japanese war crimes-- was hiroshima

"Charles Gray" wrote in message
...
An intersting point from the meetings before the dropping of the bomb:


Thanks for that link, Keith--it's very interesting-- lots of stuff on
it.
The meeting was tkaen from this link:

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistle...xt/bmi11tx.htm

Its a site well worth exploring and shows just how
seriously the issue was considered at the highest
levels. The simple fact is neither the Japanese nor the
Germans would have hesitated a heartbeat before
nuking Washington, London or New York.

Keith

In article ,
Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
(robert arndt) wrote:

"Keith Willshaw" wrote:

Given that we didnt tie wounded POW's to trees
with barbed wire and use them for bayonent
pratctise I'd say no we didnt.

No, we just interned Japanese-Americans for years in camps behind
barbed wire at home.

If you think the two approaches were even very roughly comparable, you
have some serious problems.

Yep. We were pretty darned nice, for the times.

As were the Canadians, around the same time, btw.

As opposed to, say, the Germans and Japanese of the times, we were
practically saints.

Thanks for pointing that out for us.

In article ,
Charles Gray wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 17:04:54 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
(robert arndt) wrote:

"Keith Willshaw" wrote:

Given that we didnt tie wounded POW's to trees
with barbed wire and use them for bayonent
pratctise I'd say no we didnt.

No, we just interned Japanese-Americans for years in camps behind
barbed wire at home.

Yep. We were pretty darned nice, for the times.

As opposed to, say, the Germans and Japanese of the times, we were
practically saints.

Thanks for pointing that out for us.

To be fair, you'd have to be pretty damned awful to *not* be a saint
compared to the German's and Japanese acts of WWII.
By the standards of our own democracy, the internment was a positive
wrong for the following reasons.

1. while it was true that many Japanese were not american citizens,
this was because by law, no Asian could be naturalized in the U.S.

Depends on when they arrived. My wife's grandfathers were naturalized;
they arrived before the later laws that would have made it impossible.

I have friends who either spent the war at Manzanar and Tule Lake, or
their parents were interned there. The ones interned were citizens.

2. The citizens were detained with no evidence of wrong doing or
potential wrong doing, and in fact the FBI opposed the move.
3. There was no such detention in the one U.S. possession most
exposed to potential invasion.
4. There was no protection of their goods and lands from
expropriation-- most of Orange County used to be owned by Nisie

Nisei.

families. (and given California popular agitation against Asian land
ownership, I cannot help but think that at least some people saw this
as a very happy outcome).
and 5. At a time when the 442nd should have proven their loyalty
beyond a shadow of a doubt, they were kept in the interment
facilities.

Now, how is this different from Hiroshima? THere *were* other
options. The FBI's assuarnce that it had the situation under control
could have resulted in a more targeted sereis of internments, focusing
on those who were most likely to provide support to the Japanese
empire. Those interned could have had their property protected.

But the historian in me wishes to point out that the nation was
different at the time. We *were* a racist nation-- lynching was going
on in the south, segregation was the unchallenged law of the land in
many parts of the U.S., and the idea of racial inequality was
enshrined in many peoples mind-- hell, it took the discovery of the
deathcamps-- the natural outcome of such doctrines, to shake things
loose. In that time, bad as it was, it could have been much worse.

I do know we've gotten far, FAR better. When 9/11 hit, my first
thoughts were to bomb the SOB's who had done it. My second thoughts
were fearfully wondering if my Muslim and arab friends were going to
catch a backlash. Fortunately, for all my dislike of some of the Bush
administrations decisions, and with the misteps that ever government
makes, they came down firmly against any actions against American
Muslims/arabs as a whole, and those who decided to taket he law into
their own hands are now safe from Bin Laden, courtesy of hte Federal
and State Judiciary systems.

"Gord Beaman" ) wrote in message . ..
(robert arndt) wrote:

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ...
"old hoodoo" wrote in message
...

