U.S. Army massacres Indians at Wounded Knee

[ayesha.a]

Probably the biggest genocide in history was that of native Americans but no one gives a crap about them because Merica thats why

It wasn't 'Murica, but European colonialists that began the genocide. Starting from Columbus. The Brits, French, Spaniards, Portuguese, all of them. By the time the USA was established, the native Americans were pretty much wiped out. After that, USA continued the work and mopped up the rest. Andrew Jackson's presidency was the one most responsible.

 

[Psychic]

How about 1971 in Bangladesh... 1971 Bangladesh genocide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is nothing more than a hoax, and if you are serious about this topic then better do a research yourself.

 

[Khan_patriot]

It wasn't 'Murica, but European colonialists that began the genocide. Starting from Columbus. The Brits, French, Spaniards, Portuguese, all of them. By the time the USA was established, the native Americans were pretty much wiped out. After that, USA continued the work and mopped up the rest. Andrew Jackson's presidency was the one most responsible.

It might have been the colonists from Europe who started the genocide but the U.S continued the same policy of exterminating the natives bear in mind the U.S populace at the time was descendent of the same white settlers but no one gives a damn because the white man killed the coloured

 

[VCheng]

It wasn't 'Murica, but European colonialists that began the genocide. Starting from Columbus. The Brits, French, Spaniards, Portuguese, all of them. By the time the USA was established, the native Americans were pretty much wiped out. After that, USA continued the work and mopped up the rest. Andrew Jackson's presidency was the one most responsible.

Let us not ignore what happened to the Incas, while we are at it.

 

[ayesha.a]

Let us not ignore what happened to the Incas, while we are at it.

I took a screen grab only of that part of the list that fits my screen! The list of massacres runs far longer. Two continents comprising many civilizations were practically wiped out.

It might have been the colonists from Europe who started the genocide but the U.S continued the same policy of exterminating the natives bear in mind the U.S populace at the time was descendent of the same white settlers but no one gives a damn because the white man killed the coloured

Correct, but my point is that at that time it was not viewed as "Americans v/s Natives". It was more like "White men v/s natives". The USA continued the policy, but again in their minds it was "White christian civilization" eradicating the "savage natives". That's how they saw it.

In USA's modern conflicts, it's USA against USSR/Iraq/whoever. They think of it as America's war against the enemy. Back then they viewed it as the white man's war against natives. (Believing of course, that the white man is superior and the natives are savages who should be exterminated.)

It was the idea of the "white man's burden", not the idea of American greatness that motivated them to commit massacres back then. (Later on both became entwined, with the idea of America's "manifest destiny".)

 

[haviZsultan]

The genocidal state of America which dropped nuclear weapons on Japan resulting in 200,000 causalities rarely gets the media attention it deserves for the acts of violence and evil it has committed. Genocide of native Americans and theft of land from Mexicans is merely a small chapter in the history of the most brutal of brutal, and evil of evil countries in the world.

 

[VCheng]

The genocidal state of America which dropped nuclear weapons on Japan resulting in 200,000 causalities rarely gets the media attention it deserves for the acts of violence and evil it has committed.

Why forget who attacked first? Japan attacked Pearl Harbor first.

 

[911]

The genocidal state of America which dropped nuclear weapons on Japan resulting in 200,000 causalities rarely gets the media attention it deserves for the acts of violence and evil it has committed. Genocide of native Americans and theft of land from Mexicans is merely a small chapter in the history of the most brutal of brutal, and evil of evil countries in the world.

But today they project as an excuse that Japanese were not surrendering. There were other ways to make them surrender too. But they choose to nuke. It was nothing more than that they wanted to test those bombs.

Why forget who attacked first? Japan attacked Pearl Harbor first.

US could have simply help China to defeat Japan.

 

[VCheng]

US could have simply help China to defeat Japan.

Japan attacked USA first, and was defeated by USA. That is the way wars work, with each side fighting as best as it can.

