Really strange

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Really strange

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Really strange

Page: << < prev 4 5 6 [7] 8 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Really strange - 4/15/2002 1:35:31 PM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, The Japanese (and for a time the Germans) thought themselves to be ahead of the US in research and development!!! They thought thay had a several year (40-41) headstart. There was an article (Atlanta Constituion) where a Japanese Naval Officer claimed to have been in charge of security for Japans first testing of an atomic explosive device off the coast of Korea in late 44 early 45 I don't recall. I don't believe they have anyother 'eyewittness' to such an event. What is scary to me is the remaining records from the 2 separte groups reveal they had each made progress or breakthroughs in areas the other had not. They did not share their research so each spent time on problems the other had already solved. No evidence survived the attack on Hirosima in AUG 45 but diary from someone working in that city hint that there was a working reactor (very small one) The US built a working reactor during the War using parts from distillery equipmet! The Japanese certainly could have done the same. (North Korea has also built one using this idea) (I am skeptical concerning this matter but the basic theroy was well known prior to the out break of war. ) I would quess there were people working along these lines in many countries with various degrees of progress.

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 181

- 4/15/2002 2:10:32 PM

tohoku

Posts: 415
Joined: 3/18/2002
From: at lunch, thanks.
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mdiehl
[B]"the war crimes against the people being held this very day at the US base in Cuba"

????

It's really amusing hearing you defend Japan's WW2 record on treatment of POWs while at the same accusing the US of "war crimes" for housing Taliban/Al Qaida prisoners in Cuba in sanitary conditions with light, running water, shelter from the elements, excellent medical care, and meals politically sensitized to their religious customs.
[/QUOTE]

Please read this carefully and slowly:

I am not defending the Japanese as you accuse me.

Note the use of the negative.

My position is actually slightly more complex than the two-value moral values you seem only able to cope with. I... oh, forget it.

tohoku
YMMV

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 182

- 4/15/2002 2:15:41 PM

ratster

Posts: 166
Joined: 1/21/2002
From: PA
Status: offline

I'm very skeptical about any claims of how close the Germans or the Japanese might have been to a working a-bomb, in the light of the present day.

Its been been 57 years, give or take, from Hiroshima/Nagasaki and yet there are still only a handful of nations with confirmed working nuclear devices at present. (US, China, USSR, GB, France, India, Pakistan | Highly probable; Israel, South Afrika | Suspect; Iran, North Korea)

Common sense would [B]seem[/B] to dictate that any nation who wanted too could develop nuclear capability, yet this is not the case, even after 57 years.

This leads me to conclude that if nations that are [B]not[/B] being bombed, short of resources and basically fighting for their very survival can not, in 57 years, develop nuclear capability then it is [B]very[/B] unlikely that nations who were(Germany and Japan) could.

Which brings some actual legitimate questions to mind for this WITP forum; :D

1. Are nuclear weapons being modeled for WITP?

2. If so, only for the US or can either side attempt to develop them?

_____________________________

" If it be now, tis not to come: if it be not to come, it will be now; if it be not now, yet it will come: the readiness is all"

Clan [GOAT]

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 183

- 4/15/2002 2:29:39 PM

tohoku

Posts: 415
Joined: 3/18/2002
From: at lunch, thanks.
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TIMJOT
[B]I think it much more plausible that Japan could have fielded biological/chemical weapons of mass destruction before it could have successfully developed an A-bomb. [/B][/QUOTE]

Does anyone else out there really hate the use of the term 'weapons of mass destruction'?

Does anybody out there think it is *anything* other than an emotive term for political spin doctors and politicians, used in order to justify whatever scheme they've recently hatched to boost themselves another two points on the polls?

tohoku
YMMV

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 184

- 4/15/2002 7:51:55 PM

byron13

Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline

I can't say I understand your point about the politicians, but there does need to be some term in our lexicon that describes a single weapon that is designed to kill thousands or millions of people with one use. "Weapon of Mass Destruction" fits the bill pretty well. The "destruction" part isn't necessarily accurate, given radiological, chemical, and biologic weapons that actually don't destroy anything other than lives.

What is your problem with the term, Tohoku?

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 185

- 4/15/2002 9:47:29 PM

mdiehl

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

"My position is actually slightly more complex than the two-value moral values you seem only able to cope with. I... oh, forget it."

One last cheap shot for the road?

Re: "Weapons of Mass Destruction" does seem to liguistically sanitize hell-on-earth. A while ago, everybody called them NBCs (nuclear-biological-chemical).

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 186

another book to recommend - 4/16/2002 3:05:49 AM

brisd

Posts: 614
Joined: 5/20/2000
From: San Diego, CA
Status: offline

tohoku - I enjoy reading your posts and hope you will continue to comment on this and other subjects.

I am currently reading "Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan"
by Herbert P. Bix and it provides some insight into the China Incident and the war plans leading to PH.

