Magox Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 PLease tell me youre NOT trying to paint the Japanese in WWII as innocent victims. Yes you !@#$ing moron! The vast majority of the population were innocent victims you dumb !@#$! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) PLease tell me youre NOT trying to paint the Japanese in WWII as innocent victims. How would you describe the estimated 500,000 civilian casualties in 67 major Japanese metropolitan areas during the firebombing campaign? Ever heard of Dresden? That was a marshmallow roast compared to what took place all over Japan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II#Japanese_bombing Edited January 12, 2012 by Jauronimo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Well the actions of the Greatest Generation have largely been white washed and are largely absent from today's history books. The punitive nature of the Pacific theater is a footnote. Things like not accepting the surrender of enemy troops and instead opting to shoot unarmed would-be-POWs and fire bombing Japanese cities, which served no purpose other than revenge for Pearl, are swept under the rug. That is not an accurate characterization of the Pacific war. There were legitimate reasons for most of the actions taken in the war well and beyond "punitive," if only because it wasn't just Americans that fought in the Pacific - the Aussies at Milne Bay were every bit as brutal as the Americans at Buna-Gona. The Pacific War was, simply, a brutal campaign where neither side asked or gave quarter. And in regards to surrendering troops...one of the most dangerous things on a battlefield is to try to surrender yourself to the enemy. Generally, guys in the middle of a battle are in a "shoot first, ask questions later" mood, and individuals or small groups attempting to surrender themselves are pretty much dead men walking (including airmen - if you bailed out of a plane over Germany, your options were pretty much evade, find the nearest authority to surrender to, or get killed by civilians). Most POWs in WWII were taken in negotiated surrenders of large groups. Doubly so when you're Japanese and your brothers-in-arms have a history of not surrendering, or faking surrender to nail just one more gaijin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Yes you !@#$ing moron! The vast majority of the population were innocent victims you dumb !@#$! I wasnt talking to you. Shut the !@#$ up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 How would you describe the estimated 500,000 civilian casualties in 67 major Japanese metropolitan areas during the firebombing campaign? Ever heard of Dresden? That was a marshmallow roast compared to what took place all over Japan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II#Japanese_bombing Wouldn't describe them as punitive. Yes you !@#$ing moron! The vast majority of the population were innocent victims you dumb !@#$! That is debatable. Is the carpenter making tailplanes for Zeros in his cabinet shop an innocent victim? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) How would you describe the estimated 500,000 civilian casualties in 67 major Japanese metropolitan areas during the firebombing campaign? Ever heard of Dresden? That was a marshmallow roast compared to what took place all over Japan. http://en.wikipedia....apanese_bombing Bombing of civilian centers were commonplace in warfare at that time. Youre applying modern military tactics and its morality to how wars were fought 60 years ago. Cant do that. And last I checked, JDAMs didnt exist in 1944. You need to learn yourself some history, son. The Emperial Japanese Army made the Third Reich look like schoolchildren. Edited January 12, 2012 by RkFast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Bombing of civilian centers were commonplace in warfare at that time. That doesn't make it right. It also doesn't make the citizens who were bombed guilty - THAT argument is even more disingenuous than the "they were civilians, hence innocent" argument. They weren't innocent BECAUSE bombing them was commonplace? The Emperial Japanese Army made the Third Reich look like schoolchildren. "Imperial," you dolt. And that is also debatable. If only because the warped concept of "bushido" they used was far more complex than merely acting like animals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) That doesn't make it right. It also doesn't make the citizens who were bombed guilty - THAT argument is even more disingenuous than the "they were civilians, hence innocent" argument. They weren't innocent BECAUSE bombing them was commonplace? "Imperial," you dolt. And that is also debatable. If only because the warped concept of "bushido" they used was far more complex than merely acting like animals. No, it doesnt make it right. But again...you cant look at how wars were fought decades ago, when weaponry and tactics were different, through the moral prism of how conflicts are fought TODAY. And thats what some here are doing. Its an impossible comparison. Sorry for the spelling error....ugh. The Japanese....ALL of them...had a very hardline view of their nation. I dare to bet that IF the US tried a typical land invasion of Jaoan, those "innocent" Japanese some are talking about would fight the Allies to the death using anything at their disposal. I think it would have been a guerilla war that would make Vietnam look like a cakewalk. BUt thats just my theory. Edited January 12, 2012 by RkFast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 And that is also debatable. If only because the warped concept of "bushido" they used was far more complex than merely acting like animals. Oh, so it was George W Bush's fault. Man, he gets around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Oh, so it was George W Bush's fault. Man, he gets around. FTW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 My point is who the !@#$ thinks it is a good idea to film something like that? Yes war is hell and atrocities are most surely are going to be committed (one of the reasons to avoid war if at all possible) but a person who thinks it's a good idea to film such an act and more importantly even with time to reflect thinks it's good idea to put it on line has something seriously wrong with him. If you don't want something seen, then guess what a good option is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 That is not an accurate characterization of the Pacific war. There were legitimate reasons for most of the actions taken in the war well and beyond "punitive," if only because it wasn't just Americans that fought in the Pacific - the Aussies at Milne Bay were every bit as brutal as the Americans at Buna-Gona. The Pacific War was, simply, a brutal campaign where neither side asked or gave quarter. And in regards to surrendering troops...one of the most dangerous things on a battlefield is to try to surrender yourself to the enemy. Generally, guys in the middle of a battle are in a "shoot first, ask questions later" mood, and individuals or small groups attempting to surrender themselves are pretty much dead men walking (including airmen - if you bailed out of a plane over Germany, your options were pretty much evade, find the nearest authority to surrender to, or get killed by civilians). Most POWs in WWII were taken in negotiated surrenders of large groups. Doubly so when you're Japanese and your brothers-in-arms have a history of not surrendering, or faking surrender to nail just one more gaijin. So the U.S. involvement in the Pacific did not have punitive motives because the Aussies were also waging a war with punitive intentions? And firebombing Japan was not punitive because it also disrupted some industry as well? Thats nitpicky even for you. As for the latter, I've seen many interviews with GIs who served in the Pacific, on some of the myriad WWII documentaries on the Hitler Channel, where they described the unofficial policy of "don't accept Japanese surrender, they showed no mercy at Pearl." From the mouths of men who accepted no surrender. I'm not judging their actions, by the way, or claiming them to be horrific or war crimes. Simply comparing the reality of Greatest Generation with whats considered atrocity today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted January 12, 2012 Author Share Posted January 12, 2012 Oh, so it was George W Bush's fault. Man, he gets around. That Prescott Bushido was everywhere around WW2 he was like the Carmen SanDiego of his time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) Yes you !@#$ing moron! The vast majority of the population were innocent victims you dumb !@#$! I just read that in the late years of the war, Japan had a civilian militia ready to defend the mainland of over 28 MILLION men AND women. The Japanese THEMSELVES predicted over 20 million deaths if a land invasion were to take place. Care to retract your statement....you !@#$ing moron? Edited January 12, 2012 by RkFast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Bombing of civilian centers were commonplace in warfare at that time. Youre applying modern military tactics and its morality to how wars were fought 60 years ago. Cant do that. And last I checked, JDAMs didnt exist in 1944. You need to learn yourself some history, son. The Emperial Japanese Army made the Third Reich look like schoolchildren. I'll go learn me some more history as soon as you point out where I suggested that laser guided bomb strikes should have been ordered on Japanese neighborhoods rather than fire bombs. I'm applying no such morality. The U.S. carried out a conventional bombing campaign on Japan for years until they opted for a firebomb campaign which served little strategic purpose other than to demoralize the enemy and maximize destruction. Theres a difference between errant dumb bombs and firebombs. Even if we had JDAMS in the 40s they wouldn't have been used in the place of firebombs, as a precision strike which minimizes collateral damage was not the intent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 No, it doesnt make it right. But again...you cant look at how wars were fought decades ago, when weaponry and tactics were different, through the moral prism of how conflicts are fought TODAY. And thats what some here are doing. Its an impossible comparison. More to the point, you're arguing whether or not it was "right" based on the values of the time, Magox is arguing the "innocence" of civilians, and Jauronimo is arguing that the American military effort was "punitive." You three retards aren't even having the same goddamned discussion. Sorry for the spelling error....ugh. The Japanese....ALL of them...had a very hardline view of their nation. I dare to bet that IF the US tried a typical land invasion of Jaoan, those "innocent" Japanese some are talking about would fight the Allies to the death using anything at their disposal. I think it would have been a guerilla war that would make Vietnam look like a cakewalk. BUt thats just my theory. Again...debatable. To put it very roughly, you're equating their religion with Western-style political and nationalist thought. An invasion would have been bloody (the atomic bombs saved more Japanese lives than they took), but in defense of the Emperor, not the nation. That's a completely different type