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 - 3/7/2008 4:03:54 AM   
sullafelix

 

Posts: 1508
Joined: 1/11/2005
Status: offline
Sorry EZZ your a very bad judge. He beat me bloody.

I think his thoughts could be used in any political or history course.

I think my thoughts are whispered in government rooms around the globe when the cameras are off and the lights are low.  

The only really bad thing   ( at least for me ) was the long rebuttal I was working on for the last two hours before it timed out and I lost everything.

The only thing I will post is that I forgot about the other New England states . In Ct. Rhode island and Mass. the government sponsored genocide is very well documented.

(in reply to ezzler)
Post #: 211
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/7/2008 5:42:34 AM   
Ike99


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

In contrast, the effects of a beheading contest between Japanese infantry officers were rather predictable. Thus, comparisons with Japanese treatment of Manchurians, Chinese, and Filipinos don't really work. (in reference to native americans)


Really.

I would think the results of beating a childs head in with a rifle butt would be pretty predictable too and it wasn´t Japanese doing it to Chinese either.

(An interpreter living in the village testified, "They were scalped, Their brains knocked out; The men used their knives, Ripped open women, Clubbed little children, Knocked them in the head with their rifle butts, Beat their brains out, Mutilated their bodies in every sence of the word.")

Where was the justice for this, compensation?

¨...justice was never served on those responsible for the massacre. A Civil War memorial installed at the Colorado Capitol in 1909 listed the Sand Creek massacre as one of the Union's great victories.¨

Uh huh, I see.

You spotlight Japanese atrocities and whitewash others with talk of Indian casinos. The Indian Wars were wars of genocide by any loose definition of the word.


quote:

As noted, Japan was not cut off from oil



French Indochina and also the USSR oil sources open for Japan. How?

Maybe, if the Soviets and Japanese could have stopped shooting at each other long enough across the Manchurian border to make the deal.

The Soviets were not about to sell Japan oil. They were enemies. If there was any chance whatsoever of an oil deal between Japan and the USSR a mission would have been sent. The political situation in 1941 would have made such a proposal laughable. Wasn´t going to happen. Stalin certainly would have rolled on the floor with laughter at such a proposal.

French Indo China couldn´t have supplied simple economic and domestic need to Japan. If it could have when they occupied French Indo China the oil crisis would have been over. The Japanese actually offered to leave French Indo China in exchange for the US dropping its oil embargo. That´s how much oil could be supplied by French Indo China.

Ambassador (Nomura) To the Secretary of State on August 6, 1941

The Japanese Government undertakes:-

...the Japanese troops now stationed in French Indo-China will be withdrawn forthwith...Japan and the Japanese subjects will not be placed in any discriminatory positions as compared with other countries...

The Government of the United States undertakes:-

...the Government of the United States will take steps necessary for restoring the normal relations of trade and commerce which have hitherto existed between Japan and the United States..¨

But this didn´t happen. The ABCD powers had every intent to either strangle Japan economicaly or, and much to Roosevelts hopes, allow him to get into a war in which he was eager to get in.

quote:

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.


There is no difference. The effects of the embargo was to cripple Japan both economicaly and militarily. Now if that is not an aggressive and a hostile act against a nation I don´t know what is. Besides, If cutting off oil supplies through embargos or otherwise is as passive as you say, then explain why warships have patrolled the Persian Gulf for the last 70 years to make sure the oil supplies stay open, eh?

Cutting off oil supplies to any nation is a hostile act. It was treated as such then. It would be treated as such tomorrow.

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 212
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/7/2008 2:02:37 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 6922
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: St. Petersburg, Florida, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sulla05


The only really bad thing   ( at least for me ) was the long rebuttal I was working on for the last two hours before it timed out and I lost everything.




A quick word of advice from some one who has experienced that frustration.

After copmpleting the typing of a very long post and before hitting the "post" button, copy and paste it into a text editor like Word or Notepad as a backup in case it times out.

(in reply to sullafelix)
Post #: 213
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/7/2008 2:06:01 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 6922
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: St. Petersburg, Florida, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99


There is no difference. The effects of the embargo was to cripple Japan both economicaly and militarily. Now if that is not an aggressive and a hostile act against a nation I don´t know what is.




With the operative phrase of course being "I don't know what is"!

(in reply to Ike99)
Post #: 214
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/7/2008 2:11:16 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 6922
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: St. Petersburg, Florida, USA
Status: offline
Ike, no one cut off the oil to the Japanese, but the Japanese themselves.

All they had to do to get the oil trade back was simply stop slaughtering their neighbors, the Chinese.

Exactly what part of such a simple and fundamental equation do you so persistently fail to grasp?

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 215
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/7/2008 7:55:40 PM   
mdiehl

 

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

(An interpreter living in the village testified, "They were scalped, Their brains knocked out; The men used their knives, Ripped open women, Clubbed little children, Knocked them in the head with their rifle butts, Beat their brains out, Mutilated their bodies in every sence of the word.")

Where was the justice for this, compensation?

¨...justice was never served on those responsible for the massacre. A Civil War memorial installed at the Colorado Capitol in 1909 listed the Sand Creek massacre as one of the Union's great victories.¨


Yep. And if you really want to learn about it, on reading, you will discover that: 1. Chivington was not acting under Federal orders nor was he implementing Federal policy. One of the differences between the US in the 19thC and the Axis in the 20th C (apart from the small scale of massacres) is that there is overwhelming documentary evidence linking Axis atrocities to Axsi governmental intentions as indicated in orders, communiques, and other evidence germane to policy. In contrast, after the Sand Creek massacre, Chivington was called before the US Congress, forced to account for his assault on Black Kettle's band, and censured. The official statement of the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War included the following:

quote:

As to Colonel Chivington, your committee can hardly find fitting terms to describe his conduct. Wearing the uniform of the United States, which should be the emblem of justice and humanity; holding the important position of commander of a military district, and therefore having the honor of the government to that extent in his keeping, he deliberately planned and executed a foul and dastardly massacre which would have disgraced the verist savage among those who were the victims of his cruelty. Having full knowledge of their friendly character, having himself been instrumental to some extent in placing them in their position of fancied security, he took advantage of their in-apprehension and defenceless condition to gratify the worst passions that ever cursed the heart of man.

Whatever influence this may have had upon Colonel Chivington, the truth is that he surprised and murdered, in cold blood, the unsuspecting men, women, and children on Sand creek, who had every reason to believe they were under the protection of the United States authorities, and then returned to Denver and boasted of the brave deed he and the men under his command had performed.

In conclusion, your committee are of the opinion that for the purpose of vindicating the cause of justice and upholding the honor of the nation, prompt and energetic measures should be at once taken to remove from office those who have thus disgraced the government by whom they are employed, and to punish, as their crimes deserve, those who have been guilty of these brutal and cowardly acts.


In short, no one had to drag the US government into condemning atrocities. Chivington, IMO, never got what he deserved in the matter. But unlike his peers, he was busted from the US Army (which was unusual by ANY nation's standards at the time), socially ostracized, driven out of Colorado, went to Ohio and ran for Congress, was again socially ostracized and forced to withdraw when his Sand Creek record came up, and was nationally disgraced in newspaper headlines across the United States. He died a bankrupt penniless ostracized unsuccessful freight hauler.

In contrast, the beheading contest I mentioned, was celebrated in the Osaka Mainichi Shimbun and the Tokyo Nichi Nichi Shimbun.

quote:

The Indian Wars were wars of genocide by any loose definition of the word.


Actually, they were not, by any standard of the word. Can you name all the US Army engagements, or any of the massacres of European American settlers conducted by Native Americans? There's no question that these wars were at times brutally waged, and there's no question that if you want to find GENUINE specimens of low-life humanity in American conduct, Chivington would be your best example. But neither Chivington (nor Custer in his Black Hills Expedition) were acting in consort with United States Federal Policy and BOTH were soundly knocked down because of their acts. Custer of course paid the ultimate price for his MacArthur-esque ambitions later on.

quote:

French Indochina and also the USSR oil sources open for Japan. How?


French Indochina could have supplied resources for synthetic fuels. The USSR was not a participant in the embargo and could have provided oil. More to the point, extant coal reserves in Korea and Manchuria were developed enough to keep the civilian economy in operational shape although, as I noted before, military operations would have to have been curtailed. (Which after all was the goal of the embargo).

quote:

Maybe, if the Soviets and Japanese could have stopped shooting at each other long enough across the Manchurian border to make the deal.


Oh, you mean if Japan could have stopped attacking the USSR? Uh, yeah. Again, we're talking about Imperial Japan. If they were unable to get oil from the USSR because their aggression led them to try to steal that for which they might have traded, it's Japan's fault.

quote:

French Indo China couldn´t have supplied simple economic and domestic need to Japan.


Which explains so succinctly why they occupied Indochina in the first place. Not.

quote:

The Japanese actually offered to leave French Indo China in exchange for the US dropping its oil embargo. That´s how much oil could be supplied by French Indo China.


Have you ever bothered to actually read what Japan offered to do in Indochina? You have a very generous notion of the verb "to leave."

quote:

The effects of the embargo was to cripple Japan both economicaly and militarily. Now if that is not an aggressive and a hostile act against a nation I don´t know what is.


Good, it's settled. We agree that you do not know what constitutes an "aggressive and hostile act."

The Persian Gulf is patrolled because oil exporting states in the Persian Gulf have the right to transit the Persian gulf without being attacked by Iran. Anti-piracy patrols have been part and parcel of many maritime powers policies for a long, long time.

< Message edited by mdiehl -- 3/7/2008 11:58:21 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 sullafelix)
Post #: 216
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/7/2008 8:01:32 PM   
sullafelix

 

Posts: 1508
Joined: 1/11/2005
Status: offline
I do have one qustion though Mdiehl you have done very well on the on item, the Japanese in 1940. You have also time and again listed the Japanese as the only nation that would do such a thing in response to an embargo or do such things in their colonies. Might I ask why you have never made a response to the numerous other instances  ( Algeria , Ireland etc ) I brought up. You have answered my comparisions to the NAIs but nothing else. Is it because they do not fit nicely into your ideas that all nations ( other than the Axis and I presume the USSR ) play nicely with one another.

Also your argument on the NAIs and other small tidbits you've dropped seem to say that as long as the amount of carnage and brutalization does not go past some limit in your head that it doesn't count. That sounds to me like a backwards stalin quote " a single death is a tragedy a million a statistic " . That this instance represents only a small amount of death and destruction so it doesn't matter compared to this one.

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 217
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/7/2008 8:34:53 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
These are valid questions. I tend to rave a bit, so here I'll try to be brief.

I think there is a big difference between intent and outcome. Thus, while I do not deny the scale of the effects of for example smallpox on North and South America, I see a fundamental difference in intent between the ravages of smallpox and the ravages of the Imperial Japanese Army. I also see differences in US Federal intent in the various "Plains wars" and the intent of the Imperial government because we can review written policy statements from both eras and find Japanese orders stipulating the slaughter of innocents that go to the top. Such massacres as occurred in the American west were of local origin and intent. You can see the differences in how such events were treated in respective nations newspapers at the time, and by official reaction. Chivington got the axe. The C/O of the IJA 26th Division got promoted.

I also think that scale does matter. No matter how hard you push it, Sand Creek does not remotely compare with Nanking. I also think that scale matters as evidence for intent. The fact that Nanking could happen on such a large scale (and was, by most accounts, repeated in other cities), where massive genocides of Native Americans were NOT attempted, says alot. I don't say this to minimize the effects or debt owed to Native Americans by the way. They got screwed despite widespread general good intentions. Was it up to me, the head of the BIA and maybe the Dept of the Interior would be NAs.

I have not commented on "The Irish Situation" because I know so little about them. Perhaps "No Nation Would Have Done What The Japanese Did" was an overreach, but if Imperial Britain's intentions in Ireland were similar to Imperial Japan's intentions in China, or if the massacres were of equivalent scale and flowing from the top down, I'd like to see someone make a good case for it. I'd also like to know which period we're talking about. I don't see British conduct anywhere in the 20thC looking alot like Japanese or German conduct in anything. But if a really compelling analogy can be made, I'm game to hear it.

I would add that I know even less of Colonial Dutch policy outside the colony of New Amsterdam, but if the Dutch were in Indonesia as they were in New Amsterdam, it is reasonable to suggest that the colonial Dutch shared more in common with Imperial Japan than either the US or UK.

_____________________________

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 #: 218
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/7/2008 11:42:37 PM   
Doggie


Posts: 3244
Joined: 9/19/2001
From: Under the porch
Status: offline
Wow, we got educated, coherent essays from mdiehl and Iron Duke countered by "lo, the poor indian"

Truly something for everybody here.

It's a pity the plight of the Amerinds in south America seems to have been forgotten in the rush to condemn the Yankee imperialists.  There was no "genocide" in the United States and Canada.  Although the Indian territories have been incorporated into their respective federal governments, the indians themselves have survived.  Compare to the now extinct Aztecs and Incas, who were systematically exterminated under the more benign supervision of the Spanish colonialists.  I hear the Phillipinos loved them just as much.

As for Sulla05, you're doing a fine job of empathizing with the Japanese, but there are behavioral scientists who have an equal insight into the minds of serial murderers.  Understanding their motivation does not rationalize their behavior.

_____________________________


(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 219
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/8/2008 12:35:30 AM   
ORANGE


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Doggie

Compare to the now extinct Aztecs and Incas, who were systematically exterminated under the more benign supervision of the Spanish colonialists.

The descendants of the Inca's and Aztecs live on today.

_____________________________


(in reply to Doggie)
Post #: 220
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/8/2008 3:08:21 AM   
sullafelix

 

Posts: 1508
Joined: 1/11/2005
Status: offline
I don't believe I've empathized with Japan or any other country I brought up as examples of horrible deeds. I have tried to use insight to show what they were thinking and how " venus and mars " the US and Japan were at the time. After my first post  ( besides the asides of NAIs etc. ) I was trying to show that the statement below was in my eyes false. I was on the side of only one country and that was the US in my OPEC embargo scenario. Also in that scenario the US had no bargaining chips as Japan did in 1940. I have no problem with a country who exhausting ALL MEANS of diplomacy etc. to no avail. That is going to be defenseless and whose very fabric is breaking apart to invade one of the embargoing countries for what it needs to defend itself. I used that scenario to show that YES an embargo could under certain circumstances be a hostile act. Japan still had plenty of elbow room in the historical embargo. My one argument was that many other nations have or could have acted as " bad " as the Japanese did in their colonies. What if the US and some other nations got together and put an embargo on Belgium for their horrific crimes in the Congo? Would Belgium just give in of course. Now lets say Belgium had the worlds 3rd largest navy and was also a land power, do we still think that they would have just walked away, because of other nations " feelings ". If you believe that I have some swampland for you.This is the statement that was made.

"No Nation Would Have Done What The Japanese Did" In his last post he has said that maybe it was with too wide a brush this was painted, so be it.

I do not have the same feeling that horrific acts are worse if they involve more people or are not state sponsored.

Now for the NAIs. I believe the estimates for North America to be 4-5 million natives in 1600 or there abouts. Now at there lowest the figure od 100,000 was given in 1900 or there abouts. Even at 4 million that is a loss of I believe 98% of a population. Now it is very true that there was little to none of state sponsored genocide. Also there was horrific losses due to disease. But just like the Russians and their pogroms against the Jews ( which were not state sponsored ) huge losses of life took place because of one populations hatred of another. Also enforced starvation and complete loss of the NAIs civilization meant they could only be just like the white man or die ( farming etc. ). We can see how these terrible acts, separate one by one without the backing of the government still caused a death toll to rival the holocaust. have you also stopped to think what would have had to happen if the NAIs were not victims of such losses to disease? Does anyone truely believe that the same results would have happened with obviously more bloodshed? I have that swampland for sale sign up.

I only brought up the NAIs as one small example of what happened in other colonies. Unfortunately it took up a life of it's own.

Back to the real arguments.

One of my problems when discussing history is that to me it is one flowing ocean. I do not see rome as ancient but only as last week. I see Napoleon as having lived yesterday. I'm pushing it so you get the idea. I see the 22 years between the utter madness of 1918 and 1940 as being a drop in the bucket. One of my arguments against the above statement is how would the other western powers act if the huge losses of WW1 did not take place. Do you really believe that they would not have acted as petty and criminal and nuts as they did in 1914? A country was handed a piece of paper in August 1914 that resembled the 21 points of 1919 closely. If followed the excepting nation would have lost it's sovreignty, it would have become just an extension of the other country. So guess what happened almost all the " civilized " countries of the world hoped and suggested it be followed for their own selfish reasons. In 1919 most of the same nations forced the aggressor nation to back down. Not, I repeat not for any change of heart or in thinking but because those 21 demands would have impacted their own concessions with China gotten with the barrel of a gun ( or the threat of one ). I have no doubt that had Japan acted only a little differently and also offered all the other powers ( except the US. ) a slice of the 21 points pie they would have dropped their embargos like a flash.

Sorry for the run ons. What about France and Algeria up until the 1960s even though Paris and more of France was getting bombed and at a cost of tons of lives on both sides. At the very mention of leaving Algeria the French army plotted a coup to kill the president of France and force the nation to stay in the fight. Doesn't this sound like another nation we've been discussing.

None of this is an apology for what Japan did or even more could have done given more time. It is an attempt to show that the US had picked the worst time in it's existence to stick it's head in the sand and believe that other countries could be reasoned with. Only when it is to their advantage by gain fear or the like do governments work with one another. True with the " we are the world " thinking it is happening less and less. But how much of that is not because of brotherly love but the almighty dollar,euro or yen.

(in reply to ORANGE)
Post #: 221
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/8/2008 3:22:51 AM   
Terminus


Posts: 41451
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
Good Lord, is this thing still going on? A thread advocating the various benefits of electing Cthulhu or Nyarlatothep as US president gets clamped, but this garbage rolls on?

Sheesh...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to sullafelix)
Post #: 222
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/8/2008 3:24:55 AM   
sullafelix

 

Posts: 1508
Joined: 1/11/2005
Status: offline
I'd vote for the nameless one. Then again I'm a real fan of Babylonian  gods.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 223
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/8/2008 7:26:24 AM   
pad152

 

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline
What's boming? 

(in reply to sullafelix)
Post #: 224
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/8/2008 8:03:26 AM   
Prince of Eckmühl


Posts: 2456
Joined: 6/25/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

What's boming?


The "Thread Starter" mispelled the topic.

It should have read:

BONING DEBATE

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

_____________________________

Government is the opiate of the masses.

(in reply to pad152)
Post #: 225
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/8/2008 10:44:26 AM   
Arctic Blast


Posts: 1168
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
So, 8 pages of banter that turns out to have been a complete waste of time...the discussion should have been about gettin' with the hot ladies. Dammit!

_____________________________

Meditation on inevitable death should be performed daily.

(in reply to Prince of Eckmühl)
Post #: 226
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/9/2008 1:20:28 AM   
sullafelix

 

Posts: 1508
Joined: 1/11/2005
Status: offline
This is from a letter from FDR to secretary of the interior? Ickes.

" Recent significant developments indicate the need of coordinating existing Federal authority over oil and gas and insuring that the supply of petroleum and its products will be accommodated to the needs of the Nation and the national defense program. Government functions relating to petroleum problems are now divided among numerous officers and agencies of the Federal Government and the principal oil-producing States. The various phases of operation in the petroleum industry itself are numerous and complex. One of the essential requirements of the national defense program, which must be made the basis of our petroleum defense policy in the unlimited national emergency declared on May 27, 1941, is the development and utilization with maximum efficiency of our petroleum resources and our facilities, present and future

In order to provide the desired coordination, I am hereby designating you as Petroleum Coordinator for National Defense. In that capacity it will be your function and responsibility as my representative:
1. To obtain currently from the States and their agencies, from the petroleum and allied industries, from the officers and agencies of your Department, and from other appropriate Federal departments and agencies information as to (a) the military and civilian needs for petroleum and petroleum products, (b) the factors affecting the continuous, ready availability of petroleum and petroleum products for those needs, and (c) any action proposed which will affect such availability of petroleum "

So they must have known in 1940 how vital oil was and also how much of a threat ( not hostile act ) an embargo was to an industrialized nation. They had gone as far as they could with diplomacy with this act nothing more serious could have been done without actual hostilities.

(in reply to Arctic Blast)
Post #: 227
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/9/2008 4:37:04 AM   
ilovestrategy


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Good Lord, is this thing still going on? A thread advocating the various benefits of electing Cthulhu or Nyarlatothep as US president gets clamped, but this garbage rolls on?

Sheesh...



I was thinking exactly the same thing and shaking my head. And no one even took the time to answer my question.


_____________________________

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 Terminus)
Post #: 228
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/9/2008 7:42:35 PM   
Prince of Eckmühl


Posts: 2456
Joined: 6/25/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
You know, it's kind of interesting how culture shapes a country's military and how it's expected to behave.

In the West, a rape committed by a soldier isn't just looked upon as barbarous, it's a sign of bad leadership. The thinking in this regard is that an officer who can't control his men in occupation likely can't control them in battle, either. An officer who has a subordinate charged with a civilian rape has a fairly serious career problem staring him in the face. From that standpoint, he's really best-off if he does everything by the book, if he wants to stay employed that is.

