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.

Frazzled wrote:
Thats what happened.
If we followed Japanese policy, on conquering the country we would have put the entire military and government to death or sent them to death camps inlcuidng the Emperor. All prisoners would have been killed or sent to death camps. Their production and crops exported to the US. Their women used for prostitutes. Entire cities would have been killed for kicks. WE would have ground their culture into dust.

Thats how the Japanese did it.

Allied Occupation of Japan:
-Government Officials sentenced to death? Tick.
-Prisoners killed or put in camps? Cross. Allies stopped killing prisoners once war ended.
-Production and Crops exported? Not sure about that. I don't see what's wrong with it either.
-Women used as prostitues? Tick tick.
-Entire Cities killed? Tick. Well that's what this thread is about isn't it? Japan never killed a city like the US did.
-Grounded culture into the dust? Dunno, maybe? Though, having been on the internet this would be a good thing. Hmm, and that Memoirs of a Geisha thing.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

micahaphone wrote:2) If the territory thing was in there (I shall research this tomorrow- I must go to bed soon), we would not have accepted it. Until later, I shall chalk that up as an uncertain.

Accepted what? Japan was a defeated nation with no ability to bargain for territory they no longer held.

They still retained most of their possessions in Asia. Jeez read a book.

We've already been over this. Having troops stationed at particular places doesn't mean much if you can't mobilise them. War is won on logistics..and massive guns. And planes. And stones. And gak.

Frazzled wrote:If we followed Japanese policy, on conquering the country we would have put the entire military and government to death or sent them to death camps inlcuidng the Emperor. All prisoners would have been killed or sent to death camps. Their production and crops exported to the US. Their women used for prostitutes. Entire cities would have been killed for kicks. WE would have ground their culture into dust.

Thats how the Japanese did it.

Talk about revisionist history.

Prisoners weren't killed or sent to death camps, they were forced to work until they starved to death or, if unable to work, killed or sent to death camps.

Also, their women weren't used for prostitutes. That is suggesting that the women were paid for their "services." The word you're looking for is "raped."

Gee Fraz, get your facts straight ( )

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Thats what happened.
If we followed Japanese policy, on conquering the country we would have put the entire military and government to death or sent them to death camps inlcuidng the Emperor. All prisoners would have been killed or sent to death camps. Their production and crops exported to the US. Their women used for prostitutes. Entire cities would have been killed for kicks. WE would have ground their culture into dust.

Thats how the Japanese did it.

Allied Occupation of Japan:
-Government Officials sentenced to death? Tick.
-Prisoners killed or put in camps? Cross. Allies stopped killing prisoners once war ended.
-Production and Crops exported? Not sure about that. I don't see what's wrong with it either.
-Women used as prostitues? Tick tick.
-Entire Cities killed? Tick. Well that's what this thread is about isn't it? Japan never killed a city like the US did.
-Grounded culture into the dust? Dunno, maybe? Though, having been on the internet this would be a good thing. Hmm, and that Memoirs of a Geisha thing.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

micahaphone wrote:2) If the territory thing was in there (I shall research this tomorrow- I must go to bed soon), we would not have accepted it. Until later, I shall chalk that up as an uncertain.

Accepted what? Japan was a defeated nation with no ability to bargain for territory they no longer held.

They still retained most of their possessions in Asia. Jeez read a book.

We've already been over this. Having troops stationed at particular places doesn't mean much if you can't mobilise them. War is won on logistics..and massive guns. And planes. And stones. And gak.

Go to a library. Read what was done in Korea and China during the war. Then compare the American occupation.

Nice, so just ignore everything the Allies did so that you can have your "USA! USA! USA!" moment? That's cool.

But if you don't have the courtesy to properly address my posts stop posting here rather than continuing to insult me.

biccat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:If we followed Japanese policy, on conquering the country we would have put the entire military and government to death or sent them to death camps inlcuidng the Emperor. All prisoners would have been killed or sent to death camps. Their production and crops exported to the US. Their women used for prostitutes. Entire cities would have been killed for kicks. WE would have ground their culture into dust.

Thats how the Japanese did it.

Talk about revisionist history.

Prisoners weren't killed or sent to death camps, they were forced to work until they starved to death or, if unable to work, killed or sent to death camps.

Also, their women weren't used for prostitutes. That is suggesting that the women were paid for their "services." The word you're looking for is "raped."

Gee Fraz, get your facts straight ( )

You are correct. my bad.

Here's some topics to read
Comfort women
Bataan Death March
Rape of Nanking
And for a codicil that Japanese weren't animals but human beings too
Letters from Iwo Jima


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Nice, so just ignore everything the Allies did so that you can have your "USA! USA! USA!" moment? That's cool.

But if you don't have the courtesy to properly address my posts stop posting here rather than continuing to insult me.

I'm not ignoring it. The fact you can't tell the differnce between the grades of crimes is telling.

Let's turn it down a notch or two please gentleman , count to 10, chew more gum etc etc and take a moment before responding. You're on the OT board of a wargaming website. You're not actually in the super important court case FOR THE FATE AND DESTINY OF THE VERY IMPORTANT THING.

Regardless of what natty little outfit you may be wearing.

..assuming that you are wearing clothes anyway, bit it's lunchtime so we'll leave that nightmare trail of thought to another day.

Frazzled wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Nice, so just ignore everything the Allies did so that you can have your "USA! USA! USA!" moment? That's cool.

But if you don't have the courtesy to properly address my posts stop posting here rather than continuing to insult me.

I'm not ignoring it. The fact you can't tell the differnce between the grades of crimes is telling.

You are ignoring it. You haven't addressed any of the allegations made against Allied forces.

-Execution of Japanese Prisoners
-Mutilation of Japanese Prisoners and casualties
-Prostitution of Japanese Women in Occupied Japan (to prevent too many rape cases)
-Indiscriminate Vaporisation of Cities

I'm not saying that the Japanese Government were the good guys, but you seem to be idolising the Alllied forces here.

EDIT: Red has a point, I should be wearing clothes calm down.

sebster wrote:

Yes, they tasked schoolkids with building ballons, and they sent hundreds of thousands up over the gulf stream. For the total of one effective hit, killing a handful of people. Turns out the while a city is very big, the entirety the west coast of the US is much bigger, and the odds of a bomb landing successfully is so remote that it made the whole thing a very stupid idea indeed.

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.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:Everything else is a response to this ridiculous beleif that Japan was not a threat to the US because it lacked a Navy or effective Air Force.

Aaaaand.....I stopped taking you seriously there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
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.

Ketara wrote: Claiming 'everyone did atrocities, we only get taught half truths, rabble rabble' is no better than raving about UFO's. If you have the proof to show that the US or UK committed atrocities equal to the ones I just named, show it.

Mutilation of Japanese prisoners and corpes is well documented.
So is the reluctance to accept Japanese prisoners at all (in part due to a difference in race, and in part becuase it was sometimes a trick).


When did Japan indiscriminately bomb whole cities of either the US or UK?

Emperors Faithful wrote:When did Japan indiscriminately bomb whole cities of either the US or UK?

The lack of ability to do a thing is not the same as the lack of desire to do a thing.

As noted they attempted balloon bombing.
A more appropriate context is China. They had no compunction about cities when they had the aircraft in range to do so.

Ketara wrote:

AvatarForm wrote:

Like many War-Histories, history is written by the victors.

Who says what you "learned" at school is the reality?

Would further atrocities committed by USMC and other Defence personnel change the US public's views of the present invasions? As they did in Vietnam and the US Govt decided to explain away by claiming it was only a single unit who committed them.

Any who take the time to investigate the other side of an opinion or "fact" would know that what you are taught to believe at school is only half-truths.

There were attrocities on both sides. War is never the correct choice or a method of vindication to decide who is in the "right".

War is in and of itself, an atrocity. Therefore in order to distinguish the difference between the atrocity level that is a constant in standard war (aka, killing people), and things actually are atrocities, a general rule of thumb is to judge how inhumane/unnecessary we would consider it to be.

The nuclear detonations were unnecessary, in that there were other options available, but not to the extent whereby I would consider it an atrocity (because most of those other options also included lots of people dying one way or another). Ultimately, it was a judgement call, and one that is impossible to suddenly declare an atrocity. Why? Because it was no different from the napalm bombing. A bomb dropped on a civilian populace is a bomb dropped on a civilian populace. Unless the two styles of bombing are radically disproportionate (so, dropping an ICBM after one night of light bombing for example), there is really no distinction. The nukes were no worse than the napalm. Both killed lots of people over large areas, in many horrible ways. Just because one was the effect of a single bomb does not suddenly make it an atrocity.

As for bombing civilians in general being an atrocity, as it was modus operandi of modern warfare by that stage, I would judge it part of the nature of warfare of the time, and thus, not an atrocity. It is not cruel enough, deliberate enough, unnecessary enough, or inhumane enough when compared to the real atrocities of the time, such as the Holocaust, the German, and then Russian exterminations along the Eastern Front, or the Death marches the Japanese subjected PoW's too. Claiming 'everyone did atrocities, we only get taught half truths, rabble rabble' is no better than raving about UFO's. If you have the proof to show that the US or UK committed atrocities equal to the ones I just named, show it.

Lack of proof is not necessarily a sign something happened, but is more often a sign that something did not.

What about US soldiers raping civilians?
US forces murdering News reporters to cover up facts?

