Fafnir wrote:Well, if the US didn't bomb Japan, the USSR would see to it that ther would be no Japan.
So I'd say that things ended much better than they could have.
How? The USSR didn't have a substantial blue water Navy, nor a strategic air force to bomb Japan.
I think it would have strained even the USSR's resources to attempt an invasion and occupation.
It would be met with such resistance that it would make the Battle of Berlin look like a piker.
In any case, the logic doesn't work that we saved Japan from the Soviets because we mercifully nuked them.
Jubear wrote:Arguing over if it was a good/humane idea to drop the A bomb is pointless, War is exactly that war and the objective is to win and the allies did win...so we get to decide if it was right or not and guess what we decided it was the right thing to do.
The Imperial army got extremely close to being in postion to invade oz if they had I doubt they would have been the most merciful conquerors and I am 100% sure I would not be here today....So yeah let em burn
But your timeline is all messed up. BY 1943, Australia was in no serious danger of invasion. So how did nuking Japan save Oz?
Timeline isnt messed up, just your understanding of modern history, Brushfire. But I guess they do not teach you that much in the US education system beyond "USA! USA! Rah rah rah!!!"
The above comment stand as evidence that this kind of argument and attack on someone's country is always a bad idea. It doesn't convince anyone. It doesn't make your argument stronger. It just makes you look rude, and as if you have no real substantive argument. It's basically a way of conceding a debate while looking like a jerk. Please don't do this folks. For your own sakes.
Timeline isnt messed up, just your understanding of modern history, Brushfire. But I guess they do not teach you that much in the US education system beyond "USA! USA! Rah rah rah!!!"
I never let my public schooling get in the way of obtaining an education.
if you had read by previous posts, you will find I have considerable criticism of US foreign policy, particular with the occupation of of the Philippines during the Spanish America war.
How about the "USA! USA! Rah rah rah!!!" Navy that stopped the Japanese at the Battle of the Coral Sea, saving Oz? How was Oz was in any danger of being invaded by Japan by 1945, after its navy and air force was all but annihilated by the "USA! USA! Rah rah rah!!!" military forces?
Watched a documentary of the A-bombings in english a couple months ago. An Atom bomb is the abosulte worst way to kill a man. The people who died instantaously were given a peaceful death. The massive amounts of radiation poisoned thousands of people, not to mention the higher rate of birth defects, due to the radiation messing with people's DNA. It is a terrible weapon.
Japan was hit hard in the war (like all countries) and was having trouble feeding the population. How much longer could they have fought?
However, Japan fought fanaticly against the allies, and would have probaly fought until they could fight no more. They U.S. delivered a massive hit to the Japanese forces that completely shattered them. The bombings saved many Allied lives.
I honously think that the U.S. was desperate to end the war, and were desperate to test the Atom bomb. They shortened the war by a considerable length, but at a massive cost to the Japanese. It was a terrible act, but it shortened the war.
Jubear wrote:Arguing over if it was a good/humane idea to drop the A bomb is pointless, War is exactly that war and the objective is to win and the allies did win...so we get to decide if it was right or not and guess what we decided it was the right thing to do.
The Imperial army got extremely close to being in postion to invade oz if they had I doubt they would have been the most merciful conquerors and I am 100% sure I would not be here today....So yeah let em burn
But your timeline is all messed up. BY 1943, Australia was in no serious danger of invasion. So how did nuking Japan save Oz?
It in no way saved oz in any way shape or form (oz was saved by diggers,fuzzy wuzzys and US marines) But my point was war is not a fair or just thing in any way shape or form and if you wage a campaign of terror and violence dont be surprised if your country is dealt with harshly.
How? The USSR didn't have a substantial blue water Navy, nor a strategic air force to bomb Japan.
I think it would have strained even the USSR's resources to attempt an invasion and occupation.
It would be met with such resistance that it would make the Battle of Berlin look like a piker.
In any case, the logic doesn't work that we saved Japan from the Soviets because we mercifully nuked them.
But as already mentioned by you Japan was not a threat anymore*, what does the USSR need a navy for if japan doesn't have one, or an air force ("Japan by 1945, after its navy and air force was all but annihilated "). All they needed was to be able to land forces which the had in abundance, so the Soviets would have no problem rolling over them in their classic brutal manner! The Soviets at this point didn't have resource problems. It may have been fitting to allow the Japanese to experience Soviet justice. The A bomb was again merciful in keeping that from happening.
The battle of Berlin was a piker compared to Soviet victories like Stalingrad, Kursk, Moscow........ The Soviets would have leveled Japan!
* I don't really agree with that!
In any case, the logic doesn't work that we saved Japan from the Soviets because we mercifully nuked them.
Sure it does, if by nuking them we actually cause much less death and suffering, then logically the needs of the many out way the needs of the few. It's pure logic.
An Atom bomb is the abosulte worst way to kill a man.
I think many of the people the Japanese massacred would argue that they were killed in much worse ways.
Not to say that death by radiation sickness isn't horrible. But compared to some things human beings have done to each other throughout history...
Thank you for that! If I have a choice between being nuked and this
Prisoners were subjected to other torturous experiments such as being hung upside down to see how long it would take for them to choke to death, having air injected into their arteries to determine the time until the onset of embolism, and having horse urine injected into their kidneys.[11]
Other incidents include being deprived of food and water to determine the length of time until death, being placed into high-pressure chambers until death, having experiments performed upon prisoners to determine the relationship between temperature, burns, and human survival, being placed into centrifuges and spun until dead, having animal blood injected and the effects studied, being exposed to lethal doses of x-rays, having various chemical weapons tested on prisoners inside gas chambers, being injected with sea water to determine if it could be a substitute for saline and being buried alive.
I'll take getting nuked any day, thank you! People forget that the Japanese in many ways made the Germans look like amateurs!
If those bombs hadn't have been dropped, I think the casualties would be higher on both sides. They were arming civilians with spears for God's sake. Their loathing of surrender would have gotten them all killed.
If those bombs hadn't have been dropped, I think the casualties would be higher on both sides. They were arming civilians with spears for God's sake. Their loathing of surrender would have gotten them all killed.
I'm always baffled by the attempts to stress how resiliant to morale and surrender the Japanese are. Of course people want to defend their homes. If you found yourself as the last line of defense in front of the elected/hereditary leader of your culture, you wouldn't pick up a spear? If you're an American, the government might not even have to provide a spear given that your country's founders specifically designed your country to be able to turn into a nationalist insurgency overnight. (2nd ammendment.)
The Japanese did awful, inexcusable things during the second world war.
Many actions perpetrated by all sides in the second world war were gakky, inexcusable, bad ideas. The fact that the allies managed to liberate the concentration camps and evict the Japanese from China don't completely excuse the large populations of dead civilians. There is also no way to justify non-intervention, no way to justify allowing those atrocities to continue. It was a series of crappy situations ending with crappy decisions, which in no way implies that there was some sort of magic, non-crappy solution to the second world war. There is no moral high ground to be won here.
Emperors Faithful wrote:British, Dutch, French, Portugeuse and American holdings were still well and truly in Imperial hands at the start of WWII, even if the holdings had become steadily more shaky in some areas (the Indian independance movement). The French attempted to reassert their Imperial colonies immediately after the war, which lead to the war in Indochina. The Philipines remains in the pocket of the US to this day. It's true that the majority of Imperial holdings were unlikely to continue being ruled by Imperial hands, but this has nothing to do with the goodwill of their White masters and is entirely a result of the efforts of those people.
Like I said. It shows a rather simplistic view of imperialism that suggests you don't actually know how it evolved and changed and when it actually died or started dying. The death of Imperialism has nothing to do with the efforts of the people or good will on part of the 'masters.' Imperialism died because by the time WWII came around it was already tettering and by the end of the war the European powers had lost the political willpower to continue, and the Cold War was starting. They started shedding their overseas empires within a few years (exception the French but they're French so it kind of makes sense they sort of tried to keep going).
Well, first of all I'm going to recommend 'Empire' by Niall Ferguson. I couldn't comprehend his work on the history of economics, but his book on British Imperialism was well done.
Why exactly do you think Japan was viewed as a threat a the start of WWII? Because they threatened the colonial holdings of opposing powers there. Japanese Imperialism doesn't seem to be any lower on the "kill, loot, exploit, plunder" level than other Imperial powers, they hadn't had as much practice as the others.
And I asked you for a source that indicates the bomb was going to used against Germany before it's capitulation.
I gave you one. Leslie Grove, director of the Manhattan Project, wrote it in his book.
I thought Japanese messages were being decoded even before Midway?
Now you're just trolling. Whether or not we were decoding Japanese messages had nothing to do with whether or not the NSA was around to do it. The NSA was founded in 1952. It's predecessor in the late 1940's. They literally couldn't intercept any Japanese encoded messages because they didn't exist to do any intercepting.
Maybe that's what he was reffering to? Granted that's an error your average historian wouldn't have made.
The willingness of Japan to surrender (to certain terms) without dropping the bomb is a well known contention. Simply stating "It's historical fact that the Japs weren't giving in!" without refering to any authority brings nothing to this discussion.
A well known contention of people who are ignoring facts maybe. The greatest evidence that they weren't going to surrender is that they weren't surrendering and most historians agree they weren't going to surrender (EDIT: to clarify, not surrender without an invasion or some other act that would force it). It's a historical consensus on an issue backed up by evidence. The author of the article mentioned doesn't even disprove it as much as willfully ignores it and throws out a senseless source of information and point out that some officers wanted to surrender. He doesn't prove the point at all (and he really can't).
If you prefer to ignore it and grasp at historical fantasy behind a shield of 'non-authority' be my guest. Doesn't change what we know or what the Allies knew at the time.
Right, becuase I disagree with you it's historical fantasy.
Japan wasn't going to make an unconditional surrender (and even after the bombs it wasn't completetly unconditional). But there is evidence to suggest that the Soviet invasion of Manchuria was a large motivation to push for surrender. And the alternative certainly wasn't restricted to an imminent invasion, Japan's offensive capabilities were destroyed.
Many actions perpetrated by all sides in the second world war were gakky, inexcusable, bad ideas. The fact that the allies managed to liberate the concentration camps and evict the Japanese from China don't completely excuse the large populations of dead civilians. There is also no way to justify non-intervention, no way to justify allowing those atrocities to continue. It was a series of crappy situations ending with crappy decisions, which in no way implies that there was some sort of magic, non-crappy solution to the second world war. There is no moral high ground to be won here.
Exactly.
So, faced with a variety of crappy choices, the moral thing is to choose the least crappy.
Open question to everyone; what were the alternatives to the bomb?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Emperors Faithful wrote:
Well, first of all I'm going to recommend 'Empire' by Niall Ferguson. I couldn't comprehend his work on the history of economics, but his book on British Imperialism was well done.
Why exactly do you think Japan was viewed as a threat a the start of WWII? Because they threatened the colonial holdings of opposing powers there. Japanese Imperialism doesn't seem to be any lower on the "kill, loot, exploit, plunder" level than other Imperial powers, they hadn't had as much practice as the others.
Is the situation before WW2 relevant to the specific question of how to end it?
Your viewpoint seems to be that the Japanese were no worse than the US or Europeans, so we were not justified in bombing them.
How else do you think we could have ended the war in a better way?
Many actions perpetrated by all sides in the second world war were gakky, inexcusable, bad ideas. The fact that the allies managed to liberate the concentration camps and evict the Japanese from China don't completely excuse the large populations of dead civilians. There is also no way to justify non-intervention, no way to justify allowing those atrocities to continue. It was a series of crappy situations ending with crappy decisions, which in no way implies that there was some sort of magic, non-crappy solution to the second world war. There is no moral high ground to be won here.
Exactly.
So, faced with a variety of crappy choices, the moral thing is to choose the least crappy.
Open question to everyone; what were the alternatives to the bomb?
-Invade the mainland (bad idea, high causalities on all sides)
-blockade the mainland (already happening, the country would have simply come to a complete halt within a year or two)
-allow soviets to kick the japanese out of china and south east asia (undesirable)
-US forces invade occupied asia( You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia")\
-Ignore them (not really viable given american sentiment at the time)
-continue conventional bombing until japan is flat (much much worse than the bomb)
Out of all the bad choices the bomb was the least bad
Emperors Faithful wrote:Why exactly do you think Japan was viewed as a threat a the start of WWII? Because they threatened the colonial holdings of opposing powers there. Japanese Imperialism doesn't seem to be any lower on the "kill, loot, exploit, plunder" level than other Imperial powers, they hadn't had as much practice as the others.
Japan was considered a threat because it was expansionist and it kicked Russia's butt. That does not necessarily entail that the dropping of the bombs had primarily racist motivations. Racism may have played into it, but other factors seem more influencial.
Maybe that's what he was reffering to? Granted that's an error your average historian wouldn't have made.
Doubt it. The other one was formed after WWII. In 48 or 49 (I don't remember exactly). OSS was the only intelligence agency operating during WWII as far as I know and it was focused on human intelligence not communications intelligence.
Right, becuase I disagree with you it's historical fantasy.
No. Because the position ignores well known facts and takes a position that doesn't track. However, perhaps I misunderstood the position you were taking. EDIT: I do apologize. That was rude to say.
Japan wasn't going to make an unconditional surrender (and even after the bombs it wasn't completetly unconditional). But there is evidence to suggest that the Soviet invasion of Manchuria was a large motivation to push for surrender. And the alternative certainly wasn't restricted to an imminent invasion, Japan's offensive capabilities were destroyed.
I believe someone said earlier in the thread somewhere that there's an argument to be made that a second atomic bomb wasn't necessary, and I could roll with that, but the Soviets didn't invade until after Hiroshima and the rift in the Japanese command was bickering over the matter but there's evidence to say it could have gone either way but likely that the war would have continued for weeks or months and they may have continued to refuse to surrender. Military leaders dominated the Japanese government and didn't want to surrender at all. The first atomic bomb and the Soviet invasion only managed to convince a lot o Japanese leaders who already wanted to surrender to want to surrender more. The ones who did not still didn't want to. Maybe the war would have ended following these two events in time but the second bomb resulted Hirohito taking action and ending the war immediately. The Japanese had offered multiple peace settlements but American and British policy was fixed on unconditional surrender, and after Potsdam, the likely hood of Japan surrendering conditionally diminished a lot.
That Japan could no longer attack is irrelevant I think. Following the Battle of the Buldge, Germany could no longer realistically stage offensive operations but they were still able to fight. Japan could still fight and it could have done a lot of damage to allied forces had it not surrendered. There is the argument to be made that the Allies prolonged the war with the stance of unconditional surrender, and there is the argument that the fault for that falls on the US.
That argument could go either way (imo). I think the argument for the first bombing being unnecessary in forcing a peace is hard to make because even after the first bombing and the invasion of Manchuria the position of Japanese officials wasn't shifting much. It took the Emperor's intervention to get the Japanese government to accept surrender. Something had to touch the main islands and it would be an invasion or a bomb. I think the bombing resulted in fewer dead on all sides.
I'm unsure what you mean by the Japanese surrender not being unconditional.
If those bombs hadn't have been dropped, I think the casualties would be higher on both sides. They were arming civilians with spears for God's sake. Their loathing of surrender would have gotten them all killed.
I'm always baffled by the attempts to stress how resiliant to morale and surrender the Japanese are. Of course people want to defend their homes. If you found yourself as the last line of defense in front of the elected/hereditary leader of your culture, you wouldn't pick up a spear? If you're an American, the government might not even have to provide a spear given that your country's founders specifically designed your country to be able to turn into a nationalist insurgency overnight. (2nd ammendment.)
The Japanese did awful, inexcusable things during the second world war.
You can't really compare these Isolated and small scale acts with the murderous rampage that the Japanese went on. The closest thing would be the US's near genocidal acts towards the Native Americans. It could be argued however that that was a different US back then and also that it was white colonists from many countries doing the the same thing. Not an excuse mind you. I believe the Native Americans are owed an apology, I just don't feel the same about the Japanese.
How about this for a conclusion?
Many actions perpetrated by all sides in the second world war were gakky, inexcusable, bad ideas. The fact that the allies managed to liberate the concentration camps and evict the Japanese from China don't completely excuse the large populations of dead civilians. There is also no way to justify non-intervention, no way to justify allowing those atrocities to continue. It was a series of crappy situations ending with crappy decisions, which in no way implies that there was some sort of magic, non-crappy solution to the second world war. There is no moral high ground to be won here.
That sounds about right. Sitting on our hands and not doing nothing would have been worse. The bomb can be viewed as making the best of a crappy situation, a situation we did not create.
Can't really say the chinese were very happy about being liberated. The Russians did the same thing the Japanese did when they invaded Manchuria (and as an wonderful irony, Chinese Communists opposed Russian Imperial Expansion when it happened! delicious ).
If those bombs hadn't have been dropped, I think the casualties would be higher on both sides. They were arming civilians with spears for God's sake. Their loathing of surrender would have gotten them all killed.
I'm always baffled by the attempts to stress how resiliant to morale and surrender the Japanese are. Of course people want to defend their homes. If you found yourself as the last line of defense in front of the elected/hereditary leader of your culture, you wouldn't pick up a spear? If you're an American, the government might not even have to provide a spear given that your country's founders specifically designed your country to be able to turn into a nationalist insurgency overnight. (2nd amendment.)
And I love how people think that the Japanese mindset was "to defend their homes".
It wasn't. Outlying islands like Okinawa and Iwo Jima, the civilians would jump off cliffs because they believed the Marines would do terrible things to them.
There's a reason we didn't see much in the way of prisoners as well. Part of it is that the sheer butcher's tactics on the part of the Japanese inspired the USMC to retaliate(something which is entirely understandable in the context), and the other part is simply that they did not believe they would lose.
If those bombs hadn't have been dropped, I think the casualties would be higher on both sides. They were arming civilians with spears for God's sake. Their loathing of surrender would have gotten them all killed.
I'm always baffled by the attempts to stress how resiliant to morale and surrender the Japanese are. Of course people want to defend their homes. If you found yourself as the last line of defense in front of the elected/hereditary leader of your culture, you wouldn't pick up a spear? If you're an American, the government might not even have to provide a spear given that your country's founders specifically designed your country to be able to turn into a nationalist insurgency overnight. (2nd amendment.)
And I love how people think that the Japanese mindset was "to defend their homes".
It wasn't. Outlying islands like Okinawa and Iwo Jima, the civilians would jump off cliffs because they believed the Marines would do terrible things to them.
There's a reason we didn't see much in the way of prisoners as well. Part of it is that the sheer butcher's tactics on the part of the Japanese inspired the USMC to retaliate(something which is entirely understandable in the context), and the other part is simply that they did not believe they would lose.
They believed they could not lose because they were being led by a God!
Many committed suicide because they expected the same kind of brutality that they were inflicting on others. The US Marines would not take prisoners, but I've never heard of civilian reprisals on the scale anywhere near what the Japanese were doing. While Japanese soldiers were known to through people, including babies of off cliffs, the US Marines tried to stop women from jumping off cliffs with their children,
@Lord of Hats. With all due respect here, You cannot say that a country that banned immigration from China/Japan, and also had the well-documented problems of segregation in the South, and the way it treated Native Americans, does not have a problem with racism when dealing with the Japanese. The propaganda says otherwise.
This is not me having a go at the USA as my own country was equally as bad in regard to its colonial subjects.
Apologies for banging the same drum, but as to the whole Japan surrender thing, read the article on page 3. It is very clear to my mind that Japan never got the chance to surrender.
On a final note, I feel this debate has gone on long enough and seems to be going round in circles. The vast majority of people( even though I don't agree with them) have made some excellent points. Let's pull the plug on this and get back to debating Star Wars films!!
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:@Lord of Hats. With all due respect here, You cannot say that a country that banned immigration from China/Japan, and also had the well-documented problems of segregation in the South, and the way it treated Native Americans, does not have a problem with racism when dealing with the Japanese. The propaganda says otherwise.
When did I say the US wasn't racist to the Japanese? I just don't buy the racism angle as being the primary reason for dropping the bomb on Japan. There were others that had a bigger influence I think.
Apologies for banging the same drum, but as to the whole Japan surrender thing, read the article on page 3. It is very clear to my mind that Japan never got the chance to surrender.
I've addressed the article. The author isn't very well versed in history and it's very obvious. There may be an argument to be made that Japan wasn't given the opportunity to surrender but that's a different bag of chips more related to the allied stance of unconditional surrender rather than just the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Let's pull the plug on this and get back to debating Star Wars films!!
Andrew1975 wrote:
They believed they could not lose because they were being led by a God!
Many committed suicide because they expected the same kind of brutality that they were inflicting on others. The US Marines would not take prisoners, but I've never heard of civilian reprisals on the scale anywhere near what the Japanese were doing. While Japanese soldiers were known to throw people, including babies of off cliffs, the US Marines tried to stop women from jumping off cliffs with their children.
That was kind of the point I was making.
The Japanese empire did a seemingly amazing job indoctrinating its citizens. They were terrified of what the Marines were going to do to them, because they were being fed stories that related to Imperial Japan's own atrocities.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Apologies for banging the same drum, but as to the whole Japan surrender thing, read the article on page 3. It is very clear to my mind that Japan never got the chance to surrender.
Speaking as a war historian, ignore that article. Seriously. Its facts are muddled up, it makes half a dozen amazing leaps of faith in reasoning, and it relies on verbal devices instead of facts.
The physicists who worked on the bombs were utterly disgusted and one of them comitted suicide over it. I would vote no because the original plan for the bombs would have been better - The bombs detonated somewhere uninhabited and then shown to the Japanese for their surrender. If no surrender, then action would most probably been the answer. The complications afterwards (and still going) are not good. Atomic weapons are awful. No kind of honour in warfare (if there is such a thing).
Wulfen Andy wrote:The physicists who worked on the bombs were utterly disgusted and one of them comitted suicide over it. I would vote no because the original plan for the bombs would have been better - The bombs detonated somewhere uninhabited and then shown to the Japanese for their surrender. If no surrender, then action would most probably been the answer. The complications afterwards (and still going) are not good. Atomic weapons are awful. No kind of honour in warfare (if there is such a thing).
Sure, we should have told them where we were and when we were going to drop them too! I mean we had an endless supply of them at that point right? Really?
Well seeing as the Japanese needed to have more than one dropped on them before they surrendered I think your point it mute! Plus you have to think would those raids have even been possible if the Japs then knew they were coming. All things considered the actions taken were the best available.
The Japanese showed a complete lack of honor in their style of warfare. They removed honor from the battle field, I see no reason to extend them that privilege once they refused it.
I take your point but your flag reveals bias. Would you be so understanding if you/anyone you knew was Japanese? Or lived near to be affected by fallout? We have freedom of speech (some countries anyway) so my point is valid. Maybe you think Khrushchev should have dropped Tsar Bomba on America rather than showing the US Russia's capabilities during the cold war? I know it wasn't a proper war in some sense but still. I am a physicist who has worked with nuclear and particle physics and it makes me sad when good physics is used by idiot military leaders who do not really understand the consequences (all military leaders). Please don't mistake me for being anti-American as I have family in the US, I just don't like the mass murder of civilians during and after events such as Hiroshima etc. Also do not think I am naive when it concerns ending brutal wars quickly!
Well, first of all I'm going to recommend 'Empire' by Niall Ferguson. I couldn't comprehend his work on the history of economics, but his book on British Imperialism was well done.
Why exactly do you think Japan was viewed as a threat a the start of WWII? Because they threatened the colonial holdings of opposing powers there. Japanese Imperialism doesn't seem to be any lower on the "kill, loot, exploit, plunder" level than other Imperial powers, they hadn't had as much practice as the others.
Is the situation before WW2 relevant to the specific question of how to end it?
Your viewpoint seems to be that the Japanese were no worse than the US or Europeans, so we were not justified in bombing them.
How else do you think we could have ended the war in a better way?
The nature of Imperialism has very little to do with the decision to drop the bomb, LoH and I went off on a tangent there.
LordofHats wrote:The Japanese had offered multiple peace settlements but American and British policy was fixed on unconditional surrender, and after Potsdam, the likely hood of Japan surrendering conditionally diminished a lot.
You just said that Japan's willingness to surrender is historical fiction, and now you backpeddle and claim that they made multiple peace settlements?
That Japan could no longer attack is irrelevant I think. Following the Battle of the Buldge, Germany could no longer realistically stage offensive operations but they were still able to fight. Japan could still fight and it could have done a lot of damage to allied forces had it not surrendered. There is the argument to be made that the Allies prolonged the war with the stance of unconditional surrender, and there is the argument that the fault for that falls on the US.
Exactly. Why do you think the Allies were after an unconditional surrender?
And, if the roles were swapped and the US was on the defensive, how willing do you think the government and people ofthe USA would have been to offer an unconditional surrender?
That argument could go either way (imo). I think the argument for the first bombing being unnecessary in forcing a peace is hard to make because even after the first bombing and the invasion of Manchuria the position of Japanese officials wasn't shifting much. It took the Emperor's intervention to get the Japanese government to accept surrender. Something had to touch the main islands and it would be an invasion or a bomb. I think the bombing resulted in fewer dead on all sides.
I'm unsure what you mean by the Japanese surrender not being unconditional.
The safety of the royal family from any repercussions was the only condition on the final agreement that I was aware of.
Andrew1975 wrote:
Sure, we should have told them where we were and when we were going to drop them too!
Stawman. He didn't suggest that.
I mean we had an endless supply of them at that point right? Really?
A further 15 bombs were expected to be ready in time for any invasion plans.
Well seeing as the Japanese needed to have more than one dropped on them before they surrendered I think your point it mute! Plus you have to think would those raids have even been possible if the Japs then knew they were coming. All things considered the actions taken were the best available.
A big difference, I would imagine, between "drop one somewhere, tape it and show it to the Japanese govt as a warning. If they refuse it's on their heads" and "Nuke as many civvies as possible to terrify the Japs into surrendering."
The Japanese showed a complete lack of honor in their style of warfare. They removed honor from the battle field, I see no reason to extend them that privilege once they refused it.
The one major point about there having need to be two separate bombs is still being contested today. Both bombs were dropped in just under three days. Which would ask the question - what would you do in that situation? Try to think about it logically and subjectively, not in pro bombing way. The other discussions that are still raging are the reasons for the Japanese to surrender in the first place - some say the bombs, some say Russia invading Manchuria.
Emperors Faithful wrote:You just said that Japan's willingness to surrender is historical fiction, and now you backpeddle and claim that they made multiple peace settlements?
My position is that they weren't going to surrender on terms that would be accepted. Surrender might not actually be the right term (should have worded this more carefully). They didn't want to surrender. They wanted to negotiate a peace which had always been Japan's plan in WWII; that they would lose some conquered territory ending the war with the US but that they would come out of it ahead. They made offers but the Allies were fixed on unconditional surrender and after by the time of Potsdam, they'd given up on achieving anything and the military was gearing up for the big defense.
That Japan would surrender at any point was very unlikely until after the bombs were dropped (to clarify; the bombs ended up getting Hirohito to put his name behind the pro-surrender faction of the government, and eventually managed to get the military to fall in line so it could happen) or some invasion of central islands occurred. Peace could have probably been negotiated at some point, but the demand for unconditional surrender just didn't allow it to happen and produced a lot of resistance in the Japanese military.
Exactly. Why do you think the Allies were after an unconditional surrender?
If you're trying to suggest racism, then no. Germany was also forced to surrender unconditionally. The reason the stance was taken was because of fear that ending WWII without the ability to absolutely disarm the opponent and remove hositle governments would simply lead to another world war down the road. (To be honest I'm iffy on the why exactly. I haven't studied the stance of unconditional surrender much as it pretains to WWII. I know the US pushed it really hard while Britain and Russia where less inclined).
And, if the roles were swapped and the US was on the defensive, how willing do you think the government and people ofthe USA would have been to offer an unconditional surrender?
That's exactly why one can make a strong argument that the stance on unconditional surrender taken by the allies was a bad one but that's a larger issue than the dropping of the atomic bombs (in a manner of speaking).
The safety of the royal family from any repercussions was the only condition on the final agreement that I was aware of.
I don't know if I'd qualify that as preventing the surrender from being unconditional. Original plans were to remove the Emperor from power, not kill him. And he was removed from power when the existed Japanese government was restructured. As a civilian, his safety would have been assured anyway once hostilities ended. EDIT: Other than this nothing was promised in the surrender and the surrender went the way all unconditional surrenders go (then again they're only been like... a few of them...).
The other discussions that are still raging are the reasons for the Japanese to surrender in the first place - some say the bombs, some say Russia invading Manchuria.
I'd say a combination of the bombs and the invasion.
Andrew1975 wrote:
Sure, we should have told them where we were and when we were going to drop them too!
Stawman. He didn't suggest that.
No he just suggested showing your hand to the enemy, always a bad idea. It wouldn't have mattered anyway since they didn't surrender after the first bomb got dropped!
I mean we had an endless supply of them at that point right? Really?
A further 15 bombs were expected to be ready in time for any invasion plans.
Yeah, luckily we dropped 2 in the right place and didn't need to invade. It's a bad idea it nuke then invade!
Well seeing as the Japanese needed to have more than one dropped on them before they surrendered I think your point it mute! Plus you have to think would those raids have even been possible if the Japs then knew they were coming. All things considered the actions taken were the best available.
A big difference, I would imagine, between "drop one somewhere, tape it and show it to the Japanese govt as a warning. If they refuse it's on their heads" and "Nuke as many civvies as possible to terrify the Japs into surrendering."
Yeah because I'm sure showing them film would have worked! They didn't even surrender after the first bomb!
The Japanese showed a complete lack of honor in their style of warfare. They removed honor from the battle field, I see no reason to extend them that privilege once they refused it.
What are you on?
Righteousness! What are you on? Are you really saying the Japanese fought with honor?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wulfen Andy wrote:The one major point about there having need to be two separate bombs is still being contested today. Both bombs were dropped in just under three days. Which would ask the question - what would you do in that situation? Try to think about it logically and subjectively, not in pro bombing way. The other discussions that are still raging are the reasons for the Japanese to surrender in the first place - some say the bombs, some say Russia invading Manchuria.
Three days seams like plenty of time to cry uncle!
Righteousness! What are you on? Are you really saying the Japanese fought with honor?
Seeing as honor actually is a term subjective to cultural norms. Yes, I suppose they did if they met their standards for it. The Japanese were obsessed with personal and family honor. It's one of the prime reasons why they refused unconditional surrender.
The problem with simply saying they didn't surrender after the first bomb is that only a few days passed for a second was dropped. The first bomb sparked up quite the discussion in the Japanese government and it is debatable that the first bomb may have been enough to get Japan to surrender.
EDIT: Now the problem with recording an atomic explosion and telling Japan we will use this, is that it is tantamount to bluffing. Japan could have taken the stance 'You won't really use it' and we'd have to use it anyway.
I personally don't hold that view. I think our willingness to use such a destructive weapon achieved the aim more effectively than the weapon itself and the Japanese certainly thought we were more than willing to keep using it (It was a giant road side poster that scream "We can turn you to ashes without even setting foot on your island and we will do it too").
One of the often overlooked points is that not long before the atomic bombings, the hardliners in the military were looking at 'replacing' the Emperor and royal family.
We wanted to strip the military from both Germany and England, but unlike the surrender for WWI we promised to help aid them. This is why the United States has large bases in both Germany and Japan right now. Without a military they couldn't invade and with us guaranteeing protection they had no need for a military defensively.
Japan's surrender was different than Germany's for different reasons. Japan was behind Pearl Harbor and Germany did relatively nothing to the American territories.
In fact at the signing of the surrender the American accepting the surrender didn't shake the hand offered by the Japanese delegate. Not because he hated the Japanese, well actually he did because he was a part of the Bataan Death March. There was a lot of animosity against the Japanese because of the way they treated prisoners and civilians.
Seeing as honor actually is a term subjective to cultural norms. Yes, I suppose they did if they met their standards for it. The Japanese were obsessed with personal and family honor. It's one of the prime reasons why they refused unconditional surrender.
Yes but as the victors we get to dictate what honor was! If Japan had one they would have considered us dishonorable! Since we won, we got to say torturing and massacring civilians and prisoners is dishonorable!
ArbeitsSchu wrote:@ Various people including Sebster: And when the American military leadership of 1945 developed its time machine and flew to the future of NOW and googled Japan's war effort then they would have known that Japan didn't actually receive anything particularly useful from Germany, that most German research was advanced but not immediately useful, and a host of other exciting things......
No. They had a very good idea of the German nuclear project (demonstrated by their ability to undertake black ops against it), and a very good idea of how developed a nuke scheme needed to be to actually produce a nuke (Manhattan was an immense undertaking).
What you're claiming is plainly against the facts of what they knew at the time.
I seem to recall a big hole in the middle of Manhattan made by a group with no air force and no navy.
In attempting to compare a terrorist strike, and the casualties it caused, to deaths suffered by a nation under war, you show yourself as being entirely clueless over the scale of war. You need to be less sure of your own arguments, less willing to use your imagination, and a lot more willing to actually read.
And if nothing else, if Japan was not a threat as much as people in this thread seem to believe was the case, then why didn't the whole Pacific Fleet just pack up and sale home? Why carry on prosecuting a war against a nation that is "no threat"?
Because there's a difference between rendering a nation incapable of retailiating effectively as long as you keep bombing them and submarining their supply vessels, and a nation which is completely incapable of ever gathering itself and regaining the capability to fight.
Which is, you know, a very obvious thing that you should feel quite embarassed for having missed.
Addendum: For those who seem to think that I'm stating opinion and not fact, here's a google for you. 30AU and T-Force. Then go and read up about what the Germans did or did not have, and the rest of it.
They didn't have nuclear program anywhere near capable of producing a bomb, and this was well understood by Allied high command. So everything else is piffle, really.
On a slightly different angle: There seems to be some confusion about the difference between the act of bombing being "right" and "necessary", which are obviously two distinct things.
No, there isn't. Arguing such would divorce actions from their consequences, which is certain to produce an entirely incoherent system of morality.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Emperors Faithful wrote:Sure, but there's a huge difference between striking at targets within a city, and simply targetting the city itself. The first one may view civilian casualties as a collateral, the other is hoping for civilian casualties in itself.
Have you read anything about the German operations against the UK? Or against Soviet cities?
And the operations of the allied strategic air command against Germany (where a policy of tactical bombing was replaced by wholesale strategic bombing with the intent of killing enough civilians to demoralise the German population?), that culminated in the fire-bombing of Dresden.
The general purpose bombing of cities was undertaken by both sides, and often with little chance of meaningful strategic gain. It's very strange that people pick on the one bombing campaign that targetted civilians that actually achieved something, and ignore efforts like Dresden.
I hardly think the situation in China was what prompted the US to drop the bomb. That wasn't the motivation behind it.
True, but it wasn't absolutely the effect of dropping it. So you can either judge the dropping of the bomb by what the US knew (they thought they'd suffer a hundred thousand or more in casualties, and while likely wrong it certainly would justify dropping the bomb), or you can judge it by the actual effect (it ended the war quickly and saved millions of Chinese, Japanese and Russian lives).
Either way the bomb was justified.
After pouring in an huge amount of resources into the nuclear program do you think the US government was going to let them sit by unused?
That's absurd. "Okay, dropping this bomb would kill hundreds of thousands of people, but building it cost loads of money and we've all worked so hard on it, won't you please let us drop it on somebody?"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ketara wrote:Actually, might not have been as stupid as you think. The American government considered it enough of a threat to morale to hush the whole thing up. Something about the whole 'being attacked on american soil' thing. They didn't think it would sit well with the masses. And they were probably right. It was never going to do substantial damage, by then again, neither were the V1&2's. That wasn't really their purpose.
True, although given the handful of deaths and ease with which the Americans covered it up I'm still willing to call it a failed, and poorly considered operation.
Meanwhile, let's just take a second to consider this is the means that ArbeitSchu implied the Japanese might deliver a nuclear weapon to the US. He seriously did that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Emperors Faithful wrote:Mutilation of Japanese prisoners and corpes is well documented.
You're confusing the existance of a thing, with the idea that it was widespread.
While both sides committed atrocities, the US did so very rarely, while the Japanese did so regularly. This is a matter of plain, accepted historical fact and you cannot pretend otherwise.
In terms of discipline and adherence to the standards of was the US in WWII performed admirably, despite individual instances from soldiers.
Whereas the Japanese acted in an abhorrent manner, and there are many books dedicated to exactly why this happened (unlike the Nazis their was no ideological prompting for their atrocities, it looks to be more the product of brutalisation during training, coupled with poor supplies and even poorer governmental oversight).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Emperors Faithful wrote:But seriously, is it really that hard to admit that targetting civilians in a war is bad?
It's almost certainly bad, because it gets a load of people killed and doesn't achieve anything.
The one time it actually achieved something, and certainly saved more lives than it cost, was the dropping of the atomic bombs. Yet we always hear people complaining about the atom bomb and never about the bombing of Dresden, or Hanoi.
It's very weird.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:So China and Hong King were being invaded, despite large chunks being occupied by Britain and other European powers for a number of years. Ditto India, Singapore and Malaysia.
And what about American colonies in the pacific: Midway, Wake Island, Phillipines etc were they not aleady occupied?
Oh for feth's sake, go and ask the people of the Phillipines whether they preferred US or Japanese occupation.
Let's not forget the evils of Japanese occupation, but the west was in no position to take the moral high ground about Japanese imperialism. Hence, the conflcit boiled down to a racial struggle.
Colonialism is not a good thing. But pretending the colonies of the US and UK were the same as Japanese occupation is utterly ridiculous.
The lives of people, and the things inflicted on them by the conquering nations actually matter.
Germany was nuked, Japan was not, despite the Germans being far more of a threat.
The allies agreed to let the Soviets take Berlin, so you might want to read up on the pointless brutal manner in which the Soviets did so. Honestly, having an atomic bomb dropped on the city might have got less people killed.
You might also want to read up on Dresden, and realise the Allies were willing to do very awful things to the soviets.
At which point, your idea that racism played a part in dropping the bomb on Japan becomes rather obviously foolish.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jubear wrote:Arguing over if it was a good/humane idea to drop the A bomb is pointless, War is exactly that war and the objective is to win and the allies did win...so we get to decide if it was right or not and guess what we decided it was the right thing to do.
No, you have to measure the cost against the benefit. Emperor's Faithful gets it wrong by ignoring the benefit. You get it wrong by ignoring the cost.
The Imperial army got extremely close to being in postion to invade oz if they had I doubt they would have been the most merciful conquerors and I am 100% sure I would not be here today....So yeah let em burn
The Japanese couldn't properly support operations in Indonesia, how do you propose they would have supported an invasion of Australia. And what part of Japanese manifest destiny would have prompted them towards such an incredibly challenging undertaking, anyway?
ArbeitsSchu wrote:@ Various people including Sebster: And when the American military leadership of 1945 developed its time machine and flew to the future of NOW and googled Japan's war effort then they would have known that Japan didn't actually receive anything particularly useful from Germany, that most German research was advanced but not immediately useful, and a host of other exciting things......
No. They had a very good idea of the German nuclear project (demonstrated by their ability to undertake black ops against it), and a very good idea of how developed a nuke scheme needed to be to actually produce a nuke (Manhattan was an immense undertaking).
What you're claiming is plainly against the facts of what they knew at the time.
I seem to recall a big hole in the middle of Manhattan made by a group with no air force and no navy.
In attempting to compare a terrorist strike, and the casualties it caused, to deaths suffered by a nation under war, you show yourself as being entirely clueless over the scale of war. You need to be less sure of your own arguments, less willing to use your imagination, and a lot more willing to actually read.
And if nothing else, if Japan was not a threat as much as people in this thread seem to believe was the case, then why didn't the whole Pacific Fleet just pack up and sale home? Why carry on prosecuting a war against a nation that is "no threat"?
Because there's a difference between rendering a nation incapable of retailiating effectively as long as you keep bombing them and submarining their supply vessels, and a nation which is completely incapable of ever gathering itself and regaining the capability to fight.
Which is, you know, a very obvious thing that you should feel quite embarassed for having missed.
Addendum: For those who seem to think that I'm stating opinion and not fact, here's a google for you. 30AU and T-Force. Then go and read up about what the Germans did or did not have, and the rest of it.
They didn't have nuclear program anywhere near capable of producing a bomb, and this was well understood by Allied high command. So everything else is piffle, really.
On a slightly different angle: There seems to be some confusion about the difference between the act of bombing being "right" and "necessary", which are obviously two distinct things.
No, there isn't. Arguing such would divorce actions from their consequences, which is certain to produce an entirely incoherent system of morality.
Lets see, where to start? Nuclear program? Because the ONLY THING that the Germans ever researched that could possibly be a threat to anyone was nukes, of course. None of the other thousands of tons of research or material recovered was of any use at all to anyone, and nobody gave a damn about it because it was zero threat. Which is why the allies risked starting a shooting war with the Russians just to get to Kiel and see what was there. Which is why allied units risked clandestine forays into Soviet territory to locate materials and people for extraction. For things that simply were not important enough because they weren't a nuke. K. Gotcha. Only nukes are a threat. No other military resource is threatening..just "piffle". Sound reasoning. Couple of thousand years of armed conflict might disagree with you, but because you used such a disparaging term AND flamed me as well, you must be right.
You want to pick any of the hundreds of examples of how an aggressor with no organised Navy or Air Force can war-fight against Uncle Sam (or anyone else) be my guest. I just picked an obvious one. (Because even if you think its "terror", I assure you that your enemies do consider it to be "war". ) You'll have to find them for me though, because I can't read proper well, and got most of my information off the back of a cereal packet and watching Saving Private Ryan a lot. (Where you can learn nearly as much about Histuree as you can by reading Stephen Ambrose.)
Ah, "No Threat". Because its worth the time and effort to render them "completely incapable of ever gathering itself and regaining the capability to fight." And why do we do that? Because they are a threat. A reduced one, trapped on the Home Islands, but one with great potential. And that is what this is about. Ending the THREAT.
The moral discussion about whether setting off nukes is right discussing a different decision-making process than whether dropping them on Japan is necessary. Which was my point. Is it morally correct to atom bomb cities? Is it militarily neccessary? So really there should be two threads..one discussing the moral and humanist implications of Atom Bomb usage, and the other discussing the strategic and military applications of them. Or at least two answers to the question. Two separate and different answers. (IMO No and Yes, respectively.)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote:[The reason the stance was taken was because of fear that ending WWII without the ability to absolutely disarm the opponent and remove hositle governments would simply lead to another world war down the road. (To be honest I'm iffy on the why exactly. I haven't studied the stance of unconditional surrender much as it pretains to WWII. I know the US pushed it really hard while Britain and Russia where less inclined).
That's a relatively easy one. Unconditional surrender forced the Axis hand. Couple that to a leadership that thinks retreat and surrender are capital crimes (in both states as it happens) and you are forced to engage in a bloody and costly battle to utterly crush all resistance. I know that certainly the British were not fond of the idea of having to grind through what was left of their manpower, simply because the UK simply did not have the reserves of men to do that sort of thing, and never really did...not without lasting cost. The butchers bill paid to conquer Germany totally included the loss of the empire..not something the British wished to lose.
In Europe, the Russian stance of surrender may well have been mutable, seeing as how vastly their position changed from "losing badly" to "spamming tanks." Its very easy to demand unconditional surrender when you are knocking on the gates of Berlin, much harder to make such a demand when the enemy are watching the Kremlin with binoculars...even Carl Zeiss ones. (See further! Bring your enemies Closer! in HD!)
In Asia, the same situation exists for the British..a potentially unending meat-grinder using Slims' Forgotten Army, which wasn't all that big to start with, or Dominion forces that tended to get upset when you killed all their men, which inevitably ends with a hugely weakened Far East army of neither use nor ornament, and a collapsing empire. As far as I can see, Russia mostly declared war on Japan in a cynical attempt to get in on the inevitable reparations, as opposed to any real desire to defeat them. Of course there was a much lower chance that Japan would surrender, unconditionally or otherwise, but in the short term the possibility of not having to fight is preferable to prolonged fighting.
This flower picking hippy withdraws from the argument after a thorough beating of logic from LoH and sebster.
Though I will say to LoH that civilians were put on trial, and sentenced, during the Tokyo trials. The Emperor's future if no bargain had been secured would have been very shaky.
No, there isn't. Arguing such would divorce actions from their consequences, which is certain to produce an entirely incoherent system of morality.
Incorrect. Morality does not necessarily ( ) have any bearing on necessity.
It is necessary that I drink water every three days at least. Or I will die.
It is necessary that I breathe oxygen. Or I will die.
It is necessary that a soldier must be able to shoot people on demand. Or he will lose his job.
It is necessary that an office worker must perform his job competently and adequately, if he hopes to be promoted.
If there is an objective you have (to survive, to retain your job, to be promoted, etc), it is possible to delineate things as being necessary to the achievement of that goal without involving morality. Whether the goal or the actions themselves are moral is irrelevant. If you must meet a criteria in order to meet an objective, it can be described as necessary, with no inclusion of moralistic judgements.
The goal was the surrender of Japan. Was the nuclear bomb necessary to that? i.e., was it the only way that objective could be achieved? Were there no alternative methods which might be used to achieve it? The answer is; yes, there were other possibilities. Therefore on a technical side, it was not necessary.
We then move on to the moralistic end to which you seem to have intermixed with the technical end, i.e. was this the most preferable method if the goal is to achieve the surrender of Japan in a way that is most compatible with your personal morals.
If it turns out dropping the bomb would have ultimately killed 200 more people than a blockade could, and the objective is the surrender of Japan with the minimum of deaths(from your perspective), than the bombs could be described as unnecessary.
However, calculating such things in a precise way is impossible. All you can do attempt to judge the probability of the results of the other possibilities, and predict whether or not they would have lead to an outcome more in line with your personal values. And then label it as 'necessary' or 'unnecessary' based on your decisions from that.
But the necessity of things changes in regard to the personal objective. If, as the US president, your objective is the surrender of Japan with the minimum of American lives lost, it could well be that it was necessary, weighing up the possibilities of the time. As can be seen, necessity that is decided with the inclusion of personal morality is highly subjective.
Whereas simply stating that nuclear bomb was technically unnecessary, because there were other possibilities to force the surrender of Japan (including killing every man, woman and child-not a palatable alternative-but one of them) is correct, if divorced from morality.
This does not divorce actions from consequences, it is a simple statement of fact. Where several alternatives exist to the achieving of an objective, no one of those alternatives can be described as necessary.
Kilkrazy wrote:I am still waiting for anyone who is against the bomb to present some better alternatives.
Go back in time with the Nimitz and intercept the Japanese bombers approaching Pearl Harbor? It would be an awesome movie. To really top it off you'd have to have Kirk Douglas in it and top of the line jets literally running rings around Japanese zeroes.
Alternatively go even further back in time with the Admiral Kuznetzov and intercept the Japanese fleet near Port Arthur in 1905?
Well It was based off of LoTR, or the other way around, and LoTR books/Movies are great so...
(The Shire (U.S.A) drop the ring (A-Bomb) in Mount Doom (Hiroshima) to end the war of Middle Earth (the Americans and Japanese).
Kilkrazy wrote:I am still waiting for anyone who is against the bomb to present some better alternatives.
Go back in time with the Nimitz and intercept the Japanese bombers approaching Pearl Harbor? It would be an awesome movie. To really top it off you'd have to have Kirk Douglas in it and top of the line jets literally running rings around Japanese zeroes.
Alternatively go even further back in time with the Admiral Kuznetzov and intercept the Japanese fleet near Port Arthur in 1905?
There is a science fiction book in which a task force from 2020 gets accidentally sent back in time to the Battle of Midway. It sounded completely stupid so I didn't bother to read it.
Kilkrazy wrote:I am still waiting for anyone who is against the bomb to present some better alternatives.
Go back in time with the Nimitz and intercept the Japanese bombers approaching Pearl Harbor? It would be an awesome movie. To really top it off you'd have to have Kirk Douglas in it and top of the line jets literally running rings around Japanese zeroes.
Alternatively go even further back in time with the Admiral Kuznetzov and intercept the Japanese fleet near Port Arthur in 1905?
There is a science fiction book in which a task force from 2020 gets accidentally sent back in time to the Battle of Midway. It sounded completely stupid so I didn't bother to read it.
Kilkrazy wrote:I am still waiting for anyone who is against the bomb to present some better alternatives.
Go back in time with the Nimitz and intercept the Japanese bombers approaching Pearl Harbor? It would be an awesome movie. To really top it off you'd have to have Kirk Douglas in it and top of the line jets literally running rings around Japanese zeroes.
Alternatively go even further back in time with the Admiral Kuznetzov and intercept the Japanese fleet near Port Arthur in 1905?
There is a science fiction book in which a task force from 2020 gets accidentally sent back in time to the Battle of Midway. It sounded completely stupid so I didn't bother to read it.
It was somewhat enjoyable, certainly more so then a clancy novel
I hate to attempt to bring this thread back on topic.
Sometimes the most simple and logical answer is the correct one. The 2 atomic bombings killed about a 1/4 million civilians. Operation downfall was projected to kill a lot more than 1/4 million civilians. If more civilians would have died from operation downfall then the 2 atomic bombings actually saved more lives of Japanese civilians than they took.
The second video!!! Absolutely hilarious but unfortunatley becoming true these days! The first video I take was real? If so, the little sh** deserved everything and more for being a bully!
ArbeitsSchu wrote:Lets see, where to start? Nuclear program? Because the ONLY THING that the Germans ever researched that could possibly be a threat to anyone was nukes, of course.
Umm, no, they had nothing that was of any threat. The list of things that didn't threaten us included the nukes they didn't have.
None of the other thousands of tons of research or material recovered was of any use at all to anyone, and nobody gave a damn about it because it was zero threat.
Of course it was useful. The point is that having useful tech doesn't mean you're a military threat.
This is a very obvious thing.
You want to pick any of the hundreds of examples of how an aggressor with no organised Navy or Air Force can war-fight against Uncle Sam (or anyone else) be my guest. I just picked an obvious one.
Your fail was in assuming a terror strike, even one as devestating 9/11, materially impacts the ability of a nation to wage war. The destruction inflicted upon each of the allies during the war was immensely greater than 9/11, or even a dozen 9/11s, yet their military power continued to grow. Because a terror strike is a human tragedy, it is not actually a threat to continued existance of the state.
Ah, "No Threat". Because its worth the time and effort to render them "completely incapable of ever gathering itself and regaining the capability to fight." And why do we do that? Because they are a threat. A reduced one, trapped on the Home Islands, but one with great potential. And that is what this is about. Ending the THREAT.
Obviously. So the point was to force an unconditional surrender, because leaving Japan to itself and thereby risking the possibility that it might rebuild it's military capabilities would be unacceptable. But that has nothing to do with pretending they represented an immediate threat while under virtual siege.
The moral discussion about whether setting off nukes is right discussing a different decision-making process than whether dropping them on Japan is necessary. Which was my point. Is it morally correct to atom bomb cities? Is it militarily neccessary?
A thing can be an awful, horrible thing to do, and still be moral, if it achieves a sufficiently great end.
"Oh it was an awful, immoral thing, but necessary' is a nonsense, as it ignores the point that dropping the bomb achieved something so tremendous (ending the war sooner and removing the need for an invasion of Japan) that it became a moral action.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ketara wrote:This does not divorce actions from consequences, it is a simple statement of fact. Where several alternatives exist to the achieving of an objective, no one of those alternatives can be described as necessary.
Hmmm, I think we were talking at cross purposes. I might have misread the original comment.
I had thought the point was being made that the bomb might have been immoral, but was necessary. Which would be divorcing the action from it's consequences (as it would be judging the act of blowing up a city in isolation of what that might achieve and thereby declaring it immoral, then considering what it achieved and deeming it 'necessary').
If that wasn't happening, then I withdraw my comment, and apologise.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:Lets see, where to start? Nuclear program? Because the ONLY THING that the Germans ever researched that could possibly be a threat to anyone was nukes, of course.
Umm, no, they had nothing that was of any threat. The list of things that didn't threaten us included the nukes they didn't have.
None of the other thousands of tons of research or material recovered was of any use at all to anyone, and nobody gave a damn about it because it was zero threat.
Of course it was useful. The point is that having useful tech doesn't mean you're a military threat.
This is a very obvious thing.
You want to pick any of the hundreds of examples of how an aggressor with no organised Navy or Air Force can war-fight against Uncle Sam (or anyone else) be my guest. I just picked an obvious one.
Your fail was in assuming a terror strike, even one as devestating 9/11, materially impacts the ability of a nation to wage war. The destruction inflicted upon each of the allies during the war was immensely greater than 9/11, or even a dozen 9/11s, yet their military power continued to grow. Because a terror strike is a human tragedy, it is not actually a threat to continued existance of the state.
Ah, "No Threat". Because its worth the time and effort to render them "completely incapable of ever gathering itself and regaining the capability to fight." And why do we do that? Because they are a threat. A reduced one, trapped on the Home Islands, but one with great potential. And that is what this is about. Ending the THREAT.
Obviously. So the point was to force an unconditional surrender, because leaving Japan to itself and thereby risking the possibility that it might rebuild it's military capabilities would be unacceptable. But that has nothing to do with pretending they represented an immediate threat while under virtual siege.
The moral discussion about whether setting off nukes is right discussing a different decision-making process than whether dropping them on Japan is necessary. Which was my point. Is it morally correct to atom bomb cities? Is it militarily neccessary?
A thing can be an awful, horrible thing to do, and still be moral, if it achieves a sufficiently great end.
"Oh it was an awful, immoral thing, but necessary' is a nonsense, as it ignores the point that dropping the bomb achieved something so tremendous (ending the war sooner and removing the need for an invasion of Japan) that it became a moral action..
Ah, so nobody in the US military cares about German technology in 1944. Its not a threat, which is why they just let the Russians have it, and made no attempt at all to snatch it out from under the nose of the Soviets. Likewise, nobody cares about the threat posed by chemical weapons either. K. Gotcha.
What is it you can't grasp here? Strikes have been made against the US by forces lacking a conventional military. This is fact. I would rather hope that the Japanese High Command, on planning their strikes, would have considered exactly what and where they wished to target for the maximum effect for their plans...the point still remains that it is possible now, and it was possible then, for an aggressor to strike against the continental USA. Japan (as we have already covered several times) DID strike against the continental USA. The weapon used was ineffective but IT STILL HAPPENED. The nature of that strike, or the weapons used is neither here nor there.
And yes, OBVIOUSLY they are a threat, which is why I keep saying they were a threat. YOUR FAIL is to assume that I was only speaking in the short term. A threat is a threat. Long term or short term, that is why the allies had to take some form of action against Japan. Because it was a THREAT. You're actually agreeing with me and trying to make an argument out of it. That's just weird. No point trying to converse with someone that obtuse.
12 pages, eh? I guess I hit a topic someone actually cares about for a change. I'd prefer if you guys stayed on topic, but then again, you probably won't.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:And yes, OBVIOUSLY they are a threat, which is why I keep saying they were a threat. YOUR FAIL is to assume that I was only speaking in the short term. A threat is a threat. Long term or short term, that is why the allies had to take some form of action against Japan. Because it was a THREAT.
Your logic is perverse. Just because something may pose a threat you in the future does not mean it poses a threat now. The definition of 'threat' is not so elastic as that. Otherwise every baby I pass on the street I must consider to be a threat, because it may one day grow up, and mug me in the future. The car parked outside my driveway must be a threat to me now, because it may run me over ten years down the line.
And before you deny, that is your logic here, correct? That in two/ten/however many years after the war, Japan may pose a threat to the USA? Therefore they are a threat now that must be crushed? Because future (or 'long term') threats are the same as current (or 'short term') threats?
Jeez, I'd better start punching babies and smashing cars.......
ArbeitsSchu wrote:And yes, OBVIOUSLY they are a threat, which is why I keep saying they were a threat. YOUR FAIL is to assume that I was only speaking in the short term. A threat is a threat. Long term or short term, that is why the allies had to take some form of action against Japan. Because it was a THREAT.
Your logic is perverse. Just because something may pose a threat you in the future does not mean it poses a threat now. The definition of 'threat' is not so elastic as that. Otherwise every baby I pass on the street I must consider to be a threat, because it may one day grow up, and mug me in the future. The car parked outside my driveway must be a threat to me now, because it may run me over ten years down the line.
And before you deny, that is your logic here, correct? That in two/ten/however many years after the war, Japan may pose a threat to the USA? Therefore they are a threat now that must be crushed? Because future (or 'long term') threats are the same as current (or 'short term') threats?
Jeez, I'd better start punching babies and smashing cars.......
Not MY logic. The logic that the allies (or more specifically the USA) used in order to justify unconditional surrender on both fronts. The complete and total capitulation of the enemy to end the current threat and prevent any future threat. If Japan posed no threat in the immediate term (not strictly speaking accurate) and no threat in the future (post Versailles Germany gives the lie to that,) then there is no sensible reason to be engaged in warfare with Japan. If they DO pose a threat, now or in the future, then some course of action must be taken.
Also, your examples are absurd. Punching babies just because they might attack you would be perverse.There is a difference between a passing baby or a random car, and a nation that preemptively attacked another nation and subsequently engaged in several years of belligerence. Now if your "baby" had shown a tendency to drop from the ceiling on to your back with knives, or the car parked outside was drven regularly by someone who had already tried to run you over several times..then they would fit a little better.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:And yes, OBVIOUSLY they are a threat, which is why I keep saying they were a threat. YOUR FAIL is to assume that I was only speaking in the short term. A threat is a threat. Long term or short term, that is why the allies had to take some form of action against Japan. Because it was a THREAT.
Your logic is perverse. Just because something may pose a threat you in the future does not mean it poses a threat now. The definition of 'threat' is not so elastic as that. Otherwise every baby I pass on the street I must consider to be a threat, because it may one day grow up, and mug me in the future. The car parked outside my driveway must be a threat to me now, because it may run me over ten years down the line.
And before you deny, that is your logic here, correct? That in two/ten/however many years after the war, Japan may pose a threat to the USA? Therefore they are a threat now that must be crushed? Because future (or 'long term') threats are the same as current (or 'short term') threats?
Jeez, I'd better start punching babies and smashing cars.......
Germany was a threat after WWI. The treaty of Versailles was intended to make them less of a threat, but the actual result was it turned them into more of a threat. Ending WWII with Japan surrendering to the treaty of Versailles 2.0 would have the same disastrous result as the original. You can't end a war with another nation angry and maimed expecting that nation not to eventually seek revenge. Complete and total surrender was required to ensure the post war plans that resulted in over 65 years of peace between Japan, Germany, and the western nations that formed the allies during WW2.
I cannot fathom the justification in peoples minds for the horror this caused to innocent people...women and children for generations. In the spirit of forum respect, i'll stop here before I get on a very judgemental soapbox for the people who would support this.
schadenfreude wrote:Germany was a threat after WWI.
No they weren't.
The treaty of Versailles was intended to make them less of a threat,
EDIT: Nevermind. This is what happens when you start work at 6AM.
but the actual result was it turned them into more of a threat.
Indeed it did.
Ending WWII with Japan surrendering to the treaty of Versailles 2.0 would have the same disastrous result as the original. You can't end a war with another nation angry and maimed expecting that nation not to eventually seek revenge. Complete and total surrender was required to ensure the post war plans that resulted in over 65 years of peace between Japan, Germany, and the western nations that formed the allies during WW2.
The Cold War played as much a role in that peace as the unconditional surrender, if not more. West Germany and Japan were scared of Soviet invasion and so were many of the Allies. That, and the governments of WWII Germany and Japan were so insane that it's hard for the populations of either country to justify revenge.
schadenfreude wrote:Unless we allowed the insane governments of WW2 Germany or Japan to remain in power after the war.
Except that (we are assuming Versaille 2.0 went through) they may be more considered with the Soviets than the other Allies like the Allies were. Surprising how you can be friends with horrible people when someone else scares you more (this proposed scenario is reversed in WWII as Britain and the US allied with Russia who was no angel). Of course, WWII played a huge role in bringing the fears of Soviet power to the forefront.
Maybe I'm just tripping a bit. Like I said. This is what happens when you get up at 6AM and start posting after a day of working in the rain @.@
I don't like the idea of only thinking of those governments as insane. It lets them off the hook for a lot really bad stuff and ignores that fact that they weren't actually insane. It is like saying terrorists are insane instead of recognizing what there actual goals and motivations are. Pretending someone is crazy is a sure way to underestimate someone and tends to lead to problems.
schadenfreude wrote:Unless we allowed the insane governments of WW2 Germany or Japan to remain in power after the war.
Except that (we are assuming Versaille 2.0 went through) they may be more considered with the Soviets than the other Allies like the Allies were. Surprising how you can be friends with horrible people when someone else scares you more (this proposed scenario is reversed in WWII as Britain and the US allied with Russia who was no angel). Of course, WWII played a huge role in bringing the fears of Soviet power to the forefront.
Maybe I'm just tripping a bit. Like I said. This is what happens when you get up at 6AM and start posting after a day of working in the rain @.@
Would the cold war been better off with a nuclear armed us, ussr, china, imperial japanese airforce, and nazi germany all pointing nukes at each other and ready to launch? MAD becomes a lot more complicated if it turns into a 5 way mexican standoff where anybody might fire at anybody.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:Ah, so nobody in the US military cares about German technology in 1944. Its not a threat, which is why they just let the Russians have it, and made no attempt at all to snatch it out from under the nose of the Soviets. Likewise, nobody cares about the threat posed by chemical weapons either. K. Gotcha.
The existance of advanced technology does not make a nation a military rival, when their combat forces have been utterly devestated.
You can have a very advanced jet engines, and still lack the fuel supplies and conventional military to actually put that to good effect. Which is why the allies were able to advance on Germany on all fronts. Sneaking those jet engines to Tokyo wouldn't suddenly change the reality that Japan was also incapable of matching the US military.
What is it you can't grasp here? Strikes have been made against the US by forces lacking a conventional military.
And, as I've explained several times now, those strikes were not on a scale that can threaten the continued existance of a state, particularly not the US. AQ are evil bastards and they've caused considerable suffering, but they are incapable of actually destroying the US as a nation.
Which is, again, a very simple and straight forward point, and one that you need to accept and move on from.
Japan (as we have already covered several times) DID strike against the continental USA. The weapon used was ineffective but IT STILL HAPPENED. The nature of that strike, or the weapons used is neither here nor there.
Actually, you didn't cover it. You just mentioned it in an effort to imply it was far greater than it was, I then went into detail explaining how pointless and ineffective the attempt was.
And yes, OBVIOUSLY they are a threat, which is why I keep saying they were a threat. YOUR FAIL is to assume that I was only speaking in the short term. A threat is a threat.
No, that's absurd. Nobody goes around thinking a potential future threat is exactly the same thing as a present threat, which is why we deal with each in very different ways.
Accepting the plain and obvious reality that Japan in 1945 was not a threat, and no magic super tech snuck over from Germany was going to change that, then we consider how to deal with Japan as a possible future threat. The list of responses to that is considerably different than it would be if Japan represented a clear, present threat.
Funny thing is, the bomb is still justifiable even with Japan simply considered as only a possible future threat (to remove that future threat you still need to force unconditional surrender and it is fair to say that the best way to achieve this was with the bomb), which just goes to show how silly your argument that Japan could potentially have had Nazi super tech and used that against the allies really was. So please just accept that your effort here wasn't very well thought out, stop repeating the same arguments that I've already disproven, and move on.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote:The Cold War played as much a role in that peace as the unconditional surrender, if not more. West Germany and Japan were scared of Soviet invasion and so were many of the Allies. That, and the governments of WWII Germany and Japan were so insane that it's hard for the populations of either country to justify revenge.
More to the point, the Marshall Plan fueled economic recovery, and tied the economies of both countries to the US. Turns out the best way to stop someone going to war with you is help them be rich, and make them a close trading partner.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:Ah, so nobody in the US military cares about German technology in 1944. Its not a threat, which is why they just let the Russians have it, and made no attempt at all to snatch it out from under the nose of the Soviets. Likewise, nobody cares about the threat posed by chemical weapons either. K. Gotcha.
The existance of advanced technology does not make a nation a military rival, when their combat forces have been utterly devestated.
You can have a very advanced jet engines, and still lack the fuel supplies and conventional military to actually put that to good effect. Which is why the allies were able to advance on Germany on all fronts. Sneaking those jet engines to Tokyo wouldn't suddenly change the reality that Japan was also incapable of matching the US military.
What is it you can't grasp here? Strikes have been made against the US by forces lacking a conventional military.
And, as I've explained several times now, those strikes were not on a scale that can threaten the continued existance of a state, particularly not the US. AQ are evil bastards and they've caused considerable suffering, but they are incapable of actually destroying the US as a nation.
Which is, again, a very simple and straight forward point, and one that you need to accept and move on from.
Japan (as we have already covered several times) DID strike against the continental USA. The weapon used was ineffective but IT STILL HAPPENED. The nature of that strike, or the weapons used is neither here nor there.
Actually, you didn't cover it. You just mentioned it in an effort to imply it was far greater than it was, I then went into detail explaining how pointless and ineffective the attempt was.
And yes, OBVIOUSLY they are a threat, which is why I keep saying they were a threat. YOUR FAIL is to assume that I was only speaking in the short term. A threat is a threat.
No, that's absurd. Nobody goes around thinking a potential future threat is exactly the same thing as a present threat, which is why we deal with each in very different ways.
Accepting the plain and obvious reality that Japan in 1945 was not a threat, and no magic super tech snuck over from Germany was going to change that, then we consider how to deal with Japan as a possible future threat. The list of responses to that is considerably different than it would be if Japan represented a clear, present threat.
Funny thing is, the bomb is still justifiable even with Japan simply considered as only a possible future threat (to remove that future threat you still need to force unconditional surrender and it is fair to say that the best way to achieve this was with the bomb), which just goes to show how silly your argument that Japan could potentially have had Nazi super tech and used that against the allies really was. So please just accept that your effort here wasn't very well thought out, stop repeating the same arguments that I've already disproven, and move on
You haven't disproven anything. The USA has been attacked by forces lacking a conventional military. Fact. USA military forces have been engaged and defeated by forces lacking an effective air-force or navy. Fact. Japan did in fact manage to reach the continental USA and attack it. Fact. Germany and Japan shared advanced military technology. Also fact. Not "magic super tech", which is just you trying to make it sound silly, but actual technology, and not just theoretical stuff but things that actually got used and provably worked.
That the attacks I reference were not effective enough to bring the states toppling down is really not relevant. I never argued that they WERE effective, nor even reliant on "magic super tech". (Balloons? Magic? Are you a toddler? If so then yes, they are "magic".) The point is that they occurred, and from the viewpoint of military planners in 1945 the potential threat is much greater than it transpired to be. The potential is what matters.
Oh, and you're not strictly correct about the use of German advanced tech being scuppered by fuel losses or lacking a "conventional military". For a start huge numbers of troops were still present in various European states, unmolested by Russia or the Allies, and one of the main flaws in the use of advanced technology was misuse. A single order shifts the targets of the V1/2 from London to Normandy, and you're dealing with a whole new ball-game.
This is the concept you seem to be failing to grasp: That in 1944/45 nothing was assured, and that allied forces simply did not have access to the vast level of hindsight and research we do now. Events that we know DID happen were only possibilities back then. The balance of the situation throughout the war changed because of individual situations, chance, mischance, or missed opportunities.
schadenfreude wrote:Germany was a threat after WWI.
No they weren't.
The treaty of Versailles was intended to make them less of a threat,
EDIT: Nevermind. This is what happens when you start work at 6AM.
but the actual result was it turned them into more of a threat.
Indeed it did.
To blame WWII entirely on the Treaty of Versailles is oversimplifying things a bit. The German government was actually doing quite well, even while paying massive reparations, until the Depression hit. In the aftermath of such critical circumstances the Nazi's became more than a fringe group.
So should we start a different poll each week where we pick a different battle or incident from the past and lambaste them as insane, genocidal, and/or racist? Maybe use this as a starting point and go back 50 to 100 years each time? That way we can judge all our ancestors (genetic or not) by modern standards and spend time condemning them rather than understanding the forces at work that lead to the situation. Judging after all feels better than understanding, right EF?
thedude wrote:I cannot fathom the justification in peoples minds for the horror this caused to innocent people...women and children for generations. In the spirit of forum respect, i'll stop here before I get on a very judgemental soapbox for the people who would support this.
It affected the people who were present at the time, and some who were present shortly thereafter, and some of their children. In terms of immediate effects it was a great deal less horrific than dropping thousands of tons of thermite and napalm (the standard for bombing cities at the time), and in terms of long-term effects it was no worse than the sort of toxic waste contamination that's commonplace in some third-world countries, and occasionally found in first world countries as well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ketara wrote:
ArbeitsSchu wrote:And yes, OBVIOUSLY they are a threat, which is why I keep saying they were a threat. YOUR FAIL is to assume that I was only speaking in the short term. A threat is a threat. Long term or short term, that is why the allies had to take some form of action against Japan. Because it was a THREAT.
Your logic is perverse. Just because something may pose a threat you in the future does not mean it poses a threat now. The definition of 'threat' is not so elastic as that. Otherwise every baby I pass on the street I must consider to be a threat, because it may one day grow up, and mug me in the future. The car parked outside my driveway must be a threat to me now, because it may run me over ten years down the line.
And before you deny, that is your logic here, correct? That in two/ten/however many years after the war, Japan may pose a threat to the USA? Therefore they are a threat now that must be crushed? Because future (or 'long term') threats are the same as current (or 'short term') threats?
Jeez, I'd better start punching babies and smashing cars.......
It's more considering something that has been a threat, and continues to have an intent to be a threat, to potentially be a threat again in the future, if it's not crushed utterly and left in no position to recover its previous strength or attitude.
It affected the people who were present at the time, and some who were present shortly thereafter, and some of their children. In terms of immediate effects it was a great deal less horrific than dropping thousands of tons of thermite and napalm (the standard for bombing cities at the time), and in terms of long-term effects it was no worse than the sort of toxic waste contamination that's commonplace in some third-world countries, and occasionally found in first world countries as well.
