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.

Andrew1975 wrote:

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.

First of all the discipline of the Japanese soldier throughout history is very very strong. To say the things like The rape of Nanking happened because of a lack of discipline is pure revisionist history. Japanese officers were known to kill soldiers that showed any lack of discipline or respect to their superiors.

Even the Tokyo Trials (run by the Allies) disagrees with you. The only one demonstrating any sort of revisionist history in this thread is you.

If you believe that US service men are by and large capable of such actions, then I will again ask you for proof. My Lai happened, yep, sure did, it was a tragedy. But that was a small group of soldiers in a remote area and they killed 500 people. I'm sure that there were other events also, but this seams to be the largest. To even try to compare that to the routine actions of the Japanese military is farcical.

I've already shown you that US servicemen, like any armed force, is capable of similar atrocities. So far your only response is to say that "it doesn't count" because Japan did more of the same. Face up to it, the US Military are not Paragons of Virtue.

Andrew1975 wrote:Any loss of innocent human life is a tragedy! Undeniably. War tends to be a dirty. Even with all the excuses, its hard if not impossible to justify nuking children, that is a fact. Given that humans are imperfect, it's hard to come up with a perfect situation, especially during war. All things considered I think it was the best all around choice, to an untenable situation. In the situation Best idea might be better than good idea. I think the only thing one can do is weight the good and the bad of the situation, through that analysis I can only conclude it was necessary and the best idea. Many many lives were saved, not just in Japan, the US, and Russia.

Bit of a backpeddal from your THEY HAD IT COMING!

Bit of a backpeddal from your THEY HAD IT COMING!

They certainly did. Starting genocidal wars of conquest is something thats frowned upon, even in the first half of the 20th century. Humanity had even then moved up a notch or two. The Japanese like the Germans just wouldn’t stop when it was clear the game was up. So thousands of them died in a Nuclear fireball, at least they got a quick death. A courtesy rarely afforded by the Imperial Japanese army as it slaughtered and raped its way across Asia. When the war fighting was over the Allies stopped Killing, for the Japanese the killing only continued. That is the difference.

Forgive me if I don't agree with the notion that innocent men, women and children should be held responsible for the actions of their military and government. Especially given that Japan was an Empire.

It was the Japanese people who who made up the government and military, it was the common Japanese man who took up arms and carried out the crimes committed by the state. All bear responsibility for there country’s actions. There was no resistance movement, no mass of people protesting on the street. Just like Germany, without the support of the nation non of what happened would have been possible. People can choose not to do these terrible things, but they did.

Japan had every chance to surrender before the bomb, but chose not too. Previous fire bombing attacks had killed more people in one night then the bomb did. It finally forced home the futility of the situation. And then the killing stopped. Japan ends up becoming one of the world premier economies, and home to the nicest people I have ever met.

The alternative would have been horrendous for both the Japanese and the allies, many more hundreds of thousands if not millions dead.

cpt_fishcakes wrote:
The alternative would have been horrendous for both the Japanese and the allies, many more hundreds of thousands if not millions dead.

The alternatives of giving them more favorable surrender terms, or simply not invading and not dropping the bomb? There would have been no public, or internal support for such actions (as the political fallout would have been incredible), but they still could have been taken. The inconvenient thing which people who use "necessity" as a justification always seem to gloss over is that for something to be necessary, you have to want to do the thing itself, or something which is likely to result from the supposedly necessary thing.

America wanted to win the war by forcing the Japanese into an unconditional surrender. This prompted a set of actions which are widely regarded as atrocious, even by those who believe the choices made were the best of two bad options. I wonder if then you believe that All Americans, or even all citizens of the Allied states bear responsibility for the firebombing of Japanese cities, and the use of atomic weapons.

dogma wrote:The alternatives of giving them more favorable surrender terms, or simply not invading and not dropping the bomb?

The only acceptable outcome was unconditional surrender. There's no other sane conclusion to the war; they were an aggressor nation who fought tooth and nail to keep their ill-gotten gains, against the vastly superior US forces. Once we had fought right up to their front door we were supposed to just stop and let them go? Keep their remaining conquered territories, with the same Imperialist Regime, and let them have a breather so they could rebuild their military for another go? That's insane, and stands in complete opposition to the very notion of warfare.

We could probably have played the whole thing in a more geopolitically advantageous manner, but that would have entailed even greater destruction for the Japanese, as it would have involved playing them off against the Russians, and using them as bait to concentrate as much of the Soviet forces within the blast radius of a nuclear bomb as possible...

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
The only acceptable outcome was unconditional surrender.

Right, but when you're talking about what you're willing to accept you aren't talking about what you need to obtain, but what you want to obtain, which makes the argument "the bombs were necessary" a flimsy proposition used to conceal the fact that people are often fine with doing awful things, as long as they aren't going to suffer as a result.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
There's no other sane conclusion to the war; they were an aggressor nation who fought tooth and nail to keep their ill-gotten gains, against the vastly superior US forces. Once we had fought right up to their front door we were supposed to just stop and let them go? Keep their remaining conquered territories, with the same Imperialist Regime, and let them have a breather so they could rebuild their military for another go? That's insane, and stands in complete opposition to the very notion of warfare.

No, actually, that's wrong, and if you really believe that your knowledge of military history is lacking. Many, many wars have been fought up to a certain point, even against aggressors, only to be terminated once both sides reached an agreement over territory that was lost, or gained. WWI and WWII are huge anomalies in world history as far as the resolution of wars go.

Also, this idea of "ill-gotten gains" is really odd. Almost all national claims to territory have been accomplished through the use of force. Even the US argued from Manifest Destiny in its march West, and then there was that whole business of the Revolution.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
We could probably have played the whole thing in a more geopolitically advantageous manner, but that would have entailed even greater destruction for the Japanese, as it would have involved playing them off against the Russians, and using them as bait to concentrate as much of the Soviet forces within the blast radius of a nuclear bomb as possible...

We could also have just them to their own devices. When you argue that something is insane, you aren't arguing that its possible, or even that its likely, you're arguing that the proposition isn't one which you like. That doesn't mean that the alternatives are necessary actions, it means that they're actions which you prefer to the one which you don't like.

Keep in mind I'm not arguing that we should have done anything differently, and certainly not that we would have. I'm arguing that the argument that dropping the atomic bombs, or invading were not the only two options, as some here are claiming. They may have been the only two options that were seriously considered, because people rarely think about war, especially wars of this magnitude, with clear heads after the event, let alone during it, but they were not the only two options.

dogma wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
The only acceptable outcome was unconditional surrender.

Right, but when you're talking about what you're willing to accept you aren't talking about what you need to obtain, but what you want to obtain, which makes the argument "the bombs were necessary" a flimsy proposition used to conceal the fact that people are often fine with doing awful things, as long as they aren't going to suffer as a result.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
There's no other sane conclusion to the war; they were an aggressor nation who fought tooth and nail to keep their ill-gotten gains, against the vastly superior US forces. Once we had fought right up to their front door we were supposed to just stop and let them go? Keep their remaining conquered territories, with the same Imperialist Regime, and let them have a breather so they could rebuild their military for another go? That's insane, and stands in complete opposition to the very notion of warfare.

No, actually, that's wrong, and if you really believe that your knowledge of military history is lacking. Many, many wars have been fought up to a certain point, even against aggressors, only to be terminated once both sides reached an agreement over territory that was lost, or gained. WWI and WWII are huge anomalies in world history as far as the resolution of wars go.

Also, this idea of "ill-gotten gains" is really odd. Almost all national claims to territory have been accomplished through the use of force. Even the US argued from Manifest Destiny in its march West, and then there was that whole business of the Revolution.

They were ill-gotten in that they were obtained in a manner which was not accepted by the international community, and more importantly that they were unable to keep them when we joined the picture. Right there they've failed every important criterion for legitimacy: lack of recognition, and lack of ability to preserve control in the face of said lack of recognition.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
We could probably have played the whole thing in a more geopolitically advantageous manner, but that would have entailed even greater destruction for the Japanese, as it would have involved playing them off against the Russians, and using them as bait to concentrate as much of the Soviet forces within the blast radius of a nuclear bomb as possible...

We could also have just them to their own devices. When you argue that something is insane, you aren't arguing that its possible, or even that its likely, you're arguing that the proposition isn't one which you like. That doesn't mean that the alternatives are necessary actions, it means that they're actions which you prefer to the one which you don't like.

Keep in mind I'm not arguing that we should have done anything differently, and certainly not that we would have. I'm arguing that the argument that dropping the atomic bombs, or invading were not the only two options, as some here are claiming. They may have been the only two options that were seriously considered, because people rarely think about war, especially wars of this magnitude, with clear heads after the event, let alone during it, but they were not the only two options.

One cannot reject accomplishing the overarching goals of a conflict as necessary, so long as they are within one's means, unless one defines "necessary" down to the most basic existential principles, at which point nothing short of just sort of sitting there and remembering to eat now and then is necessary. Dropping the bombs was necessary to accomplish the entire point of the Pacific war, in that it demonstrably did so, and was the optimal solution available at the time. It was not literally "necessary" for us, in that we could have just sort of sat there, and remembered to eat now and then (and breathe, can't forget that one), but within the scope of our objectives and means, it was.

Bit of a backpeddal from your THEY HAD IT COMING!

Not really. They did have it coming! However I refuse to see this as a one dimensional argument. To me they had it coming is just one reason it was a good idea, because they did! Maybe not each and every individual deserved it, but it general they all deserved if for the trouble that the Japanese society allowed and because they would not truly surrender.

I believe the loss of innocent human life is a tragedy, you see it as unacceptable. There is a large difference. You refuse to accept that there are multitudes of ways to look at the bombings and get stuck on one single issue. Granted it's a big issue, but it's hardly the only one.

Even the Tokyo Trials (run by the Allies) disagrees with you. The only one demonstrating any sort of revisionist history in this thread is you. Notmeanttobeafactualstatement

Fixed that for you.

As usual your facts are not facts!

On November 12, 1948, Matsui and Hirota, along with five other convicted Class-A war criminals, were sentenced to death by hanging. Eighteen others received lesser sentences. The death sentence imposed on Hirota, a six-to-five decision by the eleven judges, shocked the general public and prompted a petition on his behalf, which soon gathered over 300,000 signatures but did not succeed in commuting the Minister's sentence.

General Hisao Tani was sentenced to death by the Nanking War Crimes Tribunal.

I've already shown you that US servicemen, like any armed force, is capable of similar atrocities. So far your only response is to say that "it doesn't count" because Japan did more of the same. Face up to it, the US Military are not Paragons of Virtue.

Your "similar atrocities" don't count because they aren't similar! You keep on bringing up My Lai which is one small case, and clearly and exception. You bring up American Indians, which is ancient history, you bring up the bomb, but that is currently the subject of debate already. None or these things is similar to Japanese atrocities of WWII! Show me an example where the US routinely massacred 100's of thousands of civilians and captured enemy soldiers and I'll admit than I'm wrong.

I've never said they were Paragons of Virtue, but for you to somehow say that they are on the same level as the Japanese in WWII is ridiculous. I would say that in general for the amount and type of action that US soldiers see they have a pretty good record. Yes there are many questionable incidents. For a force that has been seeing almost constant action since WWII the amount and severity of these incidents is minimal. On major battle fields with direct enemy confrontation the US sets the standard for how soldiers should act towards the enemy, for the most part it has only been during actions that are more fuzzy that the humanitarian record of the US military has been diminished. These policing actions tend to be messy events, even in these situations the US military has a much better record than many of its contemporaries.

If anything the US military's problem is a matter of exposure. What I mean by that the longer you continue to have armies out in the field the more likely these kind of tragedies are to happen. I would say that because the US overexposes their soldiers to the horrors of war, we the people and our politicians are just, if not more responsible for their actions. It is unfair to expose soldiers to the constant horror of the battlefield and hold them solely responsible for what happens.

The inconvenient thing which people who use "necessity" as a justification always seem to gloss over is that for something to be necessary, you have to want to do the thing itself, or something which is likely to result from the supposedly necessary thing.

I think you are confusing necessity with desire! It is a necessity that I pay my bills, though many times I desire not to. The term necessity often implies doing something that you do not desire, because the ramifications of not doing so would be undesirable. I don't think we desired to be in a position where it was a necessity to drop the bomb, unfortunately we were.

The terms the Japanese wanted were unacceptable, to leave the villains in charge and unchecked would have been irresponsible.

I wonder if then you believe that All Americans, or even all citizens of the Allied states bear responsibility for the firebombing of Japanese cities, and the use of atomic weapons.

I think it is entirely acceptable that we feel sorrow for those actions, maybe even remorse. I feel it was our responsibility to not use those actions unless the situation demanded. I think we did a pretty good job in that respect. We allowed the Japanese to surrender, we didn't keep dropping bombs and go on a kill crazy rampage of retribution. When we got to Japan there were few incidents of US soldiers stepping out of line.

I think it is something we should always think about, and the fact that we have never used the bomb again shows that we don't take it lightly. I wonder how many other countries in the same situation would have used the bomb as a weapon of global dominance and terror. threatening everyone with it's use indiscriminately.

Forgive me if I don't agree with the notion that innocent men, women and children should be held responsible for the actions of their military and government. Especially given that Japan was an Empire.

You don't need forgiven, you are not wrong in thinking this. You are wrong in thinking that this is the only issue that matters.

I think comparing My Lai to the Rape of Nanking shows a serious lack of perspective.

Andrew1975 wrote:

Bit of a backpeddal from your THEY HAD IT COMING!

Not really. They did have it coming! However I refuse to see this as a one dimensional argument. To me they had it coming is just one reason it was a good idea, because they did! Maybe not each and every individual deserved it, but it general they all deserved if for the trouble that the Japanese society allowed and because they would not truly surrender.

I believe the loss of innocent human life is a tragedy, you see it as unacceptable. There is a large difference. You refuse to accept that there are multitudes of ways to look at the bombings and get stuck on one single issue. Granted it's a big issue, but it's hardly the only one.

Yeah, I would call the murder of over many hundreds of thousands of civilians, by death both fast and slow, to be a pretty big issue. In fact I would say it's even central to the argument.

