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: WWII boming debate

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: WWII boming debate Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/1/2008 4:52:04 AM   
Doggie


Posts: 3244
Joined: 9/19/2001
From: Under the porch
Status: offline
So one measly American Commodore sailed into Tokyo Bay with a few black powder cannons and brought the whole Japanese Empire to it's knees?  We need to dig this guy up and clone him.

Nice how every famine, insurection, and glass of spilt milk ends up being blamed on western colonialism.  Yep, life in Zimbabwe is soooo much better now that the colonialists are gone.  Interesting that the Phillipinos who were subjected to so much cruelty by the evil Americans risked being literally skinned alive for attempting to smuggle food and water to their American tormentors and streets are named after Dougout Doug, this while the Japanese can't establish a military cemetary in that country without the locals turning it into a latrine.

_____________________________


(in reply to panzers)
Post #: 151
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/1/2008 10:21:19 AM   
Marauders

 

Posts: 4428
Joined: 3/17/2005
From: Minnesota
Status: offline
quote:

Most here can, but some can't. I wish I could let such discussions go and trust that everyone would remain civil and rational. Due to past experience, we now keep discussions focused on the past and try to stay away from current politics, religion, etc. Keep in mind that what seems impersonal to you may be personal to someone else (perhaps one of their ancestors was involved) so controversial topics, especially those that involve as much passion as this one, must be approached carefully here.

It's important to keep in mind that these boards serve as a place for our customers to share their interests, not as a place for one customer to upset another. Remember, we're here to sell games, not alienate people. There are a lot of other places where discussions are no-holds-barred, this isn't one of 'em. We want all customers to feel welcome here. While it's true that some people need a thicker skin and we'll allow a certain amount of latitude, we have become pretty cautious about letting things go.


Erik, I agree. This isn't a political board, and we don't want to get into the ad hominem fights that some people enjoy getting into when logic fails. It is a common problem on boards with access by the public.

My point was that there is little value in the examination of this topic in a vacuum.

Next topic: burning witches that weigh the same as a duck: good logic or bad?


(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 152
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/2/2008 6:15:49 AM   
ilovestrategy


Posts: 3628
Joined: 6/11/2005
From: San Diego
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99

Imagine this for a moment. Truman tells McArthur..

...pass along to the Japanese, we will break our aggreement of no seperate peace with the communist, accept their surrender with the Emporer condition as soon as the Germans surrender. This is done.

There is no Iwo Jima
There is no Okinawa
No Hiroshima
No Nagasaki
No Korean War
China probably doesn´t go Communist
Possibly no Vietnam

You see? I just won WW2. Saved a lot of lives and stuck it to Uncle Joe all at the same time. Still came out smelling like a flower.

That´s why all this came out again in Korea when McArthur and Truman had their dust up. I´m sure McArthur threw it up in Trumans face they wouldn´t even be fighting Korea if he had just accepted Japanese surrender back in 44´.

Bad call.




I'm confused. I thought the Japanese were fighting to the last man and gave up in 45 because of the A bombs.
Did the Japanese really offer to surrender in 44? Can someone set me straight?

_____________________________

After 16 years, Civ II still has me in it's clutches LOL!!!
Now CIV IV has me in it's evil clutches!

(in reply to Ike99)
Post #: 153
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/2/2008 7:15:37 AM   
panzers

 

Posts: 587
Joined: 5/19/2006
From: Detroit Mi, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99

Imagine this for a moment. Truman tells McArthur..

...pass along to the Japanese, we will break our aggreement of no seperate peace with the communist, accept their surrender with the Emporer condition as soon as the Germans surrender. This is done.

There is no Iwo Jima
There is no Okinawa
No Hiroshima
No Nagasaki
No Korean War
China probably doesn´t go Communist
Possibly no Vietnam

You see? I just won WW2. Saved a lot of lives and stuck it to Uncle Joe all at the same time. Still came out smelling like a flower.

That´s why all this came out again in Korea when McArthur and Truman had their dust up. I´m sure McArthur threw it up in Trumans face they wouldn´t even be fighting Korea if he had just accepted Japanese surrender back in 44´.

Bad call.




I'm confused. I thought the Japanese were fighting to the last man and gave up in 45 because of the A bombs.
Did the Japanese really offer to surrender in 44? Can someone set me straight?

I was wondering about that myself when you consider they still to this day abide by the bushido code of the Samaraii era.


< Message edited by panzers -- 3/2/2008 7:16:11 AM >

(in reply to ilovestrategy)
Post #: 154
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/2/2008 7:22:20 AM   
panzers

 

Posts: 587
Joined: 5/19/2006
From: Detroit Mi, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke


Well, in a probably vain attempt to drag back to topic, I would have to say that the Allied bombing campaign of Germany (unfortunately, I can't speak with any knowledge of the PTO) was absolutely pivotal to the Allied victory.

