
johnone17 3 years ago
How about giving things some rational thought instead of a emotional reaction? Or are we Americans no longer capable of rational thought?
jdawgwelling 3 years ago
Thousands were dying because of the firebombs on Japan by Superfortress. The US was supposedly targeting the industrial sectors of Japanese cities, which were made up of non-combatant civilians working in factories. The US also killed Germans in much the same way. But I doubt the US would have used the atomic bomb on Germany if they did not surrender, because they are white Europeans.
willmatrix 3 years ago
The atomic bomb was designed TO incinerate Germany. Einstein was disappointed that the bomb was used on Japan and not Germany. The fire bombings of German cities killed far more white Europeans that you seem to resent. After the war there was no plan to exterminate Japanese through intentional hunger and ethnic cleansing. There were plans for Germany. See "The Kaufmann Plan" and the "Morgenthau Plan". Untold numbers of Germans were intentionally exterminated AFTER the war.
novice8814 3 years ago 2
Nobody denies that Hiroshima happened, Thats what makes the Japanese case different, They deny their acts of genocide and rape on their conquered nations, Japan even used Chinese villager as guinea pigs for germ warfare in occupied Manchuria even ran Auschwitz style camps on the Manchu.
Gringoman911 3 years ago
The bombing was unethical and overkill, War is barbarous period. The Germans were incinerated and burned alive in Dresden and that was the RAF war crime, But the thing I ask is if that was bombing was necessary for winning the war would you no longer oppose it?
Gringoman911 3 years ago
The problem with language is that definitions slide over time. The difference was that we were in a declared war. Many parents of those Japanese children (who were innocent) were supporting the Japanese war machine with their livelihoods. Despite what many say to the contrary the US would have been fighting in Japan until the 1950's if it were not for the bombings. "I don't hate you, Cardassian. I hate what I became because of you." ST:TNG "The Wounded"
steve0281 3 years ago
Nagasaki and Hiroshima had almost nothing to do with ending the war quickly. It was propaganda back then and it's propaganda still today. Anyone with eyes could see that Japan was close to surrendering. And no, it wouldn't have taken "a million American lives" to invade Japan(wouldn't have been necessary anyway).
People should really research stuff like this themselves; it's really clear as day.
Xasew 3 years ago 3
wow... on point!
I'm impressed!
Not too many videos like these for sure.
Definition is a definition - plain and simple.
HerrGeneralVonBraun 3 years ago
excellent video
thorsmitersaw 3 years ago
How do they differ?
The simple answer is that they don't.
PressForFreedom 3 years ago
911 was done by elements within our own gov't or a private organization like Blackwater (in cooperation with the CIA, for example). The official story of 911 is child's fantasy.
jimj122680 3 years ago
9/11 was not a inside job, The only "conspiracy I could accept as plausible" is that they ignored the warnings of the impending attack on purpose just as some say Roosevelt also did for pearl harbor.
Then again why would Bush compromise his image by having himself being in a classroom reading my pet goat?
Gringoman911 3 years ago
i dunno dude. theres a lot of evidence that says otherwise.
some even say pearl harbor was a false flag attack
803honda 3 years ago
Anyone who says that is an idiot.
JonasSalk 3 years ago
Anyone who believes the official 911 story is a gullible child. Read through the 911 commision report. Read David Ray Griffin's many books on the subject.
jimj122680 3 years ago
It was. I didn't believe it either until I started going through the evidence. Especially when you look at Building 7, that is the smoking gun.
jimj122680 3 years ago
Japan needs to fess up and repent for its own transgressions during the war, They still deny the heinous crimes and atrocities committed on china,Korea,Indonesia,Philippines ect..
Until they do acknowledge their war crimes, I see no reason to apologize for Hiroshima. I know many Chinese will share my sentiment.
Gringoman911 3 years ago 2
until the us recognizes their own war crimes against its own people they can kiss my ass. My country is South Carolina!
803honda 3 years ago
So because Japan won't admit wrong, America shouldn't? That makes absolutely no sense.