Even the Tokyo Trials (run by the Allies) disagrees with you. The only one demonstrating any sort of revisionist history in this thread is you. Notmeanttobeafactualstatement

Fixed that for you.

As usual your facts are not facts!

On November 12, 1948, Matsui and Hirota, along with five other convicted Class-A war criminals, were sentenced to death by hanging. Eighteen others received lesser sentences. The death sentence imposed on Hirota, a six-to-five decision by the eleven judges, shocked the general public and prompted a petition on his behalf, which soon gathered over 300,000 signatures but did not succeed in commuting the Minister's sentence.

General Hisao Tani was sentenced to death by the Nanking War Crimes Tribunal.

Class-A refers to the charge of conspiracy to start and wage a war. If the Rape of Nanking had been sucessfully prosecuted, it would have been under a Class-B action.

It's okay, we all make mistakes. The grown-up thing to do would be to admit you may have been wrong about the affairs of the Tokyo Trials. Then we can come to an agreement that atrocities committed through negligence or lack of disclipline (the Rape of Nanking) are different to atrocities done though direct command (the Holocaust and Firebombing of Tokyo).

I've already shown you that US servicemen, like any armed force, is capable of similar atrocities. So far your only response is to say that "it doesn't count" because Japan did more of the same. Face up to it, the US Military are not Paragons of Virtue.

Your "similar atrocities" don't count because they aren't similar! You keep on bringing up My Lai which is one small case, and clearly and exception. You bring up American Indians, which is ancient history, you bring up the bomb, but that is currently the subject of debate already. None or these things is similar to Japanese atrocities of WWII! Show me an example where the US routinely massacred 100's of thousands of civilians and captured enemy soldiers and I'll admit than I'm wrong.

My Lai wasn't the only accussation of mass murder by US forces in the Vietnam war. But it was the only one to reach a conclusion in a US court (Where the guilty sentence was then commutted by the President to 1 year of House Imprisonment). But you seem to be trying to compare 'kill counts', where the point of mentioning My Lai was that lack of disclipine (and I hope it was that, not a direct order as attested to by Lt Calley) leads to awful things happening, regardless of nationality or ethnicity.

And for some reason you don't count the killing of "100's of thousands of civilians" if the were killed by indiscriminate bombing.

Forgive me if I don't agree with the notion that innocent men, women and children should be held responsible for the actions of their military and government. Especially given that Japan was an Empire.

You don't need forgiven, you are not wrong in thinking this. You are wrong in thinking that this is the only issue that matters.

So I'm not wrong in thinking that civilians should not be held responsible for the actions of their government? I mean, if that's true, that sort of blows your THEY HAD IT COMING stance out of the water.

Yeah, I would call the murder of over many hundreds of thousands of civilians, by death both fast and slow, to be a pretty big issue. In fact I would say it's even central to the argument.

Fine I agree with you, it can be central to the argument! But it can't be the only argument. It's not good enough. I agree it's a good reason not to drop the bomb, but there were and are so many more reasons that dropping the bomb was good that it outweighs even your central argument.

If the Rape of Nanking had been sucessfully prosecuted, it would have been under a Class-B action.

So now you are saying the Japanese were not guilty of war crimes because they were undisciplined. Wow , and you think my justifications are reaching. You really have no idea what you are talking about.

My Lai wasn't the only accussation of mass murder by US forces in the Vietnam war. But it was the only one to reach a conclusion in a US court (Where the guilty sentence was then commutted by the President to 1 year of House Imprisonment). But you seem to be trying to compare 'kill counts', where the point of mentioning My Lai was that lack of disclipine (and I hope it was that, not a direct order as attested to by Lt Calley) leads to awful things happening, regardless of nationality or ethnicity.

And for some reason you don't count the killing of "100's of thousands of civilians" if the were killed by indiscriminate bombing.

Ok so again show me where slaughtering innocents in the US military was a regular act. You can't!

I don't count it the bombing because that is currently what we are discussing. You are the one saying that the Japanese were not committing war crimes here by slaughtering 100's of thousands. of innocents by hand. If being found guilty by a war crimes tribunal is your only requirment then, the bomb is completely off the table!

So I'm not wrong in thinking that civilians should not be held responsible for the actions of their government? I mean, if that's true, that sort of blows your THEY HAD IT COMING stance out of the water.

In most cases I would agree with you, we didn't need to touch the civilians of Italy, Germany and many other countries and we didn't, as they did not pose a credible threat. Japan, however is different, as the culture of the citizenry shares the guilt of the war crimes as much as the soldiers. Again the Japanese blurred the lines between citizen and civilian, not the allies.

Andrew1975 wrote:

Yeah, I would call the murder of over many hundreds of thousands of civilians, by death both fast and slow, to be a pretty big issue. In fact I would say it's even central to the argument.

Fine I agree with you, it can be central to the argument! But it can't be the only argument. It's not good enough. I agree it's a good reason not to drop the bomb, but there were and are so many more reasons that dropping the bomb was good that it outweighs even your central argument.

And it hasn't been the only argument. I just disagree with your contention that the other factors far outwieghed any consideration of civilian lives.

If the Rape of Nanking had been sucessfully prosecuted, it would have been under a Class-B action.

So now you are saying the Japanese were not guilty of war crimes because they were undisciplined. Wow , and you think my justifications are reaching. You really have no idea what you are talking about.

No, I was just demonstrating that you have a feeble grasp of how the Tokyo Trials were run.

My Lai wasn't the only accussation of mass murder by US forces in the Vietnam war. But it was the only one to reach a conclusion in a US court (Where the guilty sentence was then commutted by the President to 1 year of House Imprisonment). But you seem to be trying to compare 'kill counts', where the point of mentioning My Lai was that lack of disclipine (and I hope it was that, not a direct order as attested to by Lt Calley) leads to awful things happening, regardless of nationality or ethnicity.

And for some reason you don't count the killing of "100's of thousands of civilians" if the were killed by indiscriminate bombing.

Ok so again show me where slaughtering innocents in the US military was a regular act. You can't!

I don't count it the bombing because that is currently what we are discussing.

You know there's more than one instance of the US Military bombing 100's of thousands of civilians, right?

You are the one saying that the Japanese were not committing war crimes here by slaughtering 100's of thousands. of innocents by hand. If being found guilty by a war crimes tribunal is your only requirment then, the bomb is completely off the table!

I certainly think that Japan's actions during WWII against the Chinese were war crimes. I just disagree with you that their culture was really to blame. It could be a factor in the poor treatment of prisoners, but not to the extent that you're claiming it is. And I certainly don't agree with the idea that Nuking civilians was the only way to encourage a change in attitude.

So I'm not wrong in thinking that civilians should not be held responsible for the actions of their government? I mean, if that's true, that sort of blows your THEY HAD IT COMING stance out of the water.

In most cases I would agree with you, we didn't need to touch the civilians of Italy, Germany and many other countries and we didn't, as they did not pose a credible threat. Japan, however is different, as the culture of the citizenry shares the guilt of the war crimes as much as the soldiers. Again the Japanese blurred the lines between citizen and civilian, not the allies.

So the Japanese civilians, being barbaricly cultured Japanese, are more legitimate targets than their White Axis allies. You know, there's a rather unflattering word for people that think like that.

And it hasn't been the only argument. I just disagree with your contention that the other factors far outwieghed any consideration of civilian lives.

No that has pretty much been your only argument. Your reply to everything has pretty much just been "but what about the poor innocent civilians".

No, I was just demonstrating that you have a feeble grasp of how the Tokyo Trials were run.

Oh, I understand it as the political game that it was just fine.

You know there's more than one instance of the US Military bombing 100's of thousands of civilians, right?

Yes, I'm aware of that. And I feel in context they were all justified. The US does not have a history of choosing it's targets without thought to human casualties. In fact it ad gone great strides to minimize civilian casualties. From risking daylight bombings to more accurately hit military targets to GPS guided munitions it would be hard to find a military force that tries harder to avoid civilian casualties. I'm sure you will twist this into an argument about more efficiently hitting military targets, which I'm sure was a greater priority, but the international opinion of civilian casualties is also of great concern to the US military. Maybe that is more of a concern about bad press than anything else, but hey, that's your call. I mean the US is evil right or at least as bad as everyone else, what do they care about public opinion!

I certainly think that Japan's actions during WWII against the Chinese were war crimes. I just disagree with you that their culture was really to blame. It could be a factor in the poor treatment of prisoners, but not to the extent that you're claiming it is. And I certainly don't agree with the idea that Nuking civilians was the only way to encourage a change in attitude.

Not just prisoners but completely innocent civilians and in droves. Please enlighten us as to how you would have changed that attitude and how it would have spared more lives then.

I'm sure their culture had nothing to do with it. I mean everyone else was just running around hacking up babies by the thousand with swords while laughing and joking about it. As bad as the Germans and the Russians may have been they really don't even compare to the depravity of the average Japanese soldier and citizens. You do know that the citizenry knew what was going on and applauded it right. There were reports in the newspapers so that they could follow the depravity.

So the Japanese civilians, being barbaricly cultured Japanese, are more legitimate targets than their White Axis allies. You know, there's a rather unflattering word for people that think like that.

That depends on who you are asking. The Japanese thought US civilians were fair game from the start. There can be little doubt as to what they would have done had they the capability. There were many plans on the drawing board, ridiculous and unlikely plans, the word comic comes to mind, but plans none the less that were aimed directly at civilian population centers.

Ahh, so now it comes out. You think this is racism! I was unaware that all our allies were all white! I'm not sure that the Chinese and Filipinos would agree with you. I'm actually pretty sure that not even every soldier that served in the US during WWII much less now was white.

I believe that faced with the same situation in Germany we would have been justified also. The problem never arose though. In fact, the Germans were as orderly and efficient at surrender as they were in war, to the point that we quickly re-purposed their military into a form of police. There were of course cases of resistance, but nothing on the scale that the Japanese population showed that they were ready to endure. We had no issues with firebombing Dresden just as we did Japan, so I fail to see where racism is an issue here.

I'm not naive, I'm sure that their being non white made the decision easier, but I don't think it changed the outcome.

You think that I have some phobia of none whites. If you read the post you would see that I hate white supremacists and find it hilarious that many use Jesus Christ to legitimize their beliefs, for if Jesus was white, that was surely his first miracle. I've also argues that the US's greatest stain is its treatment of the native people. How pray tell are you calling me a racist. Culturalist maybe? Racist hardly. My wife is Indian! While I'm not terribly PC and proud not to be, I am certainly aware of and sensitive to cultural differences, but not when greater issues are at stake. I don't think you get to murder the world and claim that it's a cultural right to act like a heathen like the Japanese did.

The fact that Japans culture was barbaric by almost any standard can be of little doubt. The fact that even to this day they admit no wrong doing of any form and hold these butchers in a state of holy regard shows the deep roots that culture still possesses. While we sit here and debate this topic, there is little debate in Japan over the atrocities that they committed.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
They were ill-gotten in that they were obtained in a manner which was not accepted by the international community,

Oh, no, they were absolutely accepted as such; until Japan attacked the US anyway. Countries whine about what is, and is not legitimate all the time, it doesn't mean any of them actually care to contest the claim in any serious sense. Unless we're going to contend that the UK/American acquisition of a SOFA in Iraq was also "ill-gotten".

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
and more importantly that they were unable to keep them when we joined the picture. Right there they've failed every important criterion for legitimacy: lack of recognition, and lack of ability to preserve control in the face of said lack of recognition.

You're not regarding my point correctly. We could full well have given their claim to China, and other places, legitimacy once we had attained their effective demilitarization.

What you're claiming is that they failed all claims to legitimacy because we made the made them fail those claims, which is a nice little game of rhetoric which neatly dispels responsibility for people that don't think very hard, but it isn't a very good argument.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
One cannot reject accomplishing the overarching goals of a conflict as necessary,

And was the overarching goal of the war the unconditional surrender of Japan, or merely the defeat of Japan, or merely winning the war?

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
so long as they are within one's means, unless one defines "necessary" down to the most basic existential principles,

What you mean is "the only definition by which the word necessity has unique meaning" and yes, I do that, because I hold all conversation people have with me to extremely high standards, because I detest boring people.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
at which point nothing short of just sort of sitting there and remembering to eat now and then is necessary.

That isn't intrinsically necessary either. Its necessary only because you want to live.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
Dropping the bombs was necessary to accomplish the entire point of the Pacific war, in that it demonstrably did so, and was the optimal solution available at the time. It was not literally "necessary" for us, in that we could have just sort of sat there, and remembered to eat now and then (and breathe, can't forget that one), but within the scope of our objectives and means, it was.

In short, dropping the bombs was necessary in order to accomplish what you believe the entire purpose the entire point of the Pacific War to be, after decades of rhetoric, and most likely more than a little insecurity regarding the idea that maybe, maybe your elders might have done something that was very bad because they wanted to do it.

dogma wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
They were ill-gotten in that they were obtained in a manner which was not accepted by the international community,

Oh, no, they were absolutely accepted as such; until Japan attacked the US anyway. Countries whine about what is, and is not legitimate all the time, it doesn't mean any of them actually care to contest the claim in any serious sense. Unless we're going to contend that the UK/American acquisition of a SOFA in Iraq was also "ill-gotten".

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
and more importantly that they were unable to keep them when we joined the picture. Right there they've failed every important criterion for legitimacy: lack of recognition, and lack of ability to preserve control in the face of said lack of recognition.

You're not regarding my point correctly. We could full well have given their claim to China, and other places, legitimacy once we had attained their effective demilitarization.

What you're claiming is that they failed all claims to legitimacy because we made the made them fail those claims, which is a nice little game of rhetoric which neatly dispels responsibility for people that don't think very hard, but it isn't a very good argument.

Legitimacy comes only from one's ability to control a situation, in the most universal sense. They failed in this, and so their power was illegitimate in retrospect.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
One cannot reject accomplishing the overarching goals of a conflict as necessary,

And was the overarching goal of the war the unconditional surrender of Japan, or merely the defeat of Japan, or merely winning the war?

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
so long as they are within one's means, unless one defines "necessary" down to the most basic existential principles,

What you mean is "the only definition by which the word necessity has unique meaning" and yes, I do that, because I hold all conversation people have with me to extremely high standards, because I detest boring people.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
at which point nothing short of just sort of sitting there and remembering to eat now and then is necessary.

That isn't intrinsically necessary either. Its necessary only because you want to live.

You're simply defining away any meaning to the word necessary, if not even the most basic of existential concerns meet it. It is a word which must be qualified within implied or explicitly stated terms, so when it is said that "the bombs were a necessity", the implied terms are "within the scope and capabilities of the US objectives in the Pacific", and when it is said "the bombs were a necessity within the scope and capabilities of the US objectives in the Pacific" the explicitly stated terms are "within the scope and capabilities of the US objectives in the Pacific".

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
Dropping the bombs was necessary to accomplish the entire point of the Pacific war, in that it demonstrably did so, and was the optimal solution available at the time. It was not literally "necessary" for us, in that we could have just sort of sat there, and remembered to eat now and then (and breathe, can't forget that one), but within the scope of our objectives and means, it was.

In short, dropping the bombs was necessary in order to accomplish what you believe the entire purpose the entire point of the Pacific War to be, after decades of rhetoric, and most likely more than a little insecurity regarding the idea that maybe, maybe your elders might have done something that was very bad because they wanted to do it.

I care far more about the philosophical issue of them not surrendering when we'd beaten them at every step, and were pummeling them relentlessly than I do about the lives lost in making them come around. I'm not even particularly concerned by their atrocities, outside of their refusal to abide by what few rules of war there were at the time, what with the abuse of PoWs, use of false surrenders, and whatnot. They were an aggressor nation, who stole territories under our control and attacked our military in an attempt to cripple our response power; we soundly defeated them at every turn, to the point where they had no military power beyond their shores, were poised to invade them, and were pummeling them relentlessly with carpet bombing. That they continued to stand in defiance is a matter of suicidal obscenity, and had to be rectified by any means, therefore the bombs were more than justified.

the fact that so many obviously intelligent people can argue about this for so long, and I'm sure we have all done it before finding ourselves in this thread, and people for decades before us, makes me wonder if there is any right or wrong answer to this question or any right or wrong decision in that situation.

Andrew1975 wrote:

And it hasn't been the only argument. I just disagree with your contention that the other factors far outwieghed any consideration of civilian lives.

No that has pretty much been your only argument. Your reply to everything has pretty much just been "but what about the poor innocent civilians".

Have you been reading the thread for the past 22 pages? A lot more issues have arisen as to why the attack on civilians may be justified. I don't agree with them, but I have been addressing them.

No, I was just demonstrating that you have a feeble grasp of how the Tokyo Trials were run.

Oh, I understand it as the political game that it was just fine.

And you also understand that the several heads of government were executed over a conspiracy to wage war, not an intention to commit human rights atrocities?

You know there's more than one instance of the US Military bombing 100's of thousands of civilians, right?

Yes, I'm aware of that. And I feel in context they were all justified. The US does not have a history of choosing it's targets without thought to human casualties. In fact it ad gone great strides to minimize civilian casualties. From risking daylight bombings to more accurately hit military targets to GPS guided munitions it would be hard to find a military force that tries harder to avoid civilian casualties. I'm sure you will twist this into an argument about more efficiently hitting military targets, which I'm sure was a greater priority, but the international opinion of civilian casualties is also of great concern to the US military. Maybe that is more of a concern about bad press than anything else, but hey, that's your call. I mean the US is evil right or at least as bad as everyone else, what do they care about public opinion!

This is the part where I realised that you are just reading what you want, that no matter what you see or hear, the US can do no wrong.

Andrew1975's expert opinion?

I certainly think that Japan's actions during WWII against the Chinese were war crimes. I just disagree with you that their culture was really to blame. It could be a factor in the poor treatment of prisoners, but not to the extent that you're claiming it is. And I certainly don't agree with the idea that Nuking civilians was the only way to encourage a change in attitude.

Not just prisoners but completely innocent civilians and in droves. Please enlighten us as to how you would have changed that attitude and how it would have spared more lives then.

I'm sure their culture had nothing to do with it. I mean everyone else was just running around hacking up babies by the thousand with swords while laughing and joking about it. As bad as the Germans and the Russians may have been they really don't even compare to the depravity of the average Japanese soldier and citizens. You do know that the citizenry knew what was going on and applauded it right. There were reports in the newspapers so that they could follow the depravity.

Death Marches, Mass Rape, Executing Prisoners.

You know that Russia mirrored a lot of what Japan did, right? Are you going to say that their barbaric culture is to blame now?

So the Japanese civilians, being barbaricly cultured Japanese, are more legitimate targets than their White Axis allies. You know, there's a rather unflattering word for people that think like that.

That depends on who you are asking. The Japanese thought US civilians were fair game from the start.

US Civilians? When did Japan ever go all out on...

There can be little doubt as to what they would have done had they the capability. There were many plans on the drawing board, ridiculous and unlikely plans, the word comic comes to mind, but plans none the less that were aimed directly at civilian population centers.

Ohhh, you mean you're getting this all from the world of Crazyland Conspiracies Co.?

Ahh, so now it comes out. You think this is racism! I was unaware that all our allies were all white! I'm not sure that the Chinese and Filipinos would agree with you. I'm actually pretty sure that not even every soldier that served in the US during WWII much less now was white.

Britain? White.
US? White.
France? White.
Russia? White.
Italy? White.
Germany? White.

Last time any of those countries gave a crap about what China and the Philpines (proxy US holding anyway) were after? Never.

I'll stop you before you claim that Black/Native American/Islander/Indian/Asian soldiers were all fighting against the Japanese. They were (and there were also volunteer armies siding with Japan), but how many of these were in any position of power?

I believe that faced with the same situation in Germany we would have been justified also. The problem never arose though. In fact, the Germans were as orderly and efficient at surrender as they were in war, to the point that we quickly re-purposed their military into a form of police. There were of course cases of resistance, but nothing on the scale that the Japanese population showed that they were ready to endure. We had no issues with firebombing Dresden just as we did Japan, so I fail to see where racism is an issue here.

I'm not naive, I'm sure that their being non white made the decision easier, but I don't think it changed the outcome.

Was the inconsitency of those two statements intentional?

Becuase one moment you claim it wasn't a factor and then you say it made it easier.

You think that I have some phobia of none whites. If you read the post you would see that I hate white supremacists and find it hilarious that many use Jesus Christ to legitimize their beliefs, for if Jesus was white, that was surely his first miracle. I've also argues that the US's greatest stain is its treatment of the native people. How pray tell are you calling me a racist. Culturalist maybe? Racist hardly. My wife is Indian! While I'm not terribly PC and proud not to be, I am certainly aware of and sensitive to cultural differences, but not when greater issues are at stake. I don't think you get to murder the world and claim that it's a cultural right to act like a heathen like the Japanese did.

I doubt it's a phobia of all non-whites. Is there a specific word for this kind of hate? Asiaist? Orientalphobe?

The fact that Japans culture was barbaric by almost any standard can be of little doubt. The fact that even to this day they admit no wrong doing of any form and hold these butchers in a state of holy regard shows the deep roots that culture still possesses. While we sit here and debate this topic, there is little debate in Japan over the atrocities that they committed.

Can you explain to me why you find the Japanese culture so barbaric, to the point that you consider their civilians fair game if it teaches them a lesson? Do you REALLY like whales?

I get the feeling (after a hiatus of boredom) that some people have failed to fully grasp the nature of Japanese culture in the period under discussion, and have only the barest understanding of the reasoning behind Japanese behaviour. For that matter, there seems to be a lot of "black and white" moralizing going on, with one side "good" and the other side "bad." That might be a great distinction for children playing at war, or for Hollywood, but obviously life is substantially more complex than that.

Have you been reading the thread for the past 22 pages? A lot more issues have arisen as to why the attack on civilians may be justified. I don't agree with them, but I have been addressing them.

Yes, you are the one who admitted that you did not read it carefully! You have been addressing issues, but your sole defense is that nothing trumps civilian casualties, I don't believe that. It's a fact of war that innocents are going to be hurt. The sooner you get over that the sooner we can move on. It's great to minimize civilian casualties, but when the civilians themselves have shown themselves to be a credible and real threat, they have striped themselves of that consideration. Sure every single man, woman, and child would not have raised a bamboo spear to the American landing, but enough showed that they would, it's unfortunate that you couldn't just separate them in some way, but that is what a united front is all about.

The people of Japan had choices, collectively they made them and unfortunately collectively they paid for them.

And you also understand that the several heads of government were executed over a conspiracy to wage war, not an intention to commit human rights atrocities?

I understand what they were charged with. To say that that relieves them of the responsibility for what they were not found guilty of is laughable. They did not care, If the rape of Nanking was an isolated event that would be one thing, but it wasn't, it was in fact routine and shows a pattern of behavior. This same pattern can be seen throughout Japans history, the merciless killing of all enemies was common place. I think you are failing to grasp that.



This is terrible, but relatively insignificant. At least they are alive. There are actually better pictures you could have used for this argument. Also the girl in this photo was not hit by the US military Phan Thị Kim Phúc was hit by the South Vietnamese who were defending her village from North Vietnamese attack. Admittedly it could have easily been a US plane in another similar situation, and I'm sure there are incidences where it was a US plane. Friendly fire happens

It was not however an attack aimed at killing civilians, but was a friendly fire mistake by the South Vietnamese pilot trying to defend the village. Dropping a bomb on the wrong target is far different from the executions committed by the Japanese. I suppose it would be possible somehow to avoid all accidents and civilian casualties in war. I'm not sure how though without giving an enemy that has no such considerations the upper hand. I guess you could just surrender and be a martyr, die with a clean conscious I guess. I'm sure that would save the lives of enemy civilians for you.

Even so, though you were mistaken as to the content of that photo I get your point. I still say sometimes this is necessary to stop this.

Death Marches, Mass Rape, Executing Prisoners.

You know that Russia mirrored a lot of what Japan did, right? Are you going to say that their barbaric culture is to blame now?

See, now know I know you are not reading. I've frequently brought up the brutality of the Russians. I've not excused it. In fact I said the western allies really own Poland an apology, not that I think we realistically could have handled the situation differently, but we can offer condolences and we have. War makes strange bed fellows. It was necessary that we aligned with them. In many ways it shows what a f'ed up position we were in. We had to chose Stalinist Russia over Hitlers Germany and Hirohito's Japan. I think we made the right call.

US Civilians? When did Japan ever go all out on...Ohhh, you mean you're getting this all from the world of Crazyland Conspiracies Co.?

Never said they did, because they didn't have the ability, but there were plans. Comic plans like lighting California on fire with fire balloons for one. As comic as that is, does a lack of capability release them from intent? We have seen what how they routinely treated others, could we have expected differently? It's all pretty well documented actually.

Britain? White.
US? White.
France? White.
Russia? White.
Italy? White.
Germany? White.

Last time any of those countries gave a crap about what China and the Philpines (proxy US holding anyway) were after? Never.

I'll stop you before you claim that Black/Native American/Islander/Indian/Asian soldiers were all fighting against the Japanese. They were (and there were also volunteer armies siding with Japan), but how many of these were in any position of power?

Korea, Vietnam, Africa, Mogadishu, in Bosnia we were protecting Muslims! . I mean it's a cute game to call the US military evil, but now it's racist too! They obviously aren't on the front line anytime friend of foe needs disaster aid. How often are we even giving aid to majority white countries! You are right, you don't hate the US military!

Was the inconsitency of those two statements intentional?

Becuase one moment you claim it wasn't a factor and then you say it made it easier.

How was that statement inconstant? Just because something makes a decision easier does not make it a deciding factor.

Thatwasajoke.

See this is just about where I've had it with you. You've called me a racist about 5 times. I've taken it in stride and dealt with your accusations. But you seam to think it is a funny game to call people racists, then say it's a joke! My wife is Indian, you know what that makes her Asian! She is from the India, a sub continent of Asia! Get an education, learn some history and geography. Come back after you've graduated for college and seen what the real world is like. I've tried pretty hard not to be insulting to you, but there is a limit.

It's interesting to me that people like you and The Dud, apparent advocates of humanity are always the ones that pull out the big guns in these discussions and attempt to turn them into arguments. It's not shocking that you support regimes that attack and then claim to be victims once they have been beaten. It's your Modus operandi

Can you explain to me why you find the Japanese culture so barbaric, to the point that you consider their civilians fair game if it teaches them a lesson? Do you REALLY like whales?

Grab a history book! This being Memorial day weekend it might be a good time for you to reflect on the service the USAF and our Allies have provided and the sacrifices that many people made so that you can even have these discussions. I'll not be replying anymore until after that solemn day of reverence.

Andrew1975 wrote:

Have you been reading the thread for the past 22 pages? A lot more issues have arisen as to why the attack on civilians may be justified. I don't agree with them, but I have been addressing them.

Yes, you are the one who admitted that you did not read it carefully!

Because I couldn't find one vauge reference to 9/11?

You have been addressing issues, but your sole defense is that nothing trumps civilian casualties, I don't believe that. It's a fact of war that innocents are going to be hurt. The sooner you get over that the sooner we can move on. It's great to minimize civilian casualties, but when the civilians themselves have shown themselves to be a credible and real threat, they have striped themselves of that consideration. Sure every single man, woman, and child would not have raised a bamboo spear to the American landing, but enough showed that they would, it's unfortunate that you couldn't just separate them in some way, but that is what a united front is all about.

I'm not naive enough to think that civilian casualities in any given military operation is unacceptable. But this is about a deliberate attack on hundred's of thousands of civilians. Civilians who were by no means a military threat. Given that US citizens are allowed to carry firearms (a bit more effective than bamboo sticks), would that justify an enemy nation bombing the cities of New York in an attempt to cull the hostile population?

The people of Japan had choices, collectively they made them and unfortunately collectively they paid for them.

How? How had they collectively made that choice?

And you also understand that the several heads of government were executed over a conspiracy to wage war, not an intention to commit human rights atrocities?