Suggesting that the German production figures went up anyway misses the point completely, that they didn't go up by much. Before total war was called and the economy fully mobilised, the Germans were not even running plants at three shifts per day. There was slack in the system and it was bombing's achievement that industrial expansion and that slack only amounted to the increases that it did.

Secondly, the bombing of cities had a number of deadly effects over and above deaths among war workers. To begin with, the Allies essentially dismantled the German transportation system in 1944/45. In 1945, factories were liberated in Germany that still had full tank parks, the vehicles immobilised because trains were hardly running. All train lines led through cities. The destruction of the cities fouled mile after mile of track at strategic points (rail lines generally met and intersected at Cities) with rubble. The marshalling yards inside cities were destroyed, engines blown up and repair facilities crippled. Simply turning engines around was difficult.

At it's height, over 1 million personnel (a number of who'm could have fought at the front) were deployed manning flak defences. Over 55000 anti aircraft pieces were deployed to defend the Reich. Many were of 88 calibre and if not shooting at Allied bombers would have been taking down Allied tanks at the front. Thousands of tonnes of concrete and other raw materials created shelters and flak towers.

Production suffered as much through the crippling of the railways as it did through direct bombing. Towards the end, entire factories sat idle because the railways could not get supplies of raw materials to them to produce their weapons, nor take the completed kit away.

Finally, the bombing forced the Germans to deploy hundreds of fighters on home soil, effectively ceding control of the air just about everywhere else. More importantly, this fighter force was decimated when the P-51 arrived in large numbers and began escorting the bombers. Over several months, the Luftwaffe was chooped to pieces in a series of gruelling attritional battles. With their losse high, their aircraft often sabotaged by foreign workers and their oil plants and railways bombed to the point that fuel was in short supply and replacement pilots could not be given much air time, the Luftwaffe was knocked out of the war.

All of this was a direct result of the Allied bomber offensive. We can call it immoral, we can deplore the killing of civilians, but we shouldn't lose sight of its pivotal role in the defeat of Nazi Germany.

regards,
IronDuke



Right on the money buddy!

(in reply to IronDuke_slith)
Post #: 155
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/2/2008 8:56:48 AM   
Kevin E. Duguay

 

Posts: 1044
Joined: 4/24/2002
From: Goldsboro, North Carolina
Status: offline
Germays industrial might never came on line till 1943, their fault.

The Japanese for the most part were useing WWI weapons.

The Allied bombing Campaine had some effect vs the Germans. With rail lines disrupted the newer weapons could not reach the front in any numbers.

As far as the A-Bombs on Japan. OOPS!! But you have to remember that every Mom and Pop shop in town were producing some kind of bomb or bullet that were all ment to kill American Troops.

The raids on the Japanese capital killed more people than the Atomic raids.

_____________________________

KED

(in reply to panzers)
Post #: 156
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/2/2008 8:33:24 PM   
Charles_22


Posts: 3993
Joined: 3/12/2001
From: Dallas, Texas, USA
Status: offline
Just something of a guess here and definitely not definitive, but the Japanese had peace feelers through the USSR. I'm not sure what year that was going on, be that '44 or '45, but it was going on, and the USA decided to ignore it. I can't recall if they were asking for more, back then, than what they got or not.

(in reply to Kevin E. Duguay)
Post #: 157
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/2/2008 9:43:59 PM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8667
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline
My understanding is that the Japanese did not start sending out peace feelers to the Soviets until spring of '45, and that the Soviets never gave an official reply while also not informing the allies about these feelers. The Soviets at this time knew that Germany was about done and were thus looking to join the war against Japan in order to recoup some of their losses from 1905.

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Charles_22)
Post #: 158
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/2/2008 9:53:27 PM   
Ike99


Posts: 1747
Joined: 1/1/2006
From: A Sand Road
Status: offline
quote:

I'm confused. I thought the Japanese were fighting to the last man and gave up in 45 because of the A bombs.


BARE PEACE BID U. S. REBUFFED 7 MONTHS AGO
Chicago Daily Tribune
Aug 19, 1945

¨Release of censorship restrictions in the United States makes it possible to announce that Japan's first peace bid was relayed to the White House seven months ago....¨


Wiki
¨These proposals, sent through both British and American channels were assembled by General Douglas MacArthur into a 40-page dossier and given to President Roosevelt on the 2nd of February, two days before the Yalta conference. The dossier was reportedly dismissed by Roosevelt out of hand - the proposals contained all had the condition that Emperor's position would be assured, albeit possibly as a puppet ruler. At this time, however, the Allied policy was to accept only an unconditional offer of surrender, although the eventual August settlement did keep the position of emperor in place.¨



(in reply to ilovestrategy)
Post #: 159
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/3/2008 12:52:22 AM   
sullafelix

 

Posts: 1501
Joined: 1/11/2005
Status: offline
Churchill with his idiotic " unconditional surrender" statement that Roosevelt just went along with caused more damage than anything else. The propaganda being put out by some top Alled brass was that Germany was to be turned into an agrarian society with no industry etc.. So it is qiuite possible, especially given their later statements. That the German generals would have been much more open to a revolt against hitler. As it was they felt they were in a rock and a hard place. They had to fight to the last because they had no idea of what the Allies planned to do if they lost the War.