If you steal something and someone else steals something, do you not admit that you stole until they do?
JonasSalk 3 years ago
Jack, I love the objectivity in your vid. Subjectivly, alot of people wouldn't even dare make such a comparison becuase of the emotions involved...
I'm glad you viewed this in a objective way which adds a new perspective on things
Xenthoid 3 years ago
you really need a national radio show
three hours every day
mrgrieves9876 3 years ago
The atomic bombs were NOT needed to "win the war". Truman decided to use the bomb because Russians were on the brink of invading Japan, ending the war but gaining a territory that the US wanted to control & to test the new toys.
The "reality" of 9-11 is that our own government used US businesses, the military & muslim radicals to set up the attacks. Our own government planted bombs in the Oklahoma City Federal building & GAVE "radicals" the live bomb in the first WTC attack.
t4705mb6 3 years ago 2
We think differently about the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings than we do about 9-11 for one reason. Those who were bombed in 1945 were them, not us. Our outrage about 9-11 comes from the fact that it was we who were bombed. If it had been our government that bombed some other country on 9-11 and killed 3,000 civilians for some reason our government deemed justifiable, there would be less American outrage about it than there is about 9-11. It always means more when you're the victim.
theblob2007 3 years ago
Say what you will about Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks (of which I do question the morality of) but I call it par for the course after the horrors Japan inflicted on the Chinese in the Second Sino-Japanese War.
The Nanking Massacre ring any bells?
FieryVulpine 3 years ago
So do as they do? Is it ok to rape the daughter of a rapist? Because that is what you are arguing. Of course you can argue all you want- just remember that such belief closes the gap between you and AlQaida.
utubehayter 3 years ago
Revenge is ultimately futile. But then again, so is turning the other cheek.
FieryVulpine 3 years ago
Excellent.
busteremmyoscar 3 years ago
5 stars finally some people can admit it
AnonymousBChurch 3 years ago
Most Americans are complete hypocrites. It's not evil when "we" do it.
BWF89 3 years ago
Bloody Consequentialists!
TehBANN3D 3 years ago
All this, the atom bomb attacks and allying ourselves with the Soviet mass-murders prove WW2 was not a moral mission to fight evil and liberate people from Nazi and Imperial Japanese oppression. It was used to bring about internationalism, or world government under the United Nations. Mr. Buchanan has certainly spoken of this fact.
Seahorse1776 3 years ago 7
Another great video. Thanks! It's also important to remember the terrorist bombing attacks against German civilians during World War 2. It is estimated 150,000 German civilians, including 70,000 children were murdered through intentional targeting of civilian population centers. Many thousands died after the war as well during the brutal Allied occupation, especially on the Soviet side.
Seahorse1776 3 years ago 5
The Flyboys has dropped gasoline on Tokyo for about two hours and forty minutes. The fires they set consumed almost 100,000 people. The largest single day killing in world day history had just taken place.
(loosely quoted from the book Flyboys. Firebombings are another example of intentional institutional mass murder of innocents. Bombs designed to kill widely and indiscriminately before Hiroshima or Nagasaki)
flexorder 3 years ago
334 B-29s dropped 8,518 bombs weighing 500 pounds each, These bombs burst 2,000 feet over Tokyo and released a total of 496,000 individual 6.2 pound cylinders containing jellied gasoline.
The fires they lit were so hot, superheated vapors rushed ahead of the walls of flames and killed or knocked unconscious its victims before the flames reached them. Babies exploded on mothers' backs and cars on streets were consumed like crumpled paper.
flexorder 3 years ago
When the M69 hit the ground, it lay still for five seconds. Then, with a bang, it shot out the cheesecloth bags. The bags could travel a distance of a hundred yards. If the cheesecloth struck an object, its force burst the bag and the flaming goo would seperate into small chucks that splattered in all directions. Other incindiaries burned intensely but in only one location. The M69 did not start one fire, it started hundreds.
flexorder 3 years ago
The winner was a new bomb called the M69. The M69 did not look like a bomb, it looked like a section of pipe three inches long and three inches in diameter. Inside the pipe was napalm packed in cheesecloth bags. The pipe bomb was dropped from the plane and floated to earth attached to a three foot long streamer that slowed its descent to prevent it from falling so fast that it would go right through a building and into the basement.
flexorder 3 years ago
Best SA vid ever.
