|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Deano on world war 2
|
Fool on the hill
Shipmate
# 9428
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
deano,
I'm not your pet.
I'm never willing to include innocent children in the costs of anything. Never. It may be hard to consider if you don't have children yourself. Kill me, spare them. And it is that personal. And it must be.
I have two wonderful children and I don't want to see them hurt in any way, let alone in warfare.
But in warfare they do die.
The allied side never deliberately harmed children. Never. They were killed and hurt by allied action, there is no doubt about that, but at no time in the war did any allied military or political leadership ever say "Attack this place. It has no military value, but it does contain many children."
Unlike the Nazi's who did deliberatly kill children or experiment on them.
So please don't conflate the two sides. The allies did have a more moral position, and that's all you can ask for in war.
If you think that bringing up dead babies will somehow make me out as the defender of evil then that's a very simplistic outlook I'm afraid, and one that is unworthy in the debate.
It's the same sort of attitude that puts the cost of everything in terms of baby incubators. "You want to buy a tank!!! Do you know how many incubators that will buy?"
Besides the obvious stupidness of trying to claim that dropping a bomb on a population does not deliberately harm children, there are these examples of allied actions
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/knowledge/culture/roundups/
"A group of 3,500 children were taken from the holding camps to Drancy, where they were placed on trains in large groups, sometimes of up to 800 at a time, and deported to the Death Camps."
"The planning and execution of the operation was very much a French concern, with the final decisions to go ahead with the round-ups taken by the Vichy council of ministers."
Then there is....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2002/may/01/news.features11
And then there is simple callous action resulting in suffering from Japanese internment camps..
http://www.pbs.org/childofcamp/documentary/index.html
Now, I am merely lurking on this WW2 thread because I don't have the knowledge that I feel I should have on WW2 for a meaningful exchange. Maybe Deano should shut up as well.
Because I feel that his ignorance born out of what appears to be blind patriotism verges on moral bankruptcy. You are a fucking idiot.
Omg I feel so much better.
Posts: 792 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
Omg I feel so much better.
That's nice, love, but the Vichy French weren't on the Allied side. The clue's in the name.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
In your third example, I've only read the website page, not watched the one-hour documentary to which it refers. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the internment of Americans of Japanese descent in WWII, can that be called 'harming children' in the sense that the US government deliberately set out to harm the children? Presumably they were put in the camp because they were regarded as a threat and were no doubt unnerved by experience, but is that really equivalent to being sent to a death camp and then being turned in to a lightshade?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
Omg I feel so much better.
That's nice, love, but the Vichy French weren't on the Allied side. The clue's in the name.
A handy error, because I suppose it invalidates the OP completely?
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
Omg I feel so much better.
That's nice, love, but the Vichy French weren't on the Allied side. The clue's in the name.
A handy error, because I suppose it invalidates the OP completely?
I perhaps shouldn't have commented because I haven't been following the WWII thread in Purgatory so can't really judge the sane-ness of deano's comments. However, what has been quoted in this thread seems reasonable enough and if you're going to argue against it, it would be good to make sure that you're quoting the right side, surely?
[ 01. December 2012, 21:10: Message edited by: Anglican't ]
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fool on the hill
Shipmate
# 9428
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
In your third example, I've only read the website page, not watched the one-hour documentary to which it refers. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the internment of Americans of Japanese descent in WWII, can that be called 'harming children' in the sense that the US government deliberately set out to harm the children? Presumably they were put in the camp because they were regarded as a threat and were no doubt unnerved by experience, but is that really equivalent to being sent to a death camp and then being turned in to a lightshade?
It is not equivalent to being turned into a nightshade. But it is directly harming children, the same way bombs, atomic and otherwise, directly harm children.
I already said I don't know alot about ww2. I didn't realize that France began as an allied power but did not end up as one.
Anything about the second link? Cause I'm pretty sure that Russia was an allied power in 1945.
None of this negates the fact that it is idiocy to say that bombs do not directly harm children.