As far as the Japanese everyone in the know, knew they were beaten by 1943. They totally blew their war plan by being affected by the " victory disease " and they knew it. The only condition they ever really asked for was an Allied statement that the emperor was not to be touched. They of course would not have allowed themselves to be taken over by the Allies as they were. But, given their past and present history would have surely given us everything else we asked for. Even the bomb did not have to be dropped. We could have starved them into submission in a year at the most.

Herbert Hover wrote a book and one of his tenets was what did it matter if the USSR or Germany controlled Europe. Roosevelt by giving into stalin and giving him eastern Europe was either going insane or nuts to begin with. It lead us into the pretty much horror filled last 60 years. Now we have a belligerent China and a resurgent Russia that we have no control over and no ties to. Besides all the money that we pour into both countries to have them thumb their noses at.

(in reply to Ike99)
Post #: 160
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/3/2008 1:17:07 AM   
Ironclad

 

Posts: 1917
Joined: 11/22/2006
Status: offline
Surely it was Roosevelt who committed the allies to unconditional surrender not the other way around and the agrarian plan was dreamt up by his administration. Undoubtedly it did make German soldiers even more determined to fight to the bitter end although with the allies locked into the Russian alliance it may not have made that much difference given the Germans' desperation to hold off the Russians and their likely revenge.

It was fortunate for the West that the more hard headed Truman became president when he did after Roosevelt's failure to fully grasp what Stalin was achieving.

< Message edited by Ironclad -- 3/3/2008 1:41:30 AM >

(in reply to sullafelix)
Post #: 161
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/3/2008 2:13:29 AM   
ORANGE


Posts: 198
Joined: 12/3/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99

quote:

I'm confused. I thought the Japanese were fighting to the last man and gave up in 45 because of the A bombs.


BARE PEACE BID U. S. REBUFFED 7 MONTHS AGO
Chicago Daily Tribune
Aug 19, 1945

¨Release of censorship restrictions in the United States makes it possible to announce that Japan's first peace bid was relayed to the White House seven months ago....¨


Wiki
¨These proposals, sent through both British and American channels were assembled by General Douglas MacArthur into a 40-page dossier and given to President Roosevelt on the 2nd of February, two days before the Yalta conference. The dossier was reportedly dismissed by Roosevelt out of hand - the proposals contained all had the condition that Emperor's position would be assured, albeit possibly as a puppet ruler. At this time, however, the Allied policy was to accept only an unconditional offer of surrender, although the eventual August settlement did keep the position of emperor in place.¨

Ike99, if the Japanese wanted peace why would they start so many wars? If the Japanese wanted peace why not send the info to media as well?

_____________________________


(in reply to Ike99)
Post #: 162
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/3/2008 2:50:46 AM   
sullafelix

 

Posts: 1501
Joined: 1/11/2005
Status: offline
The Japanese had no alternative in their minds. The Allies had shut off all imports in 1940-41. Japan is a rock that has no natural resources. by cutting of all oil and steel etc. They would have been unable to defend themselves if attacked. Any nation put in that position would have chosen war. The US had plans well developed in the same situations in 1973 and 1976 for an invasion of the Mideast.

The only way for them to avoid war was to accept all Allied conditions. Which would have involved losing face and also giving up territory that the Allies themselves had just owned. True they did some unspeakable things in China etc. but was it any different than the Belgians in the Congo? The Japanese twice in the early 20th century had been made to lose face and accept demands made by the Western world. In 1905 and 1919 they were forced to accept what the Western world allowed them ( I'm not talking about the 21? points against China ). The japanese people would not have accepted a third time.

Another point that people don't realize is that Japan was very close to having a class war and possibly going communist. The one thing keeping all parts of the society was the emperor.

Ironclad it may well have been the other way around ( Roosevelt, Churchill ). I'm under the weather and the medicine is kicking in. How many nations have in the last thousand years accepted unconditional surrender in a war? What in Odin's name would have possesed them to believe that Germany and Japan would just accept? The only thing my mind comes up with is they never thought that it would be accepted and they could crush them. I know that Churchill was definitely trying to bring back the empire of his youth no matter what the cost. that has been shown again and again in his own words.

< Message edited by sulla05 -- 3/3/2008 2:52:58 AM >

(in reply to ORANGE)
Post #: 163
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/3/2008 3:38:48 AM   
ORANGE


Posts: 198
Joined: 12/3/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sulla05

The Japanese had no alternative in their minds. The Allies had shut off all imports in 1940-41. Japan is a rock that has no natural resources. by cutting of all oil and steel etc. They would have been unable to defend themselves if attacked. Any nation put in that position would have chosen war.

So that makes it right? Did the allies also make them force women into prostitution and sexual slavery for Japanese military brothels?

I guess that was all about the oil too. Stupid, evil, allies!

_____________________________


(in reply to sullafelix)
Post #: 164
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/3/2008 3:52:41 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8667
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline
The Japanese had already chosen war when the oil and steel imports were cut off. The embargo was emplaced to encourage the Japanese to end that war. They did have a choice - they just didn't like the other choice. No one forced them to make the decision to go to war with the allies, they made that decision all on their own.

As far as the claim of a peqce proposal being sent to MAcArthur in February 1945 is concerned - that was not an official proposal from the Japanese government but rather a feeler by one of hte junior ministers. The lack of official backing is made plain by the next paragraph of the very wikipaedia article that you quoted:
"In February 1945, Prince Fumimaro Konoe gave to Emperor Hirohito a memorandum about his analysis of the situation and told him that if the war continued, the Imperial house might be in greater danger from an internal revolution than from defeat.[6] According to the diary of Grand Chamberlain Hisanori Fujita, the Emperor, looking for a tennozan, replied that it was premature to seek peace, "unless we make one more military gain".[7]"

So once again you seek to blame the US government for decisions made by the Japanese government.

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to ORANGE)
Post #: 165
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/3/2008 5:04:42 AM   
ORANGE


Posts: 198
Joined: 12/3/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

The Japanese had already chosen war when the oil and steel imports were cut off. The embargo was emplaced to encourage the Japanese to end that war. They did have a choice - they just didn't like the other choice. No one forced them to make the decision to go to war with the allies, they made that decision all on their own.

As far as the claim of a peqce proposal being sent to MAcArthur in February 1945 is concerned - that was not an official proposal from the Japanese government but rather a feeler by one of hte junior ministers. The lack of official backing is made plain by the next paragraph of the very wikipaedia article that you quoted:
"In February 1945, Prince Fumimaro Konoe gave to Emperor Hirohito a memorandum about his analysis of the situation and told him that if the war continued, the Imperial house might be in greater danger from an internal revolution than from defeat.[6] According to the diary of Grand Chamberlain Hisanori Fujita, the Emperor, looking for a tennozan, replied that it was premature to seek peace, "unless we make one more military gain".[7]"

So once again you seek to blame the US government for decisions made by the Japanese government.

Well said.

_____________________________


(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 166
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/3/2008 8:30:09 PM   
sullafelix

 

Posts: 1501
Joined: 1/11/2005
Status: offline
I'm not sure what war you are talking about. If you mean their invasion of China, I'm sorry but it represented nothing to our strategic interest. Why was it okay for the Western nations to have colonies and act like they did to the conquered people and not Japan. You are not looking at the world through 1940 eyes. You are putting nowadays values on a different time period. We have so many other examples of what was done to conquered peoples, the American Indians, the Congolese etc. much too numerous to mention.

The embargo was actually placed after they went into Indochina I believe. All that happened in Indochina was they were now under Japanese control and not French. They were not free.

" So once again you seek to blame the US government for decisions made by the Japanese government "

I'm not blaming anyone, I'm stating facts. The Japanese would be defenseless in 6 months to a year. Any nation put in that position would attack where they could get natural resources.

I know it is not pretty but you have too look and think in the mindset of 1940. Lets take a look at what might have happened. The Western nations do not put an embargo on Japan. There is now no reason to attack south for natural resources. They conquer China and have Indochina and islands in the pacific. The Chinese and other nations would have to deal with atrocities from the Japanese, just as they did from their warlords and the Colonial powers. I fail to see any large difference between that scenario and what really happened. Other than the fact that China turned communist ( with all their atrocities ) and now we have to deal with a large communist superpower, who for some odd reason we treat and act like they are our allies.

I think that most people look at the Japanese the same way they view hitler and the nazi's. The nazi's were out for world control. The Japanese wanted a piece of the pie that the other nations of the world were enjoying. I was at a dinner held in the US. by a VFW chapter. They had John Tolland speak and they had a Japanese consulate member and an exGerman officer. Much to my incredible surprise, the vets statements were much more toward conciliation with Japan rather than Germany. The all had the mindset that hitler had to be stopped and totally crushed. But very strangely ( considering Pearl Harbor ) they said that they should never have been fighting the Japanese, if they had not attacked us. The embargo and Japan's inevitably being able to defend herself was brought up by several vets. But this is the key,I believe. They had all also lived through both of the 70's oil embargos by the Arab nations. I'm not sure of your age but the rationing of gas for consumers was only so that we had enough supply for our armed forces. There was still a large amount of oil in the US but it was earmarked for our defence. The papers had numerous daily calls for us to invade the mideast and insure our oil supply.

I certainly don't codone and am horrified by what the Japanese did. But, I'm equally disgusted by what the Belgians and so many others did also. I know that there are plenty of people that would be on trial in the Hague, and yes some would be US citizens for actions done in the early part of this century and the last going on down the line. I also believe that the Emperor was neck deep in all that Japan did and he should have been in a war trial. This fallacy that we were fed that he had no control and was completely in the dark about what is country did was spread by our armed forces after the war to insure a peaceful japan that would also become a large military base for us against Russia and then China.

