|
It's cool how even 20 pages in the sociopathic masturbation over TOTAL WAR continues. You're right, the Geneva Conventions are for limp wristed human being liberals and we should have killed every man, woman and child both in Japan and in Germany and resettled those lands with the victorious, superior American Volk
icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 01:30 on Aug 8, 2015 |
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 01:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 14:08 |
|
|
Do people not understand the customary element of LOAC?
kustomkarkommando fucked around with this message at 01:39 on Aug 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 01:31
|
|
|
The only just thing homo sapiens can do is go extinct - we're monsters.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 01:42
|
|
|
The nuke being unnecessary and the US being criminals for dropping it is revisionism that can fairly easily be traced back to historians and intellectuals with an axe to grind against capitalism and the US in particular. It's a piece of propaganda cooked up by people wanting to emphasize and spotlight the USSR and Socialism/Communism as being morally superior to the US during the cold war. It's on the conspiracy level of "Bush did 9/11" as far as cherry-picking and reaching for snippets of supporting data while ignoring reams of contradictory information. After the global collapse of Communism most of those folks retreated to academia and have been attempting to revise it there on a new generation. The fact that a hack outlet like Salon is putting it out there should be reason enough to treat it like the garbage theory that it is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 01:53
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:It's cool how even 20 pages in the sociopathic masturbation over TOTAL WAR continues. You're right, the Geneva Conventions are for limp wristed human being liberals and we should have killed every man, woman and child both in Japan and in Germany and resettled those lands with the victorious, superior American Volk That, or man has been making agreements on how to conduct war for thousands of years and those agreements have been broken for thousands of years. What makes you think humanity has changed? It's not that the ideas in various laws dictating war are incorrect. They just don't mesh with know human behavior or the basic tenants of incentives. It's not a hawk/dove thing, it's a humanity thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 01:54
|
|
|
Imagine if Japan had been divided up into north/south halves like Korea or Vietnam - the Korean War probably would have escalated into World War 3. But hey more chances to look back at history and try to claim that we're better people today.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
natetimm posted:The nuke being unnecessary and the US being criminals for dropping it is revisionism that can fairly easily be traced back to historians and intellectuals with an axe to grind against capitalism and the US in particular. It's a piece of propaganda cooked up by people wanting to emphasize and spotlight the USSR and Socialism/Communism as being morally superior to the US during the cold war. It's on the conspiracy level of "Bush did 9/11" as far as cherry-picking and reaching for snippets of supporting data while ignoring reams of contradictory information. After the global collapse of Communism most of those folks retreated to academia and have been attempting to revise it there on a new generation. The fact that a hack outlet like Salon is putting it out there should be reason enough to treat it like the garbage theory that it is. The nuke being necessary and decisive as well as the official justifications for dropping it, especially the second one, are bullshit as well. If you're going to be a hard-nosed realist, just admit that the U.S. did it because it wanted to show the Soviet Union it's powerful new weapon and that better it be dropped against an enemy who can't fight back in any meaningful capacity rather than it being used to open a shooting war in Europe. It doesn't take someone with an axe to grind to admit that the U.S. committed war crimes during World War II. Everyone did, though the Allies to a much, much lesser extent than the Axis. Does that make anyone's war crimes right or justified? Of course not. Junkyard Poodle posted:That, or man has been making agreements on how to conduct war for thousands of years and those agreements have been broken for thousands of years. What makes you think humanity has changed? It's not that the ideas in various laws dictating war are incorrect. They just don't mesh with know human behavior or the basic tenants of incentives. It's not a hawk/dove thing, it's a humanity thing. Ah yes, I too remember when the male children of Germany and Japan were enslaved, the prisoners executed, and the women carried off. KaptainKrunk fucked around with this message at 02:03 on Aug 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
KaptainKrunk posted:The nuke being necessary and decisive as well as the official justifications for dropping it, especially the second one, are bullshit as well. I'm not denying any of the crimes committed, but the US dropped those bombs to avoid a costly invasion of Japan. I can't believe people will still argue Japan's military was ready to surrender when they tried a coup even after both bombs. All the dick waving potential against Russia was just a bonus.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 02:10
|
|
|
KaptainKrunk posted:
Huh? What point are you trying to make? Do you need modern example of states that do kill all males and enslave women? The U.S. accomplish it's political goals without having to go to the next rung. 'Merica didn't need to slaughter them to finish the war in manner it saw fit. You don't have to go up all the rungs, but you do have to go high enough to win. You kind of highlight how the bombs were moral by outlining other ways we would have had to use force to get the ends necessary for peace and partnership.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 02:20
|
|
|
I'm not apologizing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 02:25
|
|
|
