Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: OT: Something I've been meaning to bring up.

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: OT: Something I've been meaning to bring up. Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: OT: Something I've been meaning to bring up. - 9/5/2020 6:24:11 PM   
Bo Rearguard


Posts: 492
Joined: 4/7/2008
From: Basement of the Alamo
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

IMO Potsdam declarations were not helpful to ending the war. When negotiating it is generally not a good idea to back your counter party into a corner. Keep your options open. And any student of Japan would realize that keeping Hirohito around was a pretty big deal. But yes, A-bomb vs firebombing, same results. Though the 'how did just one bomber do that' had to have a fairly dramatic impact.


The funny thing is that the Potsdam Declaration was riddled with conditions, some of them beneficial to Japan. especially points 9 to 12.

(9) The Japanese military forces, after being completely disarmed, shall be permitted to return to their homes with the opportunity to lead peaceful and productive lives.

(10) We do not intend that the Japanese shall be enslaved as a race or destroyed as a nation, but stern justice shall be meted out to all war criminals, including those who have visited cruelties upon our prisoners. The Japanese Government shall remove all obstacles to the revival and strengthening of democratic tendencies among the Japanese people. Freedom of speech, of religion, and of thought, as well as respect for the fundamental human rights shall be established.

(11) Japan shall be permitted to maintain such industries as will sustain her economy and permit the exaction of just reparations in kind, but not those which would enable her to re-arm for war. To this end, access to, as distinguished from control of, raw materials shall be permitted. Eventual Japanese participation in world trade relations shall be permitted.

(12) The occupying forces of the Allies shall be withdrawn from Japan as soon as these objectives have been accomplished and there has been established in accordance with the freely expressed will of the Japanese people a peacefully inclined and responsible government.

The Potsdam Declaration was more a ultimatum falling short of a demand for unconditional surrender, since it included guarantees that ordinary Japanese soldiers would not be interned indefinitely; that Japanese industry would not be eliminated and Japan would be given access to raw materials; and that the occupation would not be indefinite and the main Japanese home islands would eventually regain their sovereignty. In addition, the Declaration placed the blame for pursuing the war on "self-willed militaristic advisers" rather than the Emperor. While falling far short of guaranteeing the status of the Emperor as formal head of state in the postwar government, this assignment of war guilt at least suggested the possibility that the Emperor could be retained.

_____________________________

"They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist ...." Union General John Sedgwick, 1864

(in reply to fcooke)
Post #: 31
RE: OT: Something I've been meaning to bring up. - 9/6/2020 12:17:45 AM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

IMO Potsdam declarations were not helpful to ending the war. When negotiating it is generally not a good idea to back your counter party into a corner. Keep your options open. And any student of Japan would realize that keeping Hirohito around was a pretty big deal. But yes, A-bomb vs firebombing, same results. Though the 'how did just one bomber do that' had to have a fairly dramatic impact.

That a city had been destroyed was not new, but the radiation effects of the bomb were horrifying to the Japanese. Those survivors closest to the bomb began showing horrible effects throughout their bodies within a day or two, but others gradually emerged with effects for weeks afterwards. No one knew how long this would go on or how many people might have been affected (some in the downwind plume might already have shown radiation poisoning). Even years afterwards, victims with radiation disfigurements were shunned by the rest of the Japanese people, partly out of fear that they could still contaminate other people.
Just another psychological blow that suggested surrender was not the worst outcome for them.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to fcooke)
Post #: 32
RE: OT: Something I've been meaning to bring up. - 9/6/2020 1:13:00 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline 		The Japanese peace proposal was on fantasy land, they were willing to accept the following:
- withdrawal from former colonies
- disarmament, but not under Allies supervision
- no Allied occupation of Japan
- no Allied prosecution of war criminals (they were to be tried, but by Japan itself)
- no "regime change", keep the Emperor and the militarists in power

that was obviously not going to work,



< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 9/6/2020 1:17:28 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 33
RE: OT: Something I've been meaning to bring up. - 9/6/2020 3:20:59 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 3393
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi



Was the end of the war brought about solely by the dropping of the atomic bombs or did the DoW by the Soviet Union have anything to do with it?

Discuss...

And play nice.



Lot's to unpack here.

Did the Soviet DoW have an impact? Yes, a substantial one. Elements of the Japanese leadership considered a Soviet mediation as the best way to avoid the defeat that was staring them in the face in 1945, despite the fact that this was unrealistic in the extreme (which was about the norm for the Japanese leadership). For the Soviets to enter into the war slammed that door firmly shut, meaning the choice was to accept Potsdam or mass starvation across Japan.

As for the the role of the atomic bombs, they contributed to what was already an impossible military situation for Japan, and the timing was probably key is pushing Japan over the edge.

Interesting article for those interested - https://www.abc.net.au/religion/back-to-hiroshima-why-dropping-the-bomb-saved-ten-million-lives/10096982

(in reply to rustysi)
Post #: 34
RE: OT: Something I've been meaning to bring up. - 9/6/2020 5:36:52 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

The Japanese peace proposal was on fantasy land, they were willing to accept the following:
- withdrawal from former colonies
- disarmament, but not under Allies supervision
- no Allied occupation of Japan
- no Allied prosecution of war criminals (they were to be tried, but by Japan itself)
- no "regime change", keep the Emperor and the militarists in power

that was obviously not going to work,




And they decided they would rather be occupied by the Americans than by the Soviets, hence the surrender post-Soviets.

MM also mentioned that what they wanted vis-a-vis the Soviets was for them to mediate a peace between Japan and the USA. Obviously, that wasn't going to happen anymore when the Soviets invaded.

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 35
RE: OT: Something I've been meaning to bring up. - 9/6/2020 9:47:34 PM   
Alamander

 

Posts: 147
Joined: 4/29/2020
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

The Japanese peace proposal was on fantasy land, they were willing to accept the following:
- withdrawal from former colonies
- disarmament, but not under Allies supervision
- no Allied occupation of Japan
- no Allied prosecution of war criminals (they were to be tried, but by Japan itself)
- no "regime change", keep the Emperor and the militarists in power

that was obviously not going to work,





There was really no consensus as to what they wanted as part of a negotiated peace, and we lack the documents to confirm exactly who was advocating for what. Whatever consensus there was basically revolved around making any further advances as difficult as possible for the U.S. and her allies in order to improve what little bargaining position they had.

Bix (Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan- Pullitzer Prize Winning history of Hirohito's reign) and his Japanese research assistants (who have probably done the most research of anyone on this subject) tend to make the case that Hirohito himself was the architect of this consensus: to make the going as tough as possible in order to win better terms. It seems the idea was to discourage the U.S. from trying to invade and occupy Japan and hopefully to retain control of Manchuria.

The Soviet DoW obviously made this latter request superfluous, and I suspect atom bombs or no, given a bit more time, Japan would have surrendered with only 2 conditions: no occupation and the emperor retaining power. I think it is important to understand that many in senior positions were not enamored with the idea of democracy, especially Hirohito, and were, at heart, monarchists. They were battling, not just for Japan or her sovereignty, but for the retention of monarchy, and traditions of the feudal moral code upon which the Meiji Restoration rested, in the face of an ever-encroaching democratic, and in some cases, socialist world order. If one views the last year of the war in these terms, it is probably easier to understand their obstinance and their differing opinions: as some were more sympathetic to democratic reforms than others.

They were not simply fighting to preserve an "empire;" rather they were fighting to preserve a way of life that they viewed as specifically Japanese, as opposed to Western, and many felt that a U.S. occupation would destroy this way of life forever, regardless of what place Japan was given in the post-war world order. As it turns out, from their perspective, they were right. The occupation did fundamentally alter Japanese society and, in some cases, their culture. As a proper historian, it is sometimes best not to say whether such things were for the better or the worse: merely to explain why people did what they did.

< Message edited by Alamander -- 9/6/2020 9:57:01 PM >

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 36
RE: OT: Something I've been meaning to bring up. - 9/6/2020 10:44:13 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline 		Just think of the situation before the war when the US wanted the Japanese to leave China. Japan may have been willing to leave China but not Manchuria. But the Americans did not mean Manchuria and the Japanese did not ask if the Americans also meant Manchuria. Maybe the whole war in Asia could have been avoided. But that is something else.

One other thing about the atomic bombs and the surrender, many of the Americans - and I presume other Allied military personnel - in the Pacific said "Now I know that I will survive."

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to Alamander)
Post #: 37
RE: OT: Something I've been meaning to bring up. - 9/6/2020 10:52:03 PM   
Alamander

 

Posts: 147
Joined: 4/29/2020
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe


One other thing about the atomic bombs and the surrender, many of the Americans - and I presume other Allied military personnel - in the Pacific said "Now I know that I will survive."


My grandfather fought in the Pacific. He had the opposite opinion (of course, he was a contrary fellow and often differed in his opinion from others). He felt, throughout his entire life, that Truman was a war criminal and should have been put on trial at Nuremburg. He was of the opinion that that the U.S. could have easily blockaded Japan for a few months and received the same terms without much loss of life. He was opposed, in general, to war all of his life after his experiences in the Pacific.

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 38
RE: OT: Something I've been meaning to bring up. - 9/6/2020 11:26:15 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alamander

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

The Japanese peace proposal was on fantasy land, they were willing to accept the following:
- withdrawal from former colonies
- disarmament, but not under Allies supervision
- no Allied occupation of Japan
- no Allied prosecution of war criminals (they were to be tried, but by Japan itself)
- no "regime change", keep the Emperor and the militarists in power

that was obviously not going to work,





There was really no consensus as to what they wanted as part of a negotiated peace, and we lack the documents to confirm exactly who was advocating for what. Whatever consensus there was basically revolved around making any further advances as difficult as possible for the U.S. and her allies in order to improve what little bargaining position they had.

Bix (Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan- Pullitzer Prize Winning history of Hirohito's reign) and his Japanese research assistants (who have probably done the most research of anyone on this subject) tend to make the case that Hirohito himself was the architect of this consensus: to make the going as tough as possible in order to win better terms. It seems the idea was to discourage the U.S. from trying to invade and occupy Japan and hopefully to retain control of Manchuria.



You are right that Japan never propose peace terms, they only made an offer to the Soviets to negotiate
those points I mentioned are what they discussed on internal meetings



_____________________________


(in reply to Alamander)
Post #: 39
RE: OT: Something I've been meaning to bring up. - 9/6/2020 11:32:36 PM   
Bearcat2

 

Posts: 577
Joined: 2/14/2004
Status: offline 		https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/project/nuclear-vault


The third bomb was to be dropped on August 17th or 18th weather permitting and pending approval from Truman; Marshall thought that it wouldn't be as effective as using it tactically against Japanese troops. They planned to use 10 bombs of the "Fat Man" type in November, 1945 several days before the landings.
US was capable of producing 3 bombs a month, starting Sept, 1945.

The bombs gave Japan a way to end the war: Diary of Prince Konoye "In the unforeseen and unanswerable bomb, Hirohito saw a face saving excuse for Japan's fighting men, one which could be used to ease the humiliation of defeat and smooth the pathway to surrender"
Whether the Russians declaring war or the bombs were the final straw; the bombs did give Japan an excuse to end the war. I am grateful for this as my father in law was Marine combat infantry who had already participated in 2 invasions and my father's Bomber unit was in the process of going from Europe to the Pacific War when the war ended.

_____________________________

"After eight years as President I have only two regrets: that I have not shot Henry Clay or hanged John C. Calhoun."--1837

(in reply to Alamander)
Post #: 40
RE: OT: Something I've been meaning to bring up. - 9/6/2020 11:42:58 PM   
Ian R

 

Posts: 3420
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Cammeraygal Country
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alamander


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe


One other thing about the atomic bombs and the surrender, many of the Americans - and I presume other Allied military personnel - in the Pacific said "Now I know that I will survive."


My grandfather fought in the Pacific. He had the opposite opinion (of course, he was a contrary fellow and often differed in his opinion from others). He felt, throughout his entire life, that Truman was a war criminal and should have been put on trial at Nuremburg. He was of the opinion that that the U.S. could have easily blockaded Japan for a few months and received the same terms without much loss of life. He was opposed, in general, to war all of his life after his experiences in the Pacific.


I thank him for his service.

My ancestors were on the front line, with him.

Was his unit assigned to Downfall?



_____________________________

"I am Alfred"

(in reply to Alamander)
Post #: 41
RE: OT: Something I've been meaning to bring up. - 9/7/2020 2:06:13 AM   
tolsdorff

 

Posts: 204
Joined: 12/12/2016
Status: offline 		I once read a (one of the) biography of Nimitz, i forgot which one really. Anyway, he is quoted as saying the following, loosely paraphrased: ".. there was no doubt in the minds of me (Nimitz), spruance, turner, halsey, king even, that the A-bomb was completely unnecessary. It did not play a part in any surrender. but the politicians in Washington wanted to see the effects of the bomb.. " I should look the book up. You can verify it then. The memoirist quoted Nimitz as having said this. He did not want to use this weapon, nor did many of his commanders.

it's got nothing to do at all with the big evil satan.. But the throwing of that bomb had 2 major reasons.

1. Hi Soviet Union, we got a big bomb!
2. see the effects of this weapon when employed on a densely populated area.

There was no other reason to throw it. just another mass murder war crime.

(in reply to Ian R)
Post #: 42
RE: OT: Something I've been meaning to bring up. - 9/7/2020 2:42:56 AM   
Alamander

 

Posts: 147
Joined: 4/29/2020
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alamander


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe


One other thing about the atomic bombs and the surrender, many of the Americans - and I presume other Allied military personnel - in the Pacific said "Now I know that I will survive."


My grandfather fought in the Pacific. He had the opposite opinion (of course, he was a contrary fellow and often differed in his opinion from others). He felt, throughout his entire life, that Truman was a war criminal and should have been put on trial at Nuremburg. He was of the opinion that that the U.S. could have easily blockaded Japan for a few months and received the same terms without much loss of life. He was opposed, in general, to war all of his life after his experiences in the Pacific.


I thank him for his service.

My ancestors were on the front line, with him.

Was his unit assigned to Downfall?




At the beginning of the war, he was in charge of an anti-aircraft battery in Trinidad for training. After he had finished training the crews, he was transferred to the seabees, since his father owned a builder's supply and he was sort of an expert in all things construction and engineering. He would not have been in the first wave of any invasion. He was in Phillipines during the final months of the war, and his unit was supporting actions against the remains of Yamashita's army.

I am not sure if they were scheduled for eventual deployment to Japan or not. He did not see much action in the final year of the war, obviously. He did see some before that. He liked to say that they were happy to be rid of him, so he didn't participate in the occupation and was sent home almost immediately after the termination of hostilities.

He did buy a seabee bulldozer on the way home, however, which he maintained and ran until the late 1980s. Built a nursing home with it. Now, my uncles own 12.

< Message edited by Alamander -- 9/7/2020 2:47:24 AM >

(in reply to Ian R)
Post #: 43
RE: OT: Something I've been meaning to bring up. - 9/7/2020 3:25:12 AM   
rustysi


Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline
quote:

I will go a little further into the realm of controversy perhaps, and suggest that the bombs were intended as much as a demonstration to the Soviets, as to the Japanese.


Not entirely out of the realm of possibility.

quote:

Indeed, the world may have been lucky as events did turn out. If the rather pathetic palace coup known as the “Kyujo Incident” that was attempted just prior to the surrender had garnered more support, its unlikely the emperor would have ever been able to intervene to provide that essential first step in the process of an organized capitulation of Japan's government and armed forces.


I wouldn't classify this as a 'rather pathetic palace coup'. IIRC one of the reasons it probably failed was that an air raid either cut the power or it was turned off because of it.

_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to Ian R)
Post #: 44
RE: OT: Something I've been meaning to bring up. - 9/7/2020 11:50:28 AM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tolsdorff

I once read a (one of the) biography of Nimitz, i forgot which one really. Anyway, he is quoted as saying the following, loosely paraphrased: ".. there was no doubt in the minds of me (Nimitz), spruance, turner, halsey, king even, that the A-bomb was completely unnecessary. It did not play a part in any surrender. but the politicians in Washington wanted to see the effects of the bomb.. " I should look the book up. You can verify it then. The memoirist quoted Nimitz as having said this. He did not want to use this weapon, nor did many of his commanders.

it's got nothing to do at all with the big evil satan.. But the throwing of that bomb had 2 major reasons.

1. Hi Soviet Union, we got a big bomb!
2. see the effects of this weapon when employed on a densely populated area.

There was no other reason to throw it. just another mass murder war crime.


It as not a war crime.

The major officers may not have liked it but it was 20/20 hindsight from people who did not know the Japanese mindset at the time.

Why use a little hammer if you have a big one.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to tolsdorff)
Post #: 45
RE: OT: Something I've been meaning to bring up. - 9/7/2020 6:08:40 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 3393
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Just think of the situation before the war when the US wanted the Japanese to leave China. Japan may have been willing to leave China but not Manchuria. But the Americans did not mean Manchuria and the Japanese did not ask if the Americans also meant Manchuria. Maybe the whole war in Asia could have been avoided. But that is something else.

One other thing about the atomic bombs and the surrender, many of the Americans - and I presume other Allied military personnel - in the Pacific said "Now I know that I will survive."


Avoiding a general war in Asia would be extremely unlikely. After 1931 Japan had committed itself in a major way to the Asian mainland, and in a way which was at direct loggerheads with the KMT in China.

Irrespective of the outcome of the Chinese Civil War, a military confrontation between China and Japan on the cards, and one that strikes me as likely to have settled into roughly the same situation as it did historically - Japan with the large military advantage but unable to effect a victory.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alamander


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe


One other thing about the atomic bombs and the surrender, many of the Americans - and I presume other Allied military personnel - in the Pacific said "Now I know that I will survive."


My grandfather fought in the Pacific. He had the opposite opinion (of course, he was a contrary fellow and often differed in his opinion from others). He felt, throughout his entire life, that Truman was a war criminal and should have been put on trial at Nuremburg. He was of the opinion that that the U.S. could have easily blockaded Japan for a few months and received the same terms without much loss of life. He was opposed, in general, to war all of his life after his experiences in the Pacific.


Did he realize that that blockade in the context of Japan in 1945 was synonymous with "mass starvation"?


quote:

ORIGINAL: tolsdorff

I once read a (one of the) biography of Nimitz, i forgot which one really. Anyway, he is quoted as saying the following, loosely paraphrased: ".. there was no doubt in the minds of me (Nimitz), spruance, turner, halsey, king even, that the A-bomb was completely unnecessary. It did not play a part in any surrender. but the politicians in Washington wanted to see the effects of the bomb.. " I should look the book up. You can verify it then. The memoirist quoted Nimitz as having said this. He did not want to use this weapon, nor did many of his commanders.



To note, all senior naval officers.

What's worth consideration is the inter-service context of the US armed forces in relation to the atomic bomb. The Army Air Force (which is agitating for its own separate branch), just deployed a fearsome new weapon from an exceptionally capable air frame.

Any admiral worth their salt will be downplaying that capability in an environment of post-war cuts to military spending.

quote:


it's got nothing to do at all with the big evil satan.. But the throwing of that bomb had 2 major reasons.

1. Hi Soviet Union, we got a big bomb!
2. see the effects of this weapon when employed on a densely populated area.

There was no other reason to throw it. just another mass murder war crime.


As above, is it less criminal to kill approx 200,000 people over the course of two afternoons or a few million via starvation?

< Message edited by mind_messing -- 9/7/2020 6:09:59 PM >

(in reply to Alamander)
Post #: 46
RE: OT: Something I've been meaning to bring up. - 9/7/2020 8:31:38 PM   
Alamander

 

Posts: 147
Joined: 4/29/2020
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


Did he realize that that blockade in the context of Japan in 1945 was synonymous with "mass starvation"?




He was a very brilliant fellow, but he had some strange ideas. I'm not suggesting that he was correct in his assumption, merely stating his opinion as a serviceman in the Pacific.

TBH, my position is that the strategic bombing of population centers, of which the atomic bombs were merely an extension, was a war crime on par with the holocaust or the Bataan death march. That is neither here nor there, however, and my opinions on questions of morality with regard to the inherently dirty business of war are mostly irrelevant if one wants to understand the war, the decisions that were made, and why they were made. As a student of history, these are my primary concerns, and the information that is most relevant to share.

< Message edited by Alamander -- 9/7/2020 8:32:57 PM >

(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 47
RE: OT: Something I've been meaning to bring up. - 9/7/2020 8:44:18 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alamander

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


Did he realize that that blockade in the context of Japan in 1945 was synonymous with "mass starvation"?




He was a very brilliant fellow, but he had some strange ideas. I'm not suggesting that he was correct in his assumption, merely stating his opinion as a serviceman in the Pacific.

TBH, my position is that the strategic bombing of population centers, of which the atomic bombs were merely an extension, was a war crime on par with the holocaust or the Bataan death march. That is neither here nor there, however, and my opinions on questions of morality with regard to the inherently dirty business of war are mostly irrelevant if one wants to understand the war, the decisions that were made, and why they were made. As a student of history, these are my primary concerns, and the information that is most relevant to share.


If truth is the first casualty of war, innocence is the second - the kind of innocence that thinks it is possible to apply morals to every situation. The one moral imperative in war is to win.


_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Alamander)
Post #: 48
RE: OT: Something I've been meaning to bring up. - 9/7/2020 9:44:16 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alamander

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


Did he realize that that blockade in the context of Japan in 1945 was synonymous with "mass starvation"?




He was a very brilliant fellow, but he had some strange ideas. I'm not suggesting that he was correct in his assumption, merely stating his opinion as a serviceman in the Pacific.

TBH, my position is that the strategic bombing of population centers, of which the atomic bombs were merely an extension, was a war crime on par with the holocaust or the Bataan death march. That is neither here nor there, however, and my opinions on questions of morality with regard to the inherently dirty business of war are mostly irrelevant if one wants to understand the war, the decisions that were made, and why they were made. As a student of history, these are my primary concerns, and the information that is most relevant to share.


There were a lot of "cottage" industries in the civilian areas, area bombing was the only way to target them.

< Message edited by RangerJoe -- 9/7/2020 9:55:40 PM >

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to Alamander)
Post #: 49
RE: OT: Something I've been meaning to bring up. - 9/7/2020 10:53:49 PM   
Alamander

 

Posts: 147
Joined: 4/29/2020
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

If truth is the first casualty of war, innocence is the second - the kind of innocence that thinks it is possible to apply morals to every situation. The one moral imperative in war is to win.



And yet, "war crimes" trials were held by the victorious powers. It is not I who decided to make moral judgements about the conduct of Second World War or to apply "rules" to the conduct of war. It was a decision taken by the victorious powers. If we are to hold the victorious powers to the same standard that they applied to the vanquished, then the strategic bombing of civilian population centers must be considered in the same light as the massacres of PoWs and civilians orchestrated by Germany and Japan. If not, then it is not "justice" that was sought so much as revenge.

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 50
RE: OT: Something I've been meaning to bring up. - 9/8/2020 1:26:23 AM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline 		vae victis

that said, the Western powers were less guilty of crimes than the Soviets and much less guilty than the Axis

_____________________________


(in reply to Alamander)
Post #: 51
RE: OT: Something I've been meaning to bring up. - 9/9/2020 12:37:03 AM   
fcooke

 

Posts: 1156
Joined: 6/18/2002
From: Boston, London, Hoboken, now Warwick, NY
Status: offline 		As I think we would all agree, the bombs killed fewer people than an invasion would. Or blockade. Even today Japanese culture is very 'Japanese'. Security literally everywhere. Emergency kits at every desk in the office (with rations). But the trains run on time (to the second), and people are very polite. That said, still a big bias against females in the workplace. My team in Tokyo was 75% female because Japanese firms did not want to hire them. It was funny when sales teams came in and wanted to speak to me (most senior guy) and I would direct them to speak to my lead in Japan (female).

Things you learn in life.