I'm not sure what your point here is but at best it is a subjective argument:
"Within the first two to four months of the bombings, the acute effects killed 90,000–166,000 people in Hiroshima and 60,000–80,000 in Nagasaki,[1] with roughly half of the deaths in each city occurring on the first day. The Hiroshima prefectural health department estimates that, of the people who died on the day of the explosion, 60% died from flash or flame burns, 30% from falling debris and 10% from other causes. During the following months, large numbers died from the effect of burns, radiation sickness, and other injuries, compounded by illness. In a US estimate of the total immediate and short term cause of death, 15–20% died from radiation sickness, 20–30% from flash burns, and 50–60% from other injuries, compounded by illness"
The fact is regardless of the method, whether the attack was necessary to win the war or not or whether the massacre occured under the banner and in the name of if imperilaism or freedom, a state attack on civilians is murder. By and large, the human condition strives for peace and happieness. The people on the streets in Hiroshima that day were mothers, daughters, sons and fathers. The suffering of civilians, children for feths sake with no cause for war had no say in what was wrought on them.
My mind is at a loss to try and comprehend how anyone who loves someone more than themselves (and as such are the only ones who can understand true loss) can condone actions such as this on their fellow man. This is the ultimate antithesis of freedom. Are we as a whole, so far removed from suffering through luxeries of our generation that we cannot relate to our fellow human beings?
It affected the people who were present at the time, and some who were present shortly thereafter, and some of their children. In terms of immediate effects it was a great deal less horrific than dropping thousands of tons of thermite and napalm (the standard for bombing cities at the time), and in terms of long-term effects it was no worse than the sort of toxic waste contamination that's commonplace in some third-world countries, and occasionally found in first world countries as well.
I'm not sure what your point here is but at best it is a subjective argument:
"Within the first two to four months of the bombings, the acute effects killed 90,000–166,000 people in Hiroshima and 60,000–80,000 in Nagasaki,[1] with roughly half of the deaths in each city occurring on the first day. The Hiroshima prefectural health department estimates that, of the people who died on the day of the explosion, 60% died from flash or flame burns, 30% from falling debris and 10% from other causes. During the following months, large numbers died from the effect of burns, radiation sickness, and other injuries, compounded by illness. In a US estimate of the total immediate and short term cause of death, 15–20% died from radiation sickness, 20–30% from flash burns, and 50–60% from other injuries, compounded by illness"
My point is that it was kinder than the most common weapons used against cities at the time in the short term, and that the long term effects were no worse than any other mass hazardous-material exposure, and so it's wrong to hold it on a pedestal as some sort of particularly transgressive act. It was nothing more than a powerful bomb made of hazardous materials, only remarkable in that it was a single, fairly small device, instead of many thousands of tons of separate devices.
The fact is regardless of the method, whether the attack was necessary to win the war or not or whether the massacre occured under the banner and in the name of if imperilaism or freedom, a state attack on civilians is murder. By and large, the human condition strives for peace and happieness.
That is the new opinion of a small minority of humanity. For the entirety of our history, violence and raw brutality have been acceptable means of resolving dispute, and almost all of our progress has come from such pursuits, either with a goal of ending or of perpetrating them, or otherwise being made possible by them.
The people on the streets in Hiroshima that day were mothers, daughters, sons and fathers. The suffering of civilians, children for feths sake with no cause for war had no say in what was wrought on them. My mind is at a loss to try and comprehend how anyone who loves someone more than themselves (and as such are the only ones who can understand true loss) can condone actions such as this on their fellow man. This is the ultimate antithesis of freedom. Are we as a whole, so far removed from suffering through luxeries of our generation that we cannot relate to our fellow human beings?
The world is not a fair place. The very concept of fairness is an unnatural one. People suffer through no fault of their own, and are sacrificed, one way or another, by those who see gain in it and have the power to see it through. That's how it's always been, and how it always will be, with the only altering factors being how much gain there is in the sacrifice of others compared to the risk or cost thereof, whether the balance is in finance or emotion.
We can see certain such sacrifices as transgressions within our society, and so act to reduce the potential gain, generally through increasing the risk and cost, but it's unethical to extend the same details to acts of the state against another, unless one rejects the idea of the state altogether. In this case, sacrificing the residents of those cities saved at least as many of the people the leadership had a responsibility to protect, and a great deal more other residents of Japan who would otherwise have found their deaths in combat or at their own hands, so the most that can be said of it is that it was a hard decision wherein the good was much greater than the bad, whether one can see the stain of the bad as thus washed away or not.
Ahtman wrote:So should we start a different poll each week where we pick a different battle or incident from the past and lambaste them as insane, genocidal, and/or racist? Maybe use this as a starting point and go back 50 to 100 years each time? That way we can judge all our ancestors (genetic or not) by modern standards and spend time condemning them rather than understanding the forces at work that lead to the situation. Judging after all feels better than understanding, right EF?
What does this have to do with my post? All I said was that to blame the rise of Nazi Germany on the Treaty of Versailles is oversimplifying things a bit.
Monster Rain wrote:I vote for Thermopylae next week.
The Racist anti-Persian Immigration laws of Greece at the time were an abomination!
ArbeitsSchu wrote:You haven't disproven anything. The USA has been attacked by forces lacking a conventional military. Fact. USA military forces have been engaged and defeated by forces lacking an effective air-force or navy. Fact.
Yes, and I explained to you that the impact of such terror attacks, while horrible in human life, does not deliver a material, strategic impact to a nation in terms of war. To which all you've managed to do is repeat, again and again, your original claim. To move past being a parrot and into being a person capable of a conversation, you need to challenge my point that terror strikes are not relevant to a nation's capability to make war, or you need to accept that and make a different argument.
Not "magic super tech", which is just you trying to make it sound silly, but actual technology, and not just theoretical stuff but things that actually got used and provably worked.
As I have already explained, the tech available to Germany at the end of the war was not so advanced that it represented any game changer in the war. Given the overwhelming differences in troop numbers and manpower available at the end of the war, any tech capable of making a difference would have to have been near magical.
That the attacks I reference were not effective enough to bring the states toppling down is really not relevant.
When talking about the threat Japan represented by the end of the war, the effectiveness of the attacks they had made to date most certainly are. Think about your argument for just one second, please.
I never argued that they WERE effective, nor even reliant on "magic super tech". (Balloons? Magic? Are you a toddler? If so then yes, they are "magic".) The point is that they occurred, and from the viewpoint of military planners in 1945 the potential threat is much greater than it transpired to be. The potential is what matters.
To carry a controlled payload of any strategic relevance to the US they would have to be magic. Given the Japanese did not have access to balloons of such magical qualities, it becomes clear to everyone that your point is stupid. Accept this. Move on.
Oh, and you're not strictly correct about the use of German advanced tech being scuppered by fuel losses or lacking a "conventional military". For a start huge numbers of troops were still present in various European states, unmolested by Russia or the Allies, and one of the main flaws in the use of advanced technology was misuse. A single order shifts the targets of the V1/2 from London to Normandy, and you're dealing with a whole new ball-game.
First up, what might have been useful in 1944 is not relevant in 1945. Second up, the V-2 rockets were not particularly accurate, and while ones landing where they were supposed to often killed 50 or 60 people, the average casualties per missile launched was about 2, because most of the missiles plain old missed London entirely. Rockets that aren't accurate enough to hit London are going to be of marginal use when launched against a military force.
The V-2s got more people killed in their manufacture than from landing on London, for God's sake.
If the blueprints (never mind the technological capacity and resources needed...) for the V-2 had been passed on the Japanese it would have made exactly zero impact to the war.
This is the concept you seem to be failing to grasp: That in 1944/45 nothing was assured, and that allied forces simply did not have access to the vast level of hindsight and research we do now.
You clearly have no understanding of what was known by the allies. Many things were assured, as the allies had extensive infiltration of German activities. The end of the war wasn't defined by a mad rush to defeat the Germans and Japanese before they unleashed some potential superweapon, it was defined by deliberate, measured operations. The US and UK agreed to hold their advance on Berlin, to give the final occupation to the Soviets. The Soviets reached the outskirts of Berlin, then sat there and waited for two months, forming an immense army, capable of advancing on the city from all directions to crush it utterly.
These are not the actions of governments who believe at any second the enemy could unleash some new game changing weapon, so they had to finish the war as quickly as possible. Your interpretation of events is one that has no relation to how the allies conducted the war. This is a significant problem with your theory.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
thedude wrote:The fact is regardless of the method, whether the attack was necessary to win the war or not or whether the massacre occured under the banner and in the name of if imperilaism or freedom, a state attack on civilians is murder. By and large, the human condition strives for peace and happieness. The people on the streets in Hiroshima that day were mothers, daughters, sons and fathers. The suffering of civilians, children for feths sake with no cause for war had no say in what was wrought on them.
My mind is at a loss to try and comprehend how anyone who loves someone more than themselves (and as such are the only ones who can understand true loss) can condone actions such as this on their fellow man. This is the ultimate antithesis of freedom. Are we as a whole, so far removed from suffering through luxeries of our generation that we cannot relate to our fellow human beings?
I don't think anyone is claiming that dropping the bomb wasn't an ugly, horrible tragedy, but the point is that it ended the war, and allowing the war to continue would have been an uglier, more horrible tragedy, resulting in far more deaths, none of whom made the choice to be in a war, and many of whom would have been women and children. As such, it was the moral choice to make.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
You haven't disproven anything. The USA has been attacked by forces lacking a conventional military. Fact. USA military forces have been engaged and defeated by forces lacking an effective air-force or navy. Fact. Japan did in fact manage to reach the continental USA and attack it. Fact. Germany and Japan shared advanced military technology. Also fact.
Therefore Canada is a massive threat to US security.
What you're advocating here is a theory called offensive realism. It is a theory which was debunked almost as soon as it was put to publication, and it is nonsense promulgated by people who lack any sort of rational perspective.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
Not "magic super tech", which is just you trying to make it sound silly, but actual technology, and not just theoretical stuff but things that actually got used and provably worked.
What technology? Balloons? What balloon was able to lift, let alone carry across the Pacific, a weapon of mass destruction?
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
That the attacks I reference were not effective enough to bring the states toppling down is really not relevant.
Yes, it is. In fact its central to the matter. If it were not, every single person who committed murder in the US would be a threat to the nation-state; which is an absolutely preposterous claim.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
The point is that they occurred, and from the viewpoint of military planners in 1945 the potential threat is much greater than it transpired to be. The potential is what matters.
That's also nonsense. No one sensible actually thought the Japanese balloon bombs were going to crush the American Western seaboard. For someone so keen on thinking in terms available to past commanders, you are awfully keen to pass judgment from your little swivel chair.
Moreover, if potential is all that matters, then we should execute everyone not born holding an American flag while their mother take the Pledge. After all, they have the potential to detonate a nuclear bomb in New York, New York.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
This is the concept you seem to be failing to grasp: That in 1944/45 nothing was assured, and that allied forces simply did not have access to the vast level of hindsight and research we do now. Events that we know DID happen were only possibilities back then. The balance of the situation throughout the war changed because of individual situations, chance, mischance, or missed opportunities.
Evidently nothing was assured save for the threat posed by Japan.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:You haven't disproven anything. The USA has been attacked by forces lacking a conventional military. Fact. USA military forces have been engaged and defeated by forces lacking an effective air-force or navy. Fact.
Yes, and I explained to you that the impact of such terror attacks, while horrible in human life, does not deliver a material, strategic impact to a nation in terms of war. To which all you've managed to do is repeat, again and again, your original claim. To move past being a parrot and into being a person capable of a conversation, you need to challenge my point that terror strikes are not relevant to a nation's capability to make war, or you need to accept that and make a different argument.
Not "magic super tech", which is just you trying to make it sound silly, but actual technology, and not just theoretical stuff but things that actually got used and provably worked.
As I have already explained, the tech available to Germany at the end of the war was not so advanced that it represented any game changer in the war. Given the overwhelming differences in troop numbers and manpower available at the end of the war, any tech capable of making a difference would have to have been near magical.
That the attacks I reference were not effective enough to bring the states toppling down is really not relevant.
When talking about the threat Japan represented by the end of the war, the effectiveness of the attacks they had made to date most certainly are. Think about your argument for just one second, please.
I never argued that they WERE effective, nor even reliant on "magic super tech". (Balloons? Magic? Are you a toddler? If so then yes, they are "magic".) The point is that they occurred, and from the viewpoint of military planners in 1945 the potential threat is much greater than it transpired to be. The potential is what matters.
To carry a controlled payload of any strategic relevance to the US they would have to be magic. Given the Japanese did not have access to balloons of such magical qualities, it becomes clear to everyone that your point is stupid. Accept this. Move on.
Oh, and you're not strictly correct about the use of German advanced tech being scuppered by fuel losses or lacking a "conventional military". For a start huge numbers of troops were still present in various European states, unmolested by Russia or the Allies, and one of the main flaws in the use of advanced technology was misuse. A single order shifts the targets of the V1/2 from London to Normandy, and you're dealing with a whole new ball-game.
First up, what might have been useful in 1944 is not relevant in 1945. Second up, the V-2 rockets were not particularly accurate, and while ones landing where they were supposed to often killed 50 or 60 people, the average casualties per missile launched was about 2, because most of the missiles plain old missed London entirely. Rockets that aren't accurate enough to hit London are going to be of marginal use when launched against a military force.
The V-2s got more people killed in their manufacture than from landing on London, for God's sake.
If the blueprints (never mind the technological capacity and resources needed...) for the V-2 had been passed on the Japanese it would have made exactly zero impact to the war.
This is the concept you seem to be failing to grasp: That in 1944/45 nothing was assured, and that allied forces simply did not have access to the vast level of hindsight and research we do now.
You clearly have no understanding of what was known by the allies. Many things were assured, as the allies had extensive infiltration of German activities. The end of the war wasn't defined by a mad rush to defeat the Germans and Japanese before they unleashed some potential superweapon, it was defined by deliberate, measured operations. The US and UK agreed to hold their advance on Berlin, to give the final occupation to the Soviets. The Soviets reached the outskirts of Berlin, then sat there and waited for two months, forming an immense army, capable of advancing on the city from all directions to crush it utterly.
These are not the actions of governments who believe at any second the enemy could unleash some new game changing weapon, so they had to finish the war as quickly as possible. Your interpretation of events is one that has no relation to how the allies conducted the war. This is a significant problem with your theory.
Difference between a "terror" attack and any other form of attack is? The nature of the target perhaps? I'm pretty sure that many days ago, I pointed out that an attack against the continental USA by Japan would have had different targets than the more recent "terror" attacks. Not to say that they wouldn't engage in "terror" attacks, because they certainly would. The point remains the same: that it is possible to strike against the continental USA without using a conventional navy or airforce. This is irrefutable fact, because it has happened. Its not a "claim" or an "opinion". Its just the case. So the most recent attack was a financial centre? Irrelevant. It could have been a military or political target. (In fact I seem to recall such an attempt was actually made on the same day.) An undefeated Japan would have continued to search for a means to strike against the US. Hence one of the requirements to defeat them. Because they continued to be a threat.
Again (and again) and again, we know NOW that the technology available to Germany in the 40s was not singularly war-winning. But as I said way back ages ago, the FACT is that units of 30AU, T-Force and their American counterparts were discovering materials and research that the allies DID NOT KNOW the Germans were even researching.. and that was WITH the work done at Bletchley Park in smashing Enigma. So, to simplify it for you, because you clearly aren't getting it...At the time, Allied Intelligence about what was going on was a "best guess." It was not 100% surety, it was not "Oh we definitely know everything about what they can do." There was no definite 100 knowledge about what the Axis had or had not done. If there were, then NOTHING that was found would have come as a surprise. "Extensive Infiltration" was not "Complete Knowledge." This still applies even today. Only an idiot would claim that they know for sure that the enemy isn't capable of X. Y or Z.
Don't recall this ever being a discussion about what the Soviets thought they were doing about things. I also don't recall suggesting that it should have been or was a "mad rush" to defeat the enemy. Only "rush" I mentioned was the rush to capture Kiel before the Soviets got to it, in order to prevent the Russians from claiming any materials, spoils or technology from that port. You remember that? The technology that is so un-threatening we just let the Soviets take it, and didn't risk starting a third world war crossing agreed demarcation lines to capture Kiel.. oh.. wait.... anyway... "Mad rush" is your idea. All I have been saying from day one is that Japan was a threat, and as such required dealing with. The option chosen happens to have been the atom bomb.
And it might have been an American plan to sit and let the Russians take Berlin, but its also a fact that the British not only desired to take Berlin, but were in a supreme position to do so. Bit like the rest of the "Slow broad front that gets more people killed for less gain" American strategy. But facts and you appear to be strange bedfellows, so there probably isn't much point in mentioning that.
More people were killed by manufacturing V2s than shooting them because the Germans insisted on using slave labour in quite a non-Health and Safety-compliant manufacturing process. The two "casualty" figures are hardly comparable. Ridiculous. Oh, and the Normandy Beach heads and surrounding area are a wee bit bigger than London, old boy.
Finally, because it seems to need explaining: You do know that it is possible to choose a single example from a variety of possible examples, without it being "the only thing they could do" don't you? A Japanese balloon with an incendiary device isn't as effective as one delivering canisters of say..Sarin. (Cue the inevitable tirade about how Sarin isn't dangerous blah blah tell it to the Kurds. Or maybe "but Japan didn't have it blah blah but Germany did, and they did share notes on things, fact.)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:Must...resist...responding....
Nope, not gonna happen, thanks again Captain.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
You haven't disproven anything. The USA has been attacked by forces lacking a conventional military. Fact. USA military forces have been engaged and defeated by forces lacking an effective air-force or navy. Fact. Japan did in fact manage to reach the continental USA and attack it. Fact. Germany and Japan shared advanced military technology. Also fact.
Therefore Canada is a massive threat to US security.
What you're advocating here is a theory called offensive realism. It is a theory which was debunked almost as soon as it was put to publication, and it is nonsense promulgated by people who lack any sort of rational perspective.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
Not "magic super tech", which is just you trying to make it sound silly, but actual technology, and not just theoretical stuff but things that actually got used and provably worked.
What technology? Balloons? What balloon was able to lift, let alone carry across the Pacific, a weapon of mass destruction?
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
That the attacks I reference were not effective enough to bring the states toppling down is really not relevant.
Yes, it is. In fact its central to the matter. If it were not, every single person who committed murder in the US would be a threat to the nation-state; which is an absolutely preposterous claim.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
The point is that they occurred, and from the viewpoint of military planners in 1945 the potential threat is much greater than it transpired to be. The potential is what matters.
That's also nonsense. No one sensible actually thought the Japanese balloon bombs were going to crush the American Western seaboard. For someone so keen on thinking in terms available to past commanders, you are awfully keen to pass judgment from your little swivel chair.
Moreover, if potential is all that matters, then we should execute everyone not born holding an American flag while their mother take the Pledge. After all, they have the potential to detonate a nuclear bomb in New York, New York.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
This is the concept you seem to be failing to grasp: That in 1944/45 nothing was assured, and that allied forces simply did not have access to the vast level of hindsight and research we do now. Events that we know DID happen were only possibilities back then. The balance of the situation throughout the war changed because of individual situations, chance, mischance, or missed opportunities.
Evidently nothing was assured save for the threat posed by Japan.
Please try to avoid contradictions.
Ah yes, the towering absurdium of Canada (or "anyone else") being such an epic threat to the USA. And if Canada had been engaged in total war with the USA in the 40s then you would have a point. But you don't, because it wasn't. We are CLEARLY discussing the threat potential of an aggressor nation ATWAR with the USA. Couple of extra points on that though: You would be a fool to think that the USA hasn't considered the threat potential of an aggressive Canada, or Mexico, or wherever in the world, even if only on a theoretical level and I seem to recall a White House becoming a charred black house last time Canada was a threat to the US.
There is a damn sight more reality in what comes from my fictional "swivel chair" (or antique leather arm-chair in my study, for added realism) than your absurd ideas about trying to create a parallel between the average murderer and a nation-state engaged in total war. As absurd as suggesting the threat posed by a war-fighting enemy nation and an ALLY are comparable, and as truly ignorant as suggesting that that is what I am trying to say. Really not much purpose in attempting to carry on this discussion if its just going to be filled with ridiculous nonsense like that.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
Ah yes, the towering absurdium of Canada (or "anyone else") being such an epic threat to the USA.
Absurdum. As in reductio ad absurdum. Great argumentative technique, as it naturally makes the target look foolish.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
And if Canada had been engaged in total war with the USA in the 40s then you would have a point. But you don't, because it wasn't. We are CLEARLY discussing the threat potential of an aggressor nation ATWAR with the USA.
I already explained why that distinction is not relevant. I won't do it again. Just go back a few pages an read my prior argument.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
Couple of extra points on that though: You would be a fool to think that the USA hasn't considered the threat potential of an aggressive Canada, or Mexico, or wherever in the world, even if only on a theoretical level and I seem to recall a White House becoming a charred black house last time Canada was a threat to the US.
Right, as I already said, there is a difference between a categorical threat, which is made manifest by the existence of a thing, and a significant threat, which is made manifest by a particular ability to do thing X where X is bad.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
There is a damn sight more reality in what comes from my fictional "swivel chair" (or antique leather arm-chair in my study, for added realism) than your absurd ideas about trying to create a parallel between the average murderer and a nation-state engaged in total war.
You're moving the goal posts. You said Japan was a threat, and then argued that they were a threat because they had the capacity to attack the US. Murderers also have the capacity to attack the US, as do all people, relative threat is only part of the dispute in the sense which I introduced; eg. a state is a threat in the sense that they are more than merely existential, which does not apply to Japan.
Try again, son.
Also, stop using caps, it makes you sound like a child.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
As absurd as suggesting the threat posed by a war-fighting enemy nation and an ALLY are comparable, and as truly ignorant as suggesting that that is what I am trying to say. Really not much purpose in attempting to carry on this discussion if its just going to be filled with ridiculous nonsense like that.
Right, so shall we now suggest that the threat of Soviet incursion in 1960 is equivalent to the threat of North Korean incursion today?
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
Ah yes, the towering absurdium of Canada (or "anyone else") being such an epic threat to the USA.
Absurdum. As in reductio ad absurdum. Great argumentative technique, as it naturally makes the target look foolish.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
And if Canada had been engaged in total war with the USA in the 40s then you would have a point. But you don't, because it wasn't. We are CLEARLY discussing the threat potential of an aggressor nation ATWAR with the USA.
I already explained why that distinction is not relevant. I won't do it again. Just go back a few pages an read my prior argument.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
Couple of extra points on that though: You would be a fool to think that the USA hasn't considered the threat potential of an aggressive Canada, or Mexico, or wherever in the world, even if only on a theoretical level and I seem to recall a White House becoming a charred black house last time Canada was a threat to the US.
Right, as I already said, there is a difference between a categorical threat, which is made manifest by the existence of a thing, and a significant threat, which is made manifest by a particular ability to do thing X where X is bad.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
There is a damn sight more reality in what comes from my fictional "swivel chair" (or antique leather arm-chair in my study, for added realism) than your absurd ideas about trying to create a parallel between the average murderer and a nation-state engaged in total war.
You're moving the goal posts. You said Japan was a threat, and then argued that they were a threat because they had the capacity to attack the US. Murderers also have the capacity to attack the US, as do all people, relative threat is only part of the dispute in the sense which I introduced; eg. a state is a threat in the sense that they are more than merely existential, which does not apply to Japan.
Try again, son.
Also, stop using caps, it makes you sound like a child.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
As absurd as suggesting the threat posed by a war-fighting enemy nation and an ALLY are comparable, and as truly ignorant as suggesting that that is what I am trying to say. Really not much purpose in attempting to carry on this discussion if its just going to be filled with ridiculous nonsense like that.
Cry some more, cry baby.
No, Canada and Japan are not comparable in the threat comparison game. Doesn't work. Nor are "murderers" and Japan. Know why? Because "murderers" aren't engaged in open war against the USA, and nor are the Canadians. In fact during the time period being discussed Canada is a US ally and thus even LESS of a threat than they are at any other time when they aren't engaged in a war with US. You know why its "absurdum"? Because the notion is ABSURD.
Might as well discuss how Japan in 1945 is similar to a fishcake. It bears about the same relevance. (Ooh it contains some fish product and thus... )
And just because its you: No. I said Japan was a threat and suggested ONE OF THE REASONS why it was a threat. The ability to attack the continental USA in 1945 is a part of a whole. But as has been proven time and again in this thread, people can clearly only address one thing at a time. Because there is one example, it must be the ONLY example.
Cry baby? Fine. So I should carry on arguing this business of creating interesting and utterly ridiculous comparisons in order to dispute facts? Japan is like a shoe because a shoe can be used to kick someone so its a threat. You want to waste time talking crap, be my guest. I bore of it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Edit for clarity: Actually the caps thing is an emphasis technique left over from IRC, because its quicker and easier than bold or colours or whatever in that format. But if you want to pick holes in typography because you think it makes you look clever you just knock yourself out. Never mind what I might be trying to add emphasis to eh? Style before content eh?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, and the Soviets and the North Koreans are a damn sight more similar in the threat comparison stakes than Canada and Japan circa 1945 are. Know why? Because they aren't allies of the US.
No one implied life was fair or that war has not always been in our blood. You can accept our primal tendencies as justification for continued raw brutality and hell, while your at it, go ahead and sacrifice a few virgins, bath in goats blood and howl at the moon in hopes some god may ward off pestilence or you can choose to use the benefits of evolution which has provided unparalleled knowledge of the human condition and the natural world around us to accept the death of non combatants or as wrong.
Yes, i would agree that this is a new opinion of a small minority, I would simply add it is a by product of evolution and enlightenment of the human race if you will. That said, I believe in fighting for what you believe in and defending yourself. But that is a far cry from massacring a hundred thousand civilians.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
No, Canada and Japan are not comparable in the threat comparison game.
Either they are because the possession of weapons which can strike targets in the US renders a nation, or actor, a threat to the US, or they aren't because the issue possesses more nuance than categorical arguments can capture. Either way you lose.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
Know why? Because "murderers" aren't engaged in open war against the USA, and nor are the Canadians.
I already explained why the state of war is not relevant to this conversation, yet you persevere. Which is odd, really, considering that you have repeatedly cited nonstate actors as examples of asymmetric threats.
Anyway, to entertain you, why is open war an important distinction? Surely murderers have declared their intention to slay parts of the US by slaying US citizens, why is that not war?
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
In fact during the time period being discussed Canada is a US ally and thus even LESS of a threat than they are at any other time when they aren't engaged in a war with US. You know why its "absurdum"? Because the notion is ABSURD.
Yes, that's the point sonny. Its called reductio ad absurdum because the argument made reduces the categorical claim of the opposition to the absurd. You made a claim which turn on categorical necessity, and I reduced it to absurdity in order to illustrate why your claim was wrong.
Anyway, I'm no longer drunk, so there is no reason for me to talk to you anymore. Nothing you have to say is sensible or worthwhile. Good luck in the future, kiddo.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
Edit for clarity: Actually the caps thing is an emphasis technique left over from IRC, because its quicker and easier than bold or colours or whatever in that format. But if you want to pick holes in typography because you think it makes you look clever you just knock yourself out. Never mind what I might be trying to add emphasis to eh? Style before content eh?
No, I like picking at typography because it makes you look foolish, not because it makes me look clever.
Nice try on the "style before content" bit though. Trouble is, if you were really interested in content, as opposed to style, you wouldn't add emphasis at all.
HA! I lived across an airfield that was bombed during the attack on pearl harbor. I've also visited the Arizona Memorial many times, and seeing Japanese people there that were laughing and carrying on with jokes and inappropriate behavior for a MEMORIAL. The bombs were a good idea, not only because they saved American lives, but also Japanese lives. We were prepared to carry out an invasion of the main land of Japan, Iwo Jima style, outnumbering them 4 to 1, with more than 60% casualty rates for US and virtually 100% for the Japanese defenders. The war would have lasted at least another decade, I mean come on, it took over 3 MONTHS to capture an Island less than 7 square miles. They wouldn't have given up otherwise without the Bombs- you see this in the fact that the last Japanese soldier gave up his post in the 70's, and only after they found his Commanding Officer and he had to convince him to stand down. Now just multiply that by the entire population due to propaganda.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:Difference between a "terror" attack and any other form of attack is? The nature of the target perhaps? I'm pretty sure that many days ago, I pointed out that an attack against the continental USA by Japan would have had different targets than the more recent "terror" attacks. Not to say that they wouldn't engage in "terror" attacks, because they certainly would. The point remains the same: that it is possible to strike against the continental USA without using a conventional navy or airforce. This is irrefutable fact, because it has happened.
The point is that an unconventional attack, even one on the scale of 9/11, does not materially impact a nation's ability to go to war. This is clear and obvious point, and one you continue to ignore.
Why are you ignoring this point, why are you being so ridiculous?
Again (and again) and again, we know NOW that the technology available to Germany in the 40s was not singularly war-winning.
They knew there was no magic German scheme that could instantly win the war. I showed this when I explained that the Wetern Allies and the Soviets were happy to prolong the last stages of the war, so that the Soviet could inflict absolute destrution on Berlin.
This is something else you've ignored.
But as I said way back ages ago, the FACT is that units of 30AU, T-Force and their American counterparts were discovering materials and research that the allies DID NOT KNOW the Germans were even researching..
And as I explained earlier, the presence of long range bombers and similar madness doesn't mean there was potential for some incredible match winning weapon. In a war decided almost entirely by industrial capacity such a thing was not the consideration of the allies.
This is why the Western allies were happy to halt their advance, to allow the Soviets to take Berlin. This is why the Soviets were happy to delay their attack on Berlin until they had gathered sufficient force to attack from all sides.
Your argument that the allies feared the Germans deploying some superweapon in the dying stages of the war does not correspond with how the allies fought the war.
Don't recall this ever being a discussion about what the Soviets thought they were doing about things. I also don't recall suggesting that it should have been or was a "mad rush" to defeat the enemy.
It's a point that's clearly relevant when trying to establish if the allies were keen to finish the war before the Germans revealed some previously unknown supertech. Given they weren't, they clearly thought the likelihood of such a supertech was almost zero. This makes your argument that the allies were acting in an unknown environment and responding to potential threat clearly, obviously wrong.
Only "rush" I mentioned was the rush to capture Kiel before the Soviets got to it, in order to prevent the Russians from claiming any materials, spoils or technology from that port. You remember that? The technology that is so un-threatening we just let the Soviets take it, and didn't risk starting a third world war crossing agreed demarcation lines to capture Kiel..
As I've pointed out several times, desiring German technology proves that such technology is valuable for post-war research and new weapons tech. It does not establish that such technology was capable of turning the war.
oh.. wait.... anyway... "Mad rush" is your idea. All I have been saying from day one is that Japan was a threat, and as such required dealing with. The option chosen happens to have been the atom bomb.
No, 'mad rush' wasn't my idea. The absence of a mad rush is a point I made to demonstrate to you that the allies weren't acting to end the German threat as quickly as possible, beause, unlike in your argument, they didn't actually fear the sudden deployment of any supertech..
And it might have been an American plan to sit and let the Russians take Berlin, but its also a fact that the British not only desired to take Berlin, but were in a supreme position to do so. Bit like the rest of the "Slow broad front that gets more people killed for less gain" American strategy. But facts and you appear to be strange bedfellows, so there probably isn't much point in mentioning that.
The fact the British were in a position to take Berlin but followed the strategic plan not to advance is my point. Instead of advancing to end the war as quickly as possible, a logical action if there was any fear at all of the German's revealing a new superweapon that might put them back in the war, they accepted the political decision to allow the Soviets to take the city.
Your inability to follow that basic piece of logic is incredible, and I refuse to believe for one second that you are incapable of following it. Instead, I think you are most likely choosing not to understand it, in order to avoid having to admit you were wrong in your argument.
And that's just sad.
More people were killed by manufacturing V2s than shooting them because the Germans insisted on using slave labour in quite a non-Health and Safety-compliant manufacturing process. The two "casualty" figures are hardly comparable. Ridiculous.
Of course they're comparable, in that they measure the ineffectiveness of the V-2s in . Artillery shells were produced under slave labour, with little regard for health and safety, yet German artillery killed a lot more people in use than in manufacture. Because artillery was an effective weapon in the war. Whereas the V-2 rockets generally missed the city they were aimed at.
Oh, and the Normandy Beach heads and surrounding area are a wee bit bigger than London, old boy.
Are you claiming that the troop deployments onto Normandy represented a greater area of space than a city. That's just stupid. You know that's stupid.
To establish that it's stupid, the population of London during the war was about 4.5 million. The total number of troops used on D-day was about 350,000. You weren't just mistaken, you were off by a factor of more than 10.
So stop being stupid, stop believing ridiculous things in order to protect your ego from the thought you might have made an argument on the internet that was wrong.
Finally, because it seems to need explaining: You do know that it is possible to choose a single example from a variety of possible examples, without it being "the only thing they could do" don't you?
There's all sorts of things that someone could potentially do, if we choose to ignore everything we knew, and the allies at the time knew, about their actual capabilities.
You can sit there making up ideas about launching sarin gas in balloons and all kinds of other fantasy stories, but at the end of the day it's just you making stuff up.
By all means keep making stuff up, write it down, turn it into an alternate history story. I would probably read it, because it's very imaginative. But don't confuse your imagination with actual history.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
thedude wrote:@ Sir Pseudonymous
No one implied life was fair or that war has not always been in our blood. You can accept our primal tendencies as justification for continued raw brutality and hell, while your at it, go ahead and sacrifice a few virgins, bath in goats blood and howl at the moon in hopes some god may ward off pestilence or you can choose to use the benefits of evolution which has provided unparalleled knowledge of the human condition and the natural world around us to accept the death of non combatants or as wrong.
Yes, i would agree that this is a new opinion of a small minority, I would simply add it is a by product of evolution and enlightenment of the human race if you will. That said, I believe in fighting for what you believe in and defending yourself. But that is a far cry from massacring a hundred thousand civilians.
You probably missed my response to you above;
"I don't think anyone is claiming that dropping the bomb wasn't an ugly, horrible tragedy, but the point is that it ended the war, and allowing the war to continue would have been an uglier, more horrible tragedy, resulting in far more deaths, none of whom made the choice to be in a war, and many of whom would have been women and children. As such, it was the moral choice to make."
Only two points in all that actually worth addressing, to quantify the absurdity of some of the counter-arguments.
@Dogma: There is, and will always be, a distinction between a nation that has access to war-fighting materials and is an ALLY, and a nation which has access to war-fighting materials and is AN ENEMY. There is an even greater distinction between an individual and the two mentioned above. If the will, need or requirement to use those materials against the USA is lacking, then the threat potential is less.
@ Sebster: Don't get upset if I don't argue back the way you would like me to. I ignore your demands because they lead to irrelevant sidelines like what sort of target an attack must have in order to count as a "threat" to the USA, or how unpredictable and unpreventable attacks against the Cotentin peninsula do not solely rely on the ability to hit a Gi, or even how you can't grasp that beach-heads and troop deployments across the whole of Normandy cover a greater area than a city, and even get bigger. Or we get dragged into an argument about the difference in manufacturing processes between various war materials and the "value" of say a single trained employee at a British works vs a hundred Todt Organisation slaves to production, and your inability to understand it. We even get sidetracked into this continuous and ridiculous insistence that a single example is the only example, as opposed to merely an example of one of the many ways something can occur.
A sensible military decision is based on a number of factors, including "best intelligence" analysis of potential threat, and the balance of potential loss versus possible gains, amongst other things. Thats a LOT of different things to consider just based on the examples I named. My whole point from the very beginning is that the attack on Japan in 1945, and the nature of it, is a decision made by consideration of such principles, including (but not exclusive to) the threat posed by a Belligerent enemy in a State of War* positioned in a strategically favourable place like an island with an active and undefeated field army trained to rely on a minimum supply chain. In 1945, this threat from Japan was not ZERO. Simple as that.
*Capitalised because Dogma can't tell the difference between a State of War between two nations and a fight over a woman.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:
thedude wrote:@ Sir Pseudonymous
No one implied life was fair or that war has not always been in our blood. You can accept our primal tendencies as justification for continued raw brutality and hell, while your at it, go ahead and sacrifice a few virgins, bath in goats blood and howl at the moon in hopes some god may ward off pestilence or you can choose to use the benefits of evolution which has provided unparalleled knowledge of the human condition and the natural world around us to accept the death of non combatants or as wrong.
Yes, i would agree that this is a new opinion of a small minority, I would simply add it is a by product of evolution and enlightenment of the human race if you will. That said, I believe in fighting for what you believe in and defending yourself. But that is a far cry from massacring a hundred thousand civilians.
You probably missed my response to you above;
"I don't think anyone is claiming that dropping the bomb wasn't an ugly, horrible tragedy, but the point is that it ended the war, and allowing the war to continue would have been an uglier, more horrible tragedy, resulting in far more deaths, none of whom made the choice to be in a war, and many of whom would have been women and children. As such, it was the moral choice to make."
Agreed. Not just that, but also trying to identify and explain the reasons behind the dropping of the bomb does not constitute supporting it or thinking the whole thing was some jolly jape. No matter how rude/ridiculous/whatever the arguments get, none of us thinks that war is fun. We aren't all skipping off to the recruitment office to sign up for the Accrington Pals and give the hum a bashing. We all know and revile the reality of war as a singularly unpleasant event, best avoided completely.
In fact we probably wouldn't be arguing the rights and wrongs if we did think like that.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:There is, and will always be, a distinction between a nation that has access to war-fighting materials and is an ALLY, and a nation which has access to war-fighting materials and is AN ENEMY. There is an even greater distinction between an individual and the two mentioned above. If the will, need or requirement to use those materials against the USA is lacking, then the threat potential is less.
Stop capitalizing, it makes you look like a douche.
That away, your argument here is awful. If X is an ally and Y is an enemy than their nature as threats is independent of their status as either X or Y because threat is not the same as menace or aggression. This isn't complicated, in fact its quite simple, you just appear to be dull.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:@ Sebster: Don't get upset if I don't argue back the way you would like me to. I ignore your demands because they lead to irrelevant sidelines like what sort of target an attack must have in order to count as a "threat" to the USA,
Assessing whether something you claimed was enough of a threat to alter war plans, is actually enough of a threat to justify altering war plans isn't arguing 'the way I want to', it's arguing the way common sense and reason demands we have to. Pretending otherwise is just you refusing to concede you might have got something wrong.
or how unpredictable and unpreventable attacks against the Cotentin peninsula do not solely rely on the ability to hit a Gi, or even how you can't grasp that beach-heads and troop deployments across the whole of Normandy cover a greater area than a city,
At which point you're looking at much reduced dispersement, and therefore a much reduced threat potential. Which is again, a very obvious thing, that very clearly makes your point very stupid. If you'd thought about that for a second or two it would have been quite clear. You didn't, of course, because you're not really trying to think about this and actually figure any thing out, that would expose you to the possibility that you might be wrong.
Instead you're just responding with whatever comes to mind as quickly as possible, to try and keep convincing yourself that you didn't make a mistake.
Or we get dragged into an argument about the difference in manufacturing processes between various war materials and the "value" of say a single trained employee at a British works vs a hundred Todt Organisation slaves to production, and your inability to understand it.
No, we don't care one bit for any such nonsense. Because it's clearly besides the point, because regardless of the quality of the workers involved, the plane and obvious fact is that the V-2s were very scary, but too inaccurate and lacking too small a payload to make a real difference in the war. One measure of this is that the V-2s killed more people in manufacture than in use. Another measure is that for all the resources that went into the manufacture of each V-2, an average of only 2 people were killed.
The point, which I'd made quite clearly and it's one you've missed (again, surely deliberately), is that the V-2s were a failed technology, that didn't justify the resources put into them. This is true regardless of the manufacturing productivity of anyone involved.
We even get sidetracked into this continuous and ridiculous insistence that a single example is the only example, as opposed to merely an example of one of the many ways something can occur.
Or we can accept that anyone can mention an instance of a goofy thing happening in the war, and use it to expound on any kind of fanciful 'what-if- scenario. There was a Soviet scientific operation ordered by Stalin himself to investigate how gorillas might be manipulated to turn them into soldiers.
At some point we must use common sense and reason to assess the real, actual threat posed, just as the allies did at the time.
A sensible military decision is based on a number of factors, including "best intelligence" analysis of potential threat, and the balance of potential loss versus possible gains, amongst other things.
Of course. And the point is that according to everything we know about allied military planning says they didn't consider Germany capable of turning the war because they thought the probability of some secret weapon to be exactly zero. And everything I've ever read about the reasons and justifications for the atomic bomb have involved the US expecting to face a meatgrinder in Japan, with some stuff added in about wanting to end the war quickly in China (admittedly more for geo-political reasons than humanitarian, but the effect was the same).
I've never read anyone, anywhere say that anyone in the war cabinet was seeking an early end to the war because the Japanese might have some kind of amazing technology that could put them back in the war.
In 1945, this threat from Japan was not ZERO. Simple as that.
Except that's not true. It's not even possibly true. It's complete nonsense.
Agreed. Not just that, but also trying to identify and explain the reasons behind the dropping of the bomb does not constitute supporting it or thinking the whole thing was some jolly jape. No matter how rude/ridiculous/whatever the arguments get, none of us thinks that war is fun. We aren't all skipping off to the recruitment office to sign up for the Accrington Pals and give the hum a bashing. We all know and revile the reality of war as a singularly unpleasant event, best avoided completely.
In fact we probably wouldn't be arguing the rights and wrongs if we did think like that.
ArbeitsSchu wrote: Don't get upset if I don't argue back the way you would like me to.
You don't argue, you rant like a child.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
I ignore your demands because they lead to irrelevant sidelines like what sort of target an attack must have in order to count as a "threat" to the USA,
What?
You want to predicate an argument upon threat and then clam that threat is not relevant to it?
No, that is nonsense, absolute nonsense.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
*Capitalised because Dogma can't tell the difference between a State of War between two nations and a fight over a woman.
Explain to me the difference, and why what I said related to women: chauvinist.
Anyway, you misused the the word "quantify". You may have done a poor job of "qualifying" some arguments, but you have not "quantified" anything. The difference is both critical and basic, learn it.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:There is, and will always be, a distinction between a nation that has access to war-fighting materials and is an ALLY, and a nation which has access to war-fighting materials and is AN ENEMY. There is an even greater distinction between an individual and the two mentioned above. If the will, need or requirement to use those materials against the USA is lacking, then the threat potential is less.
Stop capitalizing, it makes you look like a douche.
That away, your argument here is awful. If X is an ally and Y is an enemy than their nature as threats is independent of their status as either X or Y because threat is not the same as menace or aggression. This isn't complicated, in fact its quite simple, you just appear to be dull.
See now I KNOW that you aren't bothering to read my posts properly as I already explained exactly why I capitalise some words instead of bolding or italicizing them. There really is exactly no point in responding to you, quite apart from your ridiculous assertions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
ArbeitsSchu wrote: Don't get upset if I don't argue back the way you would like me to.
You don't argue, you rant like a child.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
I ignore your demands because they lead to irrelevant sidelines like what sort of target an attack must have in order to count as a "threat" to the USA,
What?
You want to predicate an argument upon threat and then clam that threat is not relevant to it?
No, that is nonsense, absolute nonsense.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
*Capitalised because Dogma can't tell the difference between a State of War between two nations and a fight over a woman.
Explain to me the difference, and why what I said related to women: chauvinist.
Anyway, you misused the the word "quantify". You may have done a poor job of "qualifying" some arguments, but you have not "quantified" anything. The difference is both critical and basic, learn it.
In that fighting over a woman is one of many, but not exclusively the only reason why people murder each other. Christ you really are stuck up your own arse if you can't even work that one out. Its hardly difficult. About as difficult as understanding the difference between a fist-fight, a stabbing, and the Rape of Nanking. Add that to your constant inability to differentiate between a relevant example and a meandering sideline, and your not actually reading posts and we end up just wasting my time. What I was talking about is getting sidelined into a meaningless side-bar about what Japan would have chosen to target with a 9/11ish attack. It is the fact of being able to make such an attack that is important, not a list of potential targets and the subsequent effect on the USA (or lack thereof.)
I already explained why the state of war is not relevant to this conversation, yet you persevere. Which is odd, really, considering that you have repeatedly cited nonstate actors as examples of asymmetric threats.
Anyway, to entertain you, why is open war an important distinction? Surely murderers have declared their intention to slay parts of the US by slaying US citizens, why is that not war?
Actually Dogma, whilst I still categorically disagree with virtually everything this guy is saying, there is a definitive distinction between a war and a fight. There are several factors that contribute from a political intent to the scale of a conflict. Clausewitz, and the Lenin's writings on the affair may interest you if you haven't explored the field. I find Quincy Wright has published some excellent stuff on the attributes of warfare as well.
sebster wrote:[the plane and obvious fact is that the V-2s were very scary,
The point, which I'd made quite clearly and it's one you've missed (again, surely deliberately), is that the V-2s were a failed technology, that didn't justify the resources put into them. This is true regardless of the manufacturing productivity of anyone involved.
We even get sidetracked into this continuous and ridiculous insistence that a single example is the only example, as opposed to merely an example of one of the many ways something can occur.
Or we can accept that anyone can mention an instance of a goofy thing happening in the war, and use it to expound on any kind of fanciful 'what-if- scenario. There was a Soviet scientific operation ordered by Stalin himself to investigate how gorillas might be manipulated to turn them into soldiers.
At some point we must use common sense and reason to assess the real, actual threat posed, just as the allies did at the time.
A sensible military decision is based on a number of factors, including "best intelligence" analysis of potential threat, and the balance of potential loss versus possible gains, amongst other things.
Of course. And the point is that according to everything we know about allied military planning says they didn't consider Germany capable of turning the war because they thought the probability of some secret weapon to be exactly zero. And everything I've ever read about the reasons and justifications for the atomic bomb have involved the US expecting to face a meatgrinder in Japan, with some stuff added in about wanting to end the war quickly in China (admittedly more for geo-political reasons than humanitarian, but the effect was the same).
I've never read anyone, anywhere say that anyone in the war cabinet was seeking an early end to the war because the Japanese might have some kind of amazing technology that could put them back in the war.
In 1945, this threat from Japan was not ZERO. Simple as that.
Except that's not true. It's not even possibly true. It's complete nonsense.
Agreed. Not just that, but also trying to identify and explain the reasons behind the dropping of the bomb does not constitute supporting it or thinking the whole thing was some jolly jape. No matter how rude/ridiculous/whatever the arguments get, none of us thinks that war is fun. We aren't all skipping off to the recruitment office to sign up for the Accrington Pals and give the hum a bashing. We all know and revile the reality of war as a singularly unpleasant event, best avoided completely.
In fact we probably wouldn't be arguing the rights and wrongs if we did think like that.
True, and well put.
You actually found two of the reasons why the V2 could have been a much more useful weapon in your own post. The terror effect of a "scary" weapon that is unstoppable, untrackable, and utterly unpredictable is immense. Its the very reason why Whitehall suppressed so heavily V2 events with cover stories about unexploded weapons and gas leaks and other such. The morale effect of chunks of Normandy and whatever is in them suddenly exploding for no apparent reason should not and was not so easily dismissed. The other reason you hit upon is what I already said: That the V2 (and a lot of other German weaponry, manpower and equipment, groundbreaking or otherwise) was ineffective was often as much about the use it was put to. The number of completely expendable slaves used to make it made no difference to the Germans. This is in essence what I have been getting at all along. I'm not saying that such things are the only reason to prosecute the war in the way it was fought, nor am I saying that they were the main driving force behind allied decisions at any given point. (How could they be? Many of them weren't even discovered until the fall of Germany.)
All that I am saying and all I have been saying throughout is that Japan (and Germany before it) were never "No threat" to the allies, and it is hubris and arrogance to suggest it.
And unless Stalin actually unleashed his Simian Cohorts upon an unsuspecting foe, its not really comparable to an attempt to use a weapon that was actually tried, and in one part of its mission succeeded. (Reaching the continental USA with a weapon.)
Also, you keep saying I'm wrong, but I've yet to see you actually disprove one of the facts I've cited. So what exactly is "wrong" about me saying that Japan attacked America with a balloon weapon. or that the Axis powers shared technology and information, or any of the other things I mentioned? I didn't make these things up y'know.
As an added thought: We still shouldn't be speaking in absolutes about what anyone was doing during that period as there are still copious records about the events of WW2 that are not available to us. A great deal of what we discuss is essentially "best intelligence". "As far as we know" X or Y is the case.
And on an unrelated topic: I always enjoy forums where two complete strangers can have at each other for days and days on one subject, and then agree on something else without malice or grudge, but based on the content of the statements made. Its refreshing. People should always agree with things they agree wth, and argue against things they don't, regardless. Its healthy, IMO.
"I don't think anyone is claiming that dropping the bomb wasn't an ugly, horrible tragedy, but the point is that it ended the war, and allowing the war to continue would have been an uglier, more horrible tragedy, resulting in far more deaths, none of whom made the choice to be in a war, and many of whom would have been women and children. As such, it was the moral choice to make."
I disagree. There is no way anyone could know definatively how long the war would continue and how many civilian casulaties would occur. I defy the logic that states "If we do not kill 150,000 civilians now, then 200,000 civlians will die in the next year". Besides, there is a valid arguement in that the war was ending anyway. But for now, I'll assume it did end the war for arguments sake. My point is attacking non military targets and non combatants is wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, here is a link to the chapter in howard zinn's book, a people's history of the united states that makes a case for the fact it was totally unneccessary to drop the bomb and the US knew it.
Well we have a pretty long history of math and determining estimates of force depletion and civilian casualties aren't determined by a shaman and some peyote. The projections of an invasion aren't based on saying they know how long the war would have lasted but the number of people that would die taking the mainland. If it took two nuclear events to get them to stop how long do you think it would have taken if they had to take a town at a time? We don't know "definitively" how many people would have died but we have a pretty good idea. We didn't invent math for nothing you know.
Zinn is the Leni Riefenstahl of historians. At least in the sense that he is a propagandist, albeit for the left, and I say that as a someone who is typically considered a lefty.
Well our government does have a good track record and is pretty extraordinary at getting close estimates when it comes to the maths. Not to mention relaying these honest figures to the public...
thedude wrote:Well our government does have a good track record and is pretty extraordinary at getting close estimates when it comes to the maths. Not to mention relaying these honest figures to the public...
So the invasion of Japan would have been much more costly than the government estimated?
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying, exactly.
Or maybe I was responding to atham who stated
"Well we have a pretty long history of math and determining estimates...We don't know "definitively" how many people would have died but we have a pretty good idea. We didn't invent math for nothing you know"
with a link showing an instance where our government totally botched the math.
So the invasion of Japan would have been much more costly than the government estimated?
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying, exactly.
Or maybe I was responding to atham who stated
"Well we have a pretty long history of math and determining estimates...We don't know "definitively" how many people would have died but we have a pretty good idea. We didn't invent math for nothing you know"
with a link showing an instance where our government totally botched the math.
It doesn't seem to help your case, citing an instance where the cost to the country was grossly underestimated.
"I don't think anyone is claiming that dropping the bomb wasn't an ugly, horrible tragedy, but the point is that it ended the war, and allowing the war to continue would have been an uglier, more horrible tragedy, resulting in far more deaths, none of whom made the choice to be in a war, and many of whom would have been women and children. As such, it was the moral choice to make."
I disagree. There is no way anyone could know definatively how long the war would continue and how many civilian casulaties would occur. I defy the logic that states "If we do not kill 150,000 civilians now, then 200,000 civlians will die in the next year". Besides, there is a valid arguement in that the war was ending anyway. But for now, I'll assume it did end the war for arguments sake. My point is attacking non military targets and non combatants is wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, here is a link to the chapter in howard zinn's book, a people's history of the united states that makes a case for the fact it was totally unneccessary to drop the bomb and the US knew it.
It may be "wrong" but it is usually done for a reason. Very few armed forces arbitrarily destroy large civilian populations "just because." Also, the logic extends further than how you state it. "200,00 civilians, and a vast number of combatants on both sides, and the expenditure of millions of dollars-worth of materials."
Monster Rain wrote:What would the US casualties have been if they invaded mainland Japan using CRASSUS ARMORED ASSAULT TRANSPORTS?
Furthermore, could those same CRASSUS ARMORED ASSAULT TRANSPORTS be then driven into Mordor?
Well of course, anyone inside a CRASSUS ARMORED ASSAULT TRANSPORT is perfectly safe. Further, they are cool and would demand respect from the Japanese due to its concenrtrated sheer awesomesauce. Comely maidens would sprinkle rice wine on it as it travelled from village to village.
Thus blessed it would then travel safely to Mordor.
It may be "wrong" but it is usually done for a reason. Very few armed forces arbitrarily destroy large civilian populations "just because." Also, the logic extends further than how you state it. "200,00 civilians, and a vast number of combatants on both sides, and the expenditure of millions of dollars-worth of materials."
I dont mean to imply things like this are done arbitratily or without specific intent or calculation.
Instead, simply that the massacre of non combatants is wrong. The US, Afghanistan, Russia, Great Britain, Iran ect. could all find a number of what they consider good reasons to drop a bomb on their enemies. From what I can tell the majority here feel that if the ends justify the means then it is the correct 'moral' choice to make. The problem is this is subjective to the eye of the beholder.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:1. It cost the Soviets 300,000 dead to finish off the Germans in Berlin. That was one area.
2. It cost 50,000 dead and wounded US troops to take the island of Okinawa. That was one small island.
3. US casualties in dropping the bombs = 0
Winning the war without having to send 50,000 to 500,000 chaplains out to tell mothers their sons are dead = priceless.
Clear fething enough for you?
Oh I see, you value US lives higher than another countries civilians? Manifest destiny? Divine right to rule, all that? I see.
150,000 civilian men, women and children dead = better than 50,000 US soldiers dead?
I would not like to see any US soldiers dead, but I dont place a higher value on a life on my own soldiers than I do for another countries non combantants.
I specifically stated that they don't give definitive numbers, but they aren't pulling them out of their ass either, as you seem to contend. Saying that we don't arbitrarily pluck numbers from the air doesn't mean that I am also saying that we determined exact numbers (which I honestly don't see how you get that from my post) either. There isn't one guy that makes a statement that "this is exactly the number of people who will die". There are multiple sources that work (and worked) on the problem and come up with a figure, they compare figures and make a recommendation; even low figures showed heavy casualties for a mainland invasion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
thedude wrote:
Oh I see, you value US lives higher than another countries civilians? Manifest destiny? Divine right to rule, all that? I see.
150,000 civilian men, women and children dead = better than 50,000 US soldiers dead?
I would not like to see any US soldiers dead, but I dont place a higher value on a life on my own soldiers than I do for another countries non combantants.
And this is when I realized you don't want to have a reasonable discussion, but want to feel morally superior.
It may be "wrong" but it is usually done for a reason. Very few armed forces arbitrarily destroy large civilian populations "just because." Also, the logic extends further than how you state it. "200,00 civilians, and a vast number of combatants on both sides, and the expenditure of millions of dollars-worth of materials."
I dont mean to imply things like this are done arbitratily or without specific intent or calculation.
Instead, simply that the massacre of non combatants is wrong. The US, Afghanistan, Russia, Great Britain, Iran ect. could all find a number of what they consider good reasons to drop a bomb on their enemies. From what I can tell the majority here feel that if the ends justify the means then it is the correct 'moral' choice to make. The problem is this is subjective to the eye of the beholder.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:1. It cost the Soviets 300,000 dead to finish off the Germans in Berlin. That was one area.
2. It cost 50,000 dead and wounded US troops to take the island of Okinawa. That was one small island.
3. US casualties in dropping the bombs = 0
Winning the war without having to send 50,000 to 500,000 chaplains out to tell mothers their sons are dead = priceless.
Clear fething enough for you?
Oh I see, you value US lives higher than another countries civilians? Manifest destiny? Divine right to rule, all that? I see.
150,000 civilian men, women and children dead = better than 50,000 US soldiers dead?
I would not like to see any US soldiers dead, but I dont place a higher value on a life on my own soldiers than I do for another countries non combantants.
No. The US military and political leadership was, again, paid by and part of the United States, and not citizens of the world. Its amazing how that works.
If you were actually part of the US military you would kind of want them to place a higher value on you and your family. Its what they are paid to do, not run a global food program or save victims of a hurricane. They are there to kill the enemy at minimum cost to themselves.
Now on a side note. Just had a one hour conversation with a new gal from ireland. You have to visualize redneck Texan made good talking to someone in Canada whos actually Irish. Oh the fun trying to understand each other. And I have new respect for the irish accent.
It may be "wrong" but it is usually done for a reason. Very few armed forces arbitrarily destroy large civilian populations "just because." Also, the logic extends further than how you state it. "200,00 civilians, and a vast number of combatants on both sides, and the expenditure of millions of dollars-worth of materials."
I dont mean to imply things like this are done arbitratily or without specific intent or calculation.
Instead, simply that the massacre of non combatants is wrong. The US, Afghanistan, Russia, Great Britain, Iran ect. could all find a number of what they consider good reasons to drop a bomb on their enemies. From what I can tell the majority here feel that if the ends justify the means then it is the correct 'moral' choice to make. The problem is this is subjective to the eye of the beholder.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:1. It cost the Soviets 300,000 dead to finish off the Germans in Berlin. That was one area.
2. It cost 50,000 dead and wounded US troops to take the island of Okinawa. That was one small island.
3. US casualties in dropping the bombs = 0
Winning the war without having to send 50,000 to 500,000 chaplains out to tell mothers their sons are dead = priceless.
Clear fething enough for you?
Oh I see, you value US lives higher than another countries civilians? Manifest destiny? Divine right to rule, all that? I see.
150,000 civilian men, women and children dead = better than 50,000 US soldiers dead?
I would not like to see any US soldiers dead, but I dont place a higher value on a life on my own soldiers than I do for another countries non combantants.
Well the US military certainly would, and it was then making the call...
It doesn't seem to help your case, citing an instance where the cost to the country was grossly underestimated.
i guess it wouldnt if you put a dollar value on human life
And this is when I realized you don't want to have a reasonable discussion, but want to feel morally superior.
It has nothing to do with feeling morally superior. It has everything to do with taken a moral stand on a general mentality that accepts mass civilian casualties as necessary for victory. I am simply opposing this and in your post you get to the heart of my opposistion and illustrate it for me. That said, I will admit the arrogance in what you wrote caused me to loose a little civility. Lets revisit what you wrote:
"3. US casualties in dropping the bombs = 0 "
Now lets look at it from the Japanese point of view
"3. Japanese casuatlies in dropping the bombs = 166,000"
"Winning the war without having to send 50,000 to 500,000 chaplains out to tell mothers their sons are dead by insteading killing almost 200,000 men women and children = priceless.
In your 3 point argument, you state soldier casulaties as high, then culminate your arguement at how there were 0 US casulaties (igoring the Japanese casulaties). You clearly imply placing US soldier life above japanese civilian life. These were not soldiers in a voluntary military.
A side note, by that time we had already had around 400k US soldier casulaties.
I do not dispute the fact that it saved lives. I am stating it is wrong to attack civilian targets and should not be tolerated.
Moreover, you actualy stated "..... but we have a pretty good idea. We didn't invent math for nothing you know. "
In which I responded with a link showing an example on just how good we were at estimating...I said nothing about exact numbers.
No. The US military and political leadership was, again, paid by and part of the United States, and not citizens of the world. Its amazing how that works.
Frazzled, are you implying that because the US was not paid by Japanese civilians, their lives should not be considered when the state makes an attack on their country? Of course the US government acted in its interest and even the interest of its people. However, I state that the ends do not justify the means and our government had not right to exterminate 166k non combatants for our countries gain.
If you were actually part of the US military you would kind of want them to place a higher value on you and your family. Its what they are paid to do, not run a global food program or save victims of a hurricane. They are there to kill the enemy at minimum cost to themselves.
I served 4 years in the military, I did my time for my country and I love my country, that does not mean I have to agree with what I consider morally apprehensible actions by my country on civilians.
I"m curious since you brought it up. How long did you serve or are serving?
In your 3 point argument, you state soldier casulaties as high, then culminate your arguement at how there were 0 US casulaties (igoring the Japanese casulaties). You clearly imply placing US soldier life above japanese civilian life. These were not soldiers in a voluntary military.
A side note, by that time we had already had around 400k US soldier casulaties.
Neither were the US soldiers. They were not volunteers! The US armed services during WWII were not voluntary. Anyone with any worthy military opinion or military background would know that! Ever here of the draft! Those were everyday ordinary Americans being forced to fight by an Aggressive Japan that was supported by it's people. I don't recall there being any large protests from the Japanese public about what was happening during WWII.
are you implying that because the US was not paid by Japanese civilians, their lives should not be considered when the state makes an attack on their country?
They should be considered, yes. Should they be considered as more important than the lives of our people, no. The government and people of Japan brought this upon themselves with their actions and support of system that encouraged that type of behavior. I feel remorse for humanity and or the loss of it caused by that war. I feel no remorse for the destruction of a terrible culture and the people that were part of it that created the need for humanity to sacrifice it's own!
I believe it was the right thing to do or else millions of more people would of been killed. it was a necessary evil, Though In my opinion i say we should of locked up nuclear warheads away forever as they are really really bad.
Overall it was needed or else this world would of been alot different.
I misspoke...in my zeal for posting I overlooked the fact both sides has instituted the draft.
However the distinction between military and civilian targets remain, albeit with less poiniancy.
At no point did i suggest that I place higher value on japanes lives than us lives. I am instead stating that I believe targeting civilians is very wrong.This is especially true when there is no real way to quantify what the action is preventing in the future. Further, you make a false assumption to state the people had as much culpabity as the government. I assure you the thousands of children that day did not bring this on themselves. A large portion of the population may have felt that the US was an evil enemy that needed to be conquered, but just like the US and every other nation,the people have been indoctrinated with patriotism, that has mo bearing on the fact that the vast majority of people want to do good and live a good life as it were. Just because they are on opposing sides does not give justification for their death at state hands.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I mean our government commits all sorts of atrocities around the globe, most for the greater good of it's people(or at least those ruling the people). To many nations we are an imperialist nation who leave our fair share of dead bodies in our wake. Does that mean that every patriotic American condone some of the killings and actions the governent takes part in, no. To suggest that, may imply that the government and it's people somehow brought on 9/11 for example. To al queda, we were at war and Americans were the enemy who brought their own destruction about. What your have stated only appears to be a slightly more gentle version of that thought process
thedude wrote:I misspoke...in my zeal for posting I overlooked the fact both sides has instituted the draft.
However the distinction between military and civilian targets remain, albeit with less poiniancy.
At no point did i suggest that I place higher value on japanes lives than us lives. I am instead stating that I believe targeting civilians is very wrong.This is especially true when there is no real way to quantify what the action is preventing in the future. Further, you make a false assumption to state the people had as much culpabity as the government. I assure you the thousands of children that day did not bring this on themselves. A large portion of the population may have felt that the US was an evil enemy that needed to be conquered, but just like the US and every other nation,the people have been indoctrinated with patriotism, that has mo bearing on the fact that the vast majority of people want to do good and live a good life as it were. Just because they are on opposing sides does not give justification for their death at state hands.
Every last one of them was a potential soldier, and would have otherwise died fighting to the bitter end or taken their own life had we invaded. The two bombs shocked the leadership into the unconditional surrender that was required, thus saving significantly more than 150 thousand US soldiers, and yet more Japanese, who would technically have been soldiers too had push come to shove.
I mean our government commits all sorts of atrocities around the globe, most for the greater good of it's people(or at least those ruling the people). To many nations we are an imperialist nation who leave our fair share of dead bodies in our wake. Does that mean that every patriotic American condone some of the killings and actions the governent takes part in, no. To suggest that, may imply that the government and it's people somehow brought on 9/11 for example. To al queda, we were at war and Americans were the enemy who brought their own destruction about. What your have stated only appears to be a slightly more gentle version of that thought process
The only problem is that very frequently those actions only benefit a small minority of Americans, rather than all of us, though things like running roughshod over the legal systems of other countries to protect American citizens are the only acceptable course, as the alternative is abandoning the people the government is there to serve to the predations of foreign states.
You aren't interested in understanding histroy on it's own terms but making value jadgements based on modern standards. It is easy to sit here and lambast with 20/20 vision in a radically different world with both cognitive and temporal distance. It is easy to Kantian about it when you don't actually have to make any of these decisions. All you want to do is hoist fallacy after fallacy (ie I mean really, our only options are to either hate it or love to see women and children die?) in an attempt to feel like you know better. It's poor history and it's poor debate.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
Every last one of them was a potential soldier, and would have otherwise died fighting to the bitter end or taken their own life had we invaded.
You can't say X was a potential soldier, and that they would certainly have died fighting to the bitter end. Perhaps that wasn't your intention, but that is how it reads to me.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
The only problem is that very frequently those actions only benefit a small minority of Americans, rather than all of us, though things like running roughshod over the legal systems of other countries to protect American citizens are the only acceptable course, as the alternative is abandoning the people the government is there to serve to the predations of foreign states.
No, we can actually abandon our citizens when they do stupid things. In fact, we have a long history of doing so. It is a good tradition which we should make greater use of.
thedude wrote:I misspoke...in my zeal for posting I overlooked the fact both sides has instituted the draft.
However the distinction between military and civilian targets remain, albeit with less poiniancy.
At no point did i suggest that I place higher value on japanes lives than us lives. I am instead stating that I believe targeting civilians is very wrong.This is especially true when there is no real way to quantify what the action is preventing in the future. Further, you make a false assumption to state the people had as much culpabity as the government. I assure you the thousands of children that day did not bring this on themselves. A large portion of the population may have felt that the US was an evil enemy that needed to be conquered, but just like the US and every other nation,the people have been indoctrinated with patriotism, that has mo bearing on the fact that the vast majority of people want to do good and live a good life as it were. Just because they are on opposing sides does not give justification for their death at state hands.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I mean our government commits all sorts of atrocities around the globe, most for the greater good of it's people(or at least those ruling the people). To many nations we are an imperialist nation who leave our fair share of dead bodies in our wake. Does that mean that every patriotic American condone some of the killings and actions the governent takes part in, no. To suggest that, may imply that the government and it's people somehow brought on 9/11 for example. To al queda, we were at war and Americans were the enemy who brought their own destruction about. What your have stated only appears to be a slightly more gentle version of that thought process
Yes but all those innocent women and children would have become indoctrinated cogs of the Imperial Japanese Army (just as the last many generation were) at one point or another if the bomb wasn't dropped on their heads. You are forgetting that the last generation of Japanese children were turned into an army of rapist and murders by the established government and even the accepted culture. You would have the innocence of almost every last Japanese child raped from them by the established government than have a few die from the bomb. I understand your plea to humanity, but the chances of an average Japanese child living a happy normal life greatly increased with the dropping of those bombs.
I don't know, I don't think happiness is contingent on not being a rapist or murderer, and normalcy is one of those things which really doesn't mean anything in these discussions (what is normal?).
I think what you really mean to say is that you prefer the Japan that resulted from the dropping of the bomb to the Japan you imagine would exist if the bomb had not been dropped.
Ahtman wrote:You aren't interested in understanding histroy on it's own terms but making value jadgements based on modern standards. It is easy to sit here and lambast with 20/20 vision in a radically different world with both cognitive and temporal distance. It is easy to Kantian about it when you don't actually have to make any of these decisions. All you want to do is hoist fallacy after fallacy (ie I mean really, our only options are to either hate it or love to see women and children die?) in an attempt to feel like you know better. It's poor history and it's poor debate.
No, this thread was titled "In Retrospect...was hiroshima a good idea?" in which i answered emphatically no because targeting civilians is wrong, and a large percentage of posters here wish to throw reasons our why the action was a necessary evil in which i disagree, that is my opinion and i feel strongly about it...feel free to disagree.
If the thread asked " Did we think we made the best decision at the time? Then my argument would not exist.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
Every last one of them was a potential soldier, and would have otherwise died fighting to the bitter end or taken their own life had we invaded.
You can't say X was a potential soldier, and that they would certainly have died fighting to the bitter end. Perhaps that wasn't your intention, but that is how it reads to me.
Alright, only a significant majority of them would have died throwing themselves into the sights of American guns, and only a significant majority of the rest would have killed themselves rather than be captured or live in occupied territory.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
The only problem is that very frequently those actions only benefit a small minority of Americans, rather than all of us, though things like running roughshod over the legal systems of other countries to protect American citizens are the only acceptable course, as the alternative is abandoning the people the government is there to serve to the predations of foreign states.
No, we can actually abandon our citizens when they do stupid things. In fact, we have a long history of doing so. It is a good tradition which we should make greater use of.
Who is to say they are guilty? Guilt is only established by a trial, and we certainly can't trust foreign states not to put together a kangaroo court for the sake of lynching an American to make an example. At least not third world states, where the legal systems make even ours look like a paragon of reliability and justice.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
Alright, only a significant majority of them would have died throwing themselves into the sights of American guns, and only a significant majority of the rest would have killed themselves rather than be captured or live in occupied territory.
What evidence do you have to support this statement?
Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
Who is to say they are guilty? Guilt is only established by a trial, and we certainly can't trust foreign states not to put together a kangaroo court for the sake of lynching an American to make an example. At least not third world states, where the legal systems make even ours look like a paragon of reliability and justice.
Why is their guilt important?
The US has things like travel advisories for a reason, it isn't the responsibility of the state to extend its aegis of authority across the globe because certain citizens decide to put themselves in jeopardy.
Quite bluntly, in most cases no individual is sufficiently important to compel state action.
In any case, there are many ways to establish guilt, you may only accept guilt as established by trial, but you're just a dude on the internet so what you think is of no importance.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
Alright, only a significant majority of them would have died throwing themselves into the sights of American guns, and only a significant majority of the rest would have killed themselves rather than be captured or live in occupied territory.
What evidence do you have to support this statement?
Because that's what Japanese civilians in positions overtaken by US soldiers did previously? That they believed the US soldiers were literally demons who would inflict upon them inconceivable tortures? That, if nothing else, their own forces would shoot them to "save" them from being captured? The end result is: a couple of hundred thousand died, so that millions lived. It cannot even be said to be unfair to those who died, because they would have been part of the millions who would have died.