I understand what they were charged with. To say that that relieves them of the responsibility for what they were not found guilty of is laughable. They did not care, If the rape of Nanking was an isolated event that would be one thing, but it wasn't, it was in fact routine and shows a pattern of behavior. This same pattern can be seen throughout Japans history, the merciless killing of all enemies was common place. I think you are failing to grasp that.

The atrocities are terrible, and in no way excused. But the findings of the Tokyo Trials also do nothing to support your claim that Japan's culture, rather than an agressive expansionist attitude of the government, was to blame. If Japan's ancient culture really was to blame for the desire to expand and dominate, it would not have been isolated for so many centuries.

This is terrible, but relatively insignificant. At least they are alive. There are actually better pictures you could have used for this argument. Also the girl in this photo was not hit by the US military Phan Thị Kim Phúc was hit by the South Vietnamese who were defending her village from North Vietnamese attack. Admittedly it could have easily been a US plane in another similar situation, and I'm sure there are incidences where it was a US plane. Friendly fire happens

The history of the photograph is debated, with critics of the photographer claiming it was a South Vietnamese plane that bombed Trang Bang, as you said. And there were undoubtedly similar situations where it was a US plane instead. But if this itself is bad, then how terrible would this be if done deliberately, to over 150,000 people?

It was not however an attack aimed at killing civilians, but was a friendly fire mistake by the South Vietnamese pilot trying to defend the village. Dropping a bomb on the wrong target is far different from the executions committed by the Japanese. I suppose it would be possible somehow to avoid all accidents and civilian casualties in war. I'm not sure how though without giving an enemy that has no such considerations the upper hand. I guess you could just surrender and be a martyr, die with a clean conscious I guess. I'm sure that would save the lives of enemy civilians for you.


Even so, though you were mistaken as to the content of that photo I get your point. I still say sometimes this is necessary to stop this.

As I've already said, civilian casualties and collateral damage go hand in hand with warfare. What we're talking about, what this whole thread is about, is the deliberate targetting of civilians, with the intent to kill as many as possible.

It doesn't really matter which side is doing it.

Death Marches, Mass Rape, Executing Prisoners.

You know that Russia mirrored a lot of what Japan did, right? Are you going to say that their barbaric culture is to blame now?

See, now know I know you are not reading. I've frequently brought up the brutality of the Russians. I've not excused it. In fact I said the western allies really own Poland an apology, not that I think we realistically could have handled the situation differently, but we can offer condolences and we have. War makes strange bed fellows. It was necessary that we aligned with them. In many ways it shows what a f'ed up position we were in. We had to chose Stalinist Russia over Hitlers Germany and Hirohito's Japan. I think we made the right call.

But you've never claimed that Germany or Russia had a barbaric culture. You've never said that Russian and German civilians should have been put to the torch to teach them a lesson. I've never heard you suggest that the people of Dresden 'HAD IT COMING', or that their barbaric culture was to blame for the Nazi rise to power.

Humans are capable of awful, awful things. You can hardly claim that Japan was a monstrous exception.

US Civilians? When did Japan ever go all out on...Ohhh, you mean you're getting this all from the world of Crazyland Conspiracies Co.?

Never said they did, because they didn't have the ability, but there were plans. Comic plans like lighting California on fire with fire balloons for one. As comic as that is, does a lack of capability release them from intent? We have seen what how they routinely treated others, could we have expected differently? It's all pretty well documented actually.

Every country has plans on invading or attacking other countries. The US, though allies with Canada, no doubt I'm sure that at the time the US had plans that are just as loony as Japan. There were even

Britain? White.
US? White.
France? White.
Russia? White.
Italy? White.
Germany? White.

Last time any of those countries gave a crap about what China and the Philpines (proxy US holding anyway) were after? Never.

I'll stop you before you claim that Black/Native American/Islander/Indian/Asian soldiers were all fighting against the Japanese. They were (and there were also volunteer armies siding with Japan), but how many of these were in any position of power?

Korea, Vietnam, Africa, Mogadishu, in Bosnia we were protecting Muslims! . I mean it's a cute game to call the US military evil, but now it's racist too! They obviously aren't on the front line anytime friend of foe needs disaster aid. How often are we even giving aid to majority white countries! You are right, you don't hate the US military!

I was actually talking about these countries at the time of WWII. I don't think the militaries or governments of these countries are anywhere near as racist as they would have been 70 years ago.

I support the interventions in Africa and Eastern Europe by the US and its allies. I'd also be in favour of giving aid to the Libyan rebels, and supporting the democratic movements in the Middle East (which would include Syria, Yemen AND places like Bahrain).

Was the inconsitency of those two statements intentional?

Becuase one moment you claim it wasn't a factor and then you say it made it easier.

How was that statement inconstant? Just because something makes a decision easier does not make it a deciding factor.

I didn't say it was a deciding factor. But for it to have made the decision easier means that it was a factor, a factor that was taken into account in favour of targetting Japanese civilians.

Thatwasajoke.

See this is just about where I've had it with you. You've called me a racist about 5 times. I've taken it in stride and dealt with your accusations. But you seam to think it is a funny game to call people racists, then say it's a joke! My wife is Indian, you know what that makes her Asian! She is from the India, a sub continent of Asia! Get an education, learn some history and geography. Come back after you've graduated for college and seen what the real world is like. I've tried pretty hard not to be insulting to you, but there is a limit.

I've been getting pretty frustrated with you and your moral superiority. But you're right, I overstepped the mark there, and turned a heated debate into a mud-slinging fest. I apoligise.

It's interesting to me that people like you and The Dud, apparent advocates of humanity are always the ones that pull out the big guns in these discussions and attempt to turn them into arguments. It's not shocking that you support regimes that attack and then claim to be victims once they have been beaten. It's your Modus operandi

I haven't defended the atrocities the Japanese committed. I've refuted your claim that the civilian populace of Japan should be considered viable military targets in retaliation for them.

Can you explain to me why you find the Japanese culture so barbaric, to the point that you consider their civilians fair game if it teaches them a lesson? Do you REALLY like whales?

Grab a history book! This being Memorial day weekend it might be a good time for you to reflect on the service the USAF and our Allies have provided and the sacrifices that many people made so that you can even have these discussions. I'll not be replying anymore until after that solemn day of reverence.

Ah, good sir, I see through your weak attempt to avoid answering the question!

Monster Rain wrote:I think comparing My Lai to the Rape of Nanking shows a serious lack of perspective.

I think that statement sums up most of this thread, but I'd proffer its an intentional lack of perspective.

Because I couldn't find one vauge reference to 9/11?

Because you couldn't find many obvious references to them, and you seam to ignore every other argument.

I'm not naive enough to think that civilian casualities in any given military operation is unacceptable. But this is about a deliberate attack on hundred's of thousands of civilians. Civilians who were by no means a military threat. Given that US citizens are allowed to carry firearms (a bit more effective than bamboo sticks), would that justify an enemy nation bombing the cities of New York in an attempt to cull the hostile population?

If someone were getting ready to invade the United States and CNN showed news video of everyday American men, women, and children doing practice drills, then yes, the enemy would be wise in doing something to deter that. There is film of Japanese civilians including women and children practicing with weapon for the invasion. It was probably more Japanese propaganda than anything, but Japanese society had shown they were willing to accept just about anything before defeat.

War does not happen in a vacuum, it would be nice to think that the only people running around with targets on their backs are the soldiers. It's just not the case.

How? How had they collectively made that choice?

By supporting a regime that was known to regularly commit atrocities. If your culture doesn't recognize that these regular occurrences of mass murder are not unacceptable and speak out about it than that makes your society as a whole a treat.

The atrocities are terrible, and in no way excused. But the findings of the Tokyo Trials also do nothing to support your claim that Japan's culture, rather than an agressive expansionist attitude of the government, was to blame. If Japan's ancient culture really was to blame for the desire to expand and dominate, it would not have been isolated for so many centuries.

I've never said that Japanese culture was about expansion or dominance. I said it was brutal. You can look through the history of Japanese warfare and see that there is a severe lack of respect for the human condition. Not just against other people and cultures, but even among themselves.

The only time in history that they showed any restraint was during the first Sino-Japanese War and the Russo-Japanese War, both civilians and POWs were treated reasonably well. The theory is that they were doing this to gain acceptance on an international level.

However they weren't consened about this during WWII because they had no fear of losing, the didn't believe it was possible, therefore they had no fear of international reprisals.

The history of the photograph is debated, with critics of the photographer claiming it was a South Vietnamese plane that bombed Trang Bang, as you said. And there were undoubtedly similar situations where it was a US plane instead. But if this itself is bad, then how terrible would this be if done deliberately, to over 150,000 people?

There is little debate about that photo. I mean you the girl has been a speaker. Have I ever said it wasn't terrible? Granted, I can think of worse ways to go, may of them performed by the Japanese. Regardless, it was hellish and nightmarish. But the good it did far outweighed the bad.

As I've already said, civilian casualties and collateral damage go hand in hand with warfare. What we're talking about, what this whole thread is about, is the deliberate targetting of civilians, with the intent to kill as many as possible.

It doesn't really matter which side is doing it.

I disagree with you here. I don't want to shoot at somebody, but I'm going to defend myself if it happens. I don't want to hurt civilians in a war, but if the enemy has chosen that as a tactic, I'm not going to take it off the table either. The Japanese people had plenty of time to decide that what the army and government of Japan was doing was wrong. We can see for the most part the people were in lockstep with the military and didn't see anything wrong with their actions.

But you've never claimed that Germany or Russia had a barbaric culture. You've never said that Russian and German civilians should have been put to the torch to teach them a lesson. I've never heard you suggest that the people of Dresden 'HAD IT COMING', or that their barbaric culture was to blame for the Nazi rise to power.

Humans are capable of awful, awful things. You can hardly claim that Japan was a monstrous exception.

The Germans and the Russians were bad, but I don't put them on the same level as the Japanese. You could write a whole book on how they were different. For the most part German society wasn't so bad. Your average German citizen did nothing to stop the allies and posed no threat. The Germans for the most part let the military fight and when they surrendered, they did it honorably, they also in turn with a few terrible exceptions generally treated OUR POWs well. Your Average German wasn't the problem. It was the Nazi's and the SS.

If the Germans hadn't begun the bombing of civilian centers than I would believe Dresden and Hamburg were war crimes. But when an enemy shows a pattern of using a tactic, it is hard to take that tactic of the table.

Every country has plans on invading or attacking other countries. The US, though allies with Canada, no doubt I'm sure that at the time the US had plans that are just as loony as Japan

Oh I'm sure. But they didn't involve the mass execution of the civilian population. Especially not off the bat. The Allies may have done some awful things, but these were usually in pretty desperate situations, when no other option was available, or the enemy had given tacit approval by taking the same actions on a regular basis. The Japanese just started slaughtering people for no reason, just to do it, because their culture and code of honor demanded it. It wasn't a last resort or retaliation, it was a first response.

I was actually talking about these countries at the time of WWII. I don't think the militaries or governments of these countries are anywhere near as racist as they would have been 70 years ago.

No matter how you look at it, the allies weren't a bunch of white racists. You could argue that there was a majority of white supremacists I suppose. To say that they hated all Asians, while supporting the Chinese is a stretch

I support the interventions in Africa and Eastern Europe by the US and its allies. I'd also be in favour of giving aid to the Libyan rebels, and supporting the democratic movements in the Middle East (which would include Syria, Yemen AND places like Bahrain).

Yeah, see, for the most part I don't. I think it's nice that we do it. But I don't really like it, I don't think these things are generally our business. We are not an empire, these countries are not our vassals, unless they directly attack or similarly effect the US, I saw we have enough issues of our own to deal with. I think we've only made the situation in Libya worse for the most part. Instead of a quick decisive battle, we've allowed this to go on for months increasing the cost in bodies, cash. political clout and infrastructure. We should have either done nothing and let it come to a quick end, or done something real and let it come to a quick end. The current situation is ridiculous.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
Legitimacy comes only from one's ability to control a situation, in the most universal sense. They failed in this, and so their power was illegitimate in retrospect.

No, that's not how legitimacy works in politics. If we're talking about national politics, then legitimacy is the willingness of the governed group to accept its government. If we're talking about international politics, then legitimacy is only an issue when made so by other states, which means its basically irrelevant save as a point of rhetoric in the course of prosecuting a war. This was particularly true during, and prior to, World War II when there were no global, international conventions establishing the nature of sovereignty, and a list of recognized states.

In either case, the ability of one particular state to maintain sovereignty over a particular territory has no bearing on its legitimacy. A state can be both illegitimate, in either sense, and sovereign.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
You're simply defining away any meaning to the word necessary, if not even the most basic of existential concerns meet it.

No, I'm explaining to you what the word "necessary" actually means. For something to be necessary it must be contingent on something else, a thing cannot be indispensable in and of itself, it must be indispensable to some thing. In the case of food, that thing is life as we know it. In the case of the bombs, that thing is the desire to force an unconditional surrender from Japan. Unless we're going to start claiming that people are entirely mechanical, any human quality, desire in this case, can be said to be non-necessary; ie. not following via implication.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
It is a word which must be qualified within implied or explicitly stated terms, so when it is said that "the bombs were a necessity", the implied terms are "within the scope and capabilities of the US objectives in the Pacific", and when it is said "the bombs were a necessity within the scope and capabilities of the US objectives in the Pacific" the explicitly stated terms are "within the scope and capabilities of the US objectives in the Pacific".

Yes, and what I've been saying this entire time is that US objectives, notably the desire to force an unconditional surrender from Japan, cannot be regarded as implicitly necessary on the basis of only the "material" facts of the war. And, even if we believe that to be true, when considering any event after the fact, it is critical to understand what options remained open to agents had they altered those variables that were actually under their control, in this context their objectives.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
That they continued to stand in defiance is a matter of suicidal obscenity, and had to be rectified by any means, therefore the bombs were more than justified.

Well, no, it didn't have to be rectified. Rectification implies a neutral frame of reference. What you mean to say is that you believe that they should have been rectified, and thus believe that the bombs were justified.

Andrew1975 wrote:

Because I couldn't find one vauge reference to 9/11?

Because you couldn't find many obvious references to them, and you seam to ignore every other argument.

Sure, whereas a reasonable person wanting to demonstrate his arguement would point it out. You on the other hand, have waved a hand and said "it's in there somewhere".

I'm not naive enough to think that civilian casualities in any given military operation is unacceptable. But this is about a deliberate attack on hundred's of thousands of civilians. Civilians who were by no means a military threat. Given that US citizens are allowed to carry firearms (a bit more effective than bamboo sticks), would that justify an enemy nation bombing the cities of New York in an attempt to cull the hostile population?

If someone were getting ready to invade the United States and CNN showed news video of everyday American men, women, and children doing practice drills, then yes, the enemy would be wise in doing something to deter that. There is film of Japanese civilians including women and children practicing with weapon for the invasion. It was probably more Japanese propaganda than anything, but Japanese society had shown they were willing to accept just about anything before defeat.

War does not happen in a vacuum, it would be nice to think that the only people running around with targets on their backs are the soldiers. It's just not the case.

You mean to say that if the US was under a real threat of invasion then there wouldn't be this sort of preparation? That's basically what the Right to Bear arms is about, isn't it?

How? How had they collectively made that choice?

By supporting a regime that was known to regularly commit atrocities. If your culture doesn't recognize that these regular occurrences of mass murder are not unacceptable and speak out about it than that makes your society as a whole a treat.

I guess the same goes for the Germans and their persecution of the Jews, or the Russians supporting their regime in executing Polish officials. Or the French staying quiet about the removal of Jewish people under Vichy France. Becuase anything short of open protest instantly means that they were all in complete support of these atrocities.

The atrocities are terrible, and in no way excused. But the findings of the Tokyo Trials also do nothing to support your claim that Japan's culture, rather than an agressive expansionist attitude of the government, was to blame. If Japan's ancient culture really was to blame for the desire to expand and dominate, it would not have been isolated for so many centuries.

I've never said that Japanese culture was about expansion or dominance. I said it was brutal. You can look through the history of Japanese warfare and see that there is a severe lack of respect for the human condition. Not just against other people and cultures, but even among themselves.

Right, and the Medieval era must have simply given us a stunning resume. No?

Well at least we always had a culture that respected the other humans. Nothing about Manifest Destiny or Slavery or Imperialism or the 'White Man's Burden' contradicts that.

Of course, it's only Japan that has a history of barbarism. /drawnoutsarcasm

The only time in history that they showed any restraint was during the first Sino-Japanese War and the Russo-Japanese War, both civilians and POWs were treated reasonably well. The theory is that they were doing this to gain acceptance on an international level.

However they weren't consened about this during WWII because they had no fear of losing, the didn't believe it was possible, therefore they had no fear of international reprisals.

Totally, because that time that they didn't commit any atrocities was all just an act. Deep down inside they couldn't wait for the party to start.

And to claim that the Japanese High Command had no fear of losing WWII demonstrates a severe lack of historical knowledge. The attack on Pearl Harbour was a gambit, one tat they knew hadn't paid off after Midway.

As I've already said, civilian casualties and collateral damage go hand in hand with warfare. What we're talking about, what this whole thread is about, is the deliberate targetting of civilians, with the intent to kill as many as possible.

It doesn't really matter which side is doing it.

I disagree with you here. I don't want to shoot at somebody, but I'm going to defend myself if it happens. I don't want to hurt civilians in a war, but if the enemy has chosen that as a tactic, I'm not going to take it off the table either. The Japanese people had plenty of time to decide that what the army and government of Japan was doing was wrong. We can see for the most part the people were in lockstep with the military and didn't see anything wrong with their actions.

But by the point of Hiroshima, any risk to US civilians was non-existent. For your point to be valid Japan would have to present a real and credible threat to the US civilian populace.

But you've never claimed that Germany or Russia had a barbaric culture. You've never said that Russian and German civilians should have been put to the torch to teach them a lesson. I've never heard you suggest that the people of Dresden 'HAD IT COMING', or that their barbaric culture was to blame for the Nazi rise to power.

Humans are capable of awful, awful things. You can hardly claim that Japan was a monstrous exception.

The Germans and the Russians were bad, but I don't put them on the same level as the Japanese. You could write a whole book on how they were different. For the most part German society wasn't so bad. Your average German citizen did nothing to stop the allies and posed no threat. The Germans for the most part let the military fight and when they surrendered, they did it honorably, they also in turn with a few terrible exceptions generally treated OUR POWs well. Your Average German wasn't the problem. It was the Nazi's and the SS.

And your average Jap wasn't the problem.

As for treatment of prisoners, Russians captured by Germany had the lowest rates of survival, even compared to Japanese treatment. Come to mention that, German prisoner survival rates were also horrible on the Eastern Front.

If the Germans hadn't begun the bombing of civilian centers than I would believe Dresden and Hamburg were war crimes. But when an enemy shows a pattern of using a tactic, it is hard to take that tactic of the table.

Actually, it is purpoted that British bombers were the first to deliberately attack civilian centers when they bombed Berlin. In retaliation the Battle of Britain switched from attacks on airfields to British civilian centers (which arguably turned the Battle in Britain's favour).

Every country has plans on invading or attacking other countries. The US, though allies with Canada, no doubt I'm sure that at the time the US had plans that are just as loony as Japan

Oh I'm sure. But they didn't involve the mass execution of the civilian population.

...isn't that what this whole thread is about?

I was actually talking about these countries at the time of WWII. I don't think the militaries or governments of these countries are anywhere near as racist as they would have been 70 years ago.

No matter how you look at it, the allies weren't a bunch of white racists. You could argue that there was a majority of white supremacists I suppose. To say that they hated all Asians, while supporting the Chinese is a stretch

It's pretty obvious they viewed the Japanese as sub-human. Hence the widespread instances of 'trophies' taken from Japanese bodies. In Europe there was only one recorded instance of a US soldier doing that, so far as I can recall.

I support the interventions in Africa and Eastern Europe by the US and its allies. I'd also be in favour of giving aid to the Libyan rebels, and supporting the democratic movements in the Middle East (which would include Syria, Yemen AND places like Bahrain).

Yeah, see, for the most part I don't. I think it's nice that we do it. But I don't really like it, I don't think these things are generally our business. We are not an empire, these countries are not our vassals, unless they directly attack or similarly effect the US, I saw we have enough issues of our own to deal with. I think we've only made the situation in Libya worse for the most part. Instead of a quick decisive battle, we've allowed this to go on for months increasing the cost in bodies, cash. political clout and infrastructure. We should have either done nothing and let it come to a quick end, or done something real and let it come to a quick end. The current situation is ridiculous.

I've just discovered that France only has one aircraft carrier. And they have more than the UK does.

I didn't say it was a deciding factor. But for it to have made the decision easier means that it was a factor, a factor that was taken into account in favour of targetting Japanese civilians.

It was more of a minor consideration, or more likely lack of consideration. Meaningless really.

Not if you were Japanese, I'd guess.

I've been getting pretty frustrated with you and your moral superiority.[/spoiler] My morale superiority? You believe that there is never an excuse for taking a civilians life. If anything I've shown I value logic over morals, but it's hardly a consideration because the Japanese had little or no morals! If we had dropped the nukes or firebombed France during German occupation, that would be one thing. You believe in culpable victims, I believe that if you are culpable then you aren't a victim except of yourself maybe.

I haven't defended the atrocities the Japanese committed. I've refuted your claim that the civilian populace of Japan should be considered viable military targets in retaliation for them.

No you somehow consider them completely innocent, I see them as complicit. They had choices, they made them.

So civilians are liable for the decisions that their government makes?

Ah, good sir, I see through your weak attempt to avoid answering the question!

I've answered the question many times, as have other people. Japanese culture had a history of disregard for human life and suffering. You can see it throughout history, go look at feudal Japan. Go look at any wars that they had with their neighbors.

Here are just a few.

Nanking, China. Over 200,000 Chinese men used for bayonet practice, machine gunned, or set on fire. Thousands more were murdered. 20,000 women and girls were raped, killed or mutilated. The massacre of a quarter million people was an intentional policy to force China to make peace. It did not happen. World opinion, which until this time had accepted modern Japan's desire to oversee backward China, was repelled in horror.

New officers were indoctrinated to the expectations of war by beheading Chinese captives. The last stage of the training of combat troops was to bayonet a living human and a trial of courage for the officers. Prisoners were blindfolded and tied to poles; soldiers dashed forward to bayonet their target at the shout of "Charge!"

Combat medical units moved to China where live bodies were plentiful. If the class was in sutures, a Chinaman was shot in the belly for doctors to practice. Amputations? - then arms were removed. Living people was more instructive than work on cadavers, (a dead body to e dissected) the students need to get used to blood and screaming.

Bacterial warfare experiments conducted by an infamous medical unit moved to Manchuria. Bombs of anthrax and plague were tested on Chinese cities until the results were so good that too many Japanese soldiers also died. This unit also practiced vivisection.

Korean Comfort Women "forced by the Imperial Japanese Army to repeatedly provide sex for Japanese soldiers throughout Asia are said to number between 80,000 and 200,000. Many of the victims were underage at the time, and either died in despair or suffered health impairments. These women, who suffer from mental and physical pain, not to mention social isolation and prejudice, are now seeking an official apology from the Japanese government and individual compensation as a measure to rehabilitate their honour." - Aug 2002

Malaya. Japanese troops decapitated 200 wounded Australians and Indians left behind when Australian troops withdrew through the jungle from Muar.
Singapore. Japanese soldiers bayonet 300 patients and staff of Alexandra military hospital 9 Feb 1942. British women had their hands behind their backs and repeatedly raped. All Chinese residents were interviewed and 5,000 selected for execution.

Wake Island. A construction crew of 1,200 mostly Idaho youths, captured when Wake Island fell, were shipped to Japanese prison camps. Five were beheaded to encourage good behaviour on the trip. The Japanese decided to keep 100 of the civilian contractors on the island to complete the airbase, which became functional in 1943. When US Navy planes attacked the island, the Japanese commander executed the civilians.

Dutch East Indies. Those Dutch accused of resisting Japan or participating in the destruction of the oil refineries had arms or legs chopped off. 20,000 men were forced into the ocean and machine gunned. 20,000 women and children were repeatedly raped, then many were killed.

Dutch Borneo. The entire white population of Balikpapan was executed.
Java. The entire white male population of Tjepu was executed. Women were raped.
Survivors of USS Edsall (DD-219) are beheaded.

Philippines. Any soldier captured before the surrender was executed.
The Bataan Death March -- 7,000 surrendered men died. Those that could not keep up the pace were clubbed, stabbed, shot, beheaded or buried alive.
Once the prison camp had been reached, disease, malnutrition and brutality claimed up to 400 American and Filipinos – EACH DAY.

Thailand. 15,000 military prisoners and 75,000 native labourers died building a railroad between Bangkok and Rangoon. Bridge Over the River Kwai.
Doolittle Raid, Japan. Three of eight US airmen captured were executed.
Doolittle Raid, China. 25,000 Chinese in villages through which the US flyers escaped were slaughtered in a three month reign of terror.

Midway. Japanese destroyers rescued three U.S. naval aviators; after interrogation, all three were murdered.

Attu. Japanese troops overran the medical aid station; after killing the doctors, they bayoneted the wounded.

Makin Atoll (Kiribati). Nine of Carlson's Marine raiders were left behind, hid for two weeks and surrendered. They were beheaded a few weeks later when a ship was not available to take them to a prisoner of war camp.

USS Sculpin. Forty-two of submarine Sculpin's crew were picked up by Yamagumo. One, severely wounded, was thrown overbroad. Survivors were forced to work in the copper mines at Ashio until released at the end of the war.

Indian Ocean. Capt Ariizumi, ComSubRon One, commanded submarine I-8 in the Indian Ocean. On March 26th, 1944, he collected from the water and massacred 98 unarmed survivors of the Dutch merchantman Tjisalak he'd sunk south of Colombo. He repeated this performance with 96 prisoners from the American Jean Nicolet in the Maldives on July 2nd. He destroyed the lifeboats and dived, leaving 35 bound survivors on deck. 23 managed to untie their bonds and swim all night to be rescued by the Royal Indian Navy. Capt Ariizumi committed hara-kiri while his squadron was being escorted to Yokosuka by the U.S. Navy.

I-26 is also known to have rammed merchant lifeboats from Richard Hovey and machine-gunned those in the water.

3Aug45. Japanese hospital ship Tachibana searched by Charrette (DD-581) when observed throwing weighted bags overboard. Found thirty (30) tons of ammunition, mortars, and machine guns in Red Cross boxes along with 1,500 soldiers released from hospital on Kai bound for Soerabaja.

Japan. Eight US airmen were used for medical dissection at Kyushu Imperial University with organs removed while the prisoners were still alive.

It's all being whitewashed, both here and in Japan!

As terrible as these atrocities are, these all occured during WWII, over a few years. It's not up for debate that the Japanese army was a ruthless and despicable enemy. But how is it evidence that Japan's culture itself had an inherently violent and destructive nature? What suggests that the Rape of Nanking was caused by a culture which encouraged rape and sexual slavery?

Sure, whereas a reasonable person wanting to demonstrate his arguement would point it out. You on the other hand, have waved a hand and said "it's in there somewhere".

No, I just don't feel like repeating myself every time someone brings up 911. If you were interested in a real understanding you would do the research and participate. You won't do your research and you won't let go of your one straw that civilians are always completely innocent.

You mean to say that if the US was under a real threat of invasion then there wouldn't be this sort of preparation? That's basically what the Right to Bear arms is about, isn't it?

Where did I say that. Hell I grew up during the cold war when nukes were pointed at my head for no better reason than I lived in the US. I expect if it came down to it, a nuclear power would fire weapons at the US if there was no better options for them. Luckily we have had nuclear deterrence, which is one of the other reasons I've stated dropping the bomb was a good idea.

I guess the same goes for the Germans and their persecution of the Jews, or the Russians supporting their regime in executing Polish officials. Or the French staying quiet about the removal of Jewish people under Vichy France. Becuase anything short of open protest instantly means that they were all in complete support of these atrocities.

Yeah, so. I've admitted that if dropping the bomb was the only way to stop the Germans we would have done it. We didn't need to though. Were the German citizens culpable for what happened to the Jews. That's hard! They knew something was happening to them, to what extent they all knew is questionable. I'm not really sure how long Hitler would have stayed in power if the Germans knew exactly what was going on.

The Japanese knew and applauded what was going on in Asia. Not only did they not protest it, they actively supported it.

Right, and the Medieval era must have simply given us a stunning resume. No?

Eurpoes feudal period was a long time gone by WWII. Europe had fought many relatively humane wars before WWII. Japanese feudalism was barely finished by comparison. They still had that mindset.

Totally, because that time that they didn't commit any atrocities was all just an act. Deep down inside they couldn't wait for the party to start.

Actually if you look at those wars they still acted with a great amount of brutality, just less so than was standard for them. They did a better job and actually got the attention of Europe at times, but there were also a number of atrocities.

And to claim that the Japanese High Command had no fear of losing WWII demonstrates a severe lack of historical knowledge. The attack on Pearl Harbour was a gambit, one tat they knew hadn't paid off after Midway.

Logically they knew it was a gamble. Spiritually and culturally they believed that they were destined to be victorious. It's well documented. The only reason the held back in the earlier wars was that they were looking to establish themselves as a respectable army by European standards in case of a loss they were afraid of the repercussions. They did not believe there would be repercussions for WWII, because they were sure they would win. By the time things changed it was too late.

But by the point of Hiroshima, any risk to US civilians was non-existent. For your point to be valid Japan would have to present a real and credible threat to the US civilian populace.

They were a risk to our service men though. I guess lack of ability gets them off scott free for everything they did huh?

And your average Jap wasn't the problem.

Sure they were. If we invaded then they were gonna fight.

As for treatment of prisoners, Russians captured by Germany had the lowest rates of survival, even compared to Japanese treatment. Come to mention that, German prisoner survival rates were also horrible on the Eastern Front.

I think you better look at your numbers again. They may be based on an army actually taking prisoners, which the Japanese rarely did.

Actually, it is purpoted that British bombers were the first to deliberately attack civilian centers when they bombed Berlin. In retaliation the Battle of Britain switched from attacks on airfields to British civilian centers (which arguably turned the Battle in Britain's favour).

It's pretty well established that the Germans began bombing civilian centers first. Goebbels actually blames Hermann Goring for the destruction of Dresden because Goring started the tactic of civilian center bombing.

...isn't that what this whole thread is about?

Yes, that while other countries had a pattern of wholesale slaughter, the US used it relatively less and in many cases went out of their way to avoid it when possible.

It's pretty obvious they viewed the Japanese as sub-human. Hence the widespread instances of 'trophies' taken from Japanese bodies. In Europe there was only one recorded instance of a US soldier doing that, so far as I can recall.

That's because the Japanese army had shown themselves to be sub human in their brutality. US soldiers that fought against the Japanese regressed to some point because of the horrors they encountered while fighting the Japanese. They didn't have such issues fighting anyone else. Most US soldiers that fought against the Germans ended up respecting them, they for the most part fought honorably, surrendered honorably and took prisoners honorably. Soldiers who fought the Japanese hated them because they saw them as dishonorable, they attacked after they surrendered, they killed POWs and the wounded, the killed women and children. They weren't sub human, they were Evil.

I've just discovered that France only has one aircraft carrier. And they have more than the UK does

Thanks for getting us involved there guys! When has following French sabre rattling ever paid off? Months later and nothing has changed except the number of people dead. War needs to be decisive. These patty cake action cause more death than a true decisive strike, much the way an invasion of Japan would have killed more Japanese civilians than dropping the bomb.

Not if you were Japanese, I'd guess.

The Japanese lost their vote when they attacked America by surprise and scared the gak out of us by massacring everyone they came in contact with. Had they not fought the way their culture demanded, maybe the wouldn't have gotten the bomb dropped on them.

So civilians are liable for the decisions that their government makes?

Sometimes, yes! That's life! Should war really be any different? Right now the US citizens are paying for lots of stupid decisions that the government has made. Sometimes the people are not even responsible for those decisions. I've said I feel that the Japanese culture and it's people were culpable for the actions of their army.

In WWI the Germans can attribute part of their loss to their own people refusing to make munitions. People can protest if they don't agree with what a government is doing.

As terrible as these atrocities are, these all occured during WWII, over a few years. It's not up for debate that the Japanese army was a ruthless and despicable enemy. But how is it evidence that Japan's culture itself had an inherently violent and destructive nature?

That's just a list from WW2, they have a history of acting like this. Just look it up almost any conflict in Japanese history and you will see the same pattern. The samurai would cut off your head if you looked at them funny, and would slaughter the followers of defeated warlords in mass. WWII Japanese culture had not changes much since then, as I said it wasn't that long ago that Japan emerged from feudalism.

What suggests that the Rape of Nanking was caused by a culture which encouraged rape and sexual slavery?

Are you questioning that the Japanese have a history of rape and sexual slavery or that it was a cause? If you have to ask if they had one, then you really know nothing about Japanese history. Hell even today, they are pretty perverse. I mean I can see just about anything I want on the internet, but I can't buy used underage girls panties from a vending machine down the street. I'm no saint, and I don't really know how perverse it is, but its pretty weird. If you are looking for a history of rape and sexual slavery then it's there, I won't say how it's different from others because I'm not really sure how different it is from other countries. They are known for it, but who isn't? I think for the most part it happened less in Europe and certainly less in the US military during WWII, there was certainly prostitution, but forceful rape was pretty rare on the western front in comparison, it was surely higher on the eastern front, but I still don't think it compares to the Japanese.

As I've said the cause was a historic Japanese culture of indifference to human life and suffering. Look at the histories of early Europeans in Japan, there treatment of different Japanese christian groups, etc, etc.

Andrew1975 wrote:

Sure, whereas a reasonable person wanting to demonstrate his arguement would point it out. You on the other hand, have waved a hand and said "it's in there somewhere".

No, I just don't feel like repeating myself every time someone brings up 911. If you were interested in a real understanding you would do the research and participate. You won't do your research and you won't let go of your one straw that civilians are always completely innocent.

Wait, are we still talking about 9/11 here or are you linking it to the bombing of Japan?

You mean to say that if the US was under a real threat of invasion then there wouldn't be this sort of preparation? That's basically what the Right to Bear arms is about, isn't it?

Where did I say that. Hell I grew up during the cold war when nukes were pointed at my head for no better reason than I lived in the US. I expect if it came down to it, a nuclear power would fire weapons at the US if there was no better options for them. Luckily we have had nuclear deterrence, which is one of the other reasons I've stated dropping the bomb was a good idea.

The point I was making was that the reaction of the Japanese populace was little to different to what a US reaction would be to an imminent invasion. The risk of a civilian militia being founded is not an excuse to bomb civilian targets. It's a ridiculous justification.

I guess the same goes for the Germans and their persecution of the Jews, or the Russians supporting their regime in executing Polish officials. Or the French staying quiet about the removal of Jewish people under Vichy France. Becuase anything short of open protest instantly means that they were all in complete support of these atrocities.

Yeah, so. I've admitted that if dropping the bomb was the only way to stop the Germans we would have done it. We didn't need to though. Were the German citizens culpable for what happened to the Jews. That's hard! They knew something was happening to them, to what extent they all knew is questionable. I'm not really sure how long Hitler would have stayed in power if the Germans knew exactly what was going on.

When your neighbors are dragged out of their homes, forced to wear badges that stigmatise them, and executions of them are known, is ignorance (rather than fear of retaliation) a valid reason to stay quiet?

Then again, I suppose it's little different to the treat of Japanese in the US, or Germans/Italians in Australia.

The Japanese knew and applauded what was going on in Asia. Not only did they not protest it, they actively supported it.

That's a big claim, and I'm going to need to see solid evidence of it.

Right, and the Medieval era must have simply given us a stunning resume. No?

Eurpoes feudal period was a long time gone by WWII. Europe had fought many relatively humane wars before WWII. Japanese feudalism was barely finished by comparison. They still had that mindset.

I don't understand why you think this is true.

Totally, because that time that they didn't commit any atrocities was all just an act. Deep down inside they couldn't wait for the party to start.

Actually if you look at those wars they still acted with a great amount of brutality, just less so than was standard for them. They did a better job and actually got the attention of Europe at times, but there were also a number of atrocities.

True, the first Sino-Japanese war doesn't get a lot of attention. Japan's unexpected victory over Russia ussually overshadows it.

And to claim that the Japanese High Command had no fear of losing WWII demonstrates a severe lack of historical knowledge. The attack on Pearl Harbour was a gambit, one tat they knew hadn't paid off after Midway.

Logically they knew it was a gamble. Spiritually and culturally they believed that they were destined to be victorious. It's well documented. The only reason the held back in the earlier wars was that they were looking to establish themselves as a respectable army by European standards in case of a loss they were afraid of the repercussions. They did not believe there would be repercussions for WWII, because they were sure they would win. By the time things changed it was too late.

Contrary to common belief, the military leaders of the Axis powers weren't insane. Propaganda may have lead the masses to be more confident (this was true on both sides), but the upper echelons of the Japanese command knew full well how bad the situation was, hence why surrender talks were underway.

BTW, Japan had already established itself as a respectable force (by military standards) after their victory over the Russian navy, not becuase they didn't commit (as many) atrocities.

But by the point of Hiroshima, any risk to US civilians was non-existent. For your point to be valid Japan would have to present a real and credible threat to the US civilian populace.

They were a risk to our service men though. I guess lack of ability gets them off scott free for everything they did huh?

Well firstly, Japanese civilians didn't do anything.

Secondly, Japanese civilians weren't a risk to US servicemen.

By all means blow the crap out of their military.

And your average Jap wasn't the problem.

Sure they were. If we invaded then they were gonna fight.

How does this make unarmed civilian legitimate targets?

There's a difference between civilians and armed combatants.

As for treatment of prisoners, Russians captured by Germany had the lowest rates of survival, even compared to Japanese treatment. Come to mention that, German prisoner survival rates were also horrible on the Eastern Front.

I think you better look at your numbers again. They may be based on an army actually taking prisoners, which the Japanese rarely did.

I think you underestimate the brutality of the Eastern Front.

57% mortality rate for Soviet POWs.

84% mortality rate for Axis (and Polish) POWs.

Conversely Allied POWs held by the Japanese had a mortality rate of 27%. (Still 7 times that of US prisoners held by Germans).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner_of_war

Actually, it is purpoted that British bombers were the first to deliberately attack civilian centers when they bombed Berlin. In retaliation the Battle of Britain switched from attacks on airfields to British civilian centers (which arguably turned the Battle in Britain's favour).

It's pretty well established that the Germans began bombing civilian centers first. Goebbels actually blames Hermann Goring for the destruction of Dresden because Goring started the tactic of civilian center bombing.

Wiki wrote:Still hoping that the British would negotiate for peace, Hitler explicitly prohibited attacks on London and against civilians.[86] Any airmen who, deliberately or unintentionally, violated this order were punished.[86] Hitler's No. 17 Directive, issued 1 August 1940, established the conduct of war against England and specifically forbade the Luftwaffe from conducting terror raids. The Führer declared that terror attacks could only be a means of reprisal, as ordered by him,[100] despite the raids conducted by RAF Bomber Command against industries in urban Germany since May 1940. Hitler's instructions were echoed in Hermann Göring's general order, issued on 30 June 1940:

The war against England is to be restricted to destructive attacks against industry and air force targets which have weak defensive forces. ... The most thorough study of the target concerned, that is vital points of the target, is a pre-requisite for success. It is also stressed that every effort should be made to avoid unnecessary loss of life amongst the civilian population.
—Hermann Göring [101]
On August 8, 1940, the Germans switched to raids on RAF fighter bases.[102] To reduce losses, the Luftwaffe also began to use increasing numbers of bombers at night.[103] By the last week of August, over half the missions were flown under the cover of dark. Despite Hitler's orders not to attack London, bombs fell on the city on 15 August, resulting in 60 deaths.[citation needed] That month, London was hit several more times, on the 18/19, 22/23, 24/25, 25/26 and 28/29.[104] A raid on the 22/23 August, the first in which the Luftwaffe had hit central London, was described as 'extensive' by British observers.[105]

On August 24, fate took a turn, and several off-course German bombers accidentally bombed residential areas of London.[106][107][108][109] The next day, the RAF bombed Berlin for the first time, targeting Tempelhof airfield and the Siemens factories in Siemenstadt.[110] These attacks were seen as indiscriminate bombings by the Germans due to their inaccuracy, and this infuriated Hitler;[111][112][113] he ordered that the 'night piracy of the British' be countered by a concentrated night offensive against the island, and especially London.[114] In a public speech in Berlin on 4 September 1940, Hitler announced that:

The other night the English had bombed Berlin. So be it. But this is a game at which two can play. When the British Air Force drops 2000 or 3000 or 4000 kg of bombs, then we will drop 150 000, 180 000, 230 000, 300 000, 400 000 kg on a single night. When they declare they will attack our cities in great measure, we will eradicate their cities. The hour will come when one of us will break - and it will not be National Socialist Germany!
—Adolf Hitler [115]

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

...isn't that what this whole thread is about?

Yes, that while other countries had a pattern of wholesale slaughter, the US used it relatively less and in many cases went out of their way to avoid it when possible.

But when the US does it it's okay.

It's pretty obvious they viewed the Japanese as sub-human. Hence the widespread instances of 'trophies' taken from Japanese bodies. In Europe there was only one recorded instance of a US soldier doing that, so far as I can recall.

That's because the Japanese army had shown themselves to be sub human in their brutality. US soldiers that fought against the Japanese regressed to some point because of the horrors they encountered while fighting the Japanese. They didn't have such issues fighting anyone else. Most US soldiers that fought against the Germans ended up respecting them, they for the most part fought honorably, surrendered honorably and took prisoners honorably. Soldiers who fought the Japanese hated them because they saw them as dishonorable, they attacked after they surrendered, they killed POWs and the wounded, the killed women and children. They weren't sub human, they were Evil.

Not really. There are three recorded cases of US troops massacring German soldiers. Two of these happened to the guards of Jewish concentration camps, so I really don't have any qualms there. War is a dehumanising process.

