It’s not ridiculous, because there is only so much time and energy you can spend trying to right past wrongs, and you should worry about the worst things first. History textbooks have a tendency to pick one bad thing each side did, so as to appear fair. They always pick the internment of Japanese-Americans as the bad thing the US did. Compared to what - Katyn? Nanking? Auschwitz?
Exactly, and I’m trying to read past those kinds of posts. I never really accepted the “moral equivalency” school of thought, and I minored in history in the ultra-PC 90s. It got ridiculous with atom bombs: we pushed little Japan into this war with our sanctions, and nuked them rather than let them save face and merely keep their Emperor.
Americans like to be portrayed as the “good guys”. More often than not, it turns out we were. People facing American forces could expect the best. We did accept surrenders, we had humane POW facilities, we didn’t massacre civilians, we didn’t oppress occupied countries. We hung a several dozen leaders, after trials, in the conquered nations. We didn’t put bullets into 20,000 officers, clergy, and intelligentia in Poland like the Soviets did (pre-Barbarossa). We helped rebuild occupied West Berlin and Tokyo. We didn’t dismantle Warsaw to be a future train station, like the Germans started to.
Was there some ugliness? Of course, but they read like this:
“Yeah, the Germans murdered 200,000 civilians at Dachau. But Americans were no better, we killed 60-300 Dachau guards after liberation. Take off your rose colored glasses and stop accepting propaganda”
Indeed. People who flip out about this might not know that the troops who liberated the camps also liberated the prisoners, most of whom were on the edge of starvation, and many of whom died anyway after liberation. My uncle, who is Jewish, was at one. Maybe sitting here 70 years later we can go tsk tsk, I don’t think my uncle shot any guards (he wasn’t first on the scene) but I’d have no problem with him helping to execute a very deserved penalty. It’s not like the death camp guards suddenly repented.
I wonder how many crimes would have been committed at home by soldiers (who did not get 4F status by not being saints) given weapons, stress, removal from their homes, most for the first time, and no women. Probably more than actually happened there.
That is due to their immunity to Old World diseases.
Such a commentary on posters, however, lacking any actual specifics addressing posted comments or providing factual replies to them is threadshitting, so you will refrain from similar actions in the future.
If you want to challenge ignorance, do it with facts, not toss-away snide remarks.
[ /Moderating ]
Fail.
Filipinos did not die from “Old World diseases,” but from the munitions of the U.S. Army.
And while a very large number of indigenous Americans died from “Old Word diseases,” this does not diminish the numbers that were also killed by swords, arquebuses, muskets, rifles, and the destruction of the habitat that they needed to survive.
LOL, You might hear from some people from other first world countries argue that american soldiers are the best of the bunch.
Australians are pretty good, as well as Canadians, British etc etc
I was talking about his comparison of Amerindians to Siberians and Central Asians.
Everybody likes to think of themselves as the “good guys” but describing any side in any war as “nice” is more than a little absurd. Prisoners were rarely taken in the Pacific and while understandable given the situation and what the Japanese did was much worse, it doesn’t make machine gunning the survivors of sunken ships any more palatable or in any way “nice”. If you wish I can provide plenty of cites to show that this wasn’t a one off or rare occurrence. It’s disingenuous to describe the fire bombing of Japanese cities as anything but massacring civilians. The US at the time didn’t try to describe the targets of said bombings as anything other than the civilians of the cities themselves. Bombing civilians wasn’t a US invention; it was just more effective at carrying it out than any of the Axis nations was.
Collecting body parts from the dead and the dying Japanese (E. B. Sledge’s With the Old Breed at At Peleliu and Okinawa has a quite graphic description of a Marine slicing open the cheeks of a still living wounded Japanese soldier with a kabar in order to more easily knock out gold teeth with the butt of the knife) is only so easily dismissed by comparison of the scale of atrocities committed by the Axis nations. What would the reaction be if it was discovered that American soldiers in Iraq had been keeping skulls, teeth, and other body parts of Iraqis as trophies have been? Or even more so what would the reaction have been if it was discovered Iraqis were keeping skulls, teeth and other body parts of dead Americans as trophies?
Actually it would read more like the US turned 100,000 or more civilians in Tokyo into human torches when it burned 16 square miles of the city to the ground in one night. The US was in no way remotely close to morally equivalent to the Axis, but wars are always extremely ugly and WW2 brought about new heights in how ugly it could get. Painting the US as ‘nice’ in WW2 does a disservice to history and the ugly world that those who had to fight it were forced to live in.
That I addressed in my last sentence.
The peoples of the plains who starved to death because the bison were nearly wiped out did not die from European diseases. The Cherokee who died on the Trail of Tears died of starvation and pneumonia, not smallpox. The Iroquois had their crops destroyed at the express instructions of George Washington. (It is true that they had joined with the British against the fledgling U.S., but that was because they could see settlers moving up the Hudson and Mohawk rivers to take their lands.) The Blackhawk war was fought because settlers had taken land away from peoples who then starved. Similar events occurred with the Creeks and Choctaw, the Natchez, the Kaskasia, the Shawnee, and numerous other settled groups. (Just as, prior to the formation of the United States, the Pequot, Wampanoag, and Mohegan peoples had been driven from their lands, then killed when they defended those lands.) Certainly, disease made it easier to encroach on those lands, but the notion that European diseases simply happened and then white settlers took abandoned lands is not a true description of the events that took place.
Yesterdays’s (January 12th) example of the niceness of US troops:
Did this get as much coverage in the USA as elsehwere?
Yes.
Nice.
Egads!
It was the fall of China that triggered American efforts to reestablish Japanese strength. We spent the first half of the Occupation tearing apart the industrial and military infrastructure of the country, reversing course once it became obvious that Japan would have to serve as our primary Pacific ally.
Just quoting the last bit, but good post!
I wholeheartedly agree.
Looking at history with anything but these rose coloured glasses also leads to false, romanticised ideas about what war is like.
Which, in turn, leads to people not having less qualms about starting new ones.
They have no idea what they are really inflicting on other people.
I agree. While it’s possible to justify actions such as the bombing of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki to some extent, on the basis that the allies were trying to shorten the war, they should be considered war crimes. None were militarily essential, and the suffering caused to civilians cannot be described adequately.
Leaving civilians out of war is a fairly new concept. Terrorizing and massacring the populace while destroying the war-making capabilities of the locals is a time-honored method of war used by everyone, in every war, until fairly recently.
Your point being?
I mean, do you think it a good thing or a bad thing to try to prevent civilian casualties?
a personal reminiscence (“Once upon a time/No Shit, this realy happened”) from 1987 about the “niceness” of the American military:
On an average day, given the standard desperation of Third World women, there was an ample supply of sex workers to meet the demand of First World military in Ologopo, Phillipines. But when a 12,000 member/six ship WestPac deployment pulled into Subic Bay, a lot of horny young guys had to stand in line.
One night one of our yeomen (ship’s office secretary) returned from liberty and told us how he’d been set up with a new girl at a brothel, but when he commenced intercourse she started crying and screaming. He was shocked to see that their groins were covered in blood. (Fillipinas are small and not especially hairy, so it’s difficult to tell a grown woman from a child. But both women and children must eat, so both go into the brothels) He called the mama-san for help, but when she arrived she only wiped up the blood from the vinyl mattress and insisted he finish what he came for. He told her she could keep the money, but he just wanted out, and he wanted the girl taken off-duty.
As all this was going on, the disturbance drew a crowd of other young men (mostly Marines), who insisted that they wanted to drop out of line for whatever other girls were next available, and wait instead to fuck the little girl’s bloody cunt.
I saw this kind of shit went on all the time in the peacetime military. If this is how they do fucking, I can’t imagine them being any nicer at killing.