It's almost like the old traincar dilemma, where several people will die through inaction, but only one, different person will die if action is taken, is it ethical to take action or to take no action? Only in this case, the one who dies through action is also one of the ones who would die through inaction, and there's not really any "inaction" option in overall ethical stance, as it's your own actions that are responsible either way.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
Who is to say they are guilty? Guilt is only established by a trial, and we certainly can't trust foreign states not to put together a kangaroo court for the sake of lynching an American to make an example. At least not third world states, where the legal systems make even ours look like a paragon of reliability and justice.
Why is their guilt important?
The US has things like travel advisories for a reason, it isn't the responsibility of the state to extend its aegis of authority across the globe because certain citizens decide to put themselves in jeopardy.
Quite bluntly, in most cases no individual is sufficiently important to compel state action.
That's actually part of what embassies and consulates are for, aside from minor diplomatic measures and generally aiding citizens from their country.
In any case, there are many ways to establish guilt, you may only accept guilt as established by trial, but you're just a dude on the internet so what you think is of no importance.
There's technically no way to perfectly establish guilt, as error can be accidentally introduced at any stage, to say nothing of deliberate obfuscation. But we, at least, have some standards and measures in place to ensure that things are as legitimate as possible, despite the occasional travesties of justice. Third world countries, and some first world ones, whether or not they're on some "dangerous" list, cannot be trusted to deliver an acceptable degree of quality, and further cannot be trusted not to bias things against an American, just to have the prestige/notoriety/nose-thumbing of lynching an American.
I remember a few years ago, a case of an American put on trial for a murder in some Latin American country, where there was concrete evidence that he was hundreds of miles away when it occurred. Diplomatic pressure won out, and he was released and smuggled out of the country, narrowly avoiding a local lynch mob. There was another of an American who was sentenced to be beaten to death for chewing gum on a street in Singapore, where diplomatic pressure reduced the sentence to a month in prison.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
Because that's what Japanese civilians in positions overtaken by US soldiers did previously? That they believed the US soldiers were literally demons who would inflict upon them inconceivable tortures? That, if nothing else, their own forces would shoot them to "save" them from being captured? The end result is: a couple of hundred thousand died, so that millions lived. It cannot even be said to be unfair to those who died, because they would have been part of the millions who would have died.
If we're discussing hypothetical resolutions to the war, then what you've done is create a false dilemma. The US did not have to choose between only the use of atomic weapons, and the invasion of Japan.
At any rate, it is not true that all or even the majority of Japanese civilians engaged in active resistance to US occupation, or suicide. If that were the case one would expect that there would have been far more problems after the US occupied Japan, or at the very least one would expect there to be fewer Japanese citizens today.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
It's almost like the old traincar dilemma, where several people will die through inaction, but only one, different person will die if action is taken, is it ethical to take action or to take no action? Only in this case, the one who dies through action is also one of the ones who would die through inaction, and there's not really any "inaction" option in overall ethical stance, as it's your own actions that are responsible either way.
The problem is that, unlike the trolley problem, this is not a thought exercise. You cannot claim with certainty that millions of Japanese citizens would have died in an invasion.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
That's actually part of what embassies and consulates are for, aside from minor diplomatic measures and generally aiding citizens from their country.
Sure, but there is a difference between the consensual maintenance of relations with another country through legal and diplomatic channels, and "running roughshod over the legal systems of other countries". If you are accused of murder in Egypt the US embassy probably isn't going to undertake extralegal means to secure your release, even if it appears you are innocent.
America has a population of more than 300 million people, we can afford to ignore injustices done to a few of them.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
There's technically no way to perfectly establish guilt, as error can be accidentally introduced at any stage, to say nothing of deliberate obfuscation.
Because guilt turns on responsibility what you've actually done isn't really all that important to determining it. I could rightly consider you guilty of drinking my rum because you happen to be on the internet.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
Third world countries, and some first world ones, whether or not they're on some "dangerous" list, cannot be trusted to deliver an acceptable degree of quality, and further cannot be trusted not to bias things against an American, just to have the prestige/notoriety/nose-thumbing of lynching an American.
You accept that risk when you travel to those countries.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
I remember a few years ago, a case of an American put on trial for a murder in some Latin American country, where there was concrete evidence that he was hundreds of miles away when it occurred. Diplomatic pressure won out, and he was released and smuggled out of the country, narrowly avoiding a local lynch mob. There was another of an American who was sentenced to be beaten to death for chewing gum on a street in Singapore, where diplomatic pressure reduced the sentence to a month in prison.
Sure, but those cases were important because they were made so by media attention. In situations where people are not so noticed, the State Department isn't going to, and shouldn't, waste their time.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
Because that's what Japanese civilians in positions overtaken by US soldiers did previously? That they believed the US soldiers were literally demons who would inflict upon them inconceivable tortures? That, if nothing else, their own forces would shoot them to "save" them from being captured? The end result is: a couple of hundred thousand died, so that millions lived. It cannot even be said to be unfair to those who died, because they would have been part of the millions who would have died.
If we're discussing hypothetical resolutions to the war, then what you've done is create a false dilemma. The US did not have to choose between only the use of atomic weapons, and the invasion of Japan.
At any rate, it is not true that all or even the majority of Japanese civilians engaged in active resistance to US occupation, or suicide. If that were the case one would expect that there would have been far more problems after the US occupied Japan, or at the very least one would expect there to be fewer Japanese citizens today.
Japan wasn't taken by soldiers storming the cities, but by a peaceful surrender. Of course there wouldn't be such resistance when level heads are managing the process on the ground, outside the heat of battle.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
It's almost like the old traincar dilemma, where several people will die through inaction, but only one, different person will die if action is taken, is it ethical to take action or to take no action? Only in this case, the one who dies through action is also one of the ones who would die through inaction, and there's not really any "inaction" option in overall ethical stance, as it's your own actions that are responsible either way.
The problem is that, unlike the trolley problem, this is not a thought exercise. You cannot claim with certainty that millions of Japanese citizens would have died in an invasion.
That is what was projected, and that is what there was precedent for. Assuming it would have gone gentler than a couple of hundred thousand dead is like wondering if you eating something different for breakfast yesterday would have led to the discovery of a cure for cancer.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
That's actually part of what embassies and consulates are for, aside from minor diplomatic measures and generally aiding citizens from their country.
Sure, but there is a difference between the consensual maintenance of relations with another country through legal and diplomatic channels, and "running roughshod over the legal systems of other countries". If you are accused of murder in Egypt the US embassy probably isn't going to undertake extralegal means to secure your release, even if it appears you are innocent.
America has a population of more than 300 million people, we can afford to ignore injustices done to a few of them.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
There's technically no way to perfectly establish guilt, as error can be accidentally introduced at any stage, to say nothing of deliberate obfuscation.
Because guilt turns on responsibility what you've actually done isn't really all that important to determining it. I could rightly consider you guilty of drinking my rum because you happen to be on the internet.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
Third world countries, and some first world ones, whether or not they're on some "dangerous" list, cannot be trusted to deliver an acceptable degree of quality, and further cannot be trusted not to bias things against an American, just to have the prestige/notoriety/nose-thumbing of lynching an American.
You accept that risk when you travel to those countries.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
I remember a few years ago, a case of an American put on trial for a murder in some Latin American country, where there was concrete evidence that he was hundreds of miles away when it occurred. Diplomatic pressure won out, and he was released and smuggled out of the country, narrowly avoiding a local lynch mob. There was another of an American who was sentenced to be beaten to death for chewing gum on a street in Singapore, where diplomatic pressure reduced the sentence to a month in prison.
Sure, but those cases were important because they were made so by media attention. In situations where people are not so noticed, the State Department isn't going to, and shouldn't, waste their time.
So the lesson is to call CNN, instead of the embassy, then? I suppose that's actually a pretty good lesson, so long as you have a flair for the dramatic and can get them screaming about the injustice, as they should every time an American is imprisoned by a foreign power. We're hated for the appearance of meddling Imperialism anyways, we may as well get the benefits of it...
Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
Japan wasn't taken by soldiers storming the cities, but by a peaceful surrender. Of course there wouldn't be such resistance when level heads are managing the process on the ground, outside the heat of battle.
The point is that if they were so committed to a culture of "victory or death" then the surrender, and occupation, would not have gone over as smoothly as it did with the civilian population.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
That is what was projected, and that is what there was precedent for. Assuming it would have gone gentler than a couple of hundred thousand dead is like wondering if you eating something different for breakfast yesterday would have led to the discovery of a cure for cancer.
There is a difference between "millions" and "a couple hundred thousand" I know its a subtle one, but still a difference.
Moreover, the idea that the people who died in the bombings would have died in an invasion is nonsense. You cannot make that claim with any certainty.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
So the lesson is to call CNN, instead of the embassy, then? I suppose that's actually a pretty good lesson, so long as you have a flair for the dramatic and can get them screaming about the injustice, as they should every time an American is imprisoned by a foreign power. We're hated for the appearance of meddling Imperialism anyways, we may as well get the benefits of it...
Well, the lesson is actually to call CNN and the embassy, but that's a minor thing.
In any case, I disagree that the government should seek to protect all of its citizens all of the time. That isn't in the interests of the government, or the people it represents.
Individuals are easily replaced for everyone but those who have a particular attachment to the individual in question.
dogma wrote:I don't know, I don't think happiness is contingent on not being a rapist or murderer, and normalcy is one of those things which really doesn't mean anything in these discussions (what is normal?).
Oh, no. What I'm saying is had we not dropped the bomb they would have been forced to fight anyway, robbing them of their innocence. Then they would have been killed.
I think what you really mean to say is that you prefer the Japan that resulted from the dropping of the bomb to the Japan you imagine would exist if the bomb had not been dropped.
I didn't so much mean to say that, as much as that is pretty much exactly what I was saying. I prefer it, and I'm pretty sure those Japanese who survived because of the bomb preferred it too.
The point is that if they were so committed to a culture of "victory or death" then the surrender, and occupation, would not have gone over as smoothly as it did with the civilian population.
The whole story was "Victory or death in service of the Emperor/God" once the Emperor/God surrendered it was then still service to the Emperor to surrender without a fight.
Asherian Command wrote:I believe it was the right thing to do or else millions of more people would of been killed. it was a necessary evil, Though In my opinion i say we should of locked up nuclear warheads away forever as they are really really bad.
Overall it was needed or else this world would of been alot different.
See now boss, I would argue that nuclear weapons have kept a major war from breaking out for some 70 odd years.
Asherian Command wrote:I believe it was the right thing to do or else millions of more people would of been killed. it was a necessary evil, Though In my opinion i say we should of locked up nuclear warheads away forever as they are really really bad.
Overall it was needed or else this world would of been alot different.
See now boss, I would argue that nuclear weapons have kept a major war from breaking out for some 70 odd years.
Got to agree! As stated many times before this alone would be why it was a good idea. The fact is there are so many reasons it was a good idea, they easily outweigh the reasons why it could have been a bad idea.
Andrew1975 wrote:
Oh, no. What I'm saying is had we not dropped the bomb they would have been forced to fight anyway, robbing them of their innocence. Then they would have been killed.
Robbing them of a thing which you perceived to exist in your own childhood, but which may not exist in others.
Andrew1975 wrote:
I didn't so much mean to say that, as much as that is pretty much exactly what I was saying. I prefer it, and I'm pretty sure those Japanese who survived because of the bomb preferred it too.
Why does your preference matter?
Andrew1975 wrote:
The whole story was "Victory or death in service of the Emperor/God" once the Emperor/God surrendered it was then still service to the Emperor to surrender without a fight.
That doesn't make sense. Either the message is "Serve the Emperor!" or "Victory or Death!" You can't have both.
Andrew1975 wrote:
Oh, no. What I'm saying is had we not dropped the bomb they would have been forced to fight anyway, robbing them of their innocence. Then they would have been killed.
Robbing them of a thing which you perceived to exist in your own childhood, but which may not exist in others.
Well that was really an argument someone else brought up. I was just explaining to them how if innocence was their argument it is a failure in that context
Andrew1975 wrote:
I didn't so much mean to say that, as much as that is pretty much exactly what I was saying. I prefer it, and I'm pretty sure those Japanese who survived because of the bomb preferred it too.
Why does your preference matter?
You brought up the subject of my preference!
Andrew1975 wrote:
The whole story was "Victory or death in service of the Emperor/God" once the Emperor/God surrendered it was then still service to the Emperor to surrender without a fight.
That doesn't make sense. Either the message is "Serve the Emperor!" or "Victory or Death!" You can't have both.
You are correct, I can't have both. I was however never the Emperor of Japan. He however could and did have both! First he preached "Victory or Death", he then changed it to "Surrender completely so that I can live". Being honor bound to follow the Empowers rules, that is exactly what people did. It's why we spared the Emperor, it made it much easier to pacify the people of Japan.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
Japan wasn't taken by soldiers storming the cities, but by a peaceful surrender. Of course there wouldn't be such resistance when level heads are managing the process on the ground, outside the heat of battle.
The point is that if they were so committed to a culture of "victory or death" then the surrender, and occupation, would not have gone over as smoothly as it did with the civilian population.
I don't think it's so black and white as "a culture of victory or death." Had a violent invasion been necessary, it would have been much bloodier, and people would have acted with all the composure that is typical for such a situation. One is going to behave much differently when foreign troops are rolling down the street next to an armored column, especially when one believes unspeakable horrors will befall anyone who surrenders, than one is when the occupation takes place without a gunshot, and the leadership has ordered everyone to stand down. The first is predicated on a climate of uncertainty, adrenaline, and violence, the latter is a composed, ordered act which serves to dispel that.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
That is what was projected, and that is what there was precedent for. Assuming it would have gone gentler than a couple of hundred thousand dead is like wondering if you eating something different for breakfast yesterday would have led to the discovery of a cure for cancer.
There is a difference between "millions" and "a couple hundred thousand" I know its a subtle one, but still a difference.
The "couple of hundred thousand" was referring to those killed by the nuclear bombs.
Moreover, the idea that the people who died in the bombings would have died in an invasion is nonsense. You cannot make that claim with any certainty.
I could not make the genuine claim that every last one of them would surely have died, but I feel quite safe in the assumption that such a significant majority would have that the the hyperbolic "fight to the last man or die by their own hand" is a valid statement, as any survivors would have been a statistically insignificant percentage.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
So the lesson is to call CNN, instead of the embassy, then? I suppose that's actually a pretty good lesson, so long as you have a flair for the dramatic and can get them screaming about the injustice, as they should every time an American is imprisoned by a foreign power. We're hated for the appearance of meddling Imperialism anyways, we may as well get the benefits of it...
Well, the lesson is actually to call CNN and the embassy, but that's a minor thing.
In any case, I disagree that the government should seek to protect all of its citizens all of the time. That isn't in the interests of the government, or the people it represents.
Individuals are easily replaced for everyone but those who have a particular attachment to the individual in question.
A government's first priority should always be protection of its people, especially from foreign powers. It's not a matter of the worth of the individual, but of the act of protecting them; you abandon one, it doesn't just hurt that one, but it sends a message to everyone else that "we don't care about you, and we'll abandon you the second we'd have to raise a finger to your benefit, though we'll still raise this finger to you!"
Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
A government's first priority should always be protection of its people, especially from foreign powers. It's not a matter of the worth of the individual, but of the act of protecting them; you abandon one, it doesn't just hurt that one, but it sends a message to everyone else that "we don't care about you, and we'll abandon you the second we'd have to raise a finger to your benefit, though we'll still raise this finger to you!"
Well, a government's first priority should be its own survival. Hang the citizenry if necessary, though that is rarely a good idea.
In any case, protecting people is only important when the rest of the people know about it. Otherwise its often wiser to let them suffer for their own mistakes. Hence the wisdom of calling CNN.
they knew they had lost, i was watching a doo about this and from what i got was japan already said ''yeah sorry we will stop, give us the paper work'' then to show a means of strenght to russia, they dropped them beore the paper work was delivered.
kevlar'o wrote:they knew they had lost, i was watching a doo about this and from what i got was japan already said ''yeah sorry we will stop, give us the paper work'' then to show a means of strenght to russia, they dropped them beore the paper work was delivered.
Yeah, about that. Uhm, how do I say it? That is not true. Well, that wasn't so hard after all.
kevlar'o wrote:they knew they had lost, i was watching a doo about this and from what i got was japan already said ''yeah sorry we will stop, give us the paper work'' then to show a means of strenght to russia, they dropped them beore the paper work was delivered.
Yeah, about that. Uhm, how do I say it? That is not true. Well, that wasn't so hard after all.
I'll put that right next to the Japanese telling us about pearl harbor, but that paperwork got lost in the shuffle too! Too many dogs eating peoples homework!
kevlar'o wrote:they knew they had lost, i was watching a doo about this and from what i got was japan already said ''yeah sorry we will stop, give us the paper work'' then to show a means of strenght to russia, they dropped them beore the paper work was delivered.
Yeah, about that. Uhm, how do I say it? That is not true. Well, that wasn't so hard after all.
I'll put that right next to the Japanese telling us about pearl harbor, but that paperwork got lost in the shuffle too! Too many dogs eating peoples homework!
Ketara wrote:It was unnecessary. The Japanese no longer possessed any way of striking back against the Americans. Does that make it immoral? That's something you have to decide for yourself.
As far as I know, the A-bomb was painless, instantaneous death from the sky.
No. It was painless if it landed on your head. The resulting burns and radiation sickness from those caught on the edge of the blast, or in slightly covered locations were horrific. Seriously. Go and read some accounts of the resulting symptoms. This was only excaberated by the levelling of 2/3's of Japans housing by incendiaries, and lack of supplies. People died in extreme pain writhing in their own excrement as a result of those bombs.
'Politest form of death', it was not.
That preposterous. The Japanese could have surrendered at any time. Further, and here's the fun part, the Japanese could have thought about it before the whole invading China/ Malaysia/Vietnam/Thailand/Cambodia/Laos/Burma/Phillipines/Solomons/attacking the US thing and its millions of dead.
I lost one grandfather to the Japanese. Odds are I would have lost more relatives if Operation Olympic had to be carried out. Estimates on Japanese civilian casualties alone were in the 1MM + range. It ended the war and those people survived.
It was not necessary, not at all. Look it up. It wont be easy to find, but its history (history channel did a special on Truman recently, about him rebuffing the earlier japanese surrender terms).
Actually, very few know this (they won't teach this in high school history, you get it in college if you are lucky) the japanese were ALREADY ready to surrender.
They had started surrender talks months before. Japan was already interested in surrendering, they were just bickering over terms. In fact, all along they NEVER intended or planned on attacking the US mainland....it was just a resource grab, they planned on capturing a lot of natural resources, gaining an advantage, then suing for peace, and trying to keep some of the stuff they had captured. Once the military industrial complex (and their ability to import critically needed fuel) was wiped out, they realized they were done, but were trying to negotiate to keep some resources. US leaders wanted an unconditional surrender and to humiliate the Japanese (no its not pretty, but its history - look it up).
We destroyed about 67 Japanese cities, over 500,000 japanese citizens and leaving millions homeless...the only thing special about hiroshima and nagasaki was they only took a single plane each.
It was not done to "save lives" for an invasion, that is a convenient myth. Remember, history curriculums are dictated by politicians.....you don't find out the good stuff until college...and only then if you are lucky.
davethepak wrote:They had started surrender talks months before. Japan was already interested in surrendering, they were just bickering over terms. In fact, all along they NEVER intended or planned on attacking the US mainland....it was just a resource grab, they planned on capturing a lot of natural resources, gaining an advantage, then suing for peace, and trying to keep some of the stuff they had captured.
Aside from lunatics, I've never heard it suggested that Japan ever intended to assault the US mainland at all. Even Australia, assuming that the war in the Phillipines and PNG went perfectly, was never seriously given consideration for invasion. Japan simply didn't have the resources to stretch themselves that far, and they never fooled themselves into thinking that they did.
Ketara wrote:It was unnecessary. The Japanese no longer possessed any way of striking back against the Americans. Does that make it immoral? That's something you have to decide for yourself.
As far as I know, the A-bomb was painless, instantaneous death from the sky.
No. It was painless if it landed on your head. The resulting burns and radiation sickness from those caught on the edge of the blast, or in slightly covered locations were horrific. Seriously. Go and read some accounts of the resulting symptoms. This was only excaberated by the levelling of 2/3's of Japans housing by incendiaries, and lack of supplies. People died in extreme pain writhing in their own excrement as a result of those bombs.
'Politest form of death', it was not.
That preposterous. The Japanese could have surrendered at any time. Further, and here's the fun part, the Japanese could have thought about it before the whole invading China/ Malaysia/Vietnam/Thailand/Cambodia/Laos/Burma/Phillipines/Solomons/attacking the US thing and its millions of dead.
I lost one grandfather to the Japanese. Odds are I would have lost more relatives if Operation Olympic had to be carried out. Estimates on Japanese civilian casualties alone were in the 1MM + range. It ended the war and those people survived.
It was not necessary, not at all. Look it up. It wont be easy to find, but its history (history channel did a special on Truman recently, about him rebuffing the earlier japanese surrender terms).
Actually, very few know this (they won't teach this in high school history, you get it in college if you are lucky) the japanese were ALREADY ready to surrender.
They had started surrender talks months before. Japan was already interested in surrendering, they were just bickering over terms. In fact, all along they NEVER intended or planned on attacking the US mainland....it was just a resource grab, they planned on capturing a lot of natural resources, gaining an advantage, then suing for peace, and trying to keep some of the stuff they had captured. Once the military industrial complex (and their ability to import critically needed fuel) was wiped out, they realized they were done, but were trying to negotiate to keep some resources. US leaders wanted an unconditional surrender and to humiliate the Japanese (no its not pretty, but its history - look it up).
We destroyed about 67 Japanese cities, over 500,000 japanese citizens and leaving millions homeless...the only thing special about hiroshima and nagasaki was they only took a single plane each.
It was not done to "save lives" for an invasion, that is a convenient myth. Remember, history curriculums are dictated by politicians.....you don't find out the good stuff until college...and only then if you are lucky.
Those months of quibbling ended pretty quickly once the bomb was dropped! Negotiating a surrender and surrendering are very different things. Look how long peace talks lasted during the Korean war and how many people died during them.
That Japan would have surrendered if they got to dictate the terms is not a secret. Japan was never a threat to occupy or attack mainland USA. You say this as if you are breaking news. Japan did not deserve to save face by dictating the terms of their surrender, they needed to be humbled and humiliated!
davethepak wrote:They had started surrender talks months before. Japan was already interested in surrendering, they were just bickering over terms. In fact, all along they NEVER intended or planned on attacking the US mainland....it was just a resource grab, they planned on capturing a lot of natural resources, gaining an advantage, then suing for peace, and trying to keep some of the stuff they had captured.
Aside from lunatics, I've never heard it suggested that Japan ever intended to assault the US mainland at all. Even Australia, assuming that the war in the Phillipines and PNG went perfectly, was never seriously given consideration for invasion. Japan simply didn't have the resources to stretch themselves that far, and they never fooled themselves into thinking that they did.
Correct.
But there was a LOT of fear mongering in the day and bad actions taken as a result (like oh, say japanese internment camps....) but THAT is another topic.
But there was a LOT of fear mongering in the day and bad actions taken as a result (like oh, say japanese internment camps....) but THAT is another topic.
Not saying it was right, but they were treated better than the Japanese treated foreign aliens/outsiders during the war.
Japan was treated the way it was because they were merciless to all enemies. When you give no quarter, you should not expect it in return. In even those terms the Japanese got off light.
Andrew1975 wrote:Those months of quibbling ended pretty quickly once the bomb was dropped! Negotiating a surrender and surrendering are very different things. Look how long peace talks lasted during the Korean war and how many people died during them.
So, what? You're saying we should Nuke Korea?
That Japan would have surrendered if they got to dictate the terms is not a secret. Japan was never a threat to occupy or attack mainland USA. You say this as if you are breaking news. Japan did not deserve to save face by dictating the terms of their surrender, they needed to be humbled and humiliated!
Nice. I'm getting a total, like, humanitarian vibe off you, man.
Andrew1975 wrote:Those months of quibbling ended pretty quickly once the bomb was dropped! Negotiating a surrender and surrendering are very different things. Look how long peace talks lasted during the Korean war and how many people died during them.
So, what? You're saying we should Nuke Korea?
Yeah, that's what I'm saying! Really? So how long was the US supposed to wait for Japan to surrender? Weeks? Months? Years?
That Japan would have surrendered if they got to dictate the terms is not a secret. Japan was never a threat to occupy or attack mainland USA. You say this as if you are breaking news. Japan did not deserve to save face by dictating the terms of their surrender, they needed to be humbled and humiliated!
Nice. I'm getting a total, like, humanitarian vibe off you, man.
Like, cool hippie vibe from you maaaaan! We should have just like smoked some bowls with them!
Japan did need to be humbled and humiliated, it was the only defeat they would understand and accept!
Why? So big, masculine, American men could feel all big and strong?
The Bombing of Hiroshima and nagaskaki helped with the japanese surrender.
But people need to relise that Japan also surrended to the Allies when Russia entered the war.
Russia had a force of roughly 1,500,000 preparing to invade japan and with the victories the Russians had against the Japanese in mainland Asia Japan knew that it was better to surrender to the Allies then risk Soviet Occupacian of Japan
The question of "Why?" is irrelevant, or the feelings of big, strong, American men are irrelevant?
I mean, I won't lie (which is a lie) the feelings of big, strong, American men are often very relevant. Big, strong, American men are actually very effeminate, and fond of whining,
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:
Check out these guns.
Sir, I knew Boxy Brown, and you are no Boxy Brown.
Andrew1975 wrote:Those months of quibbling ended pretty quickly once the bomb was dropped! Negotiating a surrender and surrendering are very different things. Look how long peace talks lasted during the Korean war and how many people died during them.
So, what? You're saying we should Nuke Korea?
Yeah, that's what I'm saying! Really? So how long was the US supposed to wait for Japan to surrender? Weeks? Months? Years?
That Japan would have surrendered if they got to dictate the terms is not a secret. Japan was never a threat to occupy or attack mainland USA. You say this as if you are breaking news. Japan did not deserve to save face by dictating the terms of their surrender, they needed to be humbled and humiliated!
Nice. I'm getting a total, like, humanitarian vibe off you, man.
Like, cool hippie vibe from you maaaaan! We should have just like smoked some bowls with them!
Japan did need to be humbled and humiliated, it was the only defeat they would understand and accept!
Why? So big, masculine, American men could feel all big and strong?
To quote you "Irrelevant!"
I can actually visualise you screaming at your monitor as you type this.
Andrew1975 wrote:Those months of quibbling ended pretty quickly once the bomb was dropped! Negotiating a surrender and surrendering are very different things. Look how long peace talks lasted during the Korean war and how many people died during them.
So, what? You're saying we should Nuke Korea?
Yeah, that's what I'm saying! Really? So how long was the US supposed to wait for Japan to surrender? Weeks? Months? Years?
That Japan would have surrendered if they got to dictate the terms is not a secret. Japan was never a threat to occupy or attack mainland USA. You say this as if you are breaking news. Japan did not deserve to save face by dictating the terms of their surrender, they needed to be humbled and humiliated!
Nice. I'm getting a total, like, humanitarian vibe off you, man.
Like, cool hippie vibe from you maaaaan! We should have just like smoked some bowls with them!
Japan did need to be humbled and humiliated, it was the only defeat they would understand and accept!
Why? So big, masculine, American men could feel all big and strong?
To quote you "Irrelevant!"
I can actually visualise you screaming at your monitor as you type this.
Just shows how little you know maaaan!
The question of "Why?" is irrelevant, or the feelings of big, strong, American men are irrelevant?
I mean, I won't lie (which is a lie) the feelings of big, strong, American men are often very relevant. Big, strong, American men are actually very effeminate, and fond of whining,
To say that the allies dropped the bomb so that they could feel like big strong men is irrelevant and shows a lack of understanding of the discussion and boils wars down to vain big d%$# competitions. You know better. Thus the "Irrelevant" .
Andrew1975 wrote:Those months of quibbling ended pretty quickly once the bomb was dropped! Negotiating a surrender and surrendering are very different things. Look how long peace talks lasted during the Korean war and how many people died during them.
So, what? You're saying we should Nuke Korea?
Yeah, that's what I'm saying! Really? So how long was the US supposed to wait for Japan to surrender? Weeks? Months? Years?
That Japan would have surrendered if they got to dictate the terms is not a secret. Japan was never a threat to occupy or attack mainland USA. You say this as if you are breaking news. Japan did not deserve to save face by dictating the terms of their surrender, they needed to be humbled and humiliated!
Nice. I'm getting a total, like, humanitarian vibe off you, man.
Like, cool hippie vibe from you maaaaan! We should have just like smoked some bowls with them!
Japan did need to be humbled and humiliated, it was the only defeat they would understand and accept!
Why? So big, masculine, American men could feel all big and strong?
To quote you "Irrelevant!"
I can actually visualise you screaming at your monitor as you type this.
Just shows how little you know maaaan!
Entirely correct. I have no real way of knowing whether or not you are actually grappling with your keyboard like a rabid badger as you post from the other side of the planet. It's certainly the impression you're giving though.
It's more like watching you grapple with reality. Like we should have just thanked Japan for inviting us to the party. So long and thanks for all the fish!
Andrew1975 wrote:It's more like watching you grapple with reality. Like we should have just thanked Japan for inviting us to the party. So long and thanks for all the fish!
Andrew1975 wrote:
To say that the allies dropped the bomb so that they could feel like big strong men is irrelevant and shows a lack of understanding of the discussion and boils wars down to vain big d%$# competitions. You know better. Thus the "Irrelevant" .
Most wars are penis measuring contests, at least to the extent that measuring one's member is tacit to being "strong". I mean really, it isn't like men rationally decide to endanger their economic futures on the basis of thing other than ego.
In any case, that isn't what I suggested. I suggested that Japan "...needed to be humbled and humiliated!" because big, masculine, American men could feel big and strong; possibly also virile.
Andrew1975 wrote:It's more like watching you grapple with reality. Like we should have just thanked Japan for inviting us to the party. So long and thanks for all the fish!
Why not? The war is over, go back home, and trade with us again. Very simple, no one dies, and the world goes on merrily.
Andrew1975 wrote:
To say that the allies dropped the bomb so that they could feel like big strong men is irrelevant and shows a lack of understanding of the discussion and boils wars down to vain big d%$# competitions. You know better. Thus the "Irrelevant" .
Most wars are penis measuring contests, at least to the extent that measuring one's member is tacit to being "strong". I mean really, it isn't like men rationally decide to endanger their economic futures on the basis of thing other than ego.
In any case, that isn't what I suggested. I suggested that Japan "...needed to be humbled and humiliated!" because big, masculine, American men could feel big and strong; possibly also virile.
I still don't think that's the point at all. Japans code would only fold after complete and utter domination. Most people know that as historical fact. Allowing them to dictate their own terms would have allowed them to save face and justify their actions.
Andrew1975 wrote:It appears this is typical of your contribution to treads
Asking questions that no one can, or is willing to, answer?
Not you. The like, totally pacifist, lets hug japan and have a sit in guy, Emperors Faithful
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:So what? Let them justify their actions. Why do we care so long as they aren't shooting our citizens?
I think a justified Japan would have led to future conflict. They have not made an aggressive move in 60 years. I think that might have something to do with learning that their actions have consequences and that their honor code cost them more than it was worth.
Andrew1975 wrote:
I think a justified Japan would have led to future conflict.
Maybe. maybe not. I doubt it though. They lacked the resources, and had China and Russia to deal with.
They barely had the resources in the first place, that's what their expansion was about in the first place.
Andrew1975 wrote:
...and that their honor code cost them more than it was worth.
Its not like that's gone, you know.
Yes, they still have it. But it's been kept in check pretty well by the memory of their humiliating defeat in WWII.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Emperors Faithful wrote:
Andrew1975 wrote:It appears this is typical of your contribution to treads
Avidly watching you make a fool of yourself? Certainly!
Obvious troll is, well obvious!
I think most people forget that even after 2 bombs were dropped and the Emperor decided to surrender, the military leaders attempted coup d'etat to keep the war going. This was not an army that was looking to seriously surrender before the bombs were dropped.
Andrew1975 wrote:I think most people forget that even after 2 bombs were dropped and the Emperor decided to surrender, the military leaders attempted coup d'etat to keep the war going. This was not an army that was looking to seriously surrender before the bombs were dropped.
You don't think their anger at what the Allies had done to their country and their people was at all justified? Put yourself in their shoes, if a powerful enemy had brutally destroyed two US cities and conducted a merciless bombing campaign on the civilian populace, you wouldn't feel fury at the very thought at surrendering to that foe? To submit to their iron heel?
It was wise of the Emperor to do what he did, to preserve the lives of his subjects by surrendering, and hoping that the Allies would prove to be a kinder occupier than the Soviets promised (which is undoubtedly true). But I can well imagine being angry enough for the deaths of my people to blind me into peaceful submission and humiliation, especially if I was in the military which was to be disbanded.
So, what? You're saying we should Nuke Korea?
***South Korea, no thats where the Wife's Kia came from. Who's a good little Kia, yes you are, yes you are!
North Korea, if they even look at us funny they should be radioactive. The next time they declare war on us the bombers should fly. As they declare war on us almost daily, I look forward to bringing our troops home by, say..Thursday?
That Japan would have surrendered if they got to dictate the terms is not a secret. Japan was never a threat to occupy or attack mainland USA. You say this as if you are breaking news. Japan did not deserve to save face by dictating the terms of their surrender, they needed to be humbled and humiliated!
Nice. I'm getting a total, like, humanitarian vibe off you, man.
***The Germans were almost ready to surrender to. Of course it took 300,000 Soviet causaulties to help them get to that conclusion. No thanks.
Frazzled wrote:
So, what? You're saying we should Nuke Korea?
***South Korea, no thats where the Wife's Kia came from. Who's a good little Kia, yes you are, yes you are!
North Korea, if they even look at us funny they should be radioactive. The next time they declare war on us the bombers should fly. As they declare war on us almost daily, I look forward to bringing our troops home by, say..Thursday?
Nice, so all those civilians that really just want to scrape by? No? Nuke them too?
That Japan would have surrendered if they got to dictate the terms is not a secret. Japan was never a threat to occupy or attack mainland USA. You say this as if you are breaking news. Japan did not deserve to save face by dictating the terms of their surrender, they needed to be humbled and humiliated!
Nice. I'm getting a total, like, humanitarian vibe off you, man.
***The Germans were almost ready to surrender to. Of course it took 300,000 Soviet causaulties to help them get to that conclusion. No thanks.
There were peace talks with Hitler? I have to admit that would be disturbing. If it was true.
Frazzled wrote:Nuking North Korea or taking 50,000 more US casualties - yea let the bombers fly.
Not that I'd ever want it to get anywhere near this level but, you would really put the lives of 50,000 US casualties (very likely to be entirely military) over 24 million people?
And also, I guess that little snippit about the Allies having peace talks with Hitler was just you blowing wind again?
Frazzled wrote:Nuking North Korea or taking 50,000 more US casualties - yea let the bombers fly.
Not that I'd ever want it to get anywhere near this level but, you would really put the lives of 50,000 US casualties (very likely to be entirely military) over 24 million people?
***I'd put the lives of 50,000 American troops over the rest of mankind. If you make the mistake of attacking the US or US troops then there should be nothing left of you but salted earth and razed cities. After all WWGKD? (What would Genghis Khan do?)