Posts: 792 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
Omg I feel so much better.
That's nice, love, but the Vichy French weren't on the Allied side. The clue's in the name.
Vichy is the name of a French city. What kind of clue is that as to whose side they were on? It doesn't tell us any more than "Weimar Germany" tells us about the politics of that period in Germany's history, or "Avignon Papacy" tells us which popes at a certain period in the history of the RCC would in retrospect be seen as the "true" popes of the day.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
[Vichy is the name of a French city. What kind of clue is that as to whose side they were on?
A clue, perhaps, that we're dealing with a non-regular government but I'll concede it was a rather flippant comment and I ought perhaps to have re-phrased it.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
I already said I don't know alot about ww2.
Well there's no argument on that score dear.
I never said children were not injured or killed in the war. In fact if you read ALL my posts you will see that I comment on that frequently, and that was horrific. Inevitable in war, but horrific.
My point was that the allies never made children a specific target. There was nothing the allies did that was comparable to separating Jewish children form their parents and killing them because they were incapable of working in the camps.
To wilfully misrepresent what I said exposes you as a rather pathetic fool, incapable of reading anything beyond a soundbite. Are you a half-wit, dim-wit or just plain witless?
I thank God that people like you have no influence on policy or public opinion. It's people like you who would roll over and turn a blind eye to what the Nazi's did (it's a thread about WWII, so Godels Law need not apply!) that led to the collaborating VICHY French, you ignorant piece of shit.
You're as thick as two short planks with a telly inbetween.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Vichy is the name of a French city. What kind of clue is that as to whose side they were on?
You've never watched Casablanca?
Particular times/ places are given names because these are shorthand for that era. You could say 'The combination of punitive post WWI sanctions, hyperinflation, political extremism and cultural phenomena in a Germany operating under a post-imperial constitution which led to the rise of Nazism' or you could say 'Weimar Republic' on the assumption that your audience know something of 20thC European history and can fill in the details.
I know it's an educated, elitist sort of thing, but tough.
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I thank God that people like you have no influence on policy or public opinion. It's people like you who would roll over and turn a blind eye to what the Nazi's did (it's a thread about WWII, so Godels Law need not apply!) that led to the collaborating VICHY French, you ignorant piece of shit.
You're as thick as two short planks with a telly inbetween.
And what that offensive bullshit has to do with the incompleteness of internally consistent axiomatic systems is a mystery to me. It isn't a good idea to accuse others of ignorance while exhibiting it yourself.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I thank God that people like you have no influence on policy or public opinion. It's people like you who would roll over and turn a blind eye to what the Nazi's did (it's a thread about WWII, so Godels Law need not apply!) that led to the collaborating VICHY French, you ignorant piece of shit.
You're as thick as two short planks with a telly inbetween.
And what that offensive bullshit has to do with the incompleteness of internally consistent axiomatic systems is a mystery to me. It isn't a good idea to accuse others of ignorance while exhibiting it yourself.
Whoops. I meant Godwin's Law of course. Sorry about that.
A mistake isn't ignorance though. Ignorance is - for example - not actually knowing something about World War Two, but posting on it anyway.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fool on the hill
Shipmate
# 9428
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
I already said I don't know alot about ww2.
Well there's no argument on that score dear.
I never said children were not injured or killed in the war. In fact if you read ALL my posts you will see that I comment on that frequently, and that was horrific. Inevitable in war, but horrific.
My point was that the allies never made children a specific target. There was nothing the allies did that was comparable to separating Jewish children form their parents and killing them because they were incapable of working in the camps.
To wilfully misrepresent what I said exposes you as a rather pathetic fool, incapable of reading anything beyond a soundbite. Are you a half-wit, dim-wit or just plain witless?
I thank God that people like you have no influence on policy or public opinion. It's people like you who would roll over and turn a blind eye to what the Nazi's did (it's a thread about WWII, so Godels Law need not apply!) that led to the collaborating VICHY French, you ignorant piece of shit.
You're as thick as two short planks with a telly inbetween.
