Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: tocaff

Revisionist history would tell us another story. It is impossible for us, today to put ourselves into the shoes of the men fighting against Japan in 1945 as the values were totally different due to the monumental struggle that had been going on for years. To judge another time by the values of today is flat out wrong, just as judging one culture by another culture's standards is wrong.

Does the USA owe Japan an apology? To my thinking, no.

I don't intend this to be a political football,

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

When I worked at the Military museum on Guam , we used to have more Japanese visitors then Americans. I talked with all that I could , about every possible aspect of the war. I recall one elderly gentleman who had been in the IJA saying " as horrible as the bombs were , they saved me. And my country. It gave us "face". We would have never surrendered otherwise. You would have had to kill us all".

Hirohito said Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should We continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.
Such being the case, how are We to save the millions of Our subjects, or to atone Ourselves before the hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors? This is the reason why We have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the Joint Declaration of the Powers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: tocaff

Revisionist history would tell us another story. It is impossible for us, today to put ourselves into the shoes of the men fighting against Japan in 1945 as the values were totally different due to the monumental struggle that had been going on for years. To judge another time by the values of today is flat out wrong, just as judging one culture by another culture's standards is wrong.

Does the USA owe Japan an apology? To my thinking, no.

I don't intend this to be a political football,

It may be impossible for us to put ourselves in the shoes of the men on the ground, but that is not a carte-blanche to excuse any historical criticism of the events of the war.

The most relevant example is the American role in WW2. The traditionalist viewpoint has the American involvement in the war caused by Pearl Harbor, when sleeping America wakes up one Sunday and finds itself in the middle of the war.

We all know that's not true, America had been involved with lend-lease and in pressuring Japan over China. Revisionist historians provide an alternative viewpoint to the traditional one. Some have even proposed (Beard, I think, was the first) that American strong-arm diplomacy with Japan prior to Dec 7th played a significant role in the Japanese decision to risk war.

On the topic of atomic weapons, I'm quite fond of the revisionist viewpoint that the Soviet intervention in the war played more of a role in the Japanese decision to surrender than the atomic bombs. Yes, the bombs could wipe out whole cities, but so could firebombing raids, while the involvement of the Soviets represented the complete dismemberment of the Japanese empire and the last diplomatic door being slammed in the Japanese leaderships face.

In short, depending entirely on "traditionalist" historical viewpoints is as stupid as completely disregarding revisionist viewpoints.

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: tocaff

Revisionist history would tell us another story. It is impossible for us, today to put ourselves into the shoes of the men fighting against Japan in 1945 as the values were totally different due to the monumental struggle that had been going on for years. To judge another time by the values of today is flat out wrong, just as judging one culture by another culture's standards is wrong.

Does the USA owe Japan an apology? To my thinking, no.

I don't intend this to be a political football,

It may be impossible for us to put ourselves in the shoes of the men on the ground, but that is not a carte-blanche to excuse any historical criticism of the events of the war.

The most relevant example is the American role in WW2. The traditionalist viewpoint has the American involvement in the war caused by Pearl Harbor, when sleeping America wakes up one Sunday and finds itself in the middle of the war.

We all know that's not true, America had been involved with lend-lease and in pressuring Japan over China. Revisionist historians provide an alternative viewpoint to the traditional one. Some have even proposed (Beard, I think, was the first) that American strong-arm diplomacy with Japan prior to Dec 7th played a significant role in the Japanese decision to risk war.

On the topic of atomic weapons, I'm quite fond of the revisionist viewpoint that the Soviet intervention in the war played more of a role in the Japanese decision to surrender than the atomic bombs. Yes, the bombs could wipe out whole cities, but so could firebombing raids, while the involvement of the Soviets represented the complete dismemberment of the Japanese empire and the last diplomatic door being slammed in the Japanese leaderships face.

In short, depending entirely on "traditionalist" historical viewpoints is as stupid as completely disregarding revisionist viewpoints.

What I've heard (take that with a grain of salt, for instance I've heard Kirk is a fairy) is that the firebombing of Dresden was done to demonstrate to the Soviets what we (US) were capable of.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DD696

I, for one, firmly believe that the causalities incurred as a result of Little Man and Fat Boy would pale in light of what would have incurred if the Allies would have had to invade Japan. It was the only humane decision that could have been made at the time. You were a wise man, Harry S. Truman.

In addition, the sixth of August is a sad day for me. My father served on board DD696 for it's entire war career. It wasn't much longer than a year, but a year of hell including kamikazes off Okinawa. He feared airplanes the rest of his life. However, he chose 6 August 1973 to put a rifle to his head and end it - just one week after I had returned from the Philippines and left after visiting for several days. I found out a week later when I reported for duty at Quantico, Virginia.

Was the day significant for him? Or just a day chosen randomly? I still have two rifles brought back by him from Japan that he found in caves at a naval base. - Yokohama if I remember correctly.

I honor him with my logon ID. Rest in peace out there in Arco, Idaho.