natetimm posted:I'm not denying any of the crimes committed, but the US dropped those bombs to avoid a costly invasion of Japan. I can't believe people will still argue Japan's military was ready to surrender when they tried a coup even after both bombs. All the dick waving potential against Russia was just a bonus. The "Japanese military" did not try a coup attempt; a few young officers and elements within the army tried a half-assed coup attempt that lacked any real support and stood no chance of success. They failed to convince the Minister of War, the IJA high command, and the Eastern District Army to support them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 02:29
|
|
|
edit: eh, i'm not prepared to defend this
Mandator fucked around with this message at 02:34 on Aug 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 02:29
|
|
|
A land invasion would have been so much worse. Tired soldiers with no cultural common ground with the Japanese flown in from victory in Europe to fight a protracted, slogging occupation of a fanatical foreign country. That's a recipe for mass human rights abuses if there ever was one. Also, if Russia ever managed to get amphibious capability they would ship in all of their soldiers who just got done raping their way across Germany as revenge ready to do it all over again.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 02:35
|
|
|
 Total war sucks no matter what.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 02:38
|
|
|
i'm hoping crimes against humanity are committed against some posters ITT soon (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 02:44
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:i'm hoping crimes against humanity are committed against some posters ITT soon We do have to read your posts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 02:45
|
|
|
some people say it was justified some people dont, i guess this is a matter that will never be resolved
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 02:45
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:i'm hoping crimes against humanity are committed against some posters ITT soon There is no innocent, only degrees of guilt.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 02:45
|
|
|
the germans built highways in europe but also did naughty stuff . d&d - debate 2.0 ???
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 02:48
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:Except for the surrenders it already offered, which of course are constantly ignored Such as the following: "Hey guys sorry about that whole world war thing, also can we keep China-sama?"  "no problemo we'll just disarm ourselves you can trust us" *executes a few more POWs with katanas* "don't call us we'll call you"  Unconditional surrender or bust, baby. Also you still need to tell us how you'd prosecute a war without any strategic bombing. Give us some maps with arrows drawn on them please. icantfindaname posted:i'm hoping crimes against humanity are committed against some posters ITT soon I will happily go as long as they take you too 
DeusExMachinima fucked around with this message at 03:06 on Aug 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 03:03
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
Nosfereefer posted:some people say it was justified some people dont, i guess this is a matter that will never be resolved I dunno, the US got Japan to surrender after they did it. I'd say it was pretty well resolved 
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 03:16
|
|
|
Nosfereefer posted:the germans built highways in europe but also did naughty stuff . d&d - debate 2.0 ??? The nationalistic tendency to attribute the will of a people to a "God-Emperor" was indeed troublesome to globalistic agendas at the time, since loyalty of a nuclear family meant an unquestioning loyalty which could neither be persuaded nor coerced. Communism was the ultimate antithesis of such a movement, as it was solely determined to unite the will of the people towards a faceless unity, and was reliant on methods such as propaganda which required a certain ideological malleability which a culture embracing filial piety would otherwise outright reject, like an organ harvested from a donor of a different blood phenotype. Dictators would be present to further such agendas trying to disturb the core of closed nations, each with differing rates of success, but they were perfect in their pragmatic application geared to a certain goal: strip people of their land, possessions, and genetic entitlement. Pool all labor, and thank nobody. It is what it is, ergo sum. Truman was a humble man, who drove the same car to the White House when he was elected president as he did when leaving after completing his term. He was unarguably a man of the people, and truly a puppet who cannot be blamed for the will of the modern zeitgeist.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 03:29
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Such as the following: Or how about these: Walter Trohan posted:Jap proposals to Gen. MacArthur contemplated: The above is a quote from an article published in the Chicago Tribune on August 19, 1945. It details the peace offers received by MacArthur from high-ranking Japanese officials using official channels (two American, three British) in January of 1945. They weren't "official," offers so to speak--they came from the "doves" faction in Japan--and there's no guarantee that had the US proposed those officially that they would have made traction in January. The publicly reported reason that these terms were ignored by the US was that the hawks "might even assassinate the Emperor and announce the son of heaven had fled the earth in a fury of indignation over the peace bid." Which of course is silly--the real reason being that at the time they found the Japanese condition of not executing the emperor untenable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 03:45
|
|
|
Genpei Turtle posted:Or how about these: Cite an actual source that's all second and third hand.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 03:52
|
|
|