I did read the entire thread. Including all of yours. Shudder. You said, the allied side never deliberately harmed children. Never you said. No matter how you further attempt to quantify that, the statement still stands as stunning in it's ignorance to the suffering of children and people.
It's funny because that is exactly what I thought of you when I read that. That you typify the type of person that would turn a blind eye to the nazi's. "Never" you would say. "Never" would my country do something like this.
I quoted you. That's not willfully misrepresenting you.
I've had my hellish rant. I have no desire to participate in name calling. I called you a name. You called me names. It was fun.
Posts: 792 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
I've had my hellish rant. I have no desire to participate in name calling. I called you a name. You called me names. It was fun.
Oh I see, now you've attempted to insult me because I've offended your politically correct lefty sensibilities by WILLFULLY MISINTERPRETING what I posted, you're just going to slope off!
Hypocrite.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fool on the hill
Shipmate
# 9428
|
Posted
I will reply to reasonable posts. But it has been my experience that such things don't really appear in hell. I call myself out on my weakness for using hell as an excuse to be verbally abusive. I am just giving my notice that I'm done.
Posts: 792 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
deano, it appears that you think you said the Allies never intentionally singled out children. But you didn't. You said they never intentionally harmed children. Taking you at your word instead of reading your mind and discerning what you meant but didn't say is not misinterpreting you. Nor is wanting to speak the truth about what really happened in World War Two "politically correct lefty sentibilities." You're being a prick.
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
[Vichy is the name of a French city. What kind of clue is that as to whose side they were on?
A clue, perhaps, that we're dealing with a non-regular government
A "non-regular government" could be a government in exile. Hence, absolutely NO clue about allegiance.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
[Vichy is the name of a French city. What kind of clue is that as to whose side they were on?
A clue, perhaps, that we're dealing with a non-regular government
A "non-regular government" could be a government in exile. Hence, absolutely NO clue about allegiance.
Well it's a clue that something isn't as it usually is. So you might therefore think 'before using this government's actions as evidence that some guy on the internet is an idiot, I perhaps should check what sort of government we're dealing with here so I don't look foolish, particularly as I don't know a lot about the subject'. But at the end of the day it is just arguing with people on the internet, so you might decide not to.
[ 01. December 2012, 22:36: Message edited by: Anglican't ]
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Well it's a clue that something isn't as it usually is. So you might in therefore think 'before using this government's actions as evidence that some guy on the internet is an idiot, I perhaps should check what sort of government we're dealing with here so I don't look foolish, particularly as I don't know a lot about the subject'. But at the end of the day it is just arguing with people on the internet, so you might decide not to.
All well, but the bottom line is, you flipped shit you had no right to flip.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
I think I've already covered that.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I think I've already covered that.
But you're still acting all self-righteous about it, so clearly you didn't mean it.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
I did mean it. I concede that my initial response to the OP wasn't brilliantly drafted, was rather flippant and ought to have been made differently. But that doesn't affect the fact that I still regard the mistake in the OP as a serious blunder that shouldn't have been made, particularly if one is trying to show that someone else is a clown.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
deano, it appears that you think you said the Allies never intentionally singled out children. But you didn't. You said they never intentionally harmed children. Taking you at your word instead of reading your mind and discerning what you meant but didn't say is not misinterpreting you.
I don’t accept the premise mousethief.
Only the most obtuse and facile interpretation of what I wrote could result in what Fox believed I had said. It is patently obvious that a bombing campaign against a city stands a very high chance of killing some children, and to believe I was claiming that the allies hadn’t realised this is either deliberately misinterpreting it to that end, or egregious stupidity.
In fact not only did I clarify it for her immediately afterwards, BUT SO DID OTHERS! Other people understood it well enough, but she decided to be offended, either wilfully or out of sheer dim-wittedness.
Even after it was clarified she persisted in repeating her nonsensical claims, both in the main thread and in this one, which leads me to believe it was deliberate. Therefore I make no apologies for exposing her as a hypocrite of the highest order as she seems intent on making a case for the moral equivalence between the allies and the Nazi’s.
Or maybe even worse, because the sort of hand-wringing, politically-correct ivory-towered, faux “war crime” spouting, elitist, holier-than-thou Hampstead Liberals that she appears to be is usually fixated by victimhood and imagine themselves as guardians of the oppressed, so we can’t actually rule out that because the Nazi’s and Japanese lost the war, she sees them as the victims. Is it possible that to her, the crimes of the Nazi's and Japanese are somehow seen as less that the crimes of the allies because the allies won the war, therefore must have been more evil. That's how these sort of people think.
I despise her but I don't hate her. Her views and those of her bed-wetting collegues get printed up and sent out to swing voters in marginals, and I reckon they're good for a few seats.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fool on the hill
Shipmate
# 9428
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
she seems intent on making a case for the moral equivalence between the allies and the Nazi’s.
so we can’t actually rule out that because the Nazi’s and Japanese lost the war, she sees them as the victims. Is it possible that to her, the crimes of the Nazi's and Japanese are somehow seen as less that the crimes of the allies because the allies won the war, therefore must have been more evil. That's how these sort of people think.
Yea, 'cause this isn't grossly misrepresenting what I said. That's not hypocritical of you.
Posts: 792 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
[QUOTE]Yea, 'cause this isn't grossly misrepresenting what I said. That's not hypocritical of you.
Funny how shit can be flung in both directions isn't it love?
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
Anything about the second link? Cause I'm pretty sure that Russia was an allied power in 1945.
How about German High Command telling it's troops, prior to the invasion of Russia, to treat all Russians as "sub-human" .
When German troops entered towns and villages, on their long pilgrimage to Moscow , one favourite sport was to kill children in front of their mothers just to gain amusement from the mother's reaction.
The sheer amount of suffering and colossal losses endured by Russians in order to expel the Germans is also well documented.
OK yeah, yeah , two wrongs don't make a right . But like you say FOTH -- we weren't there.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
People keep saying that, or "I am not going to second guess ..."
Have you not come across the idea that if we do not learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
People keep saying that, or "I am not going to second guess ..."
Have you not come across the idea that if we do not learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it ?
Of course, but it means exactly that, learning the lessons from history, NOT scapegoating individuals for the decisions they made at the time.
The former is an academic exercise, undertaken to extend the sum knowledge of humanity. The latter is more often than not an emotional act designed to merely justify ones political worldview, taken from a position of ease and safety.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Bollocks.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Have you not come across the idea that if we do not learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it ?
I do know of that idea . I see absolutely no evidence , re. the actual conflict and potential hostility of almost the entire 20th Century , that it is anything other than an idea.
Peace is something that is actively maintained . It isn't something that just magically hovers over humanity like a dove,(more's the pity) .
I mean good grief , if the failed policy of appeasement towards Hitler didn't teach us that, then it taught us nothing.
------------------------------------------
I don't really want to bang on about how great and good Britain is. This Country did a shit-load of bad stuff in the Empire years , even now it produces and sells a shit-load of arms to goodness knows who .
This little Island is a warrior nation, it has been since the Vikings showed up and ransacked the Monasteries .
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
rolyn, you appear to be agreeing with me. What I am suggesting,is that one of the things we should learn *as well* as appeasement being ineffective, is area bombing civilians and using atom bombs are actions that are morally wrong. More particularly, we should not allow ourselves to be talked into believing its OK because there is a war on.
Disagreeing with appeasement, is also second guessing and judging a decision made at the time.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
What I am suggesting,is that one of the things we should learn *as well* as appeasement being ineffective, is area bombing civilians and using atom bombs are actions that are morally wrong. More particularly, we should not allow ourselves to be talked into believing its OK because there is a war on.
That's the fundamental weakness of your position. Each decision has to be taken on its own merits.
For you to preclude any course of action before a war starts is playting into the hands of an enemy who knows exactly what you will opr will not do and can set their strategy accordingly.
