Merged Roosevelt's Rotten Record:Communism, Treachery, Betrayal

[SpringHallConvert]

You say that like wholesale murder is unacceptable, or that science shouldn't be used...

My goodness.

 

[Hans]

What a way to spin wholesale murder...

"Best science"

So you think the German attack on Rotterdam was justified? Why?

Questions: if Hitler had had a nuclear weapon and hit Moscow would you still be crying 'murder'? How about nuking London? Please respond - but I suspect you'll dodge the question

 

[Corsair 115]

No, why do that when we could just drop cruel, poisonous atomic bombs on them instead?

Perhaps you can explain how for someone on the receiving end being killed by an atomic bomb is more cruel than being killed by a high explosive bomb. Or an incendiary bomb. Or an artillery shell. Or a bullet.

I would expect to the person on the receiving end it doesn't matter at all, because they're dead.

 

[Andy_Ross]

In a war for survival you do what you can to survive.

War is terrible and there is wholesale murder but if you don't fight harder than your opponent you are the one who is murdered.

Anyway as someone pointed out the Bombs are off topic for this thread, it was a different President that ordered their use.

 

[SpringHallConvert]

Perhaps you can explain how for someone on the receiving end being killed by an atomic bomb is more cruel than being killed by a high explosive bomb. Or an incendiary bomb. Or an artillery shell. Or a bullet.

I would expect to the person on the receiving end it doesn't matter at all, because they're dead.

And how about for the survivors trying to live in the aftermath, after the war is over? Bullets, artillery shells, incendiaries, and high-explosive bombs stop killing, for the most part, with the exception being rare, unexploded duds. But atomic bombs go on killing for months and years. They are completely indiscriminate and poisonous.

Do you honestly believe there's little to no difference between attacking a civilian target with high-explosives and atomic weapons?

 

[SpringHallConvert]

So you think the German attack on Rotterdam was justified? Why?

Nice straw man.

Questions: if Hitler had had a nuclear weapon and hit Moscow would you still be crying 'murder'? How about nuking London? Please respond - but I suspect you'll dodge the question

Of course. What would be the difference? Japanese women and children, Russian women and children, American women and children, British women and children. What's the difference? Why make war against civilians? Why obliterate non-combatant targets?

Why do you guys make all these stupid arguments? But, but, but, but...

 

[Mondial]

Franklin Roosevelt was a closet communist. http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/pearl/www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/fdr.html
Everything he condemned in Hitler - one party state, dictatorship, secret police, concentration camps, press censorship - he supported in Stalin. Apologists for FDR state that this was because of the wartime alliance with the USSR. This is a lie. One of the first acts of the Roosevelt administration in the field of foreign affairs was to give diplomatic recognition to the Soviet Union. This was at the same time - 1933 - that Stalin was starving 10 million Ukrainians to death www.holodomor.org which the US government knew all about. Also during the Spanish civil war instead of being neutral and supporting neither side Roosevelt openly sided with the Repubicans who had many communists in their ranks and who had received arms and ammunition from Stalin. Roosevelt spoke of "democracy" when in reality he helped extend soviet communist dictatorship over half of Europe. It was FDR who came up with the idea of unconditional surrender instead of a negotiated peace which prolonged the war leading to millions of casualties on both sides. Roosevelt was a criminal who should have been impeached.

The usual response from soviet apologists and Stalin lovers to Roosevelt's communism is to simply smear the information as coming from "nazis". This is another lie. The original link in this thread - FDR Scandal Page http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/pearl/www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/fdr.html
- was compiled from information including THE ROOSEVELT MYTH by John T.Flynn. Other works that condemn Roosevelt include TRAGIC DECEPTION:FDR AND AMERICA'S INVOLVEMENT IN WORLD WAR II and FDR:THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN by congressman Hamilton Fish, a contemporary politician of the day. These men were Republicans, not nazis. True conservatives, not the neo con warmongers of today. And last but not least former Republican US president Herbert Hoover blasted Roosevelt's policies of warmongering and communism in his book FREEDOM BETRAYED. http://spectator.org/archives/2012/02/23/herbert-hoovers-long-awaited-m/print www.nationalreview.com/articles/283064/blunders-statesmen-herbert-hoover

 

[Corsair 115]

And how about for the survivors trying to live in the aftermath, after the war is over? Bullets, artillery shells, incendiaries, and high-explosive bombs stop killing, for the most part, with the exception being rare, unexploded duds. But atomic bombs go on killing for months and years. They are completely indiscriminate and poisonous.

You seem to have discounted the fact that people can succumb to injuries from 'conventional' attacks for days, weeks, or months later too.

As to indiscriminate, all warfare is indiscriminate. If it wasn't there'd never be any casualties other than than the combatants. But there are. While current technology makes it possible for warfare to be far less indiscriminate than it was in the past, it is still sometimes indiscriminate even today. And most certainly was much more so in the past.

Do you honestly believe there's little to no difference between attacking a civilian target with high-explosives and atomic weapons?

(1) Please define "civilian target". This is an important step, because much depends upon the definition, so please provide a precise one.

