Thread: Deano on world war 2 Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024329
Posted by Fool on the hill (# 9428) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Fool on the hill (# 9428) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Fool on the hill (# 9428) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Fool on the hill (# 9428) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Fool on the hill (# 9428) on :
 
the hellish events that you learn when you google "war crimes" and "children" and "world war 2"....

http://andrea-wolfsnest.blogspot.com/2009/04/marocchinate-dark-side-of-liberation.html
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
I think I've already covered that.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Fool on the hill (# 9428) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Fool on the hill (# 9428) on :
 
Yes, I believe that was my original point.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
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 ?
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
Bollocks.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
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 .
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by monkeylizard (# 952) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
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!
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by monkeylizard (# 952) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
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!
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by monkeylizard (# 952) on :
 
Yes, that strategic accomplishment is often forgotten in the face of the A-bomb.


As for the OP and the reason for the hell call, I have to say that I agree with deano to a point. I don't know of any time when the western allies* deliberately targeted children. That's of little help to the kids that were killed or traumatized, but it is a distinction that's important when arguing morality. Intent is extremely important.


*For "western allies" I'm thinking more along the lines of the British Empire, USA, Franch resistance, and other western nations pre-Nazi occupation. The USSR was an ally by necessity and it was an uneasy one. The Red Army's attrocities in retaliation against Nazi Germany were horrible.
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
Should we simply acknowledge that modern warfare, WW2 forward, means total war, and total war means kill the enemy, the enemy's family, destroy them utterly, and stop worrying about who is dead? It would make it simpler. The pretense of moral and just war simply vanishes if we consider that war is about totally defeating the enemy and that eliminating non-combatants is simply a means to doing that.

Is there really a difference, say, in lining villagers up and shooting them and bombing them to death? Or starving them? Dead is dead. Maybe a bullet is more humane than a bomb or starvation?
 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
Why do you persist in turning complex moral situations into black and white parodies of reality?
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Should we simply acknowledge that modern warfare, WW2 forward, means total war, and total war means kill the enemy, the enemy's family, destroy them utterly, and stop worrying about who is dead? It would make it simpler. The pretense of moral and just war simply vanishes if we consider that war is about totally defeating the enemy and that eliminating non-combatants is simply a means to doing that.

Is there really a difference, say, in lining villagers up and shooting them and bombing them to death? Or starving them? Dead is dead. Maybe a bullet is more humane than a bomb or starvation?
There you go. Straight to the extreme position. [Roll Eyes]

Why don't you read the book I mentioned, or are you worried that it might cause you to rethink your ideas and perhaps challenge your simplictic, sentimental, holier-than-thou morals, that nobody else has or understands, because you have to be sooooo sentitive.

[ 04. December 2012, 21:05: Message edited by: deano ]
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Extreme? EXTREME? You know NOTHING sonny.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
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.
One has to wonder whether killing a large number of Japanese people very, very quickly (and then leaving a lot more to die over the course of decades) is actually better than killing a large number of Japanese people over several more months or years.

It might be better for SOME people, but probably not for the Japanese.
 
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
One has to wonder whether killing a large number of Japanese people very, very quickly (and then leaving a lot more to die over the course of decades) is actually better than killing a large number of Japanese people over several more months or years.

It might be better for SOME people, but probably not for the Japanese.
It might be better for many of the Japanese as well, namely...
- those in the south who would have been caught up in the Olympic invasion
- those in the Tokyo area who might have been caught up in the Coronet invasion or, worse still, occupied by the Soviet Union before the Allies could get there
- those in the cities which would have been subject to continued strategic bombing
- those on Hokkaido and Honshu who might have been subject to a brutal invasion and occupation at the hands of the Soviet Union
 
Posted by monkeylizard (# 952) on :
 
It seems like no matter what happened, lots of Japanese were going to die on the home islands. The only way to prevent that would have been for the Emperor to have surrendered once it was apparent that victory for Japan was not possible. It was increasingly unlikely throughout the end of 1944 and spring of 1945, but when Okinawa fell in June 1945, it was over for Japan. The Allies were in a position at that point to put all of their war resources against the home islands. Germany had already surrendered, freeing the men and materiel stationed in Europe (including the Red Army) to be redeployed for an assault. The Japanese fleet was destroyed.

The brutality of the fighting on the islands of Borneo and Iwo Jima leading up to and culminating in the bloodiest Pacific battle for the US on Okinawa made dropping the A-bombs a more acceptable choice. If the home islands had been defended as ferociously as Okinawa, the higher end of the casualty projections (1 million+) of an invasion would have been likely.

[ 05. December 2012, 02:17: Message edited by: monkeylizard ]
 
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 
That's something no one is considering- is there culpability attached to the Japanese emperor/military for not surrendering when defeat was inevitable? I'd argue that to some degree it does- they had a means of ending the killing and chose not to.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
they had a means of ending the killing and chose not to.
That's what you get when you live in a culture that has the ridiculous notion that honour is more important than life.

Lots of people say shit like "I'd rather die than surrender". Only the nutters actually mean it.
 
Posted by monkeylizard (# 952) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Lots of people say shit like "I'd rather die than surrender". Only the nutters actually mean it.
That depends greatly on what one thinks lies on the other side of surrender.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
One has to wonder whether killing a large number of Japanese people very, very quickly (and then leaving a lot more to die over the course of decades) is actually better than killing a large number of Japanese people over several more months or years.
At the time the atomic bombs were dropped, very large numbers of people in the Japanese-occupied territories were dying of famine and disease. The Japanese would not allow neutral parties to deliver humanitarian aid. Someone has estimated that people were dying in these territories at the rate of a hundred thousand per month.

Moo
 
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by monkeylizard:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Lots of people say shit like "I'd rather die than surrender". Only the nutters actually mean it.
That depends greatly on what one thinks lies on the other side of surrender.
Very true - witness the westward flight of German military units as the Nazi state crumbled and they attempted to surrender to Allied units rather than Soviet units.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by monkeylizard:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Lots of people say shit like "I'd rather die than surrender". Only the nutters actually mean it.
That depends greatly on what one thinks lies on the other side of surrender.
Unless you're dealing with an enemy that will literally kill every single one of you should it win, the answer is "life, but in a different way".

Such enemies seldom exist outside of fantasy novels though. It may be better (or at least no different) to die fighting than to surrender to the Orcs, but does that still hold when you're fighting the Japanese or Americans?
 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
Marvin,

You should always salt theory with a little reality.

Germans treatment of Russians

Soviet treatment of Germans

US Civil War prisoners

Don't forget the Khmer Rouge

Shall I go on?

I am not endorsing war. War is hideous at best. I do strongly disagree with your notion that surrender is better than death on the battle field. Humans have within them the capacity for atrocity that scares the shit out of me.
 
Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
That third link of yours would be a better read, Tortuf, if it didn't go on to quote Billy Graham on 'the Jewish stranglehold on our media.' [Paranoid]

[ 06. December 2012, 12:11: Message edited by: Amos ]
 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
I agree. My bad.

I was just trying to find something that had a easy to follow read on the subject. Should have read the whole thing carefully, but I wasn't fully awake.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
I do strongly disagree with your notion that surrender is better than death on the battlefield.
If you've surrendered and you're alive then you can still attempt, however ineffectively, to live as good a life as possible. There's still life, and therefore there's still hope.

If you've been killed in war, you cannot. You're gone. The game's over, and you lost.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Such enemies seldom exist outside of fantasy novels though.
What about Gaddafi's threat of "no mercy" as he advanced to recapture Benghazi. Or the Hutus massacring Tutsis in Rwanda. Or, since we are discussing WW2, Hitler's final solution.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
Let us not neglect the horrific firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
What about Gaddafi's threat of "no mercy" as he advanced to recapture Benghazi. Or the Hutus massacring Tutsis in Rwanda.
I did say "seldom", not never. Though I also note that if the Libyan rebels hadn't started their rebellion then Gaddafi wouldn't have had any need or desire to kill them.

quote:
Or, since we are discussing WW2, Hitler's final solution.
I doubt my family would have been in any of the categories taken to the concentration camps, so I'd have no reason to fight on that front.

I may not have had as good a life under Hitler as I would have under Churchill, but at least I'd have had a life rather than being shot to shit in some stupid fucking battle...
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I doubt my family would have been in any of the categories taken to the concentration camps, so I'd have no reason to fight on that front.
You're familiar with that "and then they came for me" poem?
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Let us not neglect the horrific firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo.
That's what Churchill said too.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I doubt my family would have been in any of the categories taken to the concentration camps, so I'd have no reason to fight on that front.
You're familiar with that "and then they came for me" poem?
I'm sure web forum hosts and admins would have to "assist police with their enquiries" too.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
That's what Churchill said too.
Yes, because the shrewd Old War-Horse had his eye on the post-war General Election . Dumping all the public disquiet re area-bombing on Air Marshall Harris.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I'm sure web forum hosts and admins would have to "assist police with their enquiries" too.
First up against the wall I would think.

[ 06. December 2012, 20:57: Message edited by: mdijon ]
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I doubt my family would have been in any of the categories taken to the concentration camps, so I'd have no reason to fight on that front.

I may not have had as good a life under Hitler as I would have under Churchill, but at least I'd have had a life rather than being shot to shit in some stupid fucking battle...
Possibly. But quite possibly not. It is important to stand up sooner versus later in many circumstances. Whether a casual bystander, a potential future victim, or someone thinking of helping others. Not saying that war is the place necessarily for that. I am fairly certain that a number of my relatives wish they had sacrificed themselves for other people so as to have avoided having to live as they did under Hitler and afterwards.

There are worse things than being killed, and I have prayed to be taken myself in the past versus what had and was transpiring. I have learned this rather clearly.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
You're familiar with that "and then they came for me" poem?
Naturally. But that doesn't mean I'm going to rush to throw my body into an unmarked grave in some god-forsaken patch of mud I've never heard of just to stop someone else being taken away.

Self-preservation comes first.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I am fairly certain that a number of my relatives wish they had sacrificed themselves for other people so as to have avoided having to live as they did under Hitler and afterwards.
Perhaps. But because they didn't sacrifice themselves they survived to have lives and descendents, ultimately including you.

Isn't that better? Would they really have traded every single moment of joy and happiness in their subsequent lives for the sake of some other jerks they'd never even met? Do they wish they'd deprived their children and grandchildren of the very possibility of existence for such a cause?
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I am fairly certain that a number of my relatives wish they had sacrificed themselves for other people so as to have avoided having to live as they did under Hitler and afterwards.
Perhaps. But because they didn't sacrifice themselves they survived to have lives and descendents, ultimately including you.

Isn't that better? Would they really have traded every single moment of joy and happiness in their subsequent lives for the sake of some other jerks they'd never even met? Do they wish they'd deprived their children and grandchildren of the very possibility of existence for such a cause?
Possibly. But I'd have to be able to 'rewind the tape of time' and have an alternate life play forward. But I'm fairly certain that at least some segments of time as we know it are actually unstuck bits of the an evil alternate universe which, while in it, we know nothing of the good one.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Would they really have traded every single moment of joy and happiness in their subsequent lives for the sake of some other jerks they'd never even met?
I think some people would. And probably the world would be a worse place if such people weren't in it.
 
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :
 
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.
Drancy was in Occupied France not Vichy France so the posted article was wrong on every count.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
And probably the world would be a worse place if such people weren't in it.
That's part of my point - once they've done it, they're not in the world any more.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Marvin:
quote:
Would they really have traded every single moment of joy and happiness in their subsequent lives for the sake of some other jerks they'd never even met? Do they wish they'd deprived their children and grandchildren of the very possibility of existence for such a cause?
If they don't have any children or grandchildren yet and they will feel guilty about not offering resistance for the rest of their lives, then they ARE trading their future joy and happiness for the sake of people they've never met. Future descendants who may never exist at all may be less important in some situations than your little brother or sister or your best friend from down the street.

The option of surrendering is only available if you are confident that your enemy will not kill you afterwards. Or rape you, or torture you, or kill you in unethical medical experiments, or murder your children and make you watch while they die, or starve you and everyone you care about to death. All of these things happened in Europe during the Second World War and are happening in various places around the world; we don't have to imagine them. Where do you think fantasy writers get their ideas from?

About five and a half million Polish civilians died during the Second World War, including just about all the Polish Jews who didn't flee the country in time. The Danes surrendered after a token resistance and spent the rest of the war collaborating whilst refusing to enact any anti-Jewish legislation; when their country was finally taken over by the Nazis they shipped their entire Jewish population to Sweden. As a result, their civilian casualties were among the lowest in Occupied Europe (being off the direct route between Moscow and Berlin probably helped as well). But surrendering to the Nazis and cooperating with the occupation forces wouldn't have helped the Poles; it was only a viable option for the Danes because they were seen as 'brother Aryans' by the Nazi leadership.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
And probably the world would be a worse place if such people weren't in it.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
That's part of my point - once they've done it, they're not in the world any more.
What a paradox. Reminds me of another saying - if staying alive is all that matters then staying alive doesn't matter any more.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
The option of surrendering is only available if you are confident that your enemy will not kill you afterwards.
Not quite - you just have to have a better chance of surviving under occupation than in the trenches.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Reminds me of another saying - if staying alive is all that matters then staying alive doesn't matter any more.
Lots and lots of other things matter to me. It's just that I can't do, be or take pleasure in any of them if I'm dead.
 
Posted by Hawking Dawkins (# 17457) on :
 
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.
What about "Operation Chastise" in 1943 when the British Airforce bombed the Mohne dam. In the full knowledge of the devastation it would cause to the civilian population. 1,600 people killed. Leading to a change in the Geneva convention in 1977, banning the bombing of dams and installations where it posed a significant threat to the civilian population.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Lots and lots of other things matter to me. It's just that I can't do, be or take pleasure in any of them if I'm dead.
Well likewise, obviously. But I can imagine some situations where I might feel that my failure to "do the right thing" at some critical point, with some critical outcome, might then drain all those things of any pleasure.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
I'd still rather be able to do those things with little or no pleasure than not be able to do them (or anything else) at all ever again because I'm dead. There's something awfully big about death that kinda outweighs all other potential diminishments in quality of life in these calculations.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
For it's all in how you spin it. "Potential diminishment of quality" versus "life-long anhedonia, guilt and regret". We all have different value systems.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
I see something disarming in your logic Marvin .

If you are able to do, or say *anything* simply to stay alive then that's all well and good if staying alive, until old age takes you, is your sole aim.

This though often isn't a person's sole priority in life. Hence humanity's long history of the spilling of sacrificial blood .
A well-known campaigner of human rights in America, when told of the dangers he faced, said ---'It's better to live a short life about something than a long life about nothing' .

He was assassinated .
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
[Staying alive] often isn't a person's sole priority in life.
Of course it's not my sole priority. But it's kind of a prerequisite for any of the others. Can't very well have kids if I'm dead, can I? Can't very well get that promotion if I'm dead, can I?

quote:
Hence humanity's long history of the spilling of sacrificial blood.
Yeah, usually someone else's.

quote:
A well-known campaigner of human rights in America, when told of the dangers he faced, said ---'It's better to live a short life about something than a long life about nothing'.
I disagree with him.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
For it's all in how you spin it. "Potential diminishment of quality" versus "life-long anhedonia, guilt and regret". We all have different value systems.
It's all about quality of life, isn't it. The way I see it, death represents a quality of life of zero. You know, because it means there isn't any life. Life-long anhedonia, guilt and regret may be a really low quality of life, but I'll bet you it's higher than zero.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
A well-known campaigner of human rights in America, when told of the dangers he faced, said ---'It's better to live a short life about something than a long life about nothing'.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I disagree with him.
As is your right, of course. But doesn't any part of you admire him for it?
 
Posted by monkeylizard (# 952) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hawking Dawkins:
What about "Operation Chastise" in 1943 when the British Airforce bombed the Mohne dam. In the full knowledge of the devastation it would cause to the civilian population. 1,600 people killed. Leading to a change in the Geneva convention in 1977, banning the bombing of dams and installations where it posed a significant threat to the civilian population.
You're still missing the point. Chastise wasn't grown out of a desire or purpose to kill non-combatant civilians or children. It was a way to stop German hydro-electric power production being used to power war factories. The water was also used in a canal system to transport war materiel. The goal was to stop that. The side effect was major civilian losses, but that wasn't the goal.

It was not worth the trade off, thus the edit to the Geneva convention.

[ 07. December 2012, 21:15: Message edited by: monkeylizard ]
 
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
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.
Absolutely agree Deano [Overused]

For every allied soldier risking his life in combat, for the dependents of those soldiers, for every enslaved, starving and tortured POW held by the Japanese, for every comfort woman being raped day and night by the Japanese, for the Singaporeans and Malaysians suffering brutal "purification" and countless others, I can accept that the atom bomb was a necessary evil that ended the war much more quickly and with fewer allied losses than would otherwise be the case.

Doublethink, you can't justify any and every horrible or immoral decision on the bases "there's a war on", I agree. Neither can you judge the morality of decisions without considering context, sometimes killing enemy civilians is a terrible but morally justifiable thing to do.
 
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
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.
Absolutely agree Deano [Overused]

For every allied soldier risking his life in combat, for the dependents of those soldiers, for every enslaved, starving and tortured POW held by the Japanese, for every comfort woman being raped day and night by the Japanese, for the Singaporeans and Malaysians suffering brutal "purification" and countless others, I can accept that the atom bomb was a necessary evil that ended the war much more quickly and with fewer allied losses than would otherwise be the case.

Doublethink, you can't justify any and every horrible or immoral decision on the basis "there's a war on", I agree. Neither can you judge the morality of decisions without considering context, sometimes killing enemy civilians is a terrible but morally justifiable thing to do.

 
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
[qb]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.
Absolutely agree Deano [Overused]

For every allied soldier risking his life in combat, for the dependents of those soldiers, for every enslaved, starving and tortured POW held by the Japanese, for every comfort woman being raped day and night by the Japanese, for the Singaporeans and Malaysians suffering brutal "purification" and countless others, I can accept that the atom bomb was a necessary evil that ended the war much more quickly and with fewer allied losses than would otherwise be the case.

Doublethink, you can't justify any and every horrible or immoral decision on the basis "there's a war on", I agree. Neither can you judge the morality of decisions without considering context, sometimes killing enemy civilians is a terrible but morally justifiable thing to do.
 
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :
 
deleted weird coding.
 
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :
 
?????????
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
Marvin, there is a part of me that has some admiration for your brutally honest self-shaming here, I'll admit. An admission of such humiliating cowardice and clinging to life at whatever expense to yourself or others as your posts on this thread suggest takes a kind of courage all of its own - or, at least, a complete disregard for the esteem of your fellow posters. That is also a form of courage. Of course, it could also be a kind of boasting. I am - if pushed - reluctantly prepared to admit that you may indeed be as morally cloth-eared and egotistical as your posts on this thread suggest.

But here's what doesn't ring true for me. You spend so much time here trying to tell us that your adhesion to Christian worship is essentially based on abject fear of being consigned to hell (the Real Thing) by a sadist God. If that is so, it does rather imply that the afterlife is a major preoccupation of yours. If for no other reason than sheer self-interest, I cannot believe that life at any cost whatever is preferable to you than even the noblest of deaths.

You would rather live the rest of your life in a stinking prison with sadistic warders than save a child with a chance of escape by throwing yourself between her and a hand-grenade? I'm not even talking about knowing you could actually stump up the courage to do so in the actual event - which of us knows that? - more just committing yourself in theory to the preferabilty of that outcome.

I'm prepared to think of you as being as despicable as that if you absolutely insist - but I'd rather not.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
We none of us know.

We all have a fantasy of how we would behave in extreme circumstances - modestly heroic, cynically self-interested - but I don't think these are accurate predictors.

I haven't actually been in life-threatening situations for about 40 years, but denial was a popular option, certainly for the ever-present-but-not-actually-here-and-now. I suspect that we do this up until the very last moment in which we have to acknowledge that yes, it is happening and to us. And then we're just into whatever our particular physiology does with extreme fear.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
We none of us know.
Agreed, absolutely. But I don't think it is stupid to wish that I would choose to defend others rather than cower in a corner so as to live a miserable life thereafter.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
You spend so much time here trying to tell us that your adhesion to Christian worship is essentially based on abject fear of being consigned to hell (the Real Thing) by a sadist God. If that is so, it does rather imply that the afterlife is a major preoccupation of yours. If for no other reason than sheer self-interest, I cannot believe that life at any cost whatever is preferable to you than even the noblest of deaths.
Hm, let's see. Someone with serious doubts and fears about the afterlife has no desire to reach it any sooner than he absolutely has to.

Wow, how contradictory is that. [Roll Eyes]

quote:
I'm not even talking about knowing you could actually stump up the courage to do so in the actual event - which of us knows that? - more just committing yourself in theory to the preferabilty of that outcome.
Well, in the sort of no-time-to-think-just-act situation you describe I have no idea how I'd react. All options are possible, depending on pretty much every factor that would be present. Not least who I would be trying to protect.

But that's a far, far, far cry from saying I'd want - and deliberately choose - to put myself into that position in the first place.

As for "the noblest of deaths": spare me the "Dulce et Decorum Est" bullshit. It's just a load of patriotic crap fed to us by our Dear Leaders so that the next time they have a row with their counterparts somewhere else or want to award a bunch of new defence contracts to their buddies we'll queue up to do the dirty work for them.

Islamic terrorist leaders fill their cannon fodder with tales of virgins in heaven so that they'll go out and die for the cause, Western warmongers fill theirs with tales of derring-do, heroism and valour. But have you ever noticed how few of those leaders ever seem to want such rewards for themselves? Ever noticed how they stay at home in their nice comfortable lives, pushing the odd button to send another batallion to its doom before having a nice brandy by the fire? Almost makes you think they don't actually believe all that stuff they said to the people they're trying to get to die for them, doesn't it?
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:


Islamic terrorist leaders fill their cannon fodder with tales of virgins in heaven so that they'll go out and die for the cause, Western warmongers fill theirs with tales of derring-do, heroism and valour. But have you ever noticed how few of those leaders ever seem to want such rewards for themselves? Ever noticed how they stay at home in their nice comfortable lives, pushing the odd button to send another batallion to its doom before having a nice brandy by the fire?
'And when the flower of England is dead, the balding old Generals toddle off home to die in bed. ' (or something like that --Sasoon I think )

Often wonder though, do Generals find their armies , or ultimately is it armies looking for Generals ?

WW1 was dubbed "The People's war" . as for WW2 ? Well the people of germany certainly got behind their fuhrer in a big way , so the rest of us had to respond in kind .

Now we've got this Afghan thing , which no-one really understands the whys or wherefores, and yet has earned itself the peculiar title 'Our war'.

The trouble with war is that it holds a deeper place in our psychology than any of us ever realise, or would even care to admit.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
'He’s a cheery old card,' grunted Harry to Jack
As they slogged up to Arras with rifle and pack.
. . . .

But he did for them both by his plan of attack.

Sassoon, The General.

[ 08. December 2012, 09:47: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
"Forward" he cried from the rear
And the front rank died
Pink Floyd
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Hm, let's see. Someone with serious doubts and fears about the afterlife has no desire to reach it any sooner than he absolutely has to.

Wow, how contradictory is that. [Roll Eyes]
And you can't see why someone with doubts and fear about the afterlife would want to maximise the chances of their own afterlife being nice rather than nasty? There's a popular prejudice to the effect that selflessness is not such a bad way to get "in" with God...
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
As for "the noblest of deaths": spare me the "Dulce et Decorum Est" bullshit. It's just a load of patriotic crap fed to us by our Dear Leaders so that the next time they have a row with their counterparts somewhere else or want to award a bunch of new defence contracts to their buddies we'll queue up to do the dirty work for them.
Who was talking about patriotism or militarism? I was talking about protecting children in a heroic personal act.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
Oh, sorry. I was assuming that on a thread about war and people's attitudes to war you were talking about people's reasons for going to war...
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
I was talking about people's conduct during a war, certainly. Not all people caught up in wars are combatants acting under orders. Some are just the unlucky bastards caught in the crossfire, or suffering under enemy occupation.
 
Posted by Fool on the hill (# 9428) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
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.
Drancy was in Occupied France not Vichy France so the posted article was wrong on every count.
I'm not sure why you say the article was wrong. It didn't say Drancy wasn't in occupied France.

And the article also says that children were rounded up in occupied France.

Anyway, my point being that shit always flies in both directions in war.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:


Anyway, my point being that shit always flies in both directions in war.
A good point that's worth the repeating .

There's a song somewhere in my head with the line 'I don't want war no more' . Negro Spiritual ? Not sure.

(For those who like the cutting edge of Sassoon poetry 'Does it Matter ?' is a classic )
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
There's a song somewhere in my head with the line 'I don't want war no more' . Negro Spiritual ? Not sure.
The song is "Down by the Riverside". Here are the words.

The 'riverside' the song refers to is the Jordan, i.e. life after death.

Moo
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
Thanks Moo .

That's it ---'I ain't gonna study war no more'

If only .<sigh>
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
WW1 was dubbed "The People's war" . as for WW2 ? Well the people of germany certainly got behind their fuhrer in a big way , so the rest of us had to respond in kind .
That's not true, certainly at the beginning. The start of the war was seen as a horrible mistake by Germans, though the mistake was seen as mostly Britain's for going to war over Poland. Hitler was also seen as making an error. How could the Poles be worth something the Czech's weren't? It wasn't seen as a stifling or take over of free peoples by Germany, rather a regaining of historical (pre WW1) boundaries and consideration that Germany had been a multi-nation empire before WW1, not different than Britain's overseas conquest and subjugation of countries on other continents.

The people in Berlin didn't cheer, didn't go outside to watch the convoys going east, and we terribly frightened initially. Remember that Hitler had only something like 37% popular vote when he took over in 1933. As the campaign in Poland was successful and the French and Brits didn't invade from the west, the thought was that the war was now over. There was great surprise that the French-British didn't think that it was time for peace. It was only after the fall of France that there was really any enthusiasm at all. But again, the Germans thought that it was time for Britain to ask for peace and it was thought that Germany's offer was rather generous. Germany to dominate the continent, and Britain to maintain its overseas empire.

The general thought in Germany was that the British had always wanted to keep Germany down, from the arms race of the 1890s-early 1900s and WW1. The keeping of the German speaking peoples controllable was thought to be the main French, British, and pre-communist Russia's policy (think Austria and anschluss). The Czechs and Poles were thought of as no different than the Irish whom the British had failed to keep under their hobnailed boots. The Germans felt they could probably be more successful.

I write the above as someone whose German relatives have, over the years, discussed some of this as above. They will now say that the Hitler policies towards minorities were wrong and would agree with everyone's else's assessment of the Holocaust etc, but the idea of German ascendency was correct, and the ascendency is economic now within the EU.

[ 09. December 2012, 16:09: Message edited by: no prophet ]
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
I read a piece a couple of years ago (Was it on the Slacktivist? I can't find it with a quick Google) about people like Martin Luther King, who died for a cause. The gist of the article was: people like this don't seek death, but there are causes or people they care so much about that they are prepared to accept high risks defending them.

There are people and causes that I would take a high risk for.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0