The atom bomb decision was taken after consideration of a multitude of factors.
The area bombing of Japanese cities was the only effective way of stopping the japanese producing munitions, with which they killed allied soldiers and civilians including children.
You are simply going "Nope", and ignoring those factors, and are doing so not on the basis of an objective review of the circumstances and legalities available at the time, but from the comfortable position of a 21st Century democracy.
You have signed-up to a simplistic set of sentimental politics and "better-than-you" morals and are now applying them inapproprately using nothing more than hindsight, emotion and subjectivity, and I for one find it offensive, purile and irrational.
I never fail to be bemused by those members of the Labour party who believe the party should be a protest party, and really shouldn't be in Government. Their reasoning is that way, they can maintain an ideological purity in their condemnation of everyone, whereas in power they have to compromise their positions in accordance with real-world conditions.
I think you are your ilk are similar. You need people to make the terrible, awful choices, so that you can pontificate from the moral high-ground, safe and secure in the knowledge that you will never be called to account for your naiveté.
[ 03. December 2012, 11:56: Message edited by: deano ]
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
posted by deano:
quote:
The area bombing of Japanese cities was the only effective way of stopping the japanese producing munitions...
What? They had no imports at all. The country was on its knees well before the bomb was dropped. The naval fleet was pretty much non-existent and they lost control of the air. The people had been slowly starved from the beginning of 1944, with the lucky ones living off very small amounts of millet and rice. The country was effectively held to ransom by a crazed Emperor and a nut-case military commander. All the Americans had to do was wait; and they knew it, because President Truman bloody well said so in 1944 and conveniently changed his mind after the bomb was dropped in 1945. General Eisenhower on the other hand made it only too clear that he felt it was totally unnecessary, even after it was dropped.In fact I think 'barbarous' was the word he used - or something similar. It was little more than a show of force; a 'shock and awe' of 1945.
You might be able to argue with the gift of hindsight, that the dropping of the bomb was to transform the self image and self understanding of the Japanese on the world stage and reform concepts of an Emperor and the role of the military. Even if you think it was the only way to end the war and stop the Japanese, it's still bloody hard to argue that killing almost 150,000 people in two cities in about two seconds is morally correct. There's a reason nobody has ever dropped one again - because it was so fucking awful.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
Just looking at it from first principles: you can't set out to commit genocide without intending to kill children. You can set out to prevent genocide without intending to kill children.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
You might be able to argue with the gift of hindsight, that the dropping of the bomb was to transform the self image and self understanding of the Japanese on the world stage and reform concepts of an Emperor and the role of the military. Even if you think it was the only way to end the war and stop the Japanese, it's still bloody hard to argue that killing almost 150,000 people in two cities in about two seconds is morally correct. There's a reason nobody has ever dropped one again - because it was so fucking awful.
They are awful, but the main reason that no one has dropped one since is that those who possess them would get them back in retaliation. It's called Mutually Assured Destruction.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
You might be able to argue with the gift of hindsight, that the dropping of the bomb was to transform the self image and self understanding of the Japanese on the world stage and reform concepts of an Emperor and the role of the military. Even if you think it was the only way to end the war and stop the Japanese, it's still bloody hard to argue that killing almost 150,000 people in two cities in about two seconds is morally correct. There's a reason nobody has ever dropped one again - because it was so fucking awful.
They are awful, but the main reason that no one has dropped one since is that those who possess them would get them back in retaliation. It's called Mutually Assured Destruction.
Yes, but MAD wouldn't work without the knowledge of the horrific results of the two A-bombs dropped in 1945, and the knowledge that the multi-stage H-bombs available now are many times more powerful than the 1945 A-bombs. Mutually Assured Destruction would not have worked out without the knowledge of the "assured" putting the deterrent there!
