http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/gerry-c … y-revealed
This article got me thinking. 65,000 civilians were slaughtered, purposely, by American forces.
American history began with the genocide of the Native Americans and the theft of their land.
We also killed untold numbers of civilians with the bombing of Dresden and the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (in my opinion, the after effects of the radiation probably weren't fully understood at the time, so this won't factor into my analysis) in World War II.
"Aside from physical injury and damage, the most significant effect of the atomic bombs was the sheer terror which it struck into the peoples of the bombed cities. This terror, resulting in immediate hysterical activity and flight from the cities, had one especially pronounced effect: persons who had become accustomed to mass air raids had grown to pay little heed to single planes or small groups of planes, but after the atomic bombings the appearance of a single plane caused more terror and disruption of normal life than the appearance of many hundreds of planes had ever been able to cause before. The effect of this terrible fear of the potential danger from even a single enemy plane on the lives of the peoples of the world in the event of any future war can easily be conjectured." http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/mp24.asp
During the Korean War, we killed approximately 30% of the population. http://www.globalresearch.ca/know-the-f … 950s/22131
With the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the numbers have not yet been told. Nor are there complete statistics on the number of civilian casualties caused by our extensive use of drones.
Also, don't forget about the whole slavery and rampant sexism aspect of American history either.
I'm trying really hard to see your point here.
People shouldn't die in wars? Your tone suggests you think that we were responsible for WWII and Korea.
The atomic bomb saved us from having to invade the home islands and losing an estimated 1 million American lives and prolonging the war by at least a couple years.
How many British civilians were 'purposely' killed by the Nazi's? You sound as if we should have just left Hitler to do what he did. Are you unaware of the atrocities committed by the Japanese in WWII? Ever heard of the rape of Nanking?? I suppose we should have just played nice with them too after they bombed Pearl Harbor?
If you fight a war, you fight to win, people die. I really fail to see what point you are trying to make here.
At least you didn't defend Vietnam. I can say that much for you.
My point is that, even though war is barbaric, there are certain rules that a "moral soldier" is to follow, one of which is to not intentionally kill civilians who are not on the battlefield. We completely and knowingly violated that with World War II.
Your points about Japanese atrocities are irrelevant to the point I am making. I did not claim World War II was an immoral war overall. However, let's examine exactly what your justification of bombing innocent civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki entails.
You are claiming that ANYTHING goes that ends a war early. The faster it ends for the "'good guys," at whatever cost, the better. So, no matter how many Japanese civilians had to die, all that matters is the war ended and we won.
I can also turn the argument back on you. Since civilians are not fair game in a war, and you have already claimed "people die" in a war, then there should be no question that the allies should have sacrificed more soldiers in order to beat the Japanese, and not taken the easy and cowardly way out by killing civilians.
Ia m going to make a well educated assumption that you have never been in the military nor fought in a war.
In the 1940's war was different and bombing was imprecise at best. You want to assign blame, give it to the regimes who began these wars.
You're missing the whole point: in the event of a vicious regime arising, is an "anything goes" attitude justified? You don't need to have been in the military to be able to clearly answer that question.
That answer must be "No, not anything goes".
That does not mean, however, that it is necessary to simply soak up military causalities until the enemy runs out of bullets.
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
George S. Patton
Once hostilities have begun, you fight to win, period.
That's exactly what the terrorists claim. That's why they don't care about civilian deaths.
Sorry, terrorists care, and care a great deal, about civilian deaths. Those deaths are the goal of their action, after all. The more the better.
Huh? That's what I said...terrorists don't care about avoiding civilian casualties, i.e. they don't care about civilian deaths. In fact, that is their target.
The United State's target in Japan was civilians also.
The United States targeted Military and industrial targets that were part of the Japanese war making capacity. Did civilians die? Of course they did, as they did in Nanking, The Philippines and any other place the Japanese invaded and subjugated. That is the nature of war during that time period.
Ever heard of Unit 731? I thought not. All you want to do is bash the US.
So the entire inhabitance of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military people?
Frankly, it saved at least a Million American and Allied lives. Such is war. They should have surrendered after the first one was dropped.
Don't start nuthin', won't be nuthin'.
Pedestrians were killed. It's hard, with today's technology, to pinpoint a factory for destruction. In 1945, it would have been even more difficult. Historians and military experts often discuss the likelihood that the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki probably saved lives in the long run, because Japan was not a country willing to surrender without something of this magnitude. Without the bombs, we would have had to storm the beaches and invade with men. That would have been extremely bloody for both sides, extremely bloody. I had this debate back in college, and even our exceedingly liberal political science teacher concluded, after days of debate and statistics, that the bombs probably saved lives. We'll never know for sure, but there is a very strong argument that the bombs saved lives.
Yes, Americans have been just as bad as any other empire in history. Maybe a little worse than most.
I think most Americans count WWII in a different category, for valid reason.
Not a lot of sympathy for Dresden bombing.
60 million killed in WWII. We did not initiate that war.
Germans relentlessly bombed London, took over every country they could in Europe.
Not to mention the Holocaust. Conservative count 5,750 Jews.
Interesting recap of bloodiest battles.
http://www.militaryeducation.org/10-blo … ld-war-ii/
I don't see what relevance the Germans bombing London has to do with us bombing Dresden. One mass of civilian casualties in response of another?
