Broadly, lay out for me how you could fight a war on that scale without killing civilians.
[/quote]
What scale? Who said anything about scale? I said “all armed conflict,” I didn’t say anything about scale.
It wouldn’t have entailed any casualties to US, and it would have been a couple million (counting all of our “area bombings” in both Japan and Germany) that we added to the body pile ourselves.
So, screw the Koreans, Chinese, Vietnamese, Taiwanese (Formosese?), Guamese, Filipinos, Indonesians, and all other peoples occupied and subjugated by the Japanese so long as the US is okay? Along with those who were under threat of a potential invasion down the road such as the Australians? Fortress America is a dated concept that belongs in the wastebin of history.
Well, I figure he espouses a form of hostile pacifism (i.e. he will never advocate going to war and damn your black heart for even suggesting it!) so best to spend one’s time elsewhere.
I figure that if nukes were to be used at all, Japan in August 1945 was probably the least bad time. It finished them off, whereas using them against a still-intact and determined China in 1950 would have led to more rapid development and deployment and use.
SUMMARY REPORT
(Pacific War)
WASHINGTON, D.C.
1 JULY 1946
Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.
Well, hindsight’s hindsight, be it 11 months or 65 years later.
A fascinating report. I was fascinated to read this, just three paragraphs above the one you quoted:
In other words, the Japanese had lost, they knew they had lost, and yet, even after the bomb and the declaration of war from the Soviet Union, the War Council still couldn’t agree on surrender until the Emperor personally intervened.
And what led the Emperor to intervene? The bombings. Which brings the discussion right back to where it started.
I don’t think so (Notice the words “infants” in there?)
Oh, look, here’s more.
Saying “we did just as bad” would be like saying we were “just as bad” as Joseph Mengele. The Japanese were NO BETTER than the Nazis.
(BTW, wouldn’t you be “setting toddlers on fire” when you bombed Germany?)
I think the bombing of Germany was just as wrong. Pay attention. And what’s with putting “setting toddlers on fire” in scare quotes." we literally did that. Own it.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Pay attention.
[/QUOTE]
That’s good advice.
Ok…I ask again. What’s your alternative? Allow the Nazi’s to simply rule? Leave them alone and turn the other cheek when they strike? Not get involved, and simply let whatever happens happen? How do you fight a war without killing any civilians? How could you fight Germany without bombing, and how could you bomb with the technology of the time without killing civilians?
Ok, so, we turn the other cheek, and let the Japanese do whatever they want…free reign. We wouldn’t want to get blood on our hands or increase the body count. So…what happens in your fantasy world? What happens in Asia, in India, in Indochina, in the Pacific Rim, in the South Pacific? No bloody minded American’s so, you figure that is going to lower the body count? And what happens in Europe, since we wouldn’t want to bloody our hands there either? The Germans get free reign until, what? The Soviets, on their own, batter their way into the heart of Germany and then retake Western Europe (we won’t even get into how the Jews and how giving Germany more time to kill them would have upped the body count there alone)? What would the body count of THAT be? And how would that be more moral? Babies killed by high artillery, bullets or starvation somehow more moral than being blown up by bombs dropped from planes? Or, would it simply be more moral if they were killed by someone other than Americans? Is THAT where you are going with all this? Because I know you are too smart to think that if America simply turned the other cheek and stayed out of the war that somehow magically the war would have just stopped, all the belligerents kissing and making up…right?
-XT
It’s in “quotes” because it’s simply an appeal to emotion. If you’re going to make a serious argument, stop the whole “THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!” bit.
As xtisme said, what the hell did you want to do? Go up to Hitler and say, “Please Mr. Hitler sir, please stop?” Civilians are killed in war. Nazi Germany was a major threat, as was Imperial Japan. To say otherwise is bullshit.
I don’t think the war would have stopped, but it could have sailed merrily along just fine without us.
Werre you agitating to go to war to stop the genocide in Bosnia? Rwanda? Darfur? Why was germany a special case?
It’s an appeal to cold facts. we actually did that shit. For reals. It’s not hyperbole. Do you know anything about the firebombing of Tokyo?
Nothing. Just like we did with Bosnia, Rwanda and the Sudan. Unless you were advocating going to war in any of those places you’re being hypocritical in saying we had to do it in Germany.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I don’t think the war would have stopped, but it could have sailed merrily along just fine without us.
[/QUOTE]
That’s true enough. Probably for several additional years. And the body count would undoubtedly have been much higher, the end much more brutal. But, what the hell, WE wouldn’t have had any blood on our hands, so fuck it…right?
That seems to be what your whole argument boils down too. That as long as the US’s hands were clean, that’s all that matters. So, really, it’s not about civilians being killed, not about the suffering of children…it’s simply about Americans not killing civilians, about the blood not being on our hands.