If the first for-real use of nuclear weapons had not been by the USA over Japan it still would have happened at some later date, the end of WWII was never going to kill off the nuclear weapons programs and tests in deserts were never going to reveal the true horror of nuclear warfare like Hiroshima and Nagasaki did. It probably would have taken place in one of the Cold War divided zones of Germany, Korea, Japan (if the Soviets had invaded and gotten a share of the post-war Allied occupation) or even China during the last stages of the civil war. It would have been many hundreds of times worse as the number and power of nuclear weapons available to both sides grew.
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
posted by deano:
quote:
The area bombing of Japanese cities was the only effective way of stopping the japanese producing munitions...
What? They had no imports at all.
As I’ve posted at least TWICE before…
Japan’s industry was NOT based around the western model. There wasn’t a single factory where workers went every day and built munitions on a production line.
Workers had basic tools in their HOMES, and they made a small part in their HOMES, before shipping the parts off to a factory where all the small parts were assembled into the final product.
Destroying the assembly factory’s had very little impact on the production of war material. IT HAD BEEN TRIED. That is why Brig. Gen. Haywood S. Hansell was replaced by Curtis Le May. Hansell had failed to prevent Japan making munitions
It was decided that the only effective way to stop the production of munitions was to bomb the workers homes. This would stop the parts being made at source. YES… the workers did live in their homes with their families. Those workers and their homes and tools were the real targets, but the families were there.
Firebombs were the most effective bombs to use against the wooden structures in Japan at the time. The heavier High-Explosive bombs simply fell straight through the house, embedded in the ground and blew out a few houses, leaving a smallish crater.
It was a simple equation. Destroy workers homes and kill them and their families or allow Japan to keep producing weapons.
For full details of this please read Richard Rhodes book “The Making of the Atomic Bomb”. He explains the rational for firebombing, and the decisions behind the dropping of the atom bombs in great detail.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
monkeylizard
Ship's scurvy
# 952
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Even if you think it was the only way to end the war and stop the Japanese, it's still bloody hard to argue that killing almost 150,000 people in two cities in about two seconds is morally correct.
Agreed, but the argument can still be made.
Operation Downfall was the US plan to invade the Japanese home islands to end the war. Casualty estimates ranged from 105,000 to 4 million for the US, plus a whole lot more for the Japanese. Operation Coronet was to be done with a landing force twice what was used in Normandy on D-Day.
General Marshall considered using tactical nuke strikes during the invasion because he thought the 2 being deployed for use at Hiroshima and Nagasaki wouldn't result in surrender and the invasion would still be necessary.
So faced with "kill 150,000 in 2 seconds" or "kill at least that many but quite possibly millions over months" which is the moral choice? I don't mean to setup a strawman. I'm actually asking that question.
I don't see "wait them out" against the home islands as a viable strategy. Delaying an invasion/bombing would only allow the resupply of a very weakened military. Remember that Japan still controlled important territory in China that could supply needed materials. We didn't have the real-time intelligence that we have today to monitor troop movements and blockade runners.
As for a nut-case military commander, Adm. Yamamoto knew there was no way for Japan to defeat the U.S. He stated as much from the beginning. He never wanted to pick that fight. He said he could run wild in the Pacific for 6 months after hitting the U.S., after which he'd have no hope of winning. He was right to the day. The Pacific campaign reached its turning point at Midway on June 7 1942, 6 months to the day from Pearl Harbor. He thought making a first strike on Pearl was their best chance at success through forcing negotiations, but he knew even that was a long shot. There was no hope of success if negotiations weren't forced and open war ensued. I don't think we can correctly apply "nut-case" to Adm. Yamamoto.
--------------------
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. ~ Herbert Spencer (1820 - 1903)
Posts: 2201 | From: Music City, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
God, you're full of crap. The fire bombings were a response to Pearl Harbour, and fire bombing was used to wreak as much pain and suffering as they could on cities built of wood!
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
sorry the last blurb was in response to deano
posted by Monkey
quote:
So faced with "kill 150,000 in 2 seconds" or "kill at least that many but quite possibly millions over months" which is the moral choice? I don't mean to setup a strawman. I'm actually asking that question.
