|
VitalSigns posted:To deprive the enemy of the means to carry on the war. In what way is a blockade not against civilian targets? Intent, or effects?
|
# ? Aug 7, 2015 05:07 |
|
|
# ? Mar 28, 2024 22:58 |
|
Fojar38 posted:A bunch of people are going to tell you that it's because they were scared of the Soviets but that's not true; the Soviets didn't have any capacity to mount an invasion of the Japanese home islands and everyone knew it. It wasn't about a Soviet invasion of the home islands (though the Japanese weren't fully sure of the Soviet capabilities and the last 3 years had shown the Soviets to be nearly unstoppable), it was attempting to go through the Soviets as a third party to gain a conditional surrender, which was impossible when they entered the war proper.
|
# ? Aug 7, 2015 05:07 |
|
Budzilla posted:Thanks, but I was hoping for something more than a post. If you want to read more there's Richard Frank's Downfall and another book called Japan's Longest Day that talks about these issues quite a bit.
|
# ? Aug 7, 2015 05:09 |
|
Chantilly Say posted:In what way is a blockade not against civilian targets? Intent, or effects? Generally the intent is to deprive the enemy of materiel with military purpose (although that does include food since soliders need to eat), and not specifically to rack up the highest civilian body count possible, unlike targeting the largest remaining cities with nuclear weapons which was explicitly done to kill as many people as possible to terrorize the enemy. Blockades with no purpose other than killing people (like the Entente's blockade of Germany into 1919 or the Dutch Hongerwinter) are indefensible imho. It's sort of like the difference between bombing a tank factory knowing that innocent people will unavoidably die, and just carpet bombing a city to put the fear of God into them.
|
# ? Aug 7, 2015 05:15 |
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:If you want to read more there's Richard Frank's Downfall and another book called Japan's Longest Day that talks about these issues quite a bit. I will chase those up then.
|
# ? Aug 7, 2015 05:17 |
|
Budzilla posted:I will chase those up then. There's also a Japanese film called Japan's Longest Day that is decent if you want a fairly good dramatization.
|
# ? Aug 7, 2015 05:25 |
|
VitalSigns posted:Generally the intent is to deprive the enemy of materiel with military purpose (although that does include food since soliders need to eat), and not specifically to rack up the highest civilian body count possible, unlike targeting the largest remaining cities with nuclear weapons which was explicitly done to kill as many people as possible to terrorize the enemy. Blockades with no purpose other than killing people (like the Entente's blockade of Germany into 1919 or the Dutch Hongerwinter) are indefensible imho. The intent of a blockade is to cut off supplies and force a collapse of will. That is accomplished by making them understand they will die to lack of basic needs. That's what blockades are. It forces the inhabitants to chose between resistance and death or surrender and survival. There is no morality to it. Its just as bad as bombing, it just takes longer.
|
# ? Aug 7, 2015 05:29 |
|
"War is happy fun time." -Sherman
|
# ? Aug 7, 2015 05:35 |
|
What? They bombed a city in the middle of a war?! SHOCKING!khwarezm posted:It wasn't about a Soviet invasion of the home islands (though the Japanese weren't fully sure of the Soviet capabilities and the last 3 years had shown the Soviets to be nearly unstoppable), it was attempting to go through the Soviets as a third party to gain a conditional surrender, which was impossible when they entered the war proper. This. Exactly. I hate when people bring up "Oh, but Japan wanted to surrender..." Yes, but they wanted to surrender on their terms. No dice. You start a full blown war of aggression and lose, you don't get to dictate the terms. That was the whole reason Japan appealed to the Soviets at the end of the war, hoping they could convince the Allies to let them surrender conditionally. No dice.
|
# ? Aug 7, 2015 05:41 |
|
CommieGIR posted:What? They bombed a city in the middle of a war?! SHOCKING! No thought for the civilians killed? Really? Have we become that inured to peoples' pain that we're down to making smart-rear end remarks on internet bulletin boards? What would you say to the survivors if they were in front of you right now?
|
# ? Aug 7, 2015 05:43 |
|
Starshark posted:No thought for the civilians killed? Really? Have we become that inured to peoples' pain that we're down to making smart-rear end remarks on internet bulletin boards? What would you say to the survivors if they were in front of you right now? Of course we should mourn the loss of civilians in total war. But its TOTAL WAR. That's how total war works. Here's the thing: There were far more civilian casualties and far more property damage done by the strategic bombing campaign and firebombing campaign before the nuclear bombs were dropped. Why is it about Hiroshima? Why not the firebombing of Tokyo? Why not any of the other major firebombing carried out in the course of a total war campaign against Imperial Japan? Japan LOVES Historical Revisionism, in many cases even unwilling to face up to the things the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy did during the course of the war, going so far as to make praises of convicted war criminals a common thing. Its part of why they are so hated in Korea and China: They don't give a poo poo about the atrocities they conducted upon others, but they'll talk about the losses they took in a war all day. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 05:52 on Aug 7, 2015 |
# ? Aug 7, 2015 05:48 |
|
Starshark posted:No thought for the civilians killed? Really? Have we become that inured to peoples' pain that we're down to making smart-rear end remarks on internet bulletin boards? What would you say to the survivors if they were in front of you right now? Lol, don't start poo poo your country can't finish. It's lovely that your leaders let their ambitions bring you some much pain, but we were not going to let that pain spread to our homeland by any means necessary.
|
# ? Aug 7, 2015 05:49 |
|
Junkyard Poodle posted:Lol, don't start poo poo your country can't finish. It's lovely that your leaders let their ambitions bring you some much pain, but we were not going to let that pain spread to our homeland by any means necessary. So what if I told you there was a way for the Allies to win the conflict without resorting to killing - or to put it in more realistic terms, resort to killing far fewer - civilians, would you agree to it? Or is the fact that they threw the first punch justification for a free-for-all with as many bodies as you can rack up acceptable? Just to cut to the chase somewhat, it was the allies who began bombing civilians in WW2 - with dubious justification for their use: http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/9062821/the-bombing-war-by-richard-overy-review/ Starshark fucked around with this message at 05:55 on Aug 7, 2015 |
# ? Aug 7, 2015 05:52 |
|
Genocide Tendency posted:The intent of a blockade is to cut off supplies and force a collapse of will. That is accomplished by making them understand they will die to lack of basic needs. If it takes longer and gives the enemy more flexibility (rationing, food distribution programs) in responding to it, it can't be just as bad. A blockade can be lifted; bombs can't be undropped. The diplomacy of violence is inherently amoral, but there's a spectrum between empty threats and outright extermination.
|
# ? Aug 7, 2015 05:53 |
|
Starshark posted:So what if I told you there was a way for the Allies to win the conflict without resorting to killing - or to put it in more realistic terms, resort to killing far fewer - civilians, would you agree to it? Or is the fact that they threw the first punch justification for a free-for-all with as many bodies as you can rack up acceptable? Japan knew the terms of their surrender: Unconditional Surrender. Its not really the Allies problem if they are too busy trying to find a way to wriggle out of the war they started with as much of their material gains left, at the cost of their own people.
|
# ? Aug 7, 2015 05:55 |
|
CommieGIR posted:Japan knew the terms of their surrender: Unconditional Surrender. You seem to be dodging the question. Could it be you're having difficulty facing up to the morality of the Allies' actions?
|
# ? Aug 7, 2015 05:57 |
|
Starshark posted:Just to cut to the chase somewhat, it was the allies who began bombing civilians in WW2 - with dubious justification for their use: http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/9062821/the-bombing-war-by-richard-overy-review/ Not really. The Allies were distinctly aware throughout the Poland campaign that the Nazis were very willing to bomb civilian targets, the Allies renounced their moratorium on bombing due to direct Nazi action. quote:The British Government's policy was formulated on 31 August 1939: if Germany initiated unrestricted air action, the RAF "should attack objectives vital to Germany's war effort, and in particular her oil resources". If the Luftwaffe confined attacks to purely military targets, the RAF should "launch an attack on the German fleet at Wilhelmshaven" and "attack warships at sea when found within range".[38] The government communicated to their French allies the intention "not to initiate air action which might involve the risk of civilian casualties"[39] Starshark posted:You seem to be dodging the question. Could it be you're having difficulty facing up to the morality of the Allies' actions? What in war is moral? War sucks. Sorry. That's the way it is. Sherman summed it up pretty well "War is cruelty, there is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over". Japan started their war against the US with IMMENSE cruelty, the fact that we were trying to get any Japanese civilians we encountered to safety is MORE than humane considering the actions of the Imperial Japanese Army.