And also, I guess that little snippit about the Allies having peace talks with Hitler was just you blowing wind again?
***There were many who wanted to surrender, and were trying to kill Hitler. Alas and Alack they didn't actually surrender until they were generally killed off. Japan was no different. The Soviets were playing with them, stalling for time while they built up their forces.
Frazzled wrote:Nuking North Korea or taking 50,000 more US casualties - yea let the bombers fly.
Not that I'd ever want it to get anywhere near this level but, you would really put the lives of 50,000 US casualties (very likely to be entirely military) over 24 million people?
***I'd put the lives of 50,000 American troops over the rest of mankind. If you make the mistake of attacking the US or US troops then there should be nothing left of you but salted earth and razed cities. After all WWGKD? (What would Genghis Khan do?)
Right. So what makes the life of a US Soldier worth more than that over anyone else? Or 20 anybodys?
And also, I guess that little snippit about the Allies having peace talks with Hitler was just you blowing wind again?
***There were many who wanted to surrender, and were trying to kill Hitler. Alas and Alack they didn't actually surrender until they were generally killed off. Japan was no different. The Soviets were playing with them, stalling for time while they built up their forces.
Look, even you have to admit that no amount of warped logic can fairly compare the two situations. Japan actually surrender, Germany was stormed.
Genghis Khan only committed atrocities like that to ease his conquest of others. If you behead an entire city for not surrendering, the next 5 cities will. We don't really need to conquer 5 countries, so obliterating one doesn't make sense.
Nuking North Korea isn't our call- I say we sell the South Koreans nukes, and see what happens.
Right. So what makes the life of a US Soldier worth more than that over anyone else? Or 20 anybodys?
***They are US soldiers. Duh! This aint rocket science kid.
Look, even you have to admit that no amount of warped logic can fairly compare the two situations. Japan actually surrender, Germany was stormed.
***I can actually. Germany surrendered after getting its ass kicked. Japan would not have surrendered unless it got its ass kicked. The bombs and the Soviet invasion helped prevent that and thdreds of thousands to millions of Japanese that would have died.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gitzbitah wrote:Genghis Khan only committed atrocities like that to ease his conquest of others. If you behead an entire city for not surrendering, the next 5 cities will. We don't really need to conquer 5 countries, so obliterating one doesn't make sense.
Nuking North Korea isn't our call- I say we sell the South Koreans nukes, and see what happens.
Look at the countries that harmed his ambassadors. Oh yea, they don't exist any more.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gitzbitah wrote:
Nuking North Korea isn't our call- I say we sell the South Koreans nukes, and see what happens.
Now thats thinking outside the box. I am down with that. Announce Thursday that Oh By the Way we sold South Korea 200 nukes, these launchers, and these subs. Then announce we are leaving 2 minutes later - toodles!
Frazzled wrote:Right. So what makes the life of a US Soldier worth more than that over anyone else? Or 20 anybodys?
***They are US soldiers. Duh! This aint rocket science kid.
And again you hide your frankly disgusting point of view behind jokes.
Look, even you have to admit that no amount of warped logic can fairly compare the two situations. Japan actually surrender, Germany was stormed.
***I can actually. Germany surrendered after getting its ass kicked. Japan would not have surrendered unless it got its ass kicked. The bombs and the Soviet invasion helped prevent that and thdreds of thousands to millions of Japanese that would have died.
Nazi Germany did not surrender until there was virtually no Nazi Germany left. Japan is entirely different, with talks of peace occuring before the dropping of the A-bombs and Soviet invasion. And even after those events, when they surrendered (almost) unconditionally, the government and armed forces were still intact.
Gitzbitah wrote:Genghis Khan only committed atrocities like that to ease his conquest of others. If you behead an entire city for not surrendering, the next 5 cities will. We don't really need to conquer 5 countries, so obliterating one doesn't make sense.
Nuking North Korea isn't our call- I say we sell the South Koreans nukes, and see what happens.
Look at the countries that harmed his ambassadors. Oh yea, they don't exist any more.
Historically no countries exist now as they did then.
I am also 87% sure that Gitzbah was demonstrating a point as to how the ends don't justify the means.
Gitzbitah wrote:
Nuking North Korea isn't our call- I say we sell the South Koreans nukes, and see what happens.
Now thats thinking outside the box. I am down with that. Announce Thursday that Oh By the Way we sold South Korea 200 nukes, these launchers, and these subs. Then announce we are leaving 2 minutes later - toodles!
Why don`t we sell them CRASSUS ARMORED ASSAULT TRANSPORTS?
Partially- I was actually hoping to point out that an atrocity intended to achieve goals and minimize future casualties would be preferable to an atrocity intended to just destroy someone who has angered us. I was thinking of Genghis's habit of severely punishing cities that refused to cooperate and being relatively merciful to those that surrendered. I had in fact forgotten about the aspect frazzled pointed out.
Unlike Mr. Khan, we are not trying to conquer the world, so we don't need to destroy countries to make the rest surrender.
Frazzled wrote:Right. So what makes the life of a US Soldier worth more than that over anyone else? Or 20 anybodys?
***They are US soldiers. Duh! This aint rocket science kid.
And again you hide your frankly disgusting point of view behind jokes.
++++Wait, you thought I was joking? You have a better sense of humor than I do. I would think your troops would hope you support them similarly, but they would be wrong I guess.
Look, even you have to admit that no amount of warped logic can fairly compare the two situations. Japan actually surrender, Germany was stormed.
***I can actually. Germany surrendered after getting its ass kicked. Japan would not have surrendered unless it got its ass kicked. The bombs and the Soviet invasion helped prevent that and thdreds of thousands to millions of Japanese that would have died.
Nazi Germany did not surrender until there was virtually no Nazi Germany left. Japan is entirely different, with talks of peace occuring before the dropping of the A-bombs and Soviet invasion. And even after those events, when they surrendered (almost) unconditionally, the government and armed forces were still intact.
+++No different. They were still killing Americans.
I am also 87% sure that Gitzbah was demonstrating a point as to how the ends don't justify the means.
++++They don’t? You’re so cute. You really are a pie in the sky guy teenager aren’t you. I hear the Obama administration is hiring.
I am a history major in my third year of study and have done some upper level courses in this subject specifically, so i wanted to give my two cents. What many people do not realize is that the Japanese had attempted to surrender prior to this, only their terms were not acceptable to the American government. Also, the idea that the entire population of Japan and its armed forces still had a high moral at this point is untrue. The Japanese, at this stage in the war, had begun drafting old men, and intelectuals, the cream of their universities, into front line units. I imagine many of these same individuals were supportive of the war in the early days, but as one might imagine did not enjoy being at the front. This, coupled with the complete lack of food and supply( most japanese equipment, which I have examined pieces of, was complete garbage) of Japanese troops, led to very low moral in parts of the Japanese army during the final stages of the war. Banzai charges, which were the hallmark of Japanese fanatacism, were almost non existant by this stage in the war. It is true that the Japanese soldiers on the front were reluctant to surrender, fearing reprisa(rightfully so)l from the vengeful peoples they had opressed. It was also often true that these soldiers were given no chance to surrender. American troops, having fallen victim to suicide bombers in the form of surrendering soldiers, were sometimes more likely to take a flamethrower to a bunker or gun down enemy soldiers for their own safety. It is also hard to deny that the United States desired some form of revenge for Pear Harbor. A very informative film that will put this in perfect perspective is called "Nobi" or "Fires on the Plain", it is based of memoirs of a Japanese Soldier in the late stages of the war.
I am an ardent patriot, and love my country deeply. It is true, in my opinion, that the A bomb brought the war to a swift end, saving the lives of countless American soldiers and halting further crimes against humanity in territory occupied by the Japanese. However, every time I ask myself the question, "Would I have done it", I can never come up with an answer
Check out the World at War Episode on the Bomb. Its much closer to the timeline and has manay of the parties involved (on both sides) and their thinking.
Japan did not deserve to save face by dictating the terms of their surrender, they needed to be humbled and humiliated!
Spoken like a true nationalist.
What? I'm not a nationalist, quite the opposite actually. Anybody that believes that the Japanese were really ready to surrender before the bombs were dropped really does not grasp the Japanese military mentality. They wanted to go down in a blaze of glory in order to satisfy their honor. The Japanese commanders wanted surrender to favorable terms, if they were going to surrender at all. They were willing to go down and inflict massive casualties in order to force the allies to the bargaining table. The bomb made that unnecessary!
No matter how (in)capable or (un)willing the Japanese military was at the time there would have more US casualties in any aggressive US invasion of mainland Japan, followed by years of guerrilla war (hell some held their positions into the 70's) and resistance to occupation, of that there can be no doubt. Costing the lives of many many, US soldiers and Japanese civilians, not t mention costing millions if not billions of additional money.
I don't know the exact list of Japanese terms of surrender, but I'm sure they would have included avoiding war crimes charges. These guys were monsters that made the Nazis look like amateurs!
Yes, I feel a US soldier's life is worth more than an enemies life, its worth an infinity of the enemy's lives! THEY ARE THE FRICKIN ENEMY, and they dragged us into this! Yes, I feel a US soldier's life is worth more than a few of the enemy's Civilian's lives. Not an infinite amount, but quite a few.
The fact however is that the bomb saved both US and Japanese lives.
@Andrew your previous statement implies not letting Japanese dictate their terms of surrender was more important than almost 200k japanese civilian lives.
In a previous posts you stated you feel no remorse for a terrible culture and its people...implying of course the japanese were a terrible culture.
While Japanese hegemony was certainly an issue, you continue to make a classic nationalist fallacy by automaticaly assuming your idealogy is superior to another cultures and demonize it's people.
Their nationalist pride valued service to their cause over their lives, but how is that any different than the US or any other nation for that matter?
So all is fair in war is your logic? Again, following this logic how do you feel about the the atrocious attacks of 9/11? To the perpetraters, America and its citizens are a culture of wicked and corrupt people who's nationalism and hegemony is hell bent on controlling the arab regions.
Frazzled wrote:Right. So what makes the life of a US Soldier worth more than that over anyone else? Or 20 anybodys?
***They are US soldiers. Duh! This aint rocket science kid.
So, are you saying US soldiers are more valuable than your children? After all, they fit in the category of "anybody else".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:I'd put the lives of 50,000 American troops over the rest of mankind.
No you wouldn't. If you would, you wouldn't have written the sentence below.
Frazzled wrote:
If you make the mistake of attacking the US or US troops then there should be nothing left of you but salted earth and razed cities. After all WWGKD? (What would Genghis Khan do?)
There are several reasons that no one with actual authority, or sense, would advocate this position.. Among them: killing off everyone who attacked us would leave us without an trading partners, killing off everyone who attacked us would be profoundly expensive, killing off everyone who attacked us would entail the deaths of an incredible amount of American citizens.
Frazzled is the worst kind of armchair general, bloodthirsty and insulated from his beliefs by the people who would actually have to do what he is proposing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:No different. They were still killing Americans.
Americans kill Americans all the time, clearly America should declare total war on America.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andrew1975 wrote:
They barely had the resources in the first place, that's what their expansion was about in the first place.
Are you talking about conflict in general, or conflict with the US?
Recall that the existence of more than one government always leads to future conflict.
thedude wrote:@Andrew your previous statement implies not letting Japanese dictate their terms of surrender was more important than almost 200k japanese civilian lives.
In a previous posts you stated you feel no remorse for a terrible culture and its people...implying of course the japanese were a terrible culture.
While Japanese hegemony was certainly an issue, you continue to make a classic nationalist fallacy by automaticaly assuming your idealogy is superior to another cultures and demonize it's people.
Their nationalist pride valued service to their cause over their lives, but how is that any different than the US or any other nation for that matter?
So all is fair in war is your logic? Again, following this logic how do you feel about the the atrocious attacks of 9/11? To the perpetraters, America and its citizens are a culture of wicked and corrupt people who's nationalism and hegemony is hell bent on controlling the arab regions.
All was fair when dealing with the Japanese, they dictated the rules. Nowhere else were allied soldiers forced to fight like that. I personally know US soldiers that fought in Japan and Europe, the marines that fought the Japanese have the worst horror stories (the ones they will share anyway).
If you read any of my other posts, you will note that I'm not interventionist, I am no were near a nationalist. But when you are forced to fight a vicious enemy, they need to be dealt with accordingly.
The perpetrates of 911 deserve and Osama type death. Luckily they are a very small percentage of arabs. If a nation like Iran pulled off the 911 attack I would have no remorse for any US retaliation. If it came to it, nukeing them into submission wouldn't be off the table depending on how the war went (if we felt we could pull it off without starting WWIII). I'm sure you would advocate turning the other cheek though right! How enlightened of you!
There are delusional people all over the place, I can't explain their motivations anymore than I can explain your delusions about the Japanese. If Arab leaders like Osama want to use the US as the great satan so that they can build a cult of personality made up of ignorant tribal hill arabs, well I can't do anything about that anymore than I can stop American neo-Nazis from brainwashing desperate white people, by convincing them that Jesus (who was NOT WHITE BY THE WAY) was a white supremest.
I love people who shout out about American colonialism, show me one place in the middle east that is a US colony. Iraq? Really? There are alot of deranged people all over the world, I have no issue with taking them out when they pose a threat to civilized society and humanity in general.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Are you talking about conflict in general, or conflict with the US?
Recall that the existence of more than one government always leads to future conflict.
I would consider any conflict in general the Japanese would have entered into thinking they could get away with these same code of conduct they had in WWII. That idea that that was an acceptable way to fight a war and be rewarded with favorable surrender terms is irresponsible and unacceptable.
Andrew1975 wrote:
I would consider any conflict in general the Japanese would have entered into thinking they could get away with these same code of conduct they had in WWII. That idea that that was an acceptable way to fight a war and be rewarded with favorable surrender terms is irresponsible and unacceptable.
So you're saying that any general conflict was an implicit conflict with the US?
Andrew1975 wrote:
I would consider any conflict in general the Japanese would have entered into thinking they could get away with these same code of conduct they had in WWII. That idea that that was an acceptable way to fight a war and be rewarded with favorable surrender terms is irresponsible and unacceptable.
So you're saying that any general conflict was an implicit conflict with the US?
I'm saying a belligerent Japan was EVIL. You know I'm not big on intervention in most cases. I am however about stopping a war once we are attacked, in the quickest way possible. If that means the enemy suffers disproportionately, let it be a warning to others that we don't play around. I'm not blood thirsty, I think its great that we didn't have to eradicate the Japanese and all of their culture and history off the face of the planet. We might of had to if it wasn't for the bombs.
I didn't care about Iraq going into Kuwait, until it was shown how the Iraqi's were going on a kill crazy murder spree. Countries can fight each other all they want as far as I'm concerned. But there have got to be standards. If someone chooses to involve us by means of direct attack, and fights in unconscionable ways, I feel it is irresponsible to expose our soldiers to that kind of treatment.
If someone, especially as brutal as WWII Japan were to attack us or our allies, then yes they need to be dealt with.
That's where we're going to differ then. I don't believe evil is a sensible concept, and I'm not concerned with the actions done to others except as they impact my hedon count (hedonism is awesome). Though, really, its pretty easy to impact my hedon count via the chain of human connectivity.
dogma wrote:That's where we're going to differ then. I don't believe evil is a sensible concept, and I'm not concerned with the actions done to others except as they impact my hedon count (hedonism is awesome). Though, really, its pretty easy to impact my hedon count via the chain of human connectivity.
That's fine, we know you have no principles. At least you honest about it. I just don't think it is right to expose our soldiers, especially drafted soldiers to undue harm and suffering when we can just inflict it on an enemy that has shown contempt for the rules of relatively civilized war.
Dogma, Logically you must see the wisdom of inflicting pain on your enemy rather than inflicting pain on both your allies and your enemy. By pure logic the bomb make sense. I'm also arguing that on a humanitarian level it makes sense. On a military level it makes sense. I really don't see if being anything but a good idea on any level. Maybe not a good idea, lets face it, it sucked to be put in that situation, but the best idea.
If you force me to choose between inflicting suffering on my team or your team, how could you be surprised I pick your team. You forced the decision! I didn't even want to be there.
I'm saying a belligerent Japan was EVIL. You know I'm not big on intervention in most cases. I am however about stopping a war once we are attacked, in the quickest way possible. If that means the enemy suffers disproportionately, let it be a warning to others that we don't play around. I'm not blood thirsty, I think its great that we didn't have to eradicate the Japanese and all of their culture and history off the face of the planet. We might of had to if it wasn't for the bombs.
I didn't care about Iraq going into Kuwait, until it was shown how the Iraqi's were going on a kill crazy murder spree. Countries can fight each other all they want as far as I'm concerned. But there have got to be standards. If someone chooses to involve us by means of direct attack, and fights in unconscionable ways, I feel it is irresponsible to expose our soldiers to that kind of treatment.
If someone, especially as brutal as WWII Japan were to attack us or our allies, then yes they need to be dealt with.
You are missing the point. All of your arguments are extremely subjective and your logic does not hold up. If you hold your nation to the same standard as you do Japan then your whole argument crumbles so you ignore half of the facts in support of your opinion while justifying the actions of your country. Every so called ' evil ' you can show, someone can show you something worse the US has done or another country has done. As I have stated before, I love my country (and I certinaly dont value Japan above America) but that does not mean I am willifully blind to the facts.
I'm saying a belligerent Japan was EVIL. You know I'm not big on intervention in most cases. I am however about stopping a war once we are attacked, in the quickest way possible. If that means the enemy suffers disproportionately, let it be a warning to others that we don't play around. I'm not blood thirsty, I think its great that we didn't have to eradicate the Japanese and all of their culture and history off the face of the planet. We might of had to if it wasn't for the bombs.
I didn't care about Iraq going into Kuwait, until it was shown how the Iraqi's were going on a kill crazy murder spree. Countries can fight each other all they want as far as I'm concerned. But there have got to be standards. If someone chooses to involve us by means of direct attack, and fights in unconscionable ways, I feel it is irresponsible to expose our soldiers to that kind of treatment.
If someone, especially as brutal as WWII Japan were to attack us or our allies, then yes they need to be dealt with.
You are missing the point. All of your arguments are extremely subjective and your logic does not hold up. If you hold your nation to the same standard as you do Japan then your whole argument crumbles so you ignore half of the facts in support of your opinion while justifying the actions of your country. Every so called ' evil ' you can show, someone can show you something worse the US has done or another country has done. As I have stated before, I love my country (and I certinaly dont value Japan above America) but that does not mean I am willifully blind to the facts.
You are missing the point, and I dare say you are very blind to the facts! I dare you to find US atrocities like the rape of nanking or the bataan death march (besides what we did to the American Indians, but I've covered that in the past). Yes the US has done some gakky and underhanded things. But nothing like on the level that was institutionally and more frighteningly culturally mandated by the Japanese. Usually the gakky things we do are political, in war the (post American Indians) US with a few minor exceptions is usually pretty well under control and even goes after it's own war criminals, that have never, by the way done anything on the scale that most other militaries have.
You hold the typical White American quilt, that would let our enemies fight anyway they want but would crucify our soldiers if they inflict one accidental civilian casualty. Get over it.
Other countries and the US have done worse than the Japanese? When, not in modern history! Prove it! Maybe the Germans, we let the Russians have them, a fate in many ways worse than dropping the bomb.
Andrew1975 wrote:
Dogma, Logically you must see the wisdom of inflicting pain on your enemy rather than inflicting pain on both your allies and your enemy. By pure logic the bomb make sense. I'm also arguing that on a humanitarian level it makes sense. On a military level it makes sense. I really don't see if being anything but a good idea on any level. Maybe not a good idea, lets face it, it sucked to be put in that situation, but the best idea.
Remember, my contention isn't that we should have invaded instead, my contention is that the only reason the choices were so limited was due to the influence of "big, masculine, American men."
Andrew1975 wrote:
Dogma, Logically you must see the wisdom of inflicting pain on your enemy rather than inflicting pain on both your allies and your enemy. By pure logic the bomb make sense. I'm also arguing that on a humanitarian level it makes sense. On a military level it makes sense. I really don't see if being anything but a good idea on any level. Maybe not a good idea, lets face it, it sucked to be put in that situation, but the best idea.
Remember, my contention isn't that we should have invaded instead, my contention is that the only reason the choices were so limited was due to the influence of "big, masculine, American men."
That's a strange stance from you. Usually I can see the logic in your arguments. This is a blatant appeal to emotion and or ego. Something I find very alien from you. Now you may ne saying tat tat was their argument. But it really seams far too base and even simplistic to be taken seriously, could you expound on it.
We didn't need to make Japan surrender on our terms, their terms were just as favorable to us. The issue wasn't Japan and its holdings, it was our own desire to appear strong for the Soviets, and ourselves. Had we simply let Japan have the holdings it wanted no one would have died by our hands, and we could have returned to our soon to be minted suburbs, and bad television.
The point I'm making is that the identity we promulgated during the war constrained our choices at the end, and that we should be mindful of how we construct our identity in the future as a result. Of course I didn't really address that last part until now, but it was in the back of my mind.
dogma wrote:We didn't need to make Japan surrender on our terms, their terms were just as favorable to us. The issue wasn't Japan and its holdings, it was our own desire to appear strong for the Soviets, and ourselves. Had we simply let Japan have the holdings it wanted no one would have died by our hands, and we could have returned to our soon to be minted suburbs, and bad television.
The point I'm making is that the identity we promulgated during the war constrained our choices at the end, and that we should be mindful of how we construct our identity in the future as a result. Of course I didn't really address that last part until now, but it was in the back of my mind.
I'm not sure I agree with 1. Their terms being acceptable. 2. That they would have complied with them even if they had surrendered.
You had most of the Japanese higher ups favoring a death or glory final assault, to the point that they staged a coup even after both bombs were dropped and Russia invaded Manchuko. I'm sorry but their past actions suggest that they would not have surrendered until they were completely dishonored, leaving them no honor to fight for anymore.
I'm sure showing off to the Russians and the rest of the world was part of it. I'm sure the desire to test a new weapon was part of it too. But as far as I'm concerned these were just cherries on the top of an already best solution to a terrible situation. Making it the best ideas at the time.
The facts that historically it has proven to be an even better idea are again cherries. Those bombs saved many lives from seeing the future of nuclear holocaust and have kept the world in a pretty peaceful state.
Frazzled wrote:Right. So what makes the life of a US Soldier worth more than that over anyone else? Or 20 anybodys?
***They are US soldiers. Duh! This aint rocket science kid.
And again you hide your frankly disgusting point of view behind jokes.
++++Wait, you thought I was joking? You have a better sense of humor than I do. I would think your troops would hope you support them similarly, but they would be wrong I guess.
Support my countrymen in the massacre of civilians? To hell with that.
Look, even you have to admit that no amount of warped logic can fairly compare the two situations. Japan actually surrender, Germany was stormed.
***I can actually. Germany surrendered after getting its ass kicked. Japan would not have surrendered unless it got its ass kicked. The bombs and the Soviet invasion helped prevent that and thdreds of thousands to millions of Japanese that would have died.
Nazi Germany did not surrender until there was virtually no Nazi Germany left. Japan is entirely different, with talks of peace occuring before the dropping of the A-bombs and Soviet invasion. And even after those events, when they surrendered (almost) unconditionally, the government and armed forces were still intact.
+++No different. They were still killing Americans.
The Native Americans were killing Colonial (White) Americans. I guess this justifies everything you did to them.
I am also 87% sure that Gitzbah was demonstrating a point as to how the ends don't justify the means.
++++They don’t? You’re so cute. You really are a pie in the sky guy teenager aren’t you. I hear the Obama administration is hiring.
I don't think either party, both having some sort of sanity, would advocate the US obliterating 1 city to have 5 others surrender peacefully. If they did then the accussations of American Imperialism would hold a lot more water.
The ultimate goal of the US was to end the war quickly and with minimal US casualties.
Peace talks are something I've heard of, but the US found these to be too slow.
SEPARATE SUBJECT:
I also have to agree with Frazzled a bit. We would all place our people above others. We would all also like to say that we don't. But when it comes down to that point, a few of us or a lot of them, how much do their lives compare to ours?
Emperors Faithful wrote:The Native Americans were killing Colonial (White) Americans. I guess this justifies everything you did to them.
Some of it, yes. Things like uprooting culturally assimilated groups to steal their land was inexcusable, because they were citizens and were acting like any other citizens; it would be like bulldozing Baltimore and marching the residents to Mexico. Annihilating or relocating tribes that were in violent opposition to America, who were squatting on usable land doing no more than low-intensity horticulture or hunting, was justified, as much as any conquest is.
They don’t? You’re so cute. You really are a pie in the sky guy teenager aren’t you. I hear the Obama administration is hiring.
You mean the administration that has both toned down the counter-productive posturing and rhetoric, and presided over an increase in the use of effective methods, like unmanned drones that use bombs to perform targeted assassination of hostiles, instead of risking US lives and equipment in exchange for increased collateral damage? I don't believe they have any use or patience for ineffectual idealism either.
The America that instituted the holocaust against the American Indians is hardly the same America that fought during WWI or WWII. That America was more a left over product of European colonialism than any separate American Ideology. The American Indians are the only people that I feel deserve any kind of apology for American colonialist ideals in particular and warfare in general.
Emperors Faithful, I'm still waiting for that list of atrocities and war crimes that the US has perpetrated besides the above American Indian Holocaust, that somehow approaches the same levels of Germany or Japan. Where is your "in the know" information?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
Andrew1975 wrote:
I'm not sure I agree with 1. Their terms being acceptable.
Sure, but why weren't they acceptable? They were favorable, as I said, but what made command say no?
I've explained they let Japan save face by dictating the terms of their own surrender. I've already explained why I found that irresponsible to let them continue with their honor code intact.
Andrew1975 wrote:
2. That they would have complied with them even if they had surrendered.
Why not? They were their terms, after all.
They were more the Emperor's terms. They military and government did not see eye to eye with the Emperor on this. I believe I've mentioned the coup before. Had they had any honor left, it would not have allowed them to accept a surrender and occupation.
Andrew1975 wrote: That America was more a left over product of European colonialism than any separate American Ideology.
Manifest Destiny is an American Ideology. Europeans never had a dedicated plan to force Native Americans off their lands like we did (EDIT: Clarification. The French and the Brits didn't. Can't say I'm well versed in Spanish, Dutch, and Portugese colonial history but then none of them can really be said to have a profound influence on American history for the relevant period).
P.S. Let's not throw the Holocaust around. We treated the natives like crap but we didn't load them into gas chambers and kill them in the millions with the marvels of modern industry. That's two different scales of awful.
"Holocaust" simply means "mass destruction, almost always through fire". Which does mean describing American activities against the native tribes as a holocaust is a bit of a misnomer, and ironically "The Holocaust" is also somewhat of a misnomer, as it was carried out with bullets, abuse (starvation and overwork), and poison, with fire only coming into the equation in the form of crematoriums. On the other hand, firebombings of cities could be accurately described as holocausts, as could the two nuclear weapons (at least in a localized sense, in both cases), and indeed perhaps the second most common usage of the term is in the phrase "(thermo)nuclear holocaust".
Sir Pseudonymous wrote:"Holocaust" simply means "mass destruction, almost always through fire". Which does mean describing American activities against the native tribes as a holocaust is a bit of a misnomer, and ironically "The Holocaust" is also somewhat of a misnomer, as it was carried out with bullets, abuse (starvation and overwork), and poison, with fire only coming into the equation in the form of crematoriums. On the other hand, firebombings of cities could be accurately described as holocausts, as could the two nuclear weapons (at least in a localized sense, in both cases), and indeed perhaps the second most common usage of the term is in the phrase "(thermo)nuclear holocaust".
The word Holocaust has a meaning like any other word but the term itself has become inseparably tied to a specific historical event. It is useless for anything else from the historical perspective other than maybe metaphor/comparison but there are few incidents in history comparable to the Holocaust.
Using it for other events or series' of events inevitably leads to false comparisons and bad implications. In this case, comparing the oppression of the Native Americans by the US Government over American history to the Holocaust is just wrong. The two events have very little in common besides "bad stuff happened to this group because this group didn't like them" which is a sentence so general it tells us nothing about what actually happened in either case.
Ethnocide is the most accurate term for what happened to Native Americans (and in some ways is still happening)
Andrew1975 wrote: That America was more a left over product of European colonialism than any separate American Ideology.
Manifest Destiny is an American Ideology. Europeans never had a dedicated plan to force Native Americans off their lands like we did (EDIT: Clarification. The French and the Brits didn't. Can't say I'm well versed in Spanish, Dutch, and Portugese colonial history but then none of them can really be said to have a profound influence on American history for the relevant period).
Really? Because I'm pretty sure the first people that started killing American Indians were not Americans! I'm pretty sure the first people that lived in the 13 colonies were for the most part European! Hence the word colonies!
P.S. Let's not throw the Holocaust around. We treated the natives like crap but we didn't load them into gas chambers and kill them in the millions with the marvels of modern industry. That's two different scales of awful.
Yeah we just gave them infected blankets drove them off their land, killed all their livestock and sent them on things like the trail of tears, when we weren't just outright murdering them. We attempted to systematically wipe the indigenous people of America off the face of the planet. It was genocide and I'll continue to call it a Holocaust, thanks! We invented scalping for christ sakes, it's funny that so many think that that was an American Indian thing.
The only documented case of someone even thinking about the whole smallpox blankets was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffery_Amherst#Legacy - a brit. Other than that it's all anecdotal, and generally dismissed. Accidental exposure was enough to do the damage.
Andrew1975 wrote:Yeah we just gave them infected blankets and sent them on things like the trail of tears!
So you agree with me on that it wasn't Europeans? Nice.
The infected blankets thing is a massive historical fiction. It has spread to monstrous proportions based on a British plan to end Pontiac's Rebellion by giving them blankets from a fort infected with smallpox but there is no evidence the plan was ever executed (the only evidence is circumstantial). There are numerous instances of Native American's getting small pox from blankets, but no evidence that any of them were caused by an effort to deliberately infect them. EDIT: In fact, there are numerous instances of settlers and traders warning Natives to stay away from smallpox infected posts (which they often ignored) and a plan in the early 1800's to vaccinate them against smallpox (that went underfunded) No evidence has ever been produced the the United States government had an official or unofficial policy to commit genocide against Native Americans.
The goal of the Trail of Tears was not to massacre the Native American tribes involved. Just to move them. It's an ethnocide, not a genocide. Really, the relationship between the United States government and Native Americans is more one of a lack of carry for their well being than one desiring their extermination. Not to suggest some American's wouldn't have minded exterminating them Jackson *cough* *cough* who seems relevant to this wouldn't have minded but he never enact policy to kill them, just relocate them and generally no give a damn about their well being. Genocide is deliberate. Trail of Tears is not the Holocaust and was not a genocide. It was an Ethnocide.
Bromsy wrote:See that black blur out the corner of your eye, LordofHats? That was you being ninja'd
Son of a
EDIT: Seriously though. Small pox infect blankets is up there with the M1 Garand's ping getting GI's killed on the list of most widely believed historical BS.
Andrew1975 wrote:Yeah we just gave them infected blankets and sent them on things like the trail of tears!
So you agree with me on that it wasn't Europeans? Nice.
The infected blankets thing is a massive historical fiction. It has spread to monstrous proportions based on a British plan to end Pontiac's Rebellion by giving them blankets from a fort infected with smallpox but there is no evidence the plan was ever executed (the only evidence is circumstantial). There are numerous instances of Native American's getting small pox from blankets, but no evidence that any of them were caused by an effort to deliberately infect them. EDIT: In fact, there are numerous instances of settlers and traders warning Natives to stay away from smallpox infected posts (which they often ignored) and a plan in the early 1800's to vaccinate them against smallpox (that went underfunded) No evidence has ever been produced the the United States government had an official or unofficial policy to commit genocide against Native Americans.
The goal of the Trail of Tears was not to massacre the Native American tribes involved. Just to move them. It's an ethnocide, not a genocide. Really, the relationship between the United States government and Native Americans is more one of a lack of carry for their well being than one desiring their extermination. Not to suggest some American's wouldn't have minded exterminating them Jackson *cough* *cough* who seems relevant to this wouldn't have minded but he never enact policy to kill them, just relocate them and generally no give a damn about their well being. Genocide is deliberate. Trail of Tears is not the Holocaust and was not a genocide. It was an Ethnocide.
The smallpox balnkets were fiction, however disease was used as a weapon against the american natives since the Spanish. They would often deliberately infect south american and killed many ore from disease then warfare. Also look on the spanish treatment of natives (complete dicks). Though we may have caught gonorrhea and other STIs from the natives, so they did have some revenge
youbedead wrote:The smallpox balnkets were faction, however disease was used as a weapon against the american natives since the Spanish. They would often deliberately infect south american and killed many ore from disease then warfare. Also look on the spanish treatment of natives (complete dicks). Though we may have caught gonorrhea and other STIs from the natives, so they did have some revenge
Oh, I'm aware of what happened after the fall of the Aztecs. Pretty crappy living for the natives
After that I get kind of fuzzy on the details cause my class was about US History which the Spanish colonies are less important. Something about Cinco de Mayo and tacos.
Kasrkai wrote:SEPARATE SUBJECT:
I also have to agree with Frazzled a bit. We would all place our people above others. We would all also like to say that we don't. But when it comes down to that point, a few of us or a lot of them, how much do their lives compare to ours?
Not that I agree with you (I would swap 3 law-breaking Australians for 1 good Iranian to live in my neighborhood) but I think he's taking this a little further than that.
Andrew1975 wrote:Emperors Faithful, I'm still waiting for that list of atrocities and war crimes that the US has perpetrated besides the above American Indian Holocaust, that somehow approaches the same levels of Germany or Japan. Where is your "in the know" information?
So after listing the atrocities against the American Indians you come back with "That doesn't count"?
And I would say that the indiscriminate bombing of Japan and the use of Nuclear weapons was in fact a war crime. It's been justified by the winning side, just in the same way that the Holocaust would have been somehow justified if the Germans had won.
Andrew1975 wrote:
Really? Because I'm pretty sure the first people that started killing American Indians were not Americans! I'm pretty sure the first people that lived in the 13 colonies were for the most part European! Hence the word colonies!
Yeah, White Americans certainly weren't the first to go about killing Native Americans. But they were certainly the first to break the peace treaties set up by the French and British in the interests of expansion on the level of something we've never seen before.
EDIT: Historically Britain has always proven to be more concerned with the natives of a particular colony than the actual governing colonists there. (The case of Australia and the Caribbean assets reflect this).
Emperors Faithful, I'm still waiting for that list of atrocities and war crimes that the US has perpetrated besides the above American Indian Holocaust, that somehow approaches the same levels of Germany or Japan. Where is your "in the know" information?
So after listing the atrocities against the American Indians you come back with "That doesn't count"?
And I would say that the indiscriminate bombing of Japan and the use of Nuclear weapons was in fact a war crime. It's been justified by the winning side, just in the same way that the Holocaust would have been somehow justified if the Germans had won.
No you can't use the American Indians, that wasn't America, I've explained that. You also can't use the nuke because that is the topic currently being debated. The Dude said and you seamed to agree that
"Every so called ' evil ' you can show, someone can show you something worse the US has done or another country has done."
I'm just looking for that list. The list of atrocities that shows that America was Evil and did what it did because it has some sort of track record of being the worlds evil country.
