|
CommieGIR posted:The implication is that in a total war, there are likely to be civilian casualties. Should they be avoided where possible? Yes. But will they likely happen in the due course of destroying the enemies ability to carry out their war goals? Very likely, yes. So you agree that of the bombing campaigns that the US conducted, the ones which deliberately targeted civilians (not those which killed civilians as a result of collateral damage) were immoral?
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 06:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 15:13 |
|
|
Chomskyan posted:So you agree that of the bombing campaigns that the US conducted, the ones which deliberately targeted civilians (not those which killed civilians as a result of collateral damage) were immoral? Not only were they moral, they were the most moral method of conducting the war.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 06:29
|
|
|
If you suspend morality to engage in war, what is the point of resuming it again? Why not persist in an orgy of killing for the remainder of history? Your genes cry out with longing for it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 06:29
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:You don't understand America one bit, you yellow-bellied coward. You're thinking like a Japanese general, and not an American Senator. I thought one of the main justifications of the nukes was 'Our brave boys won't have to risk life and limb in a horrific invasion and can come home this year'.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 06:30
|
|
|
How am I strawmanning?My Imaginary GF posted:
How can that be read in any other way than "it is now morally permissible to kill all Japanese"?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 06:30
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:If you suspend morality to engage in war, what is the point of resuming it again? Why not persist in an orgy of killing for the remainder of history? Your genes cry out with longing for it. You can resume morality after an unconditional surrender is agreed to. KaptainKrunk posted:How am I strawmanning? Because not all Japanese lived in Japan, numbnutz.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 06:30
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Japan knew the terms of their surrender: Unconditional Surrender. Unconditional is an egregious demand that was criticized at the time, even by Churchill. It's entirely different from the way wars are generally fought and concluded with a negotiated peace. Think about it: unconditional surrender. Not a single condition. The enemy makes no promises: they could line up all POW's and execute them, they could rape your women, they could make you tear down your cities brick by brick and then sell you into slavery Roman style. They don't even promise to treat you with basic humanity, it's "give us your weapons and then you'll find out what we'll do to you." If you're willing to nuke whole cities of people in the hope that it will shorten the war by a few months, surely it makes sense to try to shorten the war by agreeing to some surrender conditions like "we won't try the emperor for war crimes" and "we won't slaughter POWs" that we were willing to observe anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 06:31
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:So you agree that of the bombing campaigns that the US conducted, the ones which deliberately targeted civilians (not those which killed civilians as a result of collateral damage) were immoral? The Japanese basically rejected the original Potsdam Declaration. They sought to continue the war. Even when the Soviets broke the Neutrality Act, the Japanese Army vastly underestimated the strength of the Soviet push and suggested to the Prime Minister that it could be handled. The shock of the nuclear bomb being dropped helped hammer home that there was no successful end possible to the war for the Japanese. Seriously, the management of the end of the war from Japan's side was stereotypical Japanese management: Denial, Bluff, and refusal to question superiors. VitalSigns posted:Unconditional is an egregious demand that was criticized at the time, even by Churchill. It's entirely different from the way wars are generally fought and concluded with a negotiated peace. Think about it: unconditional surrender. Not a single condition. The enemy makes no promises: they could line up all POW's and execute them, they could rape your women, they could make you tear down your cities brick by brick and then sell you into slavery Roman style. They don't even promise to treat you with basic humanity, it's "give us your weapons and then you'll find out what we'll do to you." The Japanese were aware that we were held to the Geneva Conventions, despite their own rejections of the Convention. Hilariously, they spent the entirety of the war promising their civilian populous that the US Army would do exactly what you said they'd do. Also, there was these lines in the Potsdam Declaration: quote:"The Japanese Government shall remove all obstacles to the revival and strengthening of democratic tendencies among the Japanese people. Freedom of speech, of religion, and of thought, as well as respect for the fundamental human rights shall be established." CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 06:38 on Aug 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 06:31
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Unconditional is an egregious demand that was criticized at the time, even by Churchill. It's entirely different from the way wars are generally fought and concluded with a negotiated peace. Think about it: unconditional surrender. Not a single condition. The enemy makes no promises: they could line up all POW's and execute them, they could rape your women, they could make you tear down your cities brick by brick and then sell you into slavery Roman style. They don't even promise to treat you with basic humanity, it's "give us your weapons and then you'll find out what we'll do to you." Japan wanted a negotiated peace? Shoulda declared war before attacking Pearl Harbor!
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 06:32
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:The Japanese basically rejected the original Potsdam Declaration. They sought to continue the war. Even when the Soviets broke the Neutrality Act, the Japanese Army vastly underestimated the strength of the Soviet push and suggested to the Prime Minister that it could be handled. That was a not so graceful dodge of my question.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 06:35
|
|
|
I'm curious about these "other options" people keep talking about.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 06:36
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:That was a not so graceful dodge of my question. What question? "Do you agree that [a totally moral and justified position] was [an unjustified opinion because it fits my ideological purview]?" Fojar38 posted:I'm curious about these "other options" people keep talking about. We could have mined all the rivers and prevented all caloric distribution beyond the reach of foot within 3 months.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 06:37
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Unconditional is an egregious demand that was criticized at the time, even by Churchill. It's entirely different from the way wars are generally fought and concluded with a negotiated peace. Think about it: unconditional surrender. Not a single condition. The enemy makes no promises: they could line up all POW's and execute them, they could rape your women, they could make you tear down your cities brick by brick and then sell you into slavery Roman style. They don't even promise to treat you with basic humanity, it's "give us your weapons and then you'll find out what we'll do to you." All those things you said are true in the case of unconditional surrender, but this wasn't an unconditional surrender. You don't just submit to the possibility of being starved to death or enslaved when you still have hundreds of thousands of soldiers who can die honorably. The conditions were implicit and mutually understood. Japanese leaders personally feared for what what would happen to the Japan as they saw it - and of course themselves - but no one was seriously thinking Americans would come in and kill everyone. Japan: We'll spare you months and possibly years of having to murder civilians and lose tens if not hundreds of thousands of soldiers occupying the Home Islands if you don't kill us all or make us slaves. America: Okay. We'll spare you a rain of nuclear ruin, eventual defeat, and the destruction of the nation of Japan if you give up all of your demands and let us alter your political order. Japan: Okay. KaptainKrunk fucked around with this message at 06:40 on Aug 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 06:37
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:That was a not so graceful dodge of my question, but whatever. Who is more responsible? The man who has it within his power to end a war that they began? Or the ones who were attacked and are seeking the end of a long, bloody conflict? Pretending that the Japanese Government was somehow a victim in this situation ignores the entire history of the war and their intentions from the very beginning. The way you try to make it sound, we salted the Earth post surrender and started enslaving them instead of pouring money into them and rebuilding their economy. Are we really going to sit here and justify an Ultra-nationalist movement that helped heat up a World War? CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 06:40 on Aug 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 06:37
|
|
|
KaptainKrunk posted:The conditions were implicit and mutually understood. Japanese leaders personally feared for what what would happen to the Japan as they saw it but no one was seriously thinking Americans would come in and kill everyone. They were free to unconditionally surrender at any time. Since they refused to, they forced us to kill them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 06:39
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:No, at Potsdam it was discussed and decided that the Emporer would be made a figurehead in a Constitutional Democracy, and for the time being subject to the order of the Supreme Allied Commander. CommieGIR posted:The Japanese basically rejected the original Potsdam Declaration.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 06:40
|
|
|
I studied abroad in Beijing and had a great teacher who made a big deal about V-J day. I told him that there was a significant controversy about the morality of dropping the atomic bombs on Japan in the U.S. He looked at me like I was completely nuts. Japan was brutalizing east Asia until the day they surrendered. Thousands of their slaves were dying on a weekly basis as the situation grew more dire. It's not as though Japan had retreated to the home islands to await an invasion. Not dropping the bombs would have a real human cost, as well. There's a reason that many East Asian populations loving loathe the Japanese.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 06:40
|
|
|
KaptainKrunk posted:All those things you said are true in the case of unconditional surrender, but this wasn't an unconditional surrender. You don't just submit to the possibility of being starved to death or enslaved when you still have hundreds of thousands of soldiers who can die honorably. Right but what is the point of demanding an unconditional surrender if it's not an unconditional surrender. If you don't want to kill every single POW once the IJA turn themselves in, then why wouldn't you let them surrender conditionally: ie you promise not to kill them all and treat them according to the Geneva convention. It's what then, a rhetorical flourish? Nuke cities until they agree to your purple prose? I thought the point was ending the war not getting the enemy to let you say you got an unconditional surrender.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 06:41
|
|
|
Cardboard Box A posted:What did the Japanese want at the time then? To maintain their grasp on their Indo-China colonies that they still held prior to the Soviet's breaking the Neutrality Pact. Which is why they tried hard to get in touch with the Soviet Premiere to surrender through them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 06:41
|
|
|
Cardboard Box A posted:What did the Japanese want at the time then? Why the gently caress does it matter what the Japanese wanted? They didn't want to be bombed? Unconditionally surrender. VitalSigns posted:Right but what is the point of demanding an unconditional surrender if it's not an unconditional surrender. If you don't want to kill every single POW once the IJA turn themselves in, then why wