Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ketara wrote:In that case, the day you lead the army sir, is probably the day other nations band together to put us down as the rabid dog. I just pray they don't think the same way you do....

To be fair, I'm not talking about attacking perceived enemies and utterly annihilating them - I'm talking about a nation defending its very existence as a nation. What if 'Sealion' had gotten off the ground? What actions by Britain wouldn't have been justified in that instance? If I were the leader of a nation that was under immediate threat of enslavement to an invading foreign power, and I had the capabilities, I would kill every single man woman and child in the opposing country using any and all methods. If it came to that. It may sound like barbarism, but the way I see it, my enemy had the choice not to attack me in the first place.

sebster wrote:

Albatross wrote:...of Japanese people. Am I supposed to care?

About people? Yes you are. That's the difference between regular humans and sociopaths.

Meh.

Now, obviously there are points in a war where you have to make a choice about killing people, that's what wars are about. But the idea that such a decision would be made without any regard for the human lives is the kind of thing people only think about because they're not the ones making the decision. It is a decision that obviously weighs on those who to make it.

I guess I'm just adapting my personal philosophy to this situation. I can honestly say that I have never attacked anyone in my whole adult life. I have been attacked, and in those rare instances I made sure to leave those people with, ahem, 'something to remember me by'.

There are big and important reasons why we were the good guys in WWII, and why the world was better off for our victory. For the most part we practiced proportionate war, and we only killed where it would achieve some goal of ours.

Winning is a goal. Defending yourself is a goal. I'm not talking about wholesale slaughter just for fun - I'm talking about defeating an aggressor.

Your logic in this thread lines up closer with the Axis powers.

Yeah, not buying that. Where have I advocated ruthless expansionism (in this thread )?

Albatross wrote:Plus, one thing to consider is that if you totally crush your enemy, you get to set the terms - your victory is complete.

I think most people desire that, even if it often goes unspoken.

And is it worth destroying two cities and killing hundreds of thousands of people to reach that desire. By your terms of argument the answer would be always 'yes'. By most people's terms, including almost everyone who's led an army to war, the answer would be maybe, depending on how important total victory is.

In terms of defending yourself from the likes of the Nazis or imperial Japan? It's very important.

Again, Nanking. Would I want that to happen to Manchester? No. Would I personally steamroller occupied Japanese orphanages to stop it from happening?


You bet your sweet arse I would.

Albatross wrote:Again, Nanking. Would I want that to happen to Manchester? No. Would I personally steamroller occupied Japanese orphanages to stop it from happening?


You bet your sweet arse I would.

It's gotten to the point where I find your rhetoric more disturbing than amusing.

I don't know, I'm just getting heart warming pictures of extreme patriotism...

Steam Rollers with Union Jacks everywhere, leading the charge and paving the way for peace.

It's quite beautiful really.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Albatross wrote:Again, Nanking. Would I want that to happen to Manchester? No. Would I personally steamroller occupied Japanese orphanages to stop it from happening?


You bet your sweet arse I would.

It's gotten to the point where I find your rhetoric more disturbing than amusing.

Why?

Is it really that odd, or do you just lead a fairly sheltered and safe life that allows you to sit in moral judgement of people who might not have had that luxury?

At what point when you're being attacked do you stop defending yourself? When you've gone too far? What's 'too far'? Is there a point when you say 'right, in order to stop you from attacking me I'm going to have to do some things which I wouldn't normally do, things which are pretty brutal - but that would make me a bad person so I guess you win. Do what you like to me.'

Come on. NO-ONE thinks like that. I'm willing to bet you've never been in a fight in your life. Not that that's a bad thing, it's just that you shouldn't judge people for their honest reaction to outside aggression if you haven't ever been attacked. You're judging the Americans, but the Americans lost thousands of men fighting the Japanese.

In the words of Bobby Womack: 'You don't know what you'll do until you're put under pressure'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Medium of Death wrote:I don't know, I'm just getting heart warming pictures of extreme patriotism...

Steam Rollers with Union Jacks everywhere, leading the charge and paving the way for peace.

It's quite beautiful really.

Ah, Britannia! The green hills, the playing fields of Eton, afternoon tea and the smell of freshly-cut grass, the slap of the leather on willow....

Albatross wrote:

Medium of Death wrote:I don't know, I'm just getting heart warming pictures of extreme patriotism...

Steam Rollers with Union Jacks everywhere, leading the charge and paving the way for peace.

It's quite beautiful really.