Libertarian333 3 years ago
Sorry Clunk
chewbaca1989 3 years ago
'Tis all good.
ClunkityClunk4Truth 3 years ago
It was commonly accepted logic of ending the war faster back then. Plus war itself wasn't a very accurate buisness back then either. That is why it was once said that 'Bomb a factory, it gets rebuilt in a 2 months. Bomb the factory workers, it takes 20 years to replace them.'
lyden2006 3 years ago
You realise these were people, you speak so callously, as if they were just vermin. That was war propaganda, not truth.
beatlemaniac233 3 years ago
The thing is that this country wouldn't be here if we didn't take actions necessary to break the enemies will to fight.
It's a war, it ain't pretty and it ain't honorable.
ClunkityClunk4Truth 3 years ago
You're joking me? The US has never been invaded in its history, it has the most immense military power ever assembled, it spends more than the rest of the world combined on its armed forces. The US has never had an actual threat to its existence, possibly the British back in the day, but certainly no-one from the mid-19th century onwards.
beatlemaniac233 3 years ago
Um, are you forgetting about the War of 1812? There were battles fought on US soil, which indicates that Britain did invade us.
willmatrix 3 years ago
The US declared war on Britain, not the other way around.
And so two centuries ago the US might have faced a threat, that has no bearing on current events.
beatlemaniac233 3 years ago
na i dont agree with you here.
perhaps roosevelt picked a fight with the japs but it was they who destroyed most of our naval fleet and about 3K american soldiers or civvies in pearl harbor. Say what you want about jumping in a war with Germany - bombing Japan and ending a war with them like that was effective. Comparatively losing that many civilians is chump change in WW2. Yamamoto, Chichibu & Hirohito ought've been wiser when asking themselves if the juice was worth the squeeze.
willyrobinson 3 years ago
losing those*
willyrobinson 3 years ago
Comparatively losing 3,000 American civilians is "chump change" in comparison with the millions of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Why are some people worthy victims (Americans) and some not (Japanese)?
Did the 250,000 civilians ask themselves if the "juice was worth the squeeze"?
Maybe those 3,000 Americans on September 11, 2001 should have asked themselves if the "juice was worth the squeeze"?
beatlemaniac233 3 years ago
America is evil and has never done anything to benefit the world.
ClunkityClunk4Truth 3 years ago
CLUNKITY, you blow. Americans by and by are good folks. That politicians and the ruling oligarchy, using economic war, do not reflect Americanism.
chewbaca1989 3 years ago
I was being sarcastic.
ClunkityClunk4Truth 3 years ago
You just never know on the internet. Sarcasm doesn't translate very well.
ZombieX13 3 years ago
I don't blame anyone for not sensing sarcasm.
ClunkityClunk4Truth 3 years ago
I disagree with this because then you'd have to call the V1 rocket attacks and the bombing of German cities or any city in any war, terrorism. Nuclear, carpet bombing, and fire bombing are all indiscriminate. The difference is the declaration of war between two States. It's not a sneak attack. It wasn't subversion in 1945. It was an open act of war in war time.
ZombieX13 3 years ago
The Japanese attack of a military base (Pearl Harbour) was far more justifiable (still not) and far more moral (still not) than the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The Japanese had a crippling embargo put upon them by America, they also had the US Navy playing war games just off their coast, the US was openly advertising the fact that the war planes coming off the assembly line were ideally suited to the bombing of wooden Japanese cities.
beatlemaniac233 3 years ago
I'd use the word honorable instead of moral.
ZombieX13 3 years ago
Sensible men are not much in evidence; they seldom are. It is refreshing to hear you speaking truth and common sense. 5 stars!