It is well-documented and examples of the attrocities I was referring to.

Half-truths are what you seem to believe and have nothing comparable to UFO conspiracies.

Lack of proof? Apparently you are the product of the education systems which teach only one side of the story.

If you care for proof, go read a book not condoned by your own education system or, as would be easier for someone not interested in the whole truth, google may be the minimum effort you seem to require for education.

Anyone with a decent tertiary education is taught not to believe everything fed to them at face value. Ask questions, find the truth.

Finally, you seem to have not read Frazzled's post whcich I was specifically responding to.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Mutilation of Japanese prisoners and corpes is well documented.

Mutilation of corpses, well, I wouldn't call that an atrocity personally, since no-one gets hurt by it. It offends relatives slightly if they find out, but its hardly inflicting suffering on another human being. I think its disgusting, but such things has always been a feature of war, for as long as people have been killing each other.


Butchering of the living is something else altogether. I am intrigued. For it to happen on the scale where you could label it an 'American' atrocity, would indicate widespread and common chopping bits off of prisoners. Can you link evidence of this mass, and common practice?

If it was just the case of a few sets of individual groups of soldiers though, that would constitute a smaller individual atrocity, and again, such things have happened in war as long as its gone on. It would be difficult to ascribe the level of 'national atrocity' to them.

So is the reluctance to accept Japanese prisoners at all (in part due to a difference in race, and in part becuase it was sometimes a trick).

There are plenty of documented cases of surrender being used as a device to kill more americans. I believe such an approach is understandable, and not an atrocity in any way.

When did Japan indiscriminately bomb whole cities of either the US or UK?

When did they have the power to?

They did however, indiscriminately bomb that little ol' place called Pearl Harbour. And many other targets across the Far East, some of which were held by the British, many of which were packed with civilians. As said, bombing was standard and acceptable fare of warfare of the era. The nukes were no more or less of an atrocity than the standard act in itself.

Emperors Faithful wrote:-Execution of Japanese Prisoners

The people who committed and/or ordered and presided over Japan's atrocities were subject to trials, and executed for their actions.

-Mutilation of Japanese Prisoners and casualties

[citation needed]

-Prostitution of Japanese Women in Occupied Japan (to prevent too many rape cases)

The crime the Japanese committed wasn't "paid women to work as prostitutes" but "abducted woman for use as sex slaves by front line soldiers".

-Indiscriminate Vaporisation of Cities

War is a filthy business wherein people die. If a nation doesn't surrender when its armed forces lie in ruins and it's surrounded on all sides, the only acceptable course of action is to beat it into submission until it either comes around or has been annihilated. Had they offered their conditional surrender after the Battle of Midway, then it would probably have made sense to accept it, rather than fight a bloody ground war for strategic islands. When they have exactly nothing going for them and are still not willing to surrender on our terms, all things are acceptable in making them come around, and the nuclear bombs happened to shock them into that surrender, far easier than a much bloodier protracted ground war and conventional bombing campaign would have.

Look I Google'd for you, and you know what... the atrocities listed that were commited by "Allied" forces are buried wayyyyyyy down the list.

I wonder why?

It's not like Google is US-owned is it?

Though, Im guessing your next arguement would be that these are not "reputable sources".

That being said, define reputable? Apparently, reputable means agreeing with the present Administration and those in power. Much like the "reputable" sources who claim Carbon Taxes will resolve Global Warming...

Those who back the Government in power's opinions will receive more funding... hence, sometimes those reputable sources you rely so heavily upon are nothing but hot air.

How about you do some further reading, actually speak to those who were in the Wars (or presently serving) and make up your own minds.

It may take some effort, but in the end people will respect your opinions more than just regurgitating what was fed to you in schools and by the media.

What about US soldiers raping civilians?
*You said it. Prove it. Now compare it to the numbers that occurred from Japanese soldiers.

US forces murdering News reporters to cover up facts?
*You said it. Prove it. What WWII reporters were murdered to cover up facts. Evidently Ernie Pyle wasn't killed by Japanese fire but by the American Gestapo.
Now compare it to the numbers of civilians deaths that occurred from japanese soldiers.

