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  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/4/2008 11:27:52 PM   
ORANGE


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

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

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.

I am heartened by the fact that he has abandoned his "the bombing of population centers or ¨strategic bombing¨ did not do much in WW2 except kill civilians" fiasco.

It is more than I could expect with what I had to work with.

< Message edited by ORANGE -- 3/4/2008 11:28:31 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 181
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/4/2008 11:33:08 PM   
Ike99


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

I had never heard of this man or his dissent.


Why do you think that is? Hmmmm.

Well anyways, now you have. After the trial he was elected to the United Nations International Law Commission. Interesting man. Worth reading his legal works in international affairs.

(in reply to sullafelix)
Post #: 182
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/4/2008 11:43:03 PM   
ORANGE


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99

quote:

I had never heard of this man or his dissent.


Why do you think that is? Hmmmm.

Well anyways, now you have. After the trial he was elected to the United Nations International Law Commission. Interesting man. Worth reading his legal works in international affairs.

Because he was a nutjob?

BTW, what was his position on comfort women? I would be interested in that and it could tell us a lot about his character.

_____________________________


(in reply to Ike99)
Post #: 183
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/4/2008 11:43:50 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41451
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy

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?


No. They attempted to contact the Soviets in the late summer of 1945 to help opening negotiations with the Western Allies (remember the Soviets weren't at war with them yet), but Stalin had already decided to go to war.



_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to ilovestrategy)
Post #: 184
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/5/2008 12:10:55 AM   
sullafelix

 

Posts: 1508
Joined: 1/11/2005
Status: offline
Well even all good intentions go awry. I will crawl into the sewer with you.

What is your hangup with the  " comfort " women? Are you sorry you missed them or was a female in your family forced to be one. I've looked over and over this whole thread and I've never read that anyone defended or condoned Japanese crimes against humanity.

I also notice that you never apologized about your tainting me with being a US hater and all the inuendo's that you were inferring on me. But, I assume that if I follow your post trail I will find many instances of this and no regrets or apologies to whom you have done this to.

My apologies to Matrix but my bile and anger built up until it got the best of me. I would ask that you do the right thing and ban us both. However I know that I would follow the ban to the letter of the law but more than likely he would be back here within the hour.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 185
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/5/2008 12:42:12 AM   
Ike99


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

ORANGE

BTW, what was his position on comfort women? I would be interested in that and it could tell us a lot about his character.

I´m not your school teacher. Do your own research on Justice Radhabinod Pal.






(in reply to ORANGE)
Post #: 186
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/5/2008 1:00:54 AM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
Tokyo Tribunal Justice Radhabinod Pal probably should have been on trial too, because this:

quote:

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.


Is baloney. It's tantamount to saying that economic sanctions are a causus belli for war -- not a position that any sane person would adopt because economic sanctions generally fall into the arena of diplomacy and other methods short of war commonly employed by nations as a kind of "last best warning" to wrondoers that they are precipitating a crisis. Were one to subscribe to Pal's thesis, it would follow that no sanctions can be imposed against genocidal aggressor nations. It would also follow by his irreasoning that economic harm is morally equivalent of murder, and that if one wants to impose economic sanctions then one is morally justified in merely skipping the whole Diplomacy --> sanctions path entirely and simply opening fire.

quote:

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".


Only a fool or a liar could make that claim -- or a person like Justice Pal (a zealous believer in the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity sphere and for the most part a Japanese atrocity apologist, a member of the Japanese supported Indian National Army, and a highly placed Imperial Japanese spy in the Indian Commonwealth justice system). His role in the trials was in essence to try to make all of Japan's war crimes seem like some other nation's fault -- much like a defense attorney defending a psychotic serial killer by blaming twinkie toxicity.

quote:

BTW, what was his position on comfort women?


He'd have denied that they were not acting under their own free will. Then he'd have blamed the UK.

< Message edited by mdiehl -- 3/5/2008 1:09:26 AM >


_____________________________

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 ORANGE)
Post #: 187
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/5/2008 1:49:32 AM   
sullafelix

 

Posts: 1508
Joined: 1/11/2005
Status: offline
 The only thing I can say is that you people are viewing these events and statements by 2008 eyes. Sanctions the idea of "aggressor nations " was all totally new. There were no laws that governed these things at the time. Also economic sanctions are exactly that not sanctions that would cause another country to be defenseless. To take what you wanted be it Japan in China or England in India or whatever the case had been the unwritten law since countries had developed until that time.

May I pose a question to all. If the US or the UK or any nation get into an international flap and all of OPEC decide that not one member sells oil to that country. Would there or would there not be firebrands that would be pushing said government to take what was needed if only for defense if not for economic reasons? What if their allies were told that the oil was to be shut off to them also if they were caught trading with the first nation. Once again I make my plea no morality judgements or reasons of why it happened. Just a cold hard look at the scenario, even with 2008 eyes. What if the cutoff nation was actually thrown into warmongers hands because of economic chaos and fear? Would they be culpable if they invaded where ever they felt they could get oil, of course they would be culpable for the invasion and all the lives lost etc.. Now look at the situation from a earlier age where might meant right and there was no such thing as viewing the world as a whole but just separate nations that were friends or foes. Remeber that all nations at all times have military plans against even their closest allies ( ie. the US rainbow plans etc. )

We would naturally expect that in this day an age when Honor or face would not get in the way we would have a diplomatic solution. But honor and Face in 1940 meant all any nation up until that time would have gone to war in a flash if it thought it's honor was impigned. This all I'm trying to say and show is how the world has changed and such things do not happen anymore ( thank the Gods ). I am not making excuses for what happened or excusing any behavior from War crimes to Crimes against humanity. As I said before look at the incredibly small an ridiculous attitudes and mindset that set the world on fire in 1914. The world had not grown up much at all from 1914 to 1940. The two cultures that we are talking about were as different as night and day one was a republican nation who's ideas were going forward to the 21st century. The other was a feudalistic society with a veneer of a newer society scraped over it in a very thin layer.

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 188
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/5/2008 5:36:35 PM   
ezzler

 

Posts: 841
Joined: 7/4/2004
Status: offline
Sulla05 your arguments have logic and deserve more respect than they have been shown.
That said .. you are of course wrong.