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 187

- 4/16/2002 7:22:21 AM

tohoku

Posts: 415
Joined: 3/18/2002
From: at lunch, thanks.
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by byron13
[B]I can't say I understand your point about the politicians, but there does need to be some term in our lexicon that describes a single weapon that is designed to kill thousands or millions of people with one use. "Weapon of Mass Destruction" fits the bill pretty well. The "destruction" part isn't necessarily accurate, given radiological, chemical, and biologic weapons that actually don't destroy anything other than lives.

What is your problem with the term, Tohoku? [/B][/QUOTE]

I think it's inaccurate, or at the least, misleading. The older term when lumping these weapons together, as someone else said, was simply "NBC" - Nuclear, Biological ad Chemical.

My main objection is the uses to which the term is put. It isn't accurate (most chemical or biological weapons are pretty inefficient and very localised in effect), and the term is almost always used in a manner that means the user of the term and their listeners don't have to think anything through - use the term, automatically 'justify' whatever it is you're wanting to justify; look at Bush and Blair and how they're dropping the term into statements in order to condition the public for military action against Iraq)).

It's a very '1984-esque' public management/manipulation phrase, IMO. It makes for a good sound bite, but nothing else.

tohoku
YMMV

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 188

- 4/16/2002 7:44:20 AM

tohoku

Posts: 415
Joined: 3/18/2002
From: at lunch, thanks.
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mdiehl
[B]"My position is actually slightly more complex than the two-value moral values you seem only able to cope with. I... oh, forget it."

One last cheap shot for the road?
[/QUOTE]

No, I honestly think, from what I've read of yours here, that you really do have trouble coping with anything other than two value moral systems. I apologies if I phrased it badly.

I also can't be bothered longer struggling with the English to try and explain this when so many people here either mis-read me or deliberately mis-represent me (ranger75 springs to mind here). I know full well that my English is pretty reasonable (unless I'm tired!) most of the time, so it's not simply that my writing is difficult to read.

I'm not expecting people to agree with me, but it would be nice if they at least had the intellectual curiosity to explore other positions.

As I have said several times, I think history is made up of facts and motivations. It is important, when making pronouncments about history, to seperate the facts from the motivations. IMO, history is *mostly* about exploring motivations. As such, and given imperfect knowledge of motivations, mulitple interpretations are often equally valid. History isn't interesting because "Japan attacked the US in 1941 at Pearl Harbour." History is interesting because of questions like "*Why* did Japan attack the US in 1941 at Pearl Harbour?"

I'm just waiting for somebody to start throwing the 'revisionist' label about... ;-(

tohoku
YMMV

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 189

- 4/16/2002 8:26:15 AM

byron13

Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline

I still don't get it. I think the term weapon of mass destruction is used to encompass all three NBC components and could also be used, without modification, to incorporate other weapons with similar effects if and when they are developed. I also think the term is used when either all three are intended or when it doesn't matter which combination of the three you intend to cover. When dealing with the public, the term is probably better because it's something the public understands better than, say, a chemical weapon or, prior to 911, a biological weapon. I don't think it's used to create an enlarged sense of capacity to destroy or to create hysteria.

I also believe the term is effective because it denotes that one weapon, system, or whatever can kill a large number of people. These weapons are not like a bomb, bullet, grenade, or similar weapon where the lethal radius is limited to yards of the impact. A grenade or C-4 packet goes boom, and anyone within a certain radius is dead, and there's nothing you can do about it. But weapons of mass destruction can have a kill radius of miles and, with biological weapons, the kill radius is unlimited. Another difference, at least with chemical and biological weapons, some steps can be taken to reduce its affect after the weapon has been discharged. I see a big difference between the killing capacity of a suitcase full of C4 and a suitcase with a nuclear device, or a suitcase sized container of chemical or biological agents "detonated" at altitude.

Contrary to what you say, I don't feel either chemical or biological weapons are ineffective or necessarily localized. Nonpersistent chemicals are localized but, if used properly can still kill hundreds. Persistent chemicals are localized as far as the world turning, but can be delivered over an area with an effective radius of, what?, a hundred yards or so? In a large city that could be hundreds or thousands of lives initially and then more as rescue units arrive on the scene oblivious to the problem. Biological weapons are effectively unlimited in their radius. You may not buy into the Smallpox problem, but I do. Given a long enough latency period, and it is extremely difficult to arrest. And no question what effect a nuclear device would have.

Let's not confuse the amatuerish attempts of groups like Aum Shin Rikyo puncturing a bag with an umbrella or the limited delivery of the fall 2001 anthrax attacks with the capacity of Russia, the United States, and other countries to prepare high grade, functional delivery systems optimized after testing to be as effective as possible. If the anthrax attacker had not used such a limited delivery system (a high-tech envelope?) and the U.S. had not been on the lookout for anthrax, he/she probably could have killed at least a hundred people.

So, I still don't see what the problem is. It is necessarily a generic term, but is used when it is appropriate. All three have the potential to kill more people over a wider area than a conventional weapon. That's a weapon of mass destruction. Tell me there is a hand grenade set to go off in my city in one hour, and I'm not too worried. Tell me there's a weapon of mass destruction set to go off in my city, and it doesn't matter to me which of the NBC trio it is, I'm very worried.

