RE: Letters from Iwo Jima

RE: Letters from Iwo Jima (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion

Message

mikul82 -> RE: Letters from Iwo Jima (11/19/2007 1:22:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund quote: ORIGINAL: Doggie Too bad any movie that portrayed them as they really were would be worse than the most graphic slasher film imaginable. Wow, such stereotyping. No Japanese soldier ever did anything nice for anyone, is that what you are saying? All Japanese soldiers were incarnations of pure evil? I thought sentiments like yours went out of fashion after the war, but I see that some people are stuck in ww2-era propaganda and stereotyping. All sides in WWII did horrible things to civilians on the opposing side- Deliberately firebombing civilians to death is somehow now seen as less awful than personally killing them face to face, however I don't really see the big distinction there. Slaughtering noncombatants is still slaughtering noncombatants, whether personally slitting their throats or dropping incendiary bombs on them from 30,000 feet in the air. The things the Soviets did when taking over German territory was just as awful as what went on at Nanking, although not on as large of a scale. I'm not trying to say anything negative about the western Allies in my above paragraph, only that the clear-cut idea of "Good guys and Bad Guys" in WWII was created AFTER someone had won. One single platoon of Japanese on Iwo Jima probably hadn't been participants in Nanking anyway, especially not barely-adult draftees like the protagonist.

Dixie -> RE: Letters from Iwo Jima (11/19/2007 1:26:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sarge quote: ORIGINAL: Dixie That means nothing really. How about the chapter where the US Senate refused to ratify the treaty. Great Britain didn't believe it was fair either. There was only one nation who didn't think it was too harsh, and that was France who didn't think it went far enough. [8\|] Hardly , Out right discontent of the Geneva Convention along with Treaty of Versailles, and the Hague Conventions. All combined is a appropriate evidence of the training and doctrine that lead the average Japanese in the field. The Hague Conventions are a direct attempt to instill human treatment of POW’s How is US Senate refused to ratify the treaty and Empire refusal to impose consequences on his military force for any atrocity tactics employed in the field , ............. means nothing ? I'm not saying that the US decision has anything to do with Japanese actions, nor did I mean to imply any such thing. All I meant was that denouncing the Treaty of Versailles has nothing to do with Japanese actions in WW2 any more than British or US discomfort with the outcome. Discontent with the treaty means nothing, all three of the major powers had some feelings of discontent towards it, and none of them comitted the acts that Japan did. Refusal to sign the Hague and Geneva conventions is another thing altogether, which I left well alone. Or to put my intended arguement another way, how does Japan's denouncing the Treaty directly lead to warcrimes and attrocities. I don't see how it does, unlike the other two treaties mentioned.

Sarge -> RE: Letters from Iwo Jima (11/19/2007 1:52:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dixie Or to put my intended arguement another way, how does Japan's denouncing the Treaty directly lead to warcrimes and attrocities. I don't see how it does, unlike the other two treaties mentioned. So you don’t think there is a direct correlation between moral/ideology instilled at the basic individual training and tactics deployed in the field ?

Dixie -> RE: Letters from Iwo Jima (11/19/2007 2:12:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sarge quote: ORIGINAL: Dixie Or to put my intended arguement another way, how does Japan's denouncing the Treaty directly lead to warcrimes and attrocities. I don't see how it does, unlike the other two treaties mentioned. So you don’t think there is a direct correlation between moral/ideology instilled at the basic individual training and tactics deployed in the field ? That isn't what I'm trying to say.... Versailles had nothing to do with training, indoctrination or the conduct of warfare. Versailles was essentially about ending the Great War and the repatriations that Germany would have to pay. I still fail to see how this has anything to do with atrocities, but feel free to prove a direct correlation between The Treaty of Versailles and Japan's later actions.

Sarge -> RE: Letters from Iwo Jima (11/19/2007 3:11:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dixie I still fail to see how this has anything to do with atrocities, but feel free to prove a direct correlation between The Treaty of Versailles and Japan's later actions. Dropping everything in my sentence (after comma ) and taking the Treaty out of context as the only evidence against a morally corrupt military force . Well I guess you then have accomplished manufacturing a point . [&:] quote: ORIGINAL: Sarge How about the chapter on the Empire openly denouncing of the Treaty of Versailles, and the Hague Conventions.

Doggie -> RE: Letters from Iwo Jima (11/19/2007 5:54:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wow, such stereotyping. No Japanese soldier ever did anything nice for anyone, is that what you are saying? All Japanese soldiers were incarnations of pure evil? Yes. I would say that just about sums it up. A number of my uncles served in the pacific during world war II as well as other aquaintances. To a man, every one agreed that the Japanese were more sadistic and barbaric than any of them ever imagined. Every one had absolutely no regrets about killing japanese soldiers. In contrast, those who served on occupation duty after the surrender described those same Japanese as polite and courteous, and G.I.s went out of their way to care for them. That pretty much blows the pacifist conventional wisdom about American soldiers and marines being racist blood thirsty killers out of the water. You can take all the slasher movies and horror stories about serial murderers combined and they do not even approach the level of barbarity exhibited by the Japanese on a routine basis. They literally tossed babies on bayonettes. They literally canibalized prisoners of war by slicing the meat of their legs while they were still alive so they could come back later and find the kidneys and liver still fresh. When the U.S. invaded the Phillipines, the Japanese herded PWs into air raid shelters, drenched them with gasoline, and burned them alive. quote: I thought sentiments like yours went out of fashion after the war, but I see that some people are stuck in ww2-era propaganda and stereotyping. None of this is propaganda and stereotyping. It's documented fact. World war II era propaganda films were kind to the Japanese. Even the worst of them did not approach the horror that was reality. "Sentiments" like mine went out of fashion when the people who experienced Japanese hospitality first hand started dying off and revisionists began re-writing history. While the nazis practiced barbarism on an organizational level, it was personal for the Japanese. Nazis did haul jews off to the crematoriams, but they did not strut around Paris decapitating civilians for sport, which the Japanese did in every single terrority they occupied. They confiscated the entire rice crop in Korea and left the populace to starve, except for the thousands of girls they shipped off to Japan to serve in brothels. A realistic remake of Midway would include downed allied airmen being fished out of the ocean after the battle of coral sea, castrated and disemboweled one by one during their "interogation" then tied to metal scrap and tossed overboard while they were still gasping in agony. They were stinking savages, and that's why Dutch, Australians, British, and American soldiers seldom took prisoners, and allied airmen happily strafed the miserable bastards in their lifeboats after sinking their ships. And they had every bit of it coming to them. Maybe you should find someone who survived internment is a Japanese slave labor camp and ask them what they think about the poor Japanese. [8\|]

Hortlund -> RE: Letters from Iwo Jima (11/19/2007 10:43:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Doggie Yes. I would say that just about sums it up. A number of my uncles served in the pacific during world war II as well as other aquaintances. To a man, every one agreed that the Japanese were more sadistic and barbaric than any of them ever imagined. Every one had absolutely no regrets about killing japanese soldiers. Maybe that says more about your uncles and aquaintances though? Anyway, I find it rather peculiar to find a man who apparently has built his entire image of an ethnic group upon the (tall?) tales told to him by his relatives. quote: In contrast, those who served on occupation duty after the surrender described those same Japanese as polite and courteous, and G.I.s went out of their way to care for them. That pretty much blows the pacifist conventional wisdom about American soldiers and marines being racist blood thirsty killers out of the water. It does huh? So far your anecdotal "evidence" of the evil of the japanese consists of statements from your uncles and aquanitances, your anecdotal "evidence" of the good-heartedness and non-racist views by american soldiers and marines consists of...what? Statements grabbed out of thin air? quote: You can take all the slasher movies and horror stories about serial murderers combined and they do not even approach the level of barbarity exhibited by the Japanese on a routine basis. They literally tossed babies on bayonettes. They literally canibalized prisoners of war by slicing the meat of their legs while they were still alive so they could come back later and find the kidneys and liver still fresh. When the U.S. invaded the Phillipines, the Japanese herded PWs into air raid shelters, drenched them with gasoline, and burned them alive. The problem is that you can take all those slasher movies and horror stories and they do not even approach the level of barbarity exibited by German, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, Italians, British or US soldiers on a routine basis. The difference is that when the perpetrator of a henious crime is a German or a Japanese soldier, you take it as evidence of the perversity of an entire nation, you sit there and claim that they all were like that. But when a US soldier guns down a prisoner, or slaughters a civilian village, or rapes a young girl and then kills her you call that an individual act of lunacy. quote: None of this is propaganda and stereotyping. It's documented fact. Actually, if you would care to open a dictionary some day, you would find that stereotypes are generalizations about a group of people, based on an image about what people in that group are like. That means that you are stereotyping (all japanese are stinking savages) based on documented fact (rape of Nanking). If one would apply the same thinking pattern of the US, one would say that all American soldiers are rapists and murderers, because My Lai happened. Its a documented fact. However, when confronted with documented facts of US atrocities, you are very quick to leap to the defence of the US soldiers in general, trying to explain the crimes as individual acts of lunacy. But when confronted with evidence of Japanese atrocities, you use that as evidence to show that all japanese soldiers were stinking savages. Whats funny (and when I say funny, I mean sad) is that this process seems to take place instanty and without reflection inside you. quote: World war II era propaganda films were kind to the Japanese. Even the worst of them did not approach the horror that was reality. "Sentiments" like mine went out of fashion when the people who experienced Japanese hospitality first hand started dying off and revisionists began re-writing history. While the nazis practiced barbarism on an organizational level, it was personal for the Japanese. Nazis did haul jews off to the crematoriams, but they did not strut around Paris decapitating civilians for sport, which the Japanese did in every single terrority they occupied. They confiscated the entire rice crop in Korea and left the populace to starve, except for the thousands of girls they shipped off to Japan to serve in brothels. A realistic remake of Midway would include downed allied airmen being fished out of the ocean after the battle of coral sea, castrated and disemboweled one by one during their "interogation" then tied to metal scrap and tossed overboard while they were still gasping in agony. Yeah, but who would want to watch that remake of Midway is my question. What do you think a realistic remake of Dresden would look like? Who would want to see it? Actually, you probably should read up a bit on what exactly the nazis (I take it you mean the SS here) did to the jews in the concentration camps, in the extermination camps, in the countless massacres performed by the einzatsgruppen. quote: They were stinking savages, and that's why Dutch, Australians, British, and American soldiers seldom took prisoners, and allied airmen happily strafed the miserable bastards in their lifeboats after sinking their ships. And they had every bit of it coming to them. Ah, not only were they evil savages, but they were stinking aswell huh? I dont know if you ever tried to pretend not to be a racist, but that pretty much closes the book on that question. And your explanation for allies gunning down of prisoners and strafing of survivors in lifeboats...well, the japs brought it on themselves of cource...after all, they were not only savagels, but stinking savages. I dont seem to recall reading about that paragraph in the Hague convention...the one where it says it is ok to gun down prisoners if they smell bad, or if they are of a certain ethnicity, but I guess lawschool failed me there huh. quote: Maybe you should find someone who survived internment is a Japanese slave labor camp and ask them what they think about the poor Japanese. Yeah, maybe you should find someone who survived My Lai and ask them what they think about the US. What can we learn from interviewing them? Or, maybe more interesting, you should find the relatives of private Joseph Dorcas Allen. He was wounded in a minefield, lost his leg. A japanese soldier saved his life by dressing his wound and giving him water. The stinking savage. Like I said, guilt is always individual. That means we have to judge every single individual based on his actions. We cannot put guilt on a collective, and claim that they are all guilty without examining the actions or inactions of every single individual in that collective. If we do, we might end up thinking that all US soldiers are rapists, butchering murderous thugs.

Hortlund -> RE: Letters from Iwo Jima (11/19/2007 10:54:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sarge Really ? They you might remember a little nugget on Japans refusal to sign the Geneva Convention . How about the chapter on the Empire openly denouncing of the Treaty of Versailles, and the Hague Conventions. I take it that doctrinal development never made it to the game [>:] I dont know what you think "doctrine" means, but its less about the actions of an emperor or a government, and more about how the army tries to train its soldiers and what tactics they use on various levels.

Sarge -> RE: Letters from Iwo Jima (11/19/2007 3:39:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund Maybe that says more about your uncles and aquaintances though? Anyway, I find it rather peculiar to find a man who apparently has built his entire image of an ethnic group upon the (tall?) tales told to him by his relatives. Your right, The USMC ,and USN veterans have it all wrong, glad to see that HOI set the record straight . [:D] quote: ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund . But let me say this. I was involved in the development of HoI2, and one of the things that fell on my desk was to do the doctrines for all the major nations...which meant that I spent several weeks researching the doctrinal development of all those nations...which includes Japan, incidentally. So I know quite alot about Japanese doctrine in 1931-1945. Moron [8\|]

Hortlund -> RE: Letters from Iwo Jima (11/19/2007 3:52:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sarge Your right, The USMC ,and USN veterans have it all wrong, glad to see that HOI set the record straight . [:D] Lets try this mental excercise to see if we can make the point I am trying to make a bit clearer. Suppose we had no knowledge whatsoever about ww2. We interviewed three persons to try to get an understanding of who the bad guys were and who the good guys were. In example 1, we intervew 1) a German civilian, a Wilhelm Gustloff survivor 2) a Japanese civilian, a survivor of the Tokyo fire bombings 3) a Russian soldier, one who took part in the mass-rapes in 1945 In example 2, we interview 1) a German SS soldier from einzatsgruppe A 2) a US soldier, survivor of the Bataan death march 3) a British civilian, survivor of the blitz Now, my question to you. Do you think that we would get the same understanding of who the bad guys and who the good guys were in ww2 in those two examples? This should demonstrate the danger of anecdotal evidence. But...and I seem to be forced to return to this again... all of the above is beside the point. The point is that guilt is always individual, never collective. And blind, racist stereotyping is not really that productive. And what, pray tell, did you object to when it comes to Japanese infantry doctrine 1931-1945?

Doggie -> RE: Letters from Iwo Jima (11/19/2007 4:25:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund but I guess lawschool failed me there huh Well that certainly explains a lot. There's certainly nobody less qualified to offer an opinion on ethics than a lawyer. Perhaps your law school should include a little history in it's curriculum, as it's obviously failed you in that department. quote: I dont know what you think "doctrine" means, but its less about the actions of an emperor or a government, and more about how the army tries to train its soldiers and what tactics they use on various levels. It's amazing how little you know of Japanese "doctrine." You should read up on it some.

Doggie -> RE: Letters from Iwo Jima (11/19/2007 4:32:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund Suppose we had no knowledge whatsoever about ww2. You've already demonstrated that you have no knowledge whatsoever about ww2, so you're way ahead of us.

Rainerle -> RE: Letters from Iwo Jima (11/19/2007 4:37:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund ... The point is that guilt is always individual, never collective. ... Ahh no, it shows that only the losing side is guilty the winning side is never guilty.

Hortlund -> RE: Letters from Iwo Jima (11/19/2007 4:37:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Doggie You've already demonstrated that you have no knowledge whatsoever about ww2, so you're way ahead of us. Brilliant retort. So I take it this concludes this little discussion then? What you had was a boat-load of predjudice and stereotypes, and nothing of substance? Or perhaps you want to shoot off anoter parting ad hom before moving on?

Doggie -> RE: Letters from Iwo Jima (11/19/2007 5:00:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund Brilliant retort. Thank you. And I never even went to law school. But what would I know what with all my racist relatives and all. Obviously it takes somebody from a country which did not participate in world war II at all aside from providing a few volunteer battalions to the SS to provide a more objective view of things. quote: So I take it this concludes this little discussion then? What you had was a boat-load of predjudice and stereotypes, and nothing of substance? Nothing of subtance other than a documented history of savagry and sadism that would put Attilla the Hun to shame. "Substance" would be taking a the rare examples of criminal activity on the part of a few individual American soldiers and comparing it to the institutional barbarism that was standard operating procedure with the Japanese armed forces.

Sarge -> RE: Letters from Iwo Jima (11/19/2007 8:25:16 PM)
Got to love the self proclaimed historian with all of what ? A week of research on a video game discounting veterans experiences as “ Tall Tails “ And he’s a lawyer ………….shocking [:D]

mjk428 -> RE: Letters from Iwo Jima (11/19/2007 8:49:22 PM)
quote: All sides in WWII did horrible things to civilians on the opposing side- Deliberately firebombing civilians to death is somehow now seen as less awful than personally killing them face to face, however I don't really see the big distinction there. Slaughtering noncombatants is still slaughtering noncombatants, whether personally slitting their throats or dropping incendiary bombs on them from 30,000 feet in the air. The things the Soviets did when taking over German territory was just as awful as what went on at Nanking, although not on as large of a scale. I'm not trying to say anything negative about the western Allies in my above paragraph, only that the clear-cut idea of "Good guys and Bad Guys" in WWII was created AFTER someone had won. One single platoon of Japanese on Iwo Jima probably hadn't been participants in Nanking anyway, especially not barely-adult draftees like the protagonist. It was retribution. Had WW2 kicked off with Dresden & Tokyo being fire bombed, then yeah, we'd be the "bad guys". Germany & Japan had a surefire way to avoid the horror they experienced. They could have not started the abominable war - but they called the tune. I'm glad we weren't "nuanced" back then. Because I doubt Germany, Italy & Japan would be our allied today if we had been.

mikul82 -> RE: Letters from Iwo Jima (11/19/2007 9:06:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mjk428 quote: All sides in WWII did horrible things to civilians on the opposing side- Deliberately firebombing civilians to death is somehow now seen as less awful than personally killing them face to face, however I don't really see the big distinction there. Slaughtering noncombatants is still slaughtering noncombatants, whether personally slitting their throats or dropping incendiary bombs on them from 30,000 feet in the air. The things the Soviets did when taking over German territory was just as awful as what went on at Nanking, although not on as large of a scale. I'm not trying to say anything negative about the western Allies in my above paragraph, only that the clear-cut idea of "Good guys and Bad Guys" in WWII was created AFTER someone had won. One single platoon of Japanese on Iwo Jima probably hadn't been participants in Nanking anyway, especially not barely-adult draftees like the protagonist. It was retribution. Had WW2 kicked off with Dresden & Tokyo being fire bombed, then yeah, we'd be the "bad guys". Germany & Japan had a surefire way to avoid the horror they experienced. They could have not started the abominable war - but they called the tune. I'm glad we weren't "nuanced" back then. Because I doubt Germany, Italy & Japan would be our allied today if we had been. So because the military of one side kills a bunch of civilians on the other, it becomes justifiable revenge to then kill THAT sides' civilians in retribution? I'm not sure what you're trying to say here... Claiming that the committing the first act out outright aggression somehow makes it (justifiably) open season on noncombatants of either side doesn't seem to add up to me. One could also argue that the starting of a war by the Axis was inevitable due to circumstances put upon them by the Allied powers, Germany being crippled by WWI reperations (had Germany not recessed the way it had after WWI, in part due to the post-war toll taken out of it by the Allies, Hitler may well have never risen to the level he did), a trade embargo that threatened Japan with a crippled economy, etc.

mikul82 -> RE: Letters from Iwo Jima (11/19/2007 9:13:37 PM)
quote: Nothing of subtance other than a documented history of savagry and sadism that would put Attilla the Hun to shame. "Substance" would be taking a the rare examples of criminal activity on the part of a few individual American soldiers and comparing it to the institutional barbarism that was standard operating procedure with the Japanese armed forces. As a strictly objective question not pertaining to this discussion or directed necessarily toward you, is it because the Japanese did what they did to Americans in particular, and within the last 70 years, that we tend to really demonize them in particular but don't hold the same level of contempt toward the Romans, or the Spanish for example, both of whom were known for savagery in conquest, torturing captured enemies (including noncombatant women and children) for fun, extravagant public tortures and executons, and etc? Also, was it after WWII that the standard procedure when going through enemy territory was to pillage, rape, torment, kill and burn suddenly became regarded as evil/bad universally, or did this come about at some earlier point?

mjk428 -> RE: Letters from Iwo Jima (11/19/2007 9:28:17 PM)
Recently my Mom showed me an excerpt from a letter my Dad sent her. The rest of the letter she keeps private but she thought this bit was important. It was written from a hospital in England after he was wounded at Remagen (April 26th, 1945). I think it fits this thread pretty well. quote: ...I find myself hating these damn Jerries more and more. If I don't watch myself, I'll be asking to go back up there again. I suppose by this time you people have seen pictures of what the Nazis did to these people of these countries over here. If you hear anybody say it's just propaganda you can just call him a liar. Every bit of it's true and there were some things that couldn't be shown. I'm a pretty peace loving guy, but what we saw over here made it possible for us to actually enjoy killing these Jerries. Usually when you shoot one your stomach does a little flip and then settles down. No more tho. I've seen guys almost pray that some German would stick his head up. I guess now the civilians have some idea as why there can be no deals made with our boy Adolph. He'll get his deal off the end of some G.I. rifle. But enough of such morbid conversation... BTW, my Dad's mother was German. In fact of my 4 grandparents, 1 was born in Ireland, 2 in Italy & 1 in Germany. 3 axis countries and a neutral. Glad they immigrated.

mjk428 -> RE: Letters from Iwo Jima (11/19/2007 9:43:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mlc82 So because the military of one side kills a bunch of civilians on the other, it becomes justifiable revenge to then kill THAT sides' civilians in retribution? I'm not sure what you're trying to say here... Claiming that the committing the first act out outright aggression somehow makes it (justifiably) open season on noncombatants of either side doesn't seem to add up to me. Yep. Don't call the tune and then complain about the dance. It's called "Total War" for a reason. quote: One could also argue that the starting of a war by the Axis was inevitable due to circumstances put upon them by the Allied powers, Germany being crippled by WWI reperations (had Germany not recessed the way it had after WWI, in part due to the post-war toll taken out of it by the Allies, Hitler may well have never risen to the level he did), a trade embargo that threatened Japan with a crippled economy, etc. So then it follows that it was "inevitable" that Jews (& others) would be herded into gas chambers. That means that the Holocaust is all France's fault! The Germans will be so relieved. ;)

mikul82 -> RE: Letters from Iwo Jima (11/19/2007 9:51:21 PM)
quote: Yep. Don't call the tune and then complain about the dance. It's called "Total War" for a reason. Wow. The idea that a housewife in Germany deserves to die (or at the least has it coming) because the leader of her country declared a war, and the Air Force (Luftwaffe in this case) of said country bombed civilians in an opposing country, really isn't something I could have come up with.

mjk428 -> RE: Letters from Iwo Jima (11/19/2007 9:53:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KG Erwin This may be the biggest reason why many folks didn't like the movie: "The uncomfortable truths". The uncomfortable truths didn't bother me. The uncomfortable lies did.

mjk428 -> RE: Letters from Iwo Jima (11/19/2007 9:59:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mlc82 Wow. The idea that a housewife in Germany deserves to die (or at the least has it coming) because the leader of her country declared a war, and the Air Force (Luftwaffe in this case) of said country bombed civilians in an opposing country, really isn't something I could have come up with. In the immortal words of William Munny: "Deserve's got nothing to do with it." You do realize that if we, the Allies, had been shackled by civilian casualties the Axis could have never been stopped.

mikul82 -> RE: Letters from Iwo Jima (11/19/2007 10:07:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mjk428 quote: ORIGINAL: mlc82 Wow. The idea that a housewife in Germany deserves to die (or at the least has it coming) because the leader of her country declared a war, and the Air Force (Luftwaffe in this case) of said country bombed civilians in an opposing country, really isn't something I could have come up with. In the immortal words of William Munn: "Deserve's got nothing to do with it." You do realize that if we, the Allies, had been shackled by civilian casualties the Axis could have never been stopped. Oh I'm not saying that I think the Allies were "wrong", just commenting directly on the response. As I said above, I'm not taking much of a stance on either side as I try to remain completely objective, but don't see the difference in mass killings of noncombatants, whether it's done personally with a bayonet, or with incendiary bombs from thousands of feet in the air. I don't understand why people treat WWII as if it's still going on now. My grandpa was a Marine .50 cal machine gunner wounded on May 9, 1945 fighting on Okinawa near the village of Naha (if anyone can tell me what,if any, particular battle this may have been I'll appreciate it!). He was hit by Japanese mortar fire and lost his leg, and never really had anything good to say about the Japanese on the very rare occasion that he even spoke of the war. I can't understand though how/why I could conceivably be angry about this, or hold it against the Japanese to this day even though I wasn't even alive yet, without also hating the Romans for what they to my much older ancestors in Europe.

