Thread: German Victimization, WWII

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

In terms of fascism? Ehh maybe. It was less explicit in the US though.



Actually it was about the sentiment of Germany going blameless for what happened during WWII. Obviously the sentiment is not just confined to Germany itself. Try harder to make me look foolish. What you are doing now isn't working.



That assumes that the US couldn't end the war before the bomb droppings. They could of done it. They wanted surrender without conditions. Even before the bomb droppings, they firebombed Tokyo which killed more civilians then both Nagasaki and Hiroshima.



Let me ask you this:

Who kills children?

There were 33 schools in the blast radius of Hiroshima. They weren't empty.

Who do you think were under those bombs being dropped? Who lived in the streets of Tokyo when they were firebombed? Women, children, innocent men. Can you think of a more cowardly, despicable action?

Don't edit my work when it isn't inflammatory or insulting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre

EDIT: youtube won't let me embed this for some reason
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ygm3e0Gn9U

Japan has their messed up spotlight too.

Never, did you know that Japan tried to take over Asia and managed to take over multiple countries? Did you know that we fought them for more than three years before we used the nukes? That's hasty? What would you say we should have done to handle Japan in 1945?

Keep fighting until an acceptable resolution is reached; which is purportedly what we did. I however do not consider the means acceptable. If that means I die in the process then so be it. I would prefer to face my enemy in combat than snipe his wife and kids from afar. I would think that most soldiers would agree.

Originally Posted by Never

Keep fighting until an acceptable resolution is reached; which is purportedly what we did. I however do not consider the means acceptable. If that means I die in the process then so be it. I would prefer to face my enemy in combat than snipe his wife and kids from afar. I would think that most soldiers would agree.

We took control of the Pacific islands and made it to the Japanes mainland. How exactly should we have fought then? Remember that we were working on more than a ceasing of conflict that that point. We saw the need to change the government of Japan.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

So people who get angry about 9/11 must be a really making an overstatement since it didn't kill 60 million people (roughly 2/10ths the pop. of US)?

The motives and circumstances surrounding both attacks were very different.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I guess I just don't get what you mean by saying it is an overstatement because they only killed 200,000 people. What is being overstated? Do you really think 200,000 people killed deserves being trivialized? Or is it that you don't think 100,000 people qualifies as an entire population? I will admit, the statement was a vague one; but he didn't say, as has been mentioned, "the entire japanese population".

It was an overstatement because he said the entire populations of those cities were wiped out when actually only 2/10 were killed from each respective city. There is no need to misconstrue facts.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I will admit though, that I interpretted the post to mean that we killed every person in the cities we bombed, which also isn't true. I just think the basic point still stands that it was an atrocity. I don't agree with your assertion that it was necessary, either. I actually wrote a paper on the issue a long while back and compared the deaths caused by the bombs to numbers of deaths caused by the war in general over a period of time and how long it was projected for the war to continue if the bombs hadn't been dropped. The numbers definitely didn't compare, and a lot more people died in the bombings than would have if the war had lasted. Also, the majority of those that died in the bombings were civilians as opposed to military, and the long term deaths caused by the bombings have reached far beyond the 200,000 dead in the initial explosions.

I have written several papers on the very same topic but arguing the exact opposite point. I have studied the Pacific war rather extensively and I have read many expert opinions on the repercussions of an invasion of the Japanese mainland. There is almost a unanimous agreement among historians that an invasion of Japan by the Marines would have certainly killed more people than the atomic bombs. The estimated death tolls aren't just a little bit higher than the atomic bombs, they are in many cases upwards of ten times larger than the atomic bomb death toll (more than a million people.) You can never know for certain, but all evidence supported by the Pacific war up to that point indicates that dropping the atomic bombs actually did save lives and more importantly, put a quick end to the war.

Also keep in mind the number of weeks or months it took to take small islands like Iwo Jima, Guadacanal, Okinawa etc. Multiply that number in correspondence to the size and number of forces stationed on Japan and you'll see that an invasion could not possibly be quick and it could not possibly have a death toll less than 200,000. The longer a war goes on, the more people die, which means whichever plan ends the war quicker is usually by default the better plan. It is almost like a law of industrial warfare: Prolonging war= higher death toll. Fire bombing and carpet bombing would continue, civilians would certainly resist, and when you invade a densely populated, fanatically patriotic nation, the civilian population is bound to get hit hard. I could literally go on all day analyzing the situation.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Well gosh that makes it so much better.

No. Why don't you take a moment to understand the context of my argument before you chastise me.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

You fail to recognize the root of the issue. Why did Japan become an imperialist nation? Because:
A.) Association with Western influences specifically the premise that to be a great nation, one needs an empire. Britain, France, Russia, Spain, the US. All great western powers, all imperialist in nature.
B.) Witnessing the Chinese mainland become the punching bag of Western nations.
C.) Realizing that in order to sustain Japanese hegemony on their mainland, Japan recognized that it must become a great nation in order to prevent Western nations from doing to Japan what they did to China.
D.) The misguided economic theory in the West that capitalism requires the forceful opening of foreign markets in order to sustain prosperity.

Something for you to think about. Obviously the Japanese aren't naturally a barbaric people nor did they just suddenly get up one day and say 'I want to expand my nation.'

You fail to understand the dynamics of an industrial war. You can analyze the lead up to the war until you are blue in the face, Japan is ultimately responsible for their actions. You say the formation of an empire is the only way for a nation to become large and prosperous, I disagree but even so, none of the other empires you mentioned went about expanding their influence in the manner that Japan did.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

That's strange because you just said before they were in no danger of falling. Which is it? Now if I recall correctly, one of the main conditions that they had was that the Emperor would retain power over Japan. There maybe little tits for tats but that was the main issue and the Emperor did retain power in Japan even after they dropped the bombs. And think about what you are saying, they were in no position to negotiate? Then what was the point of dropping the bombs? A subtle reminder of such a fact?

Jesus Laughing Man, are we going to have a repeat of our last discussion? Japan was in no danger of falling before Pearl Harbor, the situation obviously changed after several years of war with America. I have thought well and hard about my statements, Japan was defeated but still had enough force to put up a fight and do some damage, and that is all the continuation of the war would be. Needless death and destruction.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

How quaint. You speak as if Emperor Hirohito speaks for all Japanese, especially those willing to have an atomic bomb dropped on them. Tell me, does Obama speak for you?

What the hell Laughing Man. Don't drink and use the internet.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

And who wouldn't?

People who value their lives.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Explain how that happened. Explain how the children who died in the firebombs brought this on themselves. The women, the elderly, hell even the average Japanese individual. You either have to concede that the government represents every citizen even at the best of times, which Japan definitely wasn't, or your comments are erroneous.

Government makes the decisions, they=government. Honestly I didn't think I would have to spell everything out but with you I guess I do.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

That's right, tow the line. Diplomacy isn't how things work. We bomb those backward people till they shriek terror.

It never ceases to amaze me how you can so horribly misconstrue my statements. Its like you cut a line out of my paragraph to quote it, then you immediately forget what paragraph it was connected to. A defeated nation does not negotiate, they follow instructions or face more pain. THATS HOW THE WORLD WORKS! And that is how it should work.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Where has the American empire lead?

America isn't an empire. But I don't know Laughing Man, where is American going?

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

What wonderful language. They needed to be broken, to be destroyed into submission. Again I'm interested to see how you think the government actually represents the people.

Would you rather I soften my language? Is reality too harsh for your tender conscious? What do you mean how the government represents the people? If you are suggesting the populace was at odds with the governemnt, that may have been true for some, but they showed no outward signs of it. Even if they did, an Empire will do what it needs to survive, meaning it lends no credence to public opinion.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

I guess we found out who justifies the death of children. They were disgusting cowards and in no position to claim the moral high ground of global security or freedom.

I'm really glad you decided not to go to Officer Candidate School.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

The motives and circumstances surrounding both attacks were very different.




It was an overstatement because he said the entire populations of those cities were wiped out when actually only 2/10 were killed from each respective city. There is no need to misconstrue facts.



I have written several papers on the very same topic but arguing the exact opposite point. I have studied the Pacific war rather extensively and I have read many expert opinions on the repercussions of an invasion of the Japanese mainland. There is almost a unanimous agreement among historians that an invasion of Japan by the Marines would have certainly killed more people than the atomic bombs. The estimated death tolls aren't just a little bit higher than the atomic bombs, they are in many cases upwards of ten times larger than the atomic bomb death toll (more than a million people.) You can never know for certain, but all evidence supported by the Pacific war up to that point indicates that dropping the atomic bombs actually did save lives and more importantly, put a quick end to the war.

Also keep in mind the number of weeks or months it took to take small islands like Iwo Jima, Guadacanal, Okinawa etc. Multiply that number in correspondence to the size and number of forces stationed on Japan and you'll see that an invasion could not possibly be quick and it could not possibly have a death toll less than 200,000. The longer a war goes on, the more people die, which means whichever plan ends the war quicker is usually by default the better plan. It is almost like a law of industrial warfare: Prolonging war= higher death toll. Fire bombing and carpet bombing would continue, civilians would certainly resist, and when you invade a densely populated, fanatically patriotic nation, the civilian population is bound to get hit hard. I could literally go on all day analyzing the situation.

Once the European war was over, we had the opportunity to dedicate a lot more resources to the pacific war, so you can't really compare the times it took to take Iwo Jima, Okinawa, etc. to the amount of time that would have been needed after Hitler was defeated.

Obviously it is debatable; but "most historians" definitely do not agree with your position. The Chief of Staff during world war 2, admiral Leahy, had this to say,
"It is my opinion that the use of the barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan ... The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons ... My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

As he said, a blockade would have been similarly effective. We could have pulled out of the ground war in Japan entirely and blockaded them and they would have had to accept any terms we were willing to give eventually. By the time the bombs were dropped they had no airforce or navy to speak of to stand up to a blockade.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

As he said, a blockade would have been similarly effective. We could have pulled out of the ground war in Japan entirely and blockaded them and they would have had to accept any terms we were willing to give eventually. By the time the bombs were dropped they had no airforce or navy to speak of to stand up to a blockade.