Japan had plenty of other options available than war. If it wasn't such a political basket case then other choices could have been made. To say ALL nations would have responded the same way in the 1940's is incorrect.

Appeasement was very much in fashion throughout the 1930's and early 40's.

The diiference between Japan and say a country like France would be that France would not have got itself into the situation of being isolated,surrounded without allies, short on resources and fighting a major conflict, scared of appearing weak while making unlikely demands and threats to another major industrial power it could not hope to beat militarily or Economically.

Look at the Commenwealth and France when faced with aggression by Germany. Anything but war.
Imperial Japan was a Facist country and behaved as did all the facist [ or indeed communist] countries.

"But honor and Face in 1940 meant all any nation up until that time would have gone to war in a flash if it thought it's honor was impigned."  errm ..No. The USA would have gone to war if it had lost face ? Congress would have voted for war on a slight ? I doubt it.

I feel you make the case too strongly. YES if running out of resources some countries may have chosen to fight, but by no means all. Most would have moderated behaviour, changed their actions, sought allies , made peace with neighbours, gone to the League, adopted different tactics, sought compromise etc etc.

Imperial Japan behaved like the rest of the bullies and it is hard to see any difference between them.

(in reply to sullafelix)
Post #: 189
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/5/2008 6:19:18 PM   
mdiehl

 

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

The only thing I can say is that you people are viewing these events and statements by 2008 eyes.


That is not correct.

quote:

Sanctions the idea of "aggressor nations " was all totally new.


That is also not correct.

quote:

There were no laws that governed these things at the time.


That does not seem correct. The decision to impose trade restrictions was a matter (in this example) of US domestic law, therefore there were in fact laws that governed these sorts of things. Furthermore, trade restrictions as internatinal political leverage are as old as city-states. China had trade restrictions beginning in the 13thC. The UK had trade restrictions (and one could argue still do). Japan had trade restrictions throughout the 19thC and straight through the crisis period that preceded their attack on PH and the UK C'wealths. In none of these prior instances were trade restrictions deemed causus belli. These were only viewed as a 'cause for war' by expansionist aggressor states who would have eventually gone to war anyhow but under conditions more favorable to their economies (and thus with somewhat improved hopes of consolidating their illegally-gotten gains).

Moreover, since you have raised The Law as an issue, Japan's invasion of China was clearly a violation of international law. If one could argue that Japan "had to wage war against the UK and the US because of the embargo" then one is in essence arguing that Japan had to wage war because Japan started an illegal war in China.

quote:

Also economic sanctions are exactly that not sanctions that would cause another country to be defenseless.


Japan would not have been defenseless. Japan would, however, had to limit its aggressive expansion or, alternatively, back down on its demands that the entire circum-Pacific immediatelty surrender and subject their citizenry to the (brutally repressive and genocidal) governance of Imperial Japan. Very few in the Phillippines for example wanted Japan to take over, because they knew they were four years from independence anyhow, and because they knew from reports in China exactly what Japan meant by "co-prosperity."

quote:

If the US or the UK or any nation get into an international flap and all of OPEC decide that not one member sells oil to that country. Would there or would there not be firebrands that would be pushing said government to take what was needed if only for defense if not for economic reasons?


There would be such types indeed. But they would with virtual certainty not succeed. The US and UK are states that negotiate in good faith. The "21 Demands" were not made with the intention of negotiation. Cooler heads in Japan could easily have prevailed had anyone the moral or intellectual standing to note that Japan's security and economic strength would actually IMPROVE by letting go of China. But if one starts a war with the intent of genocide, then negotiations do not really matter because any negotiation results in the abandonment of the basic goal.

quote:

Now look at the situation from a earlier age where might meant right and there was no such thing as viewing the world as a whole but just separate nations that were friends or foes.


Non-sequitur. Even then, there was the idea of rational self interest, and morality in governance. Imperial Japan abandoned reason in the former and simply abandoned without concern the latter. There was probably a time in the 1920s where Japan *could have* succesffully played the "anti-colonialism" card. But to do so there would have had to be a real commitment to local semi-autonomy in China and there would have been a real commitment to humane treatment of civilian populations.

quote:

Remeber that all nations at all times have military plans against even their closest allies ( ie. the US rainbow plans etc. )


Non sequitur. The existence of a contingency plan does not imply the intention or desire to implement that plan.

quote:

But honor and Face in 1940 meant all any nation up until that time would have gone to war in a flash


Baloney. The US for example was a model of tolerance. When the Japanese deliberately sank the Panay, an American naval vessel that was clearly marked as such, the US provided Japan with a graceful opportunity to make recompense, rather than simply pulling the trigger and going after Japan straight away. The reasons for that are many. However, for this discussion the significant point is that "pulling the trigger to save face" was NOT common.

quote:

I am not making excuses for what happened or excusing any behavior from War crimes to Crimes against humanity.


Yes, you quite literally are making excuses for what happened, although you seem to agree that it should not have happened. I'm not going to suspend moral judgement. By any standards -- 2008 or 1938, Japan's aggression and attempted genocide in China (and later, in the Phillippines during the occupation) was immoral and every Japanese citizen knew it before the first shot was fired.

Which gets us back to the bombing campaigns. They were horrible things to happen in a war, but they were necessary to stop Imperial Japan's murderous regime from slaughtering millions more of civilians in occupied lands -- not just China but in the Philippines, Indonesia, and Burma as well, and to bring an end to the war to stop the slaughter of interned war powers civilians and prisoners of war. The bombing campaigns were morally proper, fair, justified, appropriate, and necessary. And they could have been suspended at any time, the instant the Empire would surrender. The fact that it took 10 months after it was quite clear that Japan had no hope of winning simply further underscores the immorality of the Japanese government. What else could you call a philosophy built on the notion of sacrificing tens of millions of their own citizens just so that a few high ranking military leaders could in essence "feel good about dying."

< Message edited by mdiehl -- 3/5/2008 6:25:52 PM >


_____________________________

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 ezzler)
Post #: 190
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/5/2008 7:14:48 PM   
ORANGE


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: sulla05

Well even all good intentions go awry. I will crawl into the sewer with you.

What is your hangup with the " comfort " women? Are you sorry you missed them or was a female in your family forced to be one. I've looked over and over this whole thread and I've never read that anyone defended or condoned Japanese crimes against humanity.

The problem is you keep saying that the Japanese crimes were OK because other countries, and to be fair you keep singling out the US, committed equally horrible crimes. I do not remember anything of the level of horror of the comfort women being perpetrated by other nations as policy so I use that to see if you can respond to “Well other nations enslaved women as policy solely for the enjoyment of men so everything Japan did was great in my book”. Sure even the United States did some ****ty things but nothing like that and nothing close to that in the 20th century. And not only was this accepted practice by the Japanese it was expected. When the Japanese surrendered they rounded up Japanese women to serve in brothels for the victors because it is what they would expect.

You may not realize this yet but I consider rape a very serious and disgusting crime.
quote:

ORIGINAL: sulla05

I also notice that you never apologized about your tainting me with being a US hater and all the inuendo's that you were inferring on me. But, I assume that if I follow your post trail I will find many instances of this and no regrets or apologies to whom you have done this to.

You have frequently stated that the US crimes were equal to those of Japan which means you are accusing the US of a crime as serious as systematic enslavement and rape of women equal to the scale of the Japanese. This is of course untrue.
quote:

ORIGINAL: sulla05

My apologies to Matrix but my bile and anger built up until it got the best of me. I would ask that you do the right thing and ban us both. However I know that I would follow the ban to the letter of the law but more than likely he would be back here within the hour.

Why would they ban me? You are the one spreading lies.


_____________________________


(in reply to sullafelix)
Post #: 191
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/5/2008 7:16:53 PM   
ORANGE


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

ORIGINAL: Ike99

quote:

ORANGE

BTW, what was his position on comfort women? I would be interested in that and it could tell us a lot about his character.

I´m not your school teacher. Do your own research on Justice Radhabinod Pal.


What is your stance on comfort women? Did they deserve it?

< Message edited by ORANGE -- 3/5/2008 7:18:10 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Ike99)
Post #: 192
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/5/2008 7:29:55 PM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8647
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline
Sorry, Ike, but "Justice" Pal is not a source that most historians would consider reliable, what with his ties to the people whose trials he was presiding over. In fact, his inclusion in the trials goes to show just how far the allies were willing to travel in order to make those trials as fair as possible under the circumstances.

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to ORANGE)
Post #: 193
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/5/2008 9:08:15 PM   
sullafelix

 

Posts: 1508
Joined: 1/11/2005
Status: offline
"What is your stance on comfort women? Did they deserve it?"

Absolutely not.

"You may not realize this yet but I consider rape a very serious and disgusting crime."

So absolutely do I but unfortunately some nations have used it as a national/army policy against conquered people.

" You have frequently stated that the US crimes were equal to those of Japan which means you are accusing the US of a crime as serious as systematic enslavement and rape of women equal to the scale of the Japanese. This is of course untrue."

I believe I mentioned other nations also. If you want particulars, I mentioned the Belgians in the Congo and several times mentioned England and it's treatment of some of it's colonies and indigenous people. I have many American Indian friends who might take a different view of the US's treatment of it's indigenous population than you hold. All that was meant to say was that no nations history is unblemished. Being half Irish myself and remebering my grandmothers stories passed on about the famine, you can guess where I lean on that.

" Why would they ban me? You are the one spreading lies"

I'm not quite sure how to answer that one.

" Japan would not have been defenseless. "

Any nation in the world that relied on oil and had no resources of it's own would be defenseless in a given time.

" Baloney. The US for example was a model of tolerance. When the Japanese deliberately sank the Panay, an American naval vessel that was clearly marked as such, the US provided Japan with a graceful opportunity to make recompense, rather than simply pulling the trigger and going after Japan straight away. The reasons for that are many. However, for this discussion the significant point is that "pulling the trigger to save face" was NOT common."

I think you missed my line where I stated that the US was thinking toward the 21st century and that japan had barely  ( if at all ) come out of feudalism.

quote:

If the US or the UK or any nation get into an international flap and all of OPEC decide that not one member sells oil to that country. Would there or would there not be firebrands that would be pushing said government to take what was needed if only for defense if not for economic reasons?



"There would be such types indeed. But they would with virtual certainty not succeed. The US and UK are states that negotiate in good faith. The "21 Demands" were not made with the intention of negotiation. Cooler heads in Japan could easily have prevailed had anyone the moral or intellectual standing to note that Japan's security and economic strength would actually IMPROVE by letting go of China. But if one starts a war with the intent of genocide, then negotiations do not really matter because any negotiation results in the abandonment of the basic goal. "

I think you are confusing my scenario with a nation becoming defensless to going back in time and talking about a country commiting colonialism ( for a better term ). Nations have made just such demands on other nations plenty of times within the last two hundred years. The British with the Zulus, Austria-Hungary against Serbia among many others.

The other points are too many to list and counter without chewing up this whole forum. My view on what Japan did was that they were wrong and the crimes against humanity trials were totally justified. I do believe however that putting national leaders on trial for " aggression " was a totally new concept. Not bad, but something that many jurists world wide had some issues with.

I believe that some of you either have much more faith in the national figures and thinking in 1940 than I do. Or you do not understand how those nations acted like petulant children most of the time. Truthfully I do not see any difference in many nations ( NOT THE US ) thinking and policies between 1914 and 1940. True most were scared off by war but not because of clearer educated thinking, it was just fear of casualty lists.

I will make one other statement. I do believe that we are extremely lucky that science had not been more advanced in 1914-18. I believe that the European nations at war would have used anything to win that war. if they could have bombed as in WW2 thaey would have done it even more. If they could have gassed other countries they would have. They would have nuked each other and probably us right out of existence. So my thoughts are based on what I believe these countrys and ( and others, NOT THE US ) others would have done in 1918. You can see that I would have a hard time believing that 22 years would make made much of a difference to their actions.

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 194
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/5/2008 9:41:13 PM   
Ike99


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

Sorry, Ike, but "Justice" Pal is not a source that most historians would consider reliable, what with his ties to the people whose trials he was presiding over. In fact, his inclusion in the trials goes to show just how far the allies were willing to travel in order to make those trials as fair as possible under the circumstances.


I´m not sure what you mean by Pal not being a reliable source for historians. He is not reliable for what?

But as far as the allies making the trial as fair as possible...In what way?

That was a victors court. Not a single judge was from a losing or neutral country. They could have had 3 axis judges, 3 allied judges and 5 judges from neutral nations. Or all the judges from neutral nations, 11 judges from switzerland, any combination of judges to be more ¨fair¨ and let the results fall where they fall.

There is nothing going to be ¨fair¨ when you have all judges from the victorious side in a war.

With cutting off Japans entire supply of oil, that was definately a hostile act. How can you cut off the entire supply of oil to any nation and not consider it hostile?



< Message edited by Ike99 -- 3/5/2008 9:56:23 PM >

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 195
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/5/2008 10:01:18 PM   
mdiehl

 

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

I have many American Indian friends who might take a different view of the US's treatment of it's indigenous population than you hold.


And if they equated it with Japanese treatment of civilians in China or the PI, your "American Indian friends" would be incorrect. There are worlds of differences and equating the US policies towards Native Americans with Japanese policies towards captive civil populaces feels to me like a clear straw man comparison. You can find arguable one possible instance of attempted genocide as an official policy (during Andrew Jackson's Presidency), and of course you can find alot more garden variety injustice, but there's nothing in US treatment of Native Americans that rises to the same level of either intent or scale attempted by any of the Axis powers in WW2. Indeed, some of the worst injustices seem to in the US have been a consequence of fallacious reasoning. Without going into detail, there's reasons why 40 acres and a mule was not a good cookie cutter solution.

There are also plenty of NAIs who are rather pleased with the US bringing stability to a warring land. If you were a northern Plains NAs, especially if you were an Arikara, the arrival of US admin radically improved a rotten situation (owing to the bad boys of the high plains, the Blackfeet, predations on neighboring groups).

quote:

There is nothing going to be ¨fair¨ when you have all judges from the victorious side in a war.


Baloney. I am aware of no trials in which the defendents get to appoint the judges. And yet one finds myriads of instances in which acquittals are made. The defendents in the Axis war crimes trials were convicted of their crimes because they were (a) guilty, (b) in violation of conventions that they had signed and (c) in violation of moral standards that they claimed to espouse. Nothing in traditional Japanese culture was consistent with the events in Nanking or Manila. The whole premise of the "co-prosperity sphere" and the anti-colonialism effort was to put a stop to things of that sort. The people committing these crimes knew what they were doing knew it was wrong and thought they could get away with it. It's as simple as that.

quote:

With cutting off Japans entire supply of oil, that was definately a hostile act.


Let's cut the Gordian Knot by dispensing with semantic doublespeak. Cutting off access to American oil (which was not in fact "Japan's entire supply of oil") was not a "hostile act" much less an act of war and therefore not a causus belli. Vis a vis war, hostile acts usually entail killing someone. The sinking of USS Panay was a hostile act. The attack on Pearl Harbor was a hostile act. Denying access to American oil was not a hostile act; no Japanese was in immediate or even long term threat of death or injury from lack of access to American oil. The only threat to Japan from that embargo was that operations in China would in a couple of years had to be suspended.

quote:

How can you cut off the entire supply of oil to any nation and not consider it hostile?


As noted, Japan was not cut off from oil. Furthermore, inasmuch as the embargo did of itself kill or injure no person, no one could accurately call it a "hostile act" much less a causus belli.


_____________________________

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 ORANGE)
Post #: 196
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/6/2008 12:37:13 AM   
ORANGE


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99

But as far as the allies making the trial as fair as possible...In what way?

The Allies did not seek to prosecute as many Japanese as they could have. They hardly tried any. They went after those they considered the most egregious. They excluded the royal family. The allies asked for assistance from the Japanese who wanted many, many more Japanese than the allies tried as war criminals. The allies refused to do this.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99

That was a victors court. Not a single judge was from a losing or neutral country. They could have had 3 axis judges, 3 allied judges and 5 judges from neutral nations. Or all the judges from neutral nations, 11 judges from switzerland, any combination of judges to be more ¨fair¨ and let the results fall where they fall.

Sure they COULD have had judges from the losing sides. Of course the Japanese COULD have not started a horrific and brutal war. The Japanese COULD have not raped women. The Japanese COULD not have partaken in cannibalism. The Japanese COULD have decried torture and brutality and held themselves to a higher standard.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99

There is nothing going to be ¨fair¨ when you have all judges from the victorious side in a war.

Howe fair were these Japanese in the lands they conquered?
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99

With cutting off Japans entire supply of oil, that was definately a hostile act. How can you cut off the entire supply of oil to any nation and not consider it hostile?

It is not hostile. It is passive. Harming people is hostile.



_____________________________


(in reply to Ike99)
Post #: 197
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/6/2008 2:22:01 AM   
sullafelix

 

Posts: 1508
Joined: 1/11/2005
Status: offline
"As noted, Japan was not cut off from oil"

I believe I have seen many times that the ABCD nations and the US acted jointly in the embargo. If I'm correct in that, then there would have been nowhere else to get oil. Manchuria has a limited supply but there was no infrastructure at all at the time. I also really doubt that stalin would have given them any, but he was stupid enought to give it to Germany so who knows. The amount that Japan relied on the formerly mentioned countries was I believe 90-95%, I've seen both #'s.

" And if they equated it with Japanese treatment of civilians in China or the PI, your "American Indian friends" would be incorrect "

I  just read that the Arikara were so decimated by smallpox in the 1830's that they had to join with the Mandans and Hidatsa. Also at this time there are only 20 leaving elders that can speak their language.

I don't think the Crows, who would also fit as they were always US allies are any better off on their reservation than the Dakota.

Well I think your now dealing with semantics. I don't think it matters to a race that genocide and wholesale slaughter was government sponsored or not. I've never seen anything written from the Japanese that said they intended to wipe the Chinese off the face of the earth, such as nazi papers that state bluntly what the would do with the slavs. I'm not saying that it might not have happened, I just don't think it was a state goal. Most of the nations of the world felt the chinese ( no offence ) were lower than dirt and not even humans. Russians considered them " monkeys " and the colonial powers couldn't have cared if the coolie who drove them around yesterday died from starvation as long as a new coolie was here today.

It would be much like the " pogroms " of Czarist Russia against the Jews. Were they state sponsored, not really but everyone liked to join in on them.

" Denying access to American oil was not a hostile act; no Japanese was in immediate or even long term threat of death or injury from lack of access to American oil."

I understand completely that your point is that all the Japanese had to do was just cave in to all the Allies demands, leave China ( while some of the Allies still owned some of it ). Get out of Indochina and let the French keep it for themselves. Also some lesser points. Do you think that if the US were to make such demands on other countries they would just follow along? Lets say in a slightly different history shift the US determines that what England is doing in India is not right. Do you think England would just walked away? When all the world was against France being in Algeria in the 1960's! that they listened to anyone and left? Actually the French army tried to stage a coup at the very thought of leaving. Sounds familiar doesn't it. That is from a republican government at almost the end of the 20th century.

These are not to show that the Japanese were correct. These are to show that I believe you are naive in your thinking that the nations of the world take the high road. I believe that the US diplomats etc. were just as naive when dealing with Japan and later stalin. They could only conceive of their way of thinking and could not grasp the Japanese mind. Any idea that they could discuss the situation with the Japanese was idiotic on their part. So in a sense Pearl harbor can be laid right at their feet. Anyone who had sent demands as we did to a nation like Japan in 1940 and did not put it's armed forces on full alert or even wartime status was just plain wishing all would be well.

The only part where we differ is that you believe all the other nations of the world would or did act like we did at that point in time ( other than Japan, Germany, and Russia )

I condemn colonialism in all it's form. The treatment and killling of another nations citizens by another power in order for that other power to take control of natural or other resources is abominable. I don't care if it is 50 civilians or a million. So I don't pick and choose as you seem to do that this land grab was okay because not much happened or that this nation didn't kill that many civilians so it's ok. There will always be people who work with the invaders ( tories anyone ) and others that will spill their last drop of blood to remove them ( No Orange not 21st century or even 20th ). The Japanese ( them not me ) saw it as their heaven given right to have colonies just as England felt it was her God given right ( white mans burden etc. ). The US was the first nation to start to think that colonialism was bad and they were actually going to free all their colonies and bluntly told Churchill that they were not going to help him recreate the empire. But our thinking at that time was an abberation certainly not the norm.

" In 1845 it happened, the biggest fear hit Ireland and suddenly became reality. A disease attacked the potato crop and half of the crop was destroyed. People harvested the few potatoes they had and prayed that the next years crop would be an abundant one. But the crop of 1846 suffered even more than the previous year. To add to the misery, that winter was the "severest in living memory". When the 1847 crop failed also, the Irish population of the whole nation was faced with starvation. This is when the first wave of immigrants escaped their starving homeland. The majority of this first group went to Canada because prices were very low--ships bringing lumber to England were glad to receive paying passengers instead of returning to Canada empty. Unfortunately, many of these people carried typhoid and many other diseases with them on to Canada.

Ironically, during these tragic years it was only the potato crop that failed in Ireland. Wheat, oats, beef, mutton, pork, and poultry were all in excellent supply but the Irish-English landlords shipped these to the European continent to soften the starving there and receive a very good profit in return. When people today wonder about the hatred between the Irish and the English, they don't recognize the fact that Irish peoples memory is a long one and that stories are still being told about those ships leaving Irish ports loaded with food at the same time that their ancestors were eating grass to live. "

According to English sources 25% of the population died. Would that roughly be 75 to 100 million Chinese?




< Message edited by sulla05 -- 3/6/2008 4:55:25 AM >

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 198
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/6/2008 2:25:37 AM   
ilovestrategy


Posts: 3627
Joined: 6/11/2005
From: San Diego
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

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.



Ok, I'm going to ask a REALLY stupid question. What exactly is a "peace feeler"? Is it a diplomat bringing up an idea or a proposal that is stictly verbal and not put on paper and not made official?
Thanks in advance!

_____________________________

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 Charles_22)
Post #: 199
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/6/2008 2:42:06 AM   
sullafelix

 

Posts: 1508
Joined: 1/11/2005
Status: offline
The Japanese had a nonaggression pact with the USSR since 1941 so they were on full diplomatic terms. They tried to get the soviets to find out exactly what terms the Allies wanted because they would not surrender unconditionally. Their main sticking point was the Emperor, they wanted assurance that he or the institution would not be touched. The soviets strung them along with lies until they were ready to launch their attack into Japanese held China, manchuria etc.. The russians and Chinese have always fought over their border and the soviets felt it was the perfect time to take whatever and as much territory as they wanted. The soviet adavance and how quick and how much land they took was one of the main reasons that strictly speaking we did offer terms to Japan. In order to stop communism and the crumbling of japanese society we did " off the books " agree to leave the Emperor inviolate. So that we could use Japan as a large military base against the soviets if needed and to help the Nationalist Chinese.

The Japanese in the government also were afraid for their lives if any wind of negotiations got out. So it was a strictly non paper proposal. They were qiute right to be worried. The 30's in Japan had been known as the " government by assasination " period. young officers who felt that any official who was not jingoist enough had to be killed because he was a traitor to the emperor.

< Message edited by sulla05 -- 3/6/2008 2:46:33 AM >

(in reply to ilovestrategy)
Post #: 200
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/6/2008 6:20:41 AM   
Ike99


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

I believe I have seen many times that the ABCD nations and the US acted jointly in the embargo. If I'm correct in that, then there would have been nowhere else to get oil.


This is the way I read it. They had negotiations with the Dutch for oil from the East Indies, but when the USA came down with the oil embargo the Dutch followed and cancelled everything.

quote:

As noted, Japan was not cut off from oil.


Who is this exporter of oil mdiehl your referring too?

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 201
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/6/2008 7:37:01 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8647
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline
Let's see if the logic used here makes sense...

Serivce station owners Brown and Smith have been selling gas to the Simpson family for years. They are the only sources in the local area for gasoline. The Simpson's eldest son Charles decides that he needs a new home and takes over one belonging to the Johnson's, forcing the Johnson family to live in the barn (and raping their daughter Joyce in the bargain). The Browns and Smiths decide that they are no longer going to sell gas to the Simpsons unless Charles leaves the Johnson's house, and yet you guys are saying that it's the Browns and Smiths who are committing the hostile act?

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Ike99)
Post #: 202
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/6/2008 7:41:06 AM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Let's see if the logic used here makes sense...

Serivce station owners Brown and Smith have been selling gas to the Simpson family for years. They are the only sources in the local area for gasoline. The Simpson's eldest son Charles decides that he needs a new home and takes over one belonging to the Johnson's, forcing the Johnson family to live in the barn (and raping their daughter Joyce in the bargain). The Browns and Smiths decide that they are no longer going to sell gas to the Simpsons unless Charles leaves the Johnson's house, and yet you guys are saying that it's the Browns and Smiths who are committing the hostile act?

Do you have Joyce's phone number?

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 203
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/6/2008 10:27:57 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8647
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline
I presume, sir, that you are merely planning to offer counseling services to the young lady...

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to pasternakski)
Post #: 204
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/6/2008 4:57:49 PM   
Prince of Eckmühl


Posts: 2456
Joined: 6/25/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
I think what we've chanced upon here is the Japanese equivalent of a Western skinhead.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)



_____________________________

Government is the opiate of the masses.

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 205
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/6/2008 8:01:11 PM   
sullafelix

 

Posts: 1508
Joined: 1/11/2005
Status: offline
" Serivce station owners Brown and Smith have been selling gas to the Simpson family for years. They are the only sources in the local area for gasoline. The Simpson's eldest son Charles decides that he needs a new home and takes over one belonging to the Johnson's, forcing the Johnson family to live in the barn (and raping their daughter Joyce in the bargain). The Browns and Smiths decide that they are no longer going to sell gas to the Simpsons unless Charles leaves the Johnson's house, and yet you guys are saying that it's the Browns and Smiths who are committing the hostile act? "

I hope I'm not in that " you guys ".

Now to summarize my printed ideas using your analogy. I agree totally that the Simpsons are completely at fault and should be held accountable. Everything is as you said except for a few changes. The Smiths got their house by stealing it from a neighbor that is now chained in the yard and farming for them. All the other neighbors ( except the Browns ) got their houses that way and act all the time just like the Simpsons and Smiths, some are a bit better some are about the same in their actions. Now what would give the Browns the idea that the Simpsons would all of a sudden decide to turn over a new leaf,  (especially seeing how the only neighbor that acts lawfully is the Browns ) by not selling them gas? One would assume that the Simpsons ( and most of their neighbors going by their track record ) would just attack the nearest gas station near them and take what they wanted?

I didn't like your analogy at first but it grew on me and it worked perfectly ( hopefully ) to make my ideas clear.

I think I'm finally getting the idea of posting on a forum. In my confusion in being brought up by other methods of communication I got it all wrong. A forum is not for an exchange of ideas ( as in a verbal forum ) but just a place to post your ideas and pretty much thats it. I also see that politicians over the last 40 years have really taught people things. If you don't want to discuss a persons ideas you just yell louder than them and assault their good names.


(in reply to Prince of Eckmühl)
Post #: 206
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/6/2008 8:29:43 PM   
mdiehl

 

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

I believe I have seen many times that the ABCD nations and the US acted jointly in the embargo. If I'm correct in that, then there would have been nowhere else to get oil.


French Indochina and also the USSR (with whom Japan had a nonaggression treaty). Notably NOT enough to keep Combinedfleet running for the duration, but with that (and coal from Manchuria and Korea) plenty to keep basic industry and domestic food production going.

quote:

I just read that the Arikara were so decimated by smallpox in the 1830's that they had to join with the Mandans and Hidatsa. Also at this time there are only 20 leaving elders that can speak their language.


That sounds ballpark correct. But the thing is smallpox was largely out of the control of the US government. Even the scratch method of inoculation was unavailable through the period when smallpox ran wild. While agreeing that smallpox was devastating, the evidence of intent and moreover that smallpox was a part and parcel of US expansionist policy is lacking. Thus, comparisons with Japanese treatment of Manchurians, Chinese, and Filipinos don't really work.

quote:

I don't think the Crows, who would also fit as they were always US allies are any better off on their reservation than the Dakota.


We were talking about genocide and murder of prisoners. Not injustice. No one has made the claim that NA were well-treated universally. I think there are some legitimate issues in re reservations. Ironically, the period in which the reservation concept most lived up to its Idealized State was when the US Army administered the reservations and, later, starting in the 1970s. But the biggest injustices have less to do with reservations than they do with sheer corruption and stupidity (the Dawes Act in particular). Fortunately now, at least, NA have much better control over their own economic desttiny. Casinos are no place I'd want to be, but the 1st nations are using them to good effect, although it is clear that many social problems persist.

quote:

Well I think your now dealing with semantics. I don't think it matters to a race that genocide and wholesale slaughter was government sponsored or not.


I'm not dealing with semantics. I'm dealing with intention and with foreseeable consequences. Smallpox was not understood very well until after its worst effects had swept through North America (most of which occurred before the United States existed as a political entity). In contrast, the effects of a beheading contest between Japanese infantry officers were rather predictable.

quote:

I've never seen anything written from the Japanese that said they intended to wipe the Chinese off the face of the earth,


Not in so many words. And yet as Iris Chang has noted IJA policy in Nanking (and other cities, Nanking was not the only one) was directed from the top down and that policy has been documented to the degree that one can (considering that the Japanese artfully burned documents and generally sanitized all records in re the Emperor, the cabinet, the generals, and orders to troops in the field). But there are literally dozens of documents and decrypted transmissions of Japanese orders to execute prisoners. So, it's not like there was any sense of Samurai morality at play there.

quote:

Most of the nations of the world felt the chinese ( no offence ) were lower than dirt and not even humans. Russians considered them " monkeys " and the colonial powers couldn't have cared if the coolie who drove them around yesterday died from starvation as long as a new coolie was here today
.

I do not think that claim is substantially supported by the data. Nor do I think it is universally true for the whole period of western colonialism in China (especially not after the 1st WW) and it is not specificallt true of US efforts in China (where the US never had a colony and in which US goals seem to have differed somewhat from others' goals).

quote:

I understand completely that your point is that all the Japanese had to do was just cave in to all the Allies demands, leave China ( while some of the Allies still owned some of it ).


Qua your claim that the west should have just "caved in" to Japanese demands to be allowed to continue the genocide. I don't really see how the US can come off OK in any analysis you would make. On the one hand the US was wrong to embargo oil. On the other hand, had the US not embargoed the oil, it would have been tantamount acquiescence to (if not actually abetting) Japanese injustices in China. The US took a moral position when it made the embargo. It was known by both the US and Japan to be the most moral position, but Japan did not like that position because it was inconvenient for their imperialistic agenda. We know that Japan knew that their conduct in China was immoral because their conduct was specifically in contradiction with their stated goals in the "Co-prosperity sphere" documents, their conduct was specifically contrary to Samurai traditions in regards to the treatment of noncombatants, and because they made a substantial effort to hide their conduct in the terminal days of the war by burning all evidence of same.

quote:

Do you think that if the US were to make such demands on other countries they would just follow along? Lets say in a slightly different history shift the US determines that what England is doing in India is not right. Do you think England would just walked away?


I do not think the UK would have attacked the US under such circumstances, because the UK did not do so during the American civil war. Isolation from southern cotton was a problem for the UK, but they turned to other sources by developing same, most notably India and Egypt.

quote:

They could only conceive of their way of thinking and could not grasp the Japanese mind.


The Japanese mindset was pretty well understood in summer 1941. Nonetheless, a time comes when responsible people don't abet genocide. I think there is more compelling evidence to indicate that the Japanese did not understand the Japanese mindset, since their behaviors were consistently in contradiction to the values they claimed to embrace.

quote:

Any idea that they could discuss the situation with the Japanese was idiotic on their part.


Ah. So since the Japanese were unwilling to negotiate in good faith or embrace their own stated values the west should have simply provided them with the desired resources to carry on as usual?

quote:

So in a sense Pearl harbor can be laid right at their feet.


Only in a very warped and immoral sense. It's a bit like blaming the rape of an attractive woman on the woman rather than the rapist. It was her fault for looking so tempting etc.

quote:

Anyone who had sent demands as we did to a nation like Japan in 1940 and did not put it's armed forces on full alert or even wartime status was just plain wishing all would be well.


Here we're off the topic of intention and onto the topic of preparedness. The US armed forces were in fact on alert. The alertness arrived about 24 hours too late though. PacFleet ordered on Dec 6 a full alert status to begin on Monday 8 Dec. because the decision to make the alert (late on Dec 6) would have been impossible to implement on Dec 7 with so many crews on leave. The US was rather lulled into a state of uncertainty by the fact that the Japanese made a pretense of negotiation until well after Mobile Force had sortied for it's attack on Pearl Harbor. Naive perhaps. That said, it remains true that:

1. The US made no form of aggression against Japan prior to Japan's attack.
2. Japan had no causus belli against the US.
3. Japan was in violation of all standards of morality (including their own) vis their policies in China beginning in 1936.

_____________________________

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 sullafelix)
Post #: 207
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/7/2008 12:52:39 AM   
sullafelix

 

Posts: 1508
Joined: 1/11/2005
Status: offline
"1. The US made no form of aggression against Japan prior to Japan's attack.
2. Japan had no causus belli against the US.
3. Japan was in violation of all standards of morality (including their own) vis their policies in China beginning in 1936. "

I NEVER said I believed the US made an aggressive move toward Japan. I said the Japanese believed it. You have again confused everything I said and also picked it apart so that it fits your arguments.
I NEVER said that the Western allies should have just caved in. I SAID it was foolish and damn near criminal to expect that they would. I NEVER said that because the we did not understand the Japanese mindset we should have not done what we did.

When I said we should have been prepared for war I did not mean at the last moment, I meant that the moment that we decided to use and " force " economic or whatever against Japan we ahould have expected them to attack us. Her whole history in warfare up to that point blares out " sneak attack ". had we not worried about Europe for 6 months and just beefed up all our forces and become semibelligerent it is very possible in my mind that they would have backed down. Contrary to after school specials you do not talk to a bully and straighten out your differences you smack him or at least make him understand that his actions will have consequences ( not economic ).

We are really in perfect agreement about what was right and wrong during 1940.

We differ in two areas, One, that the other nations of the world had grown up at all since 1918 and that it was okay for them to have colonies but not Japan or that some of them were not guilty of just as horrific acts. Whether state sponsored or just society. Two, that doing anything less than letting Japan know exactly what they were in store for if they attacked us or the ABCD nations. The Japanese mindset at the time was that we were weak and would not fight back. Which is probably why they NEVER really negotiated with us because they weren't ever going to, and assumed we would just drop our demands after awhile.

One thing I did say was that our cutting off of all oil from us and our allies was going to leave them defenseless in 6 months to a year. Those are Japanese estimates written up at that time. Even if they are wrong they are the #'s THEY believed.The Japanese could have stopped everything had they listened to reason in 1940. But, in my eyes only St. Francis could have expected such a scenario with his eyes open. I never said we should not have done it. If you are going to stick a stick into a wasps nest with one hand you had better have a can of raid in the other. I still believe that any nation that considers itself to be or is actually becoming defenseless will do anything in the end to avert this. I never said they would be blameless but they will still do it.

You seem to have always missed where I said the Japanese believed this  or they believed or thought that and took it as my thinking.

" Most of the nations of the world felt the chinese ( no offence ) were lower than dirt and not even humans. Russians considered them " monkeys " and the colonial powers couldn't have cared if the coolie who drove them around yesterday died from starvation as long as a new coolie was here today "

I never mentioned the US as having anything like an attitude like this with China, we have always had a soft spot for her. But I don't know what " data " you can gather about one civilizations hatred and revulsion of another. These are attitudes and thoughts taken right out of diplomats and others writings and spoken words let alone other colonials.

As far as the NAI's being from New England probably skews my thinking having only the history of this area right in my face. The Europeans here did have a policy of extermination toward the NAI's and it was state sponsored. The written orders and a mass of other evidence shows this is true.

The Samurai traditions that you speak about are all correct.But, the twisted late 19th early 20th century form of bushido had nothing but a slight resemblane to the older tradition. The warped tradition that they were being taught were as you said completely contrary to what some of the older tradition was formed of. The only problem is that the warped one is the one we had to deal with.

I still say you are looking at this time period with rose colored glasses. You are under the impression that just because some people in other countries held the same view as the US government that their governments did. I believe this is totally wrong and to prove it I showed the example of Algeria almost 20 years after WW2, that is one example there are plenty more.

< Message edited by sulla05 -- 3/7/2008 12:56:57 AM >

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 208
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/7/2008 1:32:15 AM   
mdiehl

 

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

I NEVER said I believed the US made an aggressive move toward Japan. I said the Japanese believed it. You have again confused everything I said and also picked it apart so that it fits your arguments.


I don't think the evidence supports your denial. I haven't cherry picked your argument. You said:

quote:

With cutting off Japans entire supply of oil, that was definately a hostile act. How can you cut off the entire supply of oil to any nation and not consider it hostile?


So what's the difference from an "aggressive move" and a "hostile act" when in your rationale either seems to justify a military attack by Japan? You have equated embargo with attack.

quote:

I NEVER said that the Western allies should have just caved in. I SAID it was foolish and damn near criminal to expect that they would.


Well, you have repeatedly indicated that the West forced Japan to attack and laid the responsibility for the Japanese attack on the US for the US use of an embargo. I don't think I've misunderstood your claim. It seems pretty clear that you believe that one could (now or then) reasonably construe a non-military action (the oil embargo) as the equivalent of an attack (or a "hostile act" or a non-"aggressive move") that warranted (in your mind) or could be perceived to warrant (in Japan's mind in your clarified argument) an attack on the United States. The thing is, NO ONE in 1941 would have treated that as a causus belli other than an expansionist totalitarian power discomfited by limitations on global ambition.

quote:

When I said we should have been prepared for war I did not mean at the last moment, I meant that the moment that we decided to use and " force " economic or whatever against Japan we ahould have expected them to attack us.


This is a legitimate complaint I think, but you have to bear in mind that the US was in fact preparing for war. It's not the sort of thing that can happen overnight, however. For example, in 1939 the USAAF was smaller than the Rumanian Air Force. In 1939, the United States had fewer mobilized trained infantry divisions than Czechoslovakia, and fewer armored corps than Poland. In 1939 the US was a third rate military power with an underdeveloped 1st rate navy.

If your claim is that the US should have foresworn any economic sanctions until 1943 then that is one point of view, but not necessarily an action that would in the long run have benefitted the US and it would certainly have harmed China. For my part I do think the US took reasonable precautions, given the amount of intel available on what Japan was actually doing at the time.

That's the thing about "the initiative" -- if you KNOW that you are GOING to imminently attack and your opponent does not have substantial reason to believe same (esp. if you're doing a good job at sham negotiations) then you've got the clear upper hand.

quote:

Contrary to after school specials you do not talk to a bully and straighten out your differences you smack him or at least make him understand that his actions will have consequences ( not economic ).


That model has not played-out so well on the international stage for the US since 2003.

quote:

One thing I did say was that our cutting off of all oil from us and our allies was going to leave them defenseless in 6 months to a year. Those are Japanese estimates written up at that time. Even if they are wrong they are the #'s THEY believed. The Japanese could have stopped everything had they listened to reason in 1940. But, in my eyes only St. Francis could have expected such a scenario with his eyes open. I never said we should not have done it. If you are going to stick a stick into a wasps nest with one hand you had better have a can of raid in the other.


Hmm. Well, sure, the Japanese believed it, and they got petulent when denied resources (by Russia in 1903, China in the 1920s, the USSR in 1939, and later by the US) that they felt the were owed by right. And yeah, it would have been nice if the US could have started the war with Japan at its convenience. But that's never something that the US or any other one power could control, and given US demobilized state in 1939 the US strategic position was not incorrectly perceived by the Roosevelt admin. Put another way, playing for time by declaring an embargo was more likely to be useful to the US than an immediate attack on Japan. It was the best move at the time.

quote:

As far as the NAI's being from New England probably skews my thinking having only the history of this area right in my face. The Europeans here did have a policy of extermination toward the NAI's and it was state sponsored. The written orders and a mass of other evidence shows this is true.


I really do not agree with your claim. Both Britain and France during the American colonial period had genocide of each other rather more foregrounded than genocide of the Native Americans. Certainly smallpox was way beyond the control of 16th-mid19thC. Britain. Moreover, inasmuch as neither France, Netherlands, Britain or Spain had diddly to do with United States "Indian policy" I can't see how British, Spanish, Dutch, or French intentions bear on US intentions. I know a few New England NAs myself, being from New England and all. The Passamaquoddy and Penobscot are still there and own a good chunk of the state of Maine. Had the United States intended otherwise, they'd not be there now.

quote:

The Samurai traditions that you speak about are all correct.But, the twisted late 19th early 20th century form of bushido had nothing but a slight resemblane to the older tradition. The warped tradition that they were being taught were as you said completely contrary to what some of the older tradition was formed of. The only problem is that the warped one is the one we had to deal with.


Yes yes. My point is that Japanese propaganda and literature from the 1930s and 1940s speak of the old Samurai traditions including benevolence towards noncombatants and justice etc such that we may now reasonably surmise that Imperial Japan in the 1930s knew damn well what was "moral conduct" but simply refused to try to behave morally. You keep wanting to bring it back to how the Japanese viewed the situation. Fine. Their own documents demonstrate that by their own standards their own conduct in China (and later in the PI, Indonesia, and Malaya) was immoral.

_____________________________

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 ORANGE)
Post #: 209
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/7/2008 2:54:18 AM   
ezzler

 

Posts: 841
Joined: 7/4/2004
Status: offline
NO ONE IN 1941 WOULD HAVE TREATED THAT AS A CAUSUS BELLI...

It was a terrific fight but mdiehl has won on points.

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 210
Page:   <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: WWII boming debate Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   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

0.176