Apparently, to Russians and Japanese this is not the case:

http://www.centurychina.com/wiihist/njmassac/rape.htm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2002%2F01%2F24%2Fwbeev24.xml

In the militaries associated with these cultures, rape seems to be looked upon as a sort of consecration of one's victory, not just as a "spoil of war," but as a sort of male-bonding activity. These cultural differences are so stark as to suggest that there's gonna be no bridging the ideological gap that exists between Ike and the overwhelming majority of our readers. He believes what he believes, and no matter how twisted we may find his thinking, it's not gonna alter his beliefs in regard to WW2 and his view of Japan as the victim:

-The U.S. forced itself on a peaceful Japan in the middle of the 19th century, initiating a series of slights that were perceived as both threat and insult.

-In response, Japan sought to industrialize in order to protect itself from foreign domination.

-Developing an economic base that would allow Japan to compete with the West necessitated the creation of a European-style empire in East Asia.

-When the U.S. and Great Britain sought to interfere with the acquisition of territory and resources which Japan required, the latter had no choice but to defend itself.

-The bombing of Japanese cities by the military forces of the USA was disprortionate to the violence visited upon it by Japanese forces, and, therefore, criminal in nature.

-These crimes were part of a long pattern of Western behavior, the conquest, removal and relocation of mesolithic peoples from much of North America, for instance, or the lynchings of Southern blacks in the first half of the 20th century, or the Britain's approach to India.

-All the Japanese ever wanted was to be left alone, to be free of foreign influence and domination.

But, there's an elephant in the room...

Ike either doesn't know about Japan's behavior in it's "Empire," or he doesn't care. Rhetorically, he doesn't even acknowledge it. Perhaps he believes that the Chinese and other subject-populations were unworthy of humane handling. Maybe he looks upon their treatment as a necessary evil, given the challenges confronting Japan as it pursued Tojo's policy of expansion and conquest. One thing seems certain in this regard, however, and that's Ike's apparent lack of proportion or scale in regard to all these events, and his failure to recognize that the destruction of so many of Japan's cities can be traced back to Nanking.

You see, Japan didn't fail in WW2 because it lacked all the bells and whistles that outfitted Allied ships and aircraft. It failed because it's military and political leadership lacked the requisite moral and professional fiber to succeed, as was so aptly demonstrated on the streets of Nanking. Likewise, it's doctrine and practices on the battlefield were a smorgasboard of bad ideas run-amock, everything from banzai-charges to it's use of aircraft, throughout the war, as one sort of incendiary, or another. Apart from establishing a firm willingness for self-immolation from it's troops, the military seemed to have little confidence in the abilities of those same fighting men to think on their own or to work together, effectively, beyond the smallest, most tightly-controlled of groups.

And underlying it all, was a lack of professional discipline, throughtout the ranks, a flaw which fatally weakened a great people beyond their shores, the sort which could embrace mass rape and murder as a managment technique in the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere. The Japanese unleashed bushido on Asia and Asians, with all it's ghastly implications as a means of cementing a body of men together, not as soldiers to be honored, but as perpetrators, one and all, to the bitter-end, always outnumbered and always outgunned:




PoE (aka ivanmoe)






< Message edited by Prince of Eckmühl -- 3/9/2008 8:22:21 PM >


_____________________________

Government is the opiate of the masses.

(in reply to ilovestrategy)
Post #: 229
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/9/2008 8:20:07 PM   
Hartford688

 

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

I agree with much of what you said, but could you please remove the extremely graphic and disgusting photo. My kids look over my shoulder sometimes when I am on the forum and I can do without them seeing that. We get your Nanjing point.

Thanks

Hartford688

(in reply to Prince of Eckmühl)
Post #: 230
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/9/2008 8:20:54 PM   
Prince of Eckmühl


Posts: 2456
Joined: 6/25/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hartford688

PoE

I agree with much of what you said, but could you please remove the extremely graphic and disgusting photo. My kids look over my shoulder sometimes when I am on the forum and I can do without them seeing that. We get your Nanjing point.

Thanks

Hartford688

Yes, I will.

And I apologize.

PoE

_____________________________

Government is the opiate of the masses.

(in reply to Hartford688)
Post #: 231
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/9/2008 8:22:13 PM   
Ike99


Posts: 1747
Joined: 1/1/2006
From: A Sand Road
Status: offline
Prince, whatever point your trying to make is all good and well but you really should edit out that picture.

Showing a dead naked woman in that pose on this forum is in pretty bad taste here don´t you think?

(in reply to Prince of Eckmühl)
Post #: 232
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/9/2008 8:24:53 PM   
Hartford688

 

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

(in reply to Prince of Eckmühl)
Post #: 233
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/9/2008 8:27:47 PM   
Prince of Eckmühl


Posts: 2456
Joined: 6/25/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99

Prince, whatever point your trying to make is all good and well but you really should edit out that picture.

Showing a dead naked woman in that pose on this forum is in pretty bad taste here don´t you think?


Here you go Ike:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqH47MIpuoA

You can watch the movie.

Please feel welcome to share your thoughts on the events as depicted.

PoE

_____________________________

Government is the opiate of the masses.

(in reply to Ike99)
Post #: 234
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/9/2008 8:28:51 PM   
Hartford688

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99

Prince, whatever point your trying to make is all good and well but you really should edit out that picture.

Showing a dead naked woman in that pose on this forum is in pretty bad taste here don´t you think?


Thank heavens for that. At least you think the photo is in bad taste. If only you thought the people who actually perpetrated that act were appalling as well. Oil embargoes never justified that act....or the tens of thousands of similar acts in Nanjing.

(in reply to Ike99)
Post #: 235
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/9/2008 9:45:34 PM   
sullafelix

 

Posts: 1508
Joined: 1/11/2005
Status: offline
" You see, Japan didn't fail in WW2 because it lacked all the bells and whistles that outfitted Allied ships and aircraft. It failed because it's military and political leadership lacked the requisite moral and professional fiber to succeed, as was so aptly demonstrated on the streets of Nanking. Likewise, it's doctrine and practices on the battlefield were a smorgasboard of bad ideas run-amock, everything from banzai-charges to it's use of aircraft, throughout the war, as one sort of incendiary, or another. Apart from establishing a firm willingness for self-immolation from it's troops, the military seemed to have little confidence in the abilities of those same fighting men to think on their own or to work together, effectively, beyond the smallest, most tightly-controlled of groups.

And underlying it all, was a lack of professional discipline, throughtout the ranks, a flaw which fatally weakened a great people beyond their shores, the sort which could embrace mass rape and murder as a managment technique in the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere. The Japanese unleashed bushido on Asia and Asians, with all it's ghastly implications as a means of cementing a body of men together, not as soldiers to be honored, but as perpetrators, one and all, to the bitter-end, always outnumbered and always outgunned: "

Only problem with your ideas are that that except for the last statement, they could also refer to the Soviet army in WW2. While you do aknowledge this in the first part of the post, it seems lost in the second part. So with the Soviet army being able to win against long odds, these same problems do not seem to have hindered it.

One point that is missing from all the posts that I looked at, and has much relevance to the points you brought up is this. The Japanese not only felt put upon by the west and being treated as second class humans. They felt that they had a mandate from heaven to rule asia, because they were descendant from Gods and it was the divine plan. Whenever a group or nation considers itself superior not by technology or something else but by a divine plan and a belief in their own divinity, we've had big problems. That is why Idon't believe the west had any grasp of the japanese mind contrary to some other opinions. To understand the Japanese mind you would have to grasp that they were just like a Sumerian city state that believed it was their Gods will that they conquer their neighbors. how can you argue or have diplomacy with that kind of thinking.

Most of the last few pages were not arguing or even discussing Ike99 and his written in stone views. You cannot have a debate or an exchange of ideas when one side has it's mind made up and just repeats the same notions parrot like again and again. You can find horror and rays of sunshine in almost all instances of WW2 and the entire colonial era. The ideas discussed recently are much more about the morality of nations and their policies. My view being that history shows us that a nation cannot base it's existence or safety by following a strict moral code, or believing that other nations will follow suit. The other views have been to me summed up by this. St. Francis walks in to a dark alley and is surrounded by a group of men all armed and very suspicious of one another and their motives, some have money and others are broke and want some. St. francis is then able to talk the other guys into all being friends. I do not want my nation to be St. Francis unless he walksinto the alley with Teddy Roosevelts big stick on his shoulder in plain sight.

(in reply to Hartford688)
Post #: 236
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/9/2008 10:25:08 PM   
pad152

 

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl


quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

What's boming?


The "Thread Starter" mispelled the topic.

It should have read:

BONING DEBATE

PoE (aka ivanmoe)



People shouldn't debate topics they can't spell!

(in reply to Prince of Eckmühl)
Post #: 237
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/10/2008 11:58:23 PM   
mdiehl

 

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

One point that is missing from all the posts that I looked at, and has much relevance to the points you brought up is this. The Japanese not only felt put upon by the west and being treated as second class humans. They felt that they had a mandate from heaven to rule asia, because they were descendant from Gods and it was the divine plan. Whenever a group or nation considers itself superior not by technology or something else but by a divine plan and a belief in their own divinity, we've had big problems. That is why Idon't believe the west had any grasp of the japanese mind contrary to some other opinions.