Ah, Britannia! The green hills, the playing fields of Eton, afternoon tea and the smell of freshly-cut grass, the slap of the leather on willow....

...the bad food, the occasional buggery (after all, we can't forget your Navy), the coal mines, the buggery in the coal mines...

Ahtman wrote: ...the bad food, the occasional buggery (after all, we can't forget your Navy), the coal mines, the buggery in the coal mines...

bad food? pfft, just because it's not drenched in fa.. wait...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep-fried_Mars_bar

In terms of the buggery? As long as you think of the Queen it's considered Patriotic.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Albatross wrote:You bet your sweet arse I would.

It's gotten to the point where I find your rhetoric more disturbing than amusing.

Aww, you aren't going to return his flirtatious comments with more of the same?

Ahtman wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Medium of Death wrote:I don't know, I'm just getting heart warming pictures of extreme patriotism...

Steam Rollers with Union Jacks everywhere, leading the charge and paving the way for peace.

It's quite beautiful really.

Ah, Britannia! The green hills, the playing fields of Eton, afternoon tea and the smell of freshly-cut grass, the slap of the leather on willow....

...the bad food, the occasional buggery (after all, we can't forget your Navy), the coal mines, the buggery in the coal mines...

We don't have any more coal mines. We do our buggery in the open air, as god intended.

Japanese war crimes were every bit as bad as the Nazi war crimes. The only real difference between Nanking and Auschwitz is the Nazis were killing white people, and the Japanese were killing Asians. That and the USA was really burnt out on the war by the time we started dropping Abombs. That made one hell of a combination of war fatigue and racism. There is also the fact that without emperor Hirohito capitulation we would have had to either invade mainland Japan or keep dropping abombs.

In retrospect we did the right thing (allow the Japanese high command to walk) for the wrong reasons (We we didn't want to expend money or American lives to bring the killers of Asians to justice because we didn't see their lives of the victims as being worth the effort). The reason I say allowing war criminals to walk was the right thing is a matter of moral pragmatism. It all comes down to numbers, how many more innocent Japanese civilians are we willing to kill to bring war criminals to justice? It would have come down to having to commit war crimes against an enemy willing to surrender in order to bring war criminals to justice.

Albatross wrote:

Ahtman wrote:...the bad food, the occasional buggery (after all, we can't forget your Navy), the coal mines, the buggery in the coal mines...

We don't have any more coal mines. We do our buggery in the open air, as god intended.

Truly we live in a glorious age.

Ahtman wrote:
Truly you live in a glorious man.

Albatross wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Albatross wrote:Again, Nanking. Would I want that to happen to Manchester? No. Would I personally steamroller occupied Japanese orphanages to stop it from happening?


You bet your sweet arse I would.

It's gotten to the point where I find your rhetoric more disturbing than amusing.

Why?

Is it really that odd, or do you just lead a fairly sheltered and safe life that allows you to sit in moral judgement of people who might not have had that luxury?

At what point when you're being attacked do you stop defending yourself? When you've gone too far? What's 'too far'? Is there a point when you say 'right, in order to stop you from attacking me I'm going to have to do some things which I wouldn't normally do, things which are pretty brutal - but that would make me a bad person so I guess you win. Do what you like to me.'

Great fallacy you've put up here. Japan wasn't walking down the streets of manchester and they weren't on the doorstep of the US. Japan was the counry which was on the defensive. IF the people which dropped the bomb were under such a threat then your arguement would carry a lot more weight. But since they weren't, and there was never any reasonable risk of that happening...

Come on. NO-ONE thinks like that. I'm willing to bet you've never been in a fight in your life.

Outside of a schoolyard brawl? No. But you of course are the Defender of Manchester!

Not that that's a bad thing, it's just that you shouldn't judge people for their honest reaction to outside aggression if you haven't ever been attacked. You're judging the Americans, but the Americans lost thousands of men fighting the Japanese.

Virtually none of which were civilians.

If the A-bomb was a last resort, then yeah. I can accept it's use. But if you could find an alternative to steamrolling orphanages, wouldn't you explore it?

Do you really think Imperial Japan would have remained peaceful after an armistice?

Amaya wrote:Do you really think Imperial Japan would have remained peaceful after an armistice?

Do you really think they would have been a threat to the US or Manchester? The Soviets were keen to take apart what was left of their Empire piece by piece regardless. But an armistice isn't the point here.

No one thought post WW1 Germany was a threat either...

