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.

There's no defense for Japanese war atrocities. But Kamikaze attacks aren't a war atrocity.

As Kanluwen noted, most of our Medal of Honor winners were probably well aware they would die or expecting to die doing what they did. I do see a bit of a difference between spur-of-the-moment suicidal gallantry vs. premedidated suicide attacks, but it's not in the bravery of the guy dying for his country. I don't see any of those guys as evil if they really thought they were defending their country and had a chance to stop or slow our invasion of Japan.

As noted, if they KNEW it was hopeless and they were making suicide attacks out of spite & hatred, that's different. That is indeed more akin to a terrorist suicide bomber, though I do agree with the earlier point that there's still a moral difference between targeting civilians and attacking a military target during a war.

I personally rather doubt that many of the Kamikaze were doing it for evil reasons. It is possible that some or many of them were lied to and motivated by officers who knew the war would be lost, in which case said officers would certainly be evil scumbags. It's hard to know, though. Certainly the Japanese as a people had a hard time believing that they would lose. That's a big part of the justification behind the dropping the The Bomb. That it finally convinced them to stop fighting and wasting lives.

Of course its utterly irrelevant to the topic of terrorists and suicide bombers, which itself is utterly irrelevant to the topic of the Swiss and their apparent love of zoning.

Which is irrelevant to the topic of japanese kamikaze pilots, which is irrelevant to the topic of nationalistic jingoism and the decrying of "foreign" war crimes. This topic has gone on such a big ferris wheel that the people at the topic are probably having a hard time breathing.

About the totals, take out the soviet union totals, because just as much of their people died from the scorched earth tactics of the soviets as from attacks by Germans, if not more. Also, the allies had more population in general, even if we do not include the u.s.

Thus, more civilian casualties. It would be more accurate to show the percentage of each nations total population that died rather than the actual totals.

See, told you I'd have fun.

Not if the Nazi's and the Imperial Japanese has won. They would have made sure that the British and the Americans were seen as the baby eating monsters of the whole piece. The majority would have been kept ignorant of their countries attrocities via clever censorship and propaganda, whilst anyone brave/stupid enough to speak out against the ruling regimes would be....... silenced.

I think it's hard to spin the Holocaust and events like 'The Rape of Nanking' and 'Black Christmas' to make them look WORSE. 'City-busting' wasn't our country's proudest moment, but that was just part of the war - London suffered massive bombing, in addition to V1 and V2 attacks.

The V1's and V2's hitting london were all Hitlers decisions. Had he listened to his command staff, they would have been used to help protect the beaches.

GundamMerc wrote:About the totals, take out the soviet union totals, because just as much of their people died from the scorched earth tactics of the soviets as from attacks by Germans, if not more.

Umm... no. 7,420,379 directly killed by Germany, 2,164,313 captured died doing forced labor for Germany, 4,100,000 died from hunger, disease and other hardships. Some of the Polish deaths could have been caused by the USSR, but for the most part the USSR just didn't intervene while the Germans killed them (to make for a less rebellious country when taken over by them). And while we're on the subject, most of the civillian deaths in Romania and Austria (and a few from Germany) were holocaust deaths.

Also, the allies had more population in general, even if we do not include the u.s.

Thus, more civilian casualties.

Military deaths are also shown. In every Allied country besides the United States and the UK (who were never invaded) there are more civillian casualties than military casualites. In no Axis nation is that true (except Romania, in which the civillian deaths are all holocaust).

In total, there are over two civillians killed by the Axis for every soldier. There is less than a third of a civillian killed by the Allies. That's a sixfold difference.

It would be more accurate to show the percentage of each nations total population that died rather than the actual totals.

It would be most accurate to show the ratio of military and civillian deaths.

However, the graph also does show the percentage of the population killed by nation in the war (four out of the top five are allies, by the way), so I'm not sure what you're complaining about.

See, told you I'd have fun.

I'm happy for you.

The V1's and V2's hitting london were all Hitlers decisions. Had he listened to his command staff, they would have been used to help protect the beaches.

And?

Does that mean the UK shouldn't have retaliated?

GundamMerc wrote:About the totals, take out the soviet union totals, because just as much of their people died from the scorched earth tactics of the soviets as from attacks by Germans, if not more. Also, the allies had more population in general, even if we do not include the u.s.

Thus, more civilian casualties. It would be more accurate to show the percentage of each nations total population that died rather than the actual totals.

See, told you I'd have fun.

So you can kill a million Russians, but it isn't as bad as killing a million Germans because there's more Russians overall? I'm not getting that logic at all.

Every dead civilian is a horrible tragedy, and it isn't lessened because you come from a really big country.

SS units were frequently late in reaching the front lines because they got sidetracked shooting up Polish villages. The allies undertook some operations that probably wasn't worth the toll in civilian lives, but that's wholly different to the deliberate and frequently organised efforts to slaughter civilians undertaken by the Axis powers. Trying to make any comparison is a poorly judged, tasteless exercise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:Does that mean the UK shouldn't have retaliated?

It was an indicator that the UK's own program of strategic bombing would be as ineffective as the Nazi program to bomb London into submission. It's odd that command staff could be relieved that the Germans stopped attacking airfields and military sites and started focussing on population centres... and then went and made the same mistake themselves.

Its understandable. The last thing a war leader is likely to do is treat his people as equivalent to those he's fighting.

"The British people are proud and strong, we can resist strategic bombing. The German people are weak, and evil, they'll never do the same."

Stupid sure, but nationalism was stronger then.

dogma wrote:Its understandable. The last thing a war leader is likely to do is treat his people as equivalent to those he's fighting.

"The British people are proud and strong, we can resist strategic bombing. The German people are weak, and evil, they'll never do the same."

Stupid sure, but nationalism was stronger then.

Fair point. It's a little odd that we're still falling for it now ("we're only losing to the rebels because we're not cruel enough...") but I understand the mistake a little more ain the context of WWII.

I did not say killing a million russians is not as bad as killing a million germans, just that it is more likely to occur because of the population differences. Also, Orkeosaurus (I spelled it right!) note that i was speaking of USSR totals alone. I did not include poland, or romania, or austria... so thats that. Also, military deaths in germany WOULD be greater, as they had most men around the ages of 16-40 in the armed forces.

Yes, the german SS were bad. But when the soviet troops conquered east germany, they were just as bad when it came to killing and raping civilians.

although, orkeosaurus, you make a good point about the percentages. did not see those blue bars on the graph. thanks.

GundamMerc wrote:I did not say killing a million russians is not as bad as killing a million germans, just that it is more likely to occur because of the population differences.

How does that matter? More likely or not, atrocity is atrocity, no?

Modquisition on:
I usually don't mod threads I am involved in unless I have to, but I believe this one has run its course a wee bit. At 13 pages and four to five topic shifts its probably best to put this one to bed.