I love how people that are defending the Japanese, seam to think that wiping American Indians of the face of the planet was just an inconsiderate accident. "Opps sorry guys, didn't mean to kill you all!" Really was an Indian reservation that different from an interment camp? At least Japanese Americans got a chance to live normally first and were reintegrated afterword. I mean at least Imperial Japan asked for it, the American Indians were just here first!
Yeah, White Americans certainly weren't the first to go about killing Native Americans. But they were certainly the first to break the peace treaties set up by the French and British in the interests of expansion on the level of something we've never seen before.
Really, Americans in name only, I bet most of those people breaking the treaties were born Europeans or at most first generation Americans. Hardly long enough to have formed a separate American identity.
LordofHats wrote:The goal of the Trail of Tears was not to massacre the Native American tribes involved. Just to move them. It's an ethnocide, not a genocide. Really, the relationship between the United States government and Native Americans is more one of a lack of carry for their well being than one desiring their extermination. Not to suggest some American's wouldn't have minded exterminating them Jackson *cough* *cough* who seems relevant to this wouldn't have minded but he never enact policy to kill them, just relocate them and generally no give a damn about their well being. Genocide is deliberate. Trail of Tears is not the Holocaust and was not a genocide. It was an Ethnocide.
As I recall, the specific atrocity of the Trail of Tears was that it was committed on culturally assimilated natives, who could no longer justly be called native tribesmen. They weren't primitive horticulturalists and nomads who were wasting usable land and posing a threat as a separate sovereign entity, but semi-affluent landowners who considered themselves part of America, and who lived exactly as any other Americans did. It would be like evicting everyone in Louisiana and marching them off to Mexico so their possessions could be given to wealthy Texans or something.
But, trying to lay blame on a more recent America for these things is fallacious. Sort of like if one were to blame the modern french for Napoleon's imperialism, or modern Russia for Stalin's purges. A not-insignificant percentage of Americans by WWII were descended from people who had yet to immigrate when all this was going on, meaning there's an even greater disparity between them than there is in the European examples. Likewise, one cannot blame modern Japan for things like the Rape of Nanking, mostly because we personally destroyed everyone responsible, which we could do because they unconditionally surrendered, which they did out of existential terror in the face of a weapon that could completely annihilate their entire nation without risk to our troops, and which we proved willing enough to use on them.
LordofHats wrote:The goal of the Trail of Tears was not to massacre the Native American tribes involved. Just to move them. It's an ethnocide, not a genocide. Really, the relationship between the United States government and Native Americans is more one of a lack of carry for their well being than one desiring their extermination. Not to suggest some American's wouldn't have minded exterminating them Jackson *cough* *cough* who seems relevant to this wouldn't have minded but he never enact policy to kill them, just relocate them and generally no give a damn about their well being. Genocide is deliberate. Trail of Tears is not the Holocaust and was not a genocide. It was an Ethnocide.
As I recall, the specific atrocity of the Trail of Tears was that it was committed on culturally assimilated natives, who could no longer justly be called native tribesmen. They weren't primitive horticulturalists and nomads who were wasting usable land and posing a threat as a separate sovereign entity, but semi-affluent landowners who considered themselves part of America, and who lived exactly as any other Americans did. It would be like evicting everyone in Louisiana and marching them off to Mexico so their possessions could be given to wealthy Texans or something.
But, trying to lay blame on a more recent America for these things is fallacious. Sort of like if one were to blame the modern french for Napoleon's imperialism, or modern Russia for Stalin's purges. A not-insignificant percentage of Americans by WWII were descended from people who had yet to immigrate when all this was going on, meaning there's an even greater disparity between them than there is in the European examples. Likewise, one cannot blame modern Japan for things like the Rape of Nanking, mostly because we personally destroyed everyone responsible, which we could do because they unconditionally surrendered, which they did out of existential terror in the face of a weapon that could completely annihilate their entire nation without risk to our troops, and which we proved willing enough to use on them.
But thing is they might have not surrendered if the Soviets didn't declare war on them and prepared to invade Japan after defeating thier forces on mainland Asia .
The Bombs may have helped end the war but what most US media leaves out is that the Japanese surrendered 6 days after the bombs were dropped because the Soviet Union was about to Invade with roughly 1,500,000 Troops.
LordofHats wrote:The goal of the Trail of Tears was not to massacre the Native American tribes involved. Just to move them. It's an ethnocide, not a genocide. Really, the relationship between the United States government and Native Americans is more one of a lack of carry for their well being than one desiring their extermination. Not to suggest some American's wouldn't have minded exterminating them Jackson *cough* *cough* who seems relevant to this wouldn't have minded but he never enact policy to kill them, just relocate them and generally no give a damn about their well being. Genocide is deliberate. Trail of Tears is not the Holocaust and was not a genocide. It was an Ethnocide.
As I recall, the specific atrocity of the Trail of Tears was that it was committed on culturally assimilated natives, who could no longer justly be called native tribesmen. They weren't primitive horticulturalists and nomads who were wasting usable land and posing a threat as a separate sovereign entity, but semi-affluent landowners who considered themselves part of America, and who lived exactly as any other Americans did. It would be like evicting everyone in Louisiana and marching them off to Mexico so their possessions could be given to wealthy Texans or something.
But, trying to lay blame on a more recent America for these things is fallacious. Sort of like if one were to blame the modern french for Napoleon's imperialism, or modern Russia for Stalin's purges. A not-insignificant percentage of Americans by WWII were descended from people who had yet to immigrate when all this was going on, meaning there's an even greater disparity between them than there is in the European examples. Likewise, one cannot blame modern Japan for things like the Rape of Nanking, mostly because we personally destroyed everyone responsible, which we could do because they unconditionally surrendered, which they did out of existential terror in the face of a weapon that could completely annihilate their entire nation without risk to our troops, and which we proved willing enough to use on them.
But thing is they might have not surrendered if the Soviets didn't declare war on them and prepared to invade Japan after defeating thier forces on mainland Asia .
The Bombs may have helped end the war but what most US media leaves out is that the Japanese surrendered 6 days after the bombs were dropped because the Soviet Union was about to Invade with roughly 1,500,000 Troops.
The emperor surrendered because of the bombs, his cabinet would have loved for Russia to invade. Like I said they were looking for a glorious death and the ability to inflict so much damage that they could force the allies to accept their conditions of surrender. The Japanese should be grateful it never came to that.
I was also using the infected blankets and trail of tears as examples that most people know about. I also listed other nasty actions. Much of the damage was done originally by filthy European plague bearers. The English being famous for bathing twice in a lifetime once at birth and once at death, and the french being famous for bathing in perfume!
LordofHats wrote:The goal of the Trail of Tears was not to massacre the Native American tribes involved. Just to move them. It's an ethnocide, not a genocide. Really, the relationship between the United States government and Native Americans is more one of a lack of carry for their well being than one desiring their extermination. Not to suggest some American's wouldn't have minded exterminating them Jackson *cough* *cough* who seems relevant to this wouldn't have minded but he never enact policy to kill them, just relocate them and generally no give a damn about their well being. Genocide is deliberate. Trail of Tears is not the Holocaust and was not a genocide. It was an Ethnocide.
As I recall, the specific atrocity of the Trail of Tears was that it was committed on culturally assimilated natives, who could no longer justly be called native tribesmen. They weren't primitive horticulturalists and nomads who were wasting usable land and posing a threat as a separate sovereign entity, but semi-affluent landowners who considered themselves part of America, and who lived exactly as any other Americans did. It would be like evicting everyone in Louisiana and marching them off to Mexico so their possessions could be given to wealthy Texans or something.
But, trying to lay blame on a more recent America for these things is fallacious. Sort of like if one were to blame the modern french for Napoleon's imperialism, or modern Russia for Stalin's purges. A not-insignificant percentage of Americans by WWII were descended from people who had yet to immigrate when all this was going on, meaning there's an even greater disparity between them than there is in the European examples. Likewise, one cannot blame modern Japan for things like the Rape of Nanking, mostly because we personally destroyed everyone responsible, which we could do because they unconditionally surrendered, which they did out of existential terror in the face of a weapon that could completely annihilate their entire nation without risk to our troops, and which we proved willing enough to use on them.
But thing is they might have not surrendered if the Soviets didn't declare war on them and prepared to invade Japan after defeating thier forces on mainland Asia .
The Bombs may have helped end the war but what most US media leaves out is that the Japanese surrendered 6 days after the bombs were dropped because the Soviet Union was about to Invade with roughly 1,500,000 Troops.
The emperor surrendered because of the bombs, his cabinet would have loved for Russia to invade. Like I said they were looking for a glorious death and the ability to inflict so much damage that they could force the allies to accept their conditions of surrender. The Japanese should be grateful it never came to that.
Thats not intirely true they knew that the Soviets would destroy the Japanese way of life completly the Soviets had already defeated them in China and Mongolia.
The Japnese knew they could hve a better chance surrendering to the Allies then the Soviets.
My point is that many of them were looking for a glorious death in battle. One that the US was not going to give them. It would be oblivion by atomic bombs. Many looked forward to a clash of arms with any of the allies at that point to honorably end their suffering.
The US Goverment as bad as they can be wouldn't wipe out a entire race of people even if they are the enemy.
The Allies really were going for a bluff the whole time.
They knew if they could get the Japanese to Surrender before the Soviets invaded they could insure that Japan would not become a state of the Soviet Union and threaten the US.
The Japanese Military knew they had no chance fighting the Russian's and would mean absolute defeat and destruction of the nation While they knew they could surrender to the Allies and insure they still had a country.
Yak9UT wrote:The US Goverment as bad as they can be wouldn't wipe out a entire race of people even if they are the enemy.
The Allies really were going for a bluff the whole time.
They knew if they could get the Japanese to Surrender before the Soviets invaded they could insure that Japan would not become a state of the Soviet Union and threaten the US.
The Japanese Military knew they had no chance fighting the Russian's and would mean absolute defeat and destruction of the nation While they knew they could surrender to the Allies and insure they still had a country.
If you look that up, it was only a concern of the emperor and a few of the higher ups, most of his aids however wanted the blaze of glory. The US knew the Russians would have walked over Japan with little concern for the Japanese or their own casualties. This was not an option the US was going to allow. The bomb was a blessing.
Yak9UT wrote:The US Goverment as bad as they can be wouldn't wipe out a entire race of people even if they are the enemy.
The Allies really were going for a bluff the whole time.
They knew if they could get the Japanese to Surrender before the Soviets invaded they could insure that Japan would not become a state of the Soviet Union and threaten the US.
The Japanese Military knew they had no chance fighting the Russian's and would mean absolute defeat and destruction of the nation While they knew they could surrender to the Allies and insure they still had a country.
If you look that up, it was only a concern of the emperor and a few of the higher ups, most of his aids however wanted the blaze of glory. The US knew the Russians would have walked over Japan with little concern for the Japanese or their own casualties. This was not an option the US was going to allow. The bomb was a blessing.
I'm sure some Japanese Officials would have fought to the death but the fact is the Japanese surrended 6 days after the bombs fell after they found out about the planned soviet invasion of Japan.
Had the Soviets not planned to invade as they did Japan may have never surrended to the Allies and perhaps The Allies would Bomb Japan but they would not destroy an entire race of people and America would have no choose but to invade Japan.
I like to think we wouldn't have, no. We also didn't have many more bombs ready for a while. Could have gone back to fire bombing I suppose, which was actually far worse. If the choice was then US invasion or let the Russians have them, I think I have to go with let the Russians have them.
Andrew1975 wrote:I like to think we wouldn't have, no. We also didn't have many more bombs ready for a while. If the choice was then US invasion or let the Russians have them, I think I have to go with let the Russians have them.
The Allie command felt it would be unaceptable to allow the Soviets control Japan.
Although they had an alliance with the Soviets they disliked comminisn and hated stalin. they felt if the Soviets gained control to Japan they could potentialnally invade/attack the US and also have stronghold in Asia were they could spread thier regime.
Emperors Faithful, I'm still waiting for that list of atrocities and war crimes that the US has perpetrated besides the above American Indian Holocaust, that somehow approaches the same levels of Germany or Japan. Where is your "in the know" information?
So after listing the atrocities against the American Indians you come back with "That doesn't count"?
And I would say that the indiscriminate bombing of Japan and the use of Nuclear weapons was in fact a war crime. It's been justified by the winning side, just in the same way that the Holocaust would have been somehow justified if the Germans had won.
No you can't use the American Indians, that wasn't America, I've explained that. You also can't use the nuke because that is the topic currently being debated. The Dude said and you seamed to agree that
"Every so called ' evil ' you can show, someone can show you something worse the US has done or another country has done."
I personally don't agree with this statement. The Holocaust conducted by Nazi Germany overshadows anything the Allies or Japan had done, or have done since.
You should also note that Japan didn't actively encourage or order the Rape of Nanking, just as the US did not actively encourage (though there is evidence it was ordered) the massacre of My Lai.
But just as I see no moral superiority in Japan over the Allies in their conduct, nor do I see why the US should claim any sort of moral high ground here.
I'm just looking for that list. The list of atrocities that shows that America was Evil and did what it did because it has some sort of track record of being the worlds evil country.
I love how people that are defending the Japanese, seam to think that wiping American Indians of the face of the planet was just an inconsiderate accident. "Opps sorry guys, didn't mean to kill you all!" Really was an Indian reservation that different from an interment camp? At least Japanese Americans got a chance to live normally first and were reintegrated afterword. I mean at least Imperial Japan asked for it, the American Indians were just here first!
What are you talking about? I hardly think the rounding up and destruction of the Native American's as a people was an accident.
Yeah, White Americans certainly weren't the first to go about killing Native Americans. But they were certainly the first to break the peace treaties set up by the French and British in the interests of expansion on the level of something we've never seen before.
Really, Americans in name only, I bet most of those people breaking the treaties were born Europeans or at most first generation Americans. Hardly long enough to have formed a separate American identity.
This occured after the War of Independance. And the continued persecution continued long after that.
Don't get me wrong, the Australian treatment of Aboriginals mirrors the US treatment of Native Americans darkly. True, the Aboriginals were less populous given the nature of their territories, and the Lost Generation may have even been conducted with the best of intentions (firm in the belief that the Indigenous parents could not manage children properly), but that's a pale excuse. And even though the worst of this persecution occured before Australia became independant, I would never claim it was not Australia's crime.
Neither the US or it's allies were part of the holocaust though. The Germans killed many many people, it would be hard I think to say who killed more between the two. Japan may not have officially sanctioned Nanking, but when you look at the number of atrocities that the Japanese committed it can be assumed that the sanction was implicit if not complicit. If people are gonna hold the US responsible every time a bomb accidentally hits a hut in Afghanistan or Iraq, then certainly the Japanese are guilty of letting their soldiers run amok. Your soldiers don't just kill hundreds of thousands of people on a whim!
As allied mass murderers go I think Uncle Joe wins, but he was a needed ally and those were technically his own people (filthy Georgian) so we let him get away with it. Hell we owe Poland an apology before I feel sorry for the Japanese!
As armies go few if any can compete with the full scale destruction, slaughter and rape that accompanied the Japanese!
People keep bringing up us war records and atrocities, I just don't see it. My lai (500) is like a footnote compared to nanking, (100's of K) even nanking is a footnote to the wholesale slaughter of the Chinese (millions) that the Japanese were doing. The comparison is silly
What are you talking about? I hardly think the rounding up and destruction of the Native American's as a people was an accident.
Read the thread, others equated it to a case of callous indifference or neglect. It's not all about you ya know!
This occured after the War of Independance. And the continued persecution continued long after that.
Sure it did, but that doesn't change that most of these people were still at most first generation if not foreign born.
Andrew1975 wrote:Neither the US or it's allies were part of the holocaust though. The Germans killed many many people, it would be hard I think to say who killed more between the two.
I never suggested in the slightest that they were. Where did you pick that up in my post?
Japan may not have officially sanctioned Nanking, but when you look at the number of atrocities that the Japanese committed it can be assumed that the sanction was implicit if not complicit. As mass murderers go I think Uncle Joe wins, but he was an ally and those were technically his own people (filthy Georgian) so we let him get away with it.
As armies go few if any can compete with the full scale destruction, slaughter and rape that accompanied the Japanese!
Hardly, the US beats Japan in destruction and slaughter with the bombing of Japan.
People keep bringing up us war records and atrocities, I just don't see it. My lai (500)is like a footnote compares to nanking, (100's of K)even nanking is a footnote to the wholesale slaughter of the Chinese that the Japanese were doing. The comparison is silly
I didn't compare My Lai to Nanking as a competition, merely examples. If I really wanted to compare Nanking to something the Allies did I would talk about occupied Japan and the encouragement (and in some cases co-ercion) of prostitution.
What are you talking about? I hardly think the rounding up and destruction of the Native American's as a people was an accident.
Read the thread, others equated it to a case of callous indifference or neglect. It's not all about you ya know!
My mistake, but please make it clear who you are addressing, as that statement seemed to lump me in with it.
This occured after the War of Independance. And the continued persecution continued long after that.
Sure it did, but that doesn't change that most of these people were still at most first generation if not foreign born.
The ones who initially broke the treaty? Or the ones who did far more as the generations rolled by?
I never suggested in the slightest that they were. Where did you pick that up in my post?
"Every so called ' evil ' you can show, someone can show you something worse the US has done or another country has done."
With a statement like that what else was I supposed to think except to imply by comparison that the allies were no angels.? I know it's not your quote, it's the dud's, but you were using it in the tread.
Hardly, the US beats Japan in destruction and slaughter with the bombing of Japan.
What? The Japanes killed more in the rape of Nanking than the US did with both bombs and that is one of thousands of examples of Japanese atrocity!
I didn't compare My Lai to Nanking as a competition, merely examples. If I really wanted to compare Nanking to something the Allies did I would talk about occupied Japan and the encouragement (and in some cases co-ercion) of prostitution.
Yeah, you lost all credibility here. You compare prostitution to rape and murder. You know the Japanese raped over 80k women and children in Nanking alone!
The ones who initially broke the treaty? Or the ones who did far more as the generations rolled by?
And did you even read the rest of my post?
Yeah I read it. Do you know how long it took for America to really have it's own separate Identity instead of a combination of European ideas and mentalities! There were whole regiments of Irish immigrants on both sides of the Civil War. It would be an interesting study to see when America was actually made up mostly of people that had been here for more than two generations much less three or four, hell I'm still only third generation on my dads side. My wife is foreign born!
Emperors Faithful
Hardly, the US beats Japan in destruction and slaughter with the bombing of Japan.
Japan killed many people in China and parts of east Asia estimated at 6,000,000 murdered as well as the POW camps set up that for force labour and for killing many enemy soldiers and civilans.
Much more then what US did to the Japanese with the nukes.
I never suggested in the slightest that they were. Where did you pick that up in my post?
"Every so called ' evil ' you can show, someone can show you something worse the US has done or another country has done."
With a statement like that what else was I supposed to think? I know it's not your quote, it's the dud's, but you were using it in the tread.
Yeah, we've been over this. That wasn't me. And you simply assumed that I completely agreed with him.
Hardly, the US beats Japan in destruction and slaughter with the bombing of Japan.
What? The Japanes killed more in the rape of Nanking than the US did with both bombs and that is one of thousands of examples of Japanese atrocity!
Wiki, not the most reliable source, shows a scattering of estimates on civilian casualties. Anywhere between 300,000 (from air attacks) to 3.6 million in total.
The military casualties are really horrendous, with some estimates approaching 20 million. A great part of this may have been due to the widespread conscription in China.
I didn't compare My Lai to Nanking as a competition, merely examples. If I really wanted to compare Nanking to something the Allies did I would talk about occupied Japan and the encouragement (and in some cases co-ercion) of prostitution.
Yeah, you lost all credibility here. You compare prostitution to rape and murder. You know the Japanese raped over 80k women and children in Nanking alone!
80K? That's a fair bit bigger than the other numbers I've heard.
But we need to get this straight, you do know that prostitution is part of sex trafficking, right? And that some/a lot of those women really didn't want to be trafficked? And wouldn't have if the US didn't occupy Japan.
The ones who initially broke the treaty? Or the ones who did far more as the generations rolled by?
And did you even read the rest of my post?
Yeah I read it. Do you know how long it took for America to really have it's own separate Identity instead of a combination of European ideas and mentalities! There were whole regiments of Irish immigrants on both sides of the Civil War. It would be an interesting study to see when America was actually made up mostly of people that had been here for more than two generations much less three or four, hell I'm still only third generation on my dads side.
So you blame Europe for the poor treatment of the Native Americans, even though France and Britain treated them with far more humanity than the US ever did? After all, Britain, not the US, abolished slavery. Was it the American Identity that decided to keep on going with slavery? Or this wierd European mentality that you keep blaming?
Japan may not have officially sanctioned Nanking, but when you look at the number of atrocities that the Japanese committed it can be assumed that the sanction was implicit if not complicit. As mass murderers go I think Uncle Joe wins, but he was an ally and those were technically his own people (filthy Georgian) so we let him get away with it.
As armies go few if any can compete with the full scale destruction, slaughter and rape that accompanied the Japanese!
Hardly, the US beats Japan in destruction and slaughter with the bombing of Japan.
People keep bringing up us war records and atrocities, I just don't see it. My lai (500)is like a footnote compares to nanking, (100's of K)even nanking is a footnote to the wholesale slaughter of the Chinese that the Japanese were doing. The comparison is silly
I didn't compare My Lai to Nanking as a competition, merely examples. If I really wanted to compare Nanking to something the Allies did I would talk about occupied Japan and the encouragement (and in some cases co-ercion) of prostitution.
You're joking with all this, right? The US firebombed a few cities, and nuked two others. The Japanese inflicted many times as many casualties, but with biological weapons and personal torture, instead of blanket bombings. You don't exactly seem to understand what "the Rape of Nanking" actually entailed, if you think "encouraging prostitution near military barracks" is remotely comparable, even to the Japanese practice of abducting women and shipping them off to serve as sex-slaves on the front-lines.
Emperors Faithful
Hardly, the US beats Japan in destruction and slaughter with the bombing of Japan.
Japan killed many people in China and parts of east Asia estimated at 6,000,000 murdered as well as the POW camps set up that for force labour and for killing many enemy soldiers and civilans.
Much more then what US did to the Japanese with the nukes.
A lot of conflict from figures here. Mitsuyoshi Himeta, a (I assume Japanese) historian figures it at 2.7 million.
And Rummel puts it at 4 million.
Though this is after an 8 year war. The US killed nearly a million in a lot less time.
Wiki, not the most reliable source, shows a scattering of estimates on civilian casualties. Anywhere between 300,000 (from air attacks) to 3.6 million in total.
The military casualties are really horrendous, with some estimates approaching 20 million. A great part of this may have been due to the widespread conscription in China.
What? You really need to read up on the Japanese military. They were evil.
80K? That's a fair bit bigger than the other numbers I've heard.
But we need to get this straight, you do know that prostitution is part of sex trafficking, right? And that some/a lot of those women really didn't want to be trafficked? And wouldn't have if the US didn't occupy Japan.
So the Japanese didn't have prostitution before the US came?
So you blame Europe for the poor treatment of the Native Americans, even though France and Britain treated them with far more humanity than the US ever did? After all, Britain, not the US, abolished slavery. Was it the American Identity that decided to keep on going with slavery? Or this wierd European mentality that you keep blaming?
The British may not be responsible for establishing the slave, but they sure as hell perfected it with the triangle routes! Slavery was started in the colonies by Europeans. If anything you can see growth of American ideas was a reason for it's abolition.
Even if the US killed 20 million civilians, or if Japan did so, it doesn't justify targetting civilians at all.
So it's wrong to target Japanese civilians, when the Japanese themselves made no such distinction. At least the average German soldier and civilian was appalled at what the SS were doing. Japan has yet to recognize that they did anything wrong. The average Japanese soldier and civilian had no issues with what was going on. That's what was so frightening.
Emperors Faithful wrote:80K? That's a fair bit bigger than the other numbers I've heard.
But we need to get this straight, you do know that prostitution is part of sex trafficking, right? And that some/a lot of those women really didn't want to be trafficked? And wouldn't have if the US didn't occupy Japan.
You really don't know what the Rape of Nanking actually entailed, do you? I'll give you a hint, it's only "Rape of Nanking" because "Nanking Happy Fun Round Up Every Local You Can Find Then Torture the Men to Death and Rape the Women and Children Before Torturing Them to Death Too Time" is kind of a mouthful.
So you blame Europe for the poor treatment of the Native Americans, even though France and Britain treated them with far more humanity than the US ever did? After all, Britain, not the US, abolished slavery. Was it the American Identity that decided to keep on going with slavery? Or this wierd European mentality that you keep blaming?
You don't seem to get the whole "that was an entirely different country and culture than even the America of the early twentieth century" thing. A significant percent of Americans had yet to immigrate by then, and the country had yet to be twisted beyond recognition by the industrial revolution. We don't blame European countries for the crusades, or the hereditary dictatorships they had, nor do we blame the US for things Britain did prior to their secession, so it hardly makes sense to blame the actions of a loose confederacy of sovereign states on the unified nation that came later, caused by improved communication and judicial precedent.
Emperors Faithful
Hardly, the US beats Japan in destruction and slaughter with the bombing of Japan.
Japan killed many people in China and parts of east Asia estimated at 6,000,000 murdered as well as the POW camps set up that for force labour and for killing many enemy soldiers and civilans.
Much more then what US did to the Japanese with the nukes.
A lot of conflict from figures here. Mitsuyoshi Himeta, a (I assume Japanese) historian figures it at 2.7 million.
And Rummel puts it at 4 million.
Though this is after an 8 year war. The US killed nearly a million in a lot less time.
Wiki, not the most reliable source, shows a scattering of estimates on civilian casualties. Anywhere between 300,000 (from air attacks) to 3.6 million in total.
The military casualties are really horrendous, with some estimates approaching 20 million. A great part of this may have been due to the widespread conscription in China.
What? You really need to read up on the Japanese military. They were evil.
What does this have to do with my post?
80K? That's a fair bit bigger than the other numbers I've heard.
But we need to get this straight, you do know that prostitution is part of sex trafficking, right? And that some/a lot of those women really didn't want to be trafficked? And wouldn't have if the US didn't occupy Japan.
So the Japanese didn't have prostitution before the US came?
It appears they did up until the practice became shameful in 1908. And then brothels were established in large numbers immediately after WWII.
On 19 August 1945, the Home Ministry ordered local government offices to establish a prostitution service for Allied soldiers to preserve the "purity" of the "Japanese race". The official declaration stated that "Through the sacrifice of thousands of 'Okichis' of the Shōwa era, we shall construct a dike to hold back the mad frenzy of the occupation troops and cultivate and preserve the purity of our race long into the future..."
And most of these girls ended up with a swathe of STD's for their troubles.
So you blame Europe for the poor treatment of the Native Americans, even though France and Britain treated them with far more humanity than the US ever did? After all, Britain, not the US, abolished slavery. Was it the American Identity that decided to keep on going with slavery? Or this wierd European mentality that you keep blaming?
The British may not be responsible for establishing the slave, but they sure as hell perfected it with the triangle routes! Slavery was started in the colonies by Europeans. If anything you can see growth of American ideas was a reason for it's abolition.
You are joking, right?
American practiced the slave trade long after it was abandoned and attacked by European nations.
Emperors Faithful wrote:@Sir Psuedonymous: Is this a numbers game? Andrew demanded that I show him any instance where the Allies committed War Crimes.
I can't possibly condone the Holocaust (and have no wish to), but that doesn't mean I'd condone Dresden, or nuking Munich.
So then what would your solution have been? What would have stopped not only the Japanese war machine, but also crushed the vial and evil culture of brutality that was part of the fabric of Japanese culture?
There wasn't one! Even if their was, that solution would never ave come in time to save Japanese from Russian Justice. The Japanese put themselves in a gak position, no one can be blamed for that except themselves.
You are joking, right?
American practiced the slave trade long after it was abandoned and attacked by European nations.
America was barely a country with it's own identity before the civil war. The US was established in 1776, the American civil war was only 100 years later! That's a pretty quick transition to get rid of and abolish a system that was established by Europeans hundreds of years beforehand.
But the truth is that Japanese civilian casualties are substantianally less then what they did to thier enemies.
Only if you're talking about China. The US civilian casualties throughout the war were minimal.
I've already said that Japan doesn't have any moral high ground here, but the Allies hardly do either.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andrew1975 wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:@Sir Psuedonymous: Is this a numbers game? Andrew demanded that I show him any instance where the Allies committed War Crimes.
I can't possibly condone the Holocaust (and have no wish to), but that doesn't mean I'd condone Dresden, or nuking Munich.
So then what would your solution have been? What would have stopped not only the Japanese war machine, but also crushed the vial and evil culture of brutality that was part of the fabric of Japanese culture?
?
The need to humiliate and brutalise the Japanese people? For what?
There wasn't one! Even if their was, that solution would never ave come in time to save Japanese from Russian Justice. The Japanese put themselves in a gak position, no one can be blamed for that except themselves.
Blaming the Victim. Always the way.
Haven't we already established that peace talks were underway?
So you blame Europe for the poor treatment of the Native Americans, even though France and Britain treated them with far more humanity than the US ever did? After all, Britain, not the US, abolished slavery. Was it the American Identity that decided to keep on going with slavery? Or this wierd European mentality that you keep blaming?
The British may not be responsible for establishing the slave, but they sure as hell perfected it with the triangle routes! Slavery was started in the colonies by Europeans. If anything you can see growth of American ideas was a reason for it's abolition.
No, no, no, no. Britain ended the slave trade in 1807 and would actively attack slavers of the coast of Africa. To claim that the Americans had anything to do with it is warping history to an extreme degree.
American practiced the slave trade long after it was abandoned and attacked by European nations.
America was barely a country with it's own identity before the civil war. The US was established in 1776, the American civil war was only 100 years later! That's a pretty quick transition to get rid of and abolish a system that was established by Europeans hundreds of years beforehand.
Mein Gott!
He's rewriting History! Now it was America that brought about the abolition of slavery! Quick everyone to the Time Machine, it's not too late to setthings straight!
Emperors Faithful wrote:@Sir Psuedonymous: Is this a numbers game? Andrew demanded that I show him any instance where the Allies committed War Crimes.
I can't possibly condone the Holocaust (and have no wish to), but that doesn't mean I'd condone Dresden, or nuking Munich.
So then what would your solution have been? What would have stopped not only the Japanese war machine, but also crushed the vial and evil culture of brutality that was part of the fabric of Japanese culture?
There wasn't one! Even if their was, that solution would never ave come in time to save Japanese from Russian Justice. The Japanese put themselves in a gak position, no one can be blamed for that except themselves.
You are joking, right?
American practiced the slave trade long after it was abandoned and attacked by European nations.
America was barely a country with it's own identity before the civil war. The US was established in 1776, the American civil war was only 100 years later! That's a pretty quick transition to get rid of and abolish a system that was established by Europeans hundreds of years beforehand.
1700-britian becomes dominant slave trader 1790-peak of british slave trade 1807-britain ends slave trade
I've already said that Japan doesn't have any moral high ground here, but the Allies hardly do either.
Why, what had they done to deserve to have to fight in the brutal manner of the Japanese? The US got pulled into the war by the Japanese.
The need to humiliate and brutalise the Japanese people? For what?
For fostering a culture that had no respect for human life that wasn't Japanese!
Blaming the Victim. Always the way.
Haven't we already established that peace talks were underway?
Victim? Only you can see the Japanese as victims. THEY WERE EVIL VILLIANS!
No we haven't established peace talks were on the way, not in any real way. You assume they would have surrendered before the bombs and Russian intervention, they barely surrendered after! There were certainly none that would be acceptable to the US. Even then the Russians were chomping at the bits. The bomb was their only chance of survival. Now you are just going around in circles.
He's rewriting History! Now it was America that brought about the abolition of slavery! Quick everyone to the Time Machine, it's not too late to setthings straight!
No, it's explaining history to someone who apparently has a tenuous grasp of it.
Emperors Faithful wrote:@Sir Psuedonymous: Is this a numbers game? Andrew demanded that I show him any instance where the Allies committed War Crimes.
I can't possibly condone the Holocaust (and have no wish to), but that doesn't mean I'd condone Dresden, or nuking Munich.
So then what would your solution have been? What would have stopped not only the Japanese war machine, but also crushed the vial and evil culture of brutality that was part of the fabric of Japanese culture?
There wasn't one! Even if their was, that solution would never ave come in time to save Japanese from Russian Justice. The Japanese put themselves in a gak position, no one can be blamed for that except themselves.
You are joking, right?
American practiced the slave trade long after it was abandoned and attacked by European nations.
America was barely a country with it's own identity before the civil war. The US was established in 1776, the American civil war was only 100 years later! That's a pretty quick transition to get rid of and abolish a system that was established by Europeans hundreds of years beforehand.
1700-britian becomes dominant slave trader
1790-peak of british slave trade
1807-britain ends slave trade
It's only 100 years earlier
Stop ignoring historic facts please
Slavery was abolished in Britain 1772 although it was only within Britain and Wales and not the rest of the English Empire.
He's rewriting History! Now it was America that brought about the abolition of slavery! Quick everyone to the Time Machine, it's not too late to setthings straight!
No, it's explaining history to someone who apparently has a tenuous grasp of it.
Why are you failing to grasp the concept that america did not end the international slave trade. They had NO clout in 1807
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yak9UT wrote:
youbedead wrote:
Andrew1975 wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:@Sir Psuedonymous: Is this a numbers game? Andrew demanded that I show him any instance where the Allies committed War Crimes.
I can't possibly condone the Holocaust (and have no wish to), but that doesn't mean I'd condone Dresden, or nuking Munich.
So then what would your solution have been? What would have stopped not only the Japanese war machine, but also crushed the vial and evil culture of brutality that was part of the fabric of Japanese culture?
There wasn't one! Even if their was, that solution would never ave come in time to save Japanese from Russian Justice. The Japanese put themselves in a gak position, no one can be blamed for that except themselves.
You are joking, right?
American practiced the slave trade long after it was abandoned and attacked by European nations.
America was barely a country with it's own identity before the civil war. The US was established in 1776, the American civil war was only 100 years later! That's a pretty quick transition to get rid of and abolish a system that was established by Europeans hundreds of years beforehand.
1700-britian becomes dominant slave trader 1790-peak of british slave trade 1807-britain ends slave trade
It's only 100 years earlier
Stop ignoring historic facts please
Slavery was abolished in Britain 1772 although it was only within Britain and Wales and not the rest of the English Empire.
Don't get confused with England and Britain.
True but the slave trade was ended in 1807 and slavery itself became illegal in 1837. Another interesting factoid, the English never discriminated for voting based on race, usually it was just class.
1700-britian becomes dominant slave trader
1790-peak of british slave trade
1807-britain ends slave trade
It's only 100 years earlier
Stop ignoring historic facts please
I'm sorry how quickly should the US have gotten rid of a system of slavery that was established by the British! I think 80 years is pretty quick considering the times and how deeply rooted it had been installed by the Europeans. I guess we should have changes overnight to make the brits happy. OH yeah we were not to concerned about the brits as we had because we had kicked them out of the country and were no longer vassals.
Seriously. Britain didn't stop slavery because of some enlightenment! It was a business decision. They got their ass's handed to them and saw it was an economic boon to the US. They would again get beaten in 1812. If there was this British enlightenment please explain the zulu wars and occupation of India!
I've already said that Japan doesn't have any moral high ground here, but the Allies hardly do either.
Why, what had they done to deserve to have to fight in the brutal manner of the Japanese? The US got pulled into the war by the Japanese.
You've tried to warp this from one country responding to agression from another into some sort of Crusade by America in order to bring civilisation to the Japanese barbarians.
The need to humiliate and brutalise the Japanese people? For what?
For fostering a culture that had no respect for human life that wasn't Japanese!
There was little in the way of respect for Japanese life from the Americans. Truman himself called them beasts when he justified dropping the bomb.
Blaming the Victim. Always the way.
Haven't we already established that peace talks were underway?
Victim? Only you can see the Japanese as victims. THEY WERE EVIL VILLIANS!
I see the civilians killed in an atomic blast and fireboming as victims, yes. You don't?
No we haven't established peace talks were on the way, not in any real way. You assume they would have surrendered before the bombs and Russian intervention, they barely surrendered after! There were certainly none that would be acceptable to the US. Even then the Russians were chomping at the bits. The bomb was their only chance of survival. Now you are just going around in circles.
I think their surrender was galvanized more by Russia entering the war than the bombs, but again we come back to why any terms Japan offered in peace would not be acceptable to the US. It's you who has brought this full circle.
He's rewriting History! Now it was America that brought about the abolition of slavery! Quick everyone to the Time Machine, it's not too late to setthings straight!
No, it's explaining history to someone who apparently has a tenuous grasp of it.
That you think that the Japanese civilians of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo and elsewhere deserved what they got is reprehensible. That you actually believe that the US caused the abolition of slavery is scary.
1700-britian becomes dominant slave trader 1790-peak of british slave trade 1807-britain ends slave trade
It's only 100 years earlier
Stop ignoring historic facts please
I'm sorry how quickly should the US have gotten rid of a system of slavery that was established by the British! I think 80 years is pretty quick considering the times and how deeply rooted it had been installed by the Europeans. I guess we should have changes overnight to make the brits happy. OH yeah we were not to concerned about the brits as we had because we had kicked them out of the country and were no longer vassals.
Seriously. Britain didn't stop slavery because of some enlightenment! It was a business decision. They got their ass's handed to them and saw it was an economic boon to the US. They would again get beaten in 1812. If there was this British enlightenment please explain the zulu wars and occupation of India!
Wait they got there ass handed to them, by who Napoleon. Also if it was only a business decision (it was somewhat). Then why did they spend money to stop 1600 ships of african waters. Also, American slavery was unaffected by the English abolition. The slave population was self sustaining by that period.
Also quick quiz about the Zulu wars. Who was the main aggressor against Britain and who ended up in control of the zulus.
Wait they got there ass handed to them, by who Napoleon.
By these guys
Then why did they spend money to stop 1600 ships of african waters
They were trying to influence the fledgling US economy, which was mostly agricultural at that point, and had been run on the European established system of slavery.
You've tried to warp this from one country responding to agression from another into some sort of Crusade by America in order to bring civilisation to the Japanese barbarians.
Hardly, it was a crusade to free the asia form evil.
Wait they got there ass handed to them, by who Napoleon.
By these guys
Casualties and losses
50,000± American dead and wounded 20,000± British army dead and wounded
Yep we sure did teach them
Then why did they spend money to stop 1600 ships of african waters
They were trying to influence the fledgling US economy, which was mostly agricultural at that point, and had been run on the European established system of slavery.
As I said American slavery was unaffected by the English abolition. The slave population was self sustaining by that period. Also why would they keep doing it up to 1860.
The need to humiliate and brutalise the Japanese people? For what?
For fostering a culture that had no respect for human life that wasn't Japanese!
Andrew1975 wrote:
There was little in the way of respect for Japanese life from the Americans. Truman himself called them beasts when he justified dropping the bomb.
Because they had showed themselves to be such.
That you actually believe that the US caused the abolition of slavery is scary.
They did, in the US! We fought a war over it,(well states rights to self determine to have it actually)
Actually, it was more to prevent the Southern states from seceeding. A major reason of which was slavery. And it happened nearly 100 years after that horrible European mindset (which forced you poor things to persecute the Native Americans, of course!) had already clued in.
So the Japanese didn't show themselves to be monsters? Your argument is delusional.
I've already covered the rest of your points. You just refuse to read or accept them because your argument is delusional and you see the Japanese as some kind of tragic characters. They wern't
Andrew1975 wrote:So the Japanese didn't show themselves to be monsters? Your argument is delusional.
Well that explains a bit. If you can't seperate the Japanese Military acting overseas to that of the Japanese populace, no wonder your points have come across as so flawed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andrew1975 wrote:I've already covered the rest of your points. You just refuse to read or accept them because your argument is delusional and you see the Japanese as some kind of tragic characters. They wern't
I checked the dictionary, I really did. But I couldn't find the definition where 'Covered' and 'Ignored' are synonomous.
Andrew1975 wrote:So the Japanese didn't show themselves to be monsters? Your argument is delusional.
And yours ignores facts
What facts am I ignoring. I've given my facts, you have decided to ignore them. The rape of nanking is a fact! The bataan death march is a fact. Pearl harbor is a fact. Kamikazes are a fact.
What have you got? "ohhhhh, but they were still people". Then they should have acted like humans instead of wicked monsters!
You've tried to warp this from one country responding to agression from another into some sort of Crusade by America in order to bring civilisation to the Japanese barbarians.
Hardly, it was a crusade to free the asia form evil.
Andrew1975 wrote:So the Japanese didn't show themselves to be monsters? Your argument is delusional.
And yours ignores facts
What facts am I ignoring. I've given my facts, you have decided to ignore them. The rape of nanking is a fact! The bataan death march is a fact. Pearl harbor is a fact. Kamikazes are a fact.
What have you got? "ohhhhh, but they were still people". Then they should have acted like humans instead of wicked monsters!
Well that explains a bit. If you can't seperate the Japanese Military acting overseas to that of the Japanese populace, no wonder your points have come across as so flawed.
You can't separate the two either. The Japanese made no distinction. The problem was not just the military but a cultural phenomenon that embraced the killing of all none Japanese. How do you get rid of that without forcing civilians to see the error of their ways?
As I said American slavery was unaffected by the English abolition. The slave population was self sustaining by that period. Also why would they keep doing it up to 1860.
Keep doing what? Slavery? I suppose the US could have restructured their whole agricultural production in less time, seeing as that was they only way they knew, the way our European forefathers had been doing it in the colonies for hundreds of years. Yeah I guess those kind of things get changes overnight all the time. Not to mention that the only reason the British really changes their tune was to be a thorn in our side. I suppose that was really intensive to change.
The fact is the US abolished Slavery in the US on it's own. We were not forced to. Americans for decades had said it was against all that America stood for.
Andrew1975 wrote:
You can't separate the two either.
So about this Nam thing...
Actually, screw that. If you follow that crazyland logic then things like 9/11 become justified.
The Japanese made no distinction.
Sure they did. They didn't do so out of compassion, but it would be ridiculous to suggest that armed combatants and civilians were treated as equal threats. No need to kill that which could be controlled. Unlike how the Holocaust was designed in a way that could eventually actually kill of the Jewish race, Japan sought to establish their supremacy over the Chinese, not to exterminate them entirely.
It doesn't make their actions any better (at all) but they did make a distinction.
The problem was not just the military but a cultural phenomenon that embraced the killing of all none Japanese. How do you get rid of that without forcing civilians to see the error of their ways?
There was a culture of expansionism, yes, and also a feeling that Japanese people were just in general better than other people. It's hardly unique.
Of course it wasn't some moral crusade; it was a military struggle against an aggressor nation who, when beaten to a bloody pulp, expected to negotiate and keep their ill-gotten gains, and for their current regime to remain safe and in power, in addition to not being occupied or disarmed. It would have been extremely unethical to accept anything less than unconditional surrender, because they would have rebuilt and gone right back to doing as they had. The nuclear bombs were the only way to secure that, and as has been previously discussed, most of the people killed by them were dead either way, and the bombs were a far sight kinder than subjecting them to an invasion, where they'd starve and throw themselves into the sights of American or Soviet guns, or take their lives/be killed by Japanese soldiers rather than surrender.
Actually, screw that. If you follow that crazyland logic then things like 9/11 become justified.
I've already covered 911, please read the post.
Sure they did. They didn't do so out of compassion, but it would be ridiculous to suggest that armed combatants and civilians were treated as equal threats. No need to kill that which could be controlled. Unlike how the Holocaust was designed in a way that could eventually actually kill of the Jewish race, Japan sought to establish their supremacy over the Chinese, not to exterminate them entirely.
It doesn't make their actions any better (at all) but they did make a distinction.
Rape of Nanking! RAPE OF NANKING! RAPE OF NANKING!If you were not completely submissive they killed you! If you looked at them the wrong way they killed you. If they thought it would be fun they would kill you.
There was a culture of expansionism, yes, and also a feeling that Japanese people were just in general better than other people. It's hardly unique.
HOLY COW! You can not deny that the Japanese army acted completely belligerently to everyone and anyone they came across! They acted this was because that is how they were raised! That is what their culture demanded.
As I said American slavery was unaffected by the English abolition. The slave population was self sustaining by that period. Also why would they keep doing it up to 1860.
Keep doing what? Slavery? I suppose the US could have restructured their whole agricultural production in less time, seeing as that was they only way they knew, the way our European forefathers had been doing it in the colonies for hundreds of years. Yeah I guess those kind of things get changes overnight all the time. Not to mention that the only reason the British really changes their tune was to be a thorn in our side. I suppose that was really intensive to change.
The fact is the US abolished Slavery in the US on it's own. We were not forced to. Americans for decades had said it was against all that America stood for.
No the british and and the west african squadron
Between 1808 and 1860, the West Africa Squadron seized approximately 1,600 slave ships and freed 150,000 Africans who were aboard.[3] Action was also taken against African leaders who refused to agree to British treaties to outlaw the trade, for example against "the usurping King of Lagos", deposed in 1851. Anti-slavery treaties were signed with over 50 African rulers.[4]
In the 1860s, David Livingstone's reports of atrocities within the Arab slave trade in Africa stirred up the interest of the British public, reviving the flagging abolitionist movement. The Royal Navy throughout the 1870s attempted to suppress "this abominable Eastern trade", at Zanzibar in particular. In 1890 Britain handed control of the strategically important island of Heligoland in the North Sea to Germany in return for control of Zanzibar, in part to help enforce the ban on slave trading.[5][6]
Also if it disrupted the american economy so mush then WHY DIWE DO ITTO
Sir Pseudonymous wrote:Of course it wasn't some moral crusade;
Tell it to the other guy. ^
it was a military struggle against an aggressor nation who, when beaten to a bloody pulp, expected to negotiate and keep their ill-gotten gains, and for their current regime to remain safe and in power, in addition to not being occupied or disarmed. It would have been extremely unethical to accept anything less than unconditional surrender, because they would have rebuilt and gone right back to doing as they had.
Why would it be unethical to accept a conditional surrender if it would save lives? Where do you get the authority that Japan would have instantly rebuilt their forces with the sole intent of 'another go'?
The nuclear bombs were the only way to secure that, and as has been previously discussed, most of the people killed by them were dead either way, and the bombs were a far sight kinder than subjecting them to an invasion, where they'd starve and throw themselves into the sights of American or Soviet guns, or take their lives/be killed by Japanese soldiers rather than surrender.
It's already been suggested in response to this that Japan was more motivated by Russian invasion rather than the bombing.
Also if it disrupted the american economy so mush then WHY DIWE DO ITTO
Really. Read my posts would you? Jeez.
It's already been suggested in response to this that Japan was more motivated by Russian invasion rather than the bombing.
It's also been submitted that it would have been preferred by many to have the Russian invasion as it allowed then to die honorably in battle! America was mare afraid of the Russian invasion of Japan than most of the Japanese war council was.
You might want to calm down, losing one's temper only undermines one's points.
youbedead wrote:
Andrew1975 wrote:
As I said American slavery was unaffected by the English abolition. The slave population was self sustaining by that period. Also why would they keep doing it up to 1860.
Keep doing what? Slavery? I suppose the US could have restructured their whole agricultural production in less time, seeing as that was they only way they knew, the way our European forefathers had been doing it in the colonies for hundreds of years. Yeah I guess those kind of things get changes overnight all the time. Not to mention that the only reason the British really changes their tune was to be a thorn in our side. I suppose that was really intensive to change.
The fact is the US abolished Slavery in the US on it's own. We were not forced to. Americans for decades had said it was against all that America stood for.
No the british and and the west african squadron
Between 1808 and 1860, the West Africa Squadron seized approximately 1,600 slave ships and freed 150,000 Africans who were aboard.[3] Action was also taken against African leaders who refused to agree to British treaties to outlaw the trade, for example against "the usurping King of Lagos", deposed in 1851. Anti-slavery treaties were signed with over 50 African rulers.[4]
In the 1860s, David Livingstone's reports of atrocities within the Arab slave trade in Africa stirred up the interest of the British public, reviving the flagging abolitionist movement. The Royal Navy throughout the 1870s attempted to suppress "this abominable Eastern trade", at Zanzibar in particular. In 1890 Britain handed control of the strategically important island of Heligoland in the North Sea to Germany in return for control of Zanzibar, in part to help enforce the ban on slave trading.[5][6]
Also if it disrupted the american economy so mush then WHY DIWE DO ITTO
We also abolished the African slave trade in 1808
You act as though abolishing the specific terms of slavery was some great achievement, when it was simply succeeded by systems as bad or worse, just lacking the philosophical stain of the word. Up until the twentieth century the working class lived in conditions as bad or worse than slaves had. Worse in that employers no longer had to pay as much as food and housing cost, and if a worker were killed or mangled on the job it was an occasion for joy, as that meant they didn't have to be payed, since it's not like they had to pay some high fee to hire them to start with. The only difference between slaves and workers under Victorian Era Industrial Capitalism, aside from the aforementioned "slaves being expensive property and workers being disposable pests" view, was one of semantics and philosophy; the worker was more expendable and cheaper to keep, with no more actual freedom, but he was free in name, and could theoretically self-determine his actions, were he payed more and given access to an education that enabled him to, and not maimed on the job.
Andrew wrote:I've already covered 911, please read the post.
A dozen pages of this stuff to look back through? fething hell...
Rape of Nanking! RAPE OF NANKING! RAPE OF NANKING! They didn't care who you were! If you were not completely submissive they killed you! If you looked at them the wrong way they killed you. If they thought it would be fun they would kill you.
Maybe you didn't read that their distinction didn't make their atrocities any better (in fact it makes it worse). But you can't argue that they DID make a distinction between military and civilian. Pretty much everyone does except you.
HOLY COW! You can not deny that the Japanese army acted completely belligerently to everyone and anyone they came across! They acted this was because that is how they were raised! That is what their culture demanded.
Broad sweeps of a brush? How can you label every Japanese man, woman, and child as beasts?
Why the hell should the civilian populace of any country be held to suffer for the actions of their military or government?
I wasn't aware that I had lost my temper. Where did you get that. I may have been frustrated that people don't read.
Broad sweeps of a brush? How can you label every Japanese man, woman, and child as beasts?
Why the hell should the civilian populace of any country be held to suffer for the actions of their military or government?
Because it wasn't the military of the government that allows soldiers to go psyco like the Japanese. It's a culture that produces that!
Maybe you didn't read that their distinction didn't make their atrocities any better (in fact it makes it worse). But you can't argue that they DID make a distinction between military and civilian. Pretty much everyone does except you.
What distinction did they make. If you were a soldier they would kill you. If you surrendered they would kill you. If you were a civilian they would kill you for fun. Where is the distinction?
You might want to calm down, losing one's temper only undermines one's points.
youbedead wrote:
Andrew1975 wrote:
As I said American slavery was unaffected by the English abolition. The slave population was self sustaining by that period. Also why would they keep doing it up to 1860.
Keep doing what? Slavery? I suppose the US could have restructured their whole agricultural production in less time, seeing as that was they only way they knew, the way our European forefathers had been doing it in the colonies for hundreds of years. Yeah I guess those kind of things get changes overnight all the time. Not to mention that the only reason the British really changes their tune was to be a thorn in our side. I suppose that was really intensive to change.
The fact is the US abolished Slavery in the US on it's own. We were not forced to. Americans for decades had said it was against all that America stood for.
No the british and and the west african squadron
Between 1808 and 1860, the West Africa Squadron seized approximately 1,600 slave ships and freed 150,000 Africans who were aboard.[3] Action was also taken against African leaders who refused to agree to British treaties to outlaw the trade, for example against "the usurping King of Lagos", deposed in 1851. Anti-slavery treaties were signed with over 50 African rulers.[4]
In the 1860s, David Livingstone's reports of atrocities within the Arab slave trade in Africa stirred up the interest of the British public, reviving the flagging abolitionist movement. The Royal Navy throughout the 1870s attempted to suppress "this abominable Eastern trade", at Zanzibar in particular. In 1890 Britain handed control of the strategically important island of Heligoland in the North Sea to Germany in return for control of Zanzibar, in part to help enforce the ban on slave trading.[5][6]
Also if it disrupted the american economy so mush then WHY DIWE DO ITTO
We also abolished the African slave trade in 1808
You act as though abolishing the specific terms of slavery was some great achievement, when it was simply succeeded by systems as bad or worse, just lacking the philosophical stain of the word. Up until the twentieth century the working class lived in conditions as bad or worse than slaves had. Worse in that employers no longer had to pay as much as food and housing cost, and if a worker were killed or mangled on the job it was an occasion for joy, as that meant they didn't have to be payed, since it's not like they had to pay some high fee to hire them to start with. The only difference between slaves and workers under Victorian Era Industrial Capitalism, aside from the aforementioned "slaves being expensive property and workers being disposable pests" view, was one of semantics and philosophy; the worker was more expendable and cheaper to keep, with no more actual freedom, but he was free in name, and could theoretically self-determine his actions, were he payed more and given access to an education that enabled him to, and not maimed on the job.
I merely trying to demonstrate that America did not cause the Europeans to end slavery. I am well aware of the reemergence of indentured servitude that followed abolition and the way that Victorian era factories treated workers, both the foreign factories in India, Japan, and china in addition to the immigrants in the western countries.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote:Of course it wasn't some moral crusade;
Tell it to the other guy. ^
That was directed at him, and I suppose anyone else to whom it may apply.
it was a military struggle against an aggressor nation who, when beaten to a bloody pulp, expected to negotiate and keep their ill-gotten gains, and for their current regime to remain safe and in power, in addition to not being occupied or disarmed. It would have been extremely unethical to accept anything less than unconditional surrender, because they would have rebuilt and gone right back to doing as they had.
Why would it be unethical to accept a conditional surrender if it would save lives? Where do you get the authority that Japan would have instantly rebuilt their forces with the sole intent of 'another go'?
There is more to the ethics of running a nation than lives and numbers; Japan's actions were unacceptable, and what they got was a far sight kinder than what they brought into their conquests; allowing those who presided over said conquests to retain power was not an option, any more than allowing the nazis to remain in power had Germany surrendered would have been.
The nuclear bombs were the only way to secure that, and as has been previously discussed, most of the people killed by them were dead either way, and the bombs were a far sight kinder than subjecting them to an invasion, where they'd starve and throw themselves into the sights of American or Soviet guns, or take their lives/be killed by Japanese soldiers rather than surrender.
It's already been suggested in response to this that Japan was more motivated by Russian invasion rather than the bombing.
They knew Russia was building up forces to invade. They knew we were readying an invasion. They only surrendered after the annihilation of two cities, and the firebombing of many others. I don't believe concerns over an invasion, which they could fight and inflict losses upon, were anywhere near as much of a concern as an existential threat to their entire nation, and one which put no American soldiers within their grasp.
I merely trying to demonstrate that America did not cause the Europeans to end slavery
Who ever said the US ended European slavery? I sure didn't! I said we ended slavery in the US. It's called reading comprehension.
I also never said it was soley a moral crusade. But that ended up being a part of it. Had the Japanese fought with morals we would have never had to drop the bombs.
So you blame Europe for the poor treatment of the Native Americans, even though France and Britain treated them with far more humanity than the US ever did? After all, Britain, not the US, abolished slavery. Was it the American Identity that decided to keep on going with slavery? Or this wierd European mentality that you keep blaming?
The British may not be responsible for establishing the slave, but they sure as hell perfected it with the triangle routes! Slavery was started in the colonies by Europeans. If anything you can see growth of American ideas was a reason for it's abolition.
So you blame Europe for the poor treatment of the Native Americans, even though France and Britain treated them with far more humanity than the US ever did? After all, Britain, not the US, abolished slavery. Was it the American Identity that decided to keep on going with slavery? Or this wierd European mentality that you keep blaming?
The British may not be responsible for establishing the slave, but they sure as hell perfected it with the triangle routes! Slavery was started in the colonies by Europeans. If anything you can see growth of American ideas was a reason for it's abolition.
Seriously, make sure you know what you're typing
If anything you can see growth of American ideas was a reason for it's abolition.
IN AMERICA. Do we really have to spell everything out It's called contextual reading. Everybody knows that US had slavery longer than Europe. I had already admitted as such in the post and explained why we still had it even though the British had abolished it.
Emperors Faithful wrote:80K? That's a fair bit bigger than the other numbers I've heard.
But we need to get this straight, you do know that prostitution is part of sex trafficking, right? And that some/a lot of those women really didn't want to be trafficked? And wouldn't have if the US didn't occupy Japan.
You really don't know what the Rape of Nanking actually entailed, do you? I'll give you a hint, it's only "Rape of Nanking" because "Nanking Happy Fun Round Up Every Local You Can Find Then Torture the Men to Death and Rape the Women and Children Before Torturing Them to Death Too Time" is kind of a mouthful.
I think I already made an answer to it with several posts like this one.
Emperors Faithful wrote:@Sir Psuedonymous: Is this a numbers game? Andrew demanded that I show him any instance where the Allies committed War Crimes.
I can't possibly condone the Holocaust (and have no wish to), but that doesn't mean I'd condone Dresden, or nuking Munich.
So you blame Europe for the poor treatment of the Native Americans, even though France and Britain treated them with far more humanity than the US ever did? After all, Britain, not the US, abolished slavery. Was it the American Identity that decided to keep on going with slavery? Or this wierd European mentality that you keep blaming?
You don't seem to get the whole "that was an entirely different country and culture than even the America of the early twentieth century" thing. A significant percent of Americans had yet to immigrate by then, and the country had yet to be twisted beyond recognition by the industrial revolution. We don't blame European countries for the crusades, or the hereditary dictatorships they had, nor do we blame the US for things Britain did prior to their secession, so it hardly makes sense to blame the actions of a loose confederacy of sovereign states on the unified nation that came later, caused by improved communication and judicial precedent.
This is shifting the blame. To say that the fate of Native Americans is not the fault of America because "things were different back then" is a poor excuse. These are actions of your country, just as the extermination of Aboriginals in Tasmania was an action of my country. THe slaughter of Native Americans was an action of your country, just as 'Aboriginal Hunting Liscences' were an action of my country. To do anything other than face up to past actions would be running away.
@Andrew: What 9/11 explanation are you talking about?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andrew1975 wrote:
A dozen pages of this stuff to look back through? fething hell...
It's actually considered inconsiderate to just jump in a tread without reading the past arguments.
Apart from a page or two I have actually managed to read the whole thread. I don't relish the thought of going back and doing it again just to find a reference from you about 9/11.
So explain to me now (or get the reference yourself, seeing as you know where it is), how holding the civilians of a country to be liable to be punished for the actions of their military or government is a good thing. Because that line of thought seems to justify the attack.
If you are so interested, please feel free to look for my sig and any reference to 911. I'm not sure why I should take the time to look it up and repost and take up more space then have to do it again for the next guy that brings up 911. Just look back. It appears you are as lazy as your argument.
You also don't get it is holding civilians responsible for what the military and the government does. That not what I am saying at all. The actions of the soldiers in the Japanese army was not a product of Japanese military training as much as it was a product of Japanese culture as a whole.
Broad sweeps of a brush? How can you label every Japanese man, woman, and child as beasts?
Why the hell should the civilian populace of any country be held to suffer for the actions of their military or government?
Because it wasn't the military of the government that allows soldiers to go psyco like the Japanese. It's a culture that produces that!
What are you talking about? Of course it was the military that, through incompetence, allowed their soldiers to "go psyco".
Even the Tokyo trials (run by the Allies) didn't find evidence of Military orders to do the things they did. The cruelty of many Japanese soldiers was a result of lax in discipline. Imagine what the Allies would have been like during the occupation of Japan, if there had been a lack of discipline? (or brothels).
Maybe you didn't read that their distinction didn't make their atrocities any better (in fact it makes it worse). But you can't argue that they DID make a distinction between military and civilian. Pretty much everyone does except you.
What distinction did they make. If you were a soldier they would kill you. If you surrendered they would kill you. If you were a civilian they would kill you for fun. Where is the distinction?
If you were an armed combatant they would kill you.
If you were unarmed (combatant or no) they might kill you.
It's not a pretty at all, but there is a distinction. If there wasn't a military couldn't function in the capacity of an aggressor without completely obliterating every living human they came across, without exception, as they would be viewed as a combatant.
What are you talking about? Of course it was the military that, through incompetence, allowed their soldiers to "go psyco".
Even the Tokyo trials (run by the Allies) didn't find evidence of Military orders to do the things they did. The cruelty of many Japanese soldiers was a result of lax in discipline. Imagine what the Allies would have been like during the occupation of Japan, if there had been a lack of discipline? (or brothels).
I mean you've just made my argument for me. The military didn't train them to do that. They reverted to natural behavior and instinct. At least German soldiers were ordered to throw people into gas chambers and ovens. The Japanese did these atrocities because it was culturally acceptable.
No matter what happened you wouldn't have had masses of American soldiers running around and beheading civilians, because that is not in us. It's not culturally acceptable behavior! We curl up in horror (as we should) when we hear about My Lai, that was a small group of soldiers that killed 500 people. The fact that we are even having this argument shows that we are culturally not capable of even understanding inhumanity on that level.
It's not a pretty at all, but there is a distinction. If there wasn't a military couldn't function in the capacity of an aggressor without completely obliterating every living human they came across, without exception, as they would be viewed as a combatant.
Emperors Faithful wrote:This is shifting the blame. To say that the fate of Native Americans is not the fault of America because "things were different back then" is a poor excuse. These are actions of your country, just as the extermination of Aboriginals in Tasmania was an action of my country. THe slaughter of Native Americans was an action of your country, just as 'Aboriginal Hunting Liscences' were an action of my country. To do anything other than face up to past actions would be running away.
So then modern Germans should be considered accountable for WWI? The French for Napoleon's wars of conquest, or the bloodshed of their many revolutions? The entirety of Europe for their constant invasions of one another, or the crusades? The institutions responsible have been reformed and altered to be unrecognizable, the country itself has gone from a loose confederation of sovereign states into a single nation with an abnormal and quite undesirable level of autonomy given to its internal territorial divisions, at least some of the ancestors of a majority of modern Americans had yet to immigrate to country by then, and it had yet to undergo several complete revisions of its culture. The only connection to that era the US has is in name and general structure.
What are you talking about? Of course it was the military that, through incompetence, allowed their soldiers to "go psyco".
Even the Tokyo trials (run by the Allies) didn't find evidence of Military orders to do the things they did. The cruelty of many Japanese soldiers was a result of lax in discipline. Imagine what the Allies would have been like during the occupation of Japan, if there had been a lack of discipline? (or brothels).
I mean you've just made my argument for me. The military didn't train them to do that. They reverted to natural behavior and instinct. At least German soldiers were ordered to throw people into gas chambers and ovens. The Japanese did these atrocities because it was culturally acceptable.
Imagine US soldiers in Iraq, immediately after the victory, without discipline. Just for a second.
It's not a pretty at all, but there is a distinction. If there wasn't a military couldn't function in the capacity of an aggressor without completely obliterating every living human they came across, without exception, as they would be viewed as a combatant.
Sort of like the rape of nanking huh?
What? Obliterate?
Also, I looked through the thread AND your post history, couldn't find the 9/11 argument.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:This is shifting the blame. To say that the fate of Native Americans is not the fault of America because "things were different back then" is a poor excuse. These are actions of your country, just as the extermination of Aboriginals in Tasmania was an action of my country. THe slaughter of Native Americans was an action of your country, just as 'Aboriginal Hunting Liscences' were an action of my country. To do anything other than face up to past actions would be running away.
So then modern Germans should be considered accountable for WWI? The French for Napoleon's wars of conquest, or the bloodshed of their many revolutions? The entirety of Europe for their constant invasions of one another, or the crusades? The institutions responsible have been reformed and altered to be unrecognizable, the country itself has gone from a loose confederation of sovereign states into a single nation with an abnormal and quite undesirable level of autonomy given to its internal territorial divisions, at least some of the ancestors of a majority of modern Americans had yet to immigrate to country by then, and it had yet to undergo several complete revisions of its culture. The only connection to that era the US has is in name and general structure.
Of course the descendants shouldn't be accountable, I never said they should (unless there was living German soldier that had raped a French Nurse or some other crime). But what you are doing is different, a refusal to accept responsibility. The consequences of your country's actions have an affect on the status of Native Americans today. I would think the onus would be on your country to repair the damage.
I hear what you are saying. While I don't feel responsible in any way, I do see the treatment of American Indians as a major stain on the history of the US. I also feel guilty that I think it worked out for the best. Slavery, not responsible, I do feel bad about it. Africans turned conquered Africans into slaves or just killed them. I see slavery as probably better than death and I don't think most African Americans would choose to be living in the Congo over living in the US. So maybe it again worked out the best for some people.
That being said. I don't feel guilty about dropping bombs on Japan.
Imagine US soldiers in Iraq, immediately after the victory, without discipline. Just for a second.
The fact that you even think that US soldiers would ever consider a masacre on a Japanese scale shows that you do really have contempt for the US and have little grasp on what it takes to become that kind of a killer.
What? Obliterate?
Also, I looked through the thread AND your post history, couldn't find the 9/11 argument.
If you can't see that nanking was obliterated that you are just refusing to accept the reality of the situation or just being stubborn. Really I'm about to call you obvious troll again.
If you can't find the post that's your problem, it's there look for Jesus, Osama and white supremists! It's all there.
Imagine US soldiers in Iraq, immediately after the victory, without discipline. Just for a second.
The fact that you even think that US soldiers would ever consider a masacre on a Japanese scale shows that you do really have contempt for the US and have little grasp on what it takes to become that kind of a killer.
History shows that military forces lacking in discipline are almost bound to commit atrocities. It amuses me that you think US servicemen would be the exception.
What? Obliterate?
Also, I looked through the thread AND your post history, couldn't find the 9/11 argument.
If you can't see that nanking was obliterated that you are just refusing to accept the reality of the situation of just being stubborn. Really I'm about to call you obvious troll again.
You really don't understand the meaning of obliterate do you?
If you can't find the post that's your problem, it's there look for Jesus, Osama and white supremists! It's all there.
Andrew1975 wrote: That America was more a left over product of European colonialism than any separate American Ideology.
Manifest Destiny is an American Ideology. Europeans never had a dedicated plan to force Native Americans off their lands like we did (EDIT: Clarification. The French and the Brits didn't. Can't say I'm well versed in Spanish, Dutch, and Portugese colonial history but then none of them can really be said to have a profound influence on American history for the relevant period).
Really? Because I'm pretty sure the first people that started killing American Indians were not Americans! I'm pretty sure the first people that lived in the 13 colonies were for the most part European! Hence the word colonies!
P.S. Let's not throw the Holocaust around. We treated the natives like crap but we didn't load them into gas chambers and kill them in the millions with the marvels of modern industry. That's two different scales of awful.
Yeah we just gave them infected blankets drove them off their land, killed all their livestock and sent them on things like the trail of tears, when we weren't just outright murdering them. We attempted to systematically wipe the indigenous people of America off the face of the planet. It was genocide and I'll continue to call it a Holocaust, thanks! We invented scalping for christ sakes, it's funny that so many think that that was an American Indian thing.
Don't talk to me about Europeans being free from what happened in the New World.
The Spanish, through disease, and destruction, effectively wiped out South America, Central America, Hispanola, and Florida. Those that survived were enslaved.
The Portugese did the same in Brazil.
The English had a clear policy of pushing the heathen out. There were none that survived.
The French, (on the continent ds was a different story, but you also have the British and Spanish mixed in there) and hold on to your seats because this never happens from me, were the "good guys." They just wanted to trade and make babies with the native vixens. Ah, the French, can't kick anyone's ass at all, but sure have their priorities straight.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote:
Bromsy wrote:See that black blur out the corner of your eye, LordofHats? That was you being ninja'd
Son of a
EDIT: Seriously though. Small pox infect blankets is up there with the M1 Garand's ping getting GI's killed on the list of most widely believed historical BS.
@Andrew, you continue to ignore facts of history and simple truisms of human nature to support your crazy imperialst stance. You are a hypocrit because you warp your opinion around what history you cannot distort. As I have said before, if you follow your logic through a fortiori, then the 9/11 deaths where justified and ironically so were some of the horendous attrociaties committed by Japan against US soldiers. Your mind set is the exact same as those who you argue against and call monsters.
Because it wasn't the military of the government that allows soldiers to go psyco like the Japanese. It's a culture that produces that!
As someone else has pointed out, throughout history we have seen various armies committing atrocious acts without leadership. Sure a culture that places itself above others and believes itself the chosen people or whatever they want to call it will act accordingly in any given situation and the ugly side of human nature can emerge in a perfect storm, but the US and its soldiers are not exempt from this. There are some pretty fething aweful things comitted by US soldiers in Vietnam on civilians. Or do those not count as well?
How do you reconcile the US waged war on Iraq? Our state occupied a foriegn nation stating we had evidence to support our occupation when we did not. The civilian death toll from this war is put around 90k-150k depending where you are looking. The US military casulaties are nearing 6k. Oh wait, let me guess, Sadam is evil? So whatever we do is justified right?
How about the Guatamalan Coup d'etat? The US backed over throw of democratically elected government that led to series of US backed brutal dictators that caused enormous civil unrest and destabilization with almost half a century of turmoil and a death toll projected at almost 200,000.
Hell look at US behavior in Central America for the last 100 years, there have been some pretty hardcore imperliast activies there we could dissect.
Our culture in the US finds this behavoir acceptable for the most part. A large portion of this is because the standard state propaganda that is similar whether we are talking about Japan, Iraq, Iran, the Soviet Union or the US. Every citizen is indoctrinated from early on. Further, each countries media is spun in favor of the state as are our history books. This is a natural function of the government protecting itself. Every person is responsible for their actions but you conviently ignore the roll of government and even our natural inclination in smoothing over the rough edges of any given unpleasant situation or looking the other way, not to condone the actions but for self preservation. Instead you favor of labeling citizens in another culture as monsters.
I have not found one person on this thread who puts the lives of their soldiers below the lives of the enemy as you continue to imply. That would be nonsense.
Edit: spelling, sorry typing on phone...may be more spelling errors
).
What are you on?
but it was most of british Island sept for Scotland