They were the bad guys, thats a given. That is not the issue.
The issue is, did we, the good guys, go down to the bad guys level.

Given that we didnt tie wounded POW's to trees
with barbed wire and use them for bayonent
pratctise I'd say no we didnt.

No, we just interned Japanese-Americans for years in camps behind
barbed wire at home.


You absolute imbecile...how could you possibly equate these
deeds?...certainly shows your sense of fair play doesn't it?...

Yes it does because it points to the hypocrisy of the US morality of
the time that claimed that the US is for freedom and liberty for all.
That certainly wasn't the case if you were a Japanese-American after
Pearl Harbor. We showed how the Nazis put people in concentration
camps... yet we did the same thing. People died in those camps and we
robbed those Americans of their dignity, freedom, liberty, their
lives, their business', and the pursuit of happiness.
Furthermore, we did some other unspeakable things like preventing many
Jews from emigrating to the US before WW2 and when we learned of the
death camps deliberately chose not to bomb the rail lines or attack
that hellish system at all or rescue any of those people.
Meanwhile in the US we treated German POWs better than negro soldiers
in uniform. Those that did try to fly were investigated in an attempt
to prove that negros could not fly aircraft nor operate complex war
machines. Medical studies akin to the Nazis racial hygiene laws were
performed in the US. Thank God the Tuskegee airman proved those
rascist theories wrong.
No, don't talk about US morality in WW2. We didn't even "give" the
British anything under "give us the tools we'll do the job". The US
Govt confiscated all British assets in the US and even sent a warship
to South Africa to collect British gold in payment for the old Liberty
ships. British companies in the US taken and we even demanded that
Britain share all of its secrets- radar, jet aircraft technology,
computer tech, and its A-bomb project "Tube Alloys" which Britain in
desperation agreed to. What did they get for helping with the US
Manhatten Project- nothing. Britain had to build their own bomb years
later.
So get off your high horse and address the America of the '40s without
the rose colored glasses on.
We were racist, anti-semetic, and greedy. But patriotism covers a
multitude of sins, right?

Rob

Yep. We were pretty darned nice, for the times.

You neglected to mention that the internees were paid compensation and
given an apology. I don't recall that my friend Dick O'Kane got either
from the Japanese who starved and worked and beat him down to 98
pounds in one year.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

"robert arndt" wrote in message
om...
"Gord Beaman" ) wrote in message
. ..
(robert arndt) wrote:


No, don't talk about US morality in WW2. We didn't even "give" the
British anything under "give us the tools we'll do the job". The US
Govt confiscated all British assets in the US and even sent a warship
to South Africa to collect British gold in payment for the old Liberty
ships.

This is utter ********.

Its true that prior to lend lease the neutrality act required all
purchases to be paid for in gold or US dollars but there
was no 'confiscation' of assets

The Liberty ships were new build ships delivered AFTER
lend lease and were NOT paid for in Gold

The 'old' ships supplied were the 40 Town class destroyers
and they werent paid for in gold either , they were part of the
ships for bases deal.

British companies in the US taken and we even demanded that
Britain share all of its secrets- radar, jet aircraft technology,
computer tech, and its A-bomb project "Tube Alloys" which Britain in
desperation agreed to.

More rubbish

The decision to pass the cavity magnetron data to the USA
was taken in 1940 because it was realised that Britain didnt have
the spare manufacturing or research capacity to put it into
production. The Tizard mission benefitted both nations, the
USA got a leg up in research and the UK got centimetric radar
in quantity before it could have otherwise done.

As for jet engine technology that was shared equally with
the Amricans and Soviets, or had you forgotten that the
Mig-15 flew with a british designed engine ?

The computer tech was NOT shared. Colossus remained
a top secret until

As for tube alloys once again it was recognised in britain that
we simply didnt have the resources to develop an atomic
weapon in time to affect the war. The recommendations
of the Maud committee set up in Britain to advise the government
was that the US and British programs should be pooled.

