Switch Theme:

A strange double standard. Nazi Germany and The Empire of Japan's WW2 atrocities.  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka




Manchester UK

Ketara wrote:
Ketara wrote:
Albatross wrote:My position is this: If a dog is rabid, you put it down. The dog won't thank you, but you'll be safe. Which is kind of the point.

In all honesty, there are no lengths to which my country could go to to keep me (and mine) safe, that I would condemn. As long as they were effective, of course.

The Japanese military was out of control - looking back through some of the horrific crimes they perpetrated, you'd be forgiven for thinking that they were collectively crazed with blood-lust. Seriously, the most atrocious kinds of torture, murder and rape - and on a massive scale.

Put the dog down. Doesn't matter how you do it, just get it done. If it comes down to a choice between me and you...

Well, feth you, basically! Sorry, but there it is. It was a global conflict, and the stakes really couldn't have been higher for most involved parties. For what it's worth, I'm grateful to the Americans for doing what they did to Japan. If it were my decision I would have done it in a heart-beat, ten times worse, then had a coke and a smile.


I do actually agree with you to a huge extent Albatross.

The problem is, where does it stop? If you completely and totally value the lives of your own soldiers over those of every person on the 'opposing team' as it were, it leads to the kind of thinking whereby every time a guerilla fighter kills an occupying soldier, you kill every civilian in a village in order to ensure you never lose any men there again. Worrying about losing men taking a city? Drop a nuke on it! Not as if its your country right? The opposing soldiers surrender? Kill them all! That way, they can't come back and hurt you again in the future if they get exchanged! In fact, kill their families too for good measure, then you don't need to worry about any of your guys getting killed in vengeance attacks!

In the end, you become the rabid dog you were trying to put down. Surely that's the whole point? If in stopping the rabid dog, you become the rabid dog, where is the difference between you and them?


No response Albatross?


Oh, go on then...



The difference is that I don't give a feth. Because I won.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
Albatross wrote:
Both concepts that are basically arbitrary. As far as I'm concerned, desiring to do something is just as a valid reason to do it as any. For me, at least.

But then, I'm told I have 'issues' in that particular area....


Well, yeah, they're arbitrary (in the sense that they're words used by people), but the way in which they are applied is at least contingent upon the social acceptance of terminology.

But I'm talking about the concepts - who decides what is 'right' or 'sensible'? Obviously its agreed upon inter-subjectively, to some extent - but really it largely boils down to 'what do I think is right/sensible?'

For me, if I desire something it is both right and sensible.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/01/19 19:48:55


 Cheesecat wrote:
 purplefood wrote:
I find myself agreeing with Albatross far too often these days...

I almost always agree with Albatross, I can't see why anyone wouldn't.


 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:

Okay, so the male version of "Cougar" is now officially "Albatross".
 
   
Made in gb
[SWAP SHOP MOD]
Killer Klaivex







Albatross wrote:
Ketara wrote:
Ketara wrote:
Albatross wrote:My position is this: If a dog is rabid, you put it down. The dog won't thank you, but you'll be safe. Which is kind of the point.

In all honesty, there are no lengths to which my country could go to to keep me (and mine) safe, that I would condemn. As long as they were effective, of course.

The Japanese military was out of control - looking back through some of the horrific crimes they perpetrated, you'd be forgiven for thinking that they were collectively crazed with blood-lust. Seriously, the most atrocious kinds of torture, murder and rape - and on a massive scale.

Put the dog down. Doesn't matter how you do it, just get it done. If it comes down to a choice between me and you...

Well, feth you, basically! Sorry, but there it is. It was a global conflict, and the stakes really couldn't have been higher for most involved parties. For what it's worth, I'm grateful to the Americans for doing what they did to Japan. If it were my decision I would have done it in a heart-beat, ten times worse, then had a coke and a smile.


I do actually agree with you to a huge extent Albatross.

The problem is, where does it stop? If you completely and totally value the lives of your own soldiers over those of every person on the 'opposing team' as it were, it leads to the kind of thinking whereby every time a guerilla fighter kills an occupying soldier, you kill every civilian in a village in order to ensure you never lose any men there again. Worrying about losing men taking a city? Drop a nuke on it! Not as if its your country right? The opposing soldiers surrender? Kill them all! That way, they can't come back and hurt you again in the future if they get exchanged! In fact, kill their families too for good measure, then you don't need to worry about any of your guys getting killed in vengeance attacks!

In the end, you become the rabid dog you were trying to put down. Surely that's the whole point? If in stopping the rabid dog, you become the rabid dog, where is the difference between you and them?


No response Albatross?


Oh, go on then...



The difference is that I don't give a feth. Because I won.




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


 
   
Made in gb
Joined the Military for Authentic Experience






Nuremberg

Luckily, despite his skill with one liners and catchy lyrics, I don't see Albatross getting control of the military any time soon.
It's Bionic Thatcher we really have to worry about.

   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

What about Zombie Churchill?

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in gb
Joined the Military for Authentic Experience






Nuremberg

Zombie Churchill would fall before her bionic might. She has a literal heart of steel, Fraz.

   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

Da Boss wrote:Zombie Churchill would fall before her bionic might. She has a literal heart of steel, Fraz.

Yea but Zombie Churchill has a gut full of Scotch...

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in us
Hauptmann




Diligently behind a rifle...

Frazzled wrote:
Da Boss wrote:Zombie Churchill would fall before her bionic might. She has a literal heart of steel, Fraz.

Yea but Zombie Churchill has a gut full of Scotch...


...and a Thompson Submachinegun, a Stogie...

Catachan LIX "Lords Of Destruction" - Put Away

1943-1944 Era 1250 point Großdeutchland Force - Bolt Action

"The best medicine for Wraithlords? Multilasers. The best way to kill an Avatar? Lasguns."

"Time to pour out some liquor for the pinkmisted Harlequins"

Res Ipsa Loquitor 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

Exactly!

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in us
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges




United States

Albatross wrote:
But I'm talking about the concepts - who decides what is 'right' or 'sensible'?


Everyone, and therefore no one. That's why the game is so much fun. Well, where "everyone" refers only to humans; naturally limiting the relevant set to those similar beings that are of discussion.

Albatross wrote:
Obviously its agreed upon inter-subjectively, to some extent - but really it largely boils down to 'what do I think is right/sensible?'

For me, if I desire something it is both right and sensible.


So you might think, and I might disagree, as might anyone else.

I'll also say that I rarely desire things that are either right, or sensible.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/01/19 21:56:59


Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

Admit it Dogma, you're just afraid of Scotch drinking, cigar chewing, Chicago Piano totin Zombie Churchill.

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in us
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges




United States

Frazzled wrote:Admit it Dogma, you're just afraid of Scotch drinking, cigar chewing, Chicago Piano totin Zombie Churchill.


I do two of those things.

Cigars are disgusting to me.

Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. 
   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

Without J Pop there would be no K Pop.

Without K Pop there would be no Girls' Generation.


I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in us
Nasty Nob on Warbike with Klaw






Japanese AND Korean women are obscenely hot.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/01/19 22:07:07


Read my story at:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/515293.page#5420356



 
   
Made in us
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges




United States

I prefer Korean women.

Also, what's with the Assassin's Creed icons?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/01/19 22:05:41


Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Admit it Dogma, you're just afraid of Scotch drinking, cigar chewing, Chicago Piano totin Zombie Churchill.


I do two of those things.

Cigars are disgusting to me.

She Who Must Be Obeyed shot a full auto Tommy Gun once. She loved it.
I like the smell of a cigar actually (good cigars not the cheap incense laden ones). I will admit Zombie Chuchill gives me the willies, but I'd vote for him...


-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in au
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter






Australia (Recently ravaged by the Hive Fleet Ginger Overlord)

sebster wrote:
But to do so without warning, into a dense civilian population with the express goal of terror and horrifying the enemy, I can't reconcile that decision (not that anyone particularily needs me to or cares if I do). Was there even a question of providing a demonstration? You can't argue that the shortage of bombs prevented that, a further 15 A-bombs were expected to have been developed by October at the latest.



In the history of war I don't think there's ever been an instance of displaying a new weapon in some of display for the enemy, to get him to back down. It just doesn't work like that.


I really don't think you can compare a demonstration of a nuclear bomb to a demonstration of any other weapon throughout history.


Albatross wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:Just saying, couldn't they just have dropped the bomb somewhere empty and said "next one's a city"? At least then there would've been a chance to surrender without the massive death toll...

...of Japanese people. Am I supposed to care?


Where's Ahtman when you need him?

Frazzled wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:In a related question, has the US apologized for Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Get ing real. You don't apologize when you shoot the guy who breaks into your house and tries to kill you.


I'll try not to judge you for that very poor analogy.

Bookwrack wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:Just saying, couldn't they just have dropped the bomb somewhere empty and said "next one's a city"? At least then there would've been a chance to surrender without the massive death toll...