The idea that the Nukes ended the war against Japan disintegrates when you realize that the Japanese government didn't give a poo poo about cities being destroyed. If they were ever going to go "not our civilians! we surrender!" it would have been a hell of a lot sooner than 1945. At that point there was basically nothing left. America got to pretend it saved the day again, and the Japanese government got an excuse to surrender that sounded more honourable than "we're going to be swarmed by the red army in a week and a half and we can't face it". But a civilian city or two being wiped off the map has no effect on your ability to wage war because your army is by definition not there. It's not even a useful psychological weapon because how the hell are you going to quickly impart what a nuclear attack is to someone who's never heard of what one is, hundreds of miles away? "another city got bombed to ashes" is not news to a Japanese soldier in 1945, even if it was one big bomb instead of many smaller ones. HorseLord fucked around with this message at 04:08 on Aug 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 04:04
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:The idea that the Nukes ended the war against Japan disintegrates when you realize that the Japanese government didn't give a poo poo about cities being destroyed. If they were ever going to go "not our civilians! we surrender!" it would have been a hell of a lot sooner than 1945. At that point there was basically nothing left.  (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 04:05
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:The idea that the Nukes ended the war against Japan disintegrates when you realize that the Japanese government didn't give a poo poo about cities being destroyed. If they were ever going to go "not our civilians! we surrender!" it would have been a hell of a lot sooner than 1945. At that point there was basically nothing left. Pretty much this. You subjugate the enemy population by destroying its military. Trying to achieve the reverse (decimating the military by attacking the civilian populace) is fairly ineffective and will encourage the civilians to fight even harder rather pursue some other form of resistance or dissent. The evidence for the efficacy of the strategic bombing campaign in Europe, for instance, is mixed at best, especially considering the tens of thousands of lives lost by the Allies. KaptainKrunk fucked around with this message at 04:11 on Aug 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 04:08
|
|
|
farraday posted:Cite an actual source that's all second and third hand. What, you want me to pull the actual 40-page report from MacArthur to FDR out of my rear end? Can you get it declassified for me? Trohan read the report directly, that's as close as we're going to get. That MacArthur sent FDR the report and that read it and blew it off is public record.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 04:09
|
|
|
That people keep bringing up this myth that a Soviet invasion of the Japanese home islands was imminent and that was what forced them to surrender leads me to believe that this really IS a case of Cold War historical revisionism from the left.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 04:09
|
|
|
Genpei Turtle posted:What, you want me to pull the actual 40-page report from MacArthur to FDR out of my rear end? Can you get it declassified for me? Trohan read the report directly, that's as close as we're going to get. Yep go for it or find the source from the Japanese side it was based on because all that poo poo is well documented, of course that would rely on you having more knowledge of this than a 5 second google search to justify your preconceived notions wouldn't it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 04:12
|
|
|
farraday posted:Yep go for it or find the source from the Japanese side it was based on because all that poo poo is well documented, of course that would rely on you having more knowledge of this than a 5 second google search to justify your preconceived notions wouldn't it? Don't be a dumbshit. I have a master's degree in Japanese History, I'm not just googling things for shits and giggles. I probably have substantially more knowledge on the topic than you do, at any rate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:That people keep bringing up this myth that a Soviet invasion of the Japanese home islands was imminent and that was what forced them to surrender leads me to believe that this really IS a case of Cold War historical revisionism from the left. Hokkaido is one of the home islands. The Soviets were planning to invade Hokkaido. They also were in the process of decimating 600,000 of Japan's best troops in one of the most effective blitzkrieg campaign of the entire war. How can such a drastic turn of events not matter?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 04:16
|
|
|
KaptainKrunk posted:Hokkaido is one of the home islands. The Soviets were planning to invade Hokkaido. They also were in the process of decimating 600,000 of Japan's best troops in one of the most effective blitzkrieg campaign of the entire war. The Soviets had no capability of doing so. They had no significant navy, no significant airforce, no landing craft, and no way to logistically support an army in Japan. If the Soviets were going to invade they would need the Americans to supply basically everything.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
Genpei Turtle posted:Don't be a dumbshit. I have a master's degree in Japanese History, I'm not just googling things for shits and giggles. I probably have substantially more knowledge on the topic than you do, at any rate. Really? A Master's degree, perhaps you can sue that to explain why if the Japanese tried to surrender in january 1945 that tried to surrender to MccArthur and if they had no conditions in January 1956 why the hardliners in Aug 45 had conditions that deadlocked the debate causing the Emperor to step in? I'm not calling you a liar but you should really stop lying.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