 

[saiyan0321]

It is a shame for all of humanity and I mean all of it when the so called civilized Europeans ( who share the most blame and shame) wiped civilizations in the Americas and in the Australia continent. They were defenseless and their continents were over taken by the French, English, Portuguese and Spanish and the continents are completely filled by races that had no existence over there while the native people couldn't even get a 10000 km territory for themselves to thrive in. We humans not only made animals extinct but did our utmost best to wipe out civilizations.

Civilizations were wiped out by their barbarism. Very sad. Their lineages are broken and their culture has been annihilated while the madmen who were responsible for this are revered.,

 

[ayesha.a]

US could have simply help China to defeat Japan.

In which case, there would have been far greater loss of lives. Tens of thousands, if not millions of Chinese would have had to die, there would have been lots more biological attacks on Chinese civilians, etc. With the nukes, only the aggressors' (Japanese) lives were lost.

Japan had plenty of residual military and industrial capability to wage a brutal war for many more months. They would have done more of the cholera attacks they did on the Chinese. It wasn't just the USA that had weapons of mass destruction - Japan did too, and used them too, namely biological and chemical weapons that wiped out thousands of civilians in agonizing deaths.

Operation Cherry Blossoms at Night - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What was better? Continue the war conventionally with hundreds of thousands more casualties of Chinese and American lives, or two quick nukes that ended the war then and there? What would you have done, if your country had nukes? Drop them and make the enemy surrender, or watch hundreds of thousands more of yyour soldiers and civilians die?

Which was a more humane option?

 

[Dalit]

Japan attacked USA first, and was defeated by USA. That is the way wars work, with each side fighting as best as it can.

Let me get this right. Dropping nukes on unarmed civilians is what you describe as "each side fighting as best"? By the same token, if today a war broke out between other nuke powers and they used these weapons indiscriminately you would also term that as each side fighting as best as it can?

 

[ayesha.a]

Let me get this right. Dropping nukes on unarmed civilians is what you describe as "fighting as best"?

Dropping bombs on civilians was the rule, in WW2. In fact, the fire bombings of Dresden and other cities caused more loss of lives than the nukes did. The firebombing of Tokyo remains the single most destructive air raid in history.

It was called strategic bombing, and that is what every air force did. The idea was to destroy entire cities, so as to:

1) Diminish the enemy's industrial capacity to keep producing weapons of war.
2) To break the will of the enemy to continue the war.

Britain did it, Japan did it, Germany did it, Italy did it, USA did it.

The USA simply invented a much more efficient weapon to do it. That gave them a decisive advantage.

Strategic bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can you name one country that had an air force that DID NOT do the same?

 

[Manidabest]

History is not what is being taught in school it is hiddennnnnnnn and if one wants to read then he wouldnt love to read it again

 

[Dalit]

Dropping bombs on civilians was the rule, in WW2. In fact, the fire bombings of Dresden and other cities caused more loss of lives than the nukes did. The firebombing of Tokyo remains the single most destructive air raid in history.

It was called strategic bombing, and that is what every air force did. The idea was to destroy entire cities, so as to:

1) Diminish the enemy's industrial capacity to keep producing weapons of war.
2) To break the will of the enemy to continue the war.

Britain did it, Japan did it, Germany did it, Italy did it, USA did it.

The USA simply invented a much more efficient weapon to do it. That gave them a decisive advantage.

Strategic bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can you name one country that had an air force that DID NOT do the same?

I'm referring to nukes here and not just ordinary bombs. There is a stark difference between using a nuclear device on a heavily populated area with the intent to cause mass casualty as opposed to targeted aerial bombings. We still have norms, principles and conventions. Even during wartime. Also, you have to bear in mind that a nuclear device causes mass casualty in a blink of an eye so to speak. Convential bombings which purportedly cost more lives have been carried out for months and years to reach such drastic figures. Comparing convential bombings with a nuclear explosion is like comparing apples with bananas.

In answer to your query, I can name you no other country which has actually used a nuclear device to systematically wipe out civilians.