|
# ? Aug 7, 2015 06:01 |
|
CommieGIR posted:Not really. The Allies were distinctly aware throughout the Poland campaign that the Nazis were very willing to bomb civilian targets, the Allies renounced their moratorium on bombing due to direct Nazi action. So you think, for example, the Geneva Conventions are a bunch of poo poo?
|
# ? Aug 7, 2015 06:03 |
|
icantfindaname posted:So you think, for example, the Geneva Conventions are a bunch of poo poo? Are you implying we did not comply with the Geneva Conventions? Pretty sure the Germans started the indiscriminate bombing thing long before the British and the Americans, and it was not even governed by the Geneva Conventions yet. The Geneva Conventions did not cover Ariel Bombardment during World War 2, it was the Hague Conventions that did. Even then, they were rather vague and not ratified by most parties. But hey, nice strawman. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 06:09 on Aug 7, 2015 |
# ? Aug 7, 2015 06:05 |
|
CommieGIR posted:Are you implying we did not comply with the Geneva Conventions? Pretty sure the Germans started the indiscriminate bombing thing long before the British and the Americans. Even if this is true - a point in dispute - do you think the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians is justified because the other side did it first?
|
# ? Aug 7, 2015 06:09 |
|
Indiscriminate bombing of civilians is a bad thing, and the excuse of it saving more lives doesn't hold water when you're weighing the value of civilians versus military personnel, regardless of who started the war or use of a particular weapon or tactic first.
|
# ? Aug 7, 2015 06:10 |
|
CommieGIR posted:Are you implying we did not comply with the Geneva Conventions? Pretty sure the Germans started the indiscriminate bombing thing long before the British and the Americans. Do you believe there's no point to imposing moral conventions on war? That seems to be the implication in your last post.
|
# ? Aug 7, 2015 06:10 |
|
Genocide Tendency posted:The intent of a blockade is to cut off supplies and force a collapse of will. That is accomplished by making them understand they will die to lack of basic needs. Bombing isn't bad when you're bombing the folks who bombed Pearl Harbor without warning. If they didn't want to be bombed, they wouldn't have launched that cowardly surprise attack on our boys at Pearl. Chomskyan posted:Do you believe there's no point to imposing moral conventions on war? That seems to be the implication in your last post. No moral conventions can excuse the deliberate and cowardly surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. KaptainKrunk posted:Indiscriminate bombing of civilians is a bad thing, and the excuse of it saving more lives doesn't hold water when you're weighing the value of civilians versus military personnel, regardless of who started the war or use of a particular weapon or tactic first. You can't make war when you have no civilian population from which to provide war material. In war, not all lives are equal. In WW2, the life of an imperial japanese was rendered moot when imperial japan bombed Pearl Harbor. Don't like it? Japanese civilians should have deposed their government and surrendered before we had to nuke 'em. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 06:14 on Aug 7, 2015 |
# ? Aug 7, 2015 06:10 |
|
I don't understand how people are arguing, the thread title had "indefensible" in it, case closed.
|
# ? Aug 7, 2015 06:13 |
|
Starshark posted:Even if this is true - a point in dispute - do you think the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians is justified because the other side did it first? Justified? No. But in 1945, it was near to impossible to specifically pinpoint bomb military targets that were often tucked into the cities. Civilians were an unfortunate side effect. Question: If civilians are working in a factory producing weapons, do they then become military value targets? Are their deaths now justified? The problem is that Japan was already facing very strong bombing campaigns via firebombing due to the ineffectiveness of aerial bombardment with standard bombs and the particular weakness of Japan's industrial cities to firebombing. They were also being bombarded from the ocean by both the British and the Americans. Ending Japan's ability to pursue the war further (which they maintained that they could do, even on the night of the Unconditional Surrender when an attempted coup tried to ensure the war would carry on) was paramount. That's how total war works. Chomskyan posted:Do you believe there's no point to imposing moral conventions on war? That seems to be the implication in your last post. You are implying that the entire goal of strategic bombing was to specifically target the civilian populous. The implication is that in a total war, there are likely to be civilian casualties. Should they be avoided where possible? Yes. But will they likely happen in the due course of destroying the enemies ability to carry out their war goals? Very likely, yes.