If you think Bush has thought things through better or is more justified in attacking Iraq if he says that they have nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons capability, fine. It doesn't change the equation for me. At the levels of government that matter, they distinguish between the weapons. At the public level, you cannot convince me that anyone cares or should care.

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 190

- 4/16/2002 8:30:57 AM

Raverdave

Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by tohoku
[B]

I'm not expecting people to agree with me, but it would be nice if they at least had the intellectual curiosity to explore other positions.[/B][/QUOTE]

I agree with you here.....some people are unwilling to even explore the "flip-side", which is a pity...but as you know, even after reading what you have to say, I don't agree with all of the possitions that you are putting forward....but at least I will consider first before rejecting out of hand. What a poor and boring place this would be if we all agreed with each other!

[B][QUOTE]

As I have said several times, I think history is made up of facts and motivations. It is important, when making pronouncments about history, to seperate the facts from the motivations. IMO, history is *mostly* about exploring motivations. As such, and given imperfect knowledge of motivations, mulitple interpretations are often equally valid. History isn't interesting because "Japan attacked the US in 1941 at Pearl Harbour." History is interesting because of questions like "*Why* did Japan attack the US in 1941 at Pearl Harbour?"

I'm just waiting for somebody to start throwing the 'revisionist' label about... ;-(

[/B][/QUOTE]

And another way of saying this is that there is "no such thing as an [B]absolute[/B] truth".

_____________________________

Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 191

- 4/16/2002 8:37:36 AM

byron13

Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline

Tohoku, friend, I think you're going to get a earful on your last post. Motivation is interesting, but facts are reality. You picked the best example possible: Pearl Harbor. I personally don't have much trouble with that attack (nor does Raverdave, it appears), and I'm sure you can justify why the attack occurred.

The obvious riposte, though, is that those arrayed against you are speaking of crimes. In most crimes, motivation does not matter. If you robbed the bank, you are no less culpable if you robbed it because your kids are hungry than if you robbed it as a fraternity prank. The act itself is the culpable thing as it the result (regardless of motivation) injures society or, as we've been discussing, humanity.

Likewise: Why did Japan rape Nanking? Why did Japan use Korean comfort women? The motivation simply cannot justify the result, and I don't see where there is an "equally valid interpretation." But, I don't really want to argue this one; I'll let someone else light you up.

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 192

- 4/16/2002 11:38:04 AM

tohoku

Posts: 415
Joined: 3/18/2002
From: at lunch, thanks.
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by byron13
[B]
The obvious riposte, though, is that those arrayed against you are speaking of crimes. In most crimes, motivation does not matter. If you robbed the bank, you are no less culpable if you robbed it because your kids are hungry than if you robbed it as a fraternity prank. The act itself is the culpable thing as it the result (regardless of motivation) injures society or, as we've been discussing, humanity.
[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure that is the case. I'm certain it isn't the actual case in many places - considerations of why *do* feature in judgements. Mitigating aspects do, IMO, matter, both morally and, in any sane country, legally.

The example I think I posted earlier in the thread (of not being responsible for failing to jump into a river and save a drowning child if you yourself can't swim) makes that point, I think. Where the problem comes in is that some people seem to be jumping from "I think it is wrong" to "It's a war crime" and then refusing to reconsider the second statement when presented with new or contrary evidence. They end up replying, "But X doesn't matter, because Y is a war crime", when X is actually appealling to the *first* step in the process. And I'm sure I could have said that more clearly.

Perhaps my position comes down to the idea that I don't think rules should *ever* be absolute. Absolute rules invariably lead to gross injustices, reduction in freedom and tyranny IMO.

[QUOTE]
Likewise: Why did Japan rape Nanking? Why did Japan use Korean comfort women? The motivation simply cannot justify the result, and I don't see where there is an "equally valid interpretation." But, I don't really want to argue this one; I'll let someone else light you up. [/B][/QUOTE]

Ah, perhaps I *was* unclear in my explanation: I wasn't trying to suggest that it is *always* the case that motivation explains or absolves. Just that it bears looking into to see if it is relevant *in that instance*.

The Nanking Incident is where I would agree with you Japan*does* bear responsibility for what happened. But, to pick another example, I don't think, say, beheading is anything to get upset over. (Before anybody starts, I'm talking about the act, not the reason for the act (oh, I just *know* I'm asking for trouble mentioning this... (I find beheading a lot less distasteful than hanging or (speaking of torture) electrocuting them))).

I think I'll stop this post right here. ;-)

tohoku
YMMV

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 193

- 4/16/2002 12:16:46 PM

bradfordkay

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

"The obvious riposte, though, is that those arrayed against you are speaking of crimes.In most crimes, motivation does not matter. If you robbed the bank, you are no less culpable if you robbed it because your kids are hungry than if you robbed it as a fraternity prank."

Yeah, but if you did it as part of a fraternity prank, daddy's money is probably going to keep you out of prison. ;-)

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 194

Beheading vrs hanging - 4/16/2002 9:58:37 PM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, It's a culture issue, while beheading is likely less painfull (certainly quicker) Westerners would prefer to suffer and keep their head attached.

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 195

- 4/17/2002 4:22:43 AM

CynicAl

Posts: 327
Joined: 7/27/2001
From: Brave New World
Status: offline

I must disagree, at least in part, with the venerable Mogami - I'd say it depends on the competence (and intent) of the executioner. A botched beheading, in which the executioner requires several whacks to sever the head, is little faster and no less painful than a botched hanging which results in death by strangulation; a well-executed hanging (pun intended) snaps the neck and kills as quickly as anything.

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 196

Practice - 4/17/2002 6:43:49 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Practice practice practice.............

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 197

- 4/17/2002 10:14:54 AM

Ranger-75

Posts: 610
Joined: 6/29/2001
From: Giant sand box
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by tohoku
[B]

I'm not sure that is the case. I'm certain it isn't the actual case in many places - considerations of why *do* feature in judgements. Mitigating aspects do, IMO, matter, both morally and, in any sane country, legally.

The example I think I posted earlier in the thread (of not being responsible for failing to jump into a river and save a drowning child if you yourself can't swim) makes that point, I think. Where the problem comes in is that some people seem to be jumping from "I think it is wrong" to "It's a war crime" and then refusing to reconsider the second statement when presented with new or contrary evidence. They end up replying, "But X doesn't matter, because Y is a war crime", when X is actually appealling to the *first* step in the process. And I'm sure I could have said that more clearly.

Perhaps my position comes down to the idea that I don't think rules should *ever* be absolute. Absolute rules invariably lead to gross injustices, reduction in freedom and tyranny IMO.

tohoku
YMMV [/B][/QUOTE]

My main problem with your analogy is that in this instance (to carry your analogy further) Japan was the one who threw the baby in the river in the first place!:eek:

In that case it wouldn't matter if you were Mark Spitz or Natalie Wood. You were still wrong and your swimming ability is irrelavent.

I'm not for absolutes either, but where I come from, of you allow subordinates to commit war crimes, you as the leader can be held responsible for their actions. That's what I've been trying to pound into this discussion. The Japanese government & populace have avoided "owining up" to their actions, regardless of any motivations, for their part in starting the war and the conduct of their forces both overseas and on the home islands. I'm sure everybody is aware that after the 2nd wartime boom after the emprorer practically ordered the cabinet to surrender (in a typically Japanese roundabout way) there was a plot to take over the government and, if necessary, execute Hirohito. They actually killed several senior leaders and were getting set to move on the palace. It was only real quick action from some unusually level headed senior Japanese officers that headed off the attempted coup.

The US JCS & Allied CCS were very concerned that Japanese would ignore the first "real drop". It turns out they were right, several hard liners in the Japanese Army said the US was "bluffing" that they "had no more a-bombs" after the first two were dropped. The US was still months away from completing and delivering the next batch of bombs. So that's why they dropped both on built up areas, after warning that not to surrender would bring "prompt and utter destruction".

I also dislkie the term weapons of mass destruction, especially when they try to make an airliner a "WMD" total bullsh!t.

Nowdays, a school kid can get charged with bringing a "weapon" to school by merely bringing a nail file to class. that's another crock. So you see, I an not the black & white pseron some folks are trying to make me out to be.

to RaverDave:
I've noticed LOTS of Aussies at CENTCOM in recent months. Glad to have your help.

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 198

- 4/19/2002 8:19:53 AM

tohoku

Posts: 415
Joined: 3/18/2002
From: at lunch, thanks.
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ranger-75

My main problem with your analogy is that in this instance (to carry your analogy further) Japan was the one who threw the baby in the river in the first place!:eek:

In that case it wouldn't matter if you were Mark Spitz or Natalie Wood. You were still wrong and your swimming ability is irrelavent.
[/QUOTE]

That's largely my point: some here are making the accusations based, effectively, on the inability to swim, not the throwing it in in the first place. I'd also suggest that it was the case that the US was the one egging Japan to throw it in the first place. Blame goes all round on this on.

To return from the analogy, many people here are simply parotting 'the victors version of history' instead of engagaing in discussion when presented with views that threaten their world-view.

[QUOTE]
I'm not for absolutes either, but where I come from, of you allow subordinates to commit war crimes, you as the leader can be held responsible for their actions. That's what I've been trying to pound into this discussion.
[/QUOTE]

"Can" /= "should in all circumstances".

*That's* what you, like some others here, seem unable to grasp or accept. *I'm* saying that attitude cuts both ways. *You* don't seem to like the idea of the US (as a nation) accepting *anything* that might threaten the 'we saved the world and were lily-white pure while doing it' image the US, and some here, likes to think of itself.

[QUOTE]
The Japanese government & populace have avoided "owining up" to their actions, regardless of any motivations, for their part in starting the war and the conduct of their forces both overseas and on the home islands.
[/QUOTE]

You keep saying that as if it is an article of faith!

I've suggested repeatedly that they *have* faced up to certain things and are/will, over time, deal with others. Whenever I mention that I only get a chorus of what amounts to, "But we want it done *our* way or not at all!"