That is a reasonable question and one that is very difficult to answer. But you go on to say they could have restocked the military; which they could have, if they had basics like food. There is a question of whether the America knew that the country was effectively facing mass starvation and famine - but I very much doubt that that is a question that will ever be answered now.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
God, you're full of crap. The fire bombings were a response to Pearl Harbour, and fire bombing was used to wreak as much pain and suffering as they could on cities built of wood!
Well I was quoting from Richard Rhodes book, so presumably you think he's full of crap as well.
From his wiki page...
Richard Lee Rhodes (born July 4, 1937) is an American journalist, historian, and author of both fiction and non-fiction (which he prefers to call "verity"), including the Pulitzer Prize-winning The Making of the Atomic Bomb (1986), and most recently, The Twilight of the Bombs (2010). He has been awarded grants from the Ford Foundation, the Guggenheim Foundation, the MacArthur Foundation and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation among others. He is an affiliate of the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford University. He also frequently gives lectures and talks on a broad range of subjects to various audiences, including testifying before the U.S. Senate on nuclear energy.
They are his credentials Fletcher.... what are yours?
Prick.
[ 03. December 2012, 17:18: Message edited by: deano ]
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Nope, you're still talking out of your ass deano. The book you quote actually ends with the creation of the atomic bomb and doesn't actually deal with any of the war at all.
Nice try though.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Nope, you're still talking out of your ass deano. The book you quote actually ends with the creation of the atomic bomb and doesn't actually deal with any of the war at all.
Nice try though.
Huh!!!
Bollocks! It covers the entirety of the entire subject from th late 18th century through to the post- war occupation of Japan.
It explicitly deals with the testing of the bomb at Trinity, their shipment to Tinian and a whole section on eye-witness accounts from survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
It discusses in detail the efforts to investigate and build nuclear weapons by the USE, Britain, Germany and Japan.
It discusses in detail the thinking behind all of the strategic bombing campaigns of the war including fire-bombing and the atomic bombs.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
monkeylizard
Ship's scurvy
# 952
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
There is a question of whether the America knew that the country was effectively facing mass starvation and famine - but I very much doubt that that is a question that will ever be answered now.
That's true. It's also unknown by me if the home islands could have been reinforced from occupied China. I really don't know if they could or not. Could occupied China have produced enough food and other needed stuff to ship back to Japan to have made a difference? I don't know. It seems to me from what I know of Imperial Japan at the time that it was not crazy to think that a land invasion would have been catastrophic. I have read stories from Japanese civilians who stated they were given hand tools and told to fight the Americans to the death. School kids given sharpened sticks and awls and told to go for the abdomen of the invaders.
On a side note, how impactful would that knowledge of famine been on the US war plans? I mean, we hear every year that N. Korea is about to starve to death, but somehow the regime stays in power and the people do what they're told. Was Imperial Japan that different? It too was a society structured around blind devotion to a demi-god leader, even up to and including death for the glory of the Emporer/Empire.
--------------------
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. ~ Herbert Spencer (1820 - 1903)
Posts: 2201 | From: Music City, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
posted by monkey:
quote:
It's also unknown by me if the home islands could have been reinforced from occupied China. I really don't know if they could or not. Could occupied China have produced enough food and other needed stuff to ship back to Japan to have made a difference? I don't know.
I'm not sure either. Like a lot of it, its speculative on something that never happened, which is part of the moral quagmire too. But they would - I think - by that stage have had to get through massive mine fields in the water and make it to land where there were no longer any large ports, all without being noticed. But I guess it might have been possible.
quote:
I have read stories from Japanese civilians who stated they were given hand tools and told to fight the Americans to the death. School kids given sharpened sticks and awls and told to go for the abdomen of the invaders.
It's hard to know the truth of that and it's part of the muddied waters of war. It was certainly the attitude of the army general, which is why I labelled him a nut. He would rather have seen every last citizen die horribly than admit defeat or broker a peace.