(2) Explain why you think there is a difference between atomic and conventional attacks as it concerns World War II. (Note the qualification; it matters.)

 

[SpringHallConvert]

You seem to have discounted the fact that people can succumb to injuries from 'conventional' attacks for days, weeks, or months later too.

Obviously there's a difference between injuries sustained during wartime attack and injuries sustained years after the war from the lingering effects of radioactive fallout.

Surely you can see that difference?

As to indiscriminate, all warfare is indiscriminate. If it wasn't there'd never be any casualties other than than the combatants. But there are. While current technology makes it possible for warfare to be far less indiscriminate than it was in the past, it is still sometimes indiscriminate even today. And most certainly was much more so in the past.

High-explosive bombing runs could be targeted fairly precisely, even during WW2. They could be dropped to take out an army barracks while leaving a neighboring hospital or school mostly undamaged. Using this kind of weaponry is excusable in wartime if used for tactical purposes.

Atomic bombs can't be targeted precisely, especially not the kind we used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They were strategic "city busters", and they were intended to wipe out the city centers of the cities they were dropped in. This can't be excused.

(1) Please define "civilian target". This is an important step, because much depends upon the definition, so please provide a precise one.

Well, in the context you responded to, I was referring to cities in general.

(2) Explain why you think there is a difference between atomic and conventional attacks as it concerns World War II. (Note the qualification; it matters.)

I don't think we should have lowered ourselves to attacking civilians in the first place, but using weapons of such an indiscriminate and poisonous nature as atomic bombs dropped us down even further into barbarianism.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Obviously there's a difference between injuries sustained during wartime attack and injuries sustained years after the war from the lingering effects of radioactive fallout.

Anybody who was there during the attack, and dies subsequently, is added to the list of victims of the attack, even if they died in a automobile accident. Cute.

 

[Corsair 115]

I would have negotiated an end to the war and stopped the bloodshed.

Japan's terms for ending the war at that stage were: (1) preservation of the Emperor's role and status; (2) no occupation of Japan by Allied forces; (3) any war crimes trials were to be handled by Japan alone; and (4) a continuation of its puppet regime in Manchuria. Are these terms acceptable to you?

If they refused to budge, a blockade of all war-making materials and resources would have ensued. No invasion.

Japan was already under blockage. It had been for months. U.S. submarines, aerial minelaying, and carrier strikes had together sunk almost all of Japan's merchant fleet. Its economy was being strangled by a lack of critical raw resources which had to be imported. And yet Japan was not capitulating, in spite of the enormous pressures it was under.

No more bombing of cities.

Where do you think the factories were located? They were located in and around major cities. Moreover, Japanese industry was often dispersed, meaning there were fewer of the kind of concentrated industrial complexes found in Germany. Consequently, to knock out war production, having to flatten a good portion of a city was necessary (and in any event the technology of the time didn't allow for much more than that anyway).

The reason why the U.S. switched to low-level incendiary attacks against Japanese cities was because the kind of high altitude bombing done over Germany was having negligible impact on the Japanese war economy. If what you're doing isn't working, a change in tactics is in order.

Most of all, I wouldn't have used a quarter-million people, mostly women and children, as guinea pigs in atomic bomb attacks.

Consider: after two atomic bombings, a declaration of war by Russia and subsequent attack in Manchuria, and resumed conventional air attacks, Japan's war cabinet was still deadlocked over the issue of surrender. And even after the Emperor had stepped in to break the deadlock, there was an attempted coup by hardliners to prevent any surrender.

It is interesting how you attach blame to the Allies and yet have apparently none for the Japanese leadership. It was obvious to anyone with even a half-functioning brain that by the start of 1945 Japan had absolutely no chance to win the war. Indeed, by mid-1944 there was little doubt Japan's defeat was only a matter of time. And yet Japan fought on, stubbornly, stupidly, consigning many of its own citizens to needless deaths, deaths that could have been prevented had it simply accepted the reality of its situation and surrendered. But it did not do so.

If you wish to place blame, place it on the Japanese government. It made the choice to needlessly prolong the war.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

SHC, super-diplomat. He would have ended WWII before it began by a way of his wand. The six years of diplomacy were all wasted because he wasn't there to show them where they went wrong. Harry Hopkins, move over. Molotov, you're an amateur. Lord Halifax, still in yer nappies, old bean. T.V. Soong, Wellington Ko, Dragon Lady, all of you go tell Chiang he put the wrong folks on the job.

 

[BazBear]

Obviously there's a difference between injuries sustained during wartime attack and injuries sustained years after the war from the lingering effects of radioactive fallout.

Surely you can see that difference?

The after effects were not well understood yet. Though even if they were, I suspect they still would have been dropped, as it was the best bet to end the war quickly.

High-explosive bombing runs could be targeted fairly precisely, even during WW2. They could be dropped to take out an army barracks while leaving a neighboring hospital or school mostly undamaged. Using this kind of weaponry is excusable in wartime if used for tactical purposes.

Actually they were quite inaccurate. Overall, only about 20% of U.S. bombs dropped during precision raids fell within 1000 feet of the target.

Atomic bombs can't be targeted precisely, especially not the kind we used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They were strategic "city busters", and they were intended to wipe out the city centers of the cities they were dropped in. This can't be excused.

They would be considered tactical nukes today, at about 12kt (Hiroshima) and 22kt (Nagasaki). Regular bombs from B-29s were certainly not any more accurate. The firebombing raids on Tokyo also killed more people (~100,000 on 10 March 45 alone)

I don't think we should have lowered ourselves to attacking civilians in the first place, but using weapons of such an indiscriminate and poisonous nature as atomic bombs dropped us down even further into barbarianism.

I'm sorry, but war is hell, and WW2 was especially so. Pussyfooting around, when we had the opportunity to end the war quickly, would have certainly cost more lives on both sides.

 

[Corsair 115]

Obviously there's a difference between injuries sustained during wartime attack and injuries sustained years after the war from the lingering effects of radioactive fallout.

It does not obviate the point that some people injured by conventional weaponry did die weeks or months later as a direct or indirect result of the injuries they sustained.

High-explosive bombing runs could be targeted fairly precisely, even during WW2. They could be dropped to take out an army barracks while leaving a neighboring hospital or school mostly undamaged. Using this kind of weaponry is excusable in wartime if used for tactical purposes.

I don't know where you got your information, but it's wrong. Strategic bombing—using four-engined heavy bombers dropping bombs from high altitude—did not have the kind of precision you are ascribing to it. Far from it, in fact.

The U.S Strategic Bombing Survey's examination of the U.S. bombing over Europe found that, bombing in day in clear weather, half the bombs dropped fell within one-third of a mile of the aiming point. One-third of a mile—that's 587 yards, or almost six football fields. That's a far cry from the kind of accuracy you claimed. Moreover, half the bombs dropped were landing more than one-third of a mile away from the aiming point. If the aiming point obscured by heavy cloud, radar-guided bombing was used. In those cases it was found that half the bombs dropped fell within 3.9 miles of the aiming point. Very poor accuracy resulted when bombing non-visually.

Over Japan, B-29 missions scored very poor results, for a variety of reasons. Trying to hit specific industrial complexes simply wasn't working, and in any event, much of Japanese war industry had been dispersed amongst the civilian population.

Atomic bombs can't be targeted precisely, especially not the kind we used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They were strategic "city busters", and they were intended to wipe out the city centers of the cities they were dropped in.

Cities were the economic engine. So damaging or destroying them hinders the enemy's war efforts.

In the case of Hiroshima, in August of 1945 it was hardly some idyllic backwater devoid of military presence. It was, for example, home to the headquarters of the 2nd General Army (in charge of the defences of southern Japan) as well as the headquarters of the 59th Army. The city also served as a communications, supply, and assembly area for the army.

I don't think we should have lowered ourselves to attacking civilians in the first place, but using weapons of such an indiscriminate and poisonous nature as atomic bombs dropped us down even further into barbarianism.

Answer me this: Who is it who works in the factories producing armaments? Who is it who works in the shipyards building and repairing warships? Who is it who works in the power stations which supply the electricity to power the factories and shipyards? Who is it who operate the railroads which transport vital supplies and resources? Who is it who works in the mines digging out the coal needed to fuel the power plants and railway locomotives? Who is it who works in the farms which grows the food necessary to keep soldiers, sailors, and airmen fed?

The answer to all those questions is, of course, civilians. And it explains why civilians and civilian infrastructure were targets during the war.

In an industrialized nation-state, the military cannot exist without the support of the civilian economy. No civilians, no economy; no economy, no military; no military, no war. That was the reality. It is not pretty, but then war is not pretty.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

And the government of Japan had made a deliberate decision to militarize the "suburbs" when they ordered cottage industry manufacture of weapons and other items used by the military. Decentralizing the manufacturing process meant that disrupting it would be decentralized as well. They should utter disdain for the safety of their people by doing this.

 

[Harpo]

fairly precisely

Care to quantify that?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Might as well throw this out here: If someone complains that Hiroshima was a demilitarized city and shouldn't have been attacked, please ask them to explain the fact that the Headquarters for the local military district, and approximate five thousand troops were killed by the bomb. They were neatly lined up for inspection very close to Ground Zero.

 

[Dancing David]

No, why do that when we could just drop cruel, poisonous atomic bombs on them instead?

Really, so what is the difference between being blown up by chemical munitions and atomic munitions?

Do you think there is a difference?

My views on the indiscriminate bombing of civilians are that it was wrong and non-productive.

meanwhile what happened in Warsaw?

 

[Dancing David]

The Japanese commander in Malaya had ordered that every Allied POW, man, woman and child, would be killed when the first invader hit the beaches. The date for the invasion was 1 August, 1945. So the bombs saved one hundred thousand lives in that one location. There were many more saved, of course.

I believe that the casualty estimates for Operation Coronet were in the millions.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I believe that the casualty estimates for Operation Coronet were in the millions.

The Kanto Plain would have been hell. The IJA were giving awls to school girls and telling them to stab the tall Americans in the groin. This would quickly result in school girls being shot on sight. Not that the Army cared, of course.