Some people here (well, let's be honest: Americans) seem unabale to cope with the idea that Japan, as a non-judeoxtian country with an insular history stretching back several thousand years, just isn't going to act the same way as Germany when it comes to dealing with it's past. Expecting it to bow and scape and what-not in the same way is the height of cultural arrogance and ignorance, IMO.

[QUOTE]
I'm sure everybody is aware that after the 2nd wartime boom after the emprorer practically ordered the cabinet to surrender (in a typically Japanese roundabout way) there was a plot to take over the government and, if necessary, execute Hirohito. They actually killed several senior leaders and were getting set to move on the palace. It was only real quick action from some unusually level headed senior Japanese officers that headed off the attempted coup.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, there was a coup attempt. It failed. Why did it fail? Because the majority of those with power were, at that point, doing as they were told and *not* on the side of the plotters.

Even if the attempt had achieved it's immediate aims (take over the organs of government) it would have failed shortly thereafter: the majority of the Navy factions had control of more military forces on the ground (and far more powerful forces, too) in Japan at that point than the plotting Army factions did.

So, yes, you bring up another historical fact (there was a coup attempt in the offing), but you then go on, as I've kept suggesting, to place it out of any context (it was doomed to failure for the reasons I mention above) and/or ascribe motivations or draw conclusions for your argument that simply aren't warrented.

I'm sorry, but I can't make the same leap of faith you do to the conclusion of the Japanese being a nation of suicidal warmongering automotons which is what, essntially, your view requires in order to be plausible. I think things and the multitude of people involved were more complex than that. *That's* why I'm very wary of levelling moral accusations with regards to historical events.

[QUOTE]
The US JCS & Allied CCS were very concerned that Japanese would ignore the first "real drop". It turns out they were right, several hard liners in the Japanese Army said the US was "bluffing" that they "had no more a-bombs" after the first two were dropped. The US was still months away from completing and delivering the next batch of bombs. So that's why they dropped both on built up areas, after warning that not to surrender would bring "prompt and utter destruction".
[/QUOTE]

That's one of the most awful peices of rationalisation I've heard in a long time. They were dropped for three reasons. To see what they did to people, to scare the Russians and to prompt the Japanese to surrender. (Hastings makes some interesting comments and quotes original sources in his book on the Korean war on this point)

Look at the conflicting proposals for targets. At one point the Kwantung Army was going to be targetted - it would serve to demonstrate the power of the weapon, better scare the Russians and avoid civilian casualties. That proposal lost out for the simple reasons that the US wasn't sure the weapons would actually work and they wouldn't be able to check the results as quickly. Ending the war through their use was low on the list of aims.

The Allies could have simply stood back and continued to blockading Japan - no invasion was needed, the country had effectively collapsed.

If the US had not issued the stupid unconditional surrender demand the war would have finished in August 1945 anyway: the Japanese had already asked the Allies (through the Swiss, in July) for a surrender on the sole condition that the Emperor wasn't tried.

But, as I said way back near the start of the thread, the US isn't a country that is willing to acknowledge errors in the way it demands other countries do, is it? Bush is proving that yet again with his equally stupid, "You're either with us or against us" position viz terrorism. The older Bush demonstrated it too with his, "What we say, goes." declaration following the Gulf War.

tohoku
YMMV

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 199

- 4/19/2002 1:17:17 PM

CynicAl

Posts: 327
Joined: 7/27/2001
From: Brave New World
Status: offline

...will, over time, deal with others... Expecting (Japan) to bow and scape and what-not... is the height of cultural arrogance and ignorance

It's not the Americans you need to convince - it's your Asian neighbors you should be worried about. Until Official Japan does issue a proper apology, the atrocities committed against the subject populations "liberated" into the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere during the 1930's and 40's will continue to hang over your every dealing with the rest of Asia - even if you don't realize it, your neighbors do. Expecting them to just shrug it off until you're good and ready to address the issue is the height of cultural arrogance and ignorance.

The Allies could have simply stood back and continued to blockading Japan - no invasion was needed, the country had effectively collapsed.

Perhaps we could have. But how many tens of millions of Japanese would have starved to death before the Suzuki Cabinet admitted that there was going to be no "Decisive Battle," no last chance for Japan to extract better terms by managing one more military victory? Not to mention the >100,000 subjugated "brother Asians" dying each month on the mainland under Japanese rule. Adding in the relatively small numbers of Allied servicemen who would have died enforcing the blockade seems anticlimactic in comparison, though this was, as was proper, the major concern of Allied leaders.

the Japanese had already asked the Allies (through the Swiss, in July) for a surrender

That bit of modern "common knowledge" is simply incorrect. Two military officers in Bern, Switzerland (Fujimura from the Navy and Okamoto from the Army), plus one in Stockholm, Sweden (Onodera, Army) separately made overtures to the Allies on their own initiative, but they all failed to discuss concrete terms and each was quickly reined in by his superiors. The Suzuki government did not offer terms; they were too busy burning up the airwaves with calls for a fight to the end, with the idea that national extinction was preferable to survival if that required surrender. Franks' Downfall, which I believe was previously mentioned in this thread, is a very good source for this period, with extensive use of original sources including MAGIC and ULTRA intercepts of Japanese diplomatic and military radio transmissions.

leap of faith ... to the conclusion of the Japanese being a nation of suicidal warmongering automotons

It's really not so much of a leap. Certainly in 1945 it looked likely enough - at every stage of the Pacific War, Japanese forces refused to surrender and had to be virtually annihilated - POWs amounted to <5% of forces committed. On Saipan, thousands of civilians jumped to their deaths rather than surrender to oncoming US troops. And let's not forget the lovely notion of the Special Attack, including the extensive plans to use Special Attack tactics on land, sea, and in the air against the expected Allied invasion of Kyushu. There is one thing your little litany misses, though; "brainwashed suicidal warmongering automatons" is rather closer to the mark.