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 52
RE: OT: Something I've been meaning to bring up. - 9/9/2020 12:41:42 AM   
fcooke

 

Posts: 1156
Joined: 6/18/2002
From: Boston, London, Hoboken, now Warwick, NY
Status: offline 		All that said if you ever get to Japan - Kyoto and the royal island are worth some time to explore.
royal island in Tokyo. palace and all that.

edited to fix silly typo and clarify what royal island I was referring to.

< Message edited by fcooke -- 9/9/2020 12:46:29 AM >

(in reply to fcooke)
Post #: 53
RE: OT: Something I've been meaning to bring up. - 9/9/2020 12:55:46 AM   
fcooke

 

Posts: 1156
Joined: 6/18/2002
From: Boston, London, Hoboken, now Warwick, NY
Status: offline 		This might be getting too political, but in my opinion, the Allies only tried the worst of the worst for war crimes. A few Americans who might have qualified did not survive the war (Sam Dealey, USS Harder). Not sure about other countries. But there was certainly some activity in the Normandy campaign and the battle of the Bulge (both sides). And we won't get started on the Eastern front.

(in reply to Alamander)
Post #: 54
RE: OT: Something I've been meaning to bring up. - 9/9/2020 1:01:49 AM   
fcooke

 

Posts: 1156
Joined: 6/18/2002
From: Boston, London, Hoboken, now Warwick, NY
Status: offline 		Sorry - I messed one up. It was Mush Morton ans the USS Wahoo I meant to refer to.

(in reply to fcooke)
Post #: 55
RE: OT: Something I've been meaning to bring up. - 9/9/2020 1:02:08 AM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

This might be getting too political, but in my opinion, the Allies only tried the worst of the worst for war crimes. A few Americans who might have qualified did not survive the war (Sam Dealey, USS Harder). Not sure about other countries. But there was certainly some activity in the Normandy campaign and the battle of the Bulge (both sides). And we won't get started on the Eastern front.

Every country has some skeletons in their closet. Sometimes the world advances better when no one looks too hard.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to fcooke)
Post #: 56
RE: OT: Something I've been meaning to bring up. - 9/9/2020 1:02:45 AM   
Platoonist


Posts: 1342
Joined: 5/11/2003
From: Kila Hana
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

This might be getting too political, but in my opinion, the Allies only tried the worst of the worst for war crimes. A few Americans who might have qualified did not survive the war (Sam Dealey, USS Harder). Not sure about other countries. But there was certainly some activity in the Normandy campaign and the battle of the Bulge (both sides). And we won't get started on the Eastern front.


You may be thinking of Dudley "Mush" Morton of the Wahoo. I think the only thing Dealy was guilty of, was sinking too many Japanese DDs.

_____________________________


(in reply to fcooke)
Post #: 57
RE: OT: Something I've been meaning to bring up. - 9/9/2020 1:05:43 AM   
fcooke

 

Posts: 1156
Joined: 6/18/2002
From: Boston, London, Hoboken, now Warwick, NY
Status: offline 		yeah P, I figured that out a few minutes after posting. But spot on, the Harder had a thing for DDs.

(in reply to Platoonist)
Post #: 58
RE: OT: Something I've been meaning to bring up. - 9/9/2020 1:11:12 AM   
Platoonist


Posts: 1342
Joined: 5/11/2003
From: Kila Hana
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

yeah P, I figured that out a few minutes after posting. But spot on, the Harder had a thing for DDs.


Gotcha.

Then of course you have the famous self-incriminating quote by one General Curtis LeMay, the fire-bomber of Japan.

“Killing Japanese didn’t bother me very much at that time, I suppose if we had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal.”

_____________________________


(in reply to fcooke)
Post #: 59
RE: OT: Something I've been meaning to bring up. - 9/9/2020 1:17:34 AM   
fcooke

 

Posts: 1156
Joined: 6/18/2002
From: Boston, London, Hoboken, now Warwick, NY
Status: offline 		And Tang is my favorite WW2 sub. She really kicked bottoms (sadly including her own). Good thing O'Kane got off Wahoo when he did.

(in reply to fcooke)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: OT: Something I've been meaning to bring up. Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.000