Seriousdudes 3 years ago
"Denouncing one obvious act of terror while defending the other is not only illogical, but immoral."
Wait, so merits should never be a consideration when determining the morality of an act of violence? That's retarded. It's not illogical to defend say, a store owner's decision to shoot at a robber while denoucing the robber's decision to do the same.
Libertarianist 3 years ago
Exactly. All sides of the war were attacking eachother in open warfare. We carpet bombed germany. Germany sent rocket attacks on London. We got the bomb first and used it before the Axis so we are the bad guys according to SA.
ZombieX13 3 years ago
Is the only bar of morality how low the other side will go?
beatlemaniac233 3 years ago
That is not terrorism. That is the act of defending from an attack.
If you justify terrorism, then you go down the path of al Qaeda.
beatlemaniac233 3 years ago
It's defensive terrorism. The difference, the only difference, the most meaningful difference, is the merits. What you're doing is pretending there's a clear distinction in their actions rather than make a judgement off of what is the only relivant factor.
America did it to end a war with a tyranical goernment, Al Quaeda did it because they were convinced an invisible sky dady would reward them with cherry intact pussy to fuck.
Libertarianist 3 years ago
"It's defensive terrorism." Listen to yourself man.
Terrorism is terrorism is terrorism. It is wrong when others do it, and it's wrong when we do it.
The reason is immaterial, what if Hamas said they only wanted to blow up a bus and didn't mean to kill the people that were on it, the intention does not matter. What if Israel said it only wanted to disperse the unarmed protesters and deaths were simply collateral, the intention, again, does not matter.
beatlemaniac233 3 years ago 3
Those examples are completely different and absurd.
Killing peoople is wrong. But what if someone does it to save another's life? Does the person sacrificed always have to be the perp for killing to be justified? What if an evil man forces you to kill a stranger or he'll blow up your family. Would it be terrorism to kill the stranger?
Libertarianist 3 years ago
Killing is only justified in self defence, I know of no other instances.
If someone has a gun to your head, it is their action and not yours.
beatlemaniac233 3 years ago
Exactly, the bombs were bombed in self defense. I'm not sure if it was the best decision, but it may have been justified.
Libertarianist 3 years ago
Self defence? That's a stretch. Did all those women and children pose a grave threat to the US?
beatlemaniac233 3 years ago 2
Yes it was terrorism. However, just because it was terrorism, doesn't mean it is unjustifiable.
Libertarianist 3 years ago
please remove the "Libertarian" part from your username. k thx bye
thorsmitersaw 3 years ago 2
I really couldn't disagree with you more here, SA.
8daystillmonday 3 years ago
This is one of the first arguments I had after 9/11. People hated my fucking guts. The truth hurts. I'm amazed now when people freak the fuck out about N.Korea having 'nukes' or Iran getting one (yeah right). Only one country has ever used nukes on civilians...
tattypatty 3 years ago
It was an act of open war. Germany and Japan would have done the same to us if they got the bomb first. Carpet bombing and rocket attacks were just as indiscriminate. War is not neat and clean like people wish it to be especially in that war. WAR IN AND OF ITSELF SHOULD BE ABHORED, PERIOD. The whole war was a travesty and breaking it down to its events of "disgust" is pointless.
ZombieX13 3 years ago 2
I completely agree Zombie, good points. The Germans and Japanese would have loved to have had the chance to nuke the U.S. on its soil.
ClunkityClunk4Truth 3 years ago
So if the enemy would do it if they could, it's OK?
Let's torture people then, they'd do it.
Let's nuke holy cities until they get the message, they'd do it.
This is a silly argument which is usually employed by children to justify their actions, it is not serious discourse.
beatlemaniac233 3 years ago
If you're fighting for and on behalf of principle, then by breaking your principles, no matter what the outcome, you've already lost.
If you're fighting solely for victory, then that is your cross to bear, win or lose.
(so yes, I'm agreeing with you)
eljefereal 3 years ago
It would only be pointless if history didn't repeat itself.
lyden2006 3 years ago