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 200

- 4/20/2002 2:00:23 AM

mdiehl

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

"Expecting it to bow and scape and what-not in the same way is the height of cultural arrogance and ignorance, IMO."

It is the height of mendacity, arrogance, and evasion to assert that criticising the routine, systematic, and institutionalized brutality of the Japanese Empire amounts to a problem of cultural relativism. And your attempts to finger the Allies for your nation's contemptable behavior are invidious. Individuals like you make me very happy that the US insisted on *Unconditional* surrender.

You are transparent, Sir, and you have less credibility than a common toothpaste commercial.

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 201

- 4/20/2002 7:25:25 AM

Raverdave

Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ranger-75
[B]

to RaverDave:
I've noticed LOTS of Aussies at CENTCOM in recent months. Glad to have your help. [/B][/QUOTE]

No worrys mate, we are only a small fish in world terms and as such have little to offer, but what little we do have is always there for our allies.

_____________________________

Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 202

- 4/20/2002 9:44:05 PM

rhohltjr

Posts: 536
Joined: 4/27/2000
From: When I play pacific wargames, I expect smarter AI.
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by tohoku
[B]

...
That's one of the most awful peices of rationalisation I've heard in a long time. They were dropped for three reasons. To see what they did to people, to scare the Russians and to prompt the Japanese to surrender.

...
But, as I said way back near the start of the thread, the US isn't a country that is willing to acknowledge errors in the way it demands other countries do, is it? Bush is proving that yet again with his equally stupid, "You're either with us or against us" position viz terrorism.

tohoku
YMMV [/B][/QUOTE]

Tohoku, I think they already knew what would happen to people when the bombs went off, they did tests. To scare the (then) Soviets, perhaps that did happen higher up in the chain of command. "...to prompt the Japanese to surrender." Every veteran I speak to here, every common rank and file veteran grunt, sailor or flyer says the same thing when I've talked to them. The bombs saved their lives. They were convinced they would have died in the preinvasion and invasions. My own father said the same thing.

What brought you here to this game/thread? Have you played PacWar or other WWII games? I enjoy reading your posts and I respect your opinions and your thousands of years of national
history and traditions.

As far as Bush and the war on terrorism. I am glad that Japan and the US and others are ALLIES this time around. How many
innocent Japanese tourists were murdered in the WTC attack?
Quite a few as I recall.

Oh yeah, this thread was about MacAurthor(?) so...I have to side with the ones that dislike him.

Keep it coming, Tohoku.

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 203

- 4/21/2002 5:23:11 AM

ratster

Posts: 166
Joined: 1/21/2002
From: PA
Status: offline

Perhaps the Japanese constitution is an "apology" of sorts.

[QUOTE] The Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.[/QUOTE]

Anyway, this thread should probably be moved...

_____________________________

" If it be now, tis not to come: if it be not to come, it will be now; if it be not now, yet it will come: the readiness is all"

Clan [GOAT]

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 204

- 4/23/2002 8:11:35 AM

tohoku

Posts: 415
Joined: 3/18/2002
From: at lunch, thanks.
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mdiehl
[B]"Expecting it to bow and scape and what-not in the same way is the height of cultural arrogance and ignorance, IMO."

It is the height of mendacity, arrogance, and evasion to assert that criticising the routine, systematic, and institutionalized brutality of the Japanese Empire amounts to a problem of cultural relativism. And your attempts to finger the Allies for your nation's contemptable behavior are invidious. Individuals like you make me very happy that the US insisted on *Unconditional* surrender.

You are transparent, Sir, and you have less credibility than a common toothpaste commercial. [/B][/QUOTE]

Please point out the evidence that all the things mentioned during this thread were 'routine, systematic and institutionalised' as a function of the nation-state of Japan as you claim. And when I say evidence, I mean primary source documentation, not interperative conclusion of other.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: you, mdiehl, have consistently mis-represented what I have been writing.

If you are so bound up in anger and hatred that you can't cope with what I have actually been saying (instead of what you constantly accuse me of) then why not just killfile me?

I'm saddened that you see an honest difference of opinion as duplicity. I have tried to present my beliefs and views of history as honestly, accurately and well as I can. But as with other people, they are no more than views.

I hope you find whatever it is that open your heart to people of differing views.

tohoku
YMMV

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 205

- 4/23/2002 10:17:40 AM

byron13

Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline

Why move the thread? Let's just rename it "Post War Revisionism."

Okay Tohoku, we may have digressed. Please state in one relatively short paragraph what your point is.

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 206

- 4/24/2002 5:58:21 AM

mdiehl

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

The "Rape of Nanking" lasted for over seven weeks. Tokyo newspapers published photographs of Japanese soldiers drilling at bayonet practice using living humans as targets. One newspaper published a celebratory account under the headline "The Contest Continues" (IIRC), describing a beheading contest between two Japanese officer who raced to be the first to slay 100 civilians. Chinese employees of Japanese-owned photography shops smuggled out copies of "souvenir" photographs taken by IJA troops of women bound, nude, to chairs and gang raped for *weeks.* There are credible accounts of Japanese soldiers forcing Chinese men to rape their daughters in view of the rest of their families in lieu of executing the families.

The situtation was so horrid that the international "Protection Zone" to which many Chinese fled was started by a local German doctor and highly-placed member of the Nazi Party. Japanese troops dropped placards into the Protection Zone encouraging the Chinese to come out, and those who believed the placards were ill-used to say the least.

One could name *numerous* examples of similar ill use of *civilians.* The construction corps contingent from Wake Island comes to mind: executed prior to American reconquest. POW treatment was similarly inexcusable.

Before you voice again the insipid proposition that my criticism is a product of ethnocentrism, let us be clear about what is meant by "suspend disbelief" and "cultural relativism." To "suspend disbelief" roughly means to try to come to terms with really different behavior by understanding it on its own terms. To do so routinely embraces the philosophy of cultural relativism. It is the cure for all manner of biases that are accurately labelled "Judaeo-Christian ethnocentrism." (Your invocation of Judaeo-Christian ethnocentrism is mendacious by comparison.)

It is valid to point out, for example, that if a young occidental Christian male looks at high-elevation Tibetan fraternal polyandry and reacts with abhorrance, it is probably a genuine case of Judaeo-Christian moral presumption leading one to miss the underlying causes or reasons for the practice of fraternal polyandry.

But comparing that sort of ethnic bias with criticisms of Japan's abuses is invidious. I will point out (having taken only one course in Japanese history) that nothing in the celebrated accounts of the Samurai tradition extolls the virtues of executing or abusing civilians. The Japanese soldiers' treatment of civilians *everywhere* ran contrary to Japan's own cultural traditions prior to the war.

***So even judging Japanese by their own standards, the aforementioned atrocities are appalling.***

Japan's soldiers knew at the time that they committed these crimes that they were wrong by everybody's standards, including their own. They were simply so racist and genocidal that they did not care, and they were so arrogant that they thought they'd never get caught.

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 207

- 4/24/2002 6:47:23 AM

rhohltjr

Posts: 536
Joined: 4/27/2000
From: When I play pacific wargames, I expect smarter AI.
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mdiehl
[B]

One could name *numerous* examples of similar ill use of *civilians.* The construction corps contingent from Wake Island comes to mind: executed prior to American reconquest. POW treatment was similarly inexcusable.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Mdiehl, Do you know if the Japanese Commander at Wake survived the war and if so was he ever tried?

"insipid proposition,
cultural relativism,
Judaeo-Christian ethnocentrism,
occidental Christian,
Tibetan fraternal polyandry.
invidious":eek:
Must...get... better dictionary... Translating making head hurt!!:eek: :)

Nevertheless, well said.

Thanks to all, this is very enlightening.

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 208

- 4/24/2002 7:35:52 AM

tohoku

Posts: 415
Joined: 3/18/2002
From: at lunch, thanks.
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rhohltjr
What brought you here to this game/thread? Have you played PacWar or other WWII games?
[/QUOTE]

I play PacWar (although not the Matrix version, which I've been unable to get to run). I've also, with some friends, rewritten the truly awful AI the original uses, replacing it with a much more powerful AI. I'm messing about with Steel Panthers , but so far aren't enjoying it much.

tohoku
YMMV

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 209

- 4/24/2002 8:45:29 AM

tohoku

Posts: 415
Joined: 3/18/2002
From: at lunch, thanks.
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mdiehl
The "Rape of Nanking" lasted for over seven weeks.
[/QUOTE]

Source?

[QUOTE]
Tokyo newspapers published photographs of Japanese soldiers drilling at bayonet practice using living humans as targets.
[/QUOTE]

And? Japanese soldiers convicted of crimes against the military code or those convicted of category 2 crimes within Japan faced the same thing. In many cases it would probably count as a war crime. In some it may not. Just like the act of beheading Allied airmen - many times a crime, sometimes not.

[QUOTE]
One newspaper published a celebratory account under the headline "The Contest Continues" (IIRC), describing a beheading contest between two Japanese officer who raced to be the first to slay 100 civilians. Chinese employees of Japanese-owned photography shops smuggled out copies of "souvenir" photographs taken by IJA troops of women bound, nude, to chairs and gang raped for *weeks.* There are credible accounts of Japanese soldiers forcing Chinese men to rape their daughters in view of the rest of their families in lieu of executing the families.
[/QUOTE]

Yes. I haven't said these things didn't happen, although you don't, yet again, bother with quoting a primary researched source. In fact, most of the best research on the event is in Japanese, although you, seem to want to deny that the Japanese have any knowledge or concern about it at all.