Could you explain the process of the blockade leading to surrender?

Government makes the decisions, they=government. Honestly I didn't think I would have to spell everything out but with you I guess I do.

So because of a government's actions, the whole population has to suffer?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

You fail to understand the dynamics of an industrial war. You can analyze the lead up to the war until you are blue in the face, Japan is ultimately responsible for their actions. You say the formation of an empire is the only way for a nation to become large and prosperous, I disagree but even so, none of the other empires you mentioned went about expanding their influence in the manner that Japan did.

Firstly, again you assume that a whole people can be affirmed through the actions of a government. Something I think is naive and counter-factual even in today's atmosphere. [ Look at healthcare ] Secondly, I don't personally think that to be a great nation, one needs to have an empire. Frankly, I don't care about being a nation. It's a silly social construct. I was speaking of the mentality of thought in the late 19th century. Britain still had India, Egypt, China. France had Indochina. Spain had been a great empire but was in rapid decline by then. Russia had vast land with abundant resources with a Tsarist head. Germany, which the Japanese copied almost to a T, had providences in China and Africa. The United States had Puerto Rico, the Philippines and a sphere of influence in China. These were the 'great nations' back then and they were and/or still are all empires.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Jesus Laughing Man, are we going to have a repeat of our last discussion? Japan was in no danger of falling before Pearl Harbor, the situation obviously changed after several years of war with America. I have thought well and hard about my statements, Japan was defeated but still had enough force to put up a fight and do some damage, and that is all the continuation of the war would be. Needless death and destruction.

Well we're discussing the end of the war and terms of surrender. Not what Japan was doing before Pearl Harbor. I love the coherency of your statement though, stop needless death and destruction by causing needless death and destruction through the A-Bomb.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

What the hell Laughing Man. Don't drink and use the internet.

Does Obama speak for you as an individual? You are postulating that a government actually represents its people in all things. The Japanese deserve what they got because they brought it on themselves through their government. That is a summation of the argument you are giving, so I ask: Does your government official actually represent your thoughts and actions?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

People who value their lives.

Quite so. Some people have values they would die for and if they wish to give their lives for them then so be it. However, what I object to is those who wish to live but are massacred anyways.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Government makes the decisions, they=government. Honestly I didn't think I would have to spell everything out but with you I guess I do.

Who is 'they'? The whole Japanese people? You think 'they' really make choices in a fascistic government?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

It never ceases to amaze me how you can so horribly misconstrue my statements. Its like you cut a line out of my paragraph to quote it, then you immediately forget what paragraph it was connected to. A defeated nation does not negotiate, they follow instructions or face more pain. THATS HOW THE WORLD WORKS! And that is how it should work.

See I quote the whole paragraph. What a disgusting mentality you project. 'Do what your told or you will be hurt.'

Originally Posted by Caprisun

America isn't an empire. But I don't know Laughing Man, where is American going?

It's not an empire but your perfectly content with it tell other nations what to do or 'face more pain.' Certainly this isn't the mentality of an empire.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Would you rather I soften my language? Is reality too harsh for your tender conscious? What do you mean how the government represents the people? If you are suggesting the populace was at odds with the governemnt, that may have been true for some, but they showed no outward signs of it. Even if they did, an Empire will do what it needs to survive, meaning it lends no credence to public opinion.

Well then again I ask 'Who is 'they''? And how did the people bring it upon themselves if you actually allow for the idea that government was acting without popular support? Oh and don't feel the need to soften your language. Far be it from me to not allow you to show your true behavior of world politics. This is the type of mentality I deal with on a near daily basis in my discourse with other individuals but they are all so squeamish about really saying what they want. You at least have the courage to tell the forums that you want those who disobey to be broken into submission and if they should resist then to 'feel more pain.'

Originally Posted by Caprisun

I'm really glad you decided not to go to Officer Candidate School.

Me too. Otherwise I may have been put into a situation in which I would have to transgress my basic moral principles.

Originally Posted by Never

Keep fighting until an acceptable resolution is reached; which is purportedly what we did. I however do not consider the means acceptable. If that means I die in the process then so be it. I would prefer to face my enemy in combat than snipe his wife and kids from afar. I would think that most soldiers would agree.

Really? I mean, if you are faced with a choice between two evils in war- killing an enemy or letting him live and kill alot more people- you would say 'honor' is an important concern?

Originally Posted by shinta66

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre

EDIT: youtube won't let me embed this for some reason
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ygm3e0Gn9U

Japan has their messed up spotlight too.

I'm a scholar of Japanese history from 1920 to 1945. I know about Nanking and how people love to bring that up to justify the killing of Japanese innocents. Don't try to pass off this motif that Japan was the worst warmonger of the war.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

I'm a scholar of Japanese history from 1920 to 1945. I know about Nanking and how people love to bring that up to justify the killing of Japanese innocents. Don't try to pass off this motif that Japan was the worst warmonger of the war.

Just one of the random things that popped into my mind. And really could care less about your school education.