To say that only the Western nations and the US could have colonies and exploit them but no other nation could is ridiculous. Of course the other nations that were forcibly kept out of the colonial grab would be nothing but jealous and harbor a deep grudge. Which is exactly what happened.


"So that makes it right? Did the allies also make them force women into prostitution and sexual slavery for Japanese military brothels?

I guess that was all about the oil too. Stupid, evil, allies! "

You are putting a moral ethic on a countrys policy decision. Their is no moral right and wrong when the future of your nation is at stake.



< Message edited by sulla05 -- 3/3/2008 8:35:32 PM >

(in reply to ORANGE)
Post #: 167
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/3/2008 9:01:12 PM   
Hartford688

 

Posts: 261
Joined: 3/23/2004
From: Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sulla05

You are putting a moral ethic on a countrys policy decision. Their is no moral right and wrong when the future of your nation is at stake.



What a horrible outlook.

(in reply to sullafelix)
Post #: 168
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/3/2008 9:37:41 PM   
mdiehl

 

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

Le May appears to have shifted much of focus from reasonably precise raids against clearly military related targets to area fire-bombing of cities. His tactical motive appears to have been that Japanese interceptors and AA were becoming too effective for daylight, precision raids to continue. There seems likely to have been a motive to punish the Japanese too.


Your assessment of motive is incorrect. LeMay shifted the bombing campaign because high altitude bombing was seen to be ineffective. Losses from interceptors and flak had nothing to do with it, because losses to Japanese interceptors were extremely low -- not even remotely rising to the levels of "ordinary" USAAF missions in the ETO, much less extraordinary fubars like the 390thBG's botched mission in the 2nd Schweinfurt raid. Moreover, it cannot be clearly said to have been intended to "punish" the Japanese other than that war itself is a kind of punishment, because most of the raids were preceded by leaflet campaigns indicating which cities would be bombed.

One of the deciding factors was the vulnerability of Japanese residences to fire. The theory went that a firebombing raid would produce enough threat to drive populations into the countryside away from urban production areas, crippling Japanese industry. It worked. The other deciding factor was that in many industries production was dispersed within residential communities -- more so than in the US or Europe -- such that the only way to nail for example manufacturers of small electrical switches was to hit neighborhoods.

Given that the war was waged by Japan with the intention of furthering mass genocide in China, I find it very difficult to place the label "immoral" on anything that happened to Japan in the effort to force them to cease and desist. I think LeMay made a sound moral and ethical judgement.

quote:

Once enemy defenses made aircraft losses from reasonably precise daylight raids too costly, planners were forced to change to area targets or leave the bombers on the ground.


This may be true of Bomber Command but it does not have anything to do with USAAF choices in the bombing campaign in Japan. There was nothing particularly costly about US high altitude B-29 raids. Japanese interceptors and flak were largely ineffective. The decision to switch to low altitude raids was made for reasons owing to the desire to do more strategic damage. These of necessity had to occur at night because at the desired altitudes, Japanese interceptors would have been a problem.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to borner)
Post #: 169
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/3/2008 10:13:22 PM   
anarchyintheuk

 

Posts: 3947
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sulla05

To say that only the Western nations and the US could have colonies and exploit them but no other nation could is ridiculous. Of course the other nations that were forcibly kept out of the colonial grab would be nothing but jealous and harbor a deep grudge. Which is exactly what happened.



I don't recall anyone saying that.

Why would they harbor a grudge that the were late (like the US) to the 'colonial grab'? Who forcibly kept them from obtaining Formosa and the Pescadores (Sino-Japanese War), Korea (Russo-Japanese War), Tsingtao, Marianas, Marshalls and the Carolines (World War I), Manchuria (China 1933) and Coastal China (1937). The only countries that tried to keep them out of the grab were the ones that they attacked.

(in reply to sullafelix)
Post #: 170
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/4/2008 12:24:36 AM   
ORANGE


Posts: 198
Joined: 12/3/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sulla05
"So that makes it right? Did the allies also make them force women into prostitution and sexual slavery for Japanese military brothels?

I guess that was all about the oil too. Stupid, evil, allies! "

You are putting a moral ethic on a countrys policy decision. Their is no moral right and wrong when the future of your nation is at stake.

WTF? So you are saying rape is not wrong?

_____________________________


(in reply to sullafelix)
Post #: 171
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/4/2008 12:45:16 AM   
sullafelix

 

Posts: 1501
Joined: 1/11/2005
Status: offline
" What a horrible outlook. "

You are confusing understanding of how things work to condoning or agreeing with them. I understand how the Japanese were thinking ( memoirs, diaries etc. ) I'm not saying it was right or wrong. I understand on a mental level how a pedophile wants children, as I do full bodied brunettes. But that does not mean that I don't want to boil him in acid slowly. 

"Why would they harbor a grudge that the were late (like the US) to the 'colonial grab'? Who forcibly kept them from obtaining Formosa and the Pescadores (Sino-Japanese War), Korea (Russo-Japanese War), Tsingtao, Marianas, Marshalls and the Carolines (World War I), Manchuria (China 1933) and Coastal China (1937). The only countries that tried to keep them out of the grab were the ones that they attacked"

The western European powers and the US made the Japanese change the treaty with Russia in 1905 to take away most of the concessions that Russia was going to agree to. This was especially hard in Japanese eyes because of the tremendous sacrifice the nation had endured in the war. The US being a part of this was considered a stab in the back, because all through the war we were one of the few major powers who seemed on their side. They were continually trying to get concessions in China as had all the other powers but were always limited by joint action by the other nations.

They also felt that rhey were perfectly in the right to make the " 21 demands " on China after WW1. When the other powers ganged up on them ( in their eyes ) and made them give up their demands again they felt like a second rate country to the others.

The naval treaties of the 20's and 30's saw them become more and more angry because they felt they were being treated not as a great nation ( as they saw themselves ) but as a second rater.

The idea was to get colonial land that would be of use to the mother country in either natural resources or a market for goods. China was a special case because even though they were not an actual colony, in reality they were one huge colony to all the western powers because of all the concession treaties.

The only real grab of the pile before really inflaming the Western powers was Manchuria. But much to the Japanese chagrin although it held tremendous natural resources it was so backwards it was going to be a large drain of funds etc. before it paid off. The other colonies that they had taken by then were really mostly useless, much as Germanys colonies in Africa turned out to be. At least at that time, we now see how South Korea is a powerhouse when working for their own benefit.

It is when they did decide after all the slights they believed had been given to them to take exactly what they wanted from China is when they were too far down the road as a nation to turn back. They had been made to give back so many territories and concessions that they believed were rightfully theirs that there was no way it would happen again. As I had briefly mentioned before there was also a large class struggle looming in Japan with many looking to communism as the answer. Many in the nation felt the only way to forestall this was to get a hold of some colonies that would really increase the wealth of Japan and ease the lower classes lack of wealth. As can be seen in almost all colonies except for India, the grabbing nation did not make any money from the colony at best they broke even or could at least use it as a coaling station.

I'm not making excuses for their choices. But given the time period and the way they felt they had been treated we can understand how their thought processes were working. Any nation given the same time frame would have acted much the same way. Look at the idiocy right before WW1 and the numerous idiocies during it commited by the so called civilized nations. Rather than give any concessions that might besmirch their honor they put a horrible toll and maiming and death on their citizens. The honor that the European nations tried to uphold at that time was no different at all from the Asian idea of saving face. Look at the moronic " Tangiers incident " that almost caused WW1 ten years earlier. 

I also think that the US was not really late at all to the colonial game. We actually ended up with the best deals on the planet. For what else was all the territory absorbed during manifest destiny than in reality colonies that we turned into a part of our country. A small group of settlers go into a new land with or without their governments approval. Take what they want from the indigenous population and finally wrest complete control and then become a partner or member of the mother country. It sure sounds like Australia or Colorado for that matter. Again before this is taken out of context I'm not making a judgement call or trying to compare any nations morally to other nations.

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)
Post #: 172
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/4/2008 12:59:00 AM   
ORANGE


Posts: 198
Joined: 12/3/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sulla05
Again before this is taken out of context I'm not making a judgement call or trying to compare any nations morally to other nations.

You made a judgment call and a morality call when you said that the institutionalized rape was just a policy decision.

_____________________________


(in reply to sullafelix)
Post #: 173
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/4/2008 2:41:22 AM   
sullafelix

 

Posts: 1501
Joined: 1/11/2005
Status: offline
This is what was said to me.

" So that makes it right? Did the allies also make them force women into prostitution and sexual slavery for Japanese military brothels?

I guess that was all about the oil too. Stupid, evil, allies! "

My response was.

"You are putting a moral ethic on a countrys policy decision. Their is no moral right and wrong when the future of your nation is at stake. "

I should have made myself clear that I was answering the first sentence. It was in answer to Japans attack of the US and what was left of the Western Powers. Obviously Japans future did not revolve around rape.

You seem for some reason to be taking my responses out of context. I have stated more than a few times that what the japanese did was reprehensible, adding to it that many other nations are just as guilty of horrible crimes against there " colonies".

My other statement.

"Again before this is taken out of context I'm not making a judgement call or trying to compare any nations morally to other nations. "

This was at the end of a few sentences on colonies and how the western US could have been considered them. It was put in so that I wasn't taunted again with believing everything the US did was bad.

Again what I decided to add my comments to I thought was a discussion of what motivated the Japanese to attack us in 1941. Not a discussion about war crimes or crimes against humanity that had been commited by the Japanese or other countries in an earlier time when many such things where going on. My statement.