Why do you pick out this event? Because it was one of the worst and largest? Fair enough, it was. I've said as much in several posts. But what are you doing with the rest of your posts? You're trying to paint a picture of guilt and action that is not supported by *facts*.

I've agreed with you that many bad things happened and that many Japanese have not faced up to it or even now really understand. But I don't try and paint a picture that is worse than it is. I try to understand what the actual case was.

*You*, however, seem very determined to *only* pick out the very worst events you can find, condemn them from *your* modern perspective and then imply (if not outrightly state) that those worst events are representative.

Look at how you respond when I point out that other countries military are lso guilty of war crimes on mass scales - the example I keep giving and that you keeping ignoring completly of the ongoing habit of rape by soldiers of the US 1st Army in Europe.

Have I jumped up and down (as you do above and below) and tried suggesting that *because* the US military forces did nothing to preventor even curtail it the rapes *must* count as tacit *approval* by US military forces and, hence, the government of the USA? No. I didn't. Why? Because as I've said several times, I am very careful about ascribing blame when it comes to matters of motivation, something that you, however, seem to have no problem with: if you want to blame the nation of Japan then show a clear, formal link (and quote primary research sources while doing it).

I'm somewhat at a loss; I've tried explaining my position to you. I've tried quoting examples and sources to find them that you should be able to get readily. I've tried to take the time to point out which of the examples you trumpet are ones I agree are valid and which I think aren't, and why I think that. All you keep doing is increasingly-shrilly repeating your position: "look at X, it *must* mean Y".

Even when I've given examples that directly show you are mistaken in some of your claims you just ignore those points. Why are you so angry about having only one point of view accepted?

[QUOTE]
One could name *numerous* examples of similar ill use of *civilians.* The construction corps contingent from Wake Island comes to mind: executed prior to American reconquest. POW treatment was similarly inexcusable.
[/QUOTE]

Inexcusable? Who is the one doing the standard setting for what is excusable? You? Me?

[QUOTE]
Before you voice again the insipid proposition that my criticism is a product of ethnocentrism,
[/QUOTE]

Does it count as insipid if it is true? To declare it insipid is to pass moral judgement: who are you and what are your qualifications to comment on my position?

In *your* case, I honestly don't think you can cope differing points of view.

[QUOTE]
But comparing that sort of ethnic bias with criticisms of Japan's abuses is invidious.
[/QUOTE]

And here you are doing it *again*!! You are making a blanket declaration about things. Can you not understand what it is I have been saying? Do you need someone other than me to explain it to you?

Read this carefully:

I am *not* saying Japan is without blame.

I am, and have been, I thought (anyone?), saying that *some* things Japan and/or the Japanese are often accused of are not fair accusations, while there are other things it isn't accused of that it very much, IMHO, should be. I think the same goes for other countries too. I am not linking blame or lack of blame with those two ideas, so, please, stop trying to accuse me of that too, mdiehl.

[QUOTE]
I will point out (having taken only one course in Japanese history) that nothing in the celebrated accounts of the Samurai tradition extolls the virtues of executing or abusing civilians.
[/QUOTE]

Are you saying that having done just one course therefore makes you knowledgable about this, or that one course is an admission that you don't know very much at all? I can't tell which inference I am supposed to take here.

Bushido, assuming you're talking about the classical code and not the restoration military variation on it (go on, stun me with your knowledge of Japanese culture and how the two thngs are different, mdiehl), does indeed not extoll the excution or abuse of civilians as a virtue. By the same token, however, it doesn't condemn it either.

But what *exactly* do you mean by civilian? In the classical period it is rather hard to point to what we, today, would all a "civilian". After all, everyone had to belong to one class or another and they all had particular rights and obligations. The closest to "civilian" in the classical society (taking the modern idea of what it means) is the samurai class itself. But that would make your point.... what? Uneducated? Moot? Saddening?

[QUOTE]
The Japanese soldiers' treatment of civilians *everywhere* ran contrary to Japan's own cultural traditions prior to the war.

***So even judging Japanese by their own standards, the aforementioned atrocities are appalling.***
[/QUOTE]

You make that statement on the basis of *one* course on Japanese history?! And you accuse *me* of arrogance?!

[QUOTE]
Japan's soldiers knew at the time that they committed these crimes that they were wrong by everybody's standards, including their own. They were simply so racist and genocidal that they did not care, and they were so arrogant that they thought they'd never get caught.[/QUOTE]

More blanket statements and gross generalisations from you! It's so much *easier* to condemn when your interlocutor doesn't resort to the same tactics, isn't it, mdiehl? Even easier still when you just ignore any replies or points that might treaten the point of view you want to push, eh? Shame I'm not saying what you keep accusing me of though. Oh, well, I doubt that'll bother you much.

Enjoy your next rant. I won't bother with you any further.

tohoku
YMMV

(in reply to Chiteng)

Post #: 210