of motivation - most people will fight for a nation up to the point that they realize that further fighting is counter-productive (in that it will destroy their nation), but virtually any zealous follower of a religion is not only willing to die for that religion, but recognizes that fighting with such zealotry reinforces rather than destroys their religion. There's a reason Japan was surprisingly pacific after the surrender - namely, because the surrender was a rescript from the Japanese God - literally divine intervention. And really, you're just as guilty of misjudging the war as Magox and Jauronimo. They're judging by the standards of a different era. You're judging by the standards of a different society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 More to the point, you're arguing whether or not it was "right" based on the values of the time, Magox is arguing the "innocence" of civilians, and Jauronimo is arguing that the American military effort was "punitive." You three retards aren't even having the same goddamned discussion. Again...debatable. To put it very roughly, you're equating their religion with Western-style political and nationalist thought. An invasion would have been bloody (the atomic bombs saved more Japanese lives than they took), but in defense of the Emperor, not the nation. That's a completely different type of motivation - most people will fight for a nation up to the point that they realize that further fighting is counter-productive (in that it will destroy their nation), but virtually any zealous follower of a religion is not only willing to die for that religion, but recognizes that fighting with such zealotry reinforces rather than destroys their religion. There's a reason Japan was surprisingly pacific after the surrender - namely, because the surrender was a rescript from the Japanese God - literally divine intervention. And really, you're just as guilty of misjudging the war as Magox and Jauronimo. They're judging by the standards of a different era. You're judging by the standards of a different society. Listening to people talk about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is always irritating to me. Either we are told that it just shouldn't have happened, or that it was a great thing. I don't consider either to be true- while it seems to have saved many lives, nothing like that is truly a great thing. Then again, after learning in school that Richard Nixon was the first US president to be impeached, those opinions don't surprise me all that much...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 So the U.S. involvement in the Pacific did not have punitive motives because the Aussies were also waging a war with punitive intentions? And firebombing Japan was not punitive because it also disrupted some industry as well? Thats nitpicky even for you. No, it's not nitpicky at all. It's the central argument. "Punitive" actions are meant to punish. To argue the American prosecution of the war was punitive, you have to argue that the primary intent of any military action - such as the firebombing of Japan - was to punish, with strategic considerations secondary. So argue it. Show me the records of the XX Air Force's communications with the JCS or USAAF that represented the firebombing as punishment for Pearl Harbor. The records are available - at the very least, there's several sources on LeMay that should quote his motivations and justifications for switching from high-level "precision" bombing to low-level area bombing. As for the latter, I've seen many interviews with GIs who served in the Pacific, on some of the myriad WWII documentaries on the Hitler Channel, where they described the unofficial policy of "don't accept Japanese surrender, they showed no mercy at Pearl." From the mouths of men who accepted no surrender. Oh, okay, the History Channel. Talk to me when you turn of the TV and do some actual research, like I have. I'm not judging their actions, by the way, or claiming them to be horrific or war crimes. Simply comparing the reality of Greatest Generation with whats considered atrocity today. Yes, because "punitive" is not a judgmental word. Are you channeling DIN today or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 I just read that in the late years of the war, Japan had a civilian militia ready to defend the mainland of over 28 MILLION men AND women. The Japanese THEMSELVES predicted over 20 million deaths if a land invasion were to take place. Care to retract your statement....you !@#$ing moron? No, dipshit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Listening to people talk about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is always irritating to me. Either we are told that it just shouldn't have happened, or that it was a great thing. I don't consider either to be true- while it seems to have saved many lives, nothing like that is truly a great thing. Then again, after learning in school that Richard Nixon was the first US president to be impeached, those opinions don't surprise me all that much...... War is never a good thing, and one should never opt into it (Yes, Dubya, I mean you). But if one must fight, one should fight as aggressively as possible to bring it to the most rapid conclusion possible, as, simply, more people die in longer wars. Even if the bombs shortened the war by only three months (the invasion of Kyushu was tentatively planned for Nov. 15, as I recall) that's probably 1-2 million Japanese saved. No, dipshit You should consider modifying it, but on the basis of defining "innocent civilian" in the context of total, industrial-scale war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts