I have to agree with Tohoku. The remark about the Enola Gay was crass. Maybe even provocative. That aside, Tohoku's comment:
"Atrocities were indeed committed. Maybe every day. But even so, other country military also commit attrocity during war. Maybe every day. I *have* said that some of the things Japanese forces are accused of are, IMO, not attrocities - what one culture calls an attrocity another may not. This saying of mine is not the same as saying they never happened. I could give an example if you wanted of the culture difference about that things."
The waffling, evasion and moral ambiguity of that paragraph really concerns me. All military powers did not commit "atrocities" in the sense that one means when one refers to WW2 war crimes.
The "Rape of Nanking" was organized massacre. You can't blame it on reservists. It was the 6th Division. We can't know how many people were murdered outright. 100,000 is probably a good lower estimate. Even Nazi SS divisions did not engage in rapine on such a massive scale over such short terms. Japan, the government, owes China, the government, a formal apology for that.
The systematic starvation of civilians in occupied areas (Korea, China, PI) to feed the Japanese homeland. During WW2, only one other power stole food from occupied nations: Nazi Germany. By comparison, standards of living among Italian, German, and Japanese civilians actually improved under Allied occupation. Japan, the government, owes Koreans, Chinese, and PIslanders a formal apology for that.
Japan conducted widespread tests of biological agents on Chinese. Japan, the government, owes China a formal apology for that. By comparison, only two other powers are known to have conducted germ warfare tests on living humans (although I'd bet money that the USSR did as well): Nazi Germany (who have apologized profusely and made nominal restition), and the US (who have apologized to the survivors and families of the African Americans who were subjected to such tests, and made nominal restition).
Japan, the government, maintained an infrastructure, a service organization if you will, that enslaved Chinese, Korean and PIsland women for sex. Japan, the government, owes these women and their families, a formal apology for that. No other power had an organized sex-slave industry. Not even the Nazis.
Japan failed to make adequate provisions for the maintenance of Allied POWS. Japan transported and housed pows in filthy conditions that promoted the rampant spread of disease. Japan forced prisoners to work in labor camps, often in combat areas where the prisoners were exposed to fire. Nazi Germany did not do that to Allied prisoners. Japan routinely executed allied prisoners, particularly fliers. Germany didn't do that either. There were known alternatives (I have mentioned parole) that were available. Japan, the government, owes the POWs (those that are still alive at any rate) a formal apology for that. By treaty, no monetary compensation is owed, so the issue of money is (in my mind anyhow) a non-issue.
Forget the declaration of war thing. Japan intended to declare war. They blew the timing of it. No apology for that is necessary. No apology is required for duplicitous "surrendering" Japanese soldiers whose last act in life *after* "surrendering" was to try to kill one more Yank, Aussie or Kiwi. No apology required: it was a really idiotic cultural thing.
"Who you judge as worse, the Japanese for committing attrocities and acknowldging they happened (but not apologising the way you want them to), or the Germans for attempting outright and organised genocide (but saying sorry afterwards), or the US for commiting attrocities (and ignoring them afterwards, not apologising at all)? Don't take this an accusation. It isn't. I'm simply trying to get you to realised that the situation is more difficult than you seem to want to think about."
I have seen estimates that 10-20 million Southeast Asians died under Japanese rule. That puts Japanese genocide on the same scale as Nazi Germany's and Joe Stalin's. There is no moral comparison between the Allies and the Axis in regards to the subject of war crimes. More importantly, while "atrocities" often occur during warfare (extramilitary executions by soldiers who would rather not take prisoners, for example) do, indeed, happen, the Allies never formally organized such efforts. Japan and Germany did. Japan's crimes in WW2 go *way beyond* "atrocities."
But as I said, the US does not need an apology. The Chinese, PI and Koreans do. They're not about to just "drop it." So Japan will continue to live with the diplomatic consequences in Asia of its failure to apologize to Asians. Whether they do or not only interests me, as an American, insofar as US military strength shelters Japan.
Frankly, if a new Asian war breaks out, I won't be voting to spend American blood and treasure to defend a nation that won't own up to its past. It's pretty unlikely, and I'm just one guy, so you are probably "free" (courtesy of the US) to continue to pretend that Japan did nothing wrong or to revise history in any way that makes you feel good about your national past.
MacAurthur
Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami
Hey, I bought my first Japanese car ever last year, a Mazda Miata (silver with nearly every option), guess where the window sticker stated as place of manufacture and final assembly? Hiroshima. If we hadn't started Japan's post war economic boom with the two wartime booms, I wouldn't be able to drive my wife's miata around town.Originally posted by tohoku
No, I complained about your crass comment about Hiroshima.
I don't think I've ever expressed an opinion here about the needed of the atom bomb attacks themselves.
tohoku
YMMV
Those two bombings saved MILLIONS of Japanese lives that would have been lost in a prolonged campaign of blockade and later invasion.
As for my remarks about the enola Gay, etc., I was just being a little fastisious. If some yahoo at Mazda gets me roiled up, I'll say the same thinh to them (but it will probably blow over their head so high, a zero could not reach altitude to intercept it). :p
Still playing PacWar (but no so much anymore)...
The Japanese Government was responsible for the actions if its military. The government was already largely under military control to the invasion of China. I will not accept lame excuses for such grevious breaches to the Law of War.Originally posted by tohoku
I would like to discuss facts, yes. Please remember what I said about facts versus motivations earlier though.
If it doesn't matter what they're called why do you use the phrase "wars of aggression"? To repeat, please be careful to distinguish between 'facts' and 'beliefs'. Please try and avoid using perjorative terminology - you'll end up begging the question. Which brings me to my question: why are you getting so angry? All I did was say that your joke about Hiroshima was crass.
Also, your 'fact' that the Japanese started a war against Korea in 1932 is wrong. Japan invaded and conquered Korea much earlier than that. How can I trust the rest of your 'facts'?
A particular section of the Army invaded China without (in fact, contrary too, I think) orders. Japan, the nation state, didn't find out about it until later.
Atrocities were indeed committed. Maybe every day. (How can we *know* it as a fact? If we can't it is just emotion from you) But even so, other country military also commit attrocity during war. Maybe every day. I have never said otherwise about Japan. I *have* said that some of the things Japanese forces are accused of are, IMO, not attrocities - what one culture calls an attrocity another may not. This saying of mine is not the same as saying they never happened. I could give an example if you wanted of the culture difference about that things.
Who you judge as worse, the Japanese for committing attrocities and acknowldging they happened (but not apologising the way you want them to), or the Germans for attempting outright and organised genocide (but saying sorry afterwards), or the US for commiting attrocities (and ignoring them afterwards, not apologising at all)? Don't take this an accusation. It isn't. I'm simply trying to get you to realised that the situation is more difficult than you seem to want to think about.
True. So? Nation states force each other to do things. Again, the US did it. Still does - look at the force exercised against Nahru when it told the US it's fishing fleets could no longer carry out unlimited exploitation of their fisher resources. I would prefer if all nationa states stopped doing that.
Japan has always had to import food, since the Restoration. Even today. What does the last sentence mean? Are you trying to imply I was not telling the truth? If not imply, then what?
This is also true. But please tell everyone what the conditions for the *lifting of the embargo (organised by the US) were*. Then explain how likely it really was for Japan to comply with those conditions. As I've said, the US (as organiser of the embargo and setter of the terms) *knew* well that Japan wouldn't back down on the stated terms. Both sides were war-wanting stupids.
Japan declared war. It tried the beste to deliver the declaration. It is anyway well known that Hull *already* had the declaration of war before the Enbassy had finished typing it up and deliver it. He issued no warning. Strange?
More, Japan considered war an option. The forces were told to plan. Nations do that. Do you condemn the US for the plans it has now for nuclear war against other countries as news recently did beat-up of? I don't think you would.
Your sentence above makes it sound like they decided a year before and planned and trained with the intent of going to war. But *the facts* of diaries of those invovled (Ugaki and Yamamoto are available in English, amongst others) demonstrate that the decision wasn't taken until ery shortly before the actual date of the attacks. So are you being careless in saying or are deliberate? Deliberate would be dishonest, I think.
No, I complained about your crass comment about Hiroshima.
I don't think I've ever expressed an opinion here about the needed of the atom bomb attacks themselves.
tohoku
YMMV
What Sec'y Hull had in his hands was NOT a declaration of War. The fact remains that the US was attqcked while at peace, just like Great Britain & Holland , which by the way Japan intended to provide NO warning AT ALL, same with Korea, Manchuria, & China. Care to dispute this???
The PH operation was planned starting in January 1941 and the six carrier air groups carried out exrtensive training for the attack. The Japanese developed special shallow running torpedoes especially for it and abapted AP battleship shells for their Kates. They couldn't do this "in a short period of time". Chaulk one more up the ranger.
The US made and makes several plans, but we do not go around attacking soveriegn nations without prior declarations of War.
The "conditions" that the US made were for Japan to get out of a country that they invaded and as it turned out could nort conquer even with 7 years to try). The Japanese refused to do so, but the US didn't state that they would attack Japan if Japan didn't comply. Japan on the other hand resolved to attack the US.
I was slightly wrong about Korea. This country was fought over by both China and Japan for centuries (the russians were also "interested"), both sent soldiers to "support Korea" in 1894. But, the Japanese the attacked the king of Korea's palace on July 23, 1894 and forced him at gunpoint to sign an order expelling the Chinese. So much for respecting the sovereignity of other nations. I might have had the year wrong, but the rest of my assertation remains correct.
Still playing PacWar (but no so much anymore)...
Well said Mdiehl, except the part about me being crass:D
I must also come down firmly on the side of Raverdave. The Japanese military, primarily the Army, practiced organized and condoned numerous acts of what my Military Law text from CGSC (which I just happen to be taking a test on) categorizes as "Grevious Breaches" of the Law of War.
While some Japanese leaders were tried for war crimes, the vast majority, especiallt thone on the mainland (including malaysia where the Australian & British prisoners were kept) just melted into the background and were never brought to justice.
And , no there is NO COMPARISON between what Japan and Germany DID and what the US is alleged to have done. Even the Soviets under Stalin were in a different category than Germany and Japan.
I must also come down firmly on the side of Raverdave. The Japanese military, primarily the Army, practiced organized and condoned numerous acts of what my Military Law text from CGSC (which I just happen to be taking a test on) categorizes as "Grevious Breaches" of the Law of War.
While some Japanese leaders were tried for war crimes, the vast majority, especiallt thone on the mainland (including malaysia where the Australian & British prisoners were kept) just melted into the background and were never brought to justice.
And , no there is NO COMPARISON between what Japan and Germany DID and what the US is alleged to have done. Even the Soviets under Stalin were in a different category than Germany and Japan.
Still playing PacWar (but no so much anymore)...
Originally posted by Ranger-75
The Japanese Government was responsible for the actions if its military. The government was already largely under military control to the invasion of China. I will not accept lame excuses for such grevious breaches to the Law of War.
Then you accept that the US government is equally responsible for war crimes committed by US 1st Army in Europe? Or Vietnam? *I* would argue that a government is not responsible for the acts, but would be responsible for having lost control of the military.
I honestly don't see how you can hold someone or something responsible (whether an inividual or nation state) for something they *couldn't* have diretly controlled. Seeing you quote law (below, even if only customary law (which the US clearly applies only selectively (ex. prisoners in Cuba right now))), I would point to the common law principle of Kant's Moral Imperative 'ought implies can'. To give a simple example, would you hold someone responsible for failing to save a drowning child if they couldn't swim?! I agree the government of the time should be responsible for having lost control of the military, but I don't see them as responsible for what a small section of that military did while it was out of control.
What Sec'y Hull had in his hands was NOT a declaration of War. The fact remains that the US was attqcked while at peace, just like Great Britain & Holland , which by the way Japan intended to provide NO warning AT ALL, same with Korea, Manchuria, & China. Care to dispute this???
Yes.
Korea wasn't recognised as a state by the Japanese in 1894 . Much like the US didn't recognise the Taliban Afghan government. Manchuria certainly *wasn't* a state. No declaration needed. And China was, as I've already said, invaded by a section of the Japanese Army, not by Japan, at first - aside from the small problem of trying to decide who you might deliver a declaration of war against China too.
As for the US, it's a pretty hollow accusation. It's clear the Japanese honestly tried to declare war. Hull, if he had *any* ability to infer (given he had the document and many others prior (from the broken Japanes codes)), must have known it was a declaration of war. It couldn't have been anything else, given the preceeding series of events. I'm sorry that you don't have enough powers of inference to make this same deduction, even with the benefit of hindsight.
The PH operation was planned starting in January 1941 and the six carrier air groups carried out exrtensive training for the attack. The Japanese developed special shallow running torpedoes especially for it and abapted AP battleship shells for their Kates. They couldn't do this "in a short period of time". Chaulk one more up the ranger.
Yes, they were planning for it. I never claimed they did it all in a short period of time though. Chalk one up to the ranger to either not reading clearly or being disingenous.
I said the decision to launch the attack wasn't taken until a short time before the attacks - I even mentioned a couple of Japanese sources to comfirm that claim. You've done nothing but repeat yourself by taking a series of events and then claiming (with no supporting evidence quoted) what the motivations governing those events were. Remember what I said earlier about confusing facts and motivations? You're doing that confusing right now, even after I tried to explain and provide cite my own position.
The US made and makes several plans, but we do not go around attacking soveriegn nations without prior declarations of War.
I think you are wrong. Libya would be one recent example. Acts of war against a nation (that happens to annoy the US) without a declaration of war. Grenada. Cambodia. Laos. El Salvador. Afghanistan. Several dozen Indian nations (including systematic genocide). Should I go on? I'm not sure that a declaration was delivered in the Spanish-American war - certainly not in any way to be useful (much as the Japanese planned to deliver the declaration less than an hour before the attacks began at PH).
The "conditions" that the US made were for Japan to get out of a country that they invaded and as it turned out could nort conquer even with 7 years to try). The Japanese refused to do so, but the US didn't state that they would attack Japan if Japan didn't comply. Japan on the other hand resolved to attack the US.
The conditions called for Japan to withdraw from China *and* Manchuko. I never claimed the US threatened to attack. I would claim that the US was doing this, not out of a sense of democracy and alturistic concern for the poor, oppressed Chinese, but, instead, out of a fear that US commercial interests and dominance-seeking interference in Chinese affairs would be threatened. The US wasn't being alturistic here. It was being as commercially motivated and racist as the Japanese.
Look at US newspaper editorials of the time and see how often the phrases "*Our* threatened interests.." and "US area of interest.." comes up in reference to China. The US thought of China and, to a lessor degree, the Pacific as *it's own* private playground and wasn't about to tolerate another bully on the block.
If you want examples of these (for want of a better description) imperial ambitions, take a look at the War Department memos from Admiral King and others during the war talkig about US plans to take the opportunity to outrightly annex large tracts of the Pacific!
By my count, that makes two independent sources I've quoted in suport of the position I take, whereas you've yet to quote a single primary source in support of your own position. Three, if the newspaper editorial thing counts for anything much (other than a representation of popular US opinion at the time).
You couldn't even get the century right first time!I was slightly wrong about Korea. This country was fought over by both China and Japan for centuries (the russians were also "interested"), both sent soldiers to "support Korea" in 1894. But, the Japanese the attacked the king of Korea's palace on July 23, 1894 and forced him at gunpoint to sign an order expelling the Chinese. So much for respecting the sovereignity of other nations. I might have had the year wrong, but the rest of my assertation remains correct.
You claimed they were examples of aggression. I'd agree. You seem to think that Japan is the sole aggressor in the history, but as you (finally) point out above, China was also an aggressor. This is pretty much my whole point! People are spending so much time decrying the Japanese for things that happened *and doing so from the safety of their own little modern viewpoint*.
*I'm* saying that the things you should be looking at have to be placed in a context if you want to start proclaiming moral judgements upon them.
Japan was not, IMO, morally culpable for many of the things it's often accused of and has been accused of here. For the record, I think there are things it did that Japan *should* be culpable for, but you, as an example (AFAICT) of someone unable to think outside your modern judeo-xtian US-centric worldview, don't even know what they are! You haven't even bothered to ask when I've made allusions to that! I know my English isn't too bad most of the time, but I wasn't aware I was being *that* subtle or obscure!
You, and some others, seem to be under the impression I'm defending Japan. I'm not. I thnk there's a lot Japan still needs to do. I'm simply saying they should be considered guilty on *other* fronts from /some/ of the ones they are normally accused on. But you, ranger, *do* seem to be denying *any* guilt on the part of the US. That *is* sad - look to your own house before you start throwing accusations of wrong-doing. You might want to start with the war crimes against the people being held this very day at the US base in Cuba; if the US or anybody from it wants to claim the moral high ground they *must* act to defend and maintain it in their own deeds and actions.
tohoku
YMMV
Originally posted by tohoku
You, and some others, seem to be under the impression I'm defending Japan. I'm not. I thnk there's a lot Japan still needs to do. I'm simply saying they should be considered guilty on *other* fronts from /some/ of the ones they are normally accused on. But you, ranger, *do* seem to be denying *any* guilt on the part of the US. That *is* sad - look to your own house before you start throwing accusations of wrong-doing. You might want to start with the war crimes against the people being held this very day at the US base in Cuba; if the US or anybody from it wants to claim the moral high ground they *must* act to defend and maintain it in their own deeds and actions.
tohoku
YMMV
Goddamn this is getting interesting!
Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
"the war crimes against the people being held this very day at the US base in Cuba"
????
It's really amusing hearing you defend Japan's WW2 record on treatment of POWs while at the same accusing the US of "war crimes" for housing Taliban/Al Qaida prisoners in Cuba in sanitary conditions with light, running water, shelter from the elements, excellent medical care, and meals politically sensitized to their religious customs.
I nominate Tohoku for the "Mouth of Sauron" award.
????
It's really amusing hearing you defend Japan's WW2 record on treatment of POWs while at the same accusing the US of "war crimes" for housing Taliban/Al Qaida prisoners in Cuba in sanitary conditions with light, running water, shelter from the elements, excellent medical care, and meals politically sensitized to their religious customs.
I nominate Tohoku for the "Mouth of Sauron" award.
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.
Didn't we have this conversation already?
Didn't we have this conversation already?
Yes, interesting. I find I am in the middle.
I don't think the fact that Japan started the war cuts much meat. Calling it a "war of aggression" seems ridiculously redundant, so I discount the morally culpable implications that infers. Every war has an initiator, and the U.S. has started its fair share. And the iniatiator of a war is not always morally culpable.
Nor is the failure to declare war prior to bombing Pearl Harbor so dastardly. World War II was the beginning of a new era and the final severance from the Age of Metternich. No one would expect the United States to give a foreign government formal notice of its intent to strike first when it decides to do so. War is for keeps now, and minutes and hours are more valuable now than they were a century ago. Japan realized this and acted accordingly. Give them credit for realizing that the old ways no longer applied.
I also disagree with Mr. Diehl's statement about a war crime having to be planned by an organization such as the U.S. Army. My Lai was an unplanned war crime committed at the platoon level. The various murders of prisoners by Allied forces throughout the war were committed at the local level and without any authorization. These were certainly war crimes, but just as certainly not planned by the parent organization. I attribute the value of Mr. Diehl's remark to being a snappy answer and not his well-considered opinion.
Certainly all armies commit what westerners, living in peace in the twenty-first century, would deem to be war crimes or atrocities. Those committed by the Allies were usually committed spontaneously, at the individual level, without orders, and without the condonation of higher authority. The point Mr. Diehl and Ranger75 are making, I believe, is that the the atrocities committed by the Japanese and certain other nations were ordered from, condoned by, or policy made, at such a high level that the moral culpability can be imputed to the entire nation.
I have lived in Germany, and I can categorically state that the vast majority of the German people are genuinely ashamed of the Holocaust, are repentent, and take responsibility for their government's actions. If anything, they have been so traumatized by the event that they are now overly passive. I personally don't give a rat's a-- whether or not Japan apologizes for its actions, but what should really embarrass you, Mr. Tohoku, is the ridiculous extent to which Japan has made every effort to NOT make an apology. It is truly hard to conceive of a nation expending so much energy trying to find excuses and other ways to avoid owning up to its actions.