I think there were a few more than just 5,700 people killed in the concentration camps. I am hoping that was a typo.
I blame the west for creating the economic environment in Germany that incentivesed resentment and extremism.
No wars are just.
Yes, there are indeed just wars. Or should we have just left the victims of the Holocaust and the atrocities of the Japanese to their fate?
Last I looked, Germany was part of the 'west'. You show a deep misunderstanding of history.
Yeah poor Germany, they were driven to exterminating Jews, mentally disabled, gypsies and other undesirables. Not their fault right> If only we had just left them alone they would not have been forced to commit atrocities and genocide.
Being specific, I am referring to the coalition of Britain, France, the US and others to cripple Germany's economy completely in response to the First World War, which in turn was the fault of the old-style military industrial complex.
I am not arguing that the Germans and the Nazis didn't have free will, but neither I am taking your extreme that they just sprouted up out of nowhere and anything is justified to stop them. The best way to learn from World War 2 is to figure out how best to avoid a situation like it in the future, not how aggressively we're going to respond to one.
No intervention in the form of the First World War and there's no Hitler, holocaust or Second World War.
Well certainly Perry's expedition to Japan was a big part of Japan becoming an enemy to the US because we had already effectively already committed an act of war.
No intervention in the form of the First World War and there's no Hitler, holocaust or Second World War.
No France, No Britain and no free Europe either.
If you don't respond to force you become the victims.
Mighty Mom, thanks for the link about WW II. I did not know about the battle in Italy or the one in the Philippines.
I'm not sure what the original discussion is about. I just know that the rich draft the poor to fight wars in order to get richer. And they do that by getting their country's folks to hate some other country. Interestingly, the major companies and fortunes leading in to WW II in Japan and German were maintained afterwards. So the rich in those countries didn't really lose much...mostly the poor folks did.
The US intervened in the first world war because the economy was down. It boomed our economy. Hitler was the least of our concern. Many of our companies in fact nourished the nazi propaganda and economy. The Marshall plan that helped France, Britain... was guaranteeing us an indefectible alliance until now.
Which force are you referring to? Are you justifying what is wrong?
We are responsible of the biggest holocaust with the Indian massacre. We are responsible of using the first atomic bomb on civilians, we are responsible of most instability in the world... our history and future is not glorious at all.
I'm sure you are correct that Hitler was the least of our concern in the first world war, we didn't get too excited about corporals.
The force used against Britain, the only way to deal with force is by force.
I take it you are responsible for what your forefather did, I am quite sure that I am not.
Britain has a military force and can defend itself. The fact that it was an island played an important role in winning against the Germans. Its superior naval and air floats also scored points. England didn't need the US.
I am responsible of what we are doing today and in the future. Nowadays Germans are not responsible of the rise of the nazis in the thirties or are they?
I am ashamed of what we are doing nationally and internationally; When we set up young people for the coverup of the FBI, when we drone innocent civilians in remote regions of the world.
This is what you get when you are educated by union members.
I agree. England needed the U.S.
“To have the United States at our side was to me the greatest joy. Now at this very moment I knew the United States was in the war, up to the neck and in to the death. So we had won after all!…Hitler’s fate was sealed. Mussolini’s fate was sealed. As for the Japanese, they would be ground to powder.”
I'm only responsible for what happened with my forebearers when it UNCONSCIOUSLY affects what I'm doing. People hand down dysfunction from generation to generation. And the unquestioned urge to hate and go kill has been handed down by whole societies for 8,000 years. My responsibility is to let go of it.
by Paula 3 years ago
Within days of the attacks on Paris, the news is saying France is being merciless in their bombing of certain sites n Syria. The United States intelligence shared with them, so they knew where to potentially bomb. The news said the United States gave basically a menu to choose from, and...
by grinnin1 6 years ago
How does a country ever make up for wiping out it's first inhabitants? Inhabitants who loved and revered the land and watched it greedily devoured by invaders?? What is the price America pays for what it did? How can we atone for what we did and why haven't we done more?
by Rishad I Habib 8 years ago
"At 5pm EST Friday 22nd October 2010 WikiLeaks released the largest classified military leak in history. The 391,832 reports ('The Iraq War Logs'), document the war and occupation in Iraq, from 1st January 2004 to 31st December 2009 (except for the months of May 2004 and March 2009) as told by...
by Castlepaloma 10 months ago
America Has Been At War 93% of the Time – 222 Out of 239 Years – Since 1776. China has not had a major war since 1979, with the largest military personnel in the world. Where US has had 22 wars in the pass 20 years.Violence is like a disease, raging through a people, endlessly. They won't give...
by Ron Montgomery 10 years ago
John Stewart recently agreed with a Daily Show guest that Harry Truman was a war criminal. Later, Stewart retracted his stated opinion and talked about the complexities that went into Truman's decision. This isn't a new contoversy, it started as soon as the bombings of Hiroshima and...
by Castlepaloma 8 years ago
Over One Million Iraqi Deaths Caused by US Occupation based on research by Michael Schwartz, posted on Voltaire Network (mostly families)Not one Iraqi person has been known to kill a single American on USA soil.Which country has absolutely acted in self defense?
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|