KaptainKrunk posted:Pretty much this. If you want to talk about strategic bombing it's necessary to delineate between terror bombing (the Blitz, Dresden) being misguided and inherently ineffective and strategic bombing of military/industrial targets being difficult and arguably ineffective but holding reasonable military value, isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:The Soviets had no capability of doing so. They had no significant navy, no significant airforce, no landing craft, and no way to logistically support an army in Japan. If the Soviets were going to invade they would need the Americans to supply basically everything. No significant airforce? The Soviets had thousands upon thousands of planes. They also invaded and captured the Kuril Islands (which, by the way, they keep to this day) with relative ease despite being massively outnumbered. A larger force would have been needed to take Hokkaido, but to say it is impossible just isn't true. Do you live in some alternative universe?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 04:25
|
|
|
KaptainKrunk posted:No significant airforce? It wasn't "with relative ease" though. Soviet casualties outnumbered Japanese casualties in large part because Japanese coastal artillery kept sinking Soviet transports, and these were tiny islands. The Soviets were barely able to capture the Kurils and yet people are arguing that they would be able to sweep over Hokkaido in like two weeks?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 04:27
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:The idea that the Nukes ended the war against Japan disintegrates when you realize that the Japanese government didn't give a poo poo about cities being destroyed. If they were ever going to go "not our civilians! we surrender!" it would have been a hell of a lot sooner than 1945. At that point there was basically nothing left. To be expected from the Uncle Joe fanboy. This has been explained repeatedly. The Japanese logic isn't "Oh noes a city!" It was "the Americans probably don't have enough nukes to arm every bomber, but if they do..." and boom, existent threat to the Japanese culture and nation, which must survive at all costs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 04:37
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:It wasn't "with relative ease" though. Soviet casualties outnumbered Japanese casualties in large part because Japanese coastal artillery kept sinking Soviet transports, and these were tiny islands. I never said that. But the fact is that the Japanese high command took the entrance of the Soviet Union into the war seriously. It would be exceedingly difficult to defend Hokkaido given that they could not shift reinforcements there. In any case, of course Soviet casualties were high. They were inexperienced with amphibious warfare and tiny islands with densely populated defenders have a significant advantage over invaders. Look at Okinawa. The Japanese had effectively abandoned Hokkaido in preparation for an invasion of Kyushu.. They had, at best, 2 full strength but under-equipped divisions with no hope of reinforcement. The Soviets would have had complete air and sea superiority. There was no guarantee of success, of course, but the Japanese saw it as a real possibility. Any real fighting force was digging in near Kyushu
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 14:08 |
|
|
farraday posted:Really? A Master's degree, perhaps you can sue that to explain why if the Japanese tried to surrender in january 1945 that tried to surrender to MccArthur and if they had no conditions in January 1956 why the hardliners in Aug 45 had conditions that deadlocked the debate causing the Emperor to step in? OK, I'm going to explain this in simple terms to you because you clearly have a problem with reading comprehension. I can't quite understand what the hell you're trying to say because your sentences don't parse, but I'll give it my best shot. The surrender terms that MacArthur received in January 1945 were not official. That is to say, they did not come from a the supreme war council of Japan. There were six people on the supreme council: Anami Yoshichika: War Minister, SUPER hawk Suzuki Kantaro, Prime Minister, Dove Togo Shigenori, Foreign Minister, Strong Dove Toyoda Soemu, Navy Chief of Staff, Hawk Umezu Yoshijiro, Army Chief of Staff, hawk Yonai Mitsumasa, Navy Minister, Dove Any decisions needed a majority, with the Emperor being the tiebreaker. The surrender terms that MacArthur received came at the behest of Togo Shigenori, Foreign Minister. As you'll note he was one of the supreme council, one of the highest-ranking officials in Imperial Japan. However, he was just one man. By himself he lacked the power to broker surrender. He needed a majority in the council and with Anami, Toyoda, and Umezu hanging around, that wasn't going to happen. The "peace feelers' extended by Togo, through various channels--not just the US and Britain, but also Sweden--were likely attempts to get the ball rolling on peace talks. I could go through the exact details of the channels that Togo went through, who he consulted in Japan, etc, but frankly you're not going to read it and I want to go to sleep. Maybe I'll post them ITT tomorrow. As to why the conditions were deadlocked requiring the Emperor to step in? Because Anami, Toyoda, and Umezu still thought Japan had a chance to fight on and get better terms for surrender. Note this, because this is important: The hawks wanted better terms for surrender. That's right, the hawks weren't determined to fight on to the last man. They knew they were hosed and defeat was inevitable. But at the moment the only surrender terms that were offered to them were "unconditional surrender." Had the terms that Togo proposed in January ever actually been formally brought forward by the Allies, would Japan have accepted them? Would maybe even the bombing campaign, let alone the atomic bombs, have been unnecessary? We'll never know, because it never happened. Personally I think advancement of those terms would have gotten a surrender--maybe not in January of 1945, but by the early summer, probably. Suzuki's autobiography suggests that Hirohito was intensely concerned about the continuation of the imperial line. Had the January terms been formally proposed and he knew that the Imperial house was not doomed, he probably would have stepped in, even if Anami/Toyoda/Umezu balked. Of course we'll never know, since that's in the realm of alt-history.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 04:49
|
|