What atrocities has the US government committed?

ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
BDOGKush said:
Nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki, firebombing of Tokyo
Click to expand...
It was not an atrocity, because of the historical context; Japan had begun a war of aggression, and while bloodied, was far from beaten by mid 1945.

The two bombs- and the bluff of dozens more- brought the Japanese to the battleship Iowa to sign the Articles of Surrender, at the cost of several hundred thousand lives- I'm overestimating to cover those who died an unnatural death due to their effects later, as well.

The only alternative available was a full scale Normandy style invasion of the Japanese homeland, at the very likely cost of millions- MILLIONS- of casualties on both sides.

Truman made the right decision there.

Telling Patton to stop at Berlin and not follow in Napoleon's footsteps to Moscow? Jury's still out on that one! @pnwmystery I'd like to hear your perspective on this, you've impressed me with how well informed you are about our nation's past.
 
Last edited:
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
It was not an atrocity, because of the historical context; Japan had begun a war of aggression, and while bloodied, was far from beaten by mid 1945.

The two bombs- and the bluff of dozens more- brought the Japanese to the battleship Iowa to sign the Articles of Surrender, at the cost of several hundred thousand lives- I'm overestimating to cover those who died an unnatural death due to their effects later, as well.

The only alternative available was a full scale Normandy style invasion of the Japanese homeland, at the very likely cost of millions- MILLIONS- of casualties on both sides.

Truman made the right decision there.

Telling Patton to stop at Berlin and not follow in Napoleon's footsteps to Moscow? Jury's still out on that one!
Click to expand...

There is never a good excuse for murder of innocent women and children.
 
BDOGKush

BDOGKush

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
It was not an atrocity, because of the historical context; Japan had begun a war of aggression, and while bloodied, was far from beaten by mid 1945.

The two bombs- and the bluff of dozens more- brought the Japanese to the battleship Iowa to sign the Articles of Surrender, at the cost of several hundred thousand lives- I'm overestimating to cover those who died an unnatural death due to their effects later, as well.

The only alternative available was a full scale Normandy style invasion of the Japanese homeland, at the very likely cost of millions- MILLIONS- of casualties on both sides.

Truman made the right decision there.

Telling Patton to stop at Berlin and not follow in Napoleon's footsteps to Moscow? Jury's still out on that one!
Click to expand...
That's a load of horse shit. America wanted a war with Japan and took steps to provoke a Japanese attack, a year prior to Pearl Harbor. It's all detailed in the Mcollum memo.

America also intercepted communications of Japan asking Russia to mediate a surrender well before the atomic bombs were dropped. Also nearly every top U.S. Military leader at the time came forward to say Japan was already defeated before the bombing.

Many historians also believe the atomic bombs were dropped as a way to intimidate the Russians.

The idea that it saved more lives than it destroyed is nothing but a feel good excuse to justify one of the worst atrocities in human history.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top