Quote
8. Conclusions and Recommendations
(i) The committee considers that the scheme for a uranium bomb is
practicable and likely to lead to decisive results in the war.

(ii) It recommends that this work be continued on the highest priority and
on the increasing scale necessary to obtain the weapon in the shortest
possible time.

(iii) That the present collaboration with America should be continued and
extended especially in the region of experimental work.

/Quote

What did they get for helping with the US
Manhatten Project- nothing. Britain had to build their own bomb years
later.

They got a LOT of knowledge from the British phyicists who returned
from Los Alamos and Oak Ridge.

So get off your high horse and address the America of the '40s without
the rose colored glasses on.
We were racist, anti-semetic, and greedy. But patriotism covers a
multitude of sins, right?


The US did not however murder 95% of the Japanese in North America

There are once more thriving Japanese communities in California.
How many jews live in Cracow, Warsaw or Berlin in comparison to
the communities of 1933 ?

The father of my best friend was briefly interned by the British
authorities in 1939. This was disgraceful however he would be the
first to point out that only one other member of his family
survived the war, they had the misfortune to be jewish and
even his father, an officer in the German Army in WW1 and
a winner of the Iron Cross was sent to the gas chambers.

No the US was not perfect and neither were Britain or Canada
but they were not genocidal maniacs either.

Keith

We showed how the Nazis put people in concentration
camps... yet we did the same thing.

If you honestly believe that the holding facilities we used, in direct response
to an unprovoked attack upon us, is even remotely similar to the KZ werks,
designed specifically to KILL its inmates, you are irrational. That's the
equiv of saying giving kids detention afterschool is the same as sending them
to Attica and shoving a needle in their arm.

People died in those camps

What, precisely, do you see the ratio as currently standing, Rob? How many
died in US camps vs German KZs? Tell us how close your analogy really is?

...and we
robbed those Americans of their dignity, freedom, liberty, their
lives, their business', and the pursuit of happiness.

Absolutely. And it was a horrible injustice, but not remotely similar to the
practice of genocide practiced openly in Germany.


Furthermore, we did some other unspeakable things like preventing many
Jews from emigrating to the US before WW2 and when we learned of the
death camps deliberately chose not to bomb the rail lines or attack
that hellish system at all or rescue any of those people.

All, uniformly bad decisions. But since we have the benefit of 60 years of
hindsight, its not surprising that those of us around today would make
different choices than those made back then. That still doesn't get us lumped
in with the Nazis -- but if it does in your view, that's awful.

Meanwhile in the US we treated German POWs better than negro soldiers
in uniform.

You're going off on a tangent here, but yes, if you are trying to suggest that
we were still "making progress" back then, then I'd agree.

snip OT Tuskeegee stuff

Medical studies akin to the Nazis racial hygiene laws were
performed in the US.

Really? We killed anyone with birth defects? Rob, every country fails to live
up to their best ideals; the difference is that the Nazis set up a nationwide
system to murder everyone they felt needed killing - and then they streamlined
the process to

oh, whats the use - this isn't really a debate and you couldn't care less what
I think on the subject.

Bottom line, how many millions, or thousands, or even hundreds of Nisei were
murdered on US Government order?

We were racist, anti-semetic, and greedy.

How many facilities did we produce specifically to murder jews?

But patriotism covers a
multitude of sins, right?

No, it doesn't. However, we participated in liberating dozens of countries in
WWII, allowing hundreds of millions of people, including yourself, to be born
into a better world than the one the Nazis envisioned. You and I have the
freedom of speech to argue about who what where; we wouldn't be having this
conversation in a postwar Nazi-controlled world. Big differences between
making mistakes and poor decisions and actively trying to eradicate a race.

Gordon

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ...
"robert arndt" wrote in message
om...
"Gord Beaman" ) wrote in message
. ..
(robert arndt) wrote:


No, don't talk about US morality in WW2. We didn't even "give" the
British anything under "give us the tools we'll do the job". The US
Govt confiscated all British assets in the US and even sent a warship
to South Africa to collect British gold in payment for the old Liberty
ships.