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Amaya wrote:Do you really think Imperial Japan would have remained peaceful after an armistice?

Do you really think they would have been a threat to the US or Manchester? The Soviets were keen to take apart what was left of their Empire piece by piece regardless. But an armistice isn't the point here.

That's another reason why, on top of all the other reason, Japan was treated much more lightly after the war. Post-surrender it was a vital foothold in the east vs the communist threat.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Amaya wrote:Do you really think Imperial Japan would have remained peaceful after an armistice?

Do you really think they would have been a threat to the US or Manchester? The Soviets were keen to take apart what was left of their Empire piece by piece regardless. But an armistice isn't the point here.

Japan wasn't a threat to the US until bombs started dropping over Hawaii, then they became one hell of a threat. Again, by this logic you would have left Germany alive to build their own nukes and intercontinental bombers.

Nuts.

Albatross wrote:I guess I'm just adapting my personal philosophy to this situation. I can honestly say that I have never attacked anyone in my whole adult life. I have been attacked, and in those rare instances I made sure to leave those people with, ahem, 'something to remember me by'.

Okay, but the thing is when some guy on the street attacks you he's made his own decision. When a nation goes to war most of the folk involved weren't part of that decision. The people in the cities were just told they're at war now.

In this case, the 'something to remember me by' is going around to the guy's house and punching his daughter in the face.

Which, maybe, is something that might be justified. If the guy is threatening your family, maybe the way to make him stop is to hurt his family so he won't dare continue.* But the point is, when it comes time to decide whether to go around to his place and punch his daughter in the face, you have ask 'do I really gain something substantial from punching his daughter in the face?'

Yeah, not buying that. Where have I advocated ruthless expansionism (in this thread )?

In following the logic that you're at war so you shouldn't consider the harm done in winning the war, yeah so far you've been more in line with the Axis than the Allies.




*Well, actually, that's a seriously bad idea, but you know, it's an analogy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:How hard would it be for at least some vauge warning to be given? "Hey you lot we have a really powerful weapon, why don't y'all people bunker down. By reading this you are asserting that USA pty limited is in no way responsible for your health or damage to property." Granted it wouldn't have worked, but at least they'd have tried and maybe even have kept a few people away from the city for a while.

Or prepared to shoot down the bomber that the US had announced was coming.

It upsets me that the demonstration option was never explored, or even considered. Maybe it wouldn't have convinced the Japanese to surrender, maybe they wouldn't have believed the US would actually use it against a city and Hiroshima and Nagasaki (or Tokyo if the weather cleared up) would happen anyway. But maybe it would have. And it's not good enough to justify the deaths of hundreds of thousands and the continued suffering of hundreds of thousands more on a 'maybe'.

It's not explored because it's not practical, or sensible. An atom bomb is a city killer, you use it in that role or you don't bother.

This is the part where if it was any other poster I'd snidely suggest that it probably had something to do with one place being white and the other not.

There were many times I could have asked why you don't seem to care about the Chinese lives that were being lost every day the war continued, but that would have been cheap on my part.

Meanwhile, I'll point out, again, that I agree that some operations can gain sol little they're not worth the lives expended. Dresden is a good example of such. I believed much was gained by dropping the nukes, so it can be seen as bringing the war to an early finish, and saving lives. This isn't absolutely known, but I believe the case is sufficiently vague that it becomes impossible to stand in judgement over Truman and say dropping the bomb was something we know was absolutely immoral.

Do you disagree with that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

schadenfreude wrote:Japanese war crimes were every bit as bad as the Nazi war crimes.

No, there were many differences besides that, which have been pointed out in detail over the course of this thread. Did you read the thread?

schadenfreude wrote:Japanese war crimes were every bit as bad as the Nazi war crimes.

No, there were many differences besides that, which have been pointed out in detail over the course of this thread. Did you read the thread?

schadenfreude wrote:

schadenfreude wrote:Japanese war crimes were every bit as bad as the Nazi war crimes.

No, there were many differences besides that, which have been pointed out in detail over the course of this thread. Did you read the thread?

One was hot blooded, the other cold blooded. You're attempting to make a moral debate of a greater evil between that Nazis gassing Jews because they were just following orders, or Japanese soldiers throwing Philippino babies up in the air and catching them on their bayonets just to watch their mothers cry before and/or after they rape her. Do war crimes really taste and better or worse if they are served hot or cold?

He isn't making a moral debate, he is stating they were different. They both caused massive amounts of human suffering, no one is contesting that, but the particulars are still different.

schadenfreude wrote:One was hot blooded, the other cold blooded. You're attempting to make a moral debate of a greater evil between that Nazis gassing Jews because they were just following orders, or Japanese soldiers throwing Philippino babies up in the air and catching them on their bayonets just to watch their mothers cry before and/or after they rape her. Do war crimes really taste and better or worse if they are served hot or cold?

No, that wasn't one of the differences mentioned. Did you read the thread?

Frazzled wrote:Japan wasn't a threat to the US until bombs started dropping over Hawaii, then they became one hell of a threat.

At least try to understand the meaning of the word 'threat', if not my point regarding the Soviets.

Again, by this logic you would have left Germany alive to build their own nukes and intercontinental bombers.

Nuts.

We killed Germany?

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Japan wasn't a threat to the US until bombs started dropping over Hawaii, then they became one hell of a threat.

At least try to understand the meaning of the word 'threat', if not my point regarding the Soviets.

Again, by this logic you would have left Germany alive to build their own nukes and intercontinental bombers.

Nuts.

We killed Germany?

We killed Japan?

We (including USSR and England) defeated Nazi Germany and prevented them from becoming a threat again.

schadenfreude wrote:
Japanese soldiers throwing Philippino babies up in the air and catching them on their bayonets just to watch their mothers cry before and/or after they rape her.

That was a common myth regarding German Soliders in WW1, I've didn't know that this was also something that was attributed to the Japanese.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Amaya wrote:No one thought post WW1 Germany was a threat either...

Germany surrendered in WW1. An armistice would ironically have prevented a Nazi rise to power, though the likelihood of a second Great War may not have changed.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

schadenfreude wrote:
Japanese soldiers throwing Philippino babies up in the air and catching them on their bayonets just to watch their mothers cry before and/or after they rape her.

That was a common myth regarding German Soliders in WW1, I've didn't know that this was also something that was attributed to the Japanese.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Amaya wrote:No one thought post WW1 Germany was a threat either...

Germany surrendered in WW1. An armistice would ironically have prevented a Nazi rise to power, though the likelihood of a second Great War may not have changed.

Defeating a hostile force and not occupying and demilitarizing it is never a good idea. And yes, Japanese did bayonet babies, open up pregnant mothers, kill fetusus, rape daughters in front of their parents, and all that gak you've heard about it. Not every Japanese soldier did it, but it did happen.

Amaya wrote:
We killed Japan?

I was remarking on how ridiculous it was to refer to a country as a living thing that can be killed, rather than something which can be defeated.

We (including USSR and England) defeated Nazi Germany and prevented them from becoming a threat again.

That's more like it. And yes, you could say the same for Japan. But that doesn't make the cold decision to drop the bomb without exploring the alternatives the right thing to do.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Amaya wrote:
We killed Japan?

I was remarking on how ridiculous it was to refer to a country as a living thing that can be killed, rather than something which can be defeated.

We (including USSR and England) defeated Nazi Germany and prevented them from becoming a threat again.

That's more like it. And yes, you could say the same for Japan. But that doesn't make the cold decision to drop the bomb without exploring the alternatives the right thing to do.

The alternatives were explored. There was an entire plan in place for the invasion of Japan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_downfall

Amaya wrote:
Defeating a hostile force and not occupying and demilitarizing it is never a good idea.

The only problem with this is that it is very costly, and takes a very long time.

And yes, Japanese did bayonet babies, open up pregnant mothers, kill fetusus, rape daughters in front of their parents, and all that gak you've heard about it. Not every Japanese soldier did it, but it did happen.

Just saying. The atrocities committed by Japan are well-documented enough, but it's far too easy to try and further deamonise them like the others in the past. I wonder if the same things will be said about the Taliban or Republican Guard. It's not like the Allied Forces were saints in the matter either, though they certainly don't deserve the infamy the Japanese army earned. I was just surprised that a rumour spread to demonise the WW1 Germans is also applied to the Japanese.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Amaya wrote:
The alternatives were explored. There was an entire plan in place for the invasion of Japan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_downfall

Are you seriously suggesting that invasion was the only alternative? It wasn't, in fact the plan was to drop a further 15 nuclear bombs when the invasion was launched.

Wow, what a discussion - who is/was the biggest war criminal.

It's all atrocious, none of it is justifiable - why not learn from it and try working towards a peaceful future, rather than arguing and making excuses for your 'least hated'?