It is well-documented and examples of the attrocities I was referring to.
*Again put up or shut up time.
I'll start. Comfort women-and this is just Korea.
http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~soh/cw-links.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comfort_women

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes

R. J. Rummel, a professor of political science at the University of Hawaii, states that between 1937 and 1945, the Japanese military murdered from nearly 3,000,000 to over 10,000,000 people, most likely 6,000,000 Chinese, Indonesians, Koreans, Filipinos, and Indochinese, among others, including Western prisoners of war. "This democide was due to a morally bankrupt political and military strategy, military expediency and custom, and national culture."[35] According to Rummel, in China alone, during 1937-45, approximately 3.9 million Chinese were killed, mostly civilians, as a direct result of the Japanese operations and 10.2 millions in the course of the war.[36] The most infamous incident during this period was the Nanking Massacre of 1937-38, when, according to the findings of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, the Japanese Army massacred as many as 300,000 civilians and prisoners of war, although the accepted figure[by whom?] is somewhere in the hundreds of thousands.[37] In Southeast Asia, the Manila massacre, resulted in the death of 100,000 civilians in the Philippines. It is estimated that at least one out of every 20 Filipinos died at the hand of the Japanese during the occupation.[38][39] In the Sook Ching massacre, Lee Kuan Yew, the ex-Prime Minister of Singapore, said during an interview on with National Geographic that there were between 50,000 and 90,000 casualties[40] while according to Major General Kawamura Saburo, there were 5000 casualties in total.[41] There were other massacres of civilians e.g. the Kalagong massacre.

Historian Mitsuyoshi Himeta reports that a "Three Alls Policy" (Sankō Sakusen) was implemented in China from 1942 to 1945 and was in itself responsible for the deaths of "more than 2.7 million" Chinese civilians. This scorched earth strategy, sanctioned by Hirohito himself, directed Japanese forces to "Kill All, Burn All, and Loot All."

Additionally, captured allied service personnel were massacred in various incidents, including:

Laha massacre
Banka Island massacre
Parit Sulong
Palawan massacre
SS Tjisalak massacre perpetrated by Japanese submarine I-8
Wake Island massacre - See Battle of Wake Island
Bataan Death March

Frazzled wrote:What about US soldiers raping civilians?
*You said it. Prove it. Now compare it to the numbers that occurred from Japanese soldiers.

US forces murdering News reporters to cover up facts?
*You said it. Prove it. What WWII reporters were murdered to cover up facts. Evidently Ernie Pyle wasn't killed by Japanese fire but by the American Gestapo.
Now compare it to the numbers of civilians deaths that occurred from japanese soldiers.

It is well-documented and examples of the attrocities I was referring to.
*Again put up or shut up time.
I'll start. Comfort women-and this is just Korea.
http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~soh/cw-links.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comfort_women

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes

R. J. Rummel, a professor of political science at the University of Hawaii, states that between 1937 and 1945, the Japanese military murdered from nearly 3,000,000 to over 10,000,000 people, most likely 6,000,000 Chinese, Indonesians, Koreans, Filipinos, and Indochinese, among others, including Western prisoners of war. "This democide was due to a morally bankrupt political and military strategy, military expediency and custom, and national culture."[35] According to Rummel, in China alone, during 1937-45, approximately 3.9 million Chinese were killed, mostly civilians, as a direct result of the Japanese operations and 10.2 millions in the course of the war.[36] The most infamous incident during this period was the Nanking Massacre of 1937-38, when, according to the findings of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, the Japanese Army massacred as many as 300,000 civilians and prisoners of war, although the accepted figure[by whom?] is somewhere in the hundreds of thousands.[37] In Southeast Asia, the Manila massacre, resulted in the death of 100,000 civilians in the Philippines. It is estimated that at least one out of every 20 Filipinos died at the hand of the Japanese during the occupation.[38][39] In the Sook Ching massacre, Lee Kuan Yew, the ex-Prime Minister of Singapore, said during an interview on with National Geographic that there were between 50,000 and 90,000 casualties[40] while according to Major General Kawamura Saburo, there were 5000 casualties in total.[41] There were other massacres of civilians e.g. the Kalagong massacre.

Historian Mitsuyoshi Himeta reports that a "Three Alls Policy" (Sankō Sakusen) was implemented in China from 1942 to 1945 and was in itself responsible for the deaths of "more than 2.7 million" Chinese civilians. This scorched earth strategy, sanctioned by Hirohito himself, directed Japanese forces to "Kill All, Burn All, and Loot All."

Additionally, captured allied service personnel were massacred in various incidents, including:

Laha massacre
Banka Island massacre
Parit Sulong
Palawan massacre
SS Tjisalak massacre perpetrated by Japanese submarine I-8
Wake Island massacre - See Battle of Wake Island
Bataan Death March

Refer to my post above. You will need to dig deeper than the front page of a Google search Frazz.

Now a question for you.

God exists. You said it... prove it!

BOOM! Headshot!

AvatarForm wrote:Look I Google'd for you, and you know what... the atrocities listed that were commited by "Allied" forces are buried wayyyyyyy down the list.

I wonder why?

It's not like Google is US-owned is it?

Though, Im guessing your next arguement would be that these are not "reputable sources".

That being said, define reputable? Apparently, reputable means agreeing with the present Administration and those in power. Much like the "reputable" sources who claim Carbon Taxes will resolve Global Warming...

Those who back the Government in power's opinions will receive more funding... hence, sometimes those reputable sources you rely so heavily upon are nothing but hot air.

How about you do some further reading, actually speak to those who were in the Wars (or presently serving) and make up your own minds.

It may take some effort, but in the end people will respect your opinions more than just regurgitating what was fed to you in schools and by the media.

Thats sweet but I see you didn't actually respond.

AvatarForm wrote:
What about US soldiers raping civilians?

Happens in war. Always has, probably always will. Disgusting, but difficult to ascribe as a 'national' level atrocity. It's an individual crime, unless it becomes institutionalised. I'm pretty sure it isn't part of the US forces handbook.

US forces murdering News reporters to cover up facts?

The Japanese had news reporters? Wut?

It is well-documented and examples of the attrocities I was referring to.

The atrocvities you referred to were some absurd rant about Vietnam. We're taking about WW2 here. Go start another thread for that.

Half-truths are what you seem to believe and have nothing comparable to UFO conspiracies.

I like evidence. Sorry. I know this impairs vast, broad statements and conclusions somewhat, but I can't help it. It's part of being someone about to graduate as a War Historian.

Lack of proof? Apparently you are the product of the education systems which teach only one side of the story.

.......Are you trying to accuse the UK educational establishment of teaching pro-US propaganda?



I actually find that hilarious.

If you care for proof, go read a book not condoned by your own education system or, as would be easier for someone not interested in the whole truth, google may be the minimum effort you seem to require for education.

.....Please cite me three decent academic works detailing the commitment of American war atrocities against Japan in WW2. Otherwise, I will simply ignore you from now on. You have now claimed there are certified sources of more 'accurate' information avilable, please quote them. I can no doubt order these wondrous works on loan from the British library, if not by simply walking into my university library right now.

Anyone with a decent tertiary education is taught not to believe everything fed to them at face value. Ask questions, find the truth.

This is correct. We are also taught not to treat stuff 'some guy said in the pub/internet' as gospel either.

Finally, you seem to have not read Frazzled's post whcich I was specifically responding to.

If you look back, you'll note I responded to that post before you did.

God exists. You said it... prove it!

BOOM! Headshot!

Oh jeez I'm conversing with Charlie Sheen. I didn't know else I would have had a lobotomy to make it a fair fight.

To the topic. I'll go back to Ketara as he's represented the counter argument a little more lucidly.
Ketara. You're Supreme OverDog Truman. Its August 2. Your forces are gathering for the invasion. Japan still has forces in Asia. You may or may not know that the USSR is about to go super Blitkkrieg on the Japanese in Manchuria. US forces are taking casualties daily and are bombing the Japanese islands daily.

What do you do to win the war as quickly as possible with as few ally civilian and military casualties as possible, and secondarily with as few Japanese civilian deaths as possible. You've seen some options here and there may be others we haven't noted. What do you do?

Atrocities in war, by category:

US war crimes during Vietnam. Researched and investigated.
http://hnn.us/articles/1802.html

Google "My Lai Kids": http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_American_soldiers_rape_Vietnamese_kids_in_the_vietnam_war

Google: "Were Vietnamese women raped by US soldiers in the Vietnam War?"
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Were_Vietnamese_women_raped_by_soldiers_in_the_Vietnam_War

Im certain Amnesty International would have some documents you could read further into.

More recently, in Iraq: News report on US atrocities. Ie. Rape of civilians
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEU8c8sCfMc

It seems to be a USA "unofficial handbook" SOP.

http://www2.iath.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Texts/Scholarly/Stuldreher_Rape.html

Google: Iraq War atrocities
http://mindprod.com/politics/iraqatrocities.html

and... the coup de gras: US air crew shooting down Iraqi civilians
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/05/wikileaks-us-army-iraq-attack

Took all of 10min to Google and post.

I cannot believe that anyone with access to the Internet or a tertiary education can deny that these events occurred.

To address Ketara's comment RE: Pro-USA education regarding the major Wars...

Most education in primary and secondary schools is very similar between the USA, AUS and UK. All education systems from the "Allies" nations will teach the same line. Its part of Nationalism and pretending that they were always the protagonists.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

God exists. You said it... prove it!

BOOM! Headshot!

Oh jeez I'm conversing with Charlie Sheen. I didn't know else I would have had a lobotomy to make it a fair fight.

To the topic. I'll go back to Ketara as he's represented the counter argument a little more lucidly.
Ketara. You're Supreme OverDog Truman. Its August 2. Your forces are gathering for the invasion. Japan still has forces in Asia. You may or may not know that the USSR is about to go super Blitkkrieg on the Japanese in Manchuria. US forces are taking casualties daily and are bombing the Japanese islands daily.

What do you do to win the war as quickly as possible with as few ally civilian and military casualties as possible, and secondarily with as few Japanese civilian deaths as possible. You've seen some options here and there may be others we haven't noted. What do you do?

Cute.

I see that you still have not responded.

Nor have you provided proof that "God" exists.

Yet I have provided links to pages for you to peruse at your own speed and you can choose to persue the facts in your own time and cost.

I am certain Amnesty International and other Humane Societies will provide you with further reading material.

Now, after you do some reading and you still wish to deny the atrocities committed by US soldiers, please provide documentation to DIS-prove these.

AvatarForm wrote:Atrocities in war, by category:

US war crimes during Vietnam. Researched and investigated.
http://hnn.us/articles/1802.html

Google "My Lai Kids": http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_American_soldiers_rape_Vietnamese_kids_in_the_vietnam_war

Google: "Were Vietnamese women raped by US soldiers in the Vietnam War?"
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Were_Vietnamese_women_raped_by_soldiers_in_the_Vietnam_War

Im certain Amnesty International would have some documents you could read further into.

More recently, in Iraq: News report on US atrocities. Ie. Rape of civilians
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEU8c8sCfMc

It seems to be a USA "unofficial handbook" SOP.

http://www2.iath.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Texts/Scholarly/Stuldreher_Rape.html

Google: Iraq War atrocities
http://mindprod.com/politics/iraqatrocities.html

and... the coup de gras: US air crew shooting down Iraqi civilians
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/05/wikileaks-us-army-iraq-attack

Took all of 10min to Google and post.

I cannot believe that anyone with access to the Internet or a tertiary education can deny that these events occurred.

To address Ketara's comment RE: Pro-USA education regarding the major Wars...

Most education in primary and secondary schools is very similar between the USA, AUS and UK. All education systems from the "Allies" nations will teach the same line. Its part of Nationalism and pretending that they were always the protagonists.

Ok, lets help you out. maybe your eyesight is bad like mine. We're talking about WWII. Further we're talking about the Pacific/Asia. Further we were at least tangentially talking about whether the nuke bombings were "a good idea."

World War II ended in 1945. The US had no material troops in Vietnam until about 1965. Now Japan had troops in Vietnam, but I don't think thats whet you're talking about. But its ok, you're only a generation off. Duh, winning!

Frazzled wrote:

AvatarForm wrote:Atrocities in war, by category:

US war crimes during Vietnam. Researched and investigated.
http://hnn.us/articles/1802.html

Google "My Lai Kids": http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_American_soldiers_rape_Vietnamese_kids_in_the_vietnam_war

Google: "Were Vietnamese women raped by US soldiers in the Vietnam War?"
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Were_Vietnamese_women_raped_by_soldiers_in_the_Vietnam_War

Im certain Amnesty International would have some documents you could read further into.

More recently, in Iraq: News report on US atrocities. Ie. Rape of civilians
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEU8c8sCfMc

It seems to be a USA "unofficial handbook" SOP.

http://www2.iath.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Texts/Scholarly/Stuldreher_Rape.html

Google: Iraq War atrocities
http://mindprod.com/politics/iraqatrocities.html

and... the coup de gras: US air crew shooting down Iraqi civilians
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/05/wikileaks-us-army-iraq-attack

Took all of 10min to Google and post.

I cannot believe that anyone with access to the Internet or a tertiary education can deny that these events occurred.

To address Ketara's comment RE: Pro-USA education regarding the major Wars...

Most education in primary and secondary schools is very similar between the USA, AUS and UK. All education systems from the "Allies" nations will teach the same line. Its part of Nationalism and pretending that they were always the protagonists.

Ok, lets help you out. maybe your eyesight is bad like mine. We're talking about WWII. Further we're talking about the Pacific/Asia. Further we were at least tangentially talking about whether the nuke bombings were "a good idea."

World War II ended in 1945. The US had no material troops in Vietnam until about 1965. Now Japan had troops in Vietnam, but I don't think thats whet you're talking about. But its ok, you're only a generation off. Duh, winning!

Yes, the thread began concerning WW2, however the context changed to encompass individuals denying that the USA has unclean hands. Which is what I was providing evidence of. Regardless of chronology, I have provided the evidence requested.

Most situations are an escalation or product of a previous War or conflict.

Ie. WW2 began soon after WW1 due to Militarism, Alliance, Industrialisation, Nationalism as a general rule.

Similarly, Vietnam is a result of many factors which flowed on from the USA/Japan conflict. Just because the USA and other allies did not literally have their own troops in a contested area, this does not mean they did not have proxies doing the dirty work.

Once the USA had troops in Vietnam, to combat the Viet Cong (Japanese proxies) the atrocities listed were committed. Isnt it funny how a conflict cna continue for an entire generation and the effects continue generations later. I am sure that a hardline denialist such as yourself can even see this from your isolation across the ocean.