This is utter ********.

Its true that prior to lend lease the neutrality act required all
purchases to be paid for in gold or US dollars but there
was no 'confiscation' of assets

Roosevelt stripped Britain of all her assets in the US after two years
of war. The British-owned Viscose Company worth 125 mil pounds was
liquidated for 87 mil pounds to pay for war debt while Britain's 1,924
mil pound investments in Canada were sold off to further pay off war
debt. To make sure Roosevelt got the money he dispatched the cruiser
"Loisville" to the South African naval base Simonstown to take
Britain's last gold assets- 42 mil pounds worth.
Not content with stripping Britain of its assets and gold, for 50 old
destroyers, Roosevelt made Britain transfer all her scientific and
technological secrets to the US. He also demanded leases on the
islands of Newfoundland, Jamaica,Trinidad, and Bermuda for the setting
up of US military and naval bases.

The Liberty ships were new build ships delivered AFTER
lend lease and were NOT paid for in Gold

You are correct, it was for the 50 old destroyers instead. My mistake.

The 'old' ships supplied were the 40 Town class destroyers
and they werent paid for in gold either , they were part of the
ships for bases deal.

Refer to above.

British companies in the US taken and we even demanded that
Britain share all of its secrets- radar, jet aircraft technology,
computer tech, and its A-bomb project "Tube Alloys" which Britain in
desperation agreed to.

More rubbish

Refer to above.

The decision to pass the cavity magnetron data to the USA
was taken in 1940 because it was realised that Britain didnt have
the spare manufacturing or research capacity to put it into
production. The Tizard mission benefitted both nations, the
USA got a leg up in research and the UK got centimetric radar
in quantity before it could have otherwise done.

As for jet engine technology that was shared equally with
the Amricans and Soviets, or had you forgotten that the
Mig-15 flew with a british designed engine ?

The US got it first by demand. The Soviets bought theirs.

The computer tech was NOT shared. Colossus remained
a top secret until

As for tube alloys once again it was recognised in britain that
we simply didnt have the resources to develop an atomic
weapon in time to affect the war. The recommendations
of the Maud committee set up in Britain to advise the government
was that the US and British programs should be pooled.

Britain again had no choice but to give in, contributing 44 of their
scientists to the Manhatten Project.

Quote
8. Conclusions and Recommendations
(i) The committee considers that the scheme for a uranium bomb is
practicable and likely to lead to decisive results in the war.

(ii) It recommends that this work be continued on the highest priority and
on the increasing scale necessary to obtain the weapon in the shortest
possible time.

(iii) That the present collaboration with America should be continued and
extended especially in the region of experimental work.

/Quote

What did they get for helping with the US
Manhatten Project- nothing. Britain had to build their own bomb years
later.

They got a LOT of knowledge from the British phyicists who returned
from Los Alamos and Oak Ridge.

We should have gave them the bomb considering that the US could not
have had a D-Day invasion without launching it from that little
island. And no D-Day, no captured German technolgy, material or
documentation- that put the US far ahead of anyone else postwar.
Russia would have taken the continent and got it instead.

So get off your high horse and address the America of the '40s without
the rose colored glasses on.
We were racist, anti-semetic, and greedy. But patriotism covers a
multitude of sins, right?


The US did not however murder 95% of the Japanese in North America

There are once more thriving Japanese communities in California.
How many jews live in Cracow, Warsaw or Berlin in comparison to
the communities of 1933 ?

The father of my best friend was briefly interned by the British
authorities in 1939. This was disgraceful however he would be the
first to point out that only one other member of his family
survived the war, they had the misfortune to be jewish and
even his father, an officer in the German Army in WW1 and
a winner of the Iron Cross was sent to the gas chambers.

No the US was not perfect and neither were Britain or Canada
but they were not genocidal maniacs either.