Is that an accurate distillation of your position?
Was I agitating for war in those places? Not at all. I wasn’t agitating with war in Europe against Germany, either (seeing as I wasn’t alive then). Why was Germany a ‘special case’? Well, AFAIK, Bosnia, Rwanda and Darfur never declared war on the US, never attempted to conquer much of the known world, never directly attacked our shipping, or threatened our trade. Interestingly enough, both Germany and Japan DID do those things…plus a whole lot more.
Genocide was, of course, secondary to the reasons we actually got into the war. Arguably, this is another of those hindsight thingies, since the US really didn’t know that genocide was going on (at least by the Germans…we certainly knew about the various massacres happening by the Japanese in China and Korea).
-XT
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Nothing. Just like we did with Bosnia, Rwanda and the Sudan. Unless you were advocating going to war in any of those places you’re being hypocritical in saying we had to do it in Germany.
[/QUOTE]
Why would it be hypocritical? The genocide going on in Europe and in Asia weren’t the primary reasons that the US entered the war, so how would it be hypocritical to advocate the US involvement in WWII but not in those other places? Bosnia, Rwanda and the Sudan were all INTERNAL struggles that, though horrible, really didn’t have external impacts. Unlike Germany and Japan who were both aggressively expansionist and military and economic super powers of their day.
Really, the one being hypocritical here is YOU. Because you don’t give a shit about the death tolls at all, don’t really give a flying fuck about those civilians dying, don’t really give two shits about those burning babies either…it seemingly matters not one bit to you that more people would surly have died, as long as the US kept it’s hands clean. Well, that and your attempt to muddy the waters by throwing as much crap on as many unrelated topics as you can into the discussion in the vain hope that it will obscure your hopelessly weak position and stance on all of this.
-XT
That’s true enough. Probably for several additional years. And the body count would undoubtedly have been much higher, the end much more brutal. But, what the hell, WE wouldn’t have had any blood on our hands, so fuck it…right?
That seems to be what your whole argument boils down too. That as long as the US’s hands were clean, that’s all that matters. So, really, it’s not about civilians being killed, not about the suffering of children…it’s simply about Americans not killing civilians, about the blood not being on our hands.
Is that an accurate distillation of your position?
[/quote]
It’s about not ADDING to the death count, but it’s also correct that I’m not responsible for other people’s actions.
I thought you said Germany wasn’t a threat to us.
Why would it be hypocritical?
[/quote]
Because you don’t give a flying fuck about genocide in those other cases, so it’s dishonest to try to argue it as a justifucation in Nazi Germany. You’ve already said that Germany wasn’t a threat to the US, and you don’t think genocide is a sufficient reason to go to war, so what are you saying justified setting toddlers on fire in either Germany or Japan.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
It’s about not ADDING to the death count, but it’s also correct that I’m not responsible for other people’s actions.
[/QUOTE]
If I stand by and watch a child drown, to be sure, I’m responsible for that child’s death. Inaction does not obviate responsibility. US inaction during WWII would have certainly added to the over all body count. The only consolation (for someone like yourself) would have been that we wouldn’t have DIRECTLY had any blood on our hands. Cold comfort, but I suppose that’s fine.
Can you quote me saying Germany was no threat to US? IIRC, I said that neither Germany nor Japan could invade the US, and that Japan was more of a threat (and that we had more reason to go to war with Japan than Germany, them having attacked us and all). This was in response to your assertions that Japan was no threat at all.
-XT
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Because you don’t give a flying fuck about genocide in those other cases, so it’s dishonest to try to argue it as a justifucation in Nazi Germany. You’ve already said that Germany wasn’t a threat to the US, and you don’t think genocide is a sufficient reason to go to war, so what are you saying justified setting toddlers on fire in either Germany or Japan.
[/QUOTE]
I DIDN’T try and argue that as justification for fighting Nazi Germany. And you are quite wrong…I wasn’t opposed to using US forces in cases of genocide of any of the places you mentioned (had you asked). I think it’s irrelevant, however, since genocide wasn’t the primary reason we DID go to war in either case. The primary reason we went to war with Japan was because they directly attacked us. The primary reason we went to war with Germany was, well, because they declared war on US.
Mainly, both countries were aggressively expansionist, they had begun a series of vicious wars of aggression, had already conquered huge territories and were continuing to expand, and eventually, both could and certainly would have become threats to the US.
-XT
So, Diogenes, what would you have had us do the day after Pearl Harbor? After Hitler declared war on us? And should we have declined to aid our allies in Europe?
How is your attitude any different from that of Neville Chamberlain?
Actually, we did know, thanks to Yankees Catcher Moe Berg.