Your points are fair monkey, but I wasn't engaging in the details of the war in relation to Japan, but rather trying to point out to deano that it's not as black and white and morally defensible on all fronts as he seems to say, and get angry with and cast slurs on anyone who brings up inconvenient points. Ironically, he mirrors the same sense of nationalism in relation to war that the Japanese at one time had, but I suspect that irony will be lost on him.
And deano, you are actually quoting President Truman, who said exactly what you said Richard Rhodes said about the notion that fire bombing was necessary to destroy home grown supply factories. The difference is, Truman said it in 1945.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
So not only are you withdrawing your comments about the book Fletcher Christian, you are confirming its content.
All the way through this debate I've also pointed out that nothing is black and white.
You need to read both threads!
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
I understand that you have some problems with reading comprehension, so it's of little surprise that you confuse Truman's apologia in 1945 with Richard Rhodes 'inevitable evil' in 1986. If anyones interested they can even look at the contents of the book online, but I'm guessing they already lost interest in your meandering tirades somewhere near the beginning of this thread.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I understand that you have some problems with reading comprehension, so it's of little surprise that you confuse Truman's apologia in 1945 with Richard Rhodes 'inevitable evil' in 1986. If anyones interested they can even look at the contents of the book online, but I'm guessing they already lost interest in your meandering tirades somewhere near the beginning of this thread.
I have no idea what you are rambling on about. Still others can look back at your contributions to find out.
In the meantime here is the amazon link to Richard Rhodes' Making of the Atomic Bomb, so people can see the book I read and compare it to your... well nonesense?
Amazon - The Making of the Atomic bomb
The Amazon description is...
quote:
With a brand new introduction from the author, this is the complete story of how the bomb was developed. It is told in rich, human, political, and scientific detail, from the turn-of-the-century discovery of the vast energy locked inside the atom to the dropping of the first bombs on Japan. Few great discoveries have evolved so swiftly -- or have been so misunderstood. From the theoretical discussions of nuclear energy to the bright glare of Trinity there was a span of hardly more than twenty-five years. What began as merely an interesting speculative problem in physics grew into the Manhattan Project, and then into the Bomb with frightening rapidity, while scientists known only to their peers -- Szilard, Teller, Oppenheimer, Bohr, Meitner, Fermi, Lawrence, and yon Neumann -- stepped from their ivory towers into the limelight. Richard Rhodes takes us on that journey step by step, minute by minute, and gives us the definitive story of man's most awesome discovery and invention. The Making of the Atomic Bomb has been compared in its sweep and importance to William L. Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. It is at once a narrative tour de force and a document as powerful as its subject.
As you will gather from my highlights, it would be very difficult not to touch upon the war in a book covering the actual dropping of the first bombs on Japan.
But all that really highlights is that you haven't read it. I doubt very much whether you have read much of anything beyond The Guardian. Still it proves what kind of person you are if you are willing to blatantly lie about what a book says Fletcher!
You can spout as much rubbish as you like Fletcher, but your posts are there for all to see.
[ 03. December 2012, 21:45: Message edited by: deano ]
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
It was a simple equation. Destroy workers homes and kill them and their families or allow Japan to keep producing weapons.
For full details of this please read Richard Rhodes book “The Making of the Atomic Bomb”. He explains the rational for firebombing, and the decisions behind the dropping of the atom bombs in great detail.
Sounds like a useful read . I watched a detailed hour and a half documentary called "Hiroshima" which was similarly enlightening.
I've come to the conclusion that the atom-bomb attacks on Japan have been, for a long period , so widely used to scare us over the possibility of a nuclear war that the real strategic value of the operation has been completely lost.
Of course, any sane person could not fail to be moved by the suffering of all those people in Hiroshima that fateful day . Particularly the drinking of the 'black rain' which ,tragically, was radioactive.
But the fact remains that this attack , and the one that followed 3 days later, did achieve what it set out to achieve . Namely to end a bloody war that doubtless had several more extremely bloody months, (or even years), to run.
It was the sheer shock value of this new weapon , and the ease with which it could be used , that really brought Japan around to making the right decision.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