This is not an oriental v. occidental morality issue; it is civilized v. uncivilized. It is hard to conceive of a nation as advanced as Japan failing to admit to and apologize for atrocities that were so vast. Fifty years is enough time for the hatred engendered by war to have mellowed to near non-existence, but not so long ago that an apology and an admission are not relevant.
As for Mr. Diehl's most recent remark about prisoners being held in Guantanamo, I have to say that I am personally embarrassed by the United States' actions. I have no reason to believe that the prisoners are being treated inhumanely, and I am sure that they are being treated better than Allied POW's in Japanese camps. But before we go jumping on our patriotic high horse and wrap ourselves in the Flag, I suggest we apply the "shoe on the other foot" test. These persons are being held persona non grata. While many constitutional rights do not apply to them, you would have to admit that this treatment, if dealt by some other nation, would raise indignant protest from Congress and the press. Nor do I understand how people who are legally in the United States held for such a long time in our prisons without being charged with a crime. All of this stinks of the same excess that we have been guilty of in past wars and which we later regretted. I'm sorry, Mr. Diehl, I set higher standards for the United States; if you're going to talk the talk, you have to walk the walk. If you are going to wrap yourself in the Flag, you have to wrap yourself in the whole thing and be prepared to bear its heavy weight.
I don't think the fact that Japan started the war cuts much meat. Calling it a "war of aggression" seems ridiculously redundant, so I discount the morally culpable implications that infers. Every war has an initiator, and the U.S. has started its fair share. And the iniatiator of a war is not always morally culpable.
Nor is the failure to declare war prior to bombing Pearl Harbor so dastardly. World War II was the beginning of a new era and the final severance from the Age of Metternich. No one would expect the United States to give a foreign government formal notice of its intent to strike first when it decides to do so. War is for keeps now, and minutes and hours are more valuable now than they were a century ago. Japan realized this and acted accordingly. Give them credit for realizing that the old ways no longer applied.
I also disagree with Mr. Diehl's statement about a war crime having to be planned by an organization such as the U.S. Army. My Lai was an unplanned war crime committed at the platoon level. The various murders of prisoners by Allied forces throughout the war were committed at the local level and without any authorization. These were certainly war crimes, but just as certainly not planned by the parent organization. I attribute the value of Mr. Diehl's remark to being a snappy answer and not his well-considered opinion.
Certainly all armies commit what westerners, living in peace in the twenty-first century, would deem to be war crimes or atrocities. Those committed by the Allies were usually committed spontaneously, at the individual level, without orders, and without the condonation of higher authority. The point Mr. Diehl and Ranger75 are making, I believe, is that the the atrocities committed by the Japanese and certain other nations were ordered from, condoned by, or policy made, at such a high level that the moral culpability can be imputed to the entire nation.
I have lived in Germany, and I can categorically state that the vast majority of the German people are genuinely ashamed of the Holocaust, are repentent, and take responsibility for their government's actions. If anything, they have been so traumatized by the event that they are now overly passive. I personally don't give a rat's a-- whether or not Japan apologizes for its actions, but what should really embarrass you, Mr. Tohoku, is the ridiculous extent to which Japan has made every effort to NOT make an apology. It is truly hard to conceive of a nation expending so much energy trying to find excuses and other ways to avoid owning up to its actions.
This is not an oriental v. occidental morality issue; it is civilized v. uncivilized. It is hard to conceive of a nation as advanced as Japan failing to admit to and apologize for atrocities that were so vast. Fifty years is enough time for the hatred engendered by war to have mellowed to near non-existence, but not so long ago that an apology and an admission are not relevant.
As for Mr. Diehl's most recent remark about prisoners being held in Guantanamo, I have to say that I am personally embarrassed by the United States' actions. I have no reason to believe that the prisoners are being treated inhumanely, and I am sure that they are being treated better than Allied POW's in Japanese camps. But before we go jumping on our patriotic high horse and wrap ourselves in the Flag, I suggest we apply the "shoe on the other foot" test. These persons are being held persona non grata. While many constitutional rights do not apply to them, you would have to admit that this treatment, if dealt by some other nation, would raise indignant protest from Congress and the press. Nor do I understand how people who are legally in the United States held for such a long time in our prisons without being charged with a crime. All of this stinks of the same excess that we have been guilty of in past wars and which we later regretted. I'm sorry, Mr. Diehl, I set higher standards for the United States; if you're going to talk the talk, you have to walk the walk. If you are going to wrap yourself in the Flag, you have to wrap yourself in the whole thing and be prepared to bear its heavy weight.
Byron13 writes:
"As for Mr. Diehl's most recent remark about prisoners being held in Guantanamo... If you are going to wrap yourself in the Flag, you have to ...."
Perhaps you weren't listening when I mentioned that US foreign policy changed, IMO, significantly in the late (read "second") Truman and Eisenhower admins. That US international conduct had become considerably more, shall we say, "morally ambiguous" since WW2 is something with which I'd agree. The US owes apologies to, in particular, Guatemala, Viet Nam, and probably to Chile. But as this is a WW2 discussion board and the subject was *Japan's* conduct, and the moral comparisons between Japan's and Germany's attempts at genocide and My Lai or the boy scout camp treatment given to the prisoners in Cuba is invidious.
Perhaps also you misunderstood me. I did not say that individual soldiers or squads of them can't commit war crimes. But I *do* make a distinction between government-organized grand scale war crimes and small unit ones. It's a matter of how much "Mea Culpa" ought to be incorporated into the national psyche. I think post war West Germany/Germany have been pretty honest and forthright. The US, incidently, *has* apologized for My Lai. Now it seems that there is a bridge in Korea for which the US also owes an apology and some level of compensation. Sounds good to me. Was it institutionalized or standard policy for the US military? No.
As to the "patriotic flag wrapping bit" you'll have to take your head out of your axx or just apologize to me. I never said that it is one's patriotic duty to defend the indefensible. Any allegation that I said or implied such is your imagination running amok.
*You* can be embarressed about whatever you want. I'm not convinced that any "war crimes" are in progress at Guantanamo bay. No one's being gassed, slaughtered, or executed, or as far as anyone knows tortured ... *yet* ... talk to me again if real injustices are documented and you'll hear me saying that the US owes *them* an apology too. FWIW, I am the *only* person that I know who has actually written to a U.S. senator and asked that the Taliban/Al Qaida prisoners be formally treated as POWs. Not cause I give a hoot about them in particular, but because I'm uncomfortable with people who try to skate as close as possible, using technicalities, to whatever legal or moral line du jour has been drawn, as Tohoku has.
Byron13 also writes:
"Nor do I understand how people who are legally in the United States held for such a long time in our prisons without being charged with a crime."
Since you are the first who brought it up how can you accuse me of flag waving? FWIW, with respect to indefinite detainment without charge, it sounds like you and I agree. An attorney I am *not,* so I don't know how horribly or even if "habeas corpus" has been violated.