When you only have a grand total of two bombs, using one of them as a demonstration and HOPING that it's enough to cow the enemy is a pretty risky bet. There's a much greater impact in leveling a city instead of merely threatening to level one, and it leaves a lot more witnesses.


They only had a total of two bombs at that very moment. A further 15 were expected to have been produced in just a few months.

dogma wrote:I prefer Korean women.


So did the Japa- Maybe not.

Also, what's with the Assassin's Creed icons?


You noticed as well?

Smacks wrote:
After the game, pack up all your miniatures, then slap the guy next to you on the ass and say.

"Good game guys, now lets hit the showers"
 
   
Made in ca
Renegade Inquisitor with a Bound Daemon





Tied and gagged in the back of your car

Ever read the book "Hell on Earth?"

It's about Canadian and British PoWs in Japanese camps. One of the most disturbing books I've ever read.
   
Made in us
Hangin' with Gork & Mork






Emperors Faithful wrote:Where's Ahtman when you need him?


Asleep!

When a war is over people still have to live together in some way. Absolute defeat and destruction and seeking vengeance instead of strategic victory leads to things like the Treaty of Versailles which just inevitably leads back to war. When we kill each other we are only hurting ourselves. Of course, if a finger is gangene you gotta cut that mother off!


Emperors Faithful wrote:
dogma wrote:I prefer Korean women.


So did the Japa- Maybe not.


To soon?

Emperors Faithful wrote:
Also, what's with the Assassin's Creed icons?


You noticed as well?


IP theft in my Asia? It's more likely than you think.

Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





ChaosGalvatron wrote:I guess the double standard comes from a country/societies relationship to the event/survivors. In Australia ive found that the Holocaust/Soviet purges have more of a theoretical impact, we didnt have soldiers finding the concentration camps in europe. On the other hand, many australians were POW's of Japan during WW2, so we knew a lot about atrocities inflicted on allied soldiers.
If you go to the AUS war museum theres a bit about the holocaust, but there is a lot more about the japanese pow camps, and lots of personal stories. Because that is what australians experienced. Its not that we are undervaluing or ignoring what happened in western europe, its that as a country we have more of a connection to events in the pacific.


Thing is, we have a greater connection to events in the Pacific, but only where we were involved. Most Australians are almost entirely unaware of what the Japanese did in China. Yet they'd know all about the Holocaust.

It's an odd thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albatross wrote:...of Japanese people. Am I supposed to care?


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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:Why do you care about those countries?


Because they have people in them, and those people deserve better than the Japanese occupation would have offered.


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

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


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


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Emperors Faithful wrote:I really don't think you can compare a demonstration of a nuclear bomb to a demonstration of any other weapon throughout history.


The basic issues are the same, though. It's a really bad idea to tell the enemy about a spot where you're about to use a highly advanced new weapon, and hope he just turns up to watch.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2011/01/20 02:38:10


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Hangin' with Gork & Mork






sebster wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:I really don't think you can compare a demonstration of a nuclear bomb to a demonstration of any other weapon throughout history.


The basic issues are the same, though. It's a really bad idea to tell the enemy about a spot where you're about to use a highly advanced new weapon, and hope he just turns up to watch.


Exactly. It wasn't as if you could tell the Japanese to put a satellite over a spot and tell them to watch. Television was still meh, so it would have to be a tape and then there would be questions of validity, ect ect.

Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
 
   
Made in us
Purposeful Hammerhead Pilot




Houston, Tx

I actually find it funny a country has to issue an apology. "We're sorry." Gee thanks, I feel much better now.

Maybe you hang out with immature women. Maybe you're attracted to immature women because you think they'll let you shpadoink them.  
   
Made in us
Posts with Authority






I think dropping the nukes was the right decision. Calling bad morals on the Americans for wanting to end the war quickly and with as little loss of life on their part is ignoring the context. They weren't looking at this dispassionately across sixty years, they were at the tail end of years of grueling war against an enemy that attacked them. Also keep in mind that the first world war was barely twenty years past, so dismantling Imperial Japan and making sure they would not rise again in a generation was most likely pretty high up on the list of things to do; this couldn't be achieved by armistice. Furthermore, on the topic of morals, at least western powers had tried to institute rules of war, which the Japanese of the time if I recall, had rejected out of hand.
   
Made in au
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter






Australia (Recently ravaged by the Hive Fleet Ginger Overlord)

sebster wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:I really don't think you can compare a demonstration of a nuclear bomb to a demonstration of any other weapon throughout history.


The basic issues are the same, though. It's a really bad idea to tell the enemy about a spot where you're about to use a highly advanced new weapon, and hope he just turns up to watch.


Not really, the chariot (the most advanced piece of weaponry a few thousand years ago) or the Greek Fire and other instrumental innovations in warfare can in now way match up to what the A-bomb could have achieved from a simple demonstration.

As to the basic issue, the ability for the Japanese to challenge bombers was virtually non-existent at that time. Regardless, would it really have been so hard to pick a military target, rather than densely populated cities? The issues you present (the problem with ensuring enemy observers are present) does not excuse the lack of willingess to make any sort of attempt to avoid the desecration.

Ahtman wrote:Exactly. It wasn't as if you could tell the Japanese to put a satellite over a spot and tell them to watch. Television was still meh, so it would have to be a tape and then there would be questions of validity, ect ect.


There's a difference between dropping it on a place (even a military target) that would clearly be seen and reported on, and dropping it on a city for the survivors to report on, (and subsequently die from the exposure) which is exactly what a photographer did.

Smacks wrote:
After the game, pack up all your miniatures, then slap the guy next to you on the ass and say.

"Good game guys, now lets hit the showers"
 
   
Made in us
Tunneling Trygon





It's generally accepted that the atomic bombs saved lives. They probably even saved Japanese lives. That makes them an obviously moral decision by most people's calculus.

The discussion of US 'criminality' and such, isn't entirely wrong, but it's really inapplicable. Attacking civillian centers was a common tactic on all sides during WWII. It was certainly a pretty unpleasant tactic, but at that point in human history it was viewed as a legitimate tactic.

So, there was noting "illegal" about it. Was it immoral? Maybe...

But this is a whole "what's worse" thread...

And in that respect, attacking civillian centers in area you don't control, not as bad as torturing and murdering civillians you have already conquered, is worse than systematically exterminating an entire race of people.

So, if you want to talk about the immorality of attacking civillian centers, I think you've got a valid point. But if we're comparing this to what the Japanese and Germans did, I don't think it's on the same level.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not really, the chariot (the most advanced piece of weaponry a few thousand years ago) or the Greek Fire and other instrumental innovations in warfare can in now way match up to what the A-bomb could have achieved from a simple demonstration.


You're suggesting a demonstration would have helped... Need we revisit the fact that TWO bombs were dropped? They used a bomb ON PEOPLE and the Japanese were not immediately convinced.

Some suggest that the second bomb was unnecessary, and the Japanese would have surrendered given a bit longer. I don't know. But I'm just saying, we dropped two of the things before they gave up. If a demonstration would have worked, then one on a city would have worked even faster.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/01/20 07:39:55




=====Begin Dakka Geek Code=====
DA:70+S++G+++M+++B++I++Pw40k00#+D++A++++/wWD250T(T)DM++
======End Dakka Geek Code======

http://jackhammer40k.blogspot.com/ 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





Emperors Faithful wrote:Not really, the chariot (the most advanced piece of weaponry a few thousand years ago) or the Greek Fire and other instrumental innovations in warfare can in now way match up to what the A-bomb could have achieved from a simple demonstration.


No, but what's that got to do with anything? You just don't tell the enemy 'we're going to use a new superweapon at this location, at this time'. No-one has ever done that in the history of war, and the reasons should be self-evident.

As to the basic issue, the ability for the Japanese to challenge bombers was virtually non-existent at that time.


War is full of unknowns. The Japanese didn't have a prototype interceptor that could reach the altitude of the US bombers, but the US didn't know that. As they advanced over Germany the Allies found all kinds of prototype programs for German weapons. How could they have been certain that the Japanese, once given full warning, wouldn't have been able to intercept the bomber?

Regardless, would it really have been so hard to pick a military target, rather than densely populated cities? The issues you present (the problem with ensuring enemy observers are present) does not excuse the lack of willingess to make any sort of attempt to avoid the desecration.


What military targets were available that weren't in cities?

“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges




United States

sebster wrote:
Because they have people in them, and those people deserve better than the Japanese occupation would have offered.


I have no doubt that you care about those countries for that reason, but I do doubt that the same reason carries weight with Fraz.

And, in all honesty, it carries little weight with me.

Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. 
   
Made in au
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter






Australia (Recently ravaged by the Hive Fleet Ginger Overlord)

sebster wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:Not really, the chariot (the most advanced piece of weaponry a few thousand years ago) or the Greek Fire and other instrumental innovations in warfare can in now way match up to what the A-bomb could have achieved from a simple demonstration.


No, but what's that got to do with anything? You just don't tell the enemy 'we're going to use a new superweapon at this location, at this time'. No-one has ever done that in the history of war, and the reasons should be self-evident.


I'm not suggesting that the Japanese be informed of such an attack, but it didn't have to be on a city.

As to the basic issue, the ability for the Japanese to challenge bombers was virtually non-existent at that time.


War is full of unknowns. The Japanese didn't have a prototype interceptor that could reach the altitude of the US bombers, but the US didn't know that. As they advanced over Germany the Allies found all kinds of prototype programs for German weapons. How could they have been certain that the Japanese, once given full warning, wouldn't have been able to intercept the bomber?


That's just as much reason as to dissuade an attack on a city as it is any other target.

Regardless, would it really have been so hard to pick a military target, rather than densely populated cities? The issues you present (the problem with ensuring enemy observers are present) does not excuse the lack of willingess to make any sort of attempt to avoid the desecration.


What military targets were available that weren't in cities?


Airfields, Beachfront fortifications, Dockyards, the bases on any of the surrounding islands. Not two major population centers.

Smacks wrote:
After the game, pack up all your miniatures, then slap the guy next to you on the ass and say.

"Good game guys, now lets hit the showers"
 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





Emperors Faithful wrote:I'm not suggesting that the Japanese be informed of such an attack, but it didn't have to be on a city.


If the attack, as suggested, was to be a demonstration away from Japan, then they'd have to be told about it else it would be pointless.

Airfields, Beachfront fortifications, Dockyards, the bases on any of the surrounding islands. Not two major population centers.


Anything that was on the scale that'd demonstrate the power of a bomb is in a city. Picking something more minor, like an airfield, will likely result in the Japanese having no idea how powerful it was. At the time there was a lot of confusion as to how complete the devestation was and there was a whole city knocked over. Simply demolishing some beachside bunkers or an airfield away from the city would be unlikely to have the same effect.

I mean, hey, maybe it would have been enough, but you can see why Truman would have thought otherwise, yeah? End of the day, it was a really tough choice to make, and I'm reluctant to say the decision made was objectively wrong, whereas I have no problem saying the bombing of Dresden was a pointless waste of lives.

“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Hangin' with Gork & Mork






Emperors Faithful wrote:That's just as much reason as to dissuade an attack on a city as it is any other target.


Actually, at that point, considering all that was left to attack, it just means you attack with greater force. It wouild be mind numbingly stupid to push an enemy all the way back to it's base of operations and than back off. If they were worried about better defenses it means they would increase their offense, not hide like an Australian. That's right, it's called a callback. That's how comedy works.

Emperors Faithful wrote:[
Sebster wrote:What military targets were available that weren't in cities?


Airfields, Beachfront fortifications, Dockyards, the bases on any of the surrounding islands. Not two major population centers.


Well, we are talking about nukes and Japan soooo pretty much everything you listed is still going to be near a city. I guess we could have nuked Mount Fuji but the mountain didn't start the problem. If they wanted to bomb a 'major' population center there are cities with higher populations. They could have bombed Tokyo. They were decent sized cities but they weren't the largest.

As to the other discussion about why we should care: becuase the war will end someday. If you are creating an Orwellian war ad infinitum then it doesn't mean much.

Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
 
   
Made in au
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter






Australia (Recently ravaged by the Hive Fleet Ginger Overlord)

sebster wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:I'm not suggesting that the Japanese be informed of such an attack, but it didn't have to be on a city.


If the attack, as suggested, was to be a demonstration away from Japan, then they'd have to be told about it else it would be pointless.


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

Airfields, Beachfront fortifications, Dockyards, the bases on any of the surrounding islands. Not two major population centers.


Anything that was on the scale that'd demonstrate the power of a bomb is in a city. Picking something more minor, like an airfield, will likely result in the Japanese having no idea how powerful it was. At the time there was a lot of confusion as to how complete the devestation was and there was a whole city knocked over. Simply demolishing some beachside bunkers or an airfield away from the city would be unlikely to have the same effect.


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

I mean, hey, maybe it would have been enough, but you can see why Truman would have thought otherwise, yeah? End of the day, it was a really tough choice to make, and I'm reluctant to say the decision made was objectively wrong, whereas I have no problem saying the bombing of Dresden was a pointless waste of lives.


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

Smacks wrote:
After the game, pack up all your miniatures, then slap the guy next to you on the ass and say.

"Good game guys, now lets hit the showers"
 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: