View Full Version : What is your take on the A-bomb droppings on Japan?
KingKnudthebloodthirsty
01-05-2010, 02:30
I'm starting a research paper on whether or not it was right to nuke Japan. Obviously I'm doing alot of research, though I already know I alot of this from watching Tv and reading books. But I still like to your guys opinion on was it really necessary to drop the bomb on Japan. Those that supported the decision claimed that Japan won't surrender if we didn't bomb them and an invasion of the home islands would've cost hundreds of thousands of American lives, about the amount of all U.S. troops lost in WW2 up to that point. Opponents said that Japan was on the verge of collapse, and that since the Soviets are already at war with Japan, Japan would've collapsed easily and there is really no need to drop the Atom bombs on them.
Please vote in my poll (http://www.moviemakerrules.zymichost.com/polls.html) on whether or not you think the Atomic bomb was necessary. Thanks!
Japan had been totally defeated yet it seems they were ready to fight on and force USA to invade Japan itself. IMO Stalin entering the fray and the nuclear bombs were both needed to show the Japanese leadership the utter futility in keeping on fighting.
CBR
Evil_Maniac From Mars
01-05-2010, 04:01
Given the intelligence at the time and the most probable scenarios either way, the United States had little choice.
Samurai Waki
01-05-2010, 06:31
I shudder to think how many would have died in an invasion scenario. If Okinawa was any sort of indicator, the nukes probaby did less overall damage.
A Very Super Market
01-05-2010, 07:35
Japan could collapse. It was a matter of time. And a matter of bodies, far more than that of the bombings, and possibly that of an invasion as well. Starvation and conventional bombs (Which worked well enough of their own) doesn't seem like a very pretty prospect either.
Those that supported the decision claimed that Japan won't surrender if we didn't bomb them and an invasion of the home islands would've cost hundreds of thousands of American lives, about the amount of all U.S. troops lost in WW2 up to that point.
But instead they decided to kill hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians.
Strike For The South
01-05-2010, 08:59
Morally it was wrong
Ethically it was wrong
But it was the best choice for the USA on a pure numbers standpoint.
Considering Stalin was already planning on invading Hokkaido in October and the USA had lend-leased some 90 ships to the USSR, Soviet sailors been trained to operate the American lend-leased ships in Alaska by US Coast Guard Sailors. If the Atomic bombs failed, Stalin would have certainly moved and invaded the North of Japan. Probably the overall result would be the creation of a Communist North Japan and a Capitalist South Japan, à la West/East Germany; North/South Korea; North/South Vietnam.
There were slated to be around 500,000 USA soldiers and nearly 4,000 army, navy, and marine aircraft that would be packed into the small island of Okinawa for Olympic alone, not counting the thousands of ships, large and small which would have been crowded in what was now Buckner Bay or around the tiny island. Typhoon Louise was an abnormality, an aberration, a fluke, a one in a million. Navy meteorologists predicted that the out of season storm would (after they recognized its existence), sweep northward, pass between Okinawa and Formosa, and die out in the East China sea. That is NOT what occurred.
When Okinawa (the staging area for Olympic), was hit with Typhoon Louise in October of '45, fortunately it was by then nearly abandoned. Yet it still represented the largest loss of USN ships and US armed forces in history to a "natural event". If Japan had still been holding out, and keeping the Red Army at bay, a real "divine wind" would have again decimated their foes, hundreds more ships and men, just as it had centuries before against Kublai Khan. I wonder how much harder they would have fought after that? With that obvious "intervention by the Gods", the correctness of their place in the world, and the support of the Gods would have made a surrender impossible without complete genocide annihilation.
Fisherking
01-05-2010, 10:45
The casualty estimates for US forces invading Japan were 2,000,000. That is not estimated Japanese military and civilian casualties.
The utter fanaticism of Japan is also not much remembered.
Many of the atrocities of the Japanese are not mentioned today. Some so bad you likely wouldn’t even believe them.
From the standpoint of the Military at the time, it saved more lives than it took.
The Japanese Government could have easily surrenedered after Hiroshima. I'm not sure if they had information about the atomic bomb, but certainly Nagasaki was pointless. It wasn't the American's fault for dropping the bomb, it was the fanatacism of the Japanese millitary. The lesson to be learned from this?
Don't fight total war and lose.
Watchman
01-05-2010, 12:21
From what I gather the real diehards in the Japanese govermenent wouldn't have surrendered even after Nagasaki, but by that point the Emperor and the saner minds had had enough and kicked them aside...
Beefy187
01-05-2010, 13:56
It had to be done some point in history. Because of what happened and what we know happened, hopefully we will hesitate using it in the future.
If there was a mistake, that was causing the war in the first place.
Ser Clegane
01-05-2010, 14:10
The "evergreen" topic. I remember we had an interesting (somewhat heated) discussion about this some 5-6 years ago here in the Monastery.
In the poll I voted that the bomb was necessary. This refers to the Hiroshima bomb only - I still have serious doubts that the Nagasaki bomb was necessary only a couple of days after Hiroshima.
EDIT: Apart from the question of the necessity in that specific historical context, I share beefy's somewhat more philosophic view that the eventual use of nuclear weapons was probably a bullet humanity had to bite (as bad and armchair-general-like as this sounds) to experience the shock and that it was better to happen in the beginning before the much more devastating versions were developed (and only one side had the weapen so that relatiation in kind was impossible)
Beefy's opinion was something I thought of, by seeing the bomb in action, we saw how dangerous it was. (even though they are 1000x more dangerous now) It also made everyone stop the war as they didn't really want to just get glassed off the planet and it probably stumped any thoughts the USSR had in further invasion.
This is slightly off-topic: But I was reading somewhere that War with the USA boiled down to the USA emargo-ing Japan, depriving them of 90% of their Fuel income due to their war with China. Is there any truth to this?
KukriKhan
01-05-2010, 14:35
If I were Truman, I would have detonated a nuke on an uninhabited Pacific island, inviting allies and enemies world-wide to watch. Then given Japan a week to surrender. No surrender? Nuke a Japanese city.
But I have the benefit of hindsight. I don't have the military intel estimates of Japan staring me in the face, nor the memory of the unprovoked Pearl Harbor "sneak attack" fresh in mind, a mere 4 years earlier.
So, if I were Truman, in Truman's shoes, I guess I'd do as Truman did.
CountArach
01-05-2010, 15:22
Probably one of the greatest crimes against humanity thus far, however I can see the logic from the standpoint of the US Leadership at the time. Would I have supported it? No. Would I have understood? Yes, probably. Nagasaki I think was unnecessary. I'm sure that Hiroshima got the message across.
EDIT: Apart from the question of the necessity in that specific historical context, I share beefy's somewhat more philosophic view that the eventual use of nuclear weapons was probably a bullet humanity had to bite (as bad and armchair-general-like as this sounds) to experience the shock and that it was better to happen in the beginning before the much more devastating versions were developed (and only one side had the weapen so that relatiation in kind was impossible)
I agree with this as well. Regardless of whether it was necessary to end the war, I do believe that the true horrors of nuclear weapons had to be seen before the world would ever become reluctant to use them. I believe that if nuclear/atomic weapons had not been used until after multiple nations had possession of them, the risk of a full-scale nuclear exchange would have been much higher. I would bet that nuclear weapons would have been used against China during the Korean War. Not only would that have resulted in greater loss of life than Hiroshima/Nagasaki due to advances in nuclear weapons, it also would have risked retaliation from the USSR.
This is slightly off-topic: But I was reading somewhere that War with the USA boiled down to the USA emargo-ing Japan, depriving them of 90% of their Fuel income due to their war with China. Is there any truth to this?
Obviously it didn't boil down only to that, but the fact was that that had a significant impact on how Japan thought their positions on the global stage. The really MAJOR reason why Japan attacked the USA was the American Administration forbidding any attack on the European powers and territories (e.g. Britain and the Netherlands), doing so, the American administration said, it would be an act of war upon the USA as well. From there Japan had 5 options:
a) Try to approach the Soviets, which would be unlikely given the Anti-Commintern Pact they signed with Germany and Italy, but hey, Stalin wanted an alliance with the Axis, so there have been stranger things. An approachment with the Soviets might mean that they could import oil from the Soviets, bypassing the American embargo. But then again, the Soviet were equally committed in supporting the Chinese, as they knew that if Japan won in China, the Soviet grip in the far east would be severely weakened, so no major luck there.
b) Invade the British and Dutch East Indies without attacking the USA and hoping the entire Americans threats of war were a bluff. If they weren't, the war probably wouldn't last very long as the USA still had most of the Pacific fleet ready to reinforce and restrain the Japanese. It might have worked. Major problem was, if it didn't.
c) Invade the British and Dutch East Indies and attack and cripple the USA ability to defend the Pacific with its fleet. It would still be nigh suicidal, but this was the path Japan took.
d) Shrug off the Oil Embargo and watch as military operations and the army's operationability and Industrial Output sink progressively until they had to slowly defend and withdraw throughout most of China until Japan innevitably threw the towel.
e) Make peace with China, probably at the Status Quo Ante Bellum, or phreaps getting some few other minor concessions. This way, they would keep Indochina, Manchuria, Korea and all Pacific islands here and there. Best path possible. Unfortunately, the rampant Imperialism within the Japanese elite mindset of the time prevented the Japanese from seeing the light.
The fact was that Japan had nobody to blame for the path they took but themselves. The Sino-Japanese wars started on pure Imperialistic-Territorial Aggrandizement reasons.
IMHO the genocide of over 200,000 people, mostly civilians, cannot be justified.
IMHO the genocide of over 200,000 people, mostly civilians, cannot be justified.
I think genocide has the intent of eradicating a genus, a race/civilization/people. I'd rather call it mass-murder if you want to call it something horrible.
My opinion is that I'm not sure, the first one was about as justified as the firebombing of japanese and german cities, the second I'm not sure but in war you usually shoot until the other side gives up, it's the way war works. :shrug:
To blame one side for inventing a bigger caliber is a bit...I don't know, everyone tries to get an edge over the other side, some succeed, some don't. Now of course they killed civilians but then noone asked the USA whether they wanted to fight in that war or not, when you wake up the eagle you may get more than you expected. :sweatdrop:
I'd be more against it had the USA started the war.
Whatever you like to call it, massacre, genocide, mass murder or a "war crime", it's still the killing of over 200,000 innocent men women and children - not military targets, not collateral damage, but civillian people deliberately targeted. They were not directly responsible for the actions of their ruling classes.
Whatever you like to call it, massacre, genocide, mass murder or a "war crime", it's still the killing of over 200,000 innocent men women and children - not military targets, not collateral damage, but civillian people deliberately targeted. They were not directly responsible for the actions of their ruling classes.
That depends on how you determine responsibility. The mass-mobilization required for modern warfare often results in a total war economy. In many major wars, a very large number of civilians are employed in making weapons and otherwise supplying the military with resources. This makes them legitimate targets as far as most nations are concerned.
One of the things that has always bothered me about Hiroshima/Nagasaki is that they are treated as special circumstances that are somehow worse than conventional bombings. The March '45 conventional bombing of Tokyo killed more people than the atomic bombing of Nagasaki, yet there is far more outrage directed against the Nagasaki event than the Tokyo event. It doesn't make sense to me.
al Roumi
01-05-2010, 17:58
EDIT: Apart from the question of the necessity in that specific historical context, I share beefy's somewhat more philosophic view that the eventual use of nuclear weapons was probably a bullet humanity had to bite (as bad and armchair-general-like as this sounds) to experience the shock and that it was better to happen in the beginning before the much more devastating versions were developed (and only one side had the weapen so that relatiation in kind was impossible)
You are evidently aware of how dispassionate and removed the "philosphic" view sounds. Personally, I'm a little queesy at any hint of bland approval for the sacrifice of 200,000 people... Such reasoning is much easier to make if you are not personaly affected by the human cost - I would be very surprised to hear a relative of one of the Hiroshima or Nagasaki bomb victims accept the deaths so freely.
al Roumi
01-05-2010, 18:06
That depends on how you determine responsibility. The mass-mobilization required for modern warfare often results in a total war economy. In many major wars, a very large number of civilians are employed in making weapons and otherwise supplying the military with resources. This makes them legitimate targets as far as most nations are concerned.
Before assigning blame, it would be only fair to at least examine how much choice the average inhabitant of Nagasaki, Hiroshima or Tokyo (as you rightly go on to say) had in their contribution to the war effort.
An interesting modern reflection of your logic is Al-Qaida's assertion that US and allied civilians deserve 9/11 and other atrocities as they have voted in their governments and supposedly have more say in the decisions made by them!
One of the things that has always bothered me about Hiroshima/Nagasaki is that they are treated as special circumstances that are somehow worse than conventional bombings. The March '45 conventional bombing of Tokyo killed more people than the atomic bombing of Nagasaki, yet there is far more outrage directed against the Nagasaki event than the Tokyo event. It doesn't make sense to me.
I agree with this, but I guess it's the ghastly novelty and scale of what the 2 bombs did, compared to the tons of (conventional) munitions dropped on e.g. Dresden and Tokyo.
Ser Clegane
01-05-2010, 18:21
You are evidently aware of how dispassionate and removed the "philosphic" view sounds.
I am absolutely aware of that. This point is also most definitely not an argument for the necessity/justification of dropping the bomb - not even in hindsight.
I think it is simply a point that is worthwhile to think about - in an indeed removed way.
If you look up the old 2004 thread about the atomic bombs on Japan you will see that at that time I argued against the camp that was justifying the bombs - especially againts the "they had it coming" view that was voiced back then.
Nevertheless I came to recognize that the alternatives to the a-bomb e.g., launching a conventional attack to end the war would have yielded more horrible results, even if the horror might have been less "obvious" (in addition the quick end most likely saved a lot of civilian lives in China).
I do not like the term "justified" in this context very much as it implies that the Japanese population "deserved" what happened and received "justice".
"Necessary" is the term I feel is more suitable as it rather emphasises the lack of viable alternatives to this tragedy.
al Roumi
01-05-2010, 18:31
Glad to hear we aren't just making off the cuff judgments here on the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.
http://forum.piratesahoy.net//public/style_emoticons/default/doff.gif
Alexander the Pretty Good
01-05-2010, 20:58
That depends on how you determine responsibility. The mass-mobilization required for modern warfare often results in a total war economy. In many major wars, a very large number of civilians are employed in making weapons and otherwise supplying the military with resources. This makes them legitimate targets as far as most nations are concerned.
This is the problem.
In my opinion the US of A's and Britain's bombing campaigns against Germany and Japan were terrorism and mass murder. While it doesn't make us as bad as Nazis and Imperialist Japan, it makes our leaders at that time pretty close. Not just Dresden, but Tokyo, and tons of cities in Europe were bombed with the intent of killing large amounts of the population and instilling fear and an unwillingness to fight. We barely touched the industrial zones most times, and production always shot up afterward. We destroyed their history, their culture, their lives, and their morale. We took it from waging a war on Hitler to terrorizing and massacring the French and German population, as well as many Central Europeans. Dresden, like with the A-bombings was done to demonstrate to the world (and Russia in particular I think) what could be done with a strategic bombing campaign. I don't think that it reflects badly on the American and British people (who I have no doubt would not have let it happen if they had known the motivations and methods) who had no choice in the matter, but on the (liberals coincidently) corrupt political and military leaders who planned and authorized it.
I think it serves as a good lessen as to why people in free countries around the world should be a lot more vigilant, and a lot more careful of whom they elect.
That depends on how you determine responsibility. The mass-mobilization required for modern warfare often results in a total war economy. In many major wars, a very large number of civilians are employed in making weapons and otherwise supplying the military with resources. This makes them legitimate targets as far as most nations are concerned.
One of the things that has always bothered me about Hiroshima/Nagasaki is that they are treated as special circumstances that are somehow worse than conventional bombings. The March '45 conventional bombing of Tokyo killed more people than the atomic bombing of Nagasaki, yet there is far more outrage directed against the Nagasaki event than the Tokyo event. It doesn't make sense to me.
Nice textbook response, but when applied to real life it doesn't really hold up - but maybe that's me being soft and not really liking nukes or anyone being nuked. As far as the arms manufacture/supply goes, conventional bombings would have taken out any arms factories without causing 200,000+ civilian casualties (most of which probably weren't involved in arms manufacture). This was not a targeted strike against military installations but an immoral and unjustifiable attack on the people of Japan themselves (the psychological warfare of carpet bombing taken to another level). It's what the US like to call "terrorism" nowadays and certainly would call terrorism if it was carried out against them.
There are also the long term effects of Nuclear attack to consider. This is what really makes it much worse than most other kinds of conventional bombing as it affects civilian people for many generations to come.
Ser Clegane
01-05-2010, 22:39
What would have been the best alternative to end the war with less civilian* casualties, in your opinion?
*actually in times of drafts we also might take military casualties into account as well.
Louis VI the Fat
01-05-2010, 23:02
The devastating results of the American bombs:
https://img245.imageshack.us/img245/6493/tokyobombing1.jpg
No, it's not Hiroshima or Nagasaki. It is Tokyo.
Japan had been under intense bombardement before the A-Bombs, and didn't give in. The atomic bombs, for all their shock value, were partly only an incremental upping of the stakes.
I am torn between two conflicting thoughts:
1) I would've loved to have dropped that bomb myself on Japan.
2) I am very saddened by the destruction, by the immense loss of life. So many people, who under other circumstances would've just led their peaceful lives. What a tragedy, what a cursed war. :mecry:
Thank God the US got the bomb first. I dare not think what would've happened had the Soviet Union, Germany or Japan been there first.
Nice textbook response, but when applied to real life it doesn't really hold up - but maybe that's me being soft and not really liking nukes or anyone being nuked. As far as the arms manufacture/supply goes, conventional bombings would have taken out any arms factories without causing 200,000+ civilian casualties (most of which probably weren't involved in arms manufacture). This was not a targeted strike against military installations but an immoral and unjustifiable attack on the people of Japan themselves (the psychological warfare of carpet bombing taken to another level). It's what the US like to call "terrorism" nowadays and certainly would call terrorism if it was carried out against them.
There are also the long term effects of Nuclear attack to consider. This is what really makes it much worse than most other kinds of conventional bombing as it affects civilian people for many generations to come.
To be clear, I don't like nukes nor do I want anyone to be nuked.
I agree that it is terrorism, but there is this odd idea these days that 'terrorism' is not a legitimate form of warfare. Terrorism is as old as war itself, and is a very effective method of warfare. By modern standards, Rome's destruction of Carthage in 146 BC was terrorism. Pretty much any time you read about an army sacking a city, you're reading about terrorism. Vlad Tepes was a terrorist, in that he intentionally terrified his enemies with his acts. The Ottomans terrorized the Serbs in 1809 by constructing the Skull Tower (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skull_Tower). Americans used terror against the Brits in the Revolution, and both sides used it in the Vietnam War.
Terrorism has occurred in every war since the beginning of time, and it always will. We proudly represent 'morale' in our wargames, which is clear evidence of how important fear is in warfare. Terrorism is a direct attack on morale, without a separate military objective. von Clausewitz would argue that was a legitimate means of fighting, as would Sun Tzu. It may not be a nice method of fighting, but war is not a nice thing.
For many western nations, using terrorism in warfare is no longer considered beneficial as it causes more harm to the international perception of the nation using it than the benefits it brings. We can call it morality if we want, but it's a purely practical thing. Push any nation far enough, and it will use terrorism in its own defense.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
01-05-2010, 23:34
Japan had been under intense bombardement before the A-Bombs, and didn't give in. The atomic bombs, for all their shock value, were partly only an incremental upping of the stakes.
I disagree. Thousands, if not millions, of bombs were dropped on Tokyo to achieve that result. Hiroshima ended up the same way with one.
Thank God the US got the bomb first. I dare not think what would've happened had the Soviet Union, Germany or Japan been there first.
Agreed.
1) I would've loved to have dropped that bomb myself on Japan.
:no:
:no:
Agreed. I am extremely thankful that Hitler was defeated, but I am also thankful that I was not the one who had to kill his soldiers. Killing may be necessary some times, but it is never something you should enjoy. Even more so when the people being killed are innocent civilians and the killing completely unjustified.
We barely touched the industrial zones most times, and production always shot up afterward.
The air campaign against Germany was essentially a failure although it did cause a lot of temporary halts in various industries. When the synthetic fuel industry was targeted it was a great success though.
But the bombing of Japan pretty much destroyed most of the industry so to say it was barely touched is not true.
There are also the long term effects of Nuclear attack to consider. This is what really makes it much worse than most other kinds of conventional bombing as it affects civilian people for many generations to come.
Yes indeed but now you are also speaking with the benefit of hindsight. The stigma of nuclear weapons is there because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well as us living under 40 years of Cold War and the threat of MAD.
So although it was a new and horrific weapon it was at the same time similar to firebombing. They just needed one plane instead of a thousand for the job.
CBR
Beefy187
01-06-2010, 02:07
So although it was a new and horrific weapon it was at the same time similar to firebombing. They just needed one plane instead of a thousand for the job.
Except some people still suffer from the A bomb after effects.
On the brighter side, they finally won the law suit against the country, so they'll start getting little bit of financial support.
The air campaign against Germany was essentially a failure although it did cause a lot of temporary halts in various industries. When the synthetic fuel industry was targeted it was a great success though.
But the bombing of Japan pretty much destroyed most of the industry so to say it was barely touched is not true.
I was speaking specifically about the bombing campaigns against Germany. We often failed to hit their important industries with a substantial amount of bombs, and a lot of times ignored infrastructure. Instead we hit the heavily populated and culturally important areas. What does that tell you?
A Very Super Market
01-06-2010, 02:30
It was easier to scare the civilians with strategic bombing than it was to purposefully aim for targets. When it came to night raids, there was no real way of identifying an industrial plant, a school, or a farmhouse in the darkness, and the entire place was simply lit up. All bombing are inherently terrible. In Hamburg, the firestorms swept away 42,000 civilians. Old Koenigsberg was entirely destroyed. The British were undeniably silly in their belief of a Germany-wide collapse, as they did nothing of the sort during the Blitz. But what else in WWII wasn't centred on destruction?
Except some people still suffer from the A bomb after effects.
On the brighter side, they finally won the law suit against the country, so they'll start getting little bit of financial support.
Yes that is true. I was speaking of how people saw the bombs back then.
I was speaking specifically about the bombing campaigns against Germany. We often failed to hit their important industries with a substantial amount of bombs, and a lot of times ignored infrastructure. Instead we hit the heavily populated and culturally important areas. What does that tell you?
Most industry was located near heavily populated areas and, as most German cities are rather old, they were all culturally important.
The US went for daylight bombings in an attempt to improve accuracy. They also did try to go for key industries like the ball-bearing industry at Schweinfurt which was hit multiple times.
Accuracy was still not very good though. THE UNITED STATES STRATEGIC BOMBING SURVEY (http://aupress.au.af.mil/Books/USSBS/USSBS.pdf) p13:
Conventionally the air forces designated as "the target area" a circle having a radius of 1000 feet around the aiming point of attack. While accuracy improved during the war, Survey studies show that, in the over-all, only about 20% of the bombs aimed at precision targets fell within this target area. A peak accuracy of 70% was reached for the month of February 1945 .
Evil_Maniac From Mars
01-06-2010, 02:44
It was easier to scare the civilians with strategic bombing than it was to purposefully aim for targets. When it came to night raids, there was no real way of identifying an industrial plant, a school, or a farmhouse in the darkness, and the entire place was simply lit up.
Unless they were located apart from each other, as was the case in places like Dresden. The Allies could easily have targeted the industrial center of Dresden rather than the cultural and residential areas, as the three were spaced apart. Scaring civilians wasn't easier either, since if anything it made them more eager to fight once their homes were destroyed and they had nothing left to lose.
The first rule of warfare should be to leave your opponents with something. If you deprive them of everything but a target, they will fight to the death.
A Very Super Market
01-06-2010, 03:40
I wasn't trying to justify anything that happened. It just happened to be easier to bomb a general location. It doesn't make any sense because the Brits went through the Blitz without surrendering. Dresden itself had little military industry to begin with, and its destruction seemed to have had the poorest explanations.
Fisherking
01-06-2010, 10:06
The bombs also need to be looked at in the light of Japanese barbarity, during the war.
The world knew of the Rape of Nanking, though perhaps not how bad it truly was. But that was only one of many massacres. Massacres of civilians.
Most people know of the atrocious treatment of military POWs but their treatment of the civilian population was worse if only because they were unarmed noncombatants.
They were also conducting biological warfare in China, using bubonic pelage as a military weapon.
The Japanese civilian population was also feared as a military threat. Stories of the rape murder and cannibalization of military prisoners by the civilian population had leaked out. Those reports were proven true.
Add to that slavery and enforced prostitution of civilians.
Given the choice of a protracted land battle with such people and the use of a terror weapon to end the war, what do you think you would have done.
"They did it too" or "At least we aren't as bad as them" is a bad reason to target civilians. Dropping it on a military base, or at the very least, waiting long enough for a response after Hiroshima would have made more sense.
CountArach
01-06-2010, 11:04
The bombs also need to be looked at in the light of Japanese barbarity, during the war.
The world knew of the Rape of Nanking, though perhaps not how bad it truly was. But that was only one of many massacres. Massacres of civilians.
Most people know of the atrocious treatment of military POWs but their treatment of the civilian population was worse if only because they were unarmed noncombatants.
They were also conducting biological warfare in China, using bubonic pelage as a military weapon.
The Japanese civilian population was also feared as a military threat. Stories of the rape murder and cannibalization of military prisoners by the civilian population had leaked out. Those reports were proven true.
Add to that slavery and enforced prostitution of civilians.
Given the choice of a protracted land battle with such people and the use of a terror weapon to end the war, what do you think you would have done.
Answering terror with terror is not the way to fight against these things though, so I think that argument is flawed from the outset.
al Roumi
01-06-2010, 11:10
I wasn't trying to justify anything that happened. It just happened to be easier to bomb a general location. It doesn't make any sense because the Brits went through the Blitz without surrendering. Dresden itself had little military industry to begin with, and its destruction seemed to have had the poorest explanations.
I agree and its not at all clear to me why bombing is still seen as a viable or even effective strategy -even as a morale weapon. I'm sure that at best, it has had mixed results -either protracting and intensifying a conflict or subduing it (as presumably intended).
The bombs also need to be looked at in the light of Japanese barbarity, during the war.
Oh yes: "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth", isn't that a great dictum with a glorious record of real-world applications.
Fisherking
01-06-2010, 11:49
"They did it too" or "At least we aren't as bad as them" is a bad reason to target civilians. Dropping it on a military base, or at the very least, waiting long enough for a response after Hiroshima would have made more sense.
That is a very nice idea but do you understand the difference between your moral outrage and historical context?
It is an interesting paradox that the easier it is to kill people the less moral be becomes.
The bombs were dropped to end a very vicious conflict in which millions had died and millions more expected to die.
While the citizens of the two cities may have been guiltless, the world held a sense of National Guilt with regard to the crimes of Japan.
You cannot measure it in the light of hindsight and postwar morality. It was a product of the times.
Even today we cannot prevent atrocities and the killing of civilians.
Fisherking
01-06-2010, 11:54
Answering terror with terror is not the way to fight against these things though, so I think that argument is flawed from the outset.
I am not trying to justify my actions you know. I am just trying to put the decision within the context of the times.
CountArach
01-06-2010, 12:21
I am not trying to justify my actions you know. I am just trying to put the decision within the context of the times.
Yes I understand, but the argument that you laid out is a flawed one, even if it is not an opinion that you hold yourself.
Beefy187
01-06-2010, 12:30
That is a very nice idea but do you understand the difference between your moral outrage and historical context?
It is an interesting paradox that the easier it is to kill people the less moral be becomes.
The bombs were dropped to end a very vicious conflict in which millions had died and millions more expected to die.
While the citizens of the two cities may have been guiltless, the world held a sense of National Guilt with regard to the crimes of Japan.
You cannot measure it in the light of hindsight and postwar morality. It was a product of the times.
Even today we cannot prevent atrocities and the killing of civilians.
Arguable. But the only crime of Japan was losing the war.
Theres plenty of war crimes that Americans, soviets, French and so on did as well which is left unsaid because they are the "good guys".
And some war crimes of axis are still being argued for their credibility.
Louis VI the Fat
01-06-2010, 12:36
I am not trying to justify my actions you know. I am just trying to put the decision within the context of the times.Don't be too timid, or intimidated. Reading the internets nowadays, one starts to feel America and the allies have to justify their many WWII war crimes to their poor victims.
Pft.
I say, tell me why Germany and Japan should not have been bombed into defeat as soon as possible. Why not every means should've been used to win and end this war. I wish I would've had two hundred A-bombs in 1942. Or in 1937. I would've dropped them too.
Soul searching is good. So are humanitarian values. But there is such a thing as right and wrong. Even allowing for blurred lines and grey areas.
The - what's the proverb - the proof of the pudding is in the eating. How did Germany and Japan treat the peoples whom they defeated? And how, by comparison, did the (western) allies treat Germany and Japan after 1945? There is such a thing as good and bad, and good is justified in defeating bad.
On another level, I will shed a tear as much for the Germans and the Japanese as I do for everybody else. A lot of people suffered, died, who didn't deserve that. And many of those who did deserve it, would under other circumstances simply have lived out a peaceful life. But the ultimate responsibility lies not in Washington or London, but in Tokyo and Berlin.
Beefy187
01-06-2010, 12:46
I'm going to quote wiki and I know what happens when I do that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II#Canada
This is what quick search got me. I won't say they are worse then axis. Surely we did awful things too. But allies weren't that different.
Fisherking
01-06-2010, 13:05
Yes I understand, but the argument that you laid out is a flawed one, even if it is not an opinion that you hold yourself.
An when was there a decision involving the killing of thousands not flawed in some way?
By our standards there is no justification. By theirs there seemingly were.
Kralizec
01-06-2010, 14:23
Should the allies have behaved decently, even if their opponents didn't? Yes. Was it realistic to expect they would?
Some of you however are trying to suggest that it was a cold-blooded decision, akin to plotting a premeditated murder while enjoying a good bottle of wine by the fireplace. It's easy to yell from the top of the hindsight tower (located just next to the ivory tower) that it was wrong and ineffective besides, and that the Blitz, the V-weapons or the torture of civilians and US servicemen in the Philipines didn't justify anything. But I don't pretend to have acted in a more enlightened way in that position, unlike some of you.
Don't be too timid, or intimidated. Reading the internets nowadays, one starts to feel America and the allies have to justify their many WWII war crimes to their poor victims.
There's no such thing as not enough information.
It's good to know as much as possible.
OTOH, it's difficult to know which sources are trustworthy and which aren't. But it's healthy to keep an open mind when studying history and to try to get information from as many sides as possible.
If the Allies have committed attrocities during WWII, then that knowledge should be available. I don't see nothing wrong with that.
Should we try to find out why those attrocities have been committed? Of course we should. Why would you want to avoid the inconvenient parts of the subject? Why should some things remain unsaid?
It's nonsensic to limit it to "teh Axis, teh bad, teh Allies, teh Good".
That would imply that there is such a thing as "a just war".
There isn't.
I wish I would've had two hundred A-bombs in 1942. Or in 1937. I would've dropped them too.
:inquisitive:
I think that's a nonsensical statement. Wouldn't your dropping of 200 atomic bombs have caused as many deads as the whole W.W. II event itself? Plus of course damage during centuries because of radiation?
***
As for the droppings of the bombs. No it wasn't "justified". War and acts of war can never be "justified", in my humble opinion. War is failure. But that viewpoint is all nice and good sitting in a comfortable chair when there's no actual war going on at your doorstep.
I don't know enough about the period, but are we 100 % that Japan was not on the edge of collapse and would have surrendered because they were already defeated? Wasn't it more of an honor thing that made it take so long before they agreed to surrender? How many diplomatic efforts have there been taken to come to an agreement with the Japanese before deciding to drop the bomb? Was Japan being unreasonably stubborn or was the US too impatient and in a hurry to drop the bomb? Was it an act of revenge or a necessity to end the conflict with as less victims as possible?
If it is true (which I don't know) that Japan was not going to surrender, under no circumstances, then I I agree most with Ser: it was probably necessary. The results were horrible, but maybe it was indeed better than a conventional invasion. I'm not sure if the second dropping was necessary though. Anyway, it ended the conflict and nobody can say what would have happened if Japan had been invaded.
Finding reliable and unbiased sources on the question if Japan was going to surrender or not, is probably crucial to answer the question whether it was necessary to drop the A-bombs.
Somebody has information on that?
Fisherking
01-06-2010, 14:48
Arguable. But the only crime of Japan was losing the war.
Theres plenty of war crimes that Americans, soviets, French and so on did as well which is left unsaid because they are the "good guys".
And some war crimes of axis are still being argued for their credibility.
I can only take that truly insulting remark as someone absurdly ignorant of the facts of history.
Perhaps you are not acquainted with the brutal murder of hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children perpetrated by the Japanese.
It surpassed the Germans in shear brutality and carelessness of human life if it did not surpass it in numbers.
I don’t believe that any of the allied nations ever had a massive campaign of rape, murder, torture, and extermination of civilians as part of their policies.
Start here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes
Likely only the cannibalism had it happened 200 years earlier, would have been of note, but to say it was only wrong because they lost is a bit disgusting.
One crime does not excuse another but still with the scope and magnitude you can see why they had less qualms on using such a weapon on that particular enemy.
Wouldn't your dropping of 200 atomic bombs have caused as many deads as the whole W.W. II event itself? Plus of course damage during centuries because of radiation?
Radioactive fallout from nuclear weapons is nowhere near as bad as fallout from an accident like Chernobyl. Most estimate I have read on the subject indicate that most areas hit by nuclear weapons will no longer have significant radiation 1 year later, and definitely not longer than 5 years. The US government concedes exposure to ionizing radiation for soldiers who were stationed in Hiroshima or Nagasaki after the war, but only until July 1, 1946. Government estimates show no significant radiation risk after that date, and that's less than a year after the bombings.
That's not to say that radiation isn't a major side effect from nuclear weapons; it certainly is for anyone exposed to it. However, nuclear weapons definitely do not render an area radioactive for centuries.
If it is true (which I don't know) that Japan was not going to surrender, under no circumstances, then I I agree most with Ser: it was probably necessary. The results were horrible, but maybe it was indeed better than a conventional invasion. I'm not sure if the second dropping was necessary though. Anyway, it ended the conflict and nobody can say what would have happened if Japan had been invaded.
Finding reliable and unbiased sources on the question if Japan was going to surrender or not, is probably crucial to answer the question whether it was necessary to drop the A-bombs.
Somebody has information on that?
I have nothing to quote from at the moment, but I've done a lot of readings on the subject and my general impression is that the US believed Japan was not going to surrender, while it remains uncertain whether they actually would have. For the US, the decision was made after the language used by the Japanese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mokusatsu) to reject the Potsdam Declaration. Indications are that this was a language/cultural misunderstanding and that Japan was not quite as opposed to surrender as the direct translation of that term indicated.
There is decent evidence that Japan might have surrendered if the US had offered the same terms prior to the bombings (vague statements indicating the Emperor could remain on the throne) which they did after the bombings. At the same time, the situation prior to the bombings was vastly different than the situation after the bombings. Not only had the power of atomic weapons been demonstrated, but the Soviet Union had declared war and invaded the northern islands, and internal dissent within the Japanese government was becoming very serious.
Personally, I do not believe that the Japanese had any intention of surrendering prior to August 6th, at least not on any terms that were acceptable to the Allies. However, it is very difficult to tell whether they would eventually have made that decision without the atomic bombs and the Soviet attack. Maybe they would have reached the same agreement a month later, maybe longer, but it's far from certain. The Japanese DID reject the terms on July 27th. Even after the bombings and the Soviet attack on August 9th, the Japanese government was heavily divided on whether or not to surrender. A significant number wanted to continue fighting, and the pro-war faction even attempted a coup to keep the war going several days later.
IMO, while it was possible that the Japanese would have surrendered without the bomb, there was no way for the Allies to know that nor would it have been smart for them at the time to simply wait and see what was going to happen. I do not believe Truman can be fairly criticized for the decision, as it was right one to make at that time with the information available to him, even if the Japanese really would have surrendered later without the bombs.
al Roumi
01-06-2010, 15:16
Arguable. But the only crime of Japan was losing the war.
Theres plenty of war crimes that Americans, soviets, French and so on did as well which is left unsaid because they are the "good guys".
And some war crimes of axis are still being argued for their credibility.
I can only take that truly insulting remark as someone absurdly ignorant of the facts of history.
I interpreted it as an observation that the winner writes history. Had Germany and Japan won, no doubt we would be discussing allied atrocities and barbarism. At least, that's what I thought beefy was on about.
Surely there would have been war crimes trials for all RAF bomber command staff and pilots? -assuming they had somehow been able to bomb Germany as they did, and then lose the war.
al Roumi
01-06-2010, 15:26
I'm going to quote wiki and I know what happens when I do that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II#Canada
This is what quick search got me. I won't say they are worse then axis. Surely we did awful things too. But allies weren't that different.
From the above link:
Unrestricted submarine warfare
In the Nuremberg Trial, German Admiral Karl Dönitz was tried, among other crimes, for issuing orders to target Allied civilians, a policy known as unrestricted submarine warfare. Dönitz was found guilty, but no sentence was imposed, because of evidence presented to the the Tribunal that the Royal Navy and the United States Navy had issued similar orders.
The US Navy applied the same policy to operations in the Pacific. According to Gary E. Weir of the US Naval Historical Center, because of the way war was waged in the Atlantic, "when Admiral Thomas C. Hart proclaimed unrestricted submarine warfare against Japan on 8 December 1941, it came as no surprise".
This provides an insight on how some war crimes have been judged, e.g.: a defendant can only really be punished if their opponent was not also utilising (or permiting) the same tactic.
There's no such thing as not enough information.
It's good to know as much as possible.
OTOH, it's difficult to know which sources are trustworthy and which aren't. But it's healthy to keep an open mind when studying history and to try to get information from as many sides as possible.
If the Allies have committed attrocities during WWII, then that knowledge should be available. I don't see nothing wrong with that.
Should we try to find out why those attrocities have been committed? Of course we should. Why would you want to avoid the inconvenient parts of the subject? Why should some things remain unsaid?
It's nonsensic to limit it to "teh Axis, teh bad, teh Allies, teh Good".
That would imply that there is such a thing as "a just war".
There isn't.
:inquisitive:
I think that's a nonsensical statement. Wouldn't your dropping of 200 atomic bombs have caused as many deads as the whole W.W. II event itself? Plus of course damage during centuries because of radiation?
***
As for the droppings of the bombs. No it wasn't "justified". War and acts of war can never be "justified", in my humble opinion. War is failure. But that viewpoint is all nice and good sitting in a comfortable chair when there's no actual war going on at your doorstep.
I don't know enough about the period, but are we 100 % that Japan was not on the edge of collapse and would have surrendered because they were already defeated? Wasn't it more of an honor thing that made it take so long before they agreed to surrender? How many diplomatic efforts have there been taken to come to an agreement with the Japanese before deciding to drop the bomb? Was Japan being unreasonably stubborn or was the US too impatient and in a hurry to drop the bomb? Was it an act of revenge or a necessity to end the conflict with as less victims as possible?
If it is true (which I don't know) that Japan was not going to surrender, under no circumstances, then I I agree most with Ser: it was probably necessary. The results were horrible, but maybe it was indeed better than a conventional invasion. I'm not sure if the second dropping was necessary though. Anyway, it ended the conflict and nobody can say what would have happened if Japan had been invaded.
Finding reliable and unbiased sources on the question if Japan was going to surrender or not, is probably crucial to answer the question whether it was necessary to drop the A-bombs.
Somebody has information on that?
Japan had agreed to our surrender terms, but insisted they had to keep their emperor. We denied them that, massacred their populace, and then agreed to the exact same terms anyway! There was absolutely no need to drop those bombs.
As far as war goes, I disagree that there is no such thing as a just war. Defending yourself is justified. War (and killing in general) is loathsome, but unfortunately some times it is necessary. That does not make it good, but it certainly makes it just.
As to Louis, I am appalled at your attitude. It is very much akin to the attitude of a feuding redneck family. You cannot say, they started it, so we can do anything we want to them! Many of the bombings in Germany were simply Britain's way of getting revenge, and a way for the Allied Air Command to show the world (one country in particular) what they could do with a strategic bombing campaign. Do what you need to win the war being unjustly waged against you? Sure, absolutely. The thing is though, that the murder of millions of civilians has nothing to do with your effort to win the war, only with your efforts to subjugate a populace or wipe out a race.
You have to keep things in perspective and realize why you are doing what you are doing. You are fighting an enemies soldiers because they seek to take your country over. So you regrettably then kill the enemy soldiers to stop them. If you enemies are barbaric and kill, rape, enslave civilian populace, then you have a very real moral responsibility to bring the war to an end as soon as possible. Now you are fighting to stop the killing, raping, and enslaving of civilians, as well as to defend the integrity of your country. You cannot kill, rape, and enslave civilians to prevent the killing, raping, and enslaving of civilians! You are no longer preventing it, you are perpetrating it! You have now lost any moral justification, and because as base and inhumane as your enemy. Now any other country would have a legitimate reason to claim moral justification in attacking you. How does that help you?
You cannot say you are fighting to stop something evil, while you are using that something evil as a weapon!
The German and Japanese governments were without a doubt guilty of war crimes of the highest order, as were many soldiers. The governments and those soldiers who it could be fully proved played a part in this should have been executed after the war. By the same token though, we had a number of individual soldiers who also should have answered for their crimes. You cannot say that because there is the confusion of a war that the rape, torture, and murder of men, women, and children is justified. It is not, for anyone, anywhere, at any time.
Did the US commit war crimes? No, individuals soldiers did, against orders. That is what seperates them from the Japanese and Germans who acted on orders. (While that does not lessent he guilt of Japanese or German soldiers who commited such horrors, it does increase the guilt of the Americans IMO) I think it is stupid to condemn the allies for their involvement in WWII, but the individuals who commit crimes should have to accept punishment for them. It is something that happened a long time ago, and any facts are sure to be obscured, so I do not agree with the idea of capturing and trying German, Japanese, American, etc supposed war criminals, as it is impossible to give them a fair trial after all this time. (I think it is rather appalling that they did it to two Germans not to recently.)
Japan had agreed to our surrender terms, but insisted they had to keep their emperor. We denied them that, massacred their populace, and then agreed to the exact same terms anyway!
That's not quite accurate. The Allies demanded unconditional surrender at Potsdam. The Japanese refused because they wanted to ensure that the Emperor remained on the throne (amongst other conditions, many of which were also unacceptable to the Allies). After the bombs and the Soviet declaration of war, the Japanese agreed to the unconditional surrender. The decision to allow the Emperor to remain was made by the Allies after the surrender, it was not part of the surrender agreement. The Japanese did indeed change their minds about unconditional surrender between July 27th and August 15th. The fact that the Allies later decided it was in everyone's best interests to keep the Imperial system intact does not change the fact that Japan did not agree to unconditional surrender prior to the bombs and the Soviet invasion, and did agree to it afterwards.
Fisherking
01-06-2010, 16:03
I interpreted it as an observation that the winner writes history. Had Germany and Japan won, no doubt we would be discussing allied atrocities and barbarism. At least, that's what I thought beefy was on about.
Surely there would have been war crimes trials for all RAF bomber command staff and pilots? -assuming they had somehow been able to bomb Germany as they did, and then lose the war.
Many people are unaware of the crimes of Imperial Japan. It was a very controversial decision to leave the Emperor on the throne and not to hold him responsible as well.
Overall Japan got off much lighter than Germany in regard to wartime atrocities.
There were indeed allied measures that I would class as criminal but that is outside the discussion.
I could only take the statement as an attempt to obfuscate what actually happened.
Saying that both sides were equally guilty is a gross misrepresentation.
That's not quite accurate. The Allies demanded unconditional surrender at Potsdam. The Japanese refused because they wanted to ensure that the Emperor remained on the throne (amongst other conditions, many of which were also unacceptable to the Allies). After the bombs and the Soviet declaration of war, the Japanese agreed to the unconditional surrender. The decision to allow the Emperor to remain was made by the Allies after the surrender, it was not part of the surrender agreement. The Japanese did indeed change their minds about unconditional surrender between July 27th and August 15th. The fact that the Allies later decided it was in everyone's best interests to keep the Imperial system intact does not change the fact that Japan did not agree to unconditional surrender prior to the bombs and the Soviet invasion, and did agree to it afterwards.
Yes, but we nonetheless, after dropping the bombs agreed to the terms they asked for before the bombs were dropped.
As far as war crimes, one of the reasons we let most of their war criminals off scot-free (or just about) is because they gave us their research in return. That is something else I highly disagree with the US for doing. I think the attitude was that most of it was done to the Chinese, not us, and who cares about the Chinese.
Louis VI the Fat
01-06-2010, 16:54
As to Louis, I am appalled at your attitude.And I, for one, will uncork a fine bottle of champagne tonight and raise a glass to the fine men who made an allied victory possible.
the murder of millions of civilians has nothing to do with your effort to win the war, only with your efforts to subjugate a populace or wipe out a race.See, this sort of nonsense passing for history is what I mean when I say that revisionist history is in the process of replacing proper historical knowledge about WWII on the internet.
Too much exploration of the allied bombing campaigns, of allied war crimes. Apparantly, 'Versailles' and 'resources' left Germany and Japan respectively no choice but to wage war. The allies, in turn, fought to show off, to subjugate peoples, or to wipe out foreign races, committing many horrid atrocities along the way.
The impression exists that Japan and Germany suffered horrendously in a war they had no choice but to fight, all in an atmosphere of moral equivalence.
In reality, allied bombings caused not more than a few hundred thousand deaths. Three to four hundred thousand in both Japan and Germany. Well below a million for all the axis powers combined, for all of the war, for all theaters combined. About what Germany and Japan managed every few months in their camps alone.
By comparison, the Japanese death toll in French Indochina alone, a relative footnote of WWII, is 1,5 million. Triple the total amount of Japanese civilian casualties of any kind.
I'll raise one more glass to the hundreds of thousands of brave allied pilots who gave their lives in the bombing and air campaigns.
There's no such thing as not enough information.
It's good to know as much as possible.
It's nonsensic to limit it to "teh Axis, teh bad, teh Allies, teh Good".It is possible to have an open mind, to know a lot about WWII, and to reach the conclusion that the Axis were the bad, and the allies the good side.
And I, for one, will uncork a fine bottle of champagne tonight and raise a glass to the fine men who made an allied victory possible.
See, this sort of nonsense passing for history is what I mean when I say that revisionist history is in the process of replacing proper historical knowledge about WWII on the internet.
Too much exploration of the allied bombing campaigns, of allied war crimes. Apparantly, 'Versailles' and 'resources' left Germany and Japan respectively no choice but to wage war. The allies, in turn, fought to show off, to subjugate peoples, or to wipe out foreign races, committing many horrid atrocities along the way.
The impression exists that Japan and Germany suffered horrendously in a war they had no choice but to fight, all in an atmosphere of moral equivalence.
In reality, allied bombings caused not more than a few hundred thousand deaths. Three to four hundred thousand in both Japan and Germany. Well below a million for all the axis powers combined, for all of the war, for all theaters combined. About what Germany and Japan managed every few months in their camps alone.
By comparison, the Japanese death toll in French Indochina alone, a relative footnote of WWII, is 1,5 million. Triple the total amount of Japanese civilian casualties of any kind.
I'll raise one more glass to the hundreds of thousands of brave allied pilots who gave their lives in the bombing and air campaigns.
Nonsense. No one said that the war against the axis was not justified, or that we were not in the right for fighting them. I believe this completely, but that does not mean that I am going to blind myself to crimes commited by our side with your child's book version of history. People on the good side can take advantage of that and do bad things. Unfortunately it happened. You are simply trying to ignore that and rewrite history as a nursery rhyme.
It is possible to have an open mind, to know a lot about WWII, and to reach the conclusion that the Axis were the bad, and the allies the good side.
Maybe it's such lack of nuance that causes the progress of the opposite opinion on the internet.
Yes, but we nonetheless, after dropping the bombs agreed to the terms they asked for before the bombs were dropped.
Not quite, in the sense that Japan never asked for those terms before August 10th. Prior offers from Japan earlier in the year had included more provisions than just the retention of the Emperor. Simply put, the Japanese did not give their counter-offer of unconditional surrender, with the Imperial exception, until the day after Nagasaki and the Soviet invasion. Their only reply to the terms prior to the bombings was a total snub of the terms. If the Japanese had been prepared to accept unconditional surrender, with the Imperial exception, between July 26th and August 6th, they never communicated that to the Allies.
Not quite, in the sense that Japan never asked for those terms before August 10th. Prior offers from Japan earlier in the year had included more provisions than just the retention of the Emperor. Simply put, the Japanese did not give their counter-offer of unconditional surrender, with the Imperial exception, until the day after Nagasaki and the Soviet invasion. Their only reply to the terms prior to the bombings was a total snub of the terms. If the Japanese had been prepared to accept unconditional surrender, with the Imperial exception, between July 26th and August 6th, they never communicated that to the Allies.
hmmm...I read a book on MacArthur once that I believe said otherwise. I will have to find that.
Fisherking
01-06-2010, 17:30
It has become popular to take the side of the underdog and in their defeat the Axis Powers became the underdog.
Some people will gladly choose not to know what horrors their heroes have done or to blithely say it was justifies via moral relativism.
It seems to have escaped most of them that the Axis all started unprovoked wars of aggression on their neighboring states. Even that war is a glorious pursuit.
It is what they wish to believe to be the truth. However, in many cases belief has nothing to do with truth.
Given current moral values, justifying the bomb is a hard sell, but in the light of the times it was not the most difficult of choices.
If you took the moral view of say two or three hundred years before it would be difficult to justify not wiping them from the face of the earth for all eternity.
Or does no one see cannibalism as an abomination?
It has become popular to take the side of the underdog and in their defeat the Axis Powers became the underdog.
Some people will gladly choose not to know what horrors their heroes have done or to blithely say it was justifies via moral relativism.
It seems to have escaped most of them that the Axis all started unprovoked wars of aggression on their neighboring states. Even that war is a glorious pursuit.
It is what they wish to believe to be the truth. However, in many cases belief has nothing to do with truth.
Given current moral values, justifying the bomb is a hard sell, but in the light of the times it was not the most difficult of choices.
If you took the moral view of say two or three hundred years before it would be difficult to justify not wiping them from the face of the earth for all eternity.
Or does no one see cannibalism as an abomination?
No one is justifying the axis powers via moral relativism. I believe in moral absolutes, and what the US may have done in no way lifts any blame from the Axis forces. It works the other way around too though. A US soldier going into a German or Italian village and raping a child is downright evil no matter what the Axis powers did.
And honestly, yes, I think that at times in history the adult and young adult population of countries deserved to be wiped out to the last person, but this was not such a case. The only time that an attack on a civilian populace can be right is when those civilians are so immoral, and so evil, and their practices so harmful to mankind and to yourself that letting them live would bring about your own destruction. That is a completely different argument though, and I am sure that me saying that may freak people out, but there were times in history when I would not have blamed a nation for doing this to another nation. None come to mind in the last 500 years, but still, you can hardly accuse me of moral relativism.
Kralizec
01-06-2010, 19:59
And honestly, yes, I think that at times in history the adult and young adult population of countries deserved to be wiped out to the last person, but this was not such a case.
:inquisitive:
Can you give a few examples?
:inquisitive:
Can you give a few examples?
lol, I knew that was sure to raise a few eyebrows. ~;) I am afraid a further continuation of the discussion at hand, however, would serve only to further erode the already shaky foundation of pertinence from this thread, eventually cause a calamitous collapse at the hands of our esteemed shepherds, the noble moderators.
It is possible to have an open mind, to know a lot about WWII, and to reach the conclusion that the Axis were the bad, and the allies the good side.
Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat in 1955. I tend to pick the better side, because the good side I've yet to encounter.
Alexander the Pretty Good
01-06-2010, 21:53
I really don't understand why people keep saying you can't judge the event with "today's" morality or whatever. How can we have a discussion on history (besides dates of events) if we can't say "well that seemed like a pretty mean thing to do" or "that was probably the right thing"? How can we judge the Holocaust today if we don't use "today's" morality? Obviously plenty of people (at least German-occupied Europe) thought it was perfectly fine to murder the Jews and other minorities - or they wouldn't have done it! Similarly, obviously people thought strategic bombing was fine - because they did it!
I think the atomic bombings of Japan were a terrible crime, because they killed thousands of individuals who may or may not have been responsible for the Japanese aggression. Ditto all strategic bombing, and all total war. The only thing really to be gained out of a discussion on morality in WW2 in my opinion is the US should've left the Euros to kill each other in WW1, and maybe, just maybe, it wouldn't have come to this.
Fisherking
01-06-2010, 22:28
I really don't understand why people keep saying you can't judge the event with "today's" morality or whatever. How can we have a discussion on history (besides dates of events) if we can't say "well that seemed like a pretty mean thing to do" or "that was probably the right thing"? How can we judge the Holocaust today if we don't use "today's" morality? Obviously plenty of people (at least German-occupied Europe) thought it was perfectly fine to murder the Jews and other minorities - or they wouldn't have done it! Similarly, obviously people thought strategic bombing was fine - because they did it!
I think the atomic bombings of Japan were a terrible crime, because they killed thousands of individuals who may or may not have been responsible for the Japanese aggression. Ditto all strategic bombing, and all total war. The only thing really to be gained out of a discussion on morality in WW2 in my opinion is the US should've left the Euros to kill each other in WW1, and maybe, just maybe, it wouldn't have come to this.
Well, you see that discussing the past using the ruler of today leads you to only one conclusion.
The Human Race are a bunch of bloodthirsty butchers and should be wiped from the face of the earth.
So, what do we do? Who starts the killing?
Now, to get a clearer picture of what caused others to behave as they did we may need to use something akin to the same lens when looking at those events.
Understanding of their driving principals and their motives is what it is about. How else are you going to understand why our principals, if not our motives may have changed.
Alexander the Pretty Good
01-06-2010, 23:13
I think we can understand their motives and still find them wrong. The motive for the Holocaust is understandable - those propagating it thought they were bettering mankind, or at least their country. It's still despicable.
moral absolutes
HAHAHAHA
you can hardly accuse me of moral relativism.
You say that as if it's a bad thing.
You say that as if it's a bad thing.
It is. It is a position without a foundation. Principles have to be firmly rooted, otherwise you will just be like a piece of cloth blowing in the wind, knowing not where you are going.
It is. It is a position without a foundation. Principles have to be firmly rooted, otherwise you will just be like a piece of cloth blowing in the wind, knowing not where you are going.
Right. Or, you could take the position that morals are non-existent, and only exist as a challenge to be overcome by humanity.
Right. Or, you could take the position that morals are non-existent, and only exist as a challenge to be overcome by humanity.
Right, you could.
If we are getting philosophical however, it is my philosophical belief that if reality does not help you, it is possible and necessary for humans to develop their own sets of beliefs founded in reality that organizes things in a way that better helps themselves.
Alexander the Pretty Good
01-06-2010, 23:43
Right. Or, you could take the position that morals are non-existent, and only exist as a challenge to be overcome by humanity.
Which means you don't actually have anything to say about the topic at hand except "it happened." Thanks for playing.
Beefy187
01-07-2010, 01:39
I can only take that truly insulting remark as someone absurdly ignorant of the facts of history.
Perhaps you are not acquainted with the brutal murder of hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children perpetrated by the Japanese.
It surpassed the Germans in shear brutality and carelessness of human life if it did not surpass it in numbers.
I don’t believe that any of the allied nations ever had a massive campaign of rape, murder, torture, and extermination of civilians as part of their policies.
Start here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes
Likely only the cannibalism had it happened 200 years earlier, would have been of note, but to say it was only wrong because they lost is a bit disgusting.
One crime does not excuse another but still with the scope and magnitude you can see why they had less qualms on using such a weapon on that particular enemy.
I interpreted it as an observation that the winner writes history. Had Germany and Japan won, no doubt we would be discussing allied atrocities and barbarism. At least, that's what I thought beefy was on about.
Surely there would have been war crimes trials for all RAF bomber command staff and pilots? -assuming they had somehow been able to bomb Germany as they did, and then lose the war.
I meant what alh_p said. If I didn't get the message across that clearly, I apologize.
I have no intention of justifying what the Japanese did. But I'm saying... Things are not only black and white. Every country did something smiler in the past. Don't say Germans were the only Jewish hating country. Don't say Japan was the only imperialistic country who wanted to conquer everything in the world.
Some people even thank the Japanese for what they did. Starting with Republic of Palau.
KingKnudthebloodthirsty
01-07-2010, 04:26
Hey guys, thanks for all your replies! Anyways, I'm just wondering, if we didn't invade Japan but simply blockaded the islands and continue bombing them, won't they eventually collapse of starvation? Pretty much strangling the islands in a siege like manner. Japan was already on the brink of famine by the summer of 1945.
A Very Super Market
01-07-2010, 04:59
What is the argument there? First of all, the Soviets didn't answer to the Americans (Although I'm not sure if they had many transports in their Pacific fleet). Second, the whole argument against using the nukes, or the death toll associated, would be even greater if you decided to starve a densely populated nation into submission.
What is the argument there? First of all, the Soviets didn't answer to the Americans (Although I'm not sure if they had many transports in their Pacific fleet). Second, the whole argument against using the nukes, or the death toll associated, would be even greater if you decided to starve a densely populated nation into submission.
Indeed, but the Soviets could still cross from Sakhalin to Hokkaido they had done before in the Kuril islands.
Which means you don't actually have anything to say about the topic at hand except "it happened." Thanks for playing.
Did I say I agreed with that position?
Hey guys, thanks for all your replies! Anyways, I'm just wondering, if we didn't invade Japan but simply blockaded the islands and continue bombing them, won't they eventually collapse of starvation? Pretty much strangling the islands in a siege like manner. Japan was already on the brink of famine by the summer of 1945.
At that point in the war, the US was very concerned with limiting Soviet expansion. Truman did not want the Soviets sharing the occupation of Japan like they were with Germany, so a quick resolution to the war was required. If the US just sat back and starved the place, the Soviets could have gobbled up a ton of territory with their own invasion. That was certainly one of many factors that contributed to the decision to drop the bomb. A lot of strategic planning in 1945 was made with the post-war situation in mind; this was true in both the European and Pacific theaters.
Alexander the Pretty Good
01-07-2010, 15:27
Did I say I agreed with that position?
In conjunction with the rest of your post, basically.
At that point in the war, the US was very concerned with limiting Soviet expansion. Truman did not want the Soviets sharing the occupation of Japan like they were with Germany, so a quick resolution to the war was required. If the US just sat back and starved the place, the Soviets could have gobbled up a ton of territory with their own invasion. That was certainly one of many factors that contributed to the decision to drop the bomb. A lot of strategic planning in 1945 was made with the post-war situation in mind; this was true in both the European and Pacific theaters.
So part of the reason to throw the bomb was because the US was in a hurry out of concern that the Soviets would take (part of) Japan?
Was taking revenge also part of the reason for throwing the bombs?
The reason that throwing the bomb to end the conflict quickly and thus making less casualties than a conventional invasion, is debatable, so it seems. Not to mention that some also seem that it wasn't necessary to invade either.
Would the Soviets have invaded Japan and would they have made more casualties than the two A-bombs? If the US would have limited themselves to just wait and blockade, what would the Soviets have done? Something equally bad as throwing two A-bombs? Or maybe even worse?
Or would it have been possible for the US and the Soviets to combine forces to blockade Japan and just wait until Japan capitulated (with a treaty that would have been conditional in name (to save honor and a few faces), but wouldn't have been in reality)? Was it possible at that time to come to a more humane decision by having the two new superpowers working together (instead of being rivals)?
So many questions about fascinating stuff... Makes me realise how little I know :shame:
So part of the reason to throw the bomb was because the US was in a hurry out of concern that the Soviets would take (part of) Japan?
As far as I am aware, yes.
Was taking revenge also part of the reason for throwing the bombs?
I have never seen anything that indicates that revenge or any other non-strategic aspect factored into the decision.
Would the Soviets have invaded Japan and would they have made more casualties than the two A-bombs? If the US would have limited themselves to just wait and blockade, what would the Soviets have done? Something equally bad as throwing two A-bombs? Or maybe even worse?
The Soviets would have simply invaded... indeed the Soviets had already invaded Japan by the end of the war. They launched a massive attack on Manchuria on August 9th (the same day as Nagasaki) and overran the entire province and northern Korea within two weeks. They also occupied the Kuril islands and were close to invading Hokkaido by the time hostilities ceased. The seriousness of Soviet Occupation of these territories is demonstrated with Korea. The Soviets occupied Korea up to the 38th parallel, which is how the entire division of Korea into North and South began. Take a look at how Germany and Korea turned out, now imagine Japan being similarly divided.
Or would it have been possible for the US and the Soviets to combine forces to blockade Japan and just wait until Japan capitulated (with a treaty that would have been conditional in name (to save honor and a few faces), but wouldn't have been in reality)?
Certainly it would have been possible, but by that point the end result of the war was already known, even if the final date and cost was unknown. Both sides were very concerned about the post-war balance of power, and it factored into nearly every major strategic decision.
Was it possible at that time to come to a more humane decision by having the two new superpowers working together (instead of being rivals)?
I do not believe so. The clash between the Soviets/Communists and the West was inevitable. Indeed, it was inevitable even before WW2. The British and French were actively planning to send an expeditionary force to Finland to fight the Soviets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-British_plans_for_intervention_in_the_Winter_War) in the winter of 1939/40. At that point, the Soviets were still seen as an enemy, despite the fact that the West was already at war with Germany. The only reason there was any temporary friendship between the Soviets and the West was because Germany became a common enemy in 1941. As soon as the common enemy was eliminated, the hostilities returned.
So, one could argue that:
1) the cold war started before WWII ended and;
2) the Japanese victims of the A-bombs were cold war casualties more than WWII casualties?
After all, it seems to me that the main reason to nuke them was to prevent the Soviets of taking Japan and not because the "Evil" Japan needed to be defeated (as they were already defeated, some nutjobs refusing to admit it at the time, doesn't mean they weren't defeated - Black Knight syndrome?).
1) the cold war started before WWII ended and;
Definitely. Even before WW2, there was a large segment of the population in Britain that actively thought that Hitler was Europe's best defense against the Soviets, who were the main threat. I wrote a decent amount about this in my college thesis, so I'll post the relevant section below. Apologies for the formatting problems, it doesn't copy and paste well from Word. I have fixed the most basic problems to make it readable, but all italics, footnotes, citations for quotes, etc. have been lost and I don't have the time to put them back in. The analysis in this piece is relatively primitive, as it was written when I was much younger, but some of the quotes remain interesting IMO.
Anti-Communist sentiment was the second most common form support for Germany in the Letters to the Editor from The London Times. Like the Germanophile group, there were three distinct categories of Anti-Communist opinion in Britain.
• Writers expressed the belief that communism was an evil, pagan system which was morally and socially corrupting. An extension to this was the proposition that, by comparison Nazism was good or at least the lesser of two evils. Many pointed out that while Nazism discouraged religion, Communism actually forbade it. Those who argued this point were most often devout Christians.
• Others concentrated on viewing communism as an economic plague. This was mainly expressed by wealthy businessmen and merchants who feared that the spread of Communism would collapse the world economy and possibly devolve civilization in general.
• The final group mainly concerned itself with the military threat of the Soviet Union, which was seen as attempting to take over the world. To these people, Nazi Germany seemed to be the main inhibitor to total Soviet domination of Europe. Were Germany to fall, then France and Spain were sure to be close behind and many British feared that they too would not be immune.
Major advocates of this Anti-Communist sentiment included such notables as Lord Mount Temple; the Bishop of Durham; Sir George Shee; former Colonial Secretary Leopold Amery; S.M. Dawkins, leader of the Faith Defense League and the Christian Protest Movement; and many MPs. This was one of the most steadfast of the groups throughout the pre-war period included in this study. Since the Soviet Union did little to vindicate itself in the eye of the average British citizen, anti-Communist thought was deemed acceptable even when Nazi Germany began causing problems. If anything, this view was with the Soviet attacks on Finland and Poland. Many did not see Germany as a real threat to British security, and compared its religious freedom, persecution, and prosperity favorably with that of the Soviet Union. Many chose Hitler’s government as the perceived lesser of two evils.
The Christian Argument
Interestingly enough, among the first anti-Communist letters to appear in The Times after 1933 focused on radio broadcasts of Soviet propaganda directed at England. This was seen by many as an aggressive threat and a corrupting influence on British society. “Such broadcasts in English of subversive propaganda ought not to be regarded without the deepest concern by the Government and the British public, and in allowing such broadcasts to take place the Soviet Government, which has or could have control of the Soviet broadcasting authorities, is guilty of an unfriendly act.” In response to this letter, another reader wrote, “I was extremely glad to see the letter from Mr. Miller… about Communist propaganda broadcast from Russia. For more than a year now I have wondered why this cloud of poison gas should be poured out four times weekly in English without any kind of protest being made. The power of the Moscow transmitter is so great that the programmes are received, at any rate in the South of England, at the same strength as [the] Daventry [transmitter].” The revulsion towards these radio programs was soon made clear when people began writing in about their personal opinions of the Soviet system.
Waldron Smithers, an MP, wrote this succinct explanation of why the Soviet Union was such a corrupting influence: “Socialism means chaos, squalor, starvation, and misery… Soviet Russia is out to destroy all those things for which England has stood – patriotism, religion, justice, home and family life, freedom.” During a discussion of the differences between Communism and Bolshevism, one reader expressed her views on both ideologies. “They neither of them love God or honour the King, and that should be sufficient ‘red light’ for any Christian Englishman of any denomination. ‘A rotten egg by any other name would smell as foul.’” These impressions of evil and cruel Communism were proclaimed far and wide amongst many in the British Christian community. Stories of Communist terror filtered in from Germany and further reinforced these views.
Things were so bad toward the end of the pre-Nazi era that at Christmas, 1932, we did not dare to light the candles on our Christmas tree, and when we eventually did so we had to blow them out again after five minutes because the Communists had arranged for an anti-Christian procession on Christmas Eve, threatening that wherever they should see Christmas candles shining they would smash the windows and finish with all that ‘Christian stunt.’ The whole of 1931-32 was a continuous nightmare for everybody in this country who used to wear a collar, and the only issue was to support the Nazis, who alone were fighting the Communists efficiently, while the ‘bourgeois’ parties proved a complete failure, lacking the necessary courage.
Such descriptions of Communists and the Soviet Union bolstered British opinion against an enemy that was portrayed as the devil incarnate.
Armed with such evidence, the Christian section of the Anti-Communist group embarked upon a campaign to end Britain’s affiliation with Russia. Since they believed the Soviet Union was so utterly evil, Germany appeared as a much more desirable alternative. “[Russia’s] ceaseless endeavours to ridicule and destroy the Faith of Christ and subsidize and promote Communist propaganda in our midst appear infinitely more odious to thoughtful men and women in this country than any features of Germany’s domestic policy.” The danger of being drawn into a conflict on the Soviet side by their alliance with France worried British Christians. The very idea of being forced to fight for the ideals of Communism was completely unacceptable. “To find themselves drawn into a war in defence of Bolshevism would be deeply repugnant to the mass of the British people. They would resent seeing the Union Jack flying beside the Red Flag, and would rightly refuse to rise in honour of the ‘Internationale…’ which has shown again and again that it has no respect for the ordinary obligations of international decency and honour.” George Shee went further, criticizing the French themselves for forcing their British allies to make a choice between France and Russia. “France will surely never forget that the vast majority of our million dead lie buried in that fair land. Ought it not therefore to be made plain that we will on no account be drawn into a war as an ally of the country whose destructive activities are the main cause of the present world-wide anxieties, some of which are directly affecting the internal policy of our French allies?” “I state at once a fundamental and a platitude when I protest that Christians and anti-Christ go ill together; and if they join hands which of the two will suffer?” In a letter contrasting the death toll of the Russian and German revolutions, one particular British Christian appeared to look well past the Nazi repressions and gave Germany a few noble attributes of which it was, perhaps, not worthy.
The contrast between the Russian Revolution and the National-Socialist Revolution in Germany, which was almost bloodless, is, to say the least, startling, and the suffering of the relatively small number of disfranchised and deported Jews from Germany [is] infinitesimal compared with the agonies endured by Christians in Russia. One notes with amazement with what equanimity and benevolence (presuming also the above facts were known) the accredited representative of a country which openly professes atheism has been accepted in the bosom of the League of Nations, whereas Germany, which firmly stands for religious liberty, outside the realm of politics, is considered by your correspondents unworthy of renewed representation.
Thus by advocating the depravity of the Soviet Union, British Christians were, by default, encouraging a deal with the only power that firmly opposed it. Though some individuals actually thought positively of the Nazi regime, for most it was simply a case of the lesser of two evils. However, this was sufficient to make friendship with Germany desirable. “Christianity condemns Communism because it is necessarily atheistic and aims to destroy religion ab radice. This is not true of Fascism. In the sense now favoured, Fascism means an authoritarian regime not based on Socialist or Marxian principles. Such a regime may be opposed to Christianity, as is Germany, or friendly, as Portugal. But in no Fascist country is the propagation of religion forbidden. Obviously, therefore, Christians must prefer Fascism to Communism, even though it be as the sheep prefers the shears to the knife.”
The Economic Plague Argument
The negative economic aspects of Communism were not mentioned in the Letters to the Editor as frequently as were its religious or military aspects, but still important enough to warrant examination. In addition, while none of these particular letters includes mention of Germany, they did succeed in generating more public opposition to the Soviet Union. This attitude supported Germany as a more positive force. Most complaints against the economic policies of the Soviet Union were directed against Stalin’s agricultural plans.
The Moscow Daily News of May 17 shows that the April plans for farm machinery production were fulfilled only 62 per cent. Of 12,000 wheat combines called for, only 1,015 were turned out. The Hammer and Sickle Plant, with a quota of 300 beet combines, did not even produce one. The same plant produced four of the 4,000 called-for beet diggers and only 3,462 wheat threshers, instead of 16,000 scheduled. Lubertsi Agricultural Machinery Plant had issued less than one-fifth of the hay-reapers called for in its plan. The whole nation is on rations due to the failure of the planned economy in a world of plenty. The army – the largest army in the world – alone is well fed, living upon the stomachs of the people.
These statistics were not easily ignored. In a world still reeling from the effects of the Great Depression, economic innovations were extremely important to all people. The examination of the Communist system in the Soviet Union was significant to the British because it showed the results of alternative economic forms. “If the Russian revolution is to justify itself, it ought soon to make it impossible for a sympathetic observer like Sir Walter Citrine to say that it is ‘the rule rather than the exception for the Russian worker and his family to be confined to a single room.’” As a result, particular attention was paid to preventing this economic system from being implemented in Europe. The few British Communists were thus the targets of criticism just as much as the Soviets themselves. The writer of the previous letter, MP Marcus Samuel expressed his opinion on this issue a week later. He would personally take up the anti-Communist fight with no fewer than four letters to The Times on the subject.
Whatever grain has been harvested during the last few years – or will be harvested in the near future – will be in spite of the mechanical collectivization plan and not as a result of it. Meanwhile, it was very interesting to listen last night to a broadcast talk in English from the Moscow Studio on Agriculture in Russia, and to the wonderful description of the marvelous collectivization scheme and how the reports of the spring sowings, which were going on, showed enormous increases on last year’s acreage, and how all this was obtained with the enthusiastic cooperation of the collectivized workers! Our Socialist League friends will no doubt expect everything to end happily, and will continue to advise us to adopt the Russian system.
As the results of the Soviet economic program continued to pour in, many of the Letters to the Editor on the subject took on a rather more comical and disparaging tone than the more serious one previously adopted. Rather than fearing the spread of this ‘economic plague,’ most of the correspondents on the subject began treating the matter as a joke. “I can only repeat what I said in 1932: to practical people, the Soviet planned economy appears more like that of a nation of children playing shop very unsuccessfully.” Marcus Samuel, MP, took an interesting spin on the comparison between military and economic expenditures in the Soviet Union. While many feared that the increasing might of the Soviet Army could have draconian impact on Europe, he saw it in a somewhat different light. “We find the military expenditure in one year is on a par with the entire amount expended on the mechanization of agriculture during the whole of the currency of the First Five-Year Plan. If the guns are no better than the tractors were, the figures are less terrifying!”
As Germany rearmed and the Nazis secured their hold over the government, the threat of the expansion of the Communist economic system seemed to disappear. While the military threat remained, few in Britain feared they would soon find themselves bankrupt and starving as a result of Soviet policies. Consequently, by 1937 the Soviet economy had become more of a joke to the readers of The Times than an actual dilemma. The attitude of the Anti-Communist group in this area was well conveyed by the following poem:
What is a Communist? One that has yearnings
For equal division of unequal earnings.
Idler or bungler, or both, he is willing
To fork out his penny and pocket your shilling.
Though such opinions on Communism and the Soviet economy were not pro-German per se, they assisted in lending support to the final group of the Anti-Communist section.
The Soviet Threat Argument
The third, and most important, segment of the Anti-Communist group was concerned itself with preventing a Communist take-over of Europe by supporting Nazi Germany as a barrier. Almost all Anti-Communists based their beliefs on the fear that this political system, would continue to spread to the rest of Europe. As a result, the rise of Nazism, the avowed enemy of Communism, them the hope that the march of the Bolshevism could be stemmed and perhaps even pushed back. Many believed that if Germany fell to Communism, France and Spain, and in turn Britain, would succumb as well. “Germany has, during this month, had a revolution as great as the French Revolution of the eighteenth century, and the consensus of opinion is that this revolution, although a comparatively bloodless one, has saved Germany, and probably Western Europe also, from Bolshevism.” ‘Bolshevism’ and other similar terms often implied the Soviet Union, although it is possible to distinguish between letters written against the political movement and those against the country from which it sprang.
The principle difference between the anti-Communists and the anti-Soviets was that the former believed the Nazi ‘Revolution’ in Germany had stopped the spread of its opposing movement, while the latter believed Germany was physically preventing westward Soviet expansion. The former was heavily in the Pro-Nazi camp, if only by. “What is the force or influence behind our Press which induces them to attack and discredit the one Power which has the courage and the determination to keep Communism from permeating Western Europe with its evil influences?” It appears that some of these advocates were converted by German propaganda. “Nothing could have been more explicit than official and private assurances at Nuremberg last month. The Germans desire an understanding with France and to walk ‘arm in arm’ with England. Their avowed enemy is Bolshevism.” Others, however, drew their own conclusions about which of the two creeds was the more dangerous. “It would appear... that you have overlooked one salient feature – that whereas the Nazis make no attempt to convert people, other than their own nationals, to their political creed, the Bolshevists, on the other hand, have never ceased from spreading their pernicious propaganda whenever and wherever possible.”
Most writers in Britain who advocated this position, fervently believed the latter position; that Germany had been saved from the brink of Communism by the prompt action of Hitler and his party.
Whether there was actually any real [Communist] menace will probably never be known. What is known and cannot well be doubted is that a majority of Germans thought there was a menace and that they had good reason for thinking so. The daily spectacle in every town and every suburb of processions of Communists, some of them many thousands strong, parading the streets with truculent bearing and shouting threats and provocative slogans would cause a good deal of fear and uneasiness in any country, and the Governments of the period in Germany were not such as to inspire confidence in their ability to prevent or suppress a Communist revolution.
Such descriptions of the plight of Germany prior to the rise of the National Socialists instilled confidence in the ability of the Government to maintain order, if not in the general morality of the system. “It is the rise of Nazism which has estranged a portion of our people and made them see nothing good in Germany. Yet it is not easy to see what other power than that of a dictator could have prevented Communism of the early Russian pattern from gaining the mastery in that country, and perhaps spreading west. If that be true, and it has checked a great evil, let us at least be tolerant of methods that are different from ours and be willing to be friends.” The elimination of the Communists in Germany was seen as a big step in preventing the conversion of Europe, albeit only half of the fight. There was still the threat of the Soviet Union, which was beginning to seem like a real danger to European security.
Some readers of The Times pointed out that the Soviet armaments expenditures were as great if not greater then the heavily militaristic policy advocated by the Nazis. This helped to cement the feeling in their minds that the real armed menace was the Soviet Union.
More even than the Nazi Government, the thoughts of the Soviet Government are centered on war, because war is the path to the fulfillment of those dreams of world proletarian revolution, of world dominion, which inspired Lenin and which still inspire his successors. Put very simply, the Soviet leaders envisage (and with reason) a cataclysm in Europe which will end in the capitalist Powers mutually destroying one another, and intend to be strong enough, on the one hand not to be involved in the cataclysm, on the other to be able to occupy the debris that remains when it is spent.
In an issue of The Times another sharp-eyed reader noted a rather ironic scene in an issue of The Times. “No doubt owing to technical reasons you were unable in your issue of October 26 to place the Communist manifest concerning our disarmament and ‘the great peace Power – the Soviet Union’ alongside the photograph of Soviet troops being dropped like so much confetti from military aeroplanes. It is a pit, since the juxtaposition would have been so splendidly illustrative of the Soviet’s disarmament policy.” The League of Nations was heavily criticized by many of the more prominent readers of The Times as a result of its admittance of the Soviet Union. One writer pointed out a loophole in League policy which the Comintern had exploited to its own benefit. “Taking prompt advantage of the League’s policy of permitting free expression of opinion on all subjects (apart from criticism of the League’s administration, which is sternly repressed), Russia has turned Saarbrucken into an invaluable base for the distribution of Communistic literature.” Some Anti-Communists went further and began to actually convince themselves that Germany would never interfere with Western Europe. Facts were often twisted so that, for example, a situation like the German air force buildup along the coast and the French border was seen as a friendly action.
Some time ago I was going round one of the most modern German aircraft factories and remarked on the fact that the great sheds were placed in such a position in relation to each other that carriage of material between them must be uneconomical. I also remarked that under the heavy concrete floors of the workshops were [bomb shelters] in what seemed to be needless quantities. My German friend said to me quite seriously, ‘You forget that we are 800 miles nearer to Moscow than you are.’ And he explained the curious positions of the workshops by showing me that no enemy bomber could get two of them in a straight line, but would have to turn after dropping a bomb on one before he could get straight on to the line of another.
Another point of considerable importance is the fact that a great majority of the German flying-training establishments are grouped in the north-west corner of Germany near the frontiers of Holland and Denmark, where, in fact, they are within quite easy bombing distances of this country. In other words, they are as far from the Russian frontiers as they can be got.
Another point is that German seaplane establishments are massed on the coast of the North Sea, where they are within easy reach by our bomber bust still farther from the Russian frontier than are the training aerodromes... These simple facts seem to indicate a pretty clear strategic plan on the part of Germany, and also seem to indicate that Germany is prepared to gamble the safety of a great deal of her air force and of her production of pilots on their not being attacked by England.
It did not occur to this writer that the air force buildup in Western might have been in preparation for a war with France and Britain over Czechoslovakia, where the crisis over the Sudetenland was escalating.
Despite extreme theories, most contributors based their fear of westward Soviet expansion on reported facts or quotes from leading Communists. They wrote similar messages comparing aggressive Soviet foreign with less aggressive German policy. “Fascism is not an article for export; and neither the Duce nor the Fuhrer has ever attempted to impose his political system on other nations. The Soviet, on the other hand, has proclaimed its policy of world revolution, accompanied by a fierce anti-God campaign.” “Even if apologist of Soviet Russia can maintain that Stalin has to some extent renounced Lenin’s doctrines of the World Revolution as being the primary concern of the Soviet State, recent events have conclusively shown that Russia is as determined as ever to impose her Communist doctrines on other nations.” “We have their admission over and over again that they plan to do this by taking advantage of chaos resulting from ‘Capitalist’ or ‘Imperialist’ wars.” “This fact adds weight to the solid basis of the community of world politics between England and Germany, and an additional reason why we should aim, in true friendship for France, at bringing about a permanent reconciliation between her and the great bulwark against Bolshevism which Germany presents.”
Unfortunately for the Anti-Communist group, Germany’s military posturing continued to increase while the Soviet Union became an ally of Britain’s closest ally, France. This dramatically altered the way many viewed the Anglo-French alliance, although few were willing to abandon their neighbor across the Channel. Colonial Secretary Leopold Amery was one of the most adamant, stating the following in late 1937. “For my part, at any rate, I should be only too willing to make it clear beyond a doubt, not only to Germany but also to France, that we shall have no part in and afford no encouragement to any outside intervention in a Russo-German quarrel.” As with almost every other group, the violation of the Munich Agreement in 1939 was too much for many Anti-Communists to bear. Though they still believed that Germany was the lesser of two evils, this ‘lesser’ evil was nevertheless an increasing cause for alarm. The last Anti-Communist letter to appear in The Times prior to the war centered on British responsibilities to the Baltic states, which would have fallen under Soviet military control in the event of an Anglo-Soviet alliance. “A pact with Moscow would be too dearly bought at the cost of losing the good will of the Baltic States, a courageous and determined body of neutrals. Instead of pressing the Government to conclude at all costs a pact with the U.S.S.R. we should urge it to make a firm stand against any attempt on the part of Russia to encroach upon the sovereignty of the Baltic States.” Ironically, it would be Germany who gave the Baltic States and half of Poland to the Soviet Union a few months later. In addition to failing to prevent this from happening, Britain was also unable to secure Russian assistance in the war against Germany.
2) the Japanese victims of the A-bombs were cold war casualties more than WWII casualties?
I've never heard it phrased that way, but it's a fair description. It's impossible for us to determine whether WW2 strategy or post-war strategy was more important in the decision, but they were both significant enough that strong arguments can be made either way. Personally, I'd say it was 50/50 WW2/Cold War.
I'll have to read that when I'm back home :sweatdrop:
Thnx for sharing your work, TC :bow:
Kralizec
01-07-2010, 17:38
EDIT: nevermind, TinCow already touched upon what I was trying to say.
Well in abomb related news:
Japanese survivor of both atomic bombs dies
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/06/atomic-bombs-survivor-dies
In conjunction with the rest of your post, basically.
Despite the fact that I mentioned in a post before that moral relativism was a good thing?
Alexander the Pretty Good
01-08-2010, 05:47
Despite the fact that I mentioned in a post before that moral relativism was a good thing?
I find that just as silly of an ideology as rejecting all moral standards. What are we going to talk about in this current situation - "this event happened, we all have different opinions on it and we're all right"?
Evil_Maniac From Mars
01-08-2010, 06:18
I find that just as silly of an ideology as rejecting all moral standards. What are we going to talk about in this current situation - "this event happened, we all have different opinions on it and we're all right"?
Indeed. Having moral relativism is just as bad as having no morals at all, whether between cultures or between human beings of the same culture. Just because the Aztecs thought killing people as sacrifices was a good thing doesn't mean that I would tolerate their viewpoint, or say that it was OK because their culture condoned it and that was all they knew.
Alexander the Pretty Good
01-08-2010, 07:04
It just strikes me as obviously self-defeating. If you're going to post on an internet forum about your ideas you certainly believe they are more correct than other ideas. Oops - that's not relativist. To put another way, we care about winning arguments too much for relativism to make any sense practically (even if it was somehow correct metaphysically).
al Roumi
01-08-2010, 15:14
It just strikes me as obviously self-defeating. If you're going to post on an internet forum about your ideas you certainly believe they are more correct than other ideas. Oops - that's not relativist. To put another way, we care about winning arguments too much for relativism to make any sense practically (even if it was somehow correct metaphysically).
Speaking for yourself?
I thought teh interweb was somewhere people could shout weird and offensive stuff without facing real-world consequences.
Alexander the Pretty Good
01-08-2010, 19:35
So? Most of those people still think their views are right, even if they exaggerate them.
Franconicus
01-08-2010, 20:14
In the beginning of WW2, after the bombardment of Warzaw and Rotterdam, Roosevelt released a statement to the Axis government stating that bombing of cities was a war crime. I think he was right!
Of course, Germany and Japan were the first to do this in WW2, but I always thought that it was a strange thing that the western democracies, fighting for human rights, build the fundament of their strategy on strategic bombing, which ment mainly the bombing and destruction of civilians.
Hiroshima was nothing else, only bigger scale. In fact, the Americans had difficulties to find target cities, where they could drop the bomb. Tokyo was already completly burned down.
From a military point of view, I do not think that Hiroshima was necessary. Japan had already lost its navy, its airforce, the army was weakened, the industrial production low, import of recsources cut off. The same time, the allies send more and more troops from the European to the pacific theatre.
I think that a simple blockade would have done it. Maybe a couple of weeks more ...
When the Americans started to develop the new bomb, the goal was not to creat a new, terrible weapon, but to prevent the Nazis from using it!
I think the most reasonable reasons for the bombs were:
1) They had to be tested. The sientists and the military had to know more about the new weapon.
2) The whole development of the bomb had to be justified. Millions of dollars had been spend in the middle of a bloody war.
3) It was a demonstration for the USSR.
By the way, none of the Americans had an idea of the whole strength of the new weapon.
Japanese High Command did not think about capitulation. They seriously wanted move to Mandzuria and continue fight. Russian invasions destroyed that plan but they really wanted to fight.
Nuclear bombs killed many people but saved much more. People here mention how much Americans would die. How many japaneese civilians would die? 10 millions - 15?
Meneldil
01-09-2010, 01:31
I do not believe so. The clash between the Soviets/Communists and the West was inevitable. Indeed, it was inevitable even before WW2. The British and French were actively planning to send an expeditionary force to Finland to fight the Soviets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-British_plans_for_intervention_in_the_Winter_War) in the winter of 1939/40. At that point, the Soviets were still seen as an enemy, despite the fact that the West was already at war with Germany. The only reason there was any temporary friendship between the Soviets and the West was because Germany became a common enemy in 1941. As soon as the common enemy was eliminated, the hostilities returned.
Though anti-communism was really strong in France and UK, it wasn't nearly as strong as anti-germanism and anti-fascism, especially in France.
Sure, a part of the bourgeoisie thought fascism had some appeal (though the bourgeoisie was looking toward Italy rather than Germany), and sure, the French monarchist, religious and fascist far-right hated USSR more than the 3rd Reich (though Germany was also widely hated, even by french fascists), but that's not the population as a whole.
The French governement for example, has been trying to strenghten ties with USSR since as early as 1935. When Hitler became a clear threat to Europe, both UK and France both turned to USSR. The main idea was that USSR would be the best shield against Nazi Germany, not the other way around.
Obviously, things changed when Germany and USSR signed the NAP, but until then, the Allies kept thinking they could rely on Stalin.
Watchman
01-09-2010, 01:59
Eh, actually, Stalin cut a deal with Hitler specifically because he hadn't been able to reach an agreement with the French and British who didn't trust him any further than they could throw him... for good enough reasons mind you.
Meneldil
01-09-2010, 12:15
Eh, actually, Stalin cut a deal with Hitler specifically because he hadn't been able to reach an agreement with the French and British who didn't trust him any further than they could throw him... for good enough reasons mind you.
Oh yeah, the Allies certainly screwed up when dealing with Joseph. Instead of showing real commitment to any possible alliance, their admitted mindset was more or less "you commies are going to take all the blunt while we're going to modernize our armies and think hard about attacking Adolph. At some point, we'll come and help, but you might very well be all dead by then. Sorry dude".
What I meant is that Hitler was seen as much more threatening than Stalin, at least in France (where anti-germanism was a much stronger feeling than anti-communism). Things were maybe different in Britain (which would explain why Britain strongly opposed any intervention in Spain), but still, the Allies tried to set up an alliance with Stalin and Mussolini, not with Hitler.
Oh yeah, the Allies certainly screwed up when dealing with Joseph. Instead of showing real commitment to any possible alliance, their admitted mindset was more or less "you commies are going to take all the blunt while we're going to modernize our armies and think hard about attacking Adolph. At some point, we'll come and help, but you might very well be all dead by then. Sorry dude".
What I meant is that Hitler was seen as much more threatening than Stalin, at least in France (where anti-germanism was a much stronger feeling than anti-communism). Things were maybe different in Britain (which would explain why Britain strongly opposed any intervention in Spain), but still, the Allies tried to set up an alliance with Stalin and Mussolini, not with Hitler.
The thing is, a lot of people feared communism and saw Germany as either a buffer to the communist threat, or the lesser of the two evils. I am not sure on the France's position, but in the United States especially, there was support for Hitler and Communism was seen as the biggest 'no' going.
Even in Germany, those in power saw Hitler as a less worse choice than the communists, hence why the nationalists and the conservative elite formed their coalition with the Nazi's, thats why they gave the position of chancellor to him, etc. They thought that once Hitler actually got some power, that they could also reign him in, as a good lapdog, giving them support of the people.
polluxlm
01-10-2010, 05:27
Roosevelt declared bombing of cities to be a war crime? Funny that he went ahead and did just that then. And I might be wrong, but I seem to recall reading that it was the allies that initiated the terror bombings when they hit Berlin as a response to Luftwaffes campaign against the RAF.
On the subject of the a-bombs. The reason for terror bombings in the first place was to try and demoralize the population, but if anything, WW2 showed that the opposite effect takes place. The opposition grows stronger under the perception that surrender will only lead to further suffering. But I guess that's simply how war functions, once the bar has been set it can't be reset.
The notion that a nuclear attack would save the lives of american soldiers is an appealing one, and certainly easy to sell a population after the fact. But that reasoning certainly took a backseat to a lot of other considerations. Roosevelt and his government had since the start tried to involve America in the war. War, as we continue to see today, is the biggest business of all. And you could in the light of more recent discoveries make an argument that America not only provoked the attack on Pearl Harbor, but also deliberately failed to prevent it. In November of 1941 over 80% of the population were against a war, after PH 80% were for it. So if anything a prolonged war was exactly what was wanted, especially when there was no doubt you'd eventually win it, or at least, not lose it.
The real reasons I think were:
1. A display of power to the USSR whom they knew was going to pose a security threat after the war.
2. End the war on their own terms and be sure to gain control over Japan before the Soviets, which basically gives you control over the entire pacific.
3. Measure the effects of both uranium and plutonium based nukes.
4. Measure the effects on different environments. IIRC Hiroshima is situated in a valley while Nagasaki lays in a more open area.
x. Save american lives (when are people going to learn that the ruling elite don't give a **** about you?)
Meneldil
01-10-2010, 11:51
The thing is, a lot of people feared communism and saw Germany as either a buffer to the communist threat, or the lesser of the two evils. I am not sure on the France's position, but in the United States especially, there was support for Hitler and Communism was seen as the biggest 'no' going.
The US is somewhat of a counter-example, as neither communism nor socialism really got big there, unlike conservatism and racial theories. Things were way different in Europe, where communism was a huge deal, especially in countries like France, Germany, Spain or Italy.
What you said was true in Europe too, and in France too, but only among a tiny part of the bourgeoisie, who feared communism more than nazism. But even among the craziest french right-wing nutjobs (and trust me, there were a lot of those, some historians actually think fascism was invented in France), Germany wasn't really appreciated (that is, until 1940. After the defeat, a lot of our fascist wannabes happily collaborated), mainly because it was seen as the main threat to the French nation.
There again, things were - I guess - different in UK, mainly because I don't think any "radical" leftist ideology really grew big there, but the UK still supported an alliance with Stalin rather than with Hitler, before 1939 and after Barbarossa.
I think you're kind of underestimating the repulsing effect of nazism in the West. While many people supported communism, and while a large part of the intelligentsia found some appeal in italian fascism (mainly for the economical aspects), nazism was a whole other story: too much violent, too much crude, too much threatening, and obviously, too much german.
gaijinalways
01-11-2010, 05:18
http://www.volconvo.com/forums/politics-government/22021-bombing-hiroshima-nagasaki-act-terrorism.html
http://www.volconvo.com/forums/politics-government/28583-use-atomic-bombs-hiroshima-nagasaki-were.html
I include the two links above from another forum. The first was used in a debate class I teach in Japan as an introduction to our later dabate on terrorism. I of course as a resident in Japan with a Japanese wife find this discussion on the forum of interest.
Some of the same arguements have been introduced in the former thread (the latter I haven't read as yet). Discussion of the relevancy of war crimes for both victors and losers, the surrender terms both prior and after the two bombings, the fear of mainland invasion casulaities as well as the cold war elements.
Here in Japan the debate often operates from a victim's mentality whereby some Japanese often point to the fact that they have been the only nation abombed. Much glossing over of brutalities on the Chinese mainland, as well as the poor treatment of the POWS is practiced (the two almost seem to go hand in hand). One arguement I heard from a doctor no less is that some of the research from the 731 was practical (came from his friend, a 'doctor' in that unit!) and that of course the so called 'comfort women' were all paid prostitutes. When I tried to point out to him that some Japanese soldiers had already confessed to having kidnapped some civilian POWs for such purposes, he went off on a rant. It also didn't help that some of the 'doctors' from the '731' unit later reported they felt ashamed after realizing what they did in the name of 'human' medical research. Unfortunately his 'interesting' WWII threads have been lost on "Young Dudes guide to Japan" when their server crashed. Much of their site now is not accessiable to the public.
As to my own opinion as to whether the Japanese would have surrendered without the atomic bombs, probably they would have eventually surrendered. It may sound strange in hindsight, but you also have to think of the people fighting the war and the public supporting them. I'm not sure the American public (since we're talking about who dropped the bombs) would have been happy to support an ongoing war that they may have thought could be ended sooner. Certainly from the point of view of saving lives of soldiers (versus a mainland invasion), but also the POWS that were being held would have a better chance of survival if they were ultimately freed (some in that sense were freed earlier as the Japanese abandoned holding some parts of China as the Japanese military pulled soldiers out to defend the mainland).
We of course can calmly talk about what should or not been done. Certainly today, we shouldn't be dropping atomic bombs on any country (can you say 'enriched uranium?'), and would be rightly condemmed for doing so. As to the targets of the bombings, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were still centers for war munitions factories, and the arguement that civilians who support a war are targets rings true to some extent. As observed in some historical records, even some school children were volunteering in factories at different points in time.
Of course, nowadays the idea of killing civilians as seen as abhorrent (terrorism labels are easily applied) whether under the guise of war or not. Certainly as seen from the Geneva Convention rules it seems not allowed, but then when is a war conducted where civilians are not killed? I think the bombing was the better fo a number of choices including
1) invading the Japanese mainland
2) waiting out for the starvation of Japan by blocking access to any import of food
3) using conventional bombing for a continued time
I think some Japanese, as previously mentioned, were not at all in favor of surrendering, and a coup attempt was stopped as it was to avoid the government from being taken over by the militarists again. Waiting might have certainly just given them a chance to increase in numbers, no matter how misguided their ideas were. In a way by surrendering, Japan more quickly started the rebuilding process that was needed to propel Japan to its current standard of living.
Tellos Athenaios
01-11-2010, 05:48
3. Measure the effects of both uranium and plutonium based nukes.
4. Measure the effects on different environments. IIRC Hiroshima is situated in a valley while Nagasaki lays in a more open area.
You should look up ‘trinity’. The measure/experimenting bit was all done in the USA itself.
[QUOTE=gaijinalways;2412454
Here in Japan the debate often operates from a victim's mentality whereby some Japanese often point to the fact that they have been the only nation abombed. Much glossing over of brutalities on the Chinese mainland, as well as the poor treatment of the POWS is practiced (the two almost seem to go hand in hand).[/QUOTE]
So what's the general consensus about the bombs in Japan?
gaijinalways
01-12-2010, 15:46
So what's the general consensus about the bombs in Japan?
As I said, many Japanese seem to lament that they were bombed and don't seem to recognize that it was related to a war that the Japanese government started. So there are many peace organizations here that are againist having nuclear bombs and certainly not for using them for any reason.
As some people offered earlier, I'm not sure what the moral difference is between conventional bombing and 'radioactive' bombing. Certainly the fire bombing was another form of aggression againist the civilian population and there were certainly no military targets in Tokyo beyond a few soldiers.
I know many people will draw our attention to the longer term affects of radiation, but at the time of the bombing, I don't think scientists were fully aware of what those might be. I would still argue today that even nuclear power is an imperfect science that is used and produces problematic waste material that far outweighs any supposed 'cheaper' costs of energy production. That and coupled with the shorter life span of nuclear plants should be reason enough to close most of them. Now of course when we can produce fusion plants on larger and safer scales, I might perhaps be persuaded to change my mind about the superior claims and uses of nuclear power.
Louis VI the Fat
02-15-2010, 04:03
Caen is a town in Normandy. With a great historical centre. Or so it had. It was heavily bombarded by the allies in 1944.
Today, 20000 people were evacuated from Caen. To dismantle a bomb, dropped by the Americans. Some Valentine's Day, very costly too, and neither the first nor the last time.
This is the price we all pay for the adventures of Japan / Germany.
I suppose this bomb, and the bombing of Caen, deserves all the blahblah of 'the Americans were only showing off', 'those poor German and Japanese, the real victims of WWII', 'intolerable war crimes, just as bad as them'?
More than 20,000 people had to be evacuated from the centre of Caen in France as army ordnance experts defused a 500 kilo Second World War bomb.
Construction workers unearthed the American made device on a building site at Caen university.
All residents within an 800 metre radius were ordered to leave their homes so the delicate job of disarming the bomb could begin.
Not everyone was willing to comply. One dismayed elderly resident shouted from her apartment: “I am at my window waiting for my daughter to arrive from Breteville Sur Redon so that I can spend the day with her.”
In all emergency services cleared 7,000 households and about 1,000 student dwellings.
Buses were laid on to ferry people to safety just in case the bomb disposal operation went badly wrong.
http://www.euronews.net/2010/02/14/thousands-led-to-safety-as-wwii-bomb-is-defused/
Megas Methuselah
02-15-2010, 07:53
:daisy:
'those poor German and Japanese, the real victims of WWII'
Woah, if that is what you thought, then I know why you need a dose of realism, I'm just wondering why you think everyone else here does, too, because I haven't seen anyone say that so far.
Louis VI the Fat
02-15-2010, 16:14
Woah, if that is what you thought, then I know why you need a dose of realism, I'm just wondering why you think everyone else here does, too, because I haven't seen anyone say that so far.I don't think everybody here thinks so. Nor even most. I know of several who do, which is not so important. I do know that elements of neo-nazi narratives are trickling down in Europe, and are dominant in Japan.
Especially on the internets, I do think that WWII revisionism is close to becoming dominant. I have not visited a general internet forum where 'Hiroshima' is not a staple diet. Every few months the subject comes up. To a lesser extent, so does 'Dresden'.
Unfortunately, there are two, very closely related narratives, not always easily distinguishable. The first decries Dresden / A-bombs from a humanitarian, or pacifist, or sincere soul-searching perspective. The second is more insidious, and parasites on the first - by virtue of mimicking. It is the neo-nazi narrative of Germany as the victim, as Japan as victim. Where cause and result are reversed, where WWII is described as a war between forces of equal morality. This second narrative is a shape-shifter - when called out, it will instantly assume the guise of the first narrative, and then acuse its critics of being inhumane, insensitive. It is most unpleasant, it is very widespread, and it is seldom clear to an unsuspecting audience.
Revisionism preys on the hatred of some, and on the humanitarian instincts of the many. This last bit is perhaps its most insidious, treacherous face.
In August, it is the A-bombs. In February, it is Dresden.
Neo-nazis: http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/neonazi-rally-on-dresden-anniversary-20100214-nyt4.html
Neo-Nazi rally on Dresden anniversary
JUERGEN BAETZ
February 14, 2010
(http://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/aclk?sa=l&ai=B4Pg_-V55S8qwC5GV-AbNjv3ECsCB_IMBnK38yQrgqeS6BeDUAxABGAEgtsXtCCgDOABQkubOswVgkYSThfwXoAHEu939A7IBD25ld3Muc21oLmNvbS5hd cgBAdoBYmh0dHA6Ly9uZXdzLnNtaC5jb20uYXUvYnJlYWtpbmctbmV3cy13b3JsZC9uZW9uYXppLXJhbGx5LW9uLWRyZXNkZW4tY W5uaXZlcnNhcnktMjAxMDAyMTQtbnl0NC5odG1sgAIBwAIBqAMB6AOxA-gDlgboAzboA-4C9QMAAAAE9QMQIAIQ&num=1&sig=AGiWqtyAh4JVosrgl2ZVVu0nHXSXHm8GJA&client=ca-fairfax-smh_js&adurl=http://www.y-jesus.com/jesuscomplex_1.php)
AP
Thousands of protesters formed a human chain in Dresden, determined to stop neo-Nazis from exploiting the German city's painful history on the 65th anniversary of its deadly Allied bombing in World War II.
Heavy security including riot police was in place on Saturday to prevent clashes between the two groups, and five police helicopters flew overhead to monitor the crowds.
Neo-Nazis have caused outrage in the past by comparing the 1945 bombing of Dresden to the Holocaust. Organisers of a far-right protest on Saturday characterised it as a "mourning march".
About 5,000 far-right supporters poured into the city, according to police, who limited them to a rally near a railway station rather than a march for security reasons after opponents staged sit-down blockades in streets nearby.
When that decision was announced, far-right demonstrators chanted "open the streets to the German youth".
Across the Elbe River, about 10,000 people joined hands to create a human chain symbolically protecting the restored city centre from neo-Nazis, after the city mounted an unsuccessful legal challenge to block the far-right march.
"Dresden doesn't want them, and this gang doesn't belong here," Mayor Helma Orosz said.
The human chain helps to "make Dresden a fortress against intolerance and stupidity" and the anniversary provides a reminder of who started the war, she said.
There were some minor skirmishes, with a car flipped over and some barricades set ablaze but quickly extinguished. A busload of far-right supporters was turned back after its headlights and windows were smashed.
Police said some people sustained minor injuries, including people hit by rocks, but said the opposing sides were largely kept separated. There were up to 30 arrests in all, including demonstrators from both sides.
Most of the far-right supporters later left Dresden without incident.
Three successive waves of British and US bombers on February 13-14, 1945, set off firestorms and destroyed Dresden's centuries-old baroque city centre.
The total number of people killed in the Dresden bombing has long been uncertain. In 2008, a panel commissioned by state officials found that the firebombing killed no more than 25,000 people - far fewer than scholars' previous estimates that ran as high as 135,000.
Dresden has been rebuilt painstakingly over the years. Its landmark domed Frauenkirche, or Church of Our Lady - for decades no more than a mound of rubble - reopened in 2005.
The remembrance of Dresden was last Friday. A remembrance of a tragic event, and I for one am happy that Germany has learned how to mourn its own suffering too.
Global nazism also shed its annual crocodile tears. Spouting the same old about 'allies merely showing off', 'brutal warcrimes', etc. In that light, it is relevant that only yesterday saw another reminder of what the nature of WWII was. Half of Europe was destroyed. The thousand year old historical centre of Caen as much as Dresden. Such was the violence needed to stop nazism, or for that matter, Japan.
Caen, 1944, after the bombardement.
https://img651.imageshack.us/img651/9436/caenruins.jpg
PanzerJaeger
02-15-2010, 18:02
where WWII is described as a war between forces of equal morality.
In respect to how both sides conducted themselves in fighting the war, there is nothing innacurate about this statement.
WW2 was a power struggle between established and emerging ideologies, and when it got serious, everyone played to win. Humanitarianism only extends so far when everything is on the line.
The Wizard
02-15-2010, 22:12
In respect to that, then, but that's where it stops.
Meneldil
02-15-2010, 22:51
In respect to how both sides conducted themselves in fighting the war, there is nothing innacurate about this statement.
WW2 was a power struggle between established and emerging ideologies, and when it got serious, everyone played to win. Humanitarianism only extends so far when everything is on the line.
Yeah sure, let's compare the thousands of soviet PoW's killed by the Werhmacht to a few recorded cases of US soldiers executing German prisonners.
For that matter, let's compare how the German army behaved when it invaded France (with civilians and soldiers) to how the french army behaved when it shortly the Sarre in november 1939. The list goes on.
From the get-go, Germany decided that the rules of war shan't be respected. The german army decided that killing civilians to cause mayhem and fear was fair game. That PoW's were expandable and deserved no protection. That enemy countries should be plundered until starvation. No wonders it got trampled and beaten to the pulp. Had the choice be mine, Germany would have been turned into a giant wasteland in 1945.
Imagine that bombs were not used and war took 6 months more.
How many thousands of prisoners of war or civilians would die murdered by japanese army (or rather criminal band).
How many japanese civilians would die executing their plan of total defence (massive suicide attacks).
A-boms saved much more people then killed. And of course showed japan that if civilised people (japanese)
don't behave with barbarians (everyone rest) like with human with human - barbarians can do same.
Or maybe tell someone who survived Auschwitz that German who guarded him was same innocent victim of war
like todays hippies do.
Had the choice be mine, Germany would have been turned into a giant wasteland in 1945.
So had the choice been yours, the factions would actually have been morally comparable. ~;)
Megas Methuselah
02-16-2010, 02:55
So had the choice been yours, the factions would actually have been morally comparable. ~;)
:daisy:
PanzerJaeger
02-16-2010, 03:17
In respect to that, then, but that's where it stops.
That of course depends on which of the Allies you're discussing, and how nuanced an argument you want to make.
Yeah sure, let's compare the thousands of soviet PoW's killed by the Werhmacht to a few recorded cases of US soldiers executing German prisonners.
Or the thousands of German PoWs killed by the Soviets, or the few recorded cases of German soldiers executing American prisonners(sic).
For that matter, let's compare how the German army behaved when it invaded France (with civilians and soldiers) to how the french army behaved when it shortly the Sarre in november 1939. The list goes on.
Or how the French acted during the German retreat. Talk about vicious.
From the get-go, Germany decided that the rules of war shan't be respected. The german army decided that killing civilians to cause mayhem and fear was fair game.
The same could be said of the Americans and British, to a much greater extent.
No wonders it got trampled and beaten to the pulp. Had the choice be mine, Germany would have been turned into a giant wasteland in 1945.
Husar beat me to it, but for what its worth - welcome to the world of Nazi ideology. Enjoy your stay. :beam:
Louis is right about one thing - this seemingly ever-present debate is full of revisionism. He's just wrong about which side its coming from. The white-washing of Allied war crimes in the name of warding off some sort of looming neo-nazi takeover of Europe is ridiculous.
How someone can be indignant at the thought of Auschwitz and in the same argument justify the likes of Dresden or Nagasaki is beyond me. All were calculated mass killings of innocents without any justifiable military or political rationale. Certainly Western history has spun Hiroshima and Nagasaki differently, but IMO, the country would have collapsed regardless in due time. All the prognostication about predicted casualties and die hard resistence is just after-the-fact justification for Allied posturing against the Soviets.
Imagine that. All those women and children vaporized to impress Mr. Stalin. At least Hitler believed his misguided genocides were for the greater good. In contrast, the Allied leadership could not claim insanity or any kind or irrational hatred. Their crimes were cold and calculated - and completely in tune with a war of that scale.
Louis VI the Fat
02-16-2010, 12:22
I can deal with the allies having bombed French cities near the end of the war. Women and children casualties, ancient cities lost forever.
Maybe they would've won without bombing Caen. Maybe it barely shortened the war. Hindsight is 20/20. But would it even be fair to ask for hundreds of allied lives in exchange for a French city? One must not expect the impossible.
I can deal with it. Such was the nature of this war. Nazism had to be crushed. And if I can accept French civilian casualties of allied bombardments, I can accept German and Japanese civilian casualties of bombardments.
Imagine that. All those women and children vaporized :coffeenews:
The humanitarian can decry German suffering. Nazism - the perpetrator itself - can not claim this position.
Unfortunately, there are two, very closely related narratives, not always easily distinguishable. The first decries Dresden / A-bombs from a humanitarian, or pacifist, or sincere soul-searching perspective. The second is more insidious, and parasites on the first - by virtue of mimicking. It is the neo-nazi narrative of Germany as the victim, as Japan as victim. Where cause and result are reversed, where WWII is described as a war between forces of equal morality. This second narrative is a shape-shifter - when called out, it will instantly assume the guise of the first narrative, and then acuse its critics of being inhumane, insensitive.
Kralizec
02-16-2010, 13:02
How someone can be indignant at the thought of Auschwitz and in the same argument justify the likes of Dresden or Nagasaki is beyond me.
The bombing attacks on Dresden and Nagasaki served a military purpose, or were supposed to at any rate. The holocaust was a spiteful, malicious act against harmless people that Hitler had absolutely no sane reason for hating. The two are not in the same league, not in intent and not in amount of people killed.
Plus, the Germans did the same in Rotterdam, Warsaw and other cities- they pioneered terror bombing. They just weren't as good as it as the British and Americans :coffeenews:
The Wizard
02-16-2010, 18:50
How someone can be indignant at the thought of Auschwitz and in the same argument justify the likes of Dresden or Nagasaki is beyond me. All were calculated mass killings of innocents without any justifiable military or political rationale. Certainly Western history has spun Hiroshima and Nagasaki differently, but IMO, the country would have collapsed regardless in due time. All the prognostication about predicted casualties and die hard resistence is just after-the-fact justification for Allied posturing against the Soviets.
Imagine that. All those women and children vaporized to impress Mr. Stalin. At least Hitler believed his misguided genocides were for the greater good. In contrast, the Allied leadership could not claim insanity or any kind or irrational hatred. Their crimes were cold and calculated - and completely in tune with a war of that scale.
Oh, this is a gem if I ever saw one. Because Hitler actually believed in what he was doing, and Truman didn't, Hitler is morally superior! :idea2:
You're insane if you really believe that. One only has to take one look at Axis vs. Allied casualties, and specifically at the massive discrepancy between the two when it comes to civilian deaths, to know enough.
PanzerJaeger
02-17-2010, 06:29
The bombing attacks on Dresden and Nagasaki served a military purpose, or were supposed to at any rate. The holocaust was a spiteful, malicious act against harmless people that Hitler had absolutely no sane reason for hating. The two are not in the same league, not in intent and not in amount of people killed.
Well the stated goal of Dresden was to terrorize and kill civilians, while I think any objective analysis of Hiroshima, much less Nagasaki, indicates that it was about posturing to the Soviets. How that puts them in a particularly stronger moral position than the German leadership is difficult for me to see.
But even if we take your stance at face value and separate intent from reality, we’re still left with moral equivalency. While the Allies justified wiping cities off the map as serving a military purpose, the German leadership justified wiping races off the map as serving a vital social and military purpose.
Most people see the Holocaust as the evil Nazis being evil, and in reality it was just that – an evil act. But the Nazis did not see themselves or their acts as evil. Everything I have read about them, including their own writings, indicates that they were adherents to an anti-Semitic ideology prevalent for centuries in Europe and truly believed the Jews posed a dire threat to German society, and they justified the Holocaust much in the same way the Allies justified their own mass killings – the ends justified the means.
Today, it is difficult to comprehend how a group of sane, intelligent adults could believe what the Nazis believed about the Jews, but if you examine the environment and prevailing attitudes they came out of, it does become easier. This was a world where the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was truth and communism was a Jewish conspiracy to undermine Germany. The war against Russia – a ZOG in Hitler’s eyes – was in itself an extension of Germany’s struggle against international Jewry, and European Jews were a subversive and dangerous fifth column – an enemy within. This is why resources were funneled to the Holocaust even as Germany’s armies went without. Completely inaccurate, of course, but very real in the minds of a large portion of the population – German and otherwise – nonetheless.
So we’ve got two instances of leaders justifying mass killings of innocents for “the greater good” when in reality neither was necessary. :shrug:
Oh, this is a gem if I ever saw one. Because Hitler actually believed in what he was doing, and Truman didn't, Hitler is morally superior!
You're insane if you really believe that.
Well, if you can restrain yourself from childish insults (which may be too much to ask for), I’ll try to help you to understand my position.
Let’s make it a little simpler.
Consider two murderers. The first truly believes that black people are evil and are destroying society, and kills one out of resentment towards perceived injustices. The second murder is the wife of a successful businessman. She harbors no irrational hatreds towards him, but makes the cold calculation that she will profit, via life insurance, from his death.
Which of the two is worse? Or, would you say, they are morally equivalent?
One only has to take one look at Axis vs. Allied casualties, and specifically at the massive discrepancy between the two when it comes to civilian deaths, to know enough.
And what is it, exactly, that you think you "know" from this information?
Meneldil
02-17-2010, 10:37
Or the thousands of German PoWs killed by the Soviets, or the few recorded cases of German soldiers executing American prisonners(sic).
Yeah, true. Evil Soviets, being invaded by their former allies and slaughtered like pigs.
As far as I know, most of the German PoW's who died in USSR weren't shot on the spot, but through exhaustion and starvation in camps. That's quite a difference with the way thousands of soviet PoW's were simply shot because they were soviets.
Or how the French acted during the German retreat. Talk about vicious.
You mean, how they acted toward other frenchmen and women suspected of collaboration? The "épuration" was probably more than excessive, yes. That's hardly comparable to a foreign army invading your country, plundering it, killing civilians and PoWs alike, for 4 years.
But then, I have yet to find an occurence of the french army targetting german citizens on purpose, air raiding refugee lines, or slaughtering black soldiers.
You're point of view is deeply flawed. Yes, in 1944 and 1945, Germany got trampled to the ground, beaten to the pulp. German civilians were slaughtered during air raids.
But by 1944 and 1945, Germany had definately lost any right to ask for a fair war. By betraying her allies, using terror and slaughter to rule conquered territories, by not giving a damn about international treaties.
By 1943, the whole civilized world was in agreement that Nazism was an evil that had to be destroyed, whatever the cost might be. From 1st september 1939 onward, Germany shown that it had no respect for conquered population, for civilians, for PoW's, for culture, civilization and life as a whole. Germany's actions brought Germany's destruction.
So had the choice been yours, the factions would actually have been morally comparable.
Probably. But when a country who had been defeated after much sacrifices and death 20 years earlier decide once again to go on a killing spree, during which it more or less destroys Europe, causes the death of millions of people and establishes death camps all over central Europe, then it should not expect any mercy.
Germany proved that it wasn't feeling too much concerned by the whole "you shall not kill and rape civilians" weird idea in 1918.
It was defeated, and despite what people like PJ think, it didn't have to face an overly harsh treatement (not any harsher than what France was offered in 1871), and was offered a seat at the table of the international society. Some people, in France and Germany, even tried to improve relationships. Aristide Briand for once, tried to lessen the burden of Versailles (and had some success doing so).
But then, despite all that, Germany felt it was entitled to more, rejected the international community, and started a new world war. So yeah, I can see how many people, french, british, americans or soviets, thought that Germany had to be torn apart at the end of the war.
The Wizard
02-17-2010, 12:21
Let’s make it a little simpler.
Consider two murderers. The first truly believes that black people are evil and are destroying society, and kills one out of resentment towards perceived injustices. The second murder is the wife of a successful businessman. She harbors no irrational hatreds towards him, but makes the cold calculation that she will profit, via life insurance, from his death.
Which of the two is worse? Or, would you say, they are morally equivalent?
My gut tells me the first one's worse. He follows an all-encompassing ideology of madness with the end goal to murder an entire people. The woman is just your average murderer. Both are despicable, yet the first one is IMO even worse. I don't see how you fail to see this. At least the woman (i.e. Truman) isn't trying to make up insane excuses (like Hitler).
And what is it, exactly, that you think you "know" from this information?
Oh, well, let's see... Axis dead: 8 million military, 4 million civilian. Allied dead: 16 million military, over 45 million civilian dead. It really says it all. There is no doubt over which side was the more indiscriminate, the more ruthless, the more utterly and completely inhumane.
I have no idea, really, why you're trying so hard to downplay Nazi and Japanese crimes by attempting, in vain of course, to put the Allies on an equal (incredibly low) level. Even with the Soviet Union as an Ally the discrepancy is simply too immense to even consider the two sides equal in cruelty. Meneldil says it all, really. Oh, those poor German civilians. Blame the Führerbunker, will you? Not Allied High Command.
EDIT:
Most people see the Holocaust as the evil Nazis being evil, and in reality it was just that – an evil act. But the Nazis did not see themselves or their acts as evil. Everything I have read about them, including their own writings, indicates that they were adherents to an anti-Semitic ideology prevalent for centuries in Europe and truly believed the Jews posed a dire threat to German society, and they justified the Holocaust much in the same way the Allies justified their own mass killings – the ends justified the means.
Today, it is difficult to comprehend how a group of sane, intelligent adults could believe what the Nazis believed about the Jews, but if you examine the environment and prevailing attitudes they came out of, it does become easier. This was a world where the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was truth and communism was a Jewish conspiracy to undermine Germany. The war against Russia – a ZOG in Hitler’s eyes – was in itself an extension of Germany’s struggle against international Jewry, and European Jews were a subversive and dangerous fifth column – an enemy within. This is why resources were funneled to the Holocaust even as Germany’s armies went without. Completely inaccurate, of course, but very real in the minds of a large portion of the population – German and otherwise – nonetheless.
So we’ve got two instances of leaders justifying mass killings of innocents for “the greater good” when in reality neither was necessary.
Oh, here's another gem, they just keep coming! Protip: the antisemitism of the Nazi ideology was so virulent and so immediate in its hatred that it is in another :daisy: league entirely compared to the antisemitism before it. A league of its own. It's a logical fallacy to assume that just because in Hitler's mind the ends justified the means that he is equal to the Allies, because they thought in the same Machiavellian way. Would Machiavelli have advocated murdering an entire people, then?
It's what is humane that counts, and there it is completely clear who is the criminal against mankind here.
Yeah, true. Evil Soviets, being invaded by their former allies and slaughtered like pigs.
Some would say that's no excuse for slaughtering the other guys like pigs, at least if you want to claim the moral high ground afterwards.
As far as I know, most of the German PoW's who died in USSR weren't shot on the spot, but through exhaustion and starvation in camps. That's quite a difference with the way thousands of soviet PoW's were simply shot because they were soviets.
Well, yeah, a lot of the jews were killed through exhaustion and starvation, wasn't our fault, they just weren't up to the task, or what was your argument again? Intention? Hitler's intention was to save the world from it's jewish overlords, but then someone said that's hardly a valid excuse...
But then, I have yet to find an occurence of the french army targetting german citizens on purpose, air raiding refugee lines, or slaughtering black soldiers.
Well, for that last purpose they had their own african cannon fodder... :rolleyes:
You're point of view is deeply flawed. Yes, in 1944 and 1945, Germany got trampled to the ground, beaten to the pulp. German civilians were slaughtered during air raids.
But by 1944 and 1945, Germany had definately lost any right to ask for a fair war. By betraying her allies, using terror and slaughter to rule conquered territories, by not giving a damn about international treaties.
Do you support torturing of terrorists, too? Because they do the exact same things, just on a somewhat smaller scale...
By 1943, the whole civilized world was in agreement that Nazism was an evil that had to be destroyed, whatever the cost might be. From 1st september 1939 onward, Germany shown that it had no respect for conquered population, for civilians, for PoW's, for culture, civilization and life as a whole. Germany's actions brought Germany's destruction.
That I can actually agree with, generally speaking, we still weren't orcs though...
Probably. But when a country who had been defeated after much sacrifices and death 20 years earlier decide once again to go on a killing spree, during which it more or less destroys Europe, causes the death of millions of people and establishes death camps all over central Europe, then it should not expect any mercy.
This wasn't a decision of Germany as a whole, it was a decision of a leader who was supported at first and who was later tried to get rid of but it was already too late. Not to forget that he used deception, lies, secret police and boatloads of propaganda to gain/keep public support, in Iraq we had to free the poor people of their dictator but in Germany everybody was evil?
Germany proved that it wasn't feeling too much concerned by the whole "you shall not kill and rape civilians" weird idea in 1918.
It was defeated, and despite what people like PJ think, it didn't have to face an overly harsh treatement (not any harsher than what France was offered in 1871), and was offered a seat at the table of the international society. Some people, in France and Germany, even tried to improve relationships. Aristide Briand for once, tried to lessen the burden of Versailles (and had some success doing so).
Yeah, take that as a lesson of what revenge can lead to. ~;)
There was also a huge economic crysis during which a lot of people lost their jobs, Hitler promised them jobs during the elections, he never said that he wanted to kill all the jews and start a world war, by the time he did that he was already a dictator and had replaced most people close to him with loyal nazis. You know, there were germans who went as far as trying to kill him but apparently it wasn't easy.
But then, despite all that, Germany felt it was entitled to more, rejected the international community, and started a new world war. So yeah, I can see how many people, french, british, americans or soviets, thought that Germany had to be torn apart at the end of the war.
But they didn't and now we're all better off because of it or do you still think half my ancestors should have been raped and killed for the deeds of the nazis (for reference, I have no idea whether anyone of my ancestors was a nazi, my grandma was so scared by WW2 she doesn't want to talk about it, she was a small girl at the time)?
Louis VI the Fat
02-17-2010, 13:38
Oh, Panzer. At the very least, like David Irving, you give us a good run for our money. :balloon2:
Let’s make it a little simpler.
Consider two murderers. The first truly believes that black people are evil and are destroying society, and kills one out of resentment towards perceived injustices. The second murder is the wife of a successful businessman. She harbors no irrational hatreds towards him, but makes the cold calculation that she will profit, via life insurance, from his death.
Which of the two is worse? Or, would you say, they are morally equivalent?
Those examples pose a fine moral dilemma.
Unfortunately, they have neither much bearing on historical reality, nor will common ethics perhaps make of them quite what you think.
Disregarding the accurancy of the latter as a metaphor for the allies, let's glos over the first comparison. I suppose you approve of this man's actions then? He sincerely believes the world ought to be rid of the weak and handicapped.
Which means this man's behaviour carries the 'Panzer Seal of Approval': http://www.clipsyndicate.com/video/play/958132/bus_attack_caught_on_video
:tongue3:
Meneldil
02-17-2010, 14:12
Stuff and stuff
Husar, mind you, I have no problem whatsoever with Germans nowadays. Germany, unlike so many other countries admitted that its past is far from glorious. It wasn't before Chirac that the french state admitted it collaborated with the German during the occupation, which is a complete shame.
As Ian Kershaw puts it, modern Germany more or less built its identity on democratic ideals and the reject of the worst part of her history. When I meet a german, I don't jump on my guns and call him a nazi and tell him I think his ancestors should have been annihilated in 1945. And it is obviously a good thing that Germany wasn't turned into a wasteland.
Thing is, had I been a frenchman, or a brit, or an american, or even a russian who had to go through WWI and WWII, I'd probably think Germany should be dealt with for good. The war of 1870 put apart (cause this one was more of a germano-french affair), Germany brought Europe on the edge of total destruction twice in less than half a century (though the responsabilities are somewhat shared in 1914), and was responsible for what is still to this day the largest and most gruesome genocide ever committed.
How could the Allies be sure that Germany wouldn't start its jingoist, superior-race crusade in a few decades again? That's what many people must have thought back then. Now with the insight, it's easy to laugh at them and claim that they were all wrong, that they were fanatical nutjobs bent on the destruction of Germany. But after WWI and II, things weren't so easy.
To take a completely cheesy example, are you shocked that the Empire is destroyed at the end of Star Wars? I'm pretty sure that lore-wise, they are a lot of people who thought the Empire was a good thing, and who simply were doing their job. Yet they all die at the end. Well, I'm pretty sure that for most of the people who fought against Germany or who lived under its rule, the 3rd Reich was the evil Empire. Or if someone assault you in the street, goes to jail but is freed because you forgive him, and then attacks your wife, rapes your sister and kilsl your dog, won't you feel like this man deserves no more mercy?
Or if someone assault you in the street, goes to jail but is freed because you forgive him, and then attacks your wife, rapes your sister and kilsl your dog, won't you feel like this man deserves no more mercy?
I'd tear him apart, but later I might apologize to his wife and kids instead of killing them, too.
You know, fighting the Wehrmacht, the SS, partisans etc. is one thing, but killing everybody is quite another thing, especially when the mass-killings of the third reich are oh so shocking to you.
Meneldil
02-17-2010, 17:23
So in your opinion, the allies should have apologized to Germany at the end of the war? :inquisitive: What for?
I don't think anyone seriously thought about exterminating the whole german population. It would have been difficult to advocate even for the most die hard opponents of Germany. From what I got, the idea was more or less to annihilate it's industrial capability to make sure she wouldn't ever be able to fight again. To make it a nation of farmers and livestocks.
Obviously it didn't happen as the Cold War forced the Allies to support Western Germany.
But then, I don't think you understand how much of a scapegoat Germany was in the immediate post-war era, at least in France (and I'm sure this worked too in many other countries). The simple idea of reestablishing economical ties with the country was enough to make governments fell, and I'm not even talking about the attempt to create an european common defense system.
al Roumi
02-17-2010, 18:13
From what I got, the idea was more or less to annihilate it's industrial capability to make sure she wouldn't ever be able to fight again. To make it a nation of farmers and livestocks.
Obviously it didn't happen as the Cold War forced the Allies to support Western Germany.
But then, I don't think you understand how much of a scapegoat Germany was in the immediate post-war era, at least in France (and I'm sure this worked too in many other countries). The simple idea of reestablishing economical ties with the country was enough to make governments fell, and I'm not even talking about the attempt to create an european common defense system.
I'm not sure about the UK, but I think France was especially shrill (perhaps understandably) in wanting Germany reduced to such a basic agrarian, non industrial level. AFAIK the US was the key actor which saw the need for a modern Germany. I have seen French communist party posters from the 50s with stark images of SS troops and slogans against West German re-armament, evidently linking the former as an inevitable consequence of the latter.
back to topic...
So in your opinion, the allies should have apologized to Germany at the end of the war? :inquisitive: What for?
No, I said that is what I might do.
But then, I don't think you understand how much of a scapegoat Germany was in the immediate post-war era, at least in France (and I'm sure this worked too in many other countries). The simple idea of reestablishing economical ties with the country was enough to make governments fell, and I'm not even talking about the attempt to create an european common defense system.
Well, I probably don't, but I know it's not easy to forgive and even harder to forget.
The Wizard
02-17-2010, 21:12
You know, Meneldil, it is concensus amongst historians today that France's (and the UK's) stubborn and unrelenting demand for Germany to bear the full cost and blame for World War I was a major factor in the rise of the Nazi Party and the start of World War II. In fact, both World Wars are seen as one and the same conflict, part of what is termed the Thirty Years' Crisis. The Interbellum, really, was no more than a twenty year armistice. And why? Because Wilson failed in attaining almost every single one of this Fourteen Points at Versailles, except the creation of a League of Nations. Had Germany been treated after WW1 the way it was after WW2, the latter conflict might very well have been prevented, as well as all the atrocities committed. I think we can all be very thankful the Morgenthau Plan was never implemented.
Louis VI the Fat
02-17-2010, 21:52
later I might apologize to his wife and kids I agree. There needs to be an apology from the people who plunged Germany into this pointless war, and who insisted, from the very beginning until long after all was lost, that this be a Total War, to be fought until all were dead and all was destroyed.
Fortunately, Germany's western enemies took a far more humane approach. If you can find fault with them, fine. War is not simple. War is bloody, mistakes are made, there is always a last shot, a final punch, that in retrospect was not necessary for the outcome.
As for apologies, I suggest digging up some nazi corpses and extracting an apology from them.
Germany has been accepted, on a basis of trust and friendship no less, fairly soon after the war back into the circle of civilised nations again. This outstretched hand, if it were up to me, should suffice. Soul-searching into the wisdom of some allied choices should not be done within a larger scheme of allied apologies to Nazi Germany. I find the very thought repulsive.
(As ever, what happened in the East during and after the war is another matter)
Louis VI the Fat
02-17-2010, 21:57
From what I got, the idea was more or less to annihilate it's industrial capability to make sure she wouldn't ever be able to fight again. To make it a nation of farmers and livestocks.The Morgenthau Plan.
It was briefly considered, and formed part of the basis of the occupation of Germany in the first year after victory. In the end, it was of little real consequence. Once wartime temperaments had settled down, by 1946 already, what little was left of, and what little of the plan was implemented in practise, was dropped altogether.
Don't read too much nazi-propaganda. The Morgenthau plan was neither of much significance nor consequence.*
Fortunately though, unlike after 1918, the West wasn't naive in 1945 and this time the plans of re-incorporating a peaceful Germany into Europe were not left to German goodwill.
*Post-war treatment of West Germany was nonetheless harsh.
You know, Meneldil, it is concensus amongst historians today that France's (and the UK's) stubborn and unrelenting demand for Germany to bear the full cost and blame for World War I was a major factor in the rise of the Nazi Party and the start of World War II.No it isn't. This consensus - if it ever deserved that name - has come under increasing strain the past two decades.
Historiography has moved towards the other direction. What was once believed at face value by many historians - the 'harshness of Versailles' - has been lethally undermined by modern studies. Most historians of the era currently believe Germany was not at all treated harshly after WWI.
The Wizard
02-17-2010, 23:00
I am unaware of this consensus, then. Kindly point me to a link or even some articles expounding this view, or a synopsis of it. Because as far as I have been taught by my professors it is still very much consensus.
As an aside, Germany wasn't really given an outstretched hand (as in, a kind gesture of humanity). It was mostly just power politics and the American hegemon's desire to access a prosperous European market, one which naturally was to be motored by Germany. As opposed to the revenge-based Versailles policy (as above, I might be wrong about this, but currently doubt it).
Meneldil
02-18-2010, 00:08
You know, Meneldil, it is concensus amongst historians today that France's (and the UK's) stubborn and unrelenting demand for Germany to bear the full cost and blame for World War I was a major factor in the rise of the Nazi Party and the start of World War II. In fact, both World Wars are seen as one and the same conflict, part of what is termed the Thirty Years' Crisis. The Interbellum, really, was no more than a twenty year armistice. And why? Because Wilson failed in attaining almost every single one of this Fourteen Points at Versailles, except the creation of a League of Nations. Had Germany been treated after WW1 the way it was after WW2, the latter conflict might very well have been prevented, as well as all the atrocities committed. I think we can all be very thankful the Morgenthau Plan was never implemented.
That's high-school consensus.
Compare Versailles to Frankfurt. In 1873, France lost 1.600.000 inhabitants, 6% of her continental territories, 20% of her industrial power and 15% of her mineral resources. France also had to pay 5 billions and a third of the country was occupied for 3 years. France also offered Germany the most-favoured nation clause. To add the insult to the injury, the armistice was signed in Versailles, in the Galerie des Glaces, and the Prussians marched on the Champ Elysees.
France, unlike Germany, didn't receive any favor after the war. At no point Germany decided to reduce the burden of the treaty, despite the Paris Commune, the rampant political instability and the quasi state of civil war between french republicans and french monarchists. And France paid, and respected the treaty, until 1914.
It goes without saying that the treaty of Frankfurt was the main reason why France was so bent on bringing Germany down to her knees and take Alsace and Lorraine back. From 1870 to 1914, France had only one aim: take her revenge on Germany. Political leaders who didn't show enough enthousiasm for the "Revanche" were quickly kicked out of the office, while general Boulanger - who had no program except to take back what France considered to be hers - was almost forced to make a coup by his supporters. French kids were taught in school that would come one day when they would have to fight and die for Alsace and Lorraine. From socialists to die-hard monarchists and proto-fascists, Alsace & Lorraine became the main political topic.
Compare Versailles to Brest-Litovsk too. Russia lost 15% of its population, 15% of its territory, and 65% of its industrial capacity. The treaty would have doomed Russia just as much as Versailles would have doomed Germany, had it been fully applied.
Versailles was just the backfire of Frankfurt. The war indemnities were much higher, but so were the effects of the war (Germany was left untouched in 1870, while a good part of Belgium and France was razed to the ground in 1918). The indemnities weren't pulled out off someone's ass either, but were calculated by economists (who also agreed it would be impossible for Germany to pay back).
In any case, the treaty was quickly amended. The war reparations requested were lowered, and so were the limitations set regarding the german army and navy. Many french politicians (the most influential being Aristide Briand) understood that it was better to try to establish good relations than to antagonize Germany. They gave a hand to Weimar, asked for more modifications to the treaty, all the while supporting Germany attempts to become part of the international society once again.
My point here isn't that Germany deserved to be plundered. I'm just saying, you have to put things into perspective. Imposing harsh conditions on a defeated opponent was fair game. Germany saw France as her main opponent and tried to kick her out of the game for good in 1873. In 1917, it saw the opportunity to dismantle the Russian Empire, and in 1919 France and UK were afraid of Germany and tried to limit her future expansion.
It was a dangerous game, as it fuelled hatred toward the victor. But in the case of Versailles, the conditions of the treaty were modified in favor of Germany many times, and would probably have been further lessened if it weren't for the nazis.
Alexander the Pretty Good
02-18-2010, 06:43
If the Franco-Prussian war is fair game, are the Napoleonic Wars, too?
The Wizard
02-18-2010, 13:27
One could quite logically claim that the French Revolution was the most important geopolitical event of the past 250 years, ultimately laying the basis for the most destructive conflicts this world has ever seen.
[...]
I never said it wasn't understandable. Neither does scholarly consensus. But destructive and counterproductive? Oh yes.
Meneldil
02-18-2010, 14:22
If the Franco-Prussian war is fair game, are the Napoleonic Wars, too?
Since half of the german states supported Napoleon, it is hardly relevant.
And yes, imposing such treaties on a defeated foe isn't productive at all. Agreed. As Louis pointed out in another topic, Germany should have been properly invaded, and occupied by the allies, and then offered a more forgiving treaty. It would have avoided the bitterness and the "backstabbed by the jews" theory that ensued.
Louis VI the Fat
02-18-2010, 22:39
I am unaware of this consensus, then. Kindly point me to a link or even some articles expounding this view, or a synopsis of it. Because as far as I have been taught by my professors it is still very much consensus.'Versailles' pops up regularly in the Monastery. Including in a previous WWII thread, where passions ran high. I have therefore thought best to adress the issue in the Backroom.
Or the thousands of German PoWs killed by the Soviets, or the few recorded cases of German soldiers executing American prisonners(sic).
Panzer you mean these poor German guards "murdered" by evil Americans after liberation of Dachau?
Or you mean these poor German spies "murdered" by evil Americans who discovered their POW's murdered during Battle of Bulge?
Or you mean these poor soldiers of SS divisions "murdered" by evil Russians only because they were burning people alive.
If you mean them - I think killing those nazi scums was great job. And people who did not play with these #..... should be
respected.
Louis VI the Fat
02-18-2010, 23:18
Panzer you mean these poor German watchmen "murdered" by evil Americans after liberation of Dachau?
Or you mean these poor German spies "murdered" by evil Americans who discovered their POW's murdered during Battle of Bulge?
Or you mean these poor soldiers of SS divisions "murdered" by evil Russians only because they were burning people alive.
If you mean them - I think killing those nazi scums was great job. And people who did not play with these #..... should be
respected.I couldn't agree with you more, Krook. :beam:
Alexander the Pretty Good
02-18-2010, 23:31
Since half of the german states supported Napoleon, it is hardly relevant.
But the leading German state at the time of the 1873 war was Prussia, who had been occupied by Napoleon. I think that's pretty relevant.
PanzerJaeger
02-18-2010, 23:36
Yeah, true. Evil Soviets, being invaded by their former allies and slaughtered like pigs.
So let me get this straight. In your view, the Germans deserved what they got for being all evil and stuff, but the Soviets – who spent the early years of WW2 invading their own neighbors, including collaborating with Germany against Poland – somehow deserve our pity?
As far as I know, most of the German PoW's who died in USSR weren't shot on the spot, but through exhaustion and starvation in camps. That's quite a difference with the way thousands of soviet PoW's were simply shot because they were soviets.
Putting aside the fact that you seem to think starving people to death is somehow a more human option than execution, your facts are simply inaccurate.
I encourage you to endeavor to learn more about how the war was fought in the East, on both sides.
But then, I have yet to find an occurence of the french army targetting german citizens on purpose, air raiding refugee lines, or slaughtering black soldiers.
Really? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marocchinate)
May I then suggest that you have not looked very hard?
Of course, such an argument is easy to make considering there wasn’t much left of the French army after the Germans were done with them.
You're point of view is deeply flawed.
With all due respect, yours seems based on a set of beliefs not entirely in line with reality.
But by 1944 and 1945, Germany had definately lost any right to ask for a fair war. By betraying her allies, using terror and slaughter to rule conquered territories, by not giving a damn about international treaties.
I have always been under the impression that two wrongs do not make a right.
This is the constant refrain heard from Allied apologists. “The Germans were worse!” But, after an event like Dresden, such cries ring hollow. :shrug:
It was defeated, and despite what people like PJ think, it didn't have to face an overly harsh treatement (not any harsher than what France was offered in 1871), and was offered a seat at the table of the international society.
Ignoring the fact that France started the Franco-Prussian war while in WW1 Germany happened to be on the wrong side of the same type of dangerous web of alliances France and Britain engaged in and made the most efforts of any of the Great Powers to stop it from happening, this is simply not accurate. Versailles was certainly harsh by any reasonable standards.
It is rather ironic that later in this thread you go into a detailed history of Revanchism over the loss of territories in the aftermath of a war France started, but seem to believe the Germans were somehow not entitled to bitterness after being forced to accept the blame, along with enormous punishments, for a war they did not start.
My gut tells me the first one's worse. He follows an all-encompassing ideology of madness with the end goal to murder an entire people. The woman is just your average murderer. Both are despicable, yet the first one is IMO even worse. I don't see how you fail to see this. At least the woman (i.e. Truman) isn't trying to make up insane excuses (like Hitler).
Fascinating. So the misguided guy who thinks he is doing good is somehow morally worse than the woman who knows she’s doing wrong?