That doesn't excuse the illegality nor immorality of Allied actions
during the war.

Keith

Rob

"robert arndt" wrote in message
om...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...
"robert arndt" wrote in message
om...
"Gord Beaman" ) wrote in message
. ..
(robert arndt) wrote:


No, don't talk about US morality in WW2. We didn't even "give" the
British anything under "give us the tools we'll do the job". The US
Govt confiscated all British assets in the US and even sent a warship
to South Africa to collect British gold in payment for the old Liberty
ships.

This is utter ********.

Its true that prior to lend lease the neutrality act required all
purchases to be paid for in gold or US dollars but there
was no 'confiscation' of assets

Roosevelt stripped Britain of all her assets in the US after two years
of war. The British-owned Viscose Company worth 125 mil pounds was
liquidated for 87 mil pounds to pay for war debt while Britain's 1,924
mil pound investments in Canada were sold off to further pay off war
debt.

Roosevelt didnt make those decisions, Churchill did and
it was the isolationist US Congress that forced that
by passing the neutrality acts.


To make sure Roosevelt got the money he dispatched the cruiser
"Loisville" to the South African naval base Simonstown to take
Britain's last gold assets- 42 mil pounds worth.

As usual you have this completely WRONG. The USS Louisville
was sent to Simonstown in 1940 at the request of the BRITISH government
to transport $148 million dollars of gold to the USA where
it was placed on deposit to be used by the British purchasing
commission. The reason for using a US cruiser was to ensure
it wouldnt be sunk by German U-Boats

This was not unique to the USA , HMS Edinburgh was sunk while
carrying large quantities of Soviet gold to pay for its purchase
from Britain and the USA


Not content with stripping Britain of its assets and gold, for 50 old
destroyers, Roosevelt made Britain transfer all her scientific and
technological secrets to the US. He also demanded leases on the
islands of Newfoundland, Jamaica,Trinidad, and Bermuda for the setting
up of US military and naval bases.

You are conflating several quite separate issues and getting ALL
wrong. The gold had been spent BEFORE the 40 destroyers
ever became an issue.

The deal that saw the transfer of radar technlogy to the USA in
1940 was the result of a policy decision by the BRITISH
government who sent the Tizard mission to Washington
specifically to bartter know how for production. Both
nations won on this one.

The ships for bases deal was a way to
give the RN 40 ships for which it could not pay.


The Liberty ships were new build ships delivered AFTER
lend lease and were NOT paid for in Gold

You are correct, it was for the 50 old destroyers instead. My mistake.

They didnt pay gold for the destroyers either. The purchases
made with that money were largely aircraft and associated
weapons. It was that money that got the initial orders
placed for the P-51 for example.


The 'old' ships supplied were the 40 Town class destroyers
and they werent paid for in gold either , they were part of the
ships for bases deal.

Refer to above.

British companies in the US taken and we even demanded that
Britain share all of its secrets- radar, jet aircraft technology,
computer tech, and its A-bomb project "Tube Alloys" which Britain in
desperation agreed to.

More rubbish

Refer to above.

The decision to pass the cavity magnetron data to the USA
was taken in 1940 because it was realised that Britain didnt have
the spare manufacturing or research capacity to put it into
production. The Tizard mission benefitted both nations, the
USA got a leg up in research and the UK got centimetric radar
in quantity before it could have otherwise done.

As for jet engine technology that was shared equally with
the Amricans and Soviets, or had you forgotten that the
Mig-15 flew with a british designed engine ?

The US got it first by demand. The Soviets bought theirs.

No sir, the USSR and USA both got engine's as allied
nations, but the USA built its copies of the Nene engine
under license as the J-42. The Taylor Turbine Corporation
paid Rolls Royce a commercial license fee for the copies
and PURCHASED 6 engines, the Soviets purchased ONE
engine and then just ripped off the design. Note that Pratt
and Whitney later purchased that license and in collaboration
with Rolls Royce further developed the engine. Once again
a partnership not a ripoff.