The west had a very strong grasp of Japanese mindset and intentions. Yes they felt put-upon, or at least have made that claim as one of several claims in a multitentacled rationalization for their crimes, but they were not justified in that claim.

Very specifically, Prince Konoye in his memoirs on the prelude to Pearl Harbor was informed that Japan could produce enough oil to meet the needs of the domestic economy provided that the Army would acquiesce to the release of funds to build the needed facilies (Morrison, v1. p. 63 footnote 38).

Not only that, Japan knew that the US viewed Japanese conduct as immoral, and viewed Japanese demands to lift US economic sanctions as demands that the US become a co-conspirator (Morrison uses the word "connivance") in the rape of China.

quote:

Japan protested against it as an 'unfriendly act' on the ground that ~ she had been the principal buyer of American iron and steel scrap.' When the Japanese ambassador called ~ Mr. Hull remarked 'that it was unheard of for one country engaged in aggression and seizure of another country... to turn to a third peacfully disposed nation and seriously insist it would be guilty of an unfriendly cact if it should not cheerfully provide some of the necessary implements of war~'

(Morrison v1 p.60)

Also:

"Around 10 March 1941, a bare majority of voters ~ were willing to accept the risk fo war to prevent Japan from taking Singapore and the Netherlands East Indies." (p.61). Inasmuch as Gallup posted these polls in the newspapers, it can only be noted that Japanese conduct in China was having a strong negative impact on ordinary Americans views of Japanese conduct.

Finally, since the claim has been made that Americans should have reacted to the likely effects of an oil embargo (war with Japan), it should only be noted that Japan should have reacted to the likely effects of occupying Indochina (a US embargo on oil exports to Japan), because Japan knew that such would be a likely American reaction.

quote:

From: Tokyo
To: Washington
July 24, 1941
Purple (CA)
#406
Secret outside the Department.

Re my #397[a].

That the leaders of the United States Government will at this time display a high degree of statesmanship is what I am secretly hoping for the sake of maintaining peace in the Pacific. The Japanese Government would do likewise and would like to reciprocate. However according to information received by us lately, especially according to newspaper reports, there is the possibility of the United State freezing Japanese funds or of instituting a general embargo on petroleum, thus strongly stimulating public opinion in Japan.


See also: http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/timeline/410927c.html

What's interesting about the latter is the comment about "America swallowing" the Japanese "special close relationship" whose terms included:
#2. The US and Britain must freeze force levels in SE Asia even in their own possessions.
#6. Japan will "guarantee the neutrality of" the Phillippines.

If there was any misguided understanding of mindsets here, surely the Japanese mindset that characterized Japanese authority to secure Phillippine neutrality is a 'minimum demand' is a genuine whopper of a misunderstanding.

_____________________________

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 #: 238
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/14/2008 10:52:24 AM   
Ironfist738


Posts: 139
Joined: 4/30/2001
From: Cincinnati,Ohio.
Status: offline
I would say that the bombing of city's had little or no effect on War production. I think the main goal was to terrorize and demoralize the public. Truly a harsh reality of war. War is the greatest inhumanity towards others.  Total war vs killed or enslaved. I think I would have to say " All's fair in Love and War "  When it comes to survival, there are no rules on the battlefield. I dont think I would call it criminal but highly immoral !!!!

_____________________________

SpWaW Game Veteran since 1991

(in reply to Wirraway_Ace)
Post #: 239
RE: WWII boming debate - 3/14/2008 10:59:49 AM   
pasternakski


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ironfist738

I would say that the bombing of city's had little or no effect on War production. I think the main goal was to terrorize and demoralize the public. Truly a harsh reality of war. War is the greatest inhumanity towards others.  Total war vs killed or enslaved. I think I would have to say " All's fair in Love and War "  When it comes to survival, there are no rules on the battlefield. I dont think I would call it criminal but highly immoral !!!!

Wins my vote for the "Most Triteness Per Inch of Post" award.

People, please. Let this stupid thread die once and for all, willya? Yer embarrassing me (and thst's hard to do with a guy who once dropped trou on a rooftop in Iraklion, Crete).

_____________________________

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 Ironfist738)
Post #: 240
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

0.188