Oh, well, let's see... Axis dead: 8 million military, 4 million civilian. Allied dead: 16 million military, over 45 million civilian dead. It really says it all. There is no doubt over which side was the more indiscriminate, the more ruthless, the more utterly and completely inhumane.
Interesting analysis. So, in your mind, the Axis deliberately killed all 45 million of those people? There are no other factors at play that might skew the numbers… just a bit?
I have no idea, really, why you're trying so hard to downplay Nazi and Japanese crimes by attempting, in vain of course, to put the Allies on an equal (incredibly low) level. Even with the Soviet Union as an Ally the discrepancy is simply too immense to even consider the two sides equal in cruelty.
I’m just looking for a little logical consistency. This thread is filled with citing Axis mass murder to justify Allied mass murder.
The fact is that the supposedly humane and moral Allies had just completed their own ethnic cleansings of unwanted indigenous populations not even 75 years before, much to the inspiration of a young Adolph Hitler, who looked to the British for the Concentration Camp and the Americans for the idea of Lebensraum.
That they were fighting to maintain these empires aquired through conquest and blood makes the idea of Allied moral superiority even more laughable. Germany was just late to the party.
It would be as if I broke into my neighbors house, killed the whole family, and declared it mine; then cried foul when my German neighbor attempted to do the same to me and my family.
The hypocrisy and blind nationalism run deep.
It's what is humane that counts, and there it is completely clear who is the criminal against mankind here.
I find it difficult to imagine something more cruel and inhumane than dropping an atomic bomb on a population center of a defeated and impotent people just to impress a rival…. Except dropping another one a few days later.
Such wonton disregard for human life is no better than the worst of what the Axis engaged in.
Oh, Panzer. At the very least, like David Irving, you give us a good run for our money.
Why must a discussion about events that took place so many years ago always devolve into such unpleasantries?
Disregarding the accurancy of the latter as a metaphor for the allies, let's glos over the first comparison. I suppose you approve of this man's actions then? He sincerely believes the world ought to be rid of the weak and handicapped.
Which means this man's behaviour carries the 'Panzer Seal of Approval':
http://www.clipsyndicate.com/video/p...aught_on_video
Wow! Had I stated anywhere… ever… on these boards or anywhere else that I approved of the Holocaust, you would have really gotten me with that one. As it stands, however, swing and miss.
Also, how exactly am I misrepresenting the Allied motivations?
No it isn't. This consensus - if it ever deserved that name - has come under increasing strain the past two decades.
Historiography has moved towards the other direction. What was once believed at face value by many historians - the 'harshness of Versailles' - has been lethally undermined by modern studies. Most historians of the era currently believe Germany was not at all treated harshly after WWI.
Unless you contend that a relatively minor number of historians, many of them French, make up “Historiography” as a whole, that is inaccurate.
Interestingly, in their efforts to insist that Nazism emerged without the influence of any outside factors – most notably the German treatment after WW1 – they fail to mention that the French fought for even crueler action. :book:
PanzerJaeger
02-18-2010, 23:46
Panzer you mean these poor German watchmen "murdered" by evil Americans after liberation of Dachau?
Or you mean these poor German spies "murdered" by evil Americans who discovered their POW's murdered during Battle of Bulge?
Or you mean these poor soldiers of SS divisions "murdered" by evil Russians only because they were burning people alive.
If you mean them - I think killing those nazi scums was great job. And people who did not play with these #..... should be
respected.
Do you really want to play this game with me (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2118649.stm), Krook? I've got plenty of ammunition. :book:
Kralizec
02-19-2010, 00:24
I, for one, don't think the Soviets were a particulary sympathetic bunch either.
Well the stated goal of Dresden was to terrorize and kill civilians, while I think any objective analysis of Hiroshima, much less Nagasaki, indicates that it was about posturing to the Soviets. How that puts them in a particularly stronger moral position than the German leadership is difficult for me to see.
But even if we take your stance at face value and separate intent from reality, we’re still left with moral equivalency. While the Allies justified wiping cities off the map as serving a military purpose, the German leadership justified wiping races off the map as serving a vital social and military purpose.
While I think it's certainly plausible that the thought of impressing the Soviets crossed the minds of Truman & co, is there actually any hard proof that this was an important, much less the primary reason for either of the atomic bombs?
Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki represented people of the opposing side and the attacks were meant to break their morale, they were not a prelude to total annihilation. They're much like the Luftwaffe's strikes on cities such as Rotterdam or London, or the Vengeance weapons later in the war (actually the popular English name is wrong as "vergeltung" means retribution) The fact that Germany did pretty much the same thing as Bomber Harris (but were less successful) alone means that the Germans were worse, because the Germans also had:
The Holocaust, wich was perpetrated against Germany's own citizens and citizens of the countries wich it occupied - not because they were any sort of tangible threat, but because of malevolent hatred. The only instance I'm aware of where the western allies did anyting remotely similar was the internment camps for citizens of Japanese descent (and those of German descent in WW1) wich, allthough it may have been paranoid, was not fundamentally irrational or inspired by hatred or intent to destroy.
As for the broader question,
is someone who commits a horrorible act because he believes it to be the right thing in itself morally superior to the one who recognises that it's bad, but does so anyway because he believes the end justifies the means?
I'd say the second person is "better" because he at least has an intellectual understanding of what's right and wrong in mainstream society. The examples you used are both pretty dispicable...here are mine: who is better, some bloke from a third world country who murders his sister because she supposedly defiled the family's honor (i.e. she deserved to die) or a woman who murders her spouse out of fear that he'll harm their children (i.e. it was necessary)
Louis VI the Fat
02-19-2010, 00:42
Why must a discussion about events that took place so many years ago always devolve into such unpleasantries? I was actually trying to pay you a compliment (of sorts) by bringing up Irving. He is a fine historian who raises good questions, a far cry from the more slightly dimwitted neo-nazi hordes.
Unfortunately, his love for nazism does cloud his judgement somewhat:
In 1962, he wrote a series of 37 articles on the Allied (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allies_of_World_War_II) bombing campaign (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II), Wie Deutschlands Städte starben (How Germany's Cities Died), for the German boulevard journal Neue Illustrierte. These were the basis of his first book, The Destruction of Dresden (1963), in which he examined the Allied bombing of Dresden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II) in February 1945. By the 1960s, a debate about the morality of the carpet bombing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpet_bombing) of German cities and civilian population had already begun, especially in the United Kingdom. There was consequently considerable interest in Irving's book, which was illustrated with graphic pictures, and it became an international bestseller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bestseller).
In the first edition, Irving's estimates for deaths in Dresden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dresden) were between 100,000 and 250,000 — notably higher than most previously published figures.[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving#cite_note-17) These figures became authoritative and widely accepted in many standard reference works. In later editions of the book over the next three decades, he gradually adjusted the figure downwards to 50,000–100,000.[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving#cite_note-18) According to the evidence introduced by Richard J. Evans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_J._Evans) at the libel trial of Deborah Lipstadt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deborah_Lipstadt) in 2000, Irving based his estimates of the dead of Dresden on the word of one individual who provided no supporting documentation, used forged documents, and described one witness who was a urologist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urologist) as Dresden's Deputy Chief Medical Officer. The doctor has since complained about being misidentified by Irving, and further, was only reporting rumours about the death toll.[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving#cite_note-19) Today, casualties at Dresden are estimated as 25,000–35,000 dead, probably towards the lower end of that range.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving
Pannonian
02-19-2010, 01:05
I was actually trying to pay you a compliment (of sorts) by bringing up Irving. He is a fine historian who raises good questions, a far cry from the more slightly dimwitted neo-nazi hordes.
Unfortunately, his love for nazism does cloud his judgement somewhat:
He is, by all accounts, a fantastic researcher, certainly one of the most knowledgable in finding obscure material. He also has a reputation for being abysmally poor at drawing conclusions from the material he's gathered, which is the other part of being a historian.
Megas Methuselah
02-19-2010, 02:35
The fact is that the supposedly humane and moral Allies had just completed their own ethnic cleansings of unwanted indigenous populations not even 75 years before-
Persecution against the First Nations in Canada continued well after WW2. Amazingly, and much to Canada's disappointment, we are now the fastest growing ethnicity in the country. In fact, Saskatchewan and Manitoba will likely be dominated by an Aboriginal majority within this century, hopefully within my lifetime.
So yeah, the whole morality thing is pretty skewed.
Do you really want to play this game with me, Krook? I've got plenty of ammunition.
I'm sure you have. Something must have remained into your basement.
I have ammo too - about 1.100.000 of bullets only into Auschwitz.
I never thought Hiroshima and Nagasaki being first victims of the Cold War, but now, I do. Thanks for this PJ.
With the Soviet offensive on Manchuria Japan was over.
But, with the experience of Iwo Jima, Guadalcanal and others landing, was it a choice to land on main land?
I still think the A-bomb (which were less deadly than Incendiary Bombs) was a good choice, even if combine with future Cold War idea…
“the factions would actually have been morally comparable.” Not really… A return to nature and planned extermination…
“Or the thousands of German POW killed by the Soviets, or the few recorded cases of German soldiers executing American prisonners(sic)” Compared German POW killed with Russian POW killed, than will balance the figures… Germans won in killing…
Few records of US: German mainly lost against the US…
So in 1940, no German women was raped by French, in 1941, none by Russian…
1945, Germans were not able to rape any more French nor Russian but were under the possibility to be raped…
Germans had few opportunity to murder US soldiers, but did’t miss the opportunity when available…
“Or how the French acted during the German retreat. Talk about vicious”
Or Germans during German Retreat, in Germany… The flying firing squads killed probably more Germans civilians than the Allies soldiers after the war…
“The same could be said of the Americans and British, to a much greater extent"
As 100 German civilians for one Allies soldier killed, as in Yugoslavia or Greece or Italy?
Pz, you are probably able to give one name of a German village burned to the ground by Allies troops.
I can’t.
I can give you French village which was. Or hostages hanged? Same.
The Russians will be able to give hundred of examples, Serbs as well, Polish probably…
How many hostages and villages killed by the British and the US?
“Today, it is difficult to comprehend how a group of sane, intelligent adults could believe what the Nazis believed about the Jews, but if you examine the environment and prevailing attitudes they came out of, it does become easier. This was a world where the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was truth and communism was a Jewish conspiracy” All this is true. Pogroms existed in Russia, Poland, and Baltic states. But, and there is but, it never lead the county involved to imagine a “final” solution…
That is why the Jews did’t believe it, even when escapees went back (I think of Budapest) to warn the Community what was a head.
You make the “passage à l’acte” too easy. I hate this person so I kill him/her.
No. You need to built a hate first…
To dislike is not enough…
And the Nazi took so many cautions to hind it that they knew they were doing evil…
I am one of those who don’t believe Germans did’t know. But they were living under one of the most ferocious soulless dictatorship which can compare only to Pol Pot (or North Korea).
“Some would say that's no excuse for slaughtering the other guys like pigs, at least if you want to claim the moral high ground afterwords.” Except of course that no allies, even Soviet, did kill German like pigs.
No slaughter houses for the Germans, well, except the Piano Strings of the SS Flying Military Courts…
No train organised finishing in a mass grave… No “final” solution…
“Well, yeah, a lot of the Jews were killed through exhaustion and starvation, wasn't our fault, they just weren't up to the task, or what was your argument again?” Ooops, it was in Hitler case, on purpose, As for Leningrad when Hitler explained to his generals (and none of them objected) how to starve the population will start epidemics and that will be less population to deport… Then the Generals denied they knew Hitler’s intentions…
“Well, for that last purpose they had their own African cannon fodder” The Colonials were rightly considered as elite troops. As they proved it in many battle fields… And their rate of casualties is comparable to the metropolitans…
“we still weren't orcs though...” We? I don’t know why we… But the German SS who burned, raped and slaughtered part of my place of birth were worst than Orcs. Orcs having the advantage of not being human…
“It wasn't before Chirac that the French state admitted it collaborated with the German during the occupation”
No. The shame is on Chirac.
Vichy was not the French Republic. Vichy was not France.
Or you have to admit that the real French Forces in 1940 were the LVF, Darnand and his Milice, the Frankenreich Division and the 33rd Waffen Grenadier Divisionof the SS, not the 2nd DB, not the 13 DBLE, not the Normandy then Niemen Squadron, not the FFI and FFL or the Commando Kieffer.
I did considered this statement from Chirac as in insult to my Grand Parents memory…
“Of course, such an argument is easy to make considering there wasn’t much left of the French army after the Germans were done with them.” True. As much of the German Army after the Soviets were done with them…
Except the French succeeded to defeat the German is few occasions (even in 1940, Gembloux) in 1942 in Tunisia, quite a lot in 1943 in Italy, and in 1944 with Anvil operation, then the Battle of Colmar and Strasbourg, (I almost forgot Paris Liberation), and of course the Campaign in Germany were the French were capturing 15.000 German soldier per day!!! This will end in Austria with the Capture of the Eagle Nest by the 1st RMSM (Régiment de Marche de Spahis Marocains).
According to Gal Kasselring “like in Africa and Italy, the French Divisions showed their abilities in mountain fights in which the German Command couldn't’t oppose any equivalent forces.”
“May I then suggest that you have not looked very hard?” Give me the German equivalent of this: The 9th of April 1945, the General Montsabert issued a proclaimation stating “any man convicted of rape or looting will be shot on the spot”. 9 tirailleurs wer found guilty and were executed by firing squads...
We are far from the einsatzgruppen…
Nice post Brenus. I don't agree with some parts (rather with your marks of facts than with facts) but post is really good.
Megas Methuselah
02-22-2010, 06:34
The Colonials were rightly considered as elite troops. As they proved it in many battle fields; And their rate of casualties is comparable to the metropolitans
It would, however, be blatantly eurocentric and and an insult to these foreign troops to presume the French treated their colonial soldiers as equals. They were only dark-skinned savages, after all. Why should a white bother to treat them with respect?
“It would, however, be blatantly eurocentric and and an insult to these foreign troops to presume the French treated their colonial soldiers as equals. They were only dark-skinned savages, after all. Why should a white bother to treat them with respect?”
Explain.
Because a part of your own prejudice, you just assume things.
In what parts the Colonial soldiers were treated differently from the white one?
Not saying that racism was abscent in some individuals, but the Institutional Racism was.
Louis VI the Fat
02-22-2010, 13:01
“It wasn't before Chirac that the French state admitted it collaborated with the German during the occupation”
No. The shame is on Chirac.
Vichy was not the French Republic. Vichy was not France.
Or you have to admit that the real French Forces in 1940 were the LVF, Darnand and his Milice, the Frankenreich Division and the 33rd Waffen Grenadier Divisionof the SS, not the 2nd DB, not the 13 DBLE, not the Normandy then Niemen Squadron, not the FFI and FFL or the Commando Kieffer.
I did considered this statement from Chirac as in insult to my Grand Parents memory…I beg to differ, I'm afraid.
Vichy may not have been the Republic. But it was the French state.
France was not just De Gaulle, the Free French and the resistance. France was Vichy too. Traitors, certainly. Helped to power by foreign intervention too. An illegitimate government as well.
The French state did not cease to exist in 1940, to emerge in 1944 again. Nor did the state 'really' rest with the Free French. Vichy, by virtue of wielding actual power, was the French state.
France itself, beyond the actual state, was both, and both were French. The traitor and usurper, as much as those who represented the dignity of France and the continuity of the Republic.
“I beg to differ, I'm afraid.” We will have to agree to disagree…
Strike For The South
02-23-2010, 18:59
If Germany doesn't start the war, The Allies don't have to finish it.
Its that simple
Furunculus
02-28-2010, 04:55
according to the interpol department here, from which half the staff went on 'sabbatical' in early 2003, japan had officially agreed to negotioating surrender terms before the bombs had dropped.
regardless, POW's were dropping like like flies through blatent mistreatment, if 1,000 of them were saved by the killing of 100,000 japanese then such is the cost of war, because those POW's should not have been dieing.
it is also a great boon to humanity that we discovered the terrible cost of nuclear war when there were less than half a dozen 'midget' nukes', the alternatives replayed in the 1960's would have been far worse!
Meneldil
03-02-2010, 15:06
So let me get this straight. In your view, the Germans deserved what they got for being all evil and stuff, but the Soviets – who spent the early years of WW2 invading their own neighbors, including collaborating with Germany against Poland – somehow deserve our pity?
What do you say a bit later already...? Oh, yeah:
I have always been under the impression that two wrongs do not make a right.
Soviet didn't deserve pity. Not anymore than french, italians, americans or british. They deserved to be treated like human beings, according to international conventions and the so-called rules of war established decades ago.
Putting aside the fact that you seem to think starving people to death is somehow a more human option than execution, your facts are simply inaccurate.
Starved prisonners is saddly doomed to happen. Even democratic and liberal countries have a hard time feeding PoW's in dire times. Situation is obviously made even worse for a country such as USSR, whose economy wasn't already not going great before the war, and where the whole notion of respect for the human life wasn't really widespread.
Still, starving prisonners is nowhere near as bad as executing them for no reasons. At least the russians pretended to care.
Really?
May I then suggest that you have not looked very hard?
So, let's see:
- a fighting unit goes into a raping rampage.
- some soldiers are executed at the end of the event, or during it
- De Gaulle orders that officers who permitted this get stripped of their rank, fired, and jailed until a court judge the case.
Somehow, that's similar to 6 years of murder and plunder sponsored by the german state and army?
This is the constant refrain heard from Allied apologists. “The Germans were worse!” But, after an event like Dresden, such cries ring hollow.
They only ring hollow to people who have a deeply flawed morality.
But yeah, go ahead. Open new threads regarding all the allied war crimes you can find. I'm sure in the end, you'll be able to prove that by the end of the war, the allies killed as much civilians as the germans slaughtered in six months. :2thumbsup:
Fact is, once again, that Germany decided from the get-go to not give a crap about civilians, PoW's, culture, respect for human life.
The slaughter didn't start after Barbarossa, but in Poland, in september 1939, and continued in France in early 1940.
While France and the UK were willing to fight what you call a gentlemen's war, Germany just decided to go on rampage, to kill everyone and destroy everything that stood on her path, even her former allies or neutral countries.
So yeah, trampling germany into oblivion was the correct thing to do. Since you seem quite found of old sayings, here's one for you. Sometimes, you fight fire with fire.
Though in this case it'd be more "you fight a conflagration with an igniting match".
Furunculus
03-02-2010, 16:00
it is the quietly held opinion of Aberystwyth University Interpol Department (i.e the one set up to train spies in WW2) that the japanese intention to surrender was known to the allies at the time they were ok'ing the A-bomb strikes.
it is my considered opinion that they should have been dropped anyway, as it no doubt saved the lives of thousands of POW's who were dieing in droves due to inhuman conditions at POW camps, labour camps, and forced marches. this disgusting behaviour was so far beyond the bounds of acceptable wartime conduct it beggars belief, and we had the means to stop it. good job guys!
supplementary to this i have two reasons that i believe worth the mention:
1) japan started the war, so why should we waste the lives of thousands more allied soldiers fighting the pacific war whilst japan tries to negotiate an 'honourable' surrender when we had the ability to force an unconditional surrender, and thus save those lives.
2) no-one understood the horrors of nuclear war before the first one was dropped, i for one am jolly glad humanity did learn that lesson while there was only one to drop and not hundreds, and if someone had to be the fall-guy it might as well be japan, they earned it.
they do not justify the A-bombs in and of themselves, but they add to my conviction that the action was appropriate.
KingKnudthebloodthirsty
03-07-2010, 23:34
If nothing else, the Japanese completely deserved what they got from the bomb, whether or not it was inhumane. The Crimes Japan committed by killing 10million Chinese and countless more across Asia and the Pacific is several times more than the horrors you witness from the bomb. A great example is the Rape of Nanking, when they raped 80000 Chinese women. Being Chinese and actually being born in Nanjing makes me feel angry every time I think of Japan's heinous crimes committed on my countrymen.
Me and my friends compiled a list of reasons for or against the Atomicbomb's use on Japan, and I made a page of it on my site, and the link is in my signature. Also, there's a poll to this matter which you can find at http://tinyurl.com/yczjua8
The Lurker Below
03-08-2010, 16:38
consider everything that could have come from NOT using the bomb. I believe there would have been much more to regret had that direction been taken.
Sarmatian
03-11-2010, 16:46
If nothing else, the Japanese completely deserved what they got from the bomb, whether or not it was inhumane. The Crimes Japan committed by killing 10million Chinese and countless more across Asia and the Pacific is several times more than the horrors you witness from the bomb. A great example is the Rape of Nanking, when they raped 80000 Chinese women. Being Chinese and actually being born in Nanjing makes me feel angry every time I think of Japan's heinous crimes committed on my countrymen.
Me and my friends compiled a list of reasons for or against the Atomicbomb's use on Japan, and I made a page of it on my site, and the link is in my signature. Also, there's a poll to this matter which you can find at http://tinyurl.com/yczjua8
The issue here is making a difference between the the military clique that was rulling Japan and Japanese civilians.
Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout
09-26-2011, 18:54
The Japaense may have committed war crimes,but let us not forget that when they invaded Korea in the feudal century,they did the same crimes as well.It is war.The Japanese never deserved to have been nuked,and the USA kept applying pressure on them.
Mmmm, if I was sure they were capable of surrendering, I would say no, buuuut... the Japanese had proven on many occasions even before that that they would choose "death over dishonor" (practically hammered into their psyche). So, unfortunately, the bombings were a necessary evil, IMO. The amount of lives that would have been lost trying to subdue a country like Japan completely outweighs the amount of lives lost in the bombings. As tragic as the death of thousands of innocent people really is, can you really say there was any other choice? Who deserves to live more? The soldiers fighting the battles? Or the civilians that died for the greater good? Tough choice really, but for a quick end to the war with relatively minimal loss of life in the greater scheme of things, I think it was worth it. There were simply too many people there willing to give up their lives for that sense of duty and honor to themselves and their country.
On the other hand, I do believe it would have done a lot for the Japanese if they actually had a demonstration of the bomb beforehand. So, in a way, it may have been avoided if they could have just seen that massive fireball... But then again... they took the bombing of Hiroshima like a champ, too, and kept on ticking. Hard to say if that would have made any difference either.
Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout
10-04-2011, 07:19
Mmmm, if I was sure they were capable of surrendering, I would say no, buuuut... the Japanese had proven on many occasions even before that that they would choose "death over dishonor" (practically hammered into their psyche). So, unfortunately, the bombings were a necessary evil, IMO. The amount of lives that would have been lost trying to subdue a country like Japan completely outweighs the amount of lives lost in the bombings. As tragic as the death of thousands of innocent people really is, can you really say there was any other choice? Who deserves to live more? The soldiers fighting the battles? Or the civilians that died for the greater good? Tough choice really, but for a quick end to the war with relatively minimal loss of life in the greater scheme of things, I think it was worth it. There were simply too many people there willing to give up their lives for that sense of duty and honor to themselves and their country.
On the other hand, I do believe it would have done a lot for the Japanese if they actually had a demonstration of the bomb beforehand. So, in a way, it may have been avoided if they could have just seen that massive fireball... But then again... they took the bombing of Hiroshima like a champ, too, and kept on ticking. Hard to say if that would have made any difference either.
The Japanese could have been defeated stragtically instead of having to be nuked. They did that in the western theater,why not in the pacific?
The Japanese could have been defeated stragtically instead of having to be nuked. They did that in the western theater,why not in the pacific?
It worked up until the invasion of Japan major was looming closer. There's a difference between fighting strategically, and practically entering every single home and gunning down every family because they were more than willing to grab their family sword and charge suicidally at the enemy. Fighting in Japan would have been very much like fighting in Vietnam, where passive and innocent looking women were walking down the street and just happened to have a bomb strapped to their chest. There are also documented cases that literally every Japanese soldier was trained to do that if their death was in plain sight. The war wouldn't have just involved those dressed in the appropriate attire - it would have involved every single person living there. The risks were simply too great and too costly to even consider the idea of winning in any other way. The war would have dragged on for years as the Japanese practically ran themselves into extinction for the sake of an unwillingness to accept defeat or surrender; they were simply too proud, stubborn and brainwashed for that. In the end, I think this generation of Japanese is understanding and accepting of that, and where they went wrong.
That last bit is actually more of an opinion than fact, though.
There are many things that are admirable about the Japanese, however. There's actually a documented case that Emperor Hirohito attempted several years after the end of WWII to apologize to the United States on behalf of the Japanese and what happened at Pearl Harbor. I believe he was attempting to deliver this to Douglas MacArthur, but he turned Hirohito away and refused to speak with him. What is significant about it is how the Japanese treat an apology - it's a big deal to them. I believe some of MacArthur's aids thought that was a very foolish thing of him to do, considering what it meant to Hirohito and the Japanese. I admire Hirohito for that, regardless of what he is responsible for and what he was prepared to lead his people into. It takes a real man to want to admit you're wrong in such a big way, and especially considering the way that generation was raised.
Sarmatian
10-05-2011, 12:17
It worked up until the invasion of Japan major was looming closer. There's a difference between fighting strategically, and practically entering every single home and gunning down every family because they were more than willing to grab their family sword and charge suicidally at the enemy. Fighting in Japan would have been very much like fighting in Vietnam, where passive and innocent looking women were walking down the street and just happened to have a bomb strapped to their chest. There are also documented cases that literally every Japanese soldier was trained to do that if their death was in plain sight. The war wouldn't have just involved those dressed in the appropriate attire - it would have involved every single person living there. The risks were simply too great and too costly to even consider the idea of winning in any other way. The war would have dragged on for years as the Japanese practically ran themselves into extinction for the sake of an unwillingness to accept defeat or surrender; they were simply too proud, stubborn and brainwashed for that. In the end, I think this generation of Japanese is understanding and accepting of that, and where they went wrong.
Unfortunately, the idea of 100% brainwashed Japanese is a myth. If that's the case, if women and children and civilians were already willing to sacrifice themselves than why did they surrender after the bomb? Why did Japan probed the allies what would be the terms of surrender? Even though some Japanese soldiers were indeed fanatical, a majority were normal people, understanding that there's no need to die for a lost cause. Another issue is that Japan, even if it didn't surrender, represented no threat at this point and that by naval blockade and strategic bombing could have been forced to surrender, with minimal risk to Allied soldiers and sailors. Doing that would have put all the blame for every single casualty on the Japanese if they still refused to surrender.
Other interesting point of discussion is that Soviets were planning an invasion of Hokaido, and eventually the rest of Japan, which would again bring the same results with no risks to the lives of American soldiers. Situation was hopeless for Japan and there was no way that they didn't know it. In my humble opinion, Soviet invasion of Japan was much more important reason for dropping the bomb than possible lost allied lives. Americans were extremely frightful of a communist Japan. So, even though the possibility of many dead in the case of Allied invasion was on of the reasons, that was not the only, or even the most important reason for the A-bomb.
One should also keep in mind that one bomb was plutonium and the other was uranium-based and both needed to be tested. They were dropped in time span of three days - that was not enough to allow the Japanese to assess the damage and decide what to do, especially considering how difficult communication was, due to allied bombing. If the idea was to truly give the Japanese a possibility of surrender, more time should have been given between the bombs.
IMHO, the most important thing was to give the world/Soviets a demonstration of American might, then to stop Japan turning communist and only after those two, to save lives.
Kralizec
10-05-2011, 16:52
Unfortunately, the idea of 100% brainwashed Japanese is a myth. If that's the case, if women and children and civilians were already willing to sacrifice themselves than why did they surrender after the bomb? Why did Japan probed the allies what would be the terms of surrender? Even though some Japanese soldiers were indeed fanatical, a majority were normal people, understanding that there's no need to die for a lost cause. Another issue is that Japan, even if it didn't surrender, represented no threat at this point and that by naval blockade and strategic bombing could have been forced to surrender, with minimal risk to Allied soldiers and sailors. Doing that would have put all the blame for every single casualty on the Japanese if they still refused to surrender.
Agreed. I imagine though that the Japanese government would have conscripted every boy above the age of 12 to resist the invaders, and executed everyone who refused - much like the Germans when the fight reached Berlin.
About strategic bombing: it's highly unlikely that Japan would surrender when faced with conventional carpet bombing. Tokyo was bombed with conventional bombs and the death toll was similar to Nagasaki. I'm guessing that the A-bomb was just more impressive because it was one bomb from one plane.
Other interesting point of discussion is that Soviets were planning an invasion of Hokaido, and eventually the rest of Japan, which would again bring the same results with no risks to the lives of American soldiers. Situation was hopeless for Japan and there was no way that they didn't know it. In my humble opinion, Soviet invasion of Japan was much more important reason for dropping the bomb than possible lost allied lives. Americans were extremely frightful of a communist Japan. So, even though the possibility of many dead in the case of Allied invasion was on of the reasons, that was not the only, or even the most important reason for the A-bomb.
One should also keep in mind that one bomb was plutonium and the other was uranium-based and both needed to be tested. They were dropped in time span of three days - that was not enough to allow the Japanese to assess the damage and decide what to do, especially considering how difficult communication was, due to allied bombing. If the idea was to truly give the Japanese a possibility of surrender, more time should have been given between the bombs.
IMHO, the most important thing was to give the world/Soviets a demonstration of American might, then to stop Japan turning communist and only after those two, to save lives.
If I recall correctly, the USSR attacked Japan because it had agreed to the USA's request for doing so...but I suppose they might have done so anyway out of sheer opportunism.
Would the Soviets actually have been able to pull of an amphibious invasion of Japan? I have absolutely no idea what naval assets they had in the pacific.
Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout
10-05-2011, 17:10
It worked up until the invasion of Japan major was looming closer. There's a difference between fighting strategically, and practically entering every single home and gunning down every family because they were more than willing to grab their family sword and charge suicidally at the enemy. Fighting in Japan would have been very much like fighting in Vietnam, where passive and innocent looking women were walking down the street and just happened to have a bomb strapped to their chest. There are also documented cases that literally every Japanese soldier was trained to do that if their death was in plain sight. The war wouldn't have just involved those dressed in the appropriate attire - it would have involved every single person living there. The risks were simply too great and too costly to even consider the idea of winning in any other way. The war would have dragged on for years as the Japanese practically ran themselves into extinction for the sake of an unwillingness to accept defeat or surrender; they were simply too proud, stubborn and brainwashed for that. In the end, I think this generation of Japanese is understanding and accepting of that, and where they went wrong.
That last bit is actually more of an opinion than fact, though.
There are many things that are admirable about the Japanese, however. There's actually a documented case that Emperor Hirohito attempted several years after the end of WWII to apologize to the United States on behalf of the Japanese and what happened at Pearl Harbor. I believe he was attempting to deliver this to Douglas MacArthur, but he turned Hirohito away and refused to speak with him. What is significant about it is how the Japanese treat an apology - it's a big deal to them. I believe some of MacArthur's aids thought that was a very foolish thing of him to do, considering what it meant to Hirohito and the Japanese. I admire Hirohito for that, regardless of what he is responsible for and what he was prepared to lead his people into. It takes a real man to want to admit you're wrong in such a big way, and especially considering the way that generation was raised.
As if. The Japanese shown they had been powerful.But like you americans,you reduce their army.Now,I don't hear much of the Japanese millitary. In the end, I think this generation of Japanese is understanding and accepting of that, and where they went wrong.I don't think the Japanese would be that happy into understanding that.In Japan,they still must be teaching of what the foreginers think of them,and that however is quite a understatement.
The Japanese should have been defeated stragitcally.Hitler wasn't even giving up by the time he lost the war(though he commited suicide)
he war would have dragged on for years as the Japanese practically ran themselves into extinction for the sake of an unwillingness to accept defeat or surrender; they were simply too proud, stubborn and brainwashed for that.
They inherited that from their ancestors. Perhaps you don't know of samurai? The Japanese were the bravest people of all the asians combined together(2nd place indians,3rd place Chinese) And they were the true formidabble opponet in WW2.What they did however,they did not deserve to be nuked. Some Japanese still hold hatred agasint the amercians. Even if Hitler fell,tthere are nazi groups in germany,so if All governments were to fall,the racists and their posions would destroy the world.
Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout
10-05-2011, 17:14
Unfortunately, the idea of 100% brainwashed Japanese is a myth. If that's the case, if women and children and civilians were already willing to sacrifice themselves than why did they surrender after the bomb? Why did Japan probed the allies what would be the terms of surrender? Even though some Japanese soldiers were indeed fanatical, a majority were normal people, understanding that there's no need to die for a lost cause. Another issue is that Japan, even if it didn't surrender, represented no threat at this point and that by naval blockade and strategic bombing could have been forced to surrender, with minimal risk to Allied soldiers and sailors. Doing that would have put all the blame for every single casualty on the Japanese if they still refused to surrender.
Other interesting point of discussion is that Soviets were planning an invasion of Hokaido, and eventually the rest of Japan, which would again bring the same results with no risks to the lives of American soldiers. Situation was hopeless for Japan and there was no way that they didn't know it. In my humble opinion, Soviet invasion of Japan was much more important reason for dropping the bomb than possible lost allied lives. Americans were extremely frightful of a communist Japan. So, even though the possibility of many dead in the case of Allied invasion was on of the reasons, that was not the only, or even the most important reason for the A-bomb.
One should also keep in mind that one bomb was plutonium and the other was uranium-based and both needed to be tested. They were dropped in time span of three days - that was not enough to allow the Japanese to assess the damage and decide what to do, especially considering how difficult communication was, due to allied bombing. If the idea was to truly give the Japanese a possibility of surrender, more time should have been given between the bombs.
IMHO, the most important thing was to give the world/Soviets a demonstration of American might, then to stop Japan turning communist and only after those two, to save lives.
Nope.I don't think that could have ever happened.There was no such thing as communists coming in Japan,even if they did,it would never have worked.You are not Japanese,so how would you know? The Japanese have been following their Emperor since history,they would not waste their history to become communist. I don't think it would have appealed to them.Japan surrendered because the Nuke bomb was well enough to bomb all the cities in Japan.And the Japanese government,wouldnt have liked it.Thats why they surrended.
“The Japanese have been following their Emperor since history”
You should play Shogun… It will teach you how the Japanese followed…
Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout
10-05-2011, 18:39
“The Japanese have been following their Emperor since history”
You should play Shogun… It will teach you how the Japanese followed…
I have played shogun.Of course the Emperor was nothing more than a figurehead! But they still followed him,not that much,the power lay in the shogun of course
Kralizec
10-05-2011, 19:04
You seriously need to cool down. Take a deep breath.
Communism may not have had much popular support in Japan (saying there was none, however, is untrue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Red_Army)). Maybe there wasn't much in eastern Europe either, but that didn't stop the Soviets from installing pro-Soviet, "communist" regimes there. Sarmatian's point was that the USA wanted to prevent Japan from falling into the Soviet sphere of influence, wich is what happened with North Korea. Japan, being far more populous and industrialised, would have been a much bigger problem.
PanzerJaeger
10-05-2011, 19:48
They inherited that from their ancestors. Perhaps you don't know of samurai? The Japanese were the bravest people of all the asians combined together(2nd place indians,3rd place Chinese) And they were the true formidabble opponet in WW2.What they did however,they did not deserve to be nuked. Some Japanese still hold hatred agasint the amercians. Even if Hitler fell,tthere are nazi groups in germany,so if All governments were to fall,the racists and their posions would destroy the world.
:dizzy2:
Agree with Sarmation's assessment, by the way. The idea that the majority of Japanese would fight to the death and that the use of nuclear weapons was actually the humane option is myth, as is the parallel idea that an invasion would cost huge numbers of American casualties.
The bombs were dropped not as the last resort of a defeated America, but as an afterthought to a conflict that had already been won. Their use is just another example of the thin moral line between Axis and Allies in the Second World War.
The bombs were dropped not as the last resort of a defeated America, but as an afterthought to a conflict that had already been won. Their use is just another example of the thin moral line between Axis and Allies in the Second World War.
I have always believed that the bombs served two purposes:
Force capitulation without an invasion of the main islands.
Show the Soviets we were not to be trifled with.
And not necessarily in that order of importance to Truman and his military advisors.
Sarmatian
10-05-2011, 20:43
If I recall correctly, the USSR attacked Japan because it had agreed to the USA's request for doing so...but I suppose they might have done so anyway out of sheer opportunism.
Would the Soviets actually have been able to pull of an amphibious invasion of Japan? I have absolutely no idea what naval assets they had in the pacific.
Indeed. Western allies weren't 100% sure if the bomb will work, and Japan still had a fairly strong Kwantung Army in Manchuria.
Soviet Pacific Fleet was nothing to write home about, but it was good enough to cover amphibious landing against practically non-existent IJN.
They inherited that from their ancestors. Perhaps you don't know of samurai? The Japanese were the bravest people of all the asians combined together(2nd place indians,3rd place Chinese) And they were the true formidabble opponet in WW2.What they did however,they did not deserve to be nuked. Some Japanese still hold hatred agasint the amercians. Even if Hitler fell,tthere are nazi groups in germany,so if All governments were to fall,the racists and their posions would destroy the world.
You really need to relax, mon ami. This is a place where we discuss history and where everyone is entitled to an opinion, as long as it is civil. There's no need to call people fools because they don't agree with your particular view. Also, as this a Total War forum, all members know of the samurai. There are many people here who know a lot about history, try to read more and insult less and you will be much better off.
Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout
10-05-2011, 22:47
Indeed. Western allies weren't 100% sure if the bomb will work, and Japan still had a fairly strong Kwantung Army in Manchuria.
Soviet Pacific Fleet was nothing to write home about, but it was good enough to cover amphibious landing against practically non-existent IJN.
You really need to relax, mon ami. This is a place where we discuss history and where everyone is entitled to an opinion, as long as it is civil. There's no need to call people fools because they don't agree with your particular view. Also, as this a Total War forum, all members know of the samurai. There are many people here who know a lot about history, try to read more and insult less and you will be much better off.
I will not relax when people only see it one sided.I am stating here that the Japanese wouldn't surrender. Neither did they deserve to be nuked. You can see the heavy resistance the Japanese put up,when the amercians invaded .... I think it was Iwo Jima. Yes,that one,they put up a might defence against the Amercians. I don't think the Japanese citizens were that keen to defend their homeland,but they're innocent civialns,but they still would have defended their homeland.The British did not gain India that easily,they met with massive resistance,it was not until the duke of Wellington arrived that things began to change.And they managed to rule India.But there had been a revolution of 1857,explained well in the Bollywood historical drama Mangel Pandey. Had that revolution been successful, Britain wouldn't rule India.In the same way,the Japanese would have given a massive amount of resistance(Makes me laugh) And you can have so much respect for these people.They are truly like the French,or the bravest of the lot.You can't do much with them.It's the Japanese Army however that didn't want to give up,but the Japanese were forced into this war,believe it or not. They had to take measures. I don't think they were that willing to go with war with the USA.They must have realized this when they only failed to destroy the american fleet.Had they destroyed the whole fleet, it would have been a massive success to them. The Japanese of course did have a empire.Even if the soviets had invaded,the Japanese were pretty much like Napoleon's army in spain,wouldn't that easily give up their lands. Lastly I never believed the fact that you all think the soviets could win and conquer Japan,when if they did,they would find it to extreme to their tastes. Their war efforts were mainly directed at the Nazis. The Amercians had also planned a attack on the British empire itself. One must wonder, Why would the amercians care about a communist Japan? Maybe they could face a invasion from the soviets,but it was far from that,I don't think the soviets were that perilous to think of it.They had the war effort to deal with first.As I have told time and time again,the Japanese would never submit to anybody,unless precautions were taken,the nuke bomb was one:(,and Japan was never saved from America. America did apply economic sanctions on Japan before the war, after it invaded Indochina,and the economic sanctions were put in place until the end of the war. So it was difficult for the Japanese to do everything they wanted ,they couldn't even get supplies or guns,so they had to secretly deal with other companies or nations. The other thing they were aslo faced was that since they invaded Indochina,it could lead war with the powerful British navy or the american navy,either way, America gave Japan 2 options: Either don't invade Indochina and we will not apply the ecomonic sanctions or if you do invade indochina,then this will lead to war. '' The Japanese Prime Minister himself knew of the dangers precceded in front of him,but he had no choice to but to do it
And no,it was not right for the Japanese to be nuked. The Germans were defeated stragitcally. The Japanese should and should have been defeated stragitcally.Even if it meant thousands of deaths. What would have happened if Japan had discovered the nuclear bomb? They could have used it and made weapons of it,and bomb the amercian navies,cities and land. But if Japan had done this,they would have been seen as evil.However if the allies dropped the bomb on Japan's cities ,they would be seen as heroes .
Now that is pure evil isn't it? The Japanese were less brutal than the soviets and the Nazis. Even their crimes they committed only relates to the fact that they're doing what their ancestors attempted 100 or 1000 years ago. They had tried to expand ,but couldn't due to civil war. The Korean Invasions of 1598-99 ,I think were an example. Crimes were committed. But no says anything about it. But most civliastions one way or the other have done this for centuries,or lets say Humans kills Human,its common.
I aslo agree with Made's point here,because he's made a perfectly explainable ,well written,brilliantly written answer here:
We're forgetting the sense of duty and honor that these people had towards their superiors. There were plenty of Japanese generals that were more than ready to take the fight further, and it was only through Imperial intervention that they were forced not to. Hell, some of those generals committed sepuku right after they were told they would surrender.
Very true. This shows that they would never have surreded.
Now I think there is enough history for you(I just wrote and wrote) :book2: to debate with.:bow:
Unfortunately, the idea of 100% brainwashed Japanese is a myth. If that's the case, if women and children and civilians were already willing to sacrifice themselves than why did they surrender after the bomb?
Hindsight is 20/20. You really need look no farther than Vietnam to see what the Japanese were probably capable of, and even more-so even with their cultural differences. Granted, there was a lot about Vietnam that was suspicious and why it went on for as long as it did, but conspiracy theories aside, I wouldn't put it above the Japanese to resort to suicidal acts at the time for the defense of their homeland when they were more than ready to do it, and did, on multiple occasions before that.
Why did Japan probed the allies what would be the terms of surrender? Even though some Japanese soldiers were indeed fanatical, a majority were normal people, understanding that there's no need to die for a lost cause.
We're forgetting the sense of duty and honor that these people had towards their superiors. There were plenty of Japanese generals that were more than ready to take the fight further, and it was only through Imperial intervention that they were forced not to. Hell, some of those generals committed sepuku right after they were told they would surrender.
Another issue is that Japan, even if it didn't surrender, represented no threat at this point and that by naval blockade and strategic bombing could have been forced to surrender, with minimal risk to Allied soldiers and sailors. Doing that would have put all the blame for every single casualty on the Japanese if they still refused to surrender.
They represented plenty of threat to the people that would have been otherwise forced to bring the fight to their homeland. Like another guy said; many of their cities were carpet bombed to oblivion and even that didn't sway them.
Other interesting point of discussion is that Soviets were planning an invasion of Hokaido, and eventually the rest of Japan, which would again bring the same results with no risks to the lives of American soldiers.
Someone was going to die, that much is certain. We can look back on it and argue the finer points all we like, and I'm not about to assume you have no idea what the Japanese and their history are like. Perhaps you just give them more credit than they deserve. They were not stupid, but they were definitely focused on a certain ideal that would have otherwise made it difficult to subdue them.
Situation was hopeless for Japan and there was no way that they didn't know it.
This is really beside the point, and only proven because the allies eventually won over them. We really have no idea what they thought at the time.
In my humble opinion, Soviet invasion of Japan was much more important reason for dropping the bomb than possible lost allied lives. Americans were extremely frightful of a communist Japan. So, even though the possibility of many dead in the case of Allied invasion was on of the reasons, that was not the only, or even the most important reason for the A-bomb.
This is really just more theories and conjecture, having known where our relationship with the Soviets went after it.
One should also keep in mind that one bomb was plutonium and the other was uranium-based and both needed to be tested. They were dropped in time span of three days - that was not enough to allow the Japanese to assess the damage and decide what to do, especially considering how difficult communication was, due to allied bombing. If the idea was to truly give the Japanese a possibility of surrender, more time should have been given between the bombs.
Again, we really can't discuss what they were thinking.
IMHO, the most important thing was to give the world/Soviets a demonstration of American might, then to stop Japan turning communist and only after those two, to save lives.
I still think we're getting hung up over the future US/Soviet engagements. You're basically assuming that everyone knew what the future held and what was going to happen. Don't mix the two and think they were somehow related. That's a little bit fallacious.
:dizzy2:
Agree with Sarmation's assessment, by the way. The idea that the majority of Japanese would fight to the death and that the use of nuclear weapons was actually the humane option is myth, as is the parallel idea that an invasion would cost huge numbers of American casualties.
The bombs were dropped not as the last resort of a defeated America, but as an afterthought to a conflict that had already been won. Their use is just another example of the thin moral line between Axis and Allies in the Second World War.
I think you're going to need to bring some sources to the table for that lofty opinion.
PanzerJaeger
10-05-2011, 23:06
Now that is pure evil isn't it? The Japanese were less brutal than the soviets and the Nazis.
Nope. Both the Japanese and Americans (not to mention certain Commonwealth forces) easily reached equal levels of brutality as was seen on the Eastern Front by the Germans and Russians in their conflict. :book2:
Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout
10-05-2011, 23:11
Nope. Both the Japanese and Americans (not to mention certain Commonwealth forces) easily reached equal levels of brutality as was seen on the Eastern Front by the Germans and Russians in their conflict. :book2:
I provided you with a reasonable essay.Please don't pick little parts of it and argue with me.Read the whole thing and then debate with me.
I will provide my reason:The Japanese were less brutal than their allies
Even their crimes they committed only relates to the fact that they're doing what their ancestors attempted 100 or 1000 years ago. They had tried to expand ,but couldn't due to civil war. The Korean Invasions of 1598-99 ,I think were an example. Crimes were committed. But no says anything about it. But most civliastions one way or the other have done this for centuries,or lets say Humans kills Human,its common.
PanzerJaeger
10-05-2011, 23:21
I think you're going to need to bring some sources to the table for that lofty opinion.
Sure.
http://www.amazon.com/Decision-Use-Atomic-Bomb-Architecture/dp/0679443312
PanzerJaeger
10-05-2011, 23:29
I provided you with a reasonable essay.Please don't pick little parts of it and argue with me.Read the whole thing and then debate with me.
To be honest, I couldn't make heads or tails of your earlier paragraphs. I did, however, recognize a common misconception that deserves correction. Your 'reason' that the Japanese were less brutal is also difficult to understand.
Why does the 'fact' that their ancestors were also brutal make them any less brutal? There is, of course, no completely objective measurement for relative brutality, but comparing the crimes of the Japanese to the others doesn't demonstrate any less brutality in their methods or the mindset behind them.
In fact, it could be said that compared to the Germans who killed in a more secret and industrial fashion or the Soviets who killed in a more bureaucratic manner, the Japanese took a particularly personal approach to their crimes which could be argued to be even more vicious.
Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout
10-05-2011, 23:30
To be honest, I couldn't make heads or tails of your earlier paragraphs. I did, however, recognize a common misconception that deserves correction. Your 'reason' that the Japanese were less brutal is also difficult to understand.
Why does the 'fact' that their ancestors were also brutal make them any less brutal? There is, of course, no completely objective measurement for relative brutality, but comparing the crimes of the Japanese to the others doesn't demonstrate any less brutality in their methods or the mindset behind them.
Again.You have not read it,You must please read it and then debate with me.
Nope. Both the Japanese and Americans (not to mention certain Commonwealth forces) easily reached equal levels of brutality as was seen on the Eastern Front by the Germans and Russians in their conflict. :book2:
Einsatzgruppen, executing POWs and starving of civilians was equal to the western allies?
Kralizec
10-05-2011, 23:35
I will provide my reason:The Japanese were less brutal than their allies
Even their crimes they committed only relates to the fact that they're doing what their ancestors attempted 100 or 1000 years ago. They had tried to expand ,but couldn't due to civil war. The Korean Invasions of 1598-99 ,I think were an example. Crimes were committed. But no says anything about it. But most civliastions one way or the other have done this for centuries,or lets say Humans kills Human,its common.
I'll happily admit that I'm ignorant about Asian history of that period, but I fail to see why that should change anything. So the Japanese tried to expand on the Asian continent before. So?
The Japanese forced Korean and European (colonial) women into prostitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comfort_women), brutally raped and massacred at least one major city (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_Nanking) and performed gruesome experiments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731) on Chinese civilians. Their treatment of POW's wasn't "nice" either, but don't know of specific examples.
Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout
10-05-2011, 23:39
I'll happily admit that I'm ignorant about Asian history of that period, but I fail to see why that should change anything. So the Japanese tried to expand on the Asian continent before. So?
The Japanese forced Korean and European (colonial) women into prostitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comfort_women), brutally raped and massacred at least one major city (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_Nanking) and performed gruesome experiments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731) on Chinese civilians. Their treatment of POW's wasn't "nice" either, but don't know of specific examples.
They were no doubt ,the same crimes that would have been done by the Japanese when they were in Korea. We all know of women into prostitution, brutally raped and massacred at least one major city and performed gruesome experiments on Chinese civilians. What about the Nazis? The Nazis killed people,jews,communists.They put them in concentration camps. Thats evil.That is nothing compared to this.The Soviets did the same thing to their people,and the Russians are a brutal people.How can that be percieved as evil when the Nazis did much more killing than the Japanese? At least they didn't do much to the children.The Japanese killed. At least they didn't do much as the Nazis starved children,woman and men and shot them for what they were.
Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout
10-05-2011, 23:40
Since people are ignoring the debate I have written,here it is:I will not relax when people only see it one sided.I am stating here that the Japanese wouldn't surrender. Neither did they deserve to be nuked. You can see the heavy resistance the Japanese put up,when the amercians invaded .... I think it was Iwo Jima. Yes,that one,they put up a might defence against the Amercians. I don't think the Japanese citizens were that keen to defend their homeland,but they're innocent civialns,but they still would have defended their homeland.The British did not gain India that easily,they met with massive resistance,it was not until the duke of Wellington arrived that things began to change.And they managed to rule India.But there had been a revolution of 1857,explained well in the Bollywood historical drama Mangel Pandey. Had that revolution been successful, Britain wouldn't rule India.In the same way,the Japanese would have given a massive amount of resistance(Makes me laugh) And you can have so much respect for these people.They are truly like the French,or the bravest of the lot.You can't do much with them.It's the Japanese Army however that didn't want to give up,but the Japanese were forced into this war,believe it or not. They had to take measures. I don't think they were that willing to go with war with the USA.They must have realized this when they only failed to destroy the american fleet.Had they destroyed the whole fleet, it would have been a massive success to them. The Japanese of course did have a empire.Even if the soviets had invaded,the Japanese were pretty much like Napoleon's army in spain,wouldn't that easily give up their lands. Lastly I never believed the fact that you all think the soviets could win and conquer Japan,when if they did,they would find it to extreme to their tastes. Their war efforts were mainly directed at the Nazis. The Amercians had also planned a attack on the British empire itself. One must wonder, Why would the amercians care about a communist Japan? Maybe they could face a invasion from the soviets,but it was far from that,I don't think the soviets were that perilous to think of it.They had the war effort to deal with first.As I have told time and time again,the Japanese would never submit to anybody,unless precautions were taken,the nuke bomb was one:(,and Japan was never saved from America. America did apply economic sanctions on Japan before the war, after it invaded Indochina,and the economic sanctions were put in place until the end of the war. So it was difficult for the Japanese to do everything they wanted ,they couldn't even get supplies or guns,so they had to secretly deal with other companies or nations. The other thing they were aslo faced was that since they invaded Indochina,it could lead war with the powerful British navy or the american navy,either way, America gave Japan 2 options: Either don't invade Indochina and we will not apply the ecomonic sanctions or if you do invade indochina,then this will lead to war. '' The Japanese Prime Minister himself knew of the dangers precceded in front of him,but he had no choice to but to do it
And no,it was not right for the Japanese to be nuked. The Germans were defeated stragitcally. The Japanese should and should have been defeated stragitcally.Even if it meant thousands of deaths. What would have happened if Japan had discovered the nuclear bomb? They could have used it and made weapons of it,and bomb the amercian navies,cities and land. But if Japan had done this,they would have been seen as evil.However if the allies dropped the bomb on Japan's cities ,they would be seen as heroes .
Now that is pure evil isn't it? The Japanese were less brutal than the soviets and the Nazis. Even their crimes they committed only relates to the fact that they're doing what their ancestors attempted 100 or 1000 years ago. They had tried to expand ,but couldn't due to civil war. The Korean Invasions of 1598-99 ,I think were an example. Crimes were committed. But no says anything about it. But most civliastions one way or the other have done this for centuries,or lets say Humans kills Human,its common.
I aslo agree with Made's point here,because he's made a perfectly explainable ,well written,brilliantly written answer here:
We're forgetting the sense of duty and honor that these people had towards their superiors. There were plenty of Japanese generals that were more than ready to take the fight further, and it was only through Imperial intervention that they were forced not to. Hell, some of those generals committed sepuku right after they were told they would surrender.
Very true. This shows that they would never have surreded.
Now I think there is enough history for you(I just wrote and wrote) to debate with.
PanzerJaeger
10-05-2011, 23:51
Einsatzgruppen, executing POWs and starving of civilians was equal to the western allies?
Very much so. Torture, mutilation, and execution of enemy POWs was widespread and common among American soldiers in the Pacific. The incineration of entire cities full of civilians is certainly equivalent to starvation, in my opinion.
Sure.
http://www.amazon.com/Decision-Use-Atomic-Bomb-Architecture/dp/0679443312
A further argument, discussed under the rubric of "atomic diplomacy" and advanced in a 1965 book of that name by Gar Alperovitz, is that the bombings had as primary purpose to intimidate the Soviet Union, being the opening shots of the Cold War.[118] Along these lines some[who?] argue that the US raced the Soviet Union and hoped to drop the bombs and receive surrender from Japan before a Soviet entry into the Pacific war. However, the Soviet Union, the US and Great Britain came to an agreement at the Yalta Conference on when the Soviet Union should join the war against Japan, and on how the territory of Japan is to be dismembered at the end of the war.[119]
Others argue that such considerations played little or no role, the US being instead concerned with the defeat of Japan, and in fact that the US desired and appreciated the Soviet entry into the Pacific war, as it hastened the surrender of Japan.[120]
W. Churchill was on vacation on Como's lake, Italy, when the bomb of Hiroshima was launched. Lord Moran, his personal physician, in his memoirs published in 1966 tells a conversation he had had with WSC. He saw the atom bomb as a way to keep Stalin in check.
Are you really asking me to buy and read a book that was written 10 years after the fact and during the cold war scare? I'm not going to ignore his opinion, but reviews of the book tell me a lot. Paranoia is likely involved quite a bit in the writing of this book, and it doesn't look like it's held particularly high in the community if he's not going to provide any sources either. This looks a lot like conspiracy theory to me and the opinion of one man, which may or may not be right/wrong, but it's certainly not definitive evidence of anything.
Provide some excerpts, please.
PanzerJaeger
10-06-2011, 00:15
They were no doubt ,the same crimes that would have been done by the Japanese when they were in Korea. We all know of women into prostitution, brutally raped and massacred at least one major city and performed gruesome experiments on Chinese civilians. What about the Nazis? The Nazis killed people,jews,communists.They put them in concentration camps. Thats evil.That is nothing compared to this.The Soviets did the same thing to their people,and the Russians are a brutal people.How can that be percieved as evil when the Nazis did much more killing than the Japanese? At least they didn't do much to the children.The Japanese killed. At least they didn't do much as the Nazis starved children,woman and men and shot them for what they were.
You should do a bit more research (http://www.lrb.co.uk/v25/n22/chalmers-johnson/the-looting-of-asia).
It may be pointless to try to establish which World War Two Axis aggressor, Germany or Japan, was the more brutal to the peoples it victimised. The Germans killed six million Jews and 20 million Russians; the Japanese slaughtered as many as 30 million Filipinos, Malays, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Indonesians and Burmese, at least 23 million of them ethnic Chinese. Both nations looted the countries they conquered on a monumental scale, though Japan plundered more, over a longer period, than the Nazis. Both conquerors enslaved millions and exploited them as forced labourers – and, in the case of the Japanese, as prostitutes for front-line troops. If you were a Nazi prisoner of war from Britain, America, Australia, New Zealand or Canada (but not Russia) you faced a 4 per cent chance of not surviving the war; the death rate for Allied POWs held by the Japanese was nearly 30 per cent.
Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout
10-06-2011, 00:19
You should do a bit more research (http://www.lrb.co.uk/v25/n22/chalmers-johnson/the-looting-of-asia).
Perhaps you should do some ''research''
http://www.enotes.com/genocide-encyclopedia/labor-camps-nazi
http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/site/pp.asp?c=gvKVLcMVIuG&b=394963
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_crimes
http://www.rense.com/general89/impch.htm
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/holo.html
http://www.auschwitz.dk/
http://www.holocaust-history.org/
http://www.holocaustchronicle.org/
http://library.thinkquest.org/12663/
Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout
10-06-2011, 00:20
And too many westerners here hold the view that Japan is the evil guy when they are not.It is the Nazis that were the main cause of WW2.
Kralizec
10-06-2011, 00:21
Going to keep this short and sweet.
1) The notion that the Japanese people would normally not have accepted surrender is one of the reasons cited by the USA military for deploying the bombs. I have to agree with Sarmatian as well; I assume that the majority of Japanese were normal people who would be dissapointed but wouldn't persevere and risk their lives or their families for a lost cause. There were plenty of Nazi fanatics who wouldn't accept a repeat of 1918 (the German surrender in WW1) and Hitler certainly didn't, but the fact of the matter was that in the end, Germany had no other choice.
2) Yes, the victims of Fat Man and Little Boy were mostly innocent civilians. If they weren't, we wouldn't even be discussing the morality of using the bombs. Personally I don't think it was justified, but I can understand the decision.
3) Yeah, Germany had the holocaust. That doesn't diminish the fact that Japan, too, had some pretty heinous stuff going on. And I don't understand why you bring in the atomic bombs as an evil act committed by America, while you denying at the same time that Japan did any evil. All numbers considered, Japan killed far more innocent civilians than anybody except Germany and perhaps the Soviet Union.
Very much so. Torture, mutilation, and execution of enemy POWs was widespread and common among American soldiers in the Pacific. The incineration of entire cities full of civilians is certainly equivalent to starvation, in my opinion.
The main difference though would be:
-That there was no direct Allied order to kill certain POWs.
-No specifically tasked groups to hunt and kill a certain ethnic group.
-That the Allied took proper care of the POWs in camps instead of starving/working them to death.
-That the Allies took care of the civilians under their control, heck they even did silly things like trying to prevent Japanese civilians from throwing themselves off cliffs.
-Nor did they have grand plans to colonize large areas and kill or expel tens of millions of people in the process.
If the differences in ideals and planning doesn't make the Nazis worse than the Allies then the difference in sheer number of victims should.
But I guess morality is subjective.
Kralizec
10-06-2011, 00:23
Panzer, I'm not trying to troll you, but what do you think of this quotation:
The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind.
Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout
10-06-2011, 00:25
Going to keep this short and sweet.
1) The notion that the Japanese people would normally not have accepted surrender is one of the reasons cited by the USA military for deploying the bombs. I have to agree with Sarmatian as well; I assume that the majority of Japanese were normal people who would be dissapointed but wouldn't persevere and risk their lives or their families for a lost cause. There were plenty of Nazi fanatics who wouldn't accept a repeat of 1918 (the German surrender in WW1) and Hitler certainly didn't, but the fact of the matter was that in the end, Germany had no other choice.
2) Yes, the victims of Fat Man and Little Boy were mostly innocent civilians. If they weren't, we wouldn't even be discussing the morality of using the bombs. Personally I don't think it was justified, but I can understand the decision.
3) Yeah, Germany had the holocaust. That doesn't diminish the fact that Japan, too, had some pretty heinous stuff going on. And I don't understand why you bring in the atomic bombs as an evil act committed by America, while you denying at the same time that Japan did any evil. All numbers considered, Japan killed far more innocent civilians than anybody except Germany and perhaps the Soviet Union.
I ain't saying they committed crimes.You seem to be very igornat of the fact That I said they have done it. The Germans killed 6 million jews.Woman,children and men. The Nuke bombing on Japan was not deserved at all. Berlin should have gotten the same treatment.
Panzer, I'm not trying to troll you, but what do you think of this quotation:
Everyone did bombing of cities. The Nazis and Japanese loved it for the terror bit, although they did go for strategic targets too. Tough luck on them that they started wars with someone who had the resources to do it big style.
Brandy Blue
10-06-2011, 02:35
The Nuke bombing on Japan was not deserved at all. Berlin should have gotten the same treatment.
The atom bomb was not yet available in May 1945 when Germany surrendered. I assume you are not seriously suggested that America should have nuked Berlin after the surrender.
PanzerJaeger
10-06-2011, 04:26
Are you really asking me to buy and read a book that was written 10 years after the fact and during the cold war scare? I'm not going to ignore his opinion, but reviews of the book tell me a lot. Paranoia is likely involved quite a bit in the writing of this book, and it doesn't look like it's held particularly high in the community if he's not going to provide any sources either. This looks a lot like conspiracy theory to me and the opinion of one man, which may or may not be right/wrong, but it's certainly not definitive evidence of anything.
Provide some excerpts, please.
Here (http://us.history.wisc.edu/hist102/readings/messer_newevidence.pdf) is a non-book source that offers some clearer insight into Truman's decision making and his true motivations. Money quote (apologies for the rough copy/paste from the pdf):
But Truman then makes a very clear statement that goes to the heart of the issue of the bomb's necessity. Referring to the Soviet commitment to declare war on Japan three months after the defeat of Germany, Truman noted Stalin's reaffirmation of the agreement he had made with Roosevelt at Yalta: "He'll [Stalin] be in Jap War on August 15th." To this Truman added: "Fini Japs when that comes about." In these two brief sentences Truman set forth his understanding of how the war would end: Soviet entry into the war would finish the Japanese.In writing to his wife the following day (July 18), the president underscored the importance of Soviet entry and its impact upon the timing of the war's end. "I've gotten what I came for—Stalin goes to war on August 15 with no strings on it.... I'll say that we'll end the war a year sooner now, and think of the kids who won't be killed! That is the important thing."The implications of these passages from Truman's diary and letters for the orthodox defense of the bomb's use are devastating: if Soviet entry alone would end the war before an invasion of Japan, the use of atomic bombs cannot be justified as the only alternative to that invasion. This does not mean, of course, that having the bomb was not useful. But it does mean that for Truman the end of the war seemed at hand; the issue was no longer when the war would end, but how and on whose terms. If he believed that the war would end with Soviet entry in mid-August, then he must have realized that if the bombs were not used before that date they might well not be used at all. This relationship between the Soviet entry, the bomb, and the end of the war is set forth in Truman's diary account for July 18. "P[rime] M[inister Churchill] and I ate alone. Discussed Manhattan [the atomic bomb] (it is a success). Decided to tell Stalin about it. Stalin had told P.M. of telegram from Jap emperor asking for peace. Stalin also read his answer to me. It was satisfactory. [I] believe Japs will fold up before Russia comes in. I am sure they will when Manhattan appears over their homeland. I shall inform Stalin about it at an opportune time." Truman apparently believed that by using the bomb the war could be ended even before the Soviet entry. The bomb would shorten the war by days rather than months. Its use would not save hundreds of thousands of lives—but it could save victory for the Americans. The race with the Germans had been won. It was now a race with Soviets.
And here (http://cliojournal.wikispaces.com/file/view/Hiroshima_The+Strange+Myth+of+Half+a+Million+American+Lives+Saved.pdf) is a study on the specific casualty claims.
Of all the political and military decisions in history, few have been subject to more analysis and comment than the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is mys- tifying, therefore, that historians have not long ago exploded the demonstra- ble myth that those attacks probably saved half a million lives of American soldiers, sailors, and marines, and prevented numerous British fatalities and vast numbers of Japanese deaths, as President Truman alleged in his auto- biography a decade after the war's end.1 Such a justification was neither needed nor used by President Truman in the weeks immediately following the obliteration of Hiroshima, followed within days by the surrender of Japan, since the public overwhelmingly approved of the action. As time went by, however, and questions were increasingly asked about the necessity and wisdom of launching the age of nuclear weapons in this manner, estimates of deaths averted were adduced as an important element-perhaps the most important element-of the moral justification for Truman's decision. By the time historians were given access to the secret files necessary to examine this subject with care, the myth of huge numbers of American, British, and Japanese lives saved had already achieved the status of accepted history. Even when secret wartime documents were declassified, historians did not focus on the striking inconsistencies between these documents and those parts of the principal decision-makers' memoirs that dealt with esti- mates of lives saved. Had they done so, and followed the subject where it led, they would have been forced to conclude that the number of American deaths prevented by the two bombs would almost certainly not have ex- ceeded 20,000 and would probably have been much lower, perhaps even zero.
Panzer, I'm not trying to troll you, but what do you think of this quotation:
It seems like an accurate depiction of the moral considerations of the Allied forces, which is demonstrated in less diplomatic terms in another of Harris' famous quotes.
the aim of the Combined Bomber Offensive...should be unambiguously stated as the destruction of German cities, the killing of German workers, and the disruption of civilised life throughout Germany.
... the destruction of houses, public utilities, transport and lives, the creation of a refugee problem on an unprecedented scale, and the breakdown of morale both at home and at the battle fronts by fear of extended and intensified bombing, are accepted and intended aims of our bombing policy. They are not by-products of attempts to hit factories
The main difference though would be:
-That there was no direct Allied order to kill certain POWs.
Well, yes and no. There were no high level orders to kill POWs, but a 'take no prisoners' attitude was largely accepted (http://books.google.com/books?id=x1dQwuiEU3UC&pg=PA206&lpg=PA206&dq=%22japanese+pows%22+american+hands&source=web&ots=Jy7xIG7C1S&sig=J2I027gBjV9cqjD7t3h1-FiQW3o#v=onepage&q&f=false) by senior level officers and below.
-No specifically tasked groups to hunt and kill a certain ethnic group.
That, in my opinion, makes the American atrocities even more morally repugnant.
By and large, the Germans had a race war foisted on them by a powerful but relatively small group in the Nazi leadership with little recourse. The Jews were an obsession of Hitler and his circle, not the German people as a whole. From my readings, I have noted very little in the way anti-Semitic opinion among German soldiers and civilians, even after years of indoctrination. They may or may not have held a negative opinion of them after those years, but their attentions were focused elsewhere. That does not - in any way - absolve the Germans of their crimes. Those that were involved in the crimes made the choice to follow orders, and the greater German people deserve blame for entertaining an anti-Semitic political party in the first place even if their support had little to do with that element of the Nazi's ideology.
On the other hand, though, the American racism and hatred toward the Japanese was far more organic. They didn't simply line people up and shoot them because they were told to, the soldiers took it upon themselves to rip gold teeth out of living prisoners, cut ears their ears off, and boil their flesh off as to have their skulls as trophies for the mantle at home. Soldiers wrote home boasting about these activities, and captivated audiences cheered them on. Americans engaged in some of the most grotesque, disgusting war crimes I've ever heard of - we're talking medieval level craziness. Captain John Burden, who can be credited with the few Japanese who were taken prisoner concluded that it took three day passes and the promise of ice cream to convince American soldiers to take Japanese POWs. On the home front, racism and hatred weren't fostered by a diabolical propagandist such as Goebbels, but by Hollywood and individual Americans acting on their own, the same Americans who stood by with little protest when Japanese Americans were rounded up and sent to camps. Considering 10-13% of Americans consistently supported exterminating all the Japanese throughout the war and 30% more supported the destruction the nation of Japan, such a passive attitude is understandable.
-That the Allied took proper care of the POWs in camps instead of starving/working them to death.
I won't get into the merits of the claims made in Other Losses.
-That the Allies took care of the civilians under their control, heck they even did silly things like trying to prevent Japanese civilians from throwing themselves off cliffs.
That is all well and good, but they also incinerated a fair number of civilians based on very dubious military justifications.
-Nor did they have grand plans to colonize large areas and kill or expel tens of millions of people in the process.
Indeed, their plans were largely based on keeping the large areas they had already colonized and cleansed.
If the differences in ideals and planning doesn't make the Nazis worse than the Allies then the difference in sheer number of victims should.
I don't buy into that line of reasoning. It would certainly be more compelling if the Allied crimes were small, isolated incidents, but once the decision was made to destroy entire cities containing hundreds of thousands of civilians each, the numerical difference simply becomes a historical footnote. The morality of the decision to engage in mass slaughter is the same.
But I guess morality is subjective.
Definitely.
Sarmatian
10-06-2011, 08:04
I will not relax when people only see it one sided.I am stating here that the Japanese wouldn't surrender. Neither did they deserve to be nuked. You can see the heavy resistance the Japanese put up,when the amercians invaded .... I think it was Iwo Jima. Yes,that one,they put up a might defence against the Amercians. I don't think the Japanese citizens were that keen to defend their homeland,but they're innocent civialns,but they still would have defended their homeland.The British did not gain India that easily,they met with massive resistance,it was not until the duke of Wellington arrived that things began to change.And they managed to rule India.But there had been a revolution of 1857,explained well in the Bollywood historical drama Mangel Pandey. Had that revolution been successful, Britain wouldn't rule India.In the same way,the Japanese would have given a massive amount of resistance(Makes me laugh) And you can have so much respect for these people.They are truly like the French,or the bravest of the lot.You can't do much with them.It's the Japanese Army however that didn't want to give up,but the Japanese were forced into this war,believe it or not. They had to take measures. I don't think they were that willing to go with war with the USA.They must have realized this when they only failed to destroy the american fleet.Had they destroyed the whole fleet, it would have been a massive success to them. The Japanese of course did have a empire.Even if the soviets had invaded,the Japanese were pretty much like Napoleon's army in spain,wouldn't that easily give up their lands. Lastly I never believed the fact that you all think the soviets could win and conquer Japan,when if they did,they would find it to extreme to their tastes. Their war efforts were mainly directed at the Nazis. The Amercians had also planned a attack on the British empire itself. One must wonder, Why would the amercians care about a communist Japan? Maybe they could face a invasion from the soviets,but it was far from that,I don't think the soviets were that perilous to think of it.They had the war effort to deal with first.As I have told time and time again,the Japanese would never submit to anybody,unless precautions were taken,the nuke bomb was one:(,and Japan was never saved from America. America did apply economic sanctions on Japan before the war, after it invaded Indochina,and the economic sanctions were put in place until the end of the war. So it was difficult for the Japanese to do everything they wanted ,they couldn't even get supplies or guns,so they had to secretly deal with other companies or nations. The other thing they were aslo faced was that since they invaded Indochina,it could lead war with the powerful British navy or the american navy,either way, America gave Japan 2 options: Either don't invade Indochina and we will not apply the ecomonic sanctions or if you do invade indochina,then this will lead to war. '' The Japanese Prime Minister himself knew of the dangers precceded in front of him,but he had no choice to but to do it
And no,it was not right for the Japanese to be nuked. The Germans were defeated stragitcally. The Japanese should and should have been defeated stragitcally.Even if it meant thousands of deaths. What would have happened if Japan had discovered the nuclear bomb? They could have used it and made weapons of it,and bomb the amercian navies,cities and land. But if Japan had done this,they would have been seen as evil.However if the allies dropped the bomb on Japan's cities ,they would be seen as heroes .
Now that is pure evil isn't it? The Japanese were less brutal than the soviets and the Nazis. Even their crimes they committed only relates to the fact that they're doing what their ancestors attempted 100 or 1000 years ago. They had tried to expand ,but couldn't due to civil war. The Korean Invasions of 1598-99 ,I think were an example. Crimes were committed. But no says anything about it. But most civliastions one way or the other have done this for centuries,or lets say Humans kills Human,its common.
I aslo agree with Made's point here,because he's made a perfectly explainable ,well written,brilliantly written answer here:
We're forgetting the sense of duty and honor that these people had towards their superiors. There were plenty of Japanese generals that were more than ready to take the fight further, and it was only through Imperial intervention that they were forced not to. Hell, some of those generals committed sepuku right after they were told they would surrender.
Very true. This shows that they would never have surreded.
Now I think there is enough history for you(I just wrote and wrote) :book2: to debate with.:bow:
The difference between IJA and Red Army were huge. Red Army was doctrinally superior from the start and by 1945, it was superior in manpower, equipment, military hardware, command cadre etc... We're talking both quantity and quality here. Just few weeks before, they completed an utter trashing of Kwantung Army, easily the best and largest Japanese army at that point.
Hindsight is 20/20. You really need look no farther than Vietnam to see what the Japanese were probably capable of, and even more-so even with their cultural differences. Granted, there was a lot about Vietnam that was suspicious and why it went on for as long as it did, but conspiracy theories aside, I wouldn't put it above the Japanese to resort to suicidal acts at the time for the defense of their homeland when they were more than ready to do it, and did, on multiple occasions before that.
We're forgetting the sense of duty and honor that these people had towards their superiors. There were plenty of Japanese generals that were more than ready to take the fight further, and it was only through Imperial intervention that they were forced not to. Hell, some of those generals committed sepuku right after they were told they would surrender.
They represented plenty of threat to the people that would have been otherwise forced to bring the fight to their homeland. Like another guy said; many of their cities were carpet bombed to oblivion and even that didn't sway them.
Someone was going to die, that much is certain. We can look back on it and argue the finer points all we like, and I'm not about to assume you have no idea what the Japanese and their history are like. Perhaps you just give them more credit than they deserve. They were not stupid, but they were definitely focused on a certain ideal that would have otherwise made it difficult to subdue them.
This is really beside the point, and only proven because the allies eventually won over them. We really have no idea what they thought at the time.
This is really just more theories and conjecture, having known where our relationship with the Soviets went after it.
Again, we really can't discuss what they were thinking.
I still think we're getting hung up over the future US/Soviet engagements. You're basically assuming that everyone knew what the future held and what was going to happen. Don't mix the two and think they were somehow related. That's a little bit fallacious.
I think you're going to need to bring some sources to the table for that lofty opinion.
This is guess work. If the military clique was willing to sacrifice entire population of Japan before the bomb, why did it change after the bomb? If women children were willing to sacrifice themselves before the bomb, why not after? Why didn't the Japanese oppose American occupation at every turn?
What you're saying is that if Japan surrendered because of invasion and conventional military defeat, or because of blockade and conventional bombing than somehow every civilian would continue to fight while surrender because of the bomb made them all tranquil?
That's not logical. Furthermore, there are many instances of Japanese soldiers surrendering to Americans, but in a lot of those cases, Americans didn't really took prisoners.
Another clue is that Japan already tried to surrender, albeit non unconditionally. In the light of all of this, it doesn't really makes sense to assume they were all fanatics who would have gladly sacrificed themselves to the last child.
Also, it is fairly known that both Soviet and western Allies were worried about the balance of power after the WW2, from the moment it became clear that war will be won. Communist Japan would have meant absolutely no western influence in east Asia.
Here (http://us.history.wisc.edu/hist102/readings/messer_newevidence.pdf) is a non-book source that offers some clearer insight into Truman's decision making and his true motivations. Money quote (apologies for the rough copy/paste from the pdf):
I don't think Truman's notes say what you or Esser think they say.
He'll [Stalin] be in Jap War on August 15th." To this Truman added: "Fini Japs when that comes about."
Esser is interpreting fini as surrender. That's not how I read it. I read it as "doomed". Frankly, the Japs and the Germans were fini in 1943. Arguably in 1941. When America entered the war, Churchill said something like "So, we won after all."
[I] believe Japs will fold up before Russia comes in. I am sure they will when Manhattan appears over their homeland.
You and Esser seem to be reading "fold up before" as "fold up when". Truman was saying he thinks dropping the A-bomb will definitely induce a Japanese surrender, not that the Russian declaration of war would.
I think your money quote shows Truman's motivations in rather a favorable light. "think of the kids who won't be killed!" was always the conventional justification for dropping the bomb. I don't buy your moral equivalency between the Axis and Allies; I don't think Hitler and Tojo cared much about kids not being killed; they are called militarists and war-mongers for a reason.
Since the Japanese had a tendency of fanatically defending to the last man, including hiding grenades just to kill a few more GI's, I have no doubt that a lot of soldiers were reluctant to take POW's as it was simply easier to kill them all. I'm sure there was some racism involved too but nothing that compared with the Eastern Front. The sheer volume of warcrimes committed by special groups, SS and the Wehrmacht speaks for itself.
There was nothing dubious about the bombing strategy. A lot of the Japanese industry were rather small factories scattered across the cities. That is noted in the US bombing survey. Large scale fire bombing made sense and wrecked the Japanese industry.
I won't get into the merits of the claims made in Other LossesA book that has received a barrage of criticism so one should take the claims made in that book with a grain of salt.
Indeed, their plans were largely based on keeping the large areas they had already colonized and cleansed. Colonized perhaps but I don't see much cleansing. It can never be compared with the deranged Nazi dream of Lebensraum in the east.
It would certainly be more compelling if the Allied crimes were small, isolated incidents, but once the decision was made to destroy entire cities containing hundreds of thousands of civilians each, the numerical difference simply becomes a historical footnote. The morality of the decision to engage in mass slaughter is the same. One being an abhorrent racists ideology that killed millions and involved tens if not hundreds of thousands or perpetrators, yes that ideology was indeed the main reason for the war. The other being a decision to use nukes to end a war quickly instead of postponing and potentially killing a lot more people.
Or to put it in another way: The numerical difference in victims was a consequence of the number and severity of the decisions made. If we are to question the morality of how the Allies fought it is still nothing compared to all the bad decisions the Nazis took. We also know what happened with the Allies being winners. A quick look at GeneralPlan Ost and it is easy to see the consequences of Hitler being the winner and the Japanese were not much better. It is therefore no wonder that both of these nations were responsible for many millions of victims. When comparing that to US actions in the Pacific then whatever USA did is indeed just small and isolated incidents.
This is guess work.
A lot of that going on around here. heh.
If the military clique was willing to sacrifice entire population of Japan before the bomb, why did it change after the bomb?
Because... those that didn't want to surrender committed sepuku? I said that before. Also, regardless of what everyone thinks about the time between the two bombs, the Japanese took the bombing of Hiroshima with relative ease. And about them "not having enough time to respond to a surrender"; japanese radio was being monitored 99.9% of the time, and their current codes had been cracked. They could have got the message out a lot quicker than you think.
If women children were willing to sacrifice themselves before the bomb, why not after? Why didn't the Japanese oppose American occupation at every turn?
Because they surrendered...? Besides, I don't really want to get into that type of argument with you; "Well, why didn't they do THIS?".
What you're saying is that if Japan surrendered because of invasion and conventional military defeat, or because of blockade and conventional bombing than somehow every civilian would continue to fight while surrender because of the bomb made them all tranquil?
That's not logical.
Key word here is "surrender". If they would have surrendered in any other way, it's likely the result would have been the same... but that's IF. Do you know what Bushido is? I mean, have you actually read it? Because you wouldn't make these claims if you had.
Furthermore, there are many instances of Japanese soldiers surrendering to Americans, but in a lot of those cases, Americans didn't really took prisoners.
What that other guy said. The US had plenty of POW's, and yes, they were treated a helluva lot better than the POW's of the Germans were, and even the Japanese.
Another clue is that Japan already tried to surrender, albeit non unconditionally.
Well, there ya go. I don't think this helped you any, so I'm not sure why you brought it up.
In the light of all of this, it doesn't really makes sense to assume they were all fanatics who would have gladly sacrificed themselves to the last child.
Sure it does, because they had proven it dozens of times before World War 2. And it has nothing to do with "sacrificing" anyone - children are just as capable of making irrational decisions as adults are. Have you seen Somalia lately?
Also, it is fairly known that both Soviet and western Allies were worried about the balance of power after the WW2, from the moment it became clear that war will be won.
There's this red scare stuff again... but, okay. I'll concede this point, but I don't see how that helps your argument any.
Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout
10-06-2011, 20:08
The atom bomb was not yet available in May 1945 when Germany surrendered. I assume you are not seriously suggested that America should have nuked Berlin after the surrender.
Yes. If you and others think it was fine to do it,then Berlin should have been nuked.
Sarmatian
10-06-2011, 21:09
Because... those that didn't want to surrender committed sepuku? I said that before. Also, regardless of what everyone thinks about the time between the two bombs, the Japanese took the bombing of Hiroshima with relative ease. And about them "not having enough time to respond to a surrender"; japanese radio was being monitored 99.9% of the time, and their current codes had been cracked. They could have got the message out a lot quicker than you think.
This is not just noticing that a city was bombed, which could have been radioed easily, yes. It is also about understanding a new weapon, assessing the damage it could do, assessing opponents ability to build and deliver that kind of weapon to ultimately getting that information to those in charge, have them discuss it and finally make a decision. Three days is simply not enough. Remember that this is the chaos of war. If you hadn't already, I suggest you watch Der Untergang. It conveyed pretty accurately just how hard it was for Hitler and those around him to get accurate information.
Key word here is "surrender". If they would have surrendered in any other way, it's likely the result would have been the same... but that's IF. Do you know what Bushido is? I mean, have you actually read it? Because you wouldn't make these claims if you had.
Ok. You're of the opinion that Japan would simply ignore reality and continue to fight against all odds. I disagree.
Yes, I know what Bushido is. No, I haven't read it. And please, enough with the mysticism and enough with comparing an extinct feudal warrior caste with IJA.
What that other guy said. The US had plenty of POW's, and yes, they were treated a helluva lot better than the POW's of the Germans were, and even the Japanese.
Don't disagree. The point was that Japanese did try to surrender and in larger number than the records show. Would have been more if the Americans treated them all as POW's.
Well, there ya go. I don't think this helped you any, so I'm not sure why you brought it up.
It helped me plenty, because it shows that some common sense was present even in the minds of the military clique that was ruling Japan at the time and that they were contemplating, even pursuing, surrender, contrary to "death before dishonour" and "long live bushido" myths. They were able to assess that the war is lost. The idea wasn't to defeat America, they knew that they've lost, but they hoped for a show of force that would grant them better conditions later on.
Sure it does, because they had proven it dozens of times before World War 2. And it has nothing to do with "sacrificing" anyone - children are just as capable of making irrational decisions as adults are. Have you seen Somalia lately?
:dizzy2: err, ok, if you say so.
There's this red scare stuff again... but, okay. I'll concede this point, but I don't see how that helps your argument any.
Again, helps me plenty because the idea of communist Japan wasn't at all pleasing to the US. A quick end of the war by the use of the bomb was preferred.
This is not just noticing that a city was bombed, which could have been radioed easily, yes. It is also about understanding a new weapon, assessing the damage it could do, assessing opponents ability to build and deliver that kind of weapon to ultimately getting that information to those in charge, have them discuss it and finally make a decision.
You are aware there were tests at Los Alamos, right?
Three days is simply not enough. Remember that this is the chaos of war. If you hadn't already, I suggest you watch Der Untergang. It conveyed pretty accurately just how hard it was for Hitler and those around him to get accurate information.
Are you kidding? Downfall was the last days of Hitler and his regime (10 days, to be exact) - after they had been continuously defeated at every turn. Their country was in complete chaos, and you're trying to tell me that has any bearing on a country like Japan who's infrastructure was still completely intact? No, I'm not watching a movie that I've already seen to get any info on the Japanese and what they were/weren't capable of. Their navies were defeated, not their armies or their spirit.
Ok. You're of the opinion that Japan would simply ignore reality and continue to fight against all odds. I disagree.
That's fine.
Yes, I know what Bushido is. No, I haven't read it. And please, enough with the mysticism and enough with comparing an extinct feudal warrior caste with IJA.
Not only is this idea simply ludicruous, but you're trying to completely throw out a fundamental concept of what made the Japanese the Japanese. That isn't how you win an argument - sorry. We're talking about something that was just beginning to be fazed out less than 100 years before the war. That generation was still alive and kicking, and it was easily within their limits to keep it alive. It is still romanticized even today.
Don't disagree. The point was that Japanese did try to surrender and in larger number than the records show. Would have been more if the Americans treated them all as POW's.
Apparently it wasn't enough. No offense, but I'm going to put up the word of world leaders over yours. If the terms of surrender that the Japanese were offering wasn't enough for them (we're talking "as a whole", here), it's not enough for me. If I thought any different, I would consider myself their equals or better, and that's quite absurd.
It helped me plenty, because it shows that some common sense was present even in the minds of the military clique that was ruling Japan at the time and that they were contemplating, even pursuing, surrender, contrary to "death before dishonour" and "long live bushido" myths.
You can stop with calling it a "myth", because it was far from that. It was practically the rules of how they lived their lives for a thousand years. I'd hardly call something that they adhered to for a millenia a "myth" and easily tossed aside just like that. Ever heard of the Bible? Let's argue about how easy it is to throw away that idea.
And I'm not going to doubt that there were people that wanted to pursue surrender - there absolutely was. However, that was never the argument to begin with. The argument is that they were not willing to unanimously do it at that moment, which is what made the bombs, arguably, necessary.
They were able to assess that the war is lost. The idea wasn't to defeat America, they knew that they've lost, but they hoped for a show of force that would grant them better conditions later on.
The idea was always to defeat America, otherwise they wouldn't have attempted to do it in the first place. And if you're going to suckerpunch someone, don't expect them to want to give you "favorable" terms.
:dizzy2: err, ok, if you say so.
You can stop it with this.
Again, helps me plenty because the idea of communist Japan wasn't at all pleasing to the US. A quick end of the war by the use of the bomb was preferred.
We're talking about a country that forcefully isolated itself because it didn't want outside influences, such as Christianity, taking to much of a hold on their people. I do not see the Japanese giving up everything they've lived for that easily, especially with what they believed in. The threat of Japanese communism is quite laughable, to me.
Sarmatian
10-07-2011, 07:18
You are aware there were tests at Los Alamos, right?
Yes, but Japanese delegation's invitation to the event got lost in the post, along with the manual.
Are you kidding? Downfall was the last days of Hitler and his regime (10 days, to be exact) - after they had been continuously defeated at every turn. Their country was in complete chaos, and you're trying to tell me that has any bearing on a country like Japan who's infrastructure was still completely intact? No, I'm not watching a movie that I've already seen to get any info on the Japanese and what they were/weren't capable of. Their navies were defeated, not their armies or their spirit.
Japan is a series of islands and lacks just about everything a modern country needs. Defeat of the navy meant that Japanese can't produce any industrial good, including military equipment. A huge chunk of the army was outside Japan, they couldn't supply them without a navy. Japanese army was defeated many times, on various islands by the Americans and the bulk of it that was on Asian mainland was cut off and partly bogged down in China or utterly destroyed (Kwantung army in Manchuria).
Concerning intact infrastructure, this is Tokyo in 1945
https://img593.imageshack.us/img593/6493/tokyobombing1.jpg (https://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/593/tokyobombing1.jpg/)
Not only is this idea simply ludicruous, but you're trying to completely throw out a fundamental concept of what made the Japanese the Japanese. That isn't how you win an argument - sorry. We're talking about something that was just beginning to be fazed out less than 100 years before the war. That generation was still alive and kicking, and it was easily within their limits to keep it alive. It is still romanticized even today.
It was romanticized and some indeed tried to act in accordance with it, but that was limited to officers, not the population or even army as a whole.
Apparently it wasn't enough. No offense, but I'm going to put up the word of world leaders over yours. If the terms of surrender that the Japanese were offering wasn't enough for them (we're talking "as a whole", here), it's not enough for me. If I thought any different, I would consider myself their equals or better, and that's quite absurd.
Trusting the politicians at the their word usually is a good idea. No offense, but If you're already decided what you're gonna believe, than there's little point in our discussion.
You can stop with calling it a "myth", because it was far from that. It was practically the rules of how they lived their lives for a thousand years. I'd hardly call something that they adhered to for a millenia a "myth" and easily tossed aside just like that. Ever heard of the Bible? Let's argue about how easy it is to throw away that idea.
Only a small percentage lived that way even in the past. If you believe that peasants and fishermen in Japan lived by the code of Bushido, you've got another thing coming.
The idea was always to defeat America, otherwise they wouldn't have attempted to do it in the first place. And if you're going to suckerpunch someone, don't expect them to want to give you "favorable" terms.
Nope, the idea at first was to strike hard, cripple the US Pacific Fleet and get them to conclude a peace, much like they did with Russia in 1905. Unfortunately, they missed the carriers and USA in 1941 was in much better position to continue than Russia in 1905. Even in the beginning, no one really believed they could defeat US in a total war.
Later on, in 1945, they just wanted a last show of force so that they could get a few concessions in the peace treaty.
We're talking about a country that forcefully isolated itself because it didn't want outside influences, such as Christianity, taking to much of a hold on their people. I do not see the Japanese giving up everything they've lived for that easily, especially with what they believed in. The threat of Japanese communism is quite laughable, to me.
Read about Japanese POWs that came back from the Soviet Union and their opinion on the communism. That being said, if Soviet Army was there, no one would have asked the Japanese if they liked it, it would have been enforced.
Yes, but Japanese delegation's invitation to the event got lost in the post, along with the manual.
Cute. Want to have a discussion now?
Japan is a series of islands and lacks just about everything a modern country needs.
There is a word for this - it starts with "Bull" and ends with...
Defeat of the navy meant that Japanese can't produce any industrial good, including military equipment.
Are you done making stuff up?
A huge chunk of the army was outside Japan, they couldn't supply them without a navy. Japanese army was defeated many times, on various islands by the Americans and the bulk of it that was on Asian mainland was cut off and partly bogged down in China or utterly destroyed (Kwantung army in Manchuria).
Ok.
Concerning intact infrastructure, this is Tokyo in 1945
Because Tokyo is the only city in Japan.
It was romanticized and some indeed tried to act in accordance with it, but that was limited to officers, not the population or even army as a whole.
More baseless opinion trying to be passed off as fact.
Trusting the politicians at the their word usually is a good idea.
You sound like you have some problems that run just a tiny bit deeper than your disagreement with me.
No offense, but If you're already decided what you're gonna believe, than there's little point in our discussion.
That's funny - I could say the same thing to you.
Only a small percentage lived that way even in the past. If you believe that peasants and fishermen in Japan lived by the code of Bushido, you've got another thing coming.
More baseless opinion trying to be passed off as fact.
Nope, the idea at first was to strike hard, cripple the US Pacific Fleet and get them to conclude a peace, much like they did with Russia in 1905. Unfortunately, they missed the carriers and USA in 1941 was in much better position to continue than Russia in 1905.
Well, you got something right at least, except;
Even in the beginning, no one really believed they could defeat US in a total war.
Later on, in 1945, they just wanted a last show of force so that they could get a few concessions in the peace treaty.
Sources, please.
Read about Japanese POWs that came back from the Soviet Union and their opinion on the communism. That being said, if Soviet Army was there, no one would have asked the Japanese if they liked it, it would have been enforced.
It sounds like you want me to do the work for you. Again, that's not how you win an argument. If you're trying to convince me of something, don't say "Go read/watch this and come back". It's your job to prove me wrong - not my job to prove you right.
But then again, this argument isn't really going anywhere, so I really don't see the point. I'm fine with it ending as is; you believe what you believe, and I believe what I believe.
Sarmatian
10-07-2011, 10:30
Cute. Want to have a discussion now?[/qoute]
Always, but we need to decide what we're discussing. I'm talking about the Japanese and the effect of the bomb on Japan and you tell me that Americans had a test at Los Alamos. What's that got to do with it?
[QUOTE]There is a word for this - it starts with "Bull" and ends with...
Ok, I thought that Japan relying on imports was common knowledge but ok...
http://www.kobeworld.com/1country_3naturalres.html (http://www.kobeworld.com/1country_3naturalres.html)
That's the gist of it. Japan lacks natural resources.
A more in-depth article about Japan's economic expansion pre- and during ww2.
http://www.historyorb.com/asia/japan_economic_expansion.shtml
Are you done making stuff up?
I haven't made anything up, as you can see by the previous links.
Because Tokyo is the only city in Japan.
Osaka
https://img411.imageshack.us/img411/94/osakaafterthe1945airrai.jpg (https://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/411/osakaafterthe1945airrai.jpg/)
Kobe
https://img546.imageshack.us/img546/4479/p237a.jpg (https://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/546/p237a.jpg/)
Now, I can go on but you should make an effort yourself now.
More baseless opinion trying to be passed off as fact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samurai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samurai). Not at a single point in history of Japan, number of Samurais exceeded 10%.
They were disbanded as a military caste by the Emperor Meiji. Some of their influence remained in the army, not unlike how Prussian aristocracy tended to have high position in the Wehrmacht.
More baseless opinion trying to be passed off as fact.
No, as shown by the previous link.
Sources, please.
http://www.worldwariihistory.info/WWII/Japan.html
An excerpt
First, its navy would neutralize the American fleet with a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. Japan would also seize America's central Pacific bases at Guam and Wake islands and invade the Philippines. With American naval power crippled, Japan's military would be free to seize Burma, Malaya, Singapore, and the Dutch East Indies in a series of rapid amphibious operations. Japan would then establish a defensive ring around its newly conquered empire by fortifying islands in the south and the central Pacific.
Japan's leaders were convinced that Americans, once involved in the European war, would be willing to negotiate peace in the Pacific.
I rest my case. Do what you want do to, I'm done arguing with you.
Always, but we need to decide what we're discussing. I'm talking about the Japanese and the effect of the bomb on Japan and you tell me that Americans had a test at Los Alamos. What's that got to do with it?
It is also about understanding a new weapon, assessing the damage it could do, assessing opponents ability to build and deliver that kind of weapon to ultimately getting that information to those in charge, have them discuss it and finally make a decision.
You brought it up, not me.
I haven't made anything up, as you can see by the previous links.
Congratulations.
Now, I can go on but you should make an effort yourself now.
There are 56 cities in Japan. Indulge me.
Not at a single point in history of Japan, number of Samurais exceeded 10%. They were disbanded as a military caste by the Emperor Meiji. Some of their influence remained in the army, not unlike how Prussian aristocracy tended to have high position in the Wehrmacht.
Who said anything about having to be a Samurai in order to follow Bushido?
I rest my case. Do what you want do to, I'm done arguing with you.
Do you realize how childish that makes you sound when you say that? I think I'm done with you, too.
Long story short; no one convinced anyone of anything, which is why these discussions are usually pointless.
Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout
10-07-2011, 10:59
I am agreeing with Made here. Your posts samiatrian,make no sense. The Soviets may have defeated the Japanese,but they didn't have much intrest in it. And Commuinsim wouldnt have been popular in Japan. If Japan is a series of islands,then how did they manage to war? They have no industry,they supplied the army and made the WII,how come you're appearing so anti-japanese?
Sarmatian
10-07-2011, 14:04
snip
It's just that I believe you're now doing this on purpose. You refuse to discuss anything, make outlandish claims, ask for sources for what is common knowledge, all the while playing dumb like when I mention that the Japanese needed time to assess the damage from the bomb and figure out literally what hit them, you ask me if I'm aware that Americans tested the bomb at Los Alamos??? When I explained again, your response was "you brought it up"???
Oh, and all that without a single source from your side... No problems from my side, really. it just that it feels I'm arguing with the kid who doesn't really know what he's talking about and is being ignorant on purpose. It's not my job to educate you, I just like to discuss stuff here with other history buffs here. You want to act like that, be my guest but you won't drag me further.
It's just that I believe you're now doing this on purpose.
Doing what, exactly? Disagreeing with you?
You refuse to discuss anything, make outlandish claims
Everything I've said is easily within reason, but purely speculation, which I pointed out before I barely even entered this conversation. For you to think you have any idea what was really going on back then is just dumb, and I really don't care how many sources you have. There's a reason this whole discussion about the bombs is controversial.
To be honest, I never really cared about your opinion anyway.
ask for sources for what is common knowledge
Are you trying to insult me? Seriously? You're the one getting all uppity about this, not me - so really, what's your deal? Does it bother you to be challanged that much? Because I wonder what it would be like to see someone smarter and more important than you argue one point successfully after being challenged intellectually at every turn, just to go and say "I'm done, I'm right, you're wrong, Bye" after really only proving a handful of minor details that, really, had nothing to do with the main argument to begin with - "were the bombs necessary?". I'll concede that you showed me some things I didn't know about necessarily, but that's really it.
all the while playing dumb like when I mention that the Japanese needed time to assess the damage from the bomb and figure out literally what hit them, you ask me if I'm aware that Americans tested the bomb at Los Alamos??? When I explained again, your response was "you brought it up"???
Because I feel that an adequate test consists of turning a giant strip of desert into one massive sheet of glass, among other things. You also said "someone needed to assess the damage", not "the Japanese needed to assess it". I took it one way because you left out an important piece of information - who exactly?
Oh, and all that without a single source from your side...
Because I don't need to.
I'm arguing with the kid who doesn't really know what he's talking about and is being ignorant on purpose.
Ok, NOW this discussion is over. The only thing we've proven here is that you simply don't like to be wrong and would rather insult the person than argue impartially.
PanzerJaeger
10-07-2011, 20:34
I don't think Truman's notes say what you or Esser think they say.
Esser is interpreting fini as surrender. That's not how I read it. I read it as "doomed". Frankly, the Japs and the Germans were fini in 1943. Arguably in 1941. When America entered the war, Churchill said something like "So, we won after all."
If it was already clear that the Japanese were 'doomed' in 1945 and much earlier - which it was - why would Truman see Soviet involvement as the final straw? Your interpretation only makes sense if we are to believe that Truman saw the Japanese as still having a chance at victory or at least survival before Soviet involvement, which he clearly didn't.
It makes much more sense to interpret it as 'surrender', as it was well known in the administration that the Japanese were trying to negotiate a conditional surrender through Moscow and even an alliance. Without the Soviet Union, there was no where left for Japan to turn in an effort to find more favorable terms - something else that Truman knew very well, as can be seen in intercepted messages, such as this June 1945 intercept "Substance of Ambassador Sato's 8 June message to Foreign Minister Togo":
If Russia by some chance should suddenly decide to take advantage of our weakness and intervene against us with force of arms, we would be in a completely hopeless situation. It is clear as day that the Imperial Army in Manchukuo would be completely unable to oppose the Red Army which has just won a great victory and is superior to us on all points.
And his own intelligence, including the U.S.-British Combined Intelligence Committee's "Estimate of the Enemy Situation" which stated:
An entry of the Soviet Union into the war would finally convince the Japanese of the inevitability of complete defeat.
This view is supported by historical assessments of the time including the official British history of the war:
"The Russian declaration of war was the decisive factor in bringing Japan to accept the Potsdam declaration, for it brought home to all members of the Supreme Council the realization that the last hope of a negotiated peace had gone and that there was no alternative but to accept the Allied terms sooner or later."
And also recent archival research by historians such as Tsuyoshi Hasegawa who have concluded that it was in fact the Soviet invasion of Manchuria - not the atomic bombings - that finally induced the Japanese leadership to agree to the Potsdam Declaration. Only a collection American historians have refused to accept the Russian situation.
And bringing the discussion back to the necessity of the bomb in order to save 'a million American lives' (another study that disproves that notion (http://books.google.com/books?id=oQYAAAAAMBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false)), why - if Truman understood that Soviet involvement would have a significant effect on the Japanese (regardless of whether we assume that to be 'dooming' them or 'inducing them to surrender') why wouldn't he wait until that actually happened to gauge the results? Why was there such a race to deplete the US nuclear arsenal first on August 6 and then on the 9th - the very same day Russia joined the conflict? Why was there only a three day window between the dropping of the first and the second?
In essence, if the bombs were seen only as a last resort to save American lives, why was there such a time crunch? Japan had absolutely no offensive capability, and American forces surrounding the islands were facing very little danger. An American invasion could be conducted at Truman's leisure - unless there were other factors besides American lives to consider, such a Soviet intervention.
I think your money quote shows Truman's motivations in rather a favorable light. "think of the kids who won't be killed!" was always the conventional justification for dropping the bomb.
Yes, it does make his motivations clear. The only way the bomb would save American lives is if an American invasion had to be launched instead, and the only reason an American invasion would have had to have been launched was to keep Japan from being invaded by the Soviet Union. He even said it himself in later years.
"One of the main objectives of the Potsdam Conference was to get Russia in as quickly as we could and then to keep Russia out of Japan—and I did it."
And the same sentiment was stated even more clearly by his Secretary of State James Byrnes in an interview in US News and World Report in 1960:
Interviewer: “Was there a feeling of urgency to end the war in the Pacific before the Russians became too deeply involved?”
Byrnes: “There certainly was on my part, and I’m sure that, whatever views President Truman may have had of it earlier in the year, that in the days immediately preceding the dropping of the bomb his views were the same as mine- we wanted to get through the Japanese phase of the war before the Russians came in”
So yes, Truman did hope the bomb would save American lives - but that was only because he had already committed to invading Japan before the Russians could for geopolitical reasons. That would be like George W hoping that a new weapon would save lives in Iraq in March of 2003 - hardly a moral position to take.
I don't buy your moral equivalency between the Axis and Allies; I don't think Hitler and Tojo cared much about kids not being killed; they are called militarists and war-mongers for a reason.
FDR certainly had no interest in making war.
“The Soviets may have defeated the Japanese,but they didn't have much intrest in it. And Commuinsim wouldnt have been popular in Japan.”
The Soviets did defeat the Japanese in Manchuria, Korea, and Kuril Islands. No much interest is probably why Russia still occupies some islands. Poland, East Germany, Hungary, and others didn’t like Communism… It didn’t matter…
“If Japan is a series of islands, then how did they manage to war?” Pure aggression and sphere of co-prosperity… Just need a fleet and good army…
About Samurai, the revolt against Mutsu Hito (The last Samurai) to create a Republic (Jules Brunet was the character played by Tom Cruise). He was involved in the expedition in Mexico, went to Japan in 1867, and will be one of the Creators of the Republic of Ezo with Takeaki Enomoto as President. Even in the 19th Century, the total obedience to the Emperor was not so strong, apparently…
I agree with PJ (once is not habit) and Sarmatian. A show to convince USSR is not exclusive of a political push to persuade Japan to surrender. You have to remember that the targets were spared of bombing before in order to really have a good assessment of the destruction…
I believe there may be an argument of interest, I believe I heard something that the use of the A-bomb was also rushed to prevent the Soviets fully turning around and taking Asia, so they wanted Japan to surrender quickly.
Catiline
10-08-2011, 00:29
Gentlemen, I don't think the point by point quote/riposte is being helpful here. Let's trhy and channel discussion without the personal insults please. Otherwise it will be discussion over.
This is also gthe second thread today where the suggestion that somehow citing sources isn't important. Unfortunately for that approach, this is the Monastry and not the backroom ( i'm being harsh on the backroom there - they'd pull you to shreds for lack of sources), and we expect to see sources here, especially when the topic or claim is controversial
Gentlemen, I don't think the point by point quote/riposte is being helpful here. Let's trhy and channel discussion without the personal insults please. Otherwise it will be discussion over.
I'm going to assume you're talking to me and Sarmatian. Fair enough. I think Sarmatian and I are quite happy to avoid each other anyway.
This is also gthe second thread today where the suggestion that somehow citing sources isn't important. Unfortunately for that approach, this is the Monastry and not the backroom ( i'm being harsh on the backroom there - they'd pull you to shreds for lack of sources), and we expect to see sources here, especially when the topic or claim is controversial
My intention wasn't to argue for the opinions/claims of others - it was to argue my own opinion with what I know of the Japanese. Therefore, I don't need sources, because I'm not trying to claim I know anything other than what is already common knowledge. If you see something the requires a source, I'll gladly make an attempt to find one for you. No one asked me to provide one though and, therefore, I never tried.
PS. I would appreciate it if you did not edit my posts but leave the person who arguably attacked me first untouched. My "see ya later" comment was probably uncalled for, but it was no different than what he had been saying to me.
If it was already clear that the Japanese were 'doomed' in 1945 and much earlier - which it was - why would Truman see Soviet involvement as the final straw? Your interpretation only makes sense if we are to believe that Truman saw the Japanese as still having a chance at victory or at least survival before Soviet involvement, which he clearly didn't.
It makes much more sense to interpret it as 'surrender',...
If he meant surrender, I think he would have said surrender. "Fini" is a much more vague term, not unlike another F-word we are not supposed to use at the Org. As I've said, I think the Allies had for a long time realised that the Axis were fini. (Intelligent Axis commanders also realised that - the architect of Pearl Harbour predicting at the time of the attack, that Japan would have six months to run riot in the Pacific and then would be in trouble.) However, they still exulted in the substantial steps along the road to victory. The Russian intervention was as substantial a step towards the defeat of Japan as any, imo and quite justified Truman's exclamation. I can't think of any more decisive steps in WW2, except Germany's invasion of Russia and declaration of war on the US. I'm more inclined to take Truman at his own word and accept that he thought dropping the bomb would bring Japan to surrender much sooner and with less bloodshed than would otherwise be the case.
And also recent archival research by historians such as Tsuyoshi Hasegawa who have concluded that it was in fact the Soviet invasion of Manchuria - not the atomic bombings - that finally induced the Japanese leadership to agree to the Potsdam Declaration.
Yes, I've heard Hasegawa's work alluded to, but never read any of the specifics that he uses to support his thesis. The Russians invaded on mid-night of 9 August; the second A-bomb was dropped while the Japanese war cabinet had just started to meet to discuss the invasion. I suspect it's almost impossible to separate out the two factors. Even faced with this double blow, the war cabinet was still divided with the hardline faction still wanting to fight on. The Japanese Emperor, who appears to have been decisive in breaking the deadlock, referred to the A-bomb not the Russian invasion as the decisive factor in his surrender address.
And bringing the discussion back to the necessity of the bomb in order to save 'a million American lives' (another study that disproves that notion), why - if Truman understood that Soviet involvement would have a significant effect on the Japanese (regardless of whether we assume that to be 'dooming' them or 'inducing them to surrender') why wouldn't he wait until that actually happened to gauge the results? Why was there such a race to deplete the US nuclear arsenal first on August 6 and then on the 9th - the very same day Russia joined the conflict? Why was there only a three day window between the dropping of the first and the second?
On the dropping of the second A-bomb, I suspect that was done promptly to convince the Japanese that the Americans had more than one bomb. The Japanese knew how hard it was to make an Atomic bomb and after Hiroshimo questioned whether the US had more. [A captured Amercian pilot told them the US had 100 A-bombs, because he thought that was what they wanted to hear. The Japanese military believed him. And still did not want to surrender. :dizzy:] The same argument is why the Amercians dropped the first bomb on a city rather than an underpopulated base: having only two nukes, they did not want to squander them. They were essentially engaged in something of a bluff, trying to convince the Japanese they had many A-bombs as firing off your only two such weapons would be a much less effective threat.
I am not arguing that dropping the A-bomb was necessary or morally justified, by the way. (I am keeping an open mind on that.) Merely that Truman thought it was necessary and morally justified.
PS:I am sorry Catiline my only sources are wikipedia, although it is quite good on this topic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan
Catiline
10-08-2011, 03:47
Heh
I'm not suggesting everything has to be sourced, we're not at university, just that it's worth thinking about being able to provide them if challenged.
agreed on the quality of the wikipedia articles.
Sarmatian
10-08-2011, 07:46
Well, I didn't expect that I need to provide a source that Japan is an island nation and that it lacks energy and natural resources. I didn't expect that I have to provide a picture to prove Japan's major cities were bombed out by 1945 and that you need a navy to actually provide for troops overseas.
PJ - :bow:
Papewaio
10-12-2011, 11:28
Does it matter the weapon of choice used if you die and die quickly?
Is the issue the use of atomic bombs instead of conventional warfare?
Conventional weapons were being ignored, there was no rush to surrender even though the bombing of cities by conventional bombs killed as many if not more in a day.
The atomics deaths per bomb was much higher. Is it more wrong to kill many with one bomb vs the same number with many bombs?
The amount of destruction they yielded did give the Japanese a very good reason to surrender as it was a power far beyond they could deploy and it probably saved a lot of face in doing so.
Was it wrong to drop the bombs because the civilians were civilians? Yes, under normal circumstances killing civilians is a bad thing. Was this a normal situation? World War II was well under way, most of the world had been affected in some manner. In war civilians can be collatoral damage. However the atomics were aimed at population centres relatively unscared by bombings. They were squarely aimed at civilians. Surely in warfare this isn't the norm. However it wasn't even normal war by this point. It was total war, war were all citizens of a country may be targeted.
But how did it become so? Something to do with the way the Axis had waged war is the reason. The Axis and in particular the Japanese didn't just kill enemy civilians in an actively fighting province, the Japanese Imperial forces killed surrended people, be they military or civilian. Towns and cities across asia were decimated or worse wiped out. One city alone after surrendering lost 300,000 civilians. The death marches were infamous well before the fall of Okiniawa.
So against that backdrop did the Allies have the right to leave their remaining POWs at the mercy of the Japanese military?
Or did the Allies have a moral imperative to finish the war as quickly as possible?
Based on a land invasion or starvation, millions of Japanese civilians would have died.
So atomics 200k, conventional warfare 2,000k+
Atomics saved lives, it was the moral and right thing to do.
Is the issue the use of atomic bombs instead of conventional warfare?
....
The amount of destruction they yielded did give the Japanese a very good reason to surrender as it was a power far beyond they could deploy and it probably saved a lot of face in doing so.
These are good points. I think they answer Sarmatian's scepticism about why the A-bomb could induce a surrender when greater losses through conventional bombing had not. The Japanese militarist faction hoped for one last great battle in which they could inflict such great casualties that the Allies would come to terms. However, the prospect of 100 A-bombs raining down on their cities - unlike a US invasion - denied them that prospect.
Was it wrong to drop the bombs because the civilians were civilians? Yes, under normal circumstances killing civilians is a bad thing. ... It was total war, war were all citizens of a country may be targeted.
May is a bit of a weasel word in this context. If you mean, ethically permitted, I am not convinced. One important point - that PJ emphasises - is that the war was already effectively won. A total war in which you are fighting for survival may permit you to cross some normal boundaries, although I am not fully persuaded of that. But when you have basically won and just want to end things quickly, the same "imminent risk" kind of argument does not apply.
And of course, even though it was a total war in some senses, it was still fought with rules. The Western allies by and large tried to respect things like proper treatment of prisoners. Bombing was something of a grey area: the Americans seemed to want to try to avoid bombing civilians in Europe (flying by day for greater accuracy) whereas the Brits under Bomber Harris positively encouraged it.
But how did it become so? Something to do with the way the Axis had waged war is the reason.
Partly, but I think sensitivities were coarser back then. I think the Brits were gassing Iraqi villages in the 1930s. In the Post-War period, some US medics were giving orphans STDs for research and leaving them untreated (and ignorant). The Iraqi villagers and the orphans had not done anything particularly odious to warrant this treatment and they were not in "total war" situations. What was the reason? I could conjecture part of it was greater deference and lack of transparency (you could get away with more); part of it was greater nationalism (carrying less for the other); and part of it may be a less developed sense of human rights and associated legal protections.
Or did the Allies have a moral imperative to finish the war as quickly as possible?
Based on a land invasion or starvation, millions of Japanese civilians would have died.
So atomics 200k, conventional warfare 2,000k+
Atomics saved lives, it was the moral and right thing to do.
Opinions differ, but for me, this kind of issue - killing innocents - is not one where the utilitarian calculus of weighing up numbers seems compelling. I would rather two soldiers die than one civilian. I would rather war drags on and more die than win it more quickly by targeting civilians.
I used to be an out and out utilitarian, sceptical of "rights" based approachs to ethics, but as I get older, I just think some lines should not be crossed. Reading about the Law of Armed Conflict, discussed in the Al-Awlaki BR thread, I think some restraints on war fighting are a good idea, both pragmatically and ethically. And any minimum set of restraints nowadays is going to include not nuking whole cities full of civilians.
The issue is writ large when we think about contemporary nuclear deterrence. Would it be morally justified to fire hundreds of nukes into enemy cities and anhilate their populations? I just can't see it, but that's what the PostWar nuclear powers were geared up to do (and probably still are).
Papewaio
10-12-2011, 21:23
I would rather one civilian die then ten. Blockades/Starvation would have killed woman and children first as the food would have been routed to the military.
Also what value are the POWs left in Japan vs Japanese civilians?
Also given conscription what is the difference between a conscripted military POW and a civilian?
Once the Axis surrended they were rather well looked after.
I would rather one civilian die then ten. Blockades/Starvation would have killed woman and children first as the food would have been routed to the military.
I know. That's a tough one. It's one of the things to come out of the Iraq situation post-1991: Bush Snr played by the rules, fought a limited war, accepted a negotiated surrender and then the US/UN tried to use sanctions to bring Saddam to heel. In many ways, the US/UN behaved as a modern peacelover might find admirable. But it is argued that the sanctions had serious humanitarian effects on the Iraqi population. I am not sure about the truth of those claims, but they are plausible - as is your claim that dropping the A-bombs reduced global human death and suffering.
Yet, I still incline to my peaceloving instinct: there's a difference between directly killing someone and taking actions that indirectly lead to their deaths. If you blockade a city and the blockaded military steal the civilians' food, it is your enemy's actions that are morally responsible for the deaths. They could have shared the food out, surrendered etc.
Generally, I am a consequentialist but dealing with life and death matters, I lean more to a deontological approach -some things are so heinous, you just don't do them, regardless of consequences. Torture and killing of innocents being the most persuasive examples. I veer in this direction, partly because the acts in question are so intrinsically awful and partly because consequentialism can lead to the kind of "anything goes" defence PJ gave for the Nazis (they thought they had to exterminate, to save the German race or whatever).
Also what value are the POWs left in Japan vs Japanese civilians?
High vs low, I think was the received wisdom of the day. From an ethical point of view, they would be equal. But the deontological approach I am inclining towards here is not to judge actions according to a body count, weighted or not.
Also given conscription what is the difference between a conscripted military POW and a civilian?
The conscript is shooting at you? The combatant vs non-combatant distinction in the law of armed conflict is not based on motivation, but on acts.
Once the Axis surrended they were rather well looked after.
Indeed and the rehabilitation of the West Germany and Japan seems remarkably successful compared to the bitter legacies of many other more recent wars. That may be something to be said for the total war/unconditional surrender approach: utterly crush your enemy, to discredit them and their ideas (nothing loses its shine so quickly as militarist who can't gets whipped fighting the war they started). Contrast with the questionable legacy of the more limited war/conditional surrender end to WW1 at Versailles.
Sarmatian
10-12-2011, 22:47
I would rather one civilian die then ten. Blockades/Starvation would have killed woman and children first as the food would have been routed to the military.
Also what value are the POWs left in Japan vs Japanese civilians?
Also given conscription what is the difference between a conscripted military POW and a civilian?
Once the Axis surrended they were rather well looked after.
Econ addressed the points really good already, so there's no need for me to expand. I just want to say that this is rather a Machiavellian approach where end justify the means.
To further clarify, I wasn't saying that saving the lives of American soldiers wasn't one of the reasons, just that it wasn't the only or the most important reason. Hiroshima was picked precisely because it was one of the few cities that was relatively unscathed and where the bomb would have had most effect. Hiroshima had few worthy industrial targets, which is why it was relatively unscathed by 1945.
Montmorency
10-13-2011, 05:36
Is the issue the use of atomic bombs instead of conventional warfare?
Radiation.
But how did it become so? Something to do with the way the Axis had waged war is the reason.
"They did it first!" Really?
So against that backdrop did the Allies have the right to leave their remaining POWs at the mercy of the Japanese military?
There were only a few thousand left by then, AFAIK.
And of course, even though it was a total war in some senses, it was still fought with rules. The Western allies by and large tried to respect things like proper treatment of prisoners. Bombing was something of a grey area: the Americans seemed to want to try to avoid bombing civilians in Europe (flying by day for greater accuracy) whereas the Brits under Bomber Harris positively encouraged it.
Hamburg, Dresden, disappearances of Japanese POWs.
I would rather one civilian die then ten.
It's never that clear-cut. You'll more often see situations like: 1000-3000 for 500 -1700. Except within even wider ranges. The problem with utilitarianism is that it isn't a pure numbers game; there are too many unknowns and too many probable outcomes. Utilitarian decision-making can lead to both great success and miserable catastrophe. In practice by men, such as men now are, it more often turns out to be the latter.
Edit: Also, utilitarians are bad people (http://medicalxpress.com/news/2011-09-antisocial-personality-traits-utilitarian-responses.html). :clown:
"They did it first!" Really? Yeap.
“There were only a few thousand left by then, AFAIK.” So it would have been better if they killed them all…
“Hamburg, Dresden, disappearances of Japanese POWs.” ? Military targets and unfortunate, how do we say today, collateral damages (Germans POW disappeared in the 6/06/1944 D-day) against systematic policy of terror and extermination? I can produce a huge list the towns bombed, raped, razed to the grounds by the Axis Forces, civilians starved, exterminated, deported… Not by bombers (not only) but by grounds troops… Yes, Germany and Japan were harshly treated during the war but after, even if the Peace treaty was worst (for them) than the post WW1 one, their population were not harm. And if they were harshly treated, it was to show Germany especially, they were defeated and they couldn’t pretend they were not like after the WW1.
Papewaio
10-13-2011, 09:19
Yes the Axis started the Total War aspects by killing surrended civilians.
The massacres were happening by the Japanese in Asia.
USA responded with sanctions.
Japan decided to respond with Pearl Harbour.
Nan King alone lost in the region of 300,000 civilians post surrender. Add in the Japanese military ran brothel which systmatically detained woman and then raped them.
These happened before Pearl Harbour.
So total war and begun by Japan
There reaction to blockades and sanctions was to escalate the violence.
When invaded as per Okiniawa they fought to the death or hurled themselves off cliffs.
So that kind of blunts the utility of blockades or invasion if they are all going to kill themselves.
=][=
Also I don't buy the argument that a military life is less then a civilian.
How can a fifty year businessman profiting off getting cheap resources from a society gaining these by looting, pillaging, raping and murdering their way through neighboring countries have a life valued higher then a twenty year old kid defending his family, home and nation from such aggressors?
The Japanese civilians happily enjoyed the fruits of their society pillaging until sanctions were put in place. Instead of backin off that same society started a war with the US. Innocence card cannot be played if you are receiving stolen goods, so how can it be applied when it was entire nations that were looted?
"no guv, I didn't notice that we invaded Korea, China, Phillipines, Indonesia.!"
"So how do you explain the large jars of Kim Chi, the Chinese Porcelain fro
China, the oil from South East Asia all at very low prices?"
"well we umm well"
Yeah they were all totally unaware of were the loot was coming from. Do we really think that the same people who rebuilt Japan into a modern day economic powerhouse were totally unaware of supply chains and resources... Despite the imperial Japanese reasoning to go to war with the USA to the public was sanctions on that very same looting?
Montmorency
10-14-2011, 03:26
:shrug: We won, so we can afford to say such things.
But it is quite clear that neither side can claim moral superiority in this.
When invaded as per Okiniawa they fought to the death or hurled themselves off cliffs.
So that kind of blunts the utility of blockades or invasion if they are all going to kill themselves.
Huh, if that's the case, then why didn't we just wait for them to off themselves like lemmings?
Okinawans committed suicide en masse because they had been convinced by the Japanese that the invaders would rape and murder them. Which, to a certain extent, they actually did. :undecided:
They didn't do it merely to mess with the Americans.
“But it is quite clear that neither side can claim moral superiority in this”: On what?
Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout
10-15-2011, 02:26
Yes the Axis started the Total War aspects by killing surrended civilians.
The massacres were happening by the Japanese in Asia.
USA responded with sanctions.
Japan decided to respond with Pearl Harbour.
Nan King alone lost in the region of 300,000 civilians post surrender. Add in the Japanese military ran brothel which systmatically detained woman and then raped them.
These happened before Pearl Harbour.
So total war and begun by Japan
There reaction to blockades and sanctions was to escalate the violence.
When invaded as per Okiniawa they fought to the death or hurled themselves off cliffs.
So that kind of blunts the utility of blockades or invasion if they are all going to kill themselves.
=][=
Also I don't buy the argument that a military life is less then a civilian.
How can a fifty year businessman profiting off getting cheap resources from a society gaining these by looting, pillaging, raping and murdering their way through neighboring countries have a life valued higher then a twenty year old kid defending his family, home and nation from such aggressors?
The Japanese civilians happily enjoyed the fruits of their society pillaging until sanctions were put in place. Instead of backin off that same society started a war with the US. Innocence card cannot be played if you are receiving stolen goods, so how can it be applied when it was entire nations that were looted?
"no guv, I didn't notice that we invaded Korea, China, Phillipines, Indonesia.!"
"So how do you explain the large jars of Kim Chi, the Chinese Porcelain fro
China, the oil from South East Asia all at very low prices?"
"well we umm well"
Yeah they were all totally unaware of were the loot was coming from. Do we really think that the same people who rebuilt Japan into a modern day economic powerhouse were totally unaware of supply chains and resources... Despite the imperial Japanese reasoning to go to war with the USA to the public was sanctions on that very same looting?
the Japanese wouldn't surrender. Neither did they deserve to be nuked. You can see the heavy resistance the Japanese put up,when the amercians invaded .... I think it was Iwo Jima. Yes,that one,they put up a might defence against the Amercians. I don't think the Japanese citizens were that keen to defend their homeland,but they're innocent civialns,but they still would have defended their homeland.The British did not gain India that easily,they met with massive resistance,it was not until the duke of Wellington arrived that things began to change.And they managed to rule India.But there had been a revolution of 1857,explained well in the Bollywood historical drama Mangel Pandey. Had that revolution been successful, Britain wouldn't rule India.In the same way,the Japanese would have given a massive amount of resistance(Makes me laugh) And you can have so much respect for these people.They are truly like the French,or the bravest of the lot.You can't do much with them.It's the Japanese Army however that didn't want to give up,but the Japanese were forced into this war,believe it or not. They had to take measures. I don't think they were that willing to go with war with the USA.They must have realized this when they only failed to destroy the american fleet.Had they destroyed the whole fleet, it would have been a massive success to them. The Japanese of course did have a empire.Even if the soviets had invaded,the Japanese were pretty much like Napoleon's army in spain,wouldn't that easily give up their lands. Lastly I never believed the fact that you all think the soviets could win and conquer Japan,when if they did,they would find it to extreme to their tastes. Their war efforts were mainly directed at the Nazis. The Amercians had also planned a attack on the British empire itself. One must wonder, Why would the amercians care about a communist Japan? Maybe they could face a invasion from the soviets,but it was far from that,I don't think the soviets were that perilous to think of it.They had the war effort to deal with first.As I have told time and time again,the Japanese would never submit to anybody,unless precautions were taken,the nuke bomb was one:(,and Japan was never saved from America. America did apply economic sanctions on Japan before the war, after it invaded Indochina,and the economic sanctions were put in place until the end of the war. So it was difficult for the Japanese to do everything they wanted ,they couldn't even get supplies or guns,so they had to secretly deal with other companies or nations. The other thing they were aslo faced was that since they invaded Indochina,it could lead war with the powerful British navy or the american navy,either way, America gave Japan 2 options: Either don't invade Indochina and we will not apply the ecomonic sanctions or if you do invade indochina,then this will lead to war. '' The Japanese Prime Minister himself knew of the dangers precceded in front of him,but he had no choice to but to do it
And no,it was not right for the Japanese to be nuked. The Germans were defeated stragitcally. The Japanese should and should have been defeated stragitcally.Even if it meant thousands of deaths. What would have happened if Japan had discovered the nuclear bomb? They could have used it and made weapons of it,and bomb the amercian navies,cities and land. But if Japan had done this,they would have been seen as evil.However if the allies dropped the bomb on Japan's cities ,they would be seen as heroes .
Now that is pure evil isn't it? The Japanese were less brutal than the soviets and the Nazis. Even their crimes they committed only relates to the fact that they're doing what their ancestors attempted 100 or 1000 years ago. They had tried to expand ,but couldn't due to civil war. The Korean Invasions of 1598-99 ,I think were an example. Crimes were committed. But no says anything about it. But most civliastions one way or the other have done this for centuries,or lets say Humans kills Human,its common.
Papewaio
10-15-2011, 05:53
And no,it was not right for the Japanese to be nuked. The Germans were defeated stragitcally. The Japanese should and should have been defeated stragitcally.Even if it meant thousands of deaths. What would have happened if Japan had discovered the nuclear bomb? They could have used it and made weapons of it,and bomb the amercian navies,cities and land. But if Japan had done this,they would have been seen as evil.However if the allies dropped the bomb on Japan's cities ,they would be seen as heroes .
Surely a death is a death is a death. Nukes killed less people then an invasion was projected to do (Okiniwa had lots of citizens on it, Iwo Jima was more of an atoll with a hill on it, not a huge amount of civilians). What is worrying is that most people ignore that the nuclear attacks were pre-surrender.
Now that is pure evil isn't it? The Japanese were less brutal than the soviets and the Nazis. Even their crimes they committed only relates to the fact that they're doing what their ancestors attempted 100 or 1000 years ago. They had tried to expand ,but couldn't due to civil war. The Korean Invasions of 1598-99 ,I think were an example. Crimes were committed. But no says anything about it. But most civliastions one way or the other have done this for centuries,or lets say Humans kills Human,its common.
Less Brutal? Interesting definition. Surely having systematic brothels housed by captured sex slaves run by the military for the comfort of their soldiers is a pretty brutal start.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_human_experimentation_on_the_Chinese#Experiments_on_humans_and_biological_warfare
The Japanese military during the 1930s and 1940s is often compared to the military of Nazi Germany during 1933–45 because of the sheer scale of suffering. Much of the controversy regarding Japan's role in World War II revolves around the death rates of prisoners of war and civilians under Japanese occupation. The historian Chalmers Johnson has written that:
It may be pointless to try to establish which World War Two Axis aggressor, Germany or Japan, was the more brutal to the peoples it victimised. The Germans killed six million Jews and 20 million Russians [i.e. Soviet citizens]; the Japanese slaughtered as many as 30 million Filipinos, Malays, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Indonesians and Burmese, at least 23 million of them ethnic Chinese. Both nations looted the countries they conquered on a monumental scale, though Japan plundered more, over a longer period, than the Nazis. Both conquerors enslaved millions and exploited them as forced labourers—and, in the case of the Japanese, as [forced] prostitutes for front-line troops. If you were a Nazi prisoner of war from Britain, America, Australia, New Zealand or Canada (but not Russia) you faced a 4% chance of not surviving the war; [by comparison] the death rate for Allied POWs held by the Japanese was nearly 30%.[30]
According to the findings of the Tokyo Tribunal, the death rate among POWs from Asian countries, held by Japan was 27.1%.[31] The death rate of Chinese POWs was much higher because—under a directive ratified on August 5, 1937 by Emperor Hirohito—the constraints of international law on treatment of those prisoners was removed.[32] Only 56 Chinese POWs were released after the surrender of Japan.[33] After March 20, 1943, the Japanese Navy was under orders to execute all prisoners taken at sea.[34]
Then the likes of the Nanking Massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre)
The casualty count of 300,000 was first promulgated in January 1938 by Harold Timperley, a journalist in China during the Japanese invasion, based on reports from contemporary eyewitnesses.[citation needed] Other sources, including Iris Chang's The Rape of Nanking, also conclude that the death toll reached 300,000. In December 2007, newly declassified U.S. government show that a telegraph of U.S. ambassador to Germany in Berlin sent one day after the Japanese army occupied Nanjing, stating that he heard Japanese Ambassador in Germany boasting that Japanese army killed 500,000 Chinese people as the Japanese army advanced from Shanghai to Nanking.[75]
Not the numbers aren't during battle, these are post surrender numbers. Now are conventional weapons or atomics worse?
Two Japanese soldiers have climbed over the garden wall and are about to break into our house. When I appear they give the excuse that they saw two Chinese soldiers climb over the wall. When I show them my party badge, they return the same way. In one of the houses in the narrow street behind my garden wall, a woman was raped, and then wounded in the neck with a bayonet. I managed to get an ambulance so we can take her to Kulou Hospital ... Last night up to 1,000 women and girls are said to have been raped, about 100 girls at Ginling College Girls alone. You hear nothing but rape. If husbands or brothers intervene, they're shot. What you hear and see on all sides is the brutality and bestiality of the Japanese soldiers.[46]
On December 13, about 30 soldiers came to a Chinese house at #5 Hsing Lu Koo in the southeastern part of Nanking, and demanded entrance. The door was open by the landlord, a Mohammedan named Ha. They killed him immediately with a revolver and also Mrs. Ha, who knelt before them after Ha's death, begging them not to kill anyone else. Mrs. Ha asked them why they killed her husband and they shot her. Mrs. Hsia was dragged out from under a table in the guest hall where she had tried to hide with her 1 year old baby. After being stripped and raped by one or more men, she was bayoneted in the chest, and then had a bottle thrust into her vagina. The baby was killed with a bayonet. Some soldiers then went to the next room, where Mrs. Hsia's parents, aged 76 and 74, and her two daughters aged 16 and 14. They were about to rape the girls when the grandmother tried to protect them. The soldiers killed her with a revolver. The grandfather grasped the body of his wife and was killed. The two girls were then stripped, the elder being raped by 2–3 men, and the younger by 3. The older girl was stabbed afterwards and a cane was rammed in her vagina. The younger girl was bayoneted also but was spared the horrible treatment that had been meted out to her sister and mother. The soldiers then bayoneted another sister of between 7–8, who was also in the room. The last murders in the house were of Ha's two children, aged 4 and 2 respectively. The older was bayoneted and the younger split down through the head with a sword.[50]
Pregnant women were a target of murder, as they would often be bayoneted in the stomach, sometimes after rape. Tang Junshan, survivor and witness to one of the Japanese army’s systematic mass killings, testified:
The seventh and last person in the first row was a pregnant woman. The soldier thought he might as well rape her before killing her, so he pulled her out of the group to a spot about ten meters away. As he was trying to rape her, the woman resisted fiercely ... The soldier abruptly stabbed her in the belly with a bayonet. She gave a final scream as her intestines spilled out. Then the soldier stabbed the fetus, with its umbilical cord clearly visible, and tossed it aside.[51]
One city, and not unusual
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Military_Hospital,_Singapore#Second_World_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bataan_Death_March
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandakan_Death_Marches
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Changde_chemical_weapon_attack#Use_of_chemical_weapon_attack
During the Khabarovsk War Crimes Trials, some witnesses, such as Major General Kiyashi Kawashima, testified that, as early as November 1941, about 40 members of Unit 731 airdropped fleas contaminated with bubonic plague on Changde and that this caused outbreaks of plague epidemics. Overall, 7,643 Chinese died in 1942 following this infestation.[9] Some Japanese soldiers, notably Yoshio Shinozuka, also admitted to have spread bubonic plague within a 36-kilometer (22 mi) radius around the city. However, the Japanese actions did not achieve their objective, as the Chinese defenders continued to resist.
In the intense fighting, Japanese forces could not overcome heavy Chinese resistance, so they decided to have Unit 516 fire poison gas artillery shells, possibly contained mustard gas or lewisite, into the city. Unit 516 and other units used assorted chemicals in liquid or gaseous form, including mustard gas, lewisite, cyanic acid gas and phosgene, experimentally and sometimes operationally. This was effective in spreading fear, terror and death with devastating effect against both humans and livestock.
=][=
End of the day relationships both Love and War are recipricol. The easiest way to answer the question were the way the Allies utilised the Atomics good or bad is to see how the recipricol relation would have worked.
WWJD?
What Would Japan Do? Well they would have dropped the nukes and then some, plus the plague.
Then after surrender they would have killed a quarter of the civilian population, raped the majority of the women, killed the pregant women in games of chance, beheaded men as a sports event and killed 90%+ of the prisoners of war who were Asian. This is based purely on their standard operating procedure in Asia.
a completely inoffensive name
10-15-2011, 07:53
And too many westerners here hold the view that Japan is the evil guy when they are not.
Papewaio beat me to it about Nanking. I read the book The Rape of Nanking when I was in my AP World History class, now I can't really take anyone seriously when they try hard to apologize for Japan.
I think you might need to reevaluate some things.
PanzerJaeger
10-16-2011, 05:49
I am not arguing that dropping the A-bomb was necessary or morally justified, by the way. (I am keeping an open mind on that.) Merely that Truman thought it was necessary and morally justified.
As has been earlier established, morality is subjective. However, the necessity of the bombings is difficult to defend based on what Truman & Co knew and when they knew it. As of three days before the bombing, they at least knew that Japan wanted peace, and was actively seeking it (http://www.thenation.com/blog/162533/countdown-hiroshima-august-3-1945-x-minus-3-days) - only a politically unacceptable peace through America's new rival. Such information - and there is plenty - kind of renders the position that Truman saw the bomb as the only option to avert an American invasion untenable, except if one accepts the caveat that an American invasion would have had to be launched to keep Russia off the islands - which destroys the necessity argument.
On board the ship Augusta steaming hom for USA after Potsdam meeting, President Truman, Joint Chiefs chairman Admiral Leahy, and Secretary of State James F. Byrnes--a strong A-bomb booster--enjoy some poker. Byrnes aide Walter Brown notes in his diary that "President, Leahy, JFB [Byrnes) agreed Japan looking for peace. (Leahy had another report from Pacific.) President afraid they will sue for peace through Russia instead of some country like Sweden."
Leahy would later question decison to use the bomb, writing: "[T]he use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.... [I]n being the first to use it, we...adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."
--Our "Magic" intercepts show Japan monitoring the Soviets' military buildup in the Far East (prelude to the declaration of war in four days). Also, Japanese still searching for way to approach Molotov to pursue possible surrender terms before that happens. Another Magic intercept carried the heading, "Japnese Army's interest in pece negotiations." War Department intel analysts revealed "the first statement to appear in the traffic that the Japanese Army is interested in the effor tto end the war with Soviet assitance." A segment of Prime Minister Togo's message declared: "The Premier and the leaders of the Army are now concentrting all their attention on this one point."
a completely inoffensive name
10-16-2011, 08:13
As has been earlier established, morality is subjective.
Some people might disagree with that...
Montmorency
10-16-2011, 17:52
Others don't. :yes:
a completely inoffensive name
10-16-2011, 21:05
Others don't. :yes:
I <3 you Mont.
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
10-17-2011, 14:06
As has been earlier established, morality is subjective. However, the necessity of the bombings is difficult to defend based on what Truman & Co knew and when they knew it. As of three days before the bombing, they at least knew that Japan wanted peace, and was actively seeking it (http://www.thenation.com/blog/162533/countdown-hiroshima-august-3-1945-x-minus-3-days) - only a politically unacceptable peace through America's new rival. Such information - and there is plenty - kind of renders the position that Truman saw the bomb as the only option to avert an American invasion untenable, except if one accepts the caveat that an American invasion would have had to be launched to keep Russia off the islands - which destroys the necessity argument.
So? The Japensne derserved it. Hate to say it but they did at the time.
So? The Japensne derserved it. Hate to say it but they did at the time.
So all of the children, pacifists, democrats, slaves from the across the Japanese Empire etc. killed in the bombings were not tragic victims of collateral damage, but individuals who deserved retribution for the crimes of their authoritarian state?
PanzerJaeger
10-17-2011, 22:09
So? The Japensne derserved it. Hate to say it but they did at the time.
https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/Japan-acknowledges-Hiroshima-illnesses.jpg
He deserved it, not just the loss of his parents, his home, and everything that belonged to him, but the years of indescribable pain and misery his unique uranium induced wounds caused him? And note, I picked a very tame picture to conform with forum rules. Go here (http://www.fogonazos.es/2007/02/hiroshima-pictures-they-didnt-want-us_05.html) for a more accurate depiction. How many men of fighting age do you see in those pictures?
You accurately describe the feelings of Allied leadership, though. The decision to drop the bombs was not done out of military or any other necessity. The bombs were dropped on the women and children of a defeated and attempting to surrender nation by a group of politicians seeking to establish a new regional hegemony, just as similar decision making in Germany, Russia, and Japan was done, and just as the decision making in Great Britain, France, and America was done when they were creating their empires. The Allies may not have started the war, but they surely finished it on the same level as the Axis. And they all justified their callousness in the same manner. 'They deserved it.'
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
10-17-2011, 22:22
So all of the children, pacifists, democrats, slaves from the across the Japanese Empire etc. killed in the bombings were not tragic victims of collateral damage, but individuals who deserved retribution for the crimes of their authoritarian state?
:yes:
https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/Japan-acknowledges-Hiroshima-illnesses.jpg
He deserved it, not just the loss of his parents, his home, and everything that belonged to him, but the years of indescribable pain and misery his unique uranium induced wounds caused him? And note, I picked a very tame picture to conform with forum rules. Go here (http://www.fogonazos.es/2007/02/hiroshima-pictures-they-didnt-want-us_05.html) for a more accurate depiction. How many men of fighting age do you see in those pictures?
You accurately describe the feelings of Allied leadership, though. The decision to drop the bombs was not done out of military or any other necessity. The bombs were dropped on the women and children of a defeated and attempting to surrender nation by a group of politicians seeking to establish a new regional hegemony, just as similar decision making in Germany, Russia, and Japan was done, and just as the decision making in Great Britain, France, and America was done when they were creating their empires. The Allies may not have started the war, but they surely finished it on the same level as the Axis. And they all justified their callousness in the same manner. 'They deserved it.'
And where is your criticism of the Rape of Nanking?
PanzerJaeger
10-17-2011, 22:51
And where is your criticism of the Rape of Nanking?
I discussed Japanese brutality here (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?125177-What-is-your-take-on-the-A-bomb-droppings-on-Japan&p=2053383819&viewfull=1#post2053383819). I'm not the one trying to whitewash the atrocities of any of the nations involved in the conflict.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.