Why?
So much for a “debate.” Enjoy your week.
You lost me there.
I think he’s saying that **Velocity **doesn’t seem really interested in debating his statements even though he started a thread in Great Debates on the subject.
Yeah, it’s another
Here’s Y: debate.
Because the A-bombings were done for the sake of ending the war quickly while the firebombing of Tokyo was done to cook people alive in the most horrifically painful death possible.
The Russian and Chinese would disagree with you vehemently on this. As was done in Germany, the Japanese experimented on civilians. People were given diseases and then dissected alive to see what the affects were. And I’ll note that like Germany after the war they were given immunity by the United States in return for the data acquired.
But on the mainland of the Pacific Rim it was just as bad as Germany’s legacy. It’s estimated that they killed a quarter million people alone in the search for the Doolittle Raiders. Something that gets glossed over in the success of the raid and really should be mentioned in the same breath.
We may not hear about the atrocities in the United States because it occurred in countries we didn’t socialize with after the war but it was a brutal regime just the same.
Cite?
Ridiculous. The firebombing of Tokyo was done to destroy a major enemy industrial city. Were a lot of people killed? Of course - people live in cities. But every country in the war accepted bombing cities as a legitimate military act.
I’ve mentioned this before but it’s still shocking when you think about the implications. When the war ended in 1945, Japan naturally had to release all of the prisoners of war it held in captivity. Japan had been at war with China since 1937.
There were fifty-three Chinese POW’s alive to be released.
Jesus Christ.
Had the war not ended in August and continued until the invasion of Japan there would have been a similar number of Allied POWs alive. They were scheduled to be slaughtered.
Detailed records are lost, but it doesn’t look like he was one of them.
They were some mean sons of bitches. No wonder my Father and his associates shot and killed one dangling from a parachute in New Guinea.
Maybe it was Hong Xiuquan. A lot of people were confused by the fraternal resemblance.
Yeah, it was not a pretty war. There weren’t that many soldiers who had a great deal of love for the Japanese after news of things such as the Baatan death march filtered out.
You still are engaging him?
The USAAF developed the strategy of the firebombing because the first choice, conventional bombing was not working. The winds blowing across Japan were too strong, so if the bombers went with the winds the bomb sight computing device couldn’t handle the speed. Numerous attempts were made to bomb the aircraft (engine IIRC) factories in Kawasaki, which lies in between Tokyo and Yokohama. The bombers were consistently releasing their bombs too late, with the bombs landing harmlessly in the Tokyo Bay.
Going the other way put the apparent ground speed far too slow and made the AA more effective.
They developed the M-69 incendiary cluster bomb which released the clusters of 6 lb napalm bombs. The lead bombers would drop 500 lb napalm bombs to start the fires and then the following bombers would drop the M-69s.
As bad as burning people us, it still probably wasn’t as horrible as what was planned next, the starvation of everyone.
The war was a horrible thing. There is a thought provoking episode on Hard Core History about the horrible sense it all made.
A beautiful (and chilling) phrase. The war forced its own kind of logic upon the nations involved. The most reasonable people on earth were compelled to the most horrible decisions in history, because there simply were no better answers.
And, yes, there were monsters on both sides too. There were bad people who made decisions on the basis of rage, racism, religious bigotry, and so on.
But the real hell of it is that even the best people, on both sides, were driven, by the “Cold Equations” of the war, to make decisions that no moral soul could ever accept.
In the movie “Above and Beyond,” there is a beautiful (horrifying) scene where Paul Tibbets wife asks about the bombing of Japanese cities. Don’t they have women and children? Tibbets (as fictionalized in the film) snaps at her never to talk like that to him again. He knows he can’t defend what he is doing…and he also knows that he damn well has to do it.
As the character in Crimson Tide says, “War itself is the enemy.”
Very well put.
People shouldn’t fool themselves into thinking that without serious structure in place, people from any country could become monsters given the right (or rather wrong) circumstances.
However, there was a difference on the scale of atrocities and the evil perpetrated by some were magnitudes larger.
I would change only one word in your post,
“But the real hell of it is that even the best people, on both sides, were driven, by the “Cold Equations” of the war, to make decisions that no moral soul **should have to **ever accept.”
A subtle change; I’ll buy it.
My thinking was that reality itself, sometimes, is so horrid, one can’t accept it. But that’s meaningless: we must accept reality.
If we could have just changed the channel, and bypassed the war…we would have. Any sane person would. But when there isn’t any other option, you do what you have to do.
If rational negotiation worked the way it should, the war would never have started.
And…I wonder…if the leaders and Germany and Japan had known the outcome…would they have been horrified enough to negotiate? Or would they already have been locked into an irreversible decision to go ahead with the war?
(Meaningless question, I know, as are all “what if” questions.)
And that is what makes war so terrible. Sometimes things are that bad, but they must be done. This comes back to the question of firebombing cities or dropping atomic bombs. Sure, it’s easy to say that’s immoral, but what do you do about the even greater number of civilians dying because the war isn’t ending soon enough? In the numbers I gave earlier, about 100,000 Allied civilians, mostly Chinese, Filipino, and Indonesian but also many others, were dying weekly. If the Allies avoided bombing civilians, the war would have lasted another several years, and million upon millions of Allied civilians would have perished.
Was it right to burn Japanese women, babies, children, and grandparents? Of course not. It was horrible. But it would have been more horrible to stand by and allow the slaughter of millions more.
That only works if you are dealing with rational people.
I think they would have continued, like the alcoholic who knows he’ll die in the streets or the gambler who bets the house away, they were not rational. Showing the future to Hitler would be a waste of your time, and help him take steps to not make the same mistakes. Perhaps if the Western powers and the German army and business leaders could have know in the early 1930s, they could have taken steps to prevent Hitler and the Nazis from gaining power, but no one would have had that kind of foresight.
For Japan. No way. Under the Meiji constitution there wasn’t a way to check the power of the ultra nationalists. They were locked into a war exactly as an addict has to get their next hit.