Myths of WWII

[Beirut]

I don't buy what he's selling. He is saying, as I read it, that since there in not purity of spirit and intent behind the Allies's actions, that the actions themselves, therefore, lose significance. Be it significance of morality or even efficiency.

He writes, "By contrast the morality of the Pacific war was much less clear-cut. To be sure, Japan launched that surprise attack, and Japanese troops behaved horribly to American, British, and Australian POWs and much worse to the Asian peoples they conquered. Still, the Marines scarcely pretended to take prisoners (even when the Japanese wanted to surrender), while the score for Pearl Harbor was more than settled at Hiroshima.

Well I think the morality of the Pacific war was very clear cut. Even if the US had gone to war against the Japanese for purely economic and imperialist reasons, the moral result would still have been a thousand-fold, a million-fold more sound than the Japanese occupation of the same countries. The Americans, as bad as they are or as bad as anyone would see them, would never have behaved as the the Japanese did. Not even remotely close.

...and Japanese troops behaved horribly... ...and much worse to the Asian peoples they conquered.

Ah, genocide in ten words or less. Very convenient and painless way to gloss over the murder and rape of millions, and then get on with your story about the US Marines and their barbaric practice of not always taking prisoners. And the ease of getting Japanese soldiers to surrender is well known.

Defeating Japan was simply the right thing to do, regardless of motivation. Even US actions towards the people of those tiny islands where the Americans tested nuclear weapons after the war, which was reprehensible at best, was a thousand generations beyond the scourge of Neanderthal behaviour the Japanese used against its millions of victims. There is no comparing the US and Japan.

[Adrian II]

Well I think the morality of the Pacific war was very clear cut.

I don't think you get the gist of the article, and you misrepresent it by introducing words and suggestions the author clearly doesn't use.

Example. The casus belli versus Japan was clear-cut. The morality of the Pacific war wasn't, because of the way the Japanese were depicted, treated both in the war theatre and in the United States, etcetera. The same goes for the bombing of German cities toward the end of the war in Europe. The ambivalence of such episodes has been haunting the war generation, whether you like it or not. And rightly so. That war was fought in the name of certain ideas and ideals, remember?

There is no comparing the US and Japan.

Nobody does, you're debating windmills.

[Beirut]

The casus belli versus Japan was clear-cut. The morality of the Pacific war wasn't, because of the way the Japanese were depicted, treated both in the war theatre and in the United States, etcetera.

And how, pray tell, could the Japanese have been better treated in the war theater? Should the US have have killed the Japanese with bombs that were not only smart, but polite and courteous as well?

And how, pray tell once more, should they have been depicted? As misguided men who were simply not hugged enough as children, therefore not responsible for their actions? "Listen, sorry about the massacres and rapes of millions, but don't judge them too harshly, they had a bad collective childhood."

The Japanese in the US should have been deported or jailed for the extent of the war. American citizens of Japanese descent should not have been mistreated in any way.

The same goes for the bombing of German cities toward the end of the war in Europe. The ambivalence of such episodes has been haunting the war generation, whether you like it or not. And rightly so. That war was fought in the name of certain ideas and ideals, remember?

The bombing of German cities towards the end of the war was partly for military reason and partly as a kick in the balls once you're down. It was punishment. Revenge. It was Sherman saying "I will make war on these people in such a fashion that generations will pass before their ancestors ever think of using war as an option again." Considering the brevity of the peace between WWI and WWII, it is not hard to understand the motivations of those who desired a longer span between WWII and WWIII. At that time, it was reasonable to fear a Germany that would rise again in twenty years and start a war that would kill hundreds of millions.

You're debating windmills.

They don't call me Beirut Quixote for nothing!

[Adrian II]

And how, pray tell once more, should they have been depicted? As misguided men who were simply not hugged enough as children, therefore not responsible for their actions?

This is a thread about WWII, not capital punishment. There's a time and a place for every cliche, Beirut.

They don't call me cliche-Adrian for nothing!

[Beirut]

This is a thread about WWII, not capital punishment. There's a time and a place for every cliche, Beirut.

You brought up the point of the Japanese being badly depicted in the WWII theater (which I stil find very odd), I only answered.

[Adrian II]

You brought up the point of the Japanese being badly depicted in the WWII theater (which I stil find very odd), I only answered.

You suggested I would have had the Japanese soldiers cuddled and given lots of quality time. I'm not interested in debating cliches.

I hate distortion of the truth, even if it takes place in the context of a just cause. The image of the war in the Pacific as a racial conflict has been impressed upon the Western public by means of racial war propaganda. There is ample evidence of that, you can find it on historic websites if you want.

There were notable exceptions, too, such as this 1945 movie My Japan in which the American public is warned that the Japanese are all but subhuman, that they are well-educated and that the cruelty of their occupation policies is not a mere reflection of an animal-like Japanese mind, but of the calculation of their leaders.

Most of the public however got to see only the war posters depicting Japanese as rats and the war stories in the local papers that made light of their short legs, slanted eyes (that's why they couldn't shoot straight, remember?) and lack of brains.

[Beirut]

Of course the Japanese were depicted as evil. Kind of hard to get Billy-Bob from Arkansas to travel 10,000 miles and island hop through hell, land mines and machinegun fire to kill a guy who isn't.

Besides the racial card was played by all sides. The publics conception race was a touch more... raw, in those days. And there was a war on. It was the country's duty (strange as it seems) to incite hatred.

If you really want to see "racial warfare", read about Japan's racial visions of other Asian peoples. That led to slaughters that numbered in the millions. I don't see anything the US did as even close to that. Why is the US being singled out as the evil one when it was Japan who started the war and acted so abominably? Just looks like the authour is a revisionist bleeding heart with a bachelor's degree in historical basket weaving.

[Papewaio]

The reason for the subtle shift in American perception is easy to see. If a purely evil regime ever existed, it was the Third Reich, and if any war ever had a moral purpose it must have been the war fought to end its mad persecution. By contrast the morality of the Pacific war was much less clear-cut.

This guy is full of shite and euro or is it caucasian-centric crap.

Nor is it sensible to say whom was the most evil of the two nations. But by no means is it clear cut which is worse.

Not only did it take the Western Allies nearly three years after the German attack on Russia seriously to engage the German army in Normandy, but even then most of the fighting was still on the other side of Europe.

Well the authour may be forgetting not only the importance of the Asian theater but that of Greece, Malta, Britain and North Africa. All these other zones where under attack and it wasn't an easy thing to go back into Europe. Anyone with any ability understands how hard a sea invasion is hard to mount. Also the authour is forgetting the Italian invasion.

Was it a just war? That tricky theological concept has to be weighed against very many injustices. Was it a good war? The phrase itself is dubious. No, there are no good wars, but there are necessary wars, and this was surely one.

This guy is a backbone short of being an invertabrate. Exactly at what point does he think giving in to the likes of facism is a good thing?

Nor on the other moral compromises at the wars end. Great Britain did not go to war to save the Jews from Hitlers torment

Actually quite a lot of people joined up to fight facism and the Nazis hatred of those whom are different including the Jews. Prior to WWII Sir Weary Dunlop was in London and used to go down to facist rallies to knock a few heads in. I think this guy is a cretin and a terrible revisionist at that. Trying to rewrite things to suit his own cowardly outlook.