The computer tech was NOT shared. Colossus remained
a top secret until

As for tube alloys once again it was recognised in britain that
we simply didnt have the resources to develop an atomic
weapon in time to affect the war. The recommendations
of the Maud committee set up in Britain to advise the government
was that the US and British programs should be pooled.

Britain again had no choice but to give in, contributing 44 of their
scientists to the Manhatten Project.

It was a British initiative, getting the US to agree to our idea
was scarcely giving in. You seem to have a real problem with
the notion of alliance, as did the Nazis of course.



Quote
8. Conclusions and Recommendations
(i) The committee considers that the scheme for a uranium bomb is
practicable and likely to lead to decisive results in the war.

(ii) It recommends that this work be continued on the highest priority
and
on the increasing scale necessary to obtain the weapon in the shortest
possible time.

(iii) That the present collaboration with America should be continued
and
extended especially in the region of experimental work.

/Quote

What did they get for helping with the US
Manhatten Project- nothing. Britain had to build their own bomb years
later.

They got a LOT of knowledge from the British phyicists who returned
from Los Alamos and Oak Ridge.

We should have gave them the bomb considering that the US could not
have had a D-Day invasion without launching it from that little
island. And no D-Day, no captured German technolgy, material or
documentation- that put the US far ahead of anyone else postwar.
Russia would have taken the continent and got it instead.

The payback for D-Day was ending the war. 2000 V-1's and
V-2's fell on London, only the invasion stopped them. You
insist on seeing an adversarial relationship were there
was an alliance.



So get off your high horse and address the America of the '40s without
the rose colored glasses on.
We were racist, anti-semetic, and greedy. But patriotism covers a
multitude of sins, right?


The US did not however murder 95% of the Japanese in North America

There are once more thriving Japanese communities in California.
How many jews live in Cracow, Warsaw or Berlin in comparison to
the communities of 1933 ?

The father of my best friend was briefly interned by the British
authorities in 1939. This was disgraceful however he would be the
first to point out that only one other member of his family
survived the war, they had the misfortune to be jewish and
even his father, an officer in the German Army in WW1 and
a winner of the Iron Cross was sent to the gas chambers.

No the US was not perfect and neither were Britain or Canada
but they were not genocidal maniacs either.

That doesn't excuse the illegality nor immorality of Allied actions
during the war.

It does however serve to put them in perspective.

Illegal imprisonment is a crime but murder is a more serious one.

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 05:36:18 -0500, Cub Driver
wrote:


Yep. We were pretty darned nice, for the times.

You neglected to mention that the internees were paid compensation and
given an apology. I don't recall that my friend Dick O'Kane got either
from the Japanese who starved and worked and beat him down to 98
pounds in one year.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Or the Korean "comfort women", or the Korean slave workers, or the
American and British Civilians...or the literally tens of millions of
Chinese, filipino's and other's who had the misfortune to be
"liberated" by the Japanese.
Japan, with some exceptions (mostly personal, not governmental) has
a very large policy of forgetfulness with those actions...and in other
cases continues to try to justify them.
Especially egregious is the lawsuits that are dropped because you
cannot get compensation because "it was already settled" in
peacetreaties that never brought the matter up.

I believe that the internment camps were a disgrace, and an
unamerican act, especially as the 442nd was proving its loyalty in
blood.
But to imagine for the slightest moment that that injustice
compares-- can even be compared-- to the wholesale slaughter of
Germany and Japan's brutal occupations and death camps would be absurd
if it wasn't so popular a point of view.
The internment WASN'T comparable to those acts-- but it was a dark
moment in U.S. history because we are, and should be, judged to a
higher standard than the governments that only worshipped brute force.

I would also mention, that although I think the apology did come
too late, it was an act of congress, signed into law by the
president-- so it wasn't simply an apology by any single group, it was
an apology on behalf of the United States, and its' citizens, from our
elected leaders.