mjk428 -> RE: Letters from Iwo Jima (11/19/2007 10:18:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mlc82 Oh I'm not saying that I think the Allies were "wrong", just commenting directly on the response. As I said above, I'm not taking much of a stance on either side as I try to remain completely objective, but don't see the difference in mass killings of noncombatants, whether it's done personally with a bayonet, or with incendiary bombs from thousands of feet in the air. I don't understand why people treat WWII as if it's still going on now. My grandpa was a Marine .50 cal machine wounded on May 9, 1945 fighting on Okinawa near the village of Naha (if anyone can tell me what,if any, particular battle this may have been I'll appreciate it!). He was hit by Japanese mortar fire and lost his leg, and never really had anything good to say about the Japanese on the very rare occasion that he even spoke of the war. I can't understand though how/why I could conceivably be angry about this, or hold it against the Japanese to this day even though I wasn't even alive yet, without also hating the Romans for what they to my much older ancestors in Europe. Well there you go. I don't hold it against the Japanese to this day (and I'd bet Doggie doesn't either). I still hold it against the Japs of that day anytime it appears somebody is trying to excuse away or mitigate their actions. It's an important distinction. Doggie's Uncles were friendly with the Japanese after the war even though they were killing them not long before.

KG Erwin -> RE: Letters from Iwo Jima (11/19/2007 10:20:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mjk428 You do realize that if we, the Allies, had been shackled by civilian casualties the Axis could have never been stopped. Whose civilians? American civilian casualties were miniscule, as compared to Russian losses (in the millions). Are you implying that our Allies' lives were worth less than ours?

mikul82 -> RE: Letters from Iwo Jima (11/19/2007 10:24:28 PM)
(please don't think I'm being 100% serious here, but this IS a genuine question) Do you think then, that if the Japanese given their WWII history should not be portrayed as anything less than savage and barbaric (and not just in an obvious scenario such as a movie about Nanking, but rather ALL of them), then did you also find it atrocious that the recent 300 movie showed Spartans as being anything less than what we today would consider hard core totalitarian fascists completely devoid of any sympathy for anyone other than fellow Spartans (similar to Nazi sentiment toward Jews, Eastern peoples, etc)? That they were portrayed as freedom loving heroes of mankind should be especially galling...

mjk428 -> RE: Letters from Iwo Jima (11/19/2007 10:29:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KG Erwin quote: ORIGINAL: mjk428 You do realize that if we, the Allies, had been shackled by civilian casualties the Axis could have never been stopped. Whose civilians? American civilian casualties were miniscule, as compared to Russian losses (in the millions). Are you implying that our Allies' lives were worth less than ours? Our enemy's civilians. If we never fired a shot if there was the slightest chance a civilian (or for that matter, a soldier "just following orders") met an undeserved end, we'd have been completely paralyzed.

mikul82 -> RE: Letters from Iwo Jima (11/19/2007 10:29:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KG Erwin quote: ORIGINAL: mjk428 You do realize that if we, the Allies, had been shackled by civilian casualties the Axis could have never been stopped. Whose civilians? American civilian casualties were miniscule, as compared to Russian losses (in the millions). Are you implying that our Allies' lives were worth less than ours? Well, in the US public education system, the Soviets are those allies that we aren't really supposed to learn about... According to the ridiculous history classes I had in my school days, the Western Allies won the war, with the Eastern side of things being a little side show that the US lend-leased to. Makes sense though given that public education history here is bascially propaganda, as if you actually include the USSR in it's proper role, WWII no longer gets the "Good Guys vs Bad Guys" label but instead becomes "Bad Guys (Nazis) vs Even Worse Guys (Soviets)", and that ruins all the fun. This is similar to how we also learned that, in the war between the North and South in the US, everything started because the nasty racist South refused to get rid of slavery, and so the North was forced to go to war with the South in name of things like "Freedom for All", and "Equality Among Men", and etc. If I hadn't already been a history nerd when I was a kid, I'd hate history like most young people here in the US currently do because of this kind of crap. Sorry for going OT here, I blame it on the coffee...

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.765625