|
# ? Aug 7, 2015 06:13 |
|
CommieGIR posted:What? They bombed a city in the middle of a war?! SHOCKING! Allow me to dissent, one of the most important things for the Japanese was that the Emperor would be protected. In Japan of course the person of the emperor was extremely important from a cultural and religious viewpoint, at least at that moment in time, and I think that this was something that the Americans were a bit deaf to. There is an understandable argument that if the Americans had agreed to clauses protecting the emperor it would have resulted in Hirohito's questionable records and actions getting buried, or that it could have been exploited to extend to protect others in the Japanese High Command who were extremely guilty of leading the country down its path of madness. As well as that there was an additional cultural factor about the integrity of the land of Japan itself, by WW2 Japanese nationalism put major emphasis on the idea that they had never been invaded or conquered by foreign powers, its one of the reasons that word 'Kamikaze' ended up entering English lexicon, while Shintoism, hugely important to Japanese Nationalism, puts great emphasis on the spiritual qualities of Japans natural surroundings, who knows, this might have made the Nuclear bombs that much more terrifying to your average Japanese person since it seemed to threaten the existence of the physical country itself in a way that armies and firebombs didn't. Regardless the point I'm making was that, it probably would have been better if the Americans made some allowances with regards to the emperor and postwar occupation and let them be known, even if it meant some extremely unsavory activities would have to get a blind eye (which happened anyway since the Americans did not really do anything with Hirohito and let tons of war criminals off the hook), the whole 'Unconditional surrender' thing is cathartic against an enemy that attacks you out of nowhere but I think that Japanese fears about a post-war settlement that would destroy them and their culture was one of the reasons the whole thing dragged on so long and the American stubbornness on the unconditional surrender issue made the war drag on unnecessarily and resulted in many more deaths. Of course, one of the other things that some of the Japanese higher-ups hoped for (with astonishing audacity) was that they could surrender and somehow maintain their Chinese Empire, when the Soviets ripped the heart out of that then it was truly clear that the war was a lost cause.
|
# ? Aug 7, 2015 06:14 |
|
khwarezm posted:Allow me to dissent, one of the most important things for the Japanese was that the Emperor would be protected. In Japan of course the person of the emperor was extremely important from a cultural and religious viewpoint, at least at that moment in time, and I think that this was something that the Americans were a bit deaf to. There is an understandable argument that if the Americans had agreed to clauses protecting the emperor it would have resulted in Hirohito's questionable records and actions getting buried, or that it could have been exploited to extend to protect others in the Japanese High Command who were extremely guilty of leading the country down its path of madness. True, the Potsdam Declaration should have made mention of the Emperor and maintaining his position, as they had already come to the conclusion that the Emporer should remain in power but as a figurehead only.
|
# ? Aug 7, 2015 06:17 |
|
CommieGIR posted:Japan knew the terms of their surrender: Unconditional Surrender.
|
# ? Aug 7, 2015 06:17 |
|
The Emperor was central to the whole Meiji constitutional order. It wasn't just a religious or cultural thing. Cardboard Box A posted:Did Japan surrender unconditionally? Unconditional surrender doesn't exist and Japan did not surrender unconditionally. They surrendered under the condition that they would not be massacred, enslaved, slowly starved to death, raped, forcibly relocated, and pretty much any other bad thing a military can do to a defenseless population KaptainKrunk fucked around with this message at 06:21 on Aug 7, 2015 |
# ? Aug 7, 2015 06:19 |
|
e:whoops
|
# ? Aug 7, 2015 06:21 |
|
KaptainKrunk posted:The Emperor was central to the whole Meiji constitutional order. It wasn't just a religious or cultural thing. So its even deeper then?
|
# ? Aug 7, 2015 06:21 |
|
Cardboard Box A posted:Did Japan surrender unconditionally? The maintaining of the Imperial Line was not a condition for surrender, but it was left vague. So, as far as the terms for the surrender, yes. The Allies decided that the Emperor should be maintained to help keep the peace. KaptainKrunk posted:Unconditional surrender doesn't exist and Japan did not surrender unconditionally. So, what they did to everyone else and what we didn't do because we respected the Geneva Convention. Kinda tilting at windmills aren't you?