"As for Mr. Diehl's most recent remark about prisoners being held in Guantanamo... If you are going to wrap yourself in the Flag, you have to ...."
Perhaps you weren't listening when I mentioned that US foreign policy changed, IMO, significantly in the late (read "second") Truman and Eisenhower admins. That US international conduct had become considerably more, shall we say, "morally ambiguous" since WW2 is something with which I'd agree. The US owes apologies to, in particular, Guatemala, Viet Nam, and probably to Chile. But as this is a WW2 discussion board and the subject was *Japan's* conduct, and the moral comparisons between Japan's and Germany's attempts at genocide and My Lai or the boy scout camp treatment given to the prisoners in Cuba is invidious.
Perhaps also you misunderstood me. I did not say that individual soldiers or squads of them can't commit war crimes. But I *do* make a distinction between government-organized grand scale war crimes and small unit ones. It's a matter of how much "Mea Culpa" ought to be incorporated into the national psyche. I think post war West Germany/Germany have been pretty honest and forthright. The US, incidently, *has* apologized for My Lai. Now it seems that there is a bridge in Korea for which the US also owes an apology and some level of compensation. Sounds good to me. Was it institutionalized or standard policy for the US military? No.
As to the "patriotic flag wrapping bit" you'll have to take your head out of your axx or just apologize to me. I never said that it is one's patriotic duty to defend the indefensible. Any allegation that I said or implied such is your imagination running amok.
*You* can be embarressed about whatever you want. I'm not convinced that any "war crimes" are in progress at Guantanamo bay. No one's being gassed, slaughtered, or executed, or as far as anyone knows tortured ... *yet* ... talk to me again if real injustices are documented and you'll hear me saying that the US owes *them* an apology too. FWIW, I am the *only* person that I know who has actually written to a U.S. senator and asked that the Taliban/Al Qaida prisoners be formally treated as POWs. Not cause I give a hoot about them in particular, but because I'm uncomfortable with people who try to skate as close as possible, using technicalities, to whatever legal or moral line du jour has been drawn, as Tohoku has.
Byron13 also writes:
"Nor do I understand how people who are legally in the United States held for such a long time in our prisons without being charged with a crime."
Since you are the first who brought it up how can you accuse me of flag waving? FWIW, with respect to indefinite detainment without charge, it sounds like you and I agree. An attorney I am *not,* so I don't know how horribly or even if "habeas corpus" has been violated.
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.
Didn't we have this conversation already?
Didn't we have this conversation already?
Doesn't sound like we disagree, then. With regard to the lads in prisons in the U.S., I know you hadn't brought it up. Just venting, I guess. And I applaud you for writing your Senator regarding the Guantanamo situation. I guess I'm not doing my civic duty, though I'd gladly support the ACLU's challenge of any of this. Our representatives can be so hypocritical, it makes me furious.
Have a good weekend, all.
Have a good weekend, all.
POWs in Gitmo
The International Red Cross doesn't seem to have any problems with the way the Taliban and al-Qs in Gitmo are being treated. From the ICRC WWW site:
IRC and Gitmo POWs
Or perhaps you think the IRC is voluntarily covering up for the US government? If so, I suggest you put the conspiracy-theory books down and spend some time in the world outside your parents' basement.
Any attempt to throw this in the face of the US as a "war crime" is doomed by even a casual examination of the facts of the matter. Persisting in such an attempt can only mark you as an ignoramus, at best - a liar at worst.
IRC and Gitmo POWs
Or perhaps you think the IRC is voluntarily covering up for the US government? If so, I suggest you put the conspiracy-theory books down and spend some time in the world outside your parents' basement.
Any attempt to throw this in the face of the US as a "war crime" is doomed by even a casual examination of the facts of the matter. Persisting in such an attempt can only mark you as an ignoramus, at best - a liar at worst.
Some days you're the windshield.
Some days you're the bug.
Some days you're the bug.
I can't tell if CynicAl's comment regarding Gitmo is aimed at me or not, but I suspect it is. I don't believe any war crimes or atrocities are being committed there. I'm sure they are eating better and are healthier than they were six months ago. There may be some things we find out about later that we may feel uncomfortable with, e.g., questionable interrogation practices. No, I don't believe they are being treated poorly, but that was not the point.
My point was that we haven't figured out what to do with these people, haven't (to the best of my knowledge) categorized them, and don't seem to have any particular plans with any of them. I recall hearing that the military did not want to classify them as POW's because, under the Geneva Convention, they would have to be provided with implements like forks that could be used as weapons. Anyone please correct me because it was just something I heard on the radio and I may have mixed up the details.
To restart, the point is that they are just sitting down there, and no one knows what to do with them. The "war," which was never officially declared, is essentially over in Afghanistan. Granted there is still a "war" against terrorism ongoing. In the past, we have treated terrorists as criminals, they have been tried in civilian criminal courts, and they have received due process - to the extent that is constitutionally required. But these Al Qaeda members are not being treated that way nor are they being treated as prisoners of war. In fact, they're not being treated as anything but inconveniences to be kept off the block indefinitely. Not knowing what to do with them, the government is just keeping them there without being formally charged or convicted of anything. I'm fairly confident that none of them has been allowed to see a lawyer - but what the hell, the judicial process doesn't seem to apply here. I'm sure if allowed to and our press or the Europeans didn't complain too much, Bush would probably prefer that they just rot down there at the cost of three square meals a day per prisoner. They've been incarcerated because Bush considers them dangerous and not because any evidence has been presented or because they have been convicted of anything. That just doesn't cut it in my book.
If this kind of treatment were meted out to Europeans or especially Americans in some distant third-world rathole, you can believe that Congress and the president would be making all kinds of noise and sending the Nimitz to park off the coast of that evil, uncivilized country. But somehow the loss of the World Trade Center makes things different so that the rules that we want everyone else to play by don't apply to us, and a double standard is fine.
So they're going to be tried in military tribunals. Yeah, well, maybe since terrorists are paramilitary then military tribunals are appropriate. Act like a military and be tried in similar fashion. I guess I'm fine with that. I expect any charges brought against them to actually be crimes against humanity or the United States, i.e., legitimate. I'll be mad as hell if they are convicted of something just because they were a member of Al Quaeda or were captured fighting the Northern Alliance. These are not crimes, and they had every right to go join a religion-based army and fight inside a country where de facto government welcomed them. They'd better prove that each individual convicted of whatever was knowingly involved in a conspiracy to conduct international terrorism.
Before anyone jumps on me, I will admit that I haven't any real clue what constutional rights these guys have. Given the gray area of terrorism, I'm not sure anyone can say for sure unless there are certain minimum rights that that all prisoners of the U.S. have, including those tried in a military court. If anyone knows for sure or has read an authoratative article on the subject, I'd like to know.
This will sound contradictory, I'm sure, but next time they should encourage the Northern Alliance to not take prisoners. The Northern Alliance was quite willing to make sure that no non-Afghan walked away from the fight, and I say fine. I'm all in favor of engineering accidents Mossad style when you've got the goods on particular individuals. If we ever find bin Laden, we'd better make sure he dies in a firefight or has a bomb dropped on him ("gee, was Osama there? What a coincidence!") than take him alive. Better that than have several hundred people secreted away from the American public and the world press and incarcerated indefinitely without being charged with anything. Kinda makes it hard to apply moral pressure on other countries, ya know? Kinda hard to cast the first stone, ya know?
My point was that we haven't figured out what to do with these people, haven't (to the best of my knowledge) categorized them, and don't seem to have any particular plans with any of them. I recall hearing that the military did not want to classify them as POW's because, under the Geneva Convention, they would have to be provided with implements like forks that could be used as weapons. Anyone please correct me because it was just something I heard on the radio and I may have mixed up the details.
To restart, the point is that they are just sitting down there, and no one knows what to do with them. The "war," which was never officially declared, is essentially over in Afghanistan. Granted there is still a "war" against terrorism ongoing. In the past, we have treated terrorists as criminals, they have been tried in civilian criminal courts, and they have received due process - to the extent that is constitutionally required. But these Al Qaeda members are not being treated that way nor are they being treated as prisoners of war. In fact, they're not being treated as anything but inconveniences to be kept off the block indefinitely. Not knowing what to do with them, the government is just keeping them there without being formally charged or convicted of anything. I'm fairly confident that none of them has been allowed to see a lawyer - but what the hell, the judicial process doesn't seem to apply here. I'm sure if allowed to and our press or the Europeans didn't complain too much, Bush would probably prefer that they just rot down there at the cost of three square meals a day per prisoner. They've been incarcerated because Bush considers them dangerous and not because any evidence has been presented or because they have been convicted of anything. That just doesn't cut it in my book.
If this kind of treatment were meted out to Europeans or especially Americans in some distant third-world rathole, you can believe that Congress and the president would be making all kinds of noise and sending the Nimitz to park off the coast of that evil, uncivilized country. But somehow the loss of the World Trade Center makes things different so that the rules that we want everyone else to play by don't apply to us, and a double standard is fine.
So they're going to be tried in military tribunals. Yeah, well, maybe since terrorists are paramilitary then military tribunals are appropriate. Act like a military and be tried in similar fashion. I guess I'm fine with that. I expect any charges brought against them to actually be crimes against humanity or the United States, i.e., legitimate. I'll be mad as hell if they are convicted of something just because they were a member of Al Quaeda or were captured fighting the Northern Alliance. These are not crimes, and they had every right to go join a religion-based army and fight inside a country where de facto government welcomed them. They'd better prove that each individual convicted of whatever was knowingly involved in a conspiracy to conduct international terrorism.
Before anyone jumps on me, I will admit that I haven't any real clue what constutional rights these guys have. Given the gray area of terrorism, I'm not sure anyone can say for sure unless there are certain minimum rights that that all prisoners of the U.S. have, including those tried in a military court. If anyone knows for sure or has read an authoratative article on the subject, I'd like to know.
This will sound contradictory, I'm sure, but next time they should encourage the Northern Alliance to not take prisoners. The Northern Alliance was quite willing to make sure that no non-Afghan walked away from the fight, and I say fine. I'm all in favor of engineering accidents Mossad style when you've got the goods on particular individuals. If we ever find bin Laden, we'd better make sure he dies in a firefight or has a bomb dropped on him ("gee, was Osama there? What a coincidence!") than take him alive. Better that than have several hundred people secreted away from the American public and the world press and incarcerated indefinitely without being charged with anything. Kinda makes it hard to apply moral pressure on other countries, ya know? Kinda hard to cast the first stone, ya know?
Hmmm. Interesting. This kind of got under my skin, so I did some research on line. I nothing of the sources, so I cannot vouch for their authority.
Apparently, several cases have already been filed on the issue of the detainees in Gitmo. Well, this is America, so wouldn't you expect it? According to an article found at
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary ... ander.html
a California district court held that the prisoners don't have any constitutional rights because they are foreign nationals and have not been on sovereign U.S. soil. I've printed the opinion, but haven't read it yet. Another article seems to indicate that the court dismissed the case because the plaintiffs had no standing nor did the court have jurisdiction. Since federal courts have jurisdiction over constitutional questions, this may indeed indicate that the court said the Constitution does not apply.
Anyway, picked up some interesting tit-bits in these articles. For one, Bush does not want to consider them as POW's because they would then be under the Geneva Convention and any trial would have to be under the standards of courts martial. Military tribunals follow different and presumably have lower standards of protection, evidence, and proof.
Even if the detainees obtain NO constitutional rights, their continued detention would violate the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the OAS [Organization of American States] American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man - both of which the U.S. is a signatory to. Among other things, the Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man protects prisoners from arbitrary or prolonged detention and from being held without access to friends, families, governments or legal counsel.
As one guy said, “Either they were picked up on the battlefield, in which case they’re POWs, or they did something criminal, in which case they should be charged,” said Michael Ratner, vice president of the Center for Constitutional Rights. “There is no legal limbo status.”
As for the "shoe on the other foot" argument I made earlier, this other quote pretty much sums up my point: "Picture this: Russian soldiers capture CIA-trained Afghani Mujahadeen circa 1980 and send them to Cuba where they are held in cages. It doesn't take much imagination to conjure the State Department's forceful response: "Obey the Geneva Conventions and treat these men as P.O.W.S." Yup, kinda hard to cast the first stone.
Anyway, I'm going to follow this other case, Rasul v. Bush, in the district court as best I can.
Apparently, several cases have already been filed on the issue of the detainees in Gitmo. Well, this is America, so wouldn't you expect it? According to an article found at
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary ... ander.html
a California district court held that the prisoners don't have any constitutional rights because they are foreign nationals and have not been on sovereign U.S. soil. I've printed the opinion, but haven't read it yet. Another article seems to indicate that the court dismissed the case because the plaintiffs had no standing nor did the court have jurisdiction. Since federal courts have jurisdiction over constitutional questions, this may indeed indicate that the court said the Constitution does not apply.
Anyway, picked up some interesting tit-bits in these articles. For one, Bush does not want to consider them as POW's because they would then be under the Geneva Convention and any trial would have to be under the standards of courts martial. Military tribunals follow different and presumably have lower standards of protection, evidence, and proof.
Even if the detainees obtain NO constitutional rights, their continued detention would violate the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the OAS [Organization of American States] American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man - both of which the U.S. is a signatory to. Among other things, the Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man protects prisoners from arbitrary or prolonged detention and from being held without access to friends, families, governments or legal counsel.
As one guy said, “Either they were picked up on the battlefield, in which case they’re POWs, or they did something criminal, in which case they should be charged,” said Michael Ratner, vice president of the Center for Constitutional Rights. “There is no legal limbo status.”