Examples of these can be found in the 3 factions in Cambodia. China; the USA; and Germany all had proxies contesting the political power in Cambodia. More recently, in Afganistan and Iraq the USA had employed bands of mercenaries and guerillas in the form of local warlords and their private armies.

Now, please stop stalling and provide a response of substance or

Ketara wrote:
.....Please cite me three decent academic works detailing the commitment of American war atrocities against Japan in WW2. Otherwise, I will simply ignore you from now on. You have now claimed there are certified sources of more 'accurate' information avilable, please quote them. I can no doubt order these wondrous works on loan from the British library, if not by simply walking into my university library right now.

.....was what I said/asked.

Your first answer seems to consist of....*peruses*.....a news link about US war crimes. In Vietnam. Hmmm. That must be a mistake. I'm sure the chap just mixed things up.

Links two and three.....are about Vietnam. And Wikianswers to boot. Which is only about half as academically certified as wikipedia! *rolls eyes* But surely there must be something about Japan and WW2 in here in somewhere!

*checks*

Nope.

I'm sorry, who are you arguing with here? I think you have me confused with someone who is arguing there were no atrocities committed in the Vietnam war. Which would be silly, because there were. Everyone knows that, its no big secret.

Most education in primary and secondary schools is very similar between the USA, AUS and UK. All education systems from the "Allies" nations will teach the same line.

And no. They really, really don't. Let's just say my history lessons about the Cold War were....less than flattering of the US.

To the topic. I'll go back to Ketara as he's represented the counter argument a little more lucidly.
Ketara. You're Supreme OverDog Truman. Its August 2. Your forces are gathering for the invasion. Japan still has forces in Asia. You may or may not know that the USSR is about to go super Blitkkrieg on the Japanese in Manchuria. US forces are taking casualties daily and are bombing the Japanese islands daily.

What do you do to win the war as quickly as possible with as few ally civilian and military casualties as possible, and secondarily with as few Japanese civilian deaths as possible. You've seen some options here and there may be others we haven't noted. What do you do?

Sorry Fraz, but I'm not sure what part of your argument you think I'm countering. I've lost the plot slightly here. Could you point out what you and me are arguing about? I thought we agreed a few pages back that whilst it was technically 'unnecessary' due to having other options and Japanese weakness, it was a perfectly valid thing to do in a war, and no more an atrocity than napalm bombing?

Duh, losing. Everyone but you is talking about WWII. You seem to be just ranting about the US, and God or something. maybe you need to drink some more tiger blood.

Leaving aside the issue of atrocities in China (which frazz is correct in pointing out) the real issues are these:

Was racism a major factor in using the bomb? Yes.

Was Japan finished as a military force? Yes

Were the Japanese ready to roll up the white flag? Yes.

Was the bomb used to lay down a marker to Joe Commie? Yes.

The evidence to support this is overwhelming. That's the moral issue here that those cities need not have been bombed.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Was racism a major factor in using the bomb? Yes.

Were the Japanese ready to roll up the white flag? Yes.

I'm not sure those two have been conclusively proven one way or another. In fact, I heavily doubt that 'racism' as we know it played a part at all in the decision to use the bomb.

Ketara wrote:
Sorry Fraz, but I'm not sure what part of your argument you think I'm countering. I've lost the plot slightly here. Could you point out what you and me are arguing about? I thought we agreed a few pages back that whilst it was technically 'unnecessary' due to having other options and Japanese weakness, it was a perfectly valid thing to do in a war, and no more an atrocity than napalm bombing?

Oh sorry. I think we're on the same page then. I thought you were arguing initially that it was a bad idea and I was looking to see what you would have done (and I was not trying for a "yea well what would you have done!" attack).

Its a difficult question. Now that I think about it more, it feels a lot like a "lets try this as a long shot to see if we can end the war before the coming great big bloodbath" Hail Mary pass than anything else.

In the various accusations of whom did what to whom and whether it was justified I have to ask where people stand on the way the Unit 731 was handled. If you don't know who Unit 731 were you can read about them here.

They were the japanese human experimentation and biological warfare unit, if you don't want to know the details don't read the above, it's grotesque. The thing is that the US granted many of these fiends immunity on the basis they would cooperate with handing over their research and some even went on to work in the US on biological weapons there. That has to be the hight of moral dubiousness, on one hand to make a public display of prosecuting people for war crimes such as the Nuremberg Trials, yet if you can profit from these people in some fashion though acquisition of research you can give them a free pass. I don't know what you's call it, it's almost some kind of after-the-fact complicity, they didn't have a hand in it but chose to benefit from this evil afterwards. Instances like that don't make you look a whole lot better than the bad guys, although broadly speaking it's obvious that the conduct of the japanese forces in WW2 were much worse than that of the allies. Although that said, again the Russians went berserk when they invaded Berlin, yet you don't whole a whole heap about the masses of rapes and gang rapes against women and young girls that went on.

I don't know where to stand on the use of the atomic bomb, it's all very well criticising now but it was nearly 70 years ago. And the attitudes then were different. I don't think it was a bad idea, I think it achieved what was needed. I don't think people appreciated the true nature of the weapon, in fact the use of the second bomb is more open to question as being necessary. My suspicion is that they made two bombs and they were going to use two bombs. The thing to remember is that terrible as they were, I think there's an over preoccupation with the deaths resulting from the use of the atomic bomb. US forces killed a lot more people by fire bombing Tokyo - fire bombing a city they knew was largely made of wood and canvas buildings, and they did it night after night burning a hell of a lot more people to a crisp than died under the atomic bombs. Yet time and again we focus on the morality of the atomic weapons. Or take the German city Dresden; the allies annihilated Dresden, again with fire bombing used to a disproportionate degree on a city mostly full of civilians to turn it into a firestorm.

Ketara wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Mutilation of Japanese prisoners and corpes is well documented.

Mutilation of corpses, well, I wouldn't call that an atrocity personally, since no-one gets hurt by it. It offends relatives slightly if they find out, but its hardly inflicting suffering on another human being. I think its disgusting, but such things has always been a feature of war, for as long as people have been killing each other.

Why do you think it was so popular to take trophies of dead Japs, but frowned upon if done to Germans? It wouldn't have anything to do with the Allies viewing the Japanese people as subhuman would it? Especially since this was the very reason Truman gave for dropping the bomb.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_mutilation_of_Japanese_war_dead

Butchering of the living is something else altogether. I am intrigued. For it to happen on the scale where you could label it an 'American' atrocity, would indicate widespread and common chopping bits off of prisoners. Can you link evidence of this mass, and common practice?

I have conciously tried to use the word 'Allied' not 'American'. Australians were some of the worse offenders, with a popular game where grenades were attached to prisoners and the prisoner was told to 'run for it'. Generally Australian forces were the worst when it came to treatment of Japanese prisoners.

US troops were more well known for the taking of trophies though.

If it was just the case of a few sets of individual groups of soldiers though, that would constitute a smaller individual atrocity, and again, such things have happened in war as long as its gone on. It would be difficult to ascribe the level of 'national atrocity' to them.

Turning a blind eye to a crime isn't any better than condoning it. If it was then the Rape of Nanking could be attributed to the 'expected nastiness of war'. The Japanese High Command didn't actively encourage it, but they didn't do a damn thing to stop it either.

So is the reluctance to accept Japanese prisoners at all (in part due to a difference in race, and in part becuase it was sometimes a trick).

There are plenty of documented cases of surrender being used as a device to kill more americans. I believe such an approach is understandable, and not an atrocity in any way.

Japanese tended to have a similar survival rate than Western prisoners (according to Wiki). Also, it seems nearly a third of Western prisoners were killed by friendly fire. Didn't know that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II#Rape

When did Japan indiscriminately bomb whole cities of either the US or UK?

When did they have the power to?

They did however, indiscriminately bomb that little ol' place called Pearl Harbour.

Really? I thought they attacked a viable military target. Those weren't floating schools were they?

And many other targets across the Far East, some of which were held by the British, many of which were packed with civilians. As said, bombing was standard and acceptable fare of warfare of the era. The nukes were no more or less of an atrocity than the standard act in itself.

As said, civilians themselves were not usually the targets.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ketara wrote:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Was racism a major factor in using the bomb? Yes.

Were the Japanese ready to roll up the white flag? Yes.

I'm not sure those two have been conclusively proven one way or another. In fact, I heavily doubt that 'racism' as we know it played a part at all in the decision to use the bomb.

Certainly came up in their propoganda. And was definitely a reason behind the deplorable treatment of Japanese prisoners.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Japanese_sentiment

Emperor's Faithful: I'm not sure what you're point here is. that war is bad and we shouldn't do it? That killing civilians is bad and shouldn't be done?

Congratulations, you've made a nearly self evident point.

It ignores two things:
1) The axis, by and large, committed atrocities on a larger scale and due to top-down orders. Soldiers in the field committ atrocities, it happens (at least partially due to PTSD). Rather than judge the actions of mentally ill individuals, you should look at the attempts to restrain/encourage those behaviours in the organizations. I'm not going to say that American's that shot Japanese POWs were sanctions, but the Japanese institutionalized their atrocities.

2) Statecraft is not personal morality. It never has been. Very rarely does an invididual need to choose between the death of 10,000 and 100,000. States do.

I'm not comfortable with any moral code that makes it impossible to actually be moral.