|
# ? Aug 7, 2015 06:21 |
|
khwarezm posted:Allow me to dissent, one of the most important things for the Japanese was that the Emperor would be protected. In Japan of course the person of the emperor was extremely important from a cultural and religious viewpoint, at least at that moment in time, and I think that this was something that the Americans were a bit deaf to. There is an understandable argument that if the Americans had agreed to clauses protecting the emperor it would have resulted in Hirohito's questionable records and actions getting buried, or that it could have been exploited to extend to protect others in the Japanese High Command who were extremely guilty of leading the country down its path of madness. Imagine you're the ranking Senator on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Do you advocate for a conditional surrender and lose in a landslide, or do you authorize even more money for nuking Japan until Japan surrenders? America, unlike the imperial japanese, was and still is a democracy, a democracy with legislative oversight of the military. No loving way Japan was getting out of bombing pearl harbor without getting themselves nuked; simply no way to win re-election.
|
# ? Aug 7, 2015 06:21 |
|
CommieGIR posted:The maintaining of the Imperial Line was not a condition for surrender, but it was left vague.
|
# ? Aug 7, 2015 06:23 |
|
A key point about unconditional surrender is that it kills revanchism dead. They surrendered unconditionally; no way they could have fought on. You attach conditions, and folks start thinking about the next round.Cardboard Box A posted:Did America seek to get rid of the emperor before Hiroshima? We didn't give a poo poo. We wanted Japan to surrender unconditionally; gently caress which imperial japanese officials lived and died, so long as they surrendered we'd sort everything else out later.
|
# ? Aug 7, 2015 06:23 |
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Imagine you're the ranking Senator on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Do you advocate for a conditional surrender and lose in a landslide, or do you authorize even more money for nuking Japan until Japan surrenders? Um, I would have assumed that most Americans were more interested in their brothers, sons and husbands getting home as safely and early as possible rather than turning every square inch of Japan into Tartarus.
|
# ? Aug 7, 2015 06:24 |
|
Cardboard Box A posted:Did America seek to get rid of the emperor as a term of surrender before Hiroshima? No, at Potsdam it was discussed and decided that the Emporer would be made a figurehead in a Constitutional Democracy, and for the time being subject to the order of the Supreme Allied Commander. quote:From the moment of surrender the authority of the Emperor and the Japanese government to rule the state shall be subject to the Supreme Commander of the Allied powers who will take such steps as he deems proper to effectuate the surrender terms. ...The ultimate form of government of Japan shall, in accordance with the Potsdam Declaration, be established by the freely expressed will of the Japanese people. I forget who, but I think the Soviets had argued for removing the Emperor, but the US and English were aware of his importance in the eyes of the country.
|
# ? Aug 7, 2015 06:25 |
|
Also lol at that idea that everyone living in a country that attacks you first is now an animal free to be killed even if there are other options available. Really?
|
# ? Aug 7, 2015 06:26 |
|
khwarezm posted:Um, I would have assumed that most Americans were more interested in their brothers, sons and husbands getting home as early as possible rather than turning every square inch of Japan into Tartarus. You don't understand America one bit, you yellow-bellied coward. You're thinking like a Japanese general, and not an American Senator. Americans wanted Japan to surrender unconditionally, and we were willing to risk death to achieve that. You don't bomb Pearl Harbour then get to play the boo-hoo 'your loved ones are at risk' card, Tokyo Rose. KaptainKrunk posted:Also lol at that idea that everyone living in a country that attacks you first is now an animal free to be killed even if there are other options available. Until their country surrenders unconditionally, their lives are worth less than the men and women of the allied armed forces. If folks in Japan didn't want to be bombed, they shouldn't have allowed Pearl Harbour.
|
# ? Aug 7, 2015 06:27 |
|
|
# ? Mar 28, 2024 22:58 |
|
KaptainKrunk posted:Also lol at that idea that everyone living in a country that attacks you first is now an animal free to be killed even if there are other options available. You are oversimplifying it and strawmanning. C'mon now.
|
# ? Aug 7, 2015 06:27 |