As for the "shoe on the other foot" argument I made earlier, this other quote pretty much sums up my point: "Picture this: Russian soldiers capture CIA-trained Afghani Mujahadeen circa 1980 and send them to Cuba where they are held in cages. It doesn't take much imagination to conjure the State Department's forceful response: "Obey the Geneva Conventions and treat these men as P.O.W.S." Yup, kinda hard to cast the first stone.
Anyway, I'm going to follow this other case, Rasul v. Bush, in the district court as best I can.
Actually no, Byron - that was mostly for Tohoku, he of the "... start with the war crimes against the people being held this very day at the US base in Cuba" line. But I'm an equal opportunity grouch, and I brought enough to share. 
There's a huge, gaping hole in Ratner's argument, by the way: the relevant article of the Geneva Convention lays out quite specifically who can be considered a POW - and therefore, by implication, who cannot. Captured Taliban should be treated as POWs, because them's the rules; al-Qaeda are a different matter entirely.
There's a huge, gaping hole in Ratner's argument, by the way: the relevant article of the Geneva Convention lays out quite specifically who can be considered a POW - and therefore, by implication, who cannot. Captured Taliban should be treated as POWs, because them's the rules; al-Qaeda are a different matter entirely.
Some days you're the windshield.
Some days you're the bug.
Some days you're the bug.
After rereading part of this thread (while waiting for Iain to post something else on the UV thread!), I find that I have an apology to make to Tohoku. A large part of my comments were directed at the Japanese refusal to apologize for or even admit to the use of Korean comfort women. I know that was still an issue very recently, but if the Japanese PM has formally apologized as Tohoku claims, then I am corrected and Japan has done the honorable thing.
Also, with regard to the atomic bombs, it is true that dropping them probably saved many Japanese lives and certainly saved many American lives. And, yes, we did warn the Japanese that they were coming, and they were dropped on militarily valuable targets - to the extent they existed in Japan in August 1945. But it does seem that the U.S. could have provided the warning and then dropped at least the first one on, say, a military anchorage or some other target that was not as heavily populated as Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Yes, yes, we didn't drop any on Tokyo (thank goodness), but still . . . .
I'm not sure that the warning of a nuclear doomsday kick-*** device would have meant as much to the Japanese as it would have to the Germans. There is also the chance that the U.S. might have been bluffing. Seems to me that the right choice is to give the warning and drop it somewhere that doesn't kill many people but that still creates the "Holy S--T!" impression you need. After dropping the first one and not getting a surrender, you can then drop it on a city. I think we all would have to admit that the decision to drop such a horrible weapon on a populated city was driven by hatred at that point. Or maybe it is more accurate to say that Truman & Co. just didn't care about saving civilian Japanese lives.
In any event, I think a better choice could have been made. Does it rise to the level of requiring an apology? I'll debate it either way if anyone cares. My guess is that Tohoku is disgusted with us and will not be returning to this thread.
Also, with regard to the atomic bombs, it is true that dropping them probably saved many Japanese lives and certainly saved many American lives. And, yes, we did warn the Japanese that they were coming, and they were dropped on militarily valuable targets - to the extent they existed in Japan in August 1945. But it does seem that the U.S. could have provided the warning and then dropped at least the first one on, say, a military anchorage or some other target that was not as heavily populated as Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Yes, yes, we didn't drop any on Tokyo (thank goodness), but still . . . .
I'm not sure that the warning of a nuclear doomsday kick-*** device would have meant as much to the Japanese as it would have to the Germans. There is also the chance that the U.S. might have been bluffing. Seems to me that the right choice is to give the warning and drop it somewhere that doesn't kill many people but that still creates the "Holy S--T!" impression you need. After dropping the first one and not getting a surrender, you can then drop it on a city. I think we all would have to admit that the decision to drop such a horrible weapon on a populated city was driven by hatred at that point. Or maybe it is more accurate to say that Truman & Co. just didn't care about saving civilian Japanese lives.
In any event, I think a better choice could have been made. Does it rise to the level of requiring an apology? I'll debate it either way if anyone cares. My guess is that Tohoku is disgusted with us and will not be returning to this thread.
-
juliet7bravo
- Posts: 893
- Joined: Wed May 30, 2001 8:00 am
Good book to read; "The Pacific War" by Saburo Ienagi. He doesn't cut anyone any slack, US or Japanese...slices and dices on everyone concerned. Mainly discusses how Japanese militarist/facism overwhelmed the country pre-WW2, stifled dissent, actions, and its human cost.
Snippets from the reviews from cover; "Saburi Ienaga is an eloguently angry man. A leading Japanese educator, Ienaga wrote this book for a generation of Japanese brought up on sugar coated versions of the war. His aim; to confront them with the sordid reality, on the theory that those who do not learn from the past (take heed Tohoku) are condemned to repeat it."
"provides knowledge of what went on in Japan and the conquered territories during WW2 in elaborate and sometimes terrifying detail".
Another good book; "Blood and Bushido; Japanese atrocities at sea". Pretty self explanatory.
A-Bomb...Japan chose to ignore the surrender terms. US dropped leaflets ect. US decided that people willing to commit suicide, commit horrendous atrocities, killing their own civilians/wounded/sick/children rather than allowing them to be captured, Kamakazi's, and swearing to fight to the last man, arming the school kids with bamboo spears ect. weren't going to give up unless they had their nose rubbed in it. Bottomline; Not a single American died invading Japan. Some pretty solid evidence the Japanese had an A-bomb in development, and had plans to use it. Anyone out there doubt THEY would have had the slightest hesitation of using it on "humanitarian grounds", LOL.
War crimes...US didn't have "organized" atrocities, didn't have them as part of our culture, didn't organize specific units such as Unit 731, bio/chem warfare...which used thousands of human subjects. The Kempai Tai, Secret Police. Didn't give direct orders to murder captives, POW's ect. Didn't have things like "Live Dissections" of captured US POW's at the Univ. of Tokyo. As mentioned, didn't round up women and ship them off as "Comfort Girls" (or kill them rather than let them be captured). Didn't behead POW's. Didn't tie 5 gallon buckets to their legs and toss them off ships. Didn't line people up and machine gun them by the thousands. Didn't toss babies in the air and catch them on their bayonets. Didn't slash open the belly's of pregnant women. Didn't play "Baby Baseball". The list goes on and on...
Did you know that the Japanese "High Command" was planning on a mass kill-off of their own very young/very old/sick/crippled throughout the home islands at the time the A-bombs were dropped? They were "detracting from the war effort by consuming food". Brrrrrr, what a mindset...
Snippets from the reviews from cover; "Saburi Ienaga is an eloguently angry man. A leading Japanese educator, Ienaga wrote this book for a generation of Japanese brought up on sugar coated versions of the war. His aim; to confront them with the sordid reality, on the theory that those who do not learn from the past (take heed Tohoku) are condemned to repeat it."
"provides knowledge of what went on in Japan and the conquered territories during WW2 in elaborate and sometimes terrifying detail".
Another good book; "Blood and Bushido; Japanese atrocities at sea". Pretty self explanatory.
A-Bomb...Japan chose to ignore the surrender terms. US dropped leaflets ect. US decided that people willing to commit suicide, commit horrendous atrocities, killing their own civilians/wounded/sick/children rather than allowing them to be captured, Kamakazi's, and swearing to fight to the last man, arming the school kids with bamboo spears ect. weren't going to give up unless they had their nose rubbed in it. Bottomline; Not a single American died invading Japan. Some pretty solid evidence the Japanese had an A-bomb in development, and had plans to use it. Anyone out there doubt THEY would have had the slightest hesitation of using it on "humanitarian grounds", LOL.
War crimes...US didn't have "organized" atrocities, didn't have them as part of our culture, didn't organize specific units such as Unit 731, bio/chem warfare...which used thousands of human subjects. The Kempai Tai, Secret Police. Didn't give direct orders to murder captives, POW's ect. Didn't have things like "Live Dissections" of captured US POW's at the Univ. of Tokyo. As mentioned, didn't round up women and ship them off as "Comfort Girls" (or kill them rather than let them be captured). Didn't behead POW's. Didn't tie 5 gallon buckets to their legs and toss them off ships. Didn't line people up and machine gun them by the thousands. Didn't toss babies in the air and catch them on their bayonets. Didn't slash open the belly's of pregnant women. Didn't play "Baby Baseball". The list goes on and on...
Did you know that the Japanese "High Command" was planning on a mass kill-off of their own very young/very old/sick/crippled throughout the home islands at the time the A-bombs were dropped? They were "detracting from the war effort by consuming food". Brrrrrr, what a mindset...
What solid evidence? While I can not claim to be a proffesional historian, I have read countless books on WWII. This is the first time I've heard mention of a Japanese A-Bomb program. Do you have a source for this statement?Some pretty solid evidence the Japanese had an A-bomb in development, and had plans to use it.
" If it be now, tis not to come: if it be not to come, it will be now; if it be not now, yet it will come: the readiness is all"
Clan [GOAT]
Clan [GOAT]
Japanese A-bomb research
Hi, actually Japan had 2 A-bomb projects. The Army had one and the Navy had one. Part of the Armies was located in Hiroshima. As early as 1940 both the Japanese Army Air Force and the Navy were thinking that an atomic bomb device might be possible to construct. Typically the two services pursued the idea separately instead of working together ( the Army and Navy in Japan rarely cooperated on anything. ) By 1944 only the Navy project headed by the N-group was still active. The Imperial Navy sponsored the research at the University of Kyoto with the Riken laboratory complex in Tokyo being the major site for research and development. The Japanese atomic bomb effort faced numerous problems including the lack of many basic supplies and enough scientists and engineers. But a key component that's required to make a bomb was constructed - a uranium separator. This device separates uranium-235, which is useful in making a chain reaction, from uranium-238, which is not very useful. Uranium ore or uranium oxide can't be used as is for a bomb without some type of enrichment process since it is made up almost entirely of uranium-238.
The massive bombing raids on Tokyo eventually destroyed over half of the city and not by design but as incidental damage the Riken laboratory was gutted by the raging fires in early 1945. The Japanese were not close to having a working bomb at this time but certainly the intention was to build one and use it against the enemy.
Apparently this wasn't the end of Japanese efforts to construct an atomic bomb either. The German U-boat (U-234) left Norway on April 16, 1945 bound for Japan. What's so extraordinary about this is what the German submarine had on board. U-234 was transporting two Japanese officers, a disassembled Messerchmitt Me-262 jet fighter, and numerous blueprints and parts for anti-aircraft shells and rockets. By far the most interesting thing found on board, when the U-boat surrendered to United States forces in May of 1945 were ten lead boxes containing a total of 1,200 lb (560 kg) of uranium-oxide (this is not enriched uranium.) On May 16 U-234 and its cargo was escorted to Portsmouth, New Hampshire. A complete inventory of the sub's contents was taken at the time but no paper trail exists that details what became of the 1,200 lb (560 kg) of uranium. There is a strong possibility that the United States added this extremely valuable and rare resource to its existing uranium supplies to be enriched for use in atomic weapons.
The massive bombing raids on Tokyo eventually destroyed over half of the city and not by design but as incidental damage the Riken laboratory was gutted by the raging fires in early 1945. The Japanese were not close to having a working bomb at this time but certainly the intention was to build one and use it against the enemy.
Apparently this wasn't the end of Japanese efforts to construct an atomic bomb either. The German U-boat (U-234) left Norway on April 16, 1945 bound for Japan. What's so extraordinary about this is what the German submarine had on board. U-234 was transporting two Japanese officers, a disassembled Messerchmitt Me-262 jet fighter, and numerous blueprints and parts for anti-aircraft shells and rockets. By far the most interesting thing found on board, when the U-boat surrendered to United States forces in May of 1945 were ten lead boxes containing a total of 1,200 lb (560 kg) of uranium-oxide (this is not enriched uranium.) On May 16 U-234 and its cargo was escorted to Portsmouth, New Hampshire. A complete inventory of the sub's contents was taken at the time but no paper trail exists that details what became of the 1,200 lb (560 kg) of uranium. There is a strong possibility that the United States added this extremely valuable and rare resource to its existing uranium supplies to be enriched for use in atomic weapons.
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
Mogami- Interesting, do you recall where you read it?
I've always been fascinated by the "what if" discussions about Germany(and now Japan it seems) developing atomic weapons.
Given the amount of effort it took the US to develop a working bomb, an effort which proceeded uninterrupted, and all of the post war evidence I've read of Germany's attempts in this direction, coupled with contemporary nations with vast resources and time who have been unable to develop a working a-bomb, I doubt Japan was even remotely close...
Anyway, what were we talking about .... oh yeah, war crimes.
I've always been fascinated by the "what if" discussions about Germany(and now Japan it seems) developing atomic weapons.
Given the amount of effort it took the US to develop a working bomb, an effort which proceeded uninterrupted, and all of the post war evidence I've read of Germany's attempts in this direction, coupled with contemporary nations with vast resources and time who have been unable to develop a working a-bomb, I doubt Japan was even remotely close...
Anyway, what were we talking about .... oh yeah, war crimes.
" If it be now, tis not to come: if it be not to come, it will be now; if it be not now, yet it will come: the readiness is all"
Clan [GOAT]
Clan [GOAT]
I think it much more plausible that Japan could have fielded biological/chemical weapons of mass destruction before it could have successfully developed an A-bomb. They had made significant advances in the use of Plague, cholorea, small pox and other such nasty stuff as weapons. Their high altitude bomb ballons could have made excellent delivery system. Not very accurate but just the sort of passive low impact delivery that is suited for biological weapons.