"I certainly don't condone and am horrified by what the Japanese did. But, I'm equally disgusted by what the Belgians and so many others did also. I know that there are plenty of people that would be on trial in the Hague, and yes some would be US citizens for actions done in the early part of this century and the last going on down the line. I also believe that the Emperor was neck deep in all that Japan did and he should have been in a war trial"

Surely should show where I stand on that side of the coin.

Moral decisions did not really affect any nations policy at that time ( some still don't ). I'm stating facts and feelings taken straight from Japanese official and nonofficial writings. The reason we study history is to find out not only what happened but also why and how it could have been prevented. A war against Japan by all the Western allies ( US included ) right after WW1 would have been the perfect chance to stop them in their tracks. Much like France going into the Rhineland in 36. However it would have been a very hard sell to the exhausted nations right after WW1. Especially since at that time they were only doing a on a smaller scale what the other powers were or had done.

I will put myself out on a limb. I would have had no problem with a limited invasion or whatever force was needed in 73 and 76 had the oil embargos caused the US's ability to defend itself start to become compromised.

Younger people have been brought up being told that we are a part of the world and have to act accordingly ( I have no idea of your ages, just stating facts ). That our decisions affect more than just our nation and that other nations have to be taken in account. I'm from an older nationalistic age ( or at least thinking ) where what is good for my country is what we should think about. Therefore I believe this makes it easier for me to understand ( again  NOT CONDONE ) how nations thought in an earlier nationalistic age.





(in reply to ORANGE)
Post #: 174
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/4/2008 6:52:53 PM   
ORANGE


Posts: 198
Joined: 12/3/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sulla05
"I certainly don't condone and am horrified by what the Japanese did. But, I'm equally disgusted by what the Belgians and so many others did also. I know that there are plenty of people that would be on trial in the Hague, and yes some would be US citizens for actions done in the early part of this century and the last going on down the line. I also believe that the Emperor was neck deep in all that Japan did and he should have been in a war trial"

Interesting. The US actions in this century are now war crimes. Nice way to wedge that in. Erik, close this sucker cause it is now about modern times.


_____________________________


(in reply to sullafelix)
Post #: 175
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/4/2008 7:23:57 PM   
anarchyintheuk

 

Posts: 3947
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sulla05

The western European powers and the US made the Japanese change the treaty with Russia in 1905 to take away most of the concessions that Russia was going to agree to. This was especially hard in Japanese eyes because of the tremendous sacrifice the nation had endured in the war. The US being a part of this was considered a stab in the back, because all through the war we were one of the few major powers who seemed on their side. They were continually trying to get concessions in China as had all the other powers but were always limited by joint action by the other nations.


IIRC Japan asked the US to negotiate a peace settlement. Europe and the US changed nothing because nothing had been agreed to between Japan and Russia. The sticking points were Sakhalin and payment of an indemnity. They split Sakhalin and neither side was in the financial position to pay an indemnity. The Japanese financial situation is more responsible for Japan signing the treaty than a gun at their head by Western powers. They didn't have to sign it. I don't know what other concession to which you're referring.

quote:

They also felt that rhey were perfectly in the right to make the " 21 demands " on China after WW1. When the other powers ganged up on them ( in their eyes ) and made them give up their demands again they felt like a second rate country to the others.


I'm sure they did. Have you ever read the document? It's a joke (Group V especially). It's basically telling a country to bend over and surrender. What had Japan done to deserve this additional consideration in China over and above what they already possessed? The Western powers recognized it for what it was . . . a naked power play to control China while the other powers were busy and told Japan to fork themselves. Why would Japan think that the other powers would meekly comply with this? It's delusional thinking.

quote:

The naval treaties of the 20's and 30's saw them become more and more angry because they felt they were being treated not as a great nation ( as they saw themselves ) but as a second rater.


Great. Then don't sign them. A country is not responsible for how the other 'feels'. Being accorded the world's third largest navy through negotiation (and larger than France and Italy) is not being treated as a second rate power. Were they going to outbuild the US and Britain?

Lunch time. Back later.

(in reply to sullafelix)
Post #: 176
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/4/2008 8:20:34 PM   
sullafelix

 

Posts: 1501
Joined: 1/11/2005
Status: offline
Why are you bound and determined to make me out as a US hater. I made the simple mistake of someone my age and when I said early this century I was referring ro the the 20th. I have still not grasped that it is the 21st century, after all it has only been eight years. I am the only person in the crowd who salutes the flag that I can see during a parade. My father and uncles fought in the Pacific and European theaters of WW2. So to make me out to be some apologist for Japans actions and a US hater is particularly galling.

All I have posted is facts of how the Japanese themselves felt at the time of these events. Why you are taking it as an apology for their actions and agreeing with them and what they did I have no idea. I have bent over backwards to explain this. I can only assume is that you have absolutely no interest in history from another nations viewpoint. I believe if you would read the history of the times we are writing about through some other books and other peoples thoughts ( diaries ) you might be better able to discuss things in maybe a less passionate vein. I guess I was not taught to be disparaging and make personal attacks during a debate. I also don't believe in the idea that this is the internet and an open forum so anything goes. I write my posts with the idea that the other person will be as considerate as myself in writing their posts.

I will address only three points. This on the the first SinoJapanese war ( 1895 ).

"
Japan went on to occupy Port Arthur and to seize control of the whole Liaodong Peninsula as spoils of war. As part of the terms of the Treaty of Shimonoseki concluding the war, Japan was granted the Liaodong Peninsula but had to cede back the territory when threatened jointly with war by France, Germany and Russia in what is called the Triple Intervention of 1895. This was seen as a great humiliation in Japan for reasons discussed at length in the article Treaty of Shimonoseki.




This about the RussoJapanese war.

"Although the war had ended in a victory for Japan, there was a noteworthy gap between Japanese public opinion and the very restrained peace terms which negotiated at the war's end.[9] Widespread discontent spread through the populace upon the announcement of the treaty terms. Riots erupted in major cities in Japan. Two specific demands, expected from such a costly victory, were especially lacking: territorial gains and monetary reparations to Japan. The peace accord led to feelings of distrust, as the Japanese had intended to retain all of Sakhalin Island, but they were forced to settle for half of it after being pressured by the U.S"

The other point is that when the last naval treaty Japan signed was made public. Yamamoto on his return to Japan was as quickly as possible secretly sent out of the country and back on board naval vessels to avoid his assasination.

I will stop posting now on this subject, as I assume this is the whole point in twisting everthing I say and also trying to besmirch me. I had believed and actually posted at one time that this forum was the best I had ever been a part of because of the lack of ill manners and what I thought was the ability to exchange ideas without them.

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)
Post #: 177
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/4/2008 8:59:45 PM   
Ike99


Posts: 1747
Joined: 1/1/2006
From: A Sand Road
Status: offline
quote:

The Japanese had already chosen war when the oil and steel imports were cut off. The embargo was emplaced to encourage the Japanese to end that war.


Tokyo Tribunal Justice Radhabinod Pal had some interesting things to say about these matters.

¨The victors, too, should be brought before tribunals. If it is really law which is being applied I would like to see even the members of the victor nations being brought before such tribunals.

The economic measures taken by America against Japan as also the factum of ABCD encirclement scheme will thus have important bearings on the question of determining the character of any subsequent action by Japan against any of these countries.

All that I want to say here is that, justly or unjustly, rightly or wrongly, the Allied Nations had already participated in the conflict by these actions and any hostile measures taken against them by Japan thereafter would not be "aggressive".

The evidence convinces me that Japan tried her utmost to avoid any clash with America, but was driven by the circumstances that gradually developed to the fatal steps taken by her.

The evidence does not entitle us to characterize the Japanese attack as a sudden, unexpected, treacherous act committed while relations between the two countries were peaceful. We have seen to what extent the United States was at peace with Japan.

I would hold that every one of the accused must be found not guilty of every one of the charges in the indictment and should be acquitted on all those charges.¨

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 178
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/4/2008 9:54:29 PM   
sullafelix

 

Posts: 1501
Joined: 1/11/2005
Status: offline
I will answer you Ike99. I had never heard of this man or his dissent. The only thing that strikes me is given his antiBritish and anticolonial ( who wouldn't,and surely we can't fault him for that ie.  Bunker Hill ) political views why would the allies have chosen him as a justice had they intended to railroad the defendants. I think that he goes to far in laying no blame and believing what the allies did to be an act of war. It would make much more sense to me in an US versus Germany scenario. What I mean by that is by Germany attacking US ships against international sea laws and the US destroyers attacking the uboats. If one country or the other had attacked each other after, as in Pearl Harbor there should have been no blame attached for such an attack because the countries were already at war by their previous actions.

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. When looking up this man I was sent to a page with the full extant of the " Hull note " I had only ever read a synopsis of it. I was quite surprised that one of the clauses was that the US and Japan were to jointly force the British  ( and others ) to give up all of the concessions in China that they had gained after the boxer rebellion. Another clause ( at least to my eyes ) says that all nations were to leave Indochina alone and that it was free. This clause does not mention France, who really still " owned " it. So I'm not sure if we were trying to create a free Indochina at that moment or what. Because if it means forcing the withdrawl of French colonial government with nothing in line to take it's place would just mean anarchy.

(in reply to Ike99)
Post #: 179
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/4/2008 10:06:11 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 6687
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: St. Petersburg, Florida, USA
Status: offline
So you hope to prop up your flagging arguments with the words of yet another Japanese apologist?

The containment strategy was a diplomatic and economic startegy used to contain the aggression Japan was already involved in.

Characterizing it as the root cause of their aggression in the first place is laughable.

That they would likely react with yet further aggression and that the "surprise" attack should have come as no great surprise is old news.

(in reply to Ike99)
Post #: 180
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: WWII boming debate Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   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

0.180