Rest in peace, also, all those innocents who died so that the damnable war could finally end.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: tocaff

Revisionist history would tell us another story. It is impossible for us, today to put ourselves into the shoes of the men fighting against Japan in 1945 as the values were totally different due to the monumental struggle that had been going on for years. To judge another time by the values of today is flat out wrong, just as judging one culture by another culture's standards is wrong.

Does the USA owe Japan an apology? To my thinking, no.

I don't intend this to be a political football,

It may be impossible for us to put ourselves in the shoes of the men on the ground, but that is not a carte-blanche to excuse any historical criticism of the events of the war.

The most relevant example is the American role in WW2. The traditionalist viewpoint has the American involvement in the war caused by Pearl Harbor, when sleeping America wakes up one Sunday and finds itself in the middle of the war.

We all know that's not true, America had been involved with lend-lease and in pressuring Japan over China. Revisionist historians provide an alternative viewpoint to the traditional one. Some have even proposed (Beard, I think, was the first) that American strong-arm diplomacy with Japan prior to Dec 7th played a significant role in the Japanese decision to risk war.

On the topic of atomic weapons, I'm quite fond of the revisionist viewpoint that the Soviet intervention in the war played more of a role in the Japanese decision to surrender than the atomic bombs. Yes, the bombs could wipe out whole cities, but so could firebombing raids, while the involvement of the Soviets represented the complete dismemberment of the Japanese empire and the last diplomatic door being slammed in the Japanese leaderships face.

In short, depending entirely on "traditionalist" historical viewpoints is as stupid as completely disregarding revisionist viewpoints.

What I've heard (take that with a grain of salt, for instance I've heard Kirk is a fairy) is that the firebombing of Dresden was done to demonstrate to the Soviets what we (US) were capable of.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

Article 25: The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.
Article 26: The officer in command of an attacking force must, before commencing a bombardment, except in cases of assault, do all in his power to warn the authorities.
Article 27: In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes.
It is the duty of the besieged to indicate the presence of such buildings or places by distinctive and visible signs, which shall be notified to the enemy beforehand.[2]

quote:


After World War II, the judges of the military tribunal of the Trial of German Major War Criminals at Nuremberg Trials found that by 1939, the rules laid down in the 1907 Hague Convention were recognised by all civilised nations and were regarded as declaratory of the laws and customs of war. Under this post-war decision, a country did not have to have ratified the 1907 Hague Convention in order to be bound by them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: tocaff

Revisionist history would tell us another story. It is impossible for us, today to put ourselves into the shoes of the men fighting against Japan in 1945 as the values were totally different due to the monumental struggle that had been going on for years. To judge another time by the values of today is flat out wrong, just as judging one culture by another culture's standards is wrong.

Does the USA owe Japan an apology? To my thinking, no.

I don't intend this to be a political football,

The most relevant example is the American role in WW2. The traditionalist viewpoint has the American involvement in the war caused by Pearl Harbor, when sleeping America wakes up one Sunday and finds itself in the middle of the war.

We all know that's not true, America had been involved with lend-lease and in pressuring Japan over China. Revisionist historians provide an alternative viewpoint to the traditional one. Some have even proposed (Beard, I think, was the first) that American strong-arm diplomacy with Japan prior to Dec 7th played a significant role in the Japanese decision to risk war.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

We've recently had this debate in the World In Flames forum. The subject of America and the embargo against the Japanese came up. One opinion was expressed that stated it was quite simple: if America had not taken this action there would have been no War in the Pacific.

quote:

So in other words:
- The French and British caused WWII in Europe because they appeased Germany (in a bid to avoid war).
- The US caused the Pacific War because the US did not appease Japan (in a bid to end the war in China).

quote:

So it seems the Western Powers can all be wrong – whatever they did – even if one did the very opposite of the other!! Double standards per chance?

quote:

Those that believe the US were guilty of “forcing” Japan to war for their own nefarious ends (Roosevelt twirls (non-existent) moustache in malevolent fashion before launching into an equally evil mwhahahahahahahahaha) is that (as is all too common) people forget or choose to forget what the circumstances were that faced political and military leaders at the time.

So when America took action against Japan in the summer of 1941 – what was the position that Roosevelt faced?

quote:

America left Japan with no choice but to go to war? No, sorry not true. The US took action appropriate to the time. They left Japan with a choice – Japan chose war.

quote:

The atomic bombs were – are – terrible weapons. Thousands of civilians died as a result – both directly due to the bomb and for some time after because of its lasting effects. It would be wonderful to think that they had not been necessary and the bombs had never been dropped. But it was and they were and the answer to the OP’s question is a very definite no.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wegman58

WW I showed the horror of chemical weapons; no major war has seen them used since - barbarian savages have but not the major powers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

When I worked at the Military museum on Guam , we used to have more Japanese visitors then Americans. I talked with all that I could , about every possible aspect of the war. I recall one elderly gentleman who had been in the IJA saying " as horrible as the bombs were , they saved me. And my country. It gave us "face". We would have never surrendered otherwise. You would have had to kill us all".

Hirohito said Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should We continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.
Such being the case, how are We to save the millions of Our subjects, or to atone Ourselves before the hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors? This is the reason why We have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the Joint Declaration of the Powers.

The bombs most significant contribution was in that it gave the Japanese leadership a convenient excuse to end the war, one that was palatable to their fighting rank-and-file.

In terms of the actual impact on the Japanese leadership, the bombs didn't really register. Yes, an entire city had been turned to ash, but that was hardly a new phenomenon for the Japanese. The fact that the Soviets, the leaderships last straw for a negotiated surrender, had decided to tear up the Neutrality pact and turn on Japan was the real "We've lost the war" moment for the Japanese.

You can see it in the Rescript sent to the troops. I see no mention of the atomic bomb.

http://www.taiwandocuments.org/surrender07.htm

quote:

ORIGINAL: oaltinyay

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

When I worked at the Military museum on Guam , we used to have more Japanese visitors then Americans. I talked with all that I could , about every possible aspect of the war. I recall one elderly gentleman who had been in the IJA saying " as horrible as the bombs were , they saved me. And my country. It gave us "face". We would have never surrendered otherwise. You would have had to kill us all".

Hirohito said Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should We continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.
Such being the case, how are We to save the millions of Our subjects, or to atone Ourselves before the hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors? This is the reason why We have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the Joint Declaration of the Powers.

The bombs most significant contribution was in that it gave the Japanese leadership a convenient excuse to end the war, one that was palatable to their fighting rank-and-file.

In terms of the actual impact on the Japanese leadership, the bombs didn't really register. Yes, an entire city had been turned to ash, but that was hardly a new phenomenon for the Japanese. The fact that the Soviets, the leaderships last straw for a negotiated surrender, had decided to tear up the Neutrality pact and turn on Japan was the real "We've lost the war" moment for the Japanese.

You can see it in the Rescript sent to the troops. I see no mention of the atomic bomb.

http://www.taiwandocuments.org/surrender07.htm

This is my understanding as well. I am on a holiday right now so I cant quote sources but this is stated so in a few places. For japanese it was another bomb...loss of lives.

However Russian invasion was a disaster since it could change the 'japanese way of life'.

quote:

You gentlemen may "see no bomb" or see the atomic bombs as "just another bomb" , but the effects speak otherwise. There is a Committee for Nuclear disarmament. Perhaps you've heard of it? There is a "Peace memorial" at Hiroshima. There is a "doomsday" clock. Presidents and political leaders have been defeated and made on the "nuclear issue". I have never seen a
a "Russian invasion" memorial. I'm not familiar with the "Stop Russian invasions " movement (Although if there had been a ghost of a chance of it working , Reagan and Thatcher would have thrown everything into it). The point is atomic weapons changed the world , good or bad , in a way that no one ever would have visualized. But the Japanese high command had a ring side seat at that change in August 1945. And it scared the hell out of them (and the rest of the world). And "it's just another bomb" kind of invalidates the "War crimes" aspect of this discussion , doesn't it. It's not a "Tall boy" or a "Grand slam" were are discussing here.

quote:

May I point out that "the balance of terror" prevented any war in Europe from 1945 till 1991. There is no similar conditions since the Pax Romani. The very terror of nuclear war kept both sides , if not exactly honest , relatively well behaved.

quote:

So I might answer the original question about war crimes with a couple of questions. 1) did Truman have any realistic alternative? 2) did Hirohito have any realistic alternative? 3) What , in 1945 , was a war crime? Not today , not tomorrow, but in 1945. 4) in reality does the term have any real meaning? Or is it in fact constantly changing? And is "fair" to judge our predecessors by todays standards?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

This is gonna get political, if it isn't already

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

This is gonna get political, if it isn't already

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

This is gonna get political, if it isn't already

warspite1

Maybe. But until that happens - if it happens - let's all just continue being grown ups and enjoy a sensible, grown-up debate.

Nothing wrong so far.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

This is gonna get political, if it isn't already

warspite1

Maybe. But until that happens - if it happens - let's all just continue being grown ups and enjoy a sensible, grown-up debate.

Nothing wrong so far.

True. But your new here , aren't you? Seriously , you've seen the record. You really HOPE that the adults will have a reasonable , informative , and productive discussion of great significant value. But......do.....you....seriously......believe?

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

This is gonna get political, if it isn't already

warspite1

Maybe. But until that happens - if it happens - let's all just continue being grown ups and enjoy a sensible, grown-up debate.

Nothing wrong so far.

True. But your new here , aren't you? Seriously , you've seen the record. You really HOPE that the adults will have a reasonable , informative , and productive discussion of great significant value. But......do.....you....seriously......believe?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I prefer:

- The French and British caused WW2 by failing to play hard ball with Germany. The Germans didn't have the military strength to go toe to toe with the Allies until 1939/40.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I prefer:

- The French and British caused WW2 by failing to play hard ball with Germany. The Germans didn't have the military strength to go toe to toe with the Allies until 1939/40.

Many diplomatic historians argue that it was exactly the British and French playing hard ball with Germany that ultimately led to WWII in Europe. The relevant year was, however, 1919, and not any time in the 1930s.