For someone that hates Japanese culture, and prefers logic over moral superiority, you mention 'Fighting with Honour' a fair bit.

I've just discovered that France only has one aircraft carrier. And they have more than the UK does

Thanks for getting us involved there guys! When has following French sabre rattling ever paid off? Months later and nothing has changed except the number of people dead. War needs to be decisive. These patty cake action cause more death than a true decisive strike, much the way an invasion of Japan would have killed more Japanese civilians than dropping the bomb.

Yeah, these two events aren't comparable...at all.

Maybe if there were rebels on the Japanese mainland and Emperor Hirohoto had a history of....no.

Not if you were Japanese, I'd guess.

The Japanese lost their vote when they attacked America by surprise and scared the gak out of us by massacring everyone they came in contact with. Had they not fought the way their culture demanded, maybe the wouldn't have gotten the bomb dropped on them.

You realise that civilians weren't the ones fighting? That's the definition of civilian.

So civilians are liable for the decisions that their government makes?

Sometimes, yes! That's life! Should war really be any different? Right now the US citizens are paying for lots of stupid decisions that the government has made. Sometimes the people are not even responsible for those decisions. I've said I feel that the Japanese culture and it's people were culpable for the actions of their army.

US citizens may be paying for mistakes your government makes, but that doesn't make them culpable. Heck, if anything US citizens would be more responsible that the Japanese, you guys vote your government in.

In WWI the Germans can attribute part of their loss to their own people refusing to make munitions. People can protest if they don't agree with what a government is doing.

Tangent?

As terrible as these atrocities are, these all occured during WWII, over a few years. It's not up for debate that the Japanese army was a ruthless and despicable enemy. But how is it evidence that Japan's culture itself had an inherently violent and destructive nature?

That's just a list from WW2, they have a history of acting like this. Just look it up almost any conflict in Japanese history and you will see the same pattern. The samurai would cut off your head if you looked at them funny, and would slaughter the followers of defeated warlords in mass. WWII Japanese culture had not changes much since then, as I said it wasn't that long ago that Japan emerged from feudalism.

Modernisation of Japan occured around 1868.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiji_period

And slavery was banned in...1590. Almost 200 years before the West.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Japan

What suggests that the Rape of Nanking was caused by a culture which encouraged rape and sexual slavery?

Are you questioning that the Japanese have a history of rape and sexual slavery or that it was a cause? If you have to ask if they had one, then you really know nothing about Japanese history. Hell even today, they are pretty perverse. I mean I can see just about anything I want on the internet, but I can't buy used underage girls panties from a vending machine down the street. I'm no saint, and I don't really know how perverse it is, but its pretty weird. If you are looking for a history of rape and sexual slavery then it's there, I won't say how it's different from others because I'm not really sure how different it is from other countries. They are known for it, but who isn't? I think for the most part it happened less in Europe and certainly less in the US military during WWII, there was certainly prostitution, but forceful rape was pretty rare on the western front in comparison, it was surely higher on the eastern front, but I still don't think it compares to the Japanese.

I can't see any correlation between historic Japanese culture and wierd por things I find on the internet.

I'm not debating that the Rape of Nanking was committed by the Japanese, I'm asking you why you think Japanese culture is responsible for? Where in Japanese history shows that mass rape such as this was acceptable? One might as well say that US culture was to blame for the Atomic bomb, or German culture was to blame for the industrialisation of genocide.

As I've said the cause was a historic Japanese culture of indifference to human life and suffering. Look at the histories of early Europeans in Japan, there treatment of different Japanese christian groups, etc, etc.

^ See articles above. Doesn't seem to support your idea that Japanese culture was anymore brutal or indifferent to human suffering than other cultures around the world.

Wait, are we still talking about 9/11 here or are you linking it to the bombing of Japan?

I'm getting tired of your frustration tactics. You are the one that brought 911 into this argument, now your asking me why I brought it up?

The point I was making was that the reaction of the Japanese populace was little to different to what a US reaction would be to an imminent invasion. The risk of a civilian militia being founded is not an excuse to bomb civilian targets. It's a ridiculous justification.

Most people would disagree with you. The civilian resistance to a hostile invasion of Japan was forcasted to be worse that civilian resistance in both Russia and Germany. You are either ignorant of or do not appreciate the fanatical mindset of the Japanese. My guess is that you continue to fain ignorance to further your case, but it doesn't wash with history or anyone else for that matter. It wasn't going to be a militia it was going to be a mass resistance on an epic scale.

When your neighbors are dragged out of their homes, forced to wear badges that stigmatise them, and executions of them are known, is ignorance (rather than fear of retaliation) a valid reason to stay quiet?

Then again, I suppose it's little different to the treat of Japanese in the US, or Germans/Italians in Australia.

Not everyone had Jewish neighbors. Most Germans thought the Jews were being sent to work camps, a common practice for political dissidents at the time. Not saying they were innocent, but they were not cheering on a mass of murderers whose exploits like the famous murder contests of the Japanese where stats were printed in the papers like they were homeruns.

That's a big claim, and I'm going to need to see solid evidence of it.

It's well documented that the Japanese posted the exploits of their armies atrocities in the papers. The people believed that this was how you were supposed to fight a war because that is what their culture dictated.

I don't understand why you think this is true.

Because you don't know your history. The feudal period of Japan ended in 1868.

True, the first Sino-Japanese war doesn't get a lot of attention. Japan's unexpected victory over Russia ussually overshadows it.

So look it up in history, there were Japanese atrocities during these times.

Contrary to common belief, the military leaders of the Axis powers weren't insane. Propaganda may have lead the masses to be more confident (this was true on both sides), but the upper echelons of the Japanese command knew full well how bad the situation was, hence why surrender talks were underway.

BTW, Japan had already established itself as a respectable force (by military standards) after their victory over the Russian navy, not becuase they didn't commit (as many) atrocities.

There are volumes of books that express the Japanese mentality that WWII was a divinely inspired war and that the only possible outcome was victory. The had established themselves as an effective fighting force, but not a respectable one with international legitimacy. The were seen as little more than a well organized army of vandals until WWI. By releasing Chinese and Russian prisoners they showed that they were respectable and ready to step up to the big boys table. Unfortunately they quickly changes their tune and went back to their old habits.

Well firstly, Japanese civilians didn't do anything.

Secondly, Japanese civilians weren't a risk to US servicemen.

By all means blow the crap out of their military.

Sure they did, they gave tacit support to the military, and were training for the invasion. Almost every civilian in Japan was part of the military support system, working in munitions plants or like many setting up production in their own homes. To bomb the factories of the Japanese war machine almost required the bombing of every Japanese home as most had been turned into cottage industries because the major factories had been destroyed.

How does this make unarmed civilian legitimate targets?

There's a difference between civilians and armed combatants.

But they were armed, you are not following. Japanese civilians had geared up for a hostile invasion. They produced weapons in their homes, crude explosive devises. The Japanese people were to resist until death, that was a mandate. Their culture demanded that they follow that mandate until the Emperor changed his will.

I think you underestimate the brutality of the Eastern Front.

57% mortality rate for Soviet POWs.

84% mortality rate for Axis (and Polish) POWs.

Conversely Allied POWs held by the Japanese had a mortality rate of 27%. (Still 7 times that of US prisoners held by Germans).

I know all about the eastern front. The Soviets and Germans were vicious towards each other. The Germans would have much rater faced the Western powers specifically because we fought more civilly. They were terrified of the Russians, for good reason! The Russians were out for their pound of flesh, retaliation for how the Germans acted in the east. The Russians had seen exactly how Germans treated cultures they deemed inferior. The western allied did not have the same issues with the Germans.

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

Taken directly from your citation "Targeting cities and civilians was viewed as a psychological weapon to break the enemy's will to fight. From 1940–1941, Germany used this weapon in its 'Blitz' against Britain.[13] From 1940 onward, the intensity of the British bombing campaign against Germany became less restrictive, increasingly targeting industrial sites and eventually, civilian areas"

But when the US does it it's okay.

Faced with the choices that the US was looking at yes! It wasn't the first choice, it wasn't a pattern of action. It was an act of desperation. One that saved the lived of Millions of Americans, Japanese and possibly Russians.

Your argument is that it should have never been done. I would love to see how you play it out in your head that less Americans die, which is the most important to me, or more to your point how it plays out that less Japanese civilians die. If the US didn't invade, surely the Russians would have. I guarantee you that the Russians would have subjected the Japanese to Russian Justice and killed far more Japanese civilians.

Not really. There are three recorded cases of US troops massacring German soldiers. Two of these happened to the guards of Jewish concentration camps, so I really don't have any qualms there. War is a dehumanising process.

For someone that hates Japanese culture, and prefers logic over moral superiority, you mention 'Fighting with Honour' a fair bit.

Go ahead and keep cherry picking examples if you must, it doesn't really help your argument when you bring up these exceptions that account for virtually zero percent of engagements. If anything your data shows that except for extremely rare circumstances, there was much respect between these two forces. That actually helps my argument. Everybody knows that the German and Western allied soldiers fought each other very civilly with few exceptions.

What about those poor guards, they were just human? They were just following orders! Should they be held responsible for their governments decisions? Of course they should.

Yeah, these two events aren't comparable...at all.

Maybe if there were rebels on the Japanese mainland and Emperor Hirohoto had a history of....no

I was just showing that your support of limited warfare (and apparently American imperialism)and intervention very often gets more people killed than decisive action.

You realise that civilians weren't the ones fighting? That's the definition of civilian.

The masses were being armed and trained to fight. Do they still count as civilians then?

US citizens may be paying for mistakes your government makes, but that doesn't make them culpable. Heck, if anything US citizens would be more responsible that the Japanese, you guys vote your government in.

I think we probably are in most cases. We vote them in, and if we don't like what they are doing we do something about it or at least have our voices heard. The Japanese didn't oppose what the military were doing because they approved of it and supported it.

Tangent?

Really? You are accusing me of this? I'd look back at your own arguments first. Does that make it any less valid? The Japanese people could have stopped supporting the war at anytime, they knew exactly what was going on in China.

Modernisation of Japan occured around 1868.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiji_period

And slavery was banned in...1590. Almost 200 years before the West.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Japan

Since you like using Wikipedia so much here is a wiki for you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Japan. Banning things without real enforcement is much like not banning it at all. I suppose prostitution is illegal in the US too, that hardly stops it from happening. Rape and sexual slavery are both historic parts of Japanese culture as they were many others. By WWII I would have to say that most of the Western countries had gotten away from Rape being a standard and acceptable part of war though.

This is not an empirical statement, I know you like to play that game. It really pains me that I would have to state that not every statement I make is empirical. In most action there are always exceptions. There were certainly cases of rape by US forces in WWII, even if they weren't documented as such, you don't have armies without some rape going on. In the Japanese army it was an accepted standard practice.

I'm not debating that the Rape of Nanking was committed by the Japanese, I'm asking you why you think Japanese culture is responsible for? Where in Japanese history shows that mass rape such as this was acceptable?

I think it's more important to see when it wasn't acceptable. At no time in Japanese history to that point were these acts considered unacceptable. This was normal and acceptable for them. Part of the Japanese code was that being Victorious made you inscrutable. It's a historic fact the part of the Japanese culture was that to be Victorious you had to be blessed by the gods, the gods would not bless you with victory if they felt your actions were unjust.

Now when I read that I think I need to be just to be victorious. The Japanese read it as if you are victorious your actions must have been just, so do whatever you must to be victorious. This outlook is not up for debate, I did not come up with this, this is a historic fact.

They pulled in the reigns a little when fighting Europeans, but just look at almost any other engagement that the Japanese fought, they are filled with tales of just pure inhumanity.

Andrew1975 wrote:

Wait, are we still talking about 9/11 here or are you linking it to the bombing of Japan?

I'm getting tired of your frustration tactics. You are the one that brought 911 into this argument, now your asking me why I brought it up?

You're the one who claims that civilians are legitimate targets.

The point I was making was that the reaction of the Japanese populace was little to different to what a US reaction would be to an imminent invasion. The risk of a civilian militia being founded is not an excuse to bomb civilian targets. It's a ridiculous justification.

Most people would disagree with you. The civilian resistance to a hostile invasion of Japan was forcasted to be worse that civilian resistance in both Russia and Germany. You are either ignorant of or do not appreciate the fanatical mindset of the Japanese. My guess is that you continue to fain ignorance to further your case, but it doesn't wash with history or anyone else for that matter. It wasn't going to be a militia it was going to be a mass resistance on an epic scale.

I can't find many other people in this thread that believe the possibility of armed resistance from the civilian populace is an excuse to target civilian centers. The strongest arguments are those that point out the use of th Bomb was to force the Japanese Government to capitulate. You're the only one that has argued that the civilians themselves were a legitimate target because of the military threat they posed. One might say that armed civilians in Vietnam justified the atrocities the Japanese military committed against the civilian populace there. In fact it's worse, because the Japanese were under real threat of attack/retaliiation from the civilians, while the Japanese civilians had no such means of inflicting US casualties. It's a ridiculous argument and shows just how far you're willing to stretch logic in order to justify the distasteful actions of the Allies.

When your neighbors are dragged out of their homes, forced to wear badges that stigmatise them, and executions of them are known, is ignorance (rather than fear of retaliation) a valid reason to stay quiet?

Then again, I suppose it's little different to the treat of Japanese in the US, or Germans/Italians in Australia.

Not everyone had Jewish neighbors. Most Germans thought the Jews were being sent to work camps, a common practice for political dissidents at the time. Not saying they were innocent, but they were not cheering on a mass of murderers whose exploits like the famous murder contests of the Japanese where stats were printed in the papers like they were homeruns.

I've seen tally scores, for who could behead the most prisoners, that were posted in the officers board. This is the first time I've seen someone claim it was hailed as a national sport. If you have any evidence of it, now would be a good time to provide it.

Ah wait, found it. Wow, that is disturbing. The newspaper claims it was hand-to-hand combat, but looking back on the history of Nanking it's more likely they msotly were killing unarmed prisoners.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Contest_To_Cut_Down_100_People.jpg

Though there was a Japanese officer that killed 30 Chinese soldiers in one instance of storming a trench.

That's a big claim, and I'm going to need to see solid evidence of it.

It's well documented that the Japanese posted the exploits of their armies atrocities in the papers. The people believed that this was how you were supposed to fight a war because that is what their culture dictated.

Is it something like this?

I don't understand why you think this is true.

Because you don't know your history. The feudal period of Japan ended in 1868.

I just provided you a link that said exactly that.

True, the first Sino-Japanese war doesn't get a lot of attention. Japan's unexpected victory over Russia ussually overshadows it.

So look it up in history, there were Japanese atrocities during these times.

Yeah, there were instances of mass executions of prisoners of war.

Japan also abolished slavery in the countries they annexed during the First Sino-Japanese war. A barbaric move to be sure.

Contrary to common belief, the military leaders of the Axis powers weren't insane. Propaganda may have lead the masses to be more confident (this was true on both sides), but the upper echelons of the Japanese command knew full well how bad the situation was, hence why surrender talks were underway.

BTW, Japan had already established itself as a respectable force (by military standards) after their victory over the Russian navy, not becuase they didn't commit (as many) atrocities.

There are volumes of books that express the Japanese mentality that WWII was a divinely inspired war and that the only possible outcome was victory. The had established themselves as an effective fighting force, but not a respectable one with international legitimacy. The were seen as little more than a well organized army of vandals until WWI. By releasing Chinese and Russian prisoners they showed that they were respectable and ready to step up to the big boys table. Unfortunately they quickly changes their tune and went back to their old habits.

You seem to believe that the Japanese were always, deep down inside, just waiting to commit atrocities. To you, any instance of the Japanese fighting with honour was just a smokescreen so that they could commit these horrible acts later.

Well firstly, Japanese civilians didn't do anything.

Secondly, Japanese civilians weren't a risk to US servicemen.

By all means blow the crap out of their military.

Sure they did, they gave tacit support to the military, and were training for the invasion. Almost every civilian in Japan was part of the military support system, working in munitions plants or like many setting up production in their own homes. To bomb the factories of the Japanese war machine almost required the bombing of every Japanese home as most had been turned into cottage industries because the major factories had been destroyed.

You realise that being a factory worker does not make you a legitimate military target?

How does this make unarmed civilian legitimate targets?

There's a difference between civilians and armed combatants.

But they were armed, you are not following. Japanese civilians had geared up for a hostile invasion. They produced weapons in their homes, crude explosive devises. The Japanese people were to resist until death, that was a mandate. Their culture demanded that they follow that mandate until the Emperor changed his will.

I think you underestimate the brutality of the Eastern Front.

57% mortality rate for Soviet POWs.

84% mortality rate for Axis (and Polish) POWs.

Conversely Allied POWs held by the Japanese had a mortality rate of 27%. (Still 7 times that of US prisoners held by Germans).

I know all about the eastern front. The Soviets and Germans were vicious towards each other. The Germans would have much rater faced the Western powers specifically because we fought more civilly. They were terrified of the Russians, for good reason! The Russians were out for their pound of flesh, retaliation for how the Germans acted in the east. The Russians had seen exactly how Germans treated cultures they deemed inferior. The western allied did not have the same issues with the Germans.

But you haven't claimed that Russia or Germany (or China for that matter) had a culture that demanded this treatment. You haven't argued that their atrocities made their civilians legitimate targets.

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

Taken directly from your citation "Targeting cities and civilians was viewed as a psychological weapon to break the enemy's will to fight. From 1940–1941, Germany used this weapon in its 'Blitz' against Britain.[13] From 1940 onward, the intensity of the British bombing campaign against Germany became less restrictive, increasingly targeting industrial sites and eventually, civilian areas"

Hmmm, maybe you didn't read the rest of that post. In the Battle for Britian, British Air Forces were actually the first to bomb civilian areas.

But when the US does it it's okay.

Faced with the choices that the US was looking at yes! It wasn't the first choice, it wasn't a pattern of action. It was an act of desperation. One that saved the lived of Millions of Americans, Japanese and possibly Russians.

Your argument is that it should have never been done. I would love to see how you play it out in your head that less Americans die, which is the most important to me, or more to your point how it plays out that less Japanese civilians die. If the US didn't invade, surely the Russians would have. I guarantee you that the Russians would have subjected the Japanese to Russian Justice and killed far more Japanese civilians.

Now this is a argument I find more reasonable than saying Japanese civilians were legitimate targets.

Even though dropping the Bomb on civilian population centers was a horrid act, it can be argued that it forced an early end to the war. I still find the point debatable though, Japanese surrender appeared to be more motivated by Russia entering the war.

Not really. There are three recorded cases of US troops massacring German soldiers. Two of these happened to the guards of Jewish concentration camps, so I really don't have any qualms there. War is a dehumanising process.

For someone that hates Japanese culture, and prefers logic over moral superiority, you mention 'Fighting with Honour' a fair bit.

Go ahead and keep cherry picking examples if you must, it doesn't really help your argument when you bring up these exceptions that account for virtually zero percent of engagements. If anything your data shows that except for extremely rare circumstances, there was much respect between these two forces. That actually helps my argument. Everybody knows that the German and Western allied soldiers fought each other very civilly with few exceptions.

What about those poor guards, they were just human? They were just following orders! Should they be held responsible for their governments decisions? Of course they should.

You've just tried, and failed really, to put Japanese civilians on the same level as the German guards of Jewish concentration camps.

*golf claps*

Yeah, these two events aren't comparable...at all.

Maybe if there were rebels on the Japanese mainland and Emperor Hirohoto had a history of....no

I was just showing that your support of limited warfare (and apparently American imperialism)and intervention very often gets more people killed than decisive action.

The actions in Libya by France (and the EU countries that support it) means it's American imperialism? How?

And we haven't nuked Tripolli or Benghazi, so I'd say the casualties are a lot lower than your idea of decisive action.

You realise that civilians weren't the ones fighting? That's the definition of civilian.

The masses were being armed and trained to fight. Do they still count as civilians then?

No, they'd be considered armed combatants. When they were armed and posing a threat to US forces.

US citizens may be paying for mistakes your government makes, but that doesn't make them culpable. Heck, if anything US citizens would be more responsible that the Japanese, you guys vote your government in.

I think we probably are in most cases. We vote them in, and if we don't like what they are doing we do something about it or at least have our voices heard. The Japanese didn't oppose what the military were doing because they approved of it and supported it.

Tangent?

Really? You are accusing me of this? I'd look back at your own arguments first. Does that make it any less valid? The Japanese people could have stopped supporting the war at anytime, they knew exactly what was going on in China.

Hey, you were the one that started talking about WWI.

Modernisation of Japan occured around 1868.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiji_period

And slavery was banned in...1590. Almost 200 years before the West.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Japan

Since you like using Wikipedia so much here is a wiki for you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Japan. Banning things without real enforcement is much like not banning it at all. I suppose prostitution is illegal in the US too, that hardly stops it from happening. Rape and sexual slavery are both historic parts of Japanese culture as they were many others. By WWII I would have to say that most of the Western countries had gotten away from Rape being a standard and acceptable part of war though.

And you have yet to provide evidence that suggests that the Rape of Nanking was only the latest incident in a history of mass rapes.

This is not an empirical statement, I know you like to play that game. It really pains me that I would have to state that not every statement I make is empirical. In most action there are always exceptions. There were certainly cases of rape by US forces in WWII, even if they weren't documented as such, you don't have armies without some rape going on. In the Japanese army it was an accepted standard practice.

No it wasn't, we've been over this. The Tokyo trials found that the Rape of Nanking occured due to a gross lack of discipline, not a standard practice set down by the Japanese High Command.

I'm not debating that the Rape of Nanking was committed by the Japanese, I'm asking you why you think Japanese culture is responsible for? Where in Japanese history shows that mass rape such as this was acceptable?

I think it's more important to see when it wasn't acceptable. At no time in Japanese history to that point were these acts considered unacceptable. This was normal and acceptable for them. Part of the Japanese code was that being Victorious made you inscrutable. It's a historic fact the part of the Japanese culture was that to be Victorious you had to be blessed by the gods, the gods would not bless you with victory if they felt your actions were unjust.

Now when I read that I think I need to be just to be victorious. The Japanese read it as if you are victorious your actions must have been just, so do whatever you must to be victorious. This outlook is not up for debate, I did not come up with this, this is a historic fact.

They pulled in the reigns a little when fighting Europeans, but just look at almost any other engagement that the Japanese fought, they are filled with tales of just pure inhumanity.

You're the one who claims that civilians are legitimate targets.

First, state it properly. In some cases civilians are legitimate targets of attacks in wars between nations. Yes. You are trying to compare surprise and unprovoked terrorist attacks with acts of war.

I can't find many other people in this thread that believe the possibility of armed resistance from the civilian populace is an excuse to target civilian centers. The strongest arguments are those that point out the use of th Bomb was to force the Japanese Government to capitulate. You're the only one that has argued that the civilians themselves were a legitimate target because of the military threat they posed. One might say that armed civilians in Vietnam justified the atrocities the Japanese military committed against the civilian populace there. In fact it's worse, because the Japanese were under real threat of attack/retaliiation from the civilians, while the Japanese civilians had no such means of inflicting US casualties. It's a ridiculous argument and shows just how far you're willing to stretch logic in order to justify the distasteful actions of the Allies.

There are people that have skipped this justification because as I have put forth there many many reasons dropping the bomb was a good idea. You've had me focusing on this one because it is really the only argument that anyone can make that it was not a good idea.

The Japanese were under threat because they made the choice to attack. We were under threat because the Japanese decided to attack.

I've seen tally scores, for who could behead the most prisoners, that were posted in the officers board. This is the first time I've seen someone claim it was hailed as a national sport. If you have any evidence of it, now would be a good time to provide it.

Ah wait, found it. Wow, that is disturbing. The newspaper claims it was hand-to-hand combat, but looking back on the history of Nanking it's more likely they msotly were killing unarmed prisoners.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Contest_To_Cut_Down_100_People.jpg

Though there was a Japanese officer that killed 30 Chinese soldiers in one instance of storming a trench.

This is what I'm saying, I don't think you fully understand the level of destruction that came with the Japanese army. It is claimed that the Japanese killed over 250,000 Chinese civilians looking for the downed pilots of the Dolittle raid. 250,000, I'm not sure that that is even possible and must be an exaggeration, but I've seen it more than once, that is a lot of murder to find a few downed pilots.

I just provided you a link that said exactly that.

So when I say WWII Japan was not far removed from feudalism, why would you ask me where I am getting that, if you know the answer? You've done this many times, this and very circular arguments. Really I'm, getting tired of it.

Yeah, there were instances of mass executions of prisoners of war.

Japan also abolished slavery in the countries they annexed during the First Sino-Japanese war. A barbaric move to be sure.

I'm glad that they freed people before killing all of them. What is your point?

You seem to believe that the Japanese were always, deep down inside, just waiting to commit atrocities. To you, any instance of the Japanese fighting with honour was just a smokescreen so that they could commit these horrible acts later.

This is well documented Japanese strategy, it's not my theory, look it up!

You realise that being a factory worker does not make you a legitimate military target?

I'm not sure I agree with that. Destroying the means of support and production are legitimate ways to fight a war. If not targeting the workers directly then surely attacking the military factories is acceptable. If every cottage is a factory then every cottage can be a target.

But you haven't claimed that Russia or Germany (or China for that matter) had a culture that demanded this treatment. You haven't argued that their atrocities made their civilians legitimate targets.

Russia wasn't a legitimate target because they were an ally, Germany didn't need it because the masses did not pose a credible threat to a homeland invasion like the Japanese did. Stop making me repeat myself! You seam to be under some misconception that the Japanese civilians would have surrendered like almost everyone else did. They wouldn't have.

Hmmm, maybe you didn't read the rest of that post. In the Battle for Britian, British Air Forces were actually the first to bomb civilian areas.

Maybe you didn't read it properly. The brits hit military facilities in civilian areas. The Germans were the first to use terror bombing specifically aimed at civilians.

Now this is a argument I find more reasonable than saying Japanese civilians were legitimate targets.

No you don't. This argument has been made many times by many people in this tread including myself! You have stated that no matter the argument, the only point that maters is that the Japanese civilians were innocent. I've been focusing mainly on that because to you no other argument matters. My contention is that even if the civilians were saints, it was still a good idea. But they weren't, they were far from it.

The actions in Libya by France (and the EU countries that support it) means it's American imperialism? How?

And we haven't nuked Tripolli or Benghazi, so I'd say the casualties are a lot lower than your idea of decisive action.

You do know that the US has been doing most of the air sorties right? You don't get much from a single french aircraft carrier.

My idea of decisive action is not dropping the bomb every time there is a situation. We needed it in Japan yes, but Libya could have been done quickly with an offensive plan, instead of simply enforcing a no fly zone, and taking pot shots at attackers once in a while. We don't even need troops on the ground, that's what the rebels are for, well whats left of them anyway.

That's if you really think it is the US's business to be global police. I don't. But, good luck with your Pax Americana!

No, they'd be considered armed combatants. When they were armed and posing a threat to US forces.

Good, because they were being armed and were making ready for the invasion.

Hey, you were the one that started talking about WWI.

You brought up, Vietnam, and colonial slavery! WW1 is much closer and more relevant by comparison.

And you have yet to provide evidence that suggests that the Rape of Nanking was only the latest incident in a history of mass rapes.

No I didn't, I said it was one incident in a pattern of mass murder. I never brought up rape as a main issue. Stop playing games.

No it wasn't, we've been over this. The Tokyo trials found that the Rape of Nanking occured due to a gross lack of discipline, not a standard practice set down by the Japanese High Command.

So I suppose all the other examples of Japanese atrocities were just coincidental?

Still not answering the question. Where else in Japanese history did such mass rapes occur? If you're going to argue that that's part of Japanese culture you need to demonstrate that it was widely accepted before that instance.

Are you off your rocker? The rape of Nanking is not about rape! Sure that was a part of it, but its about the indiscriminate murder of a half a million people. You must be just trolling or acting ignorant now.

If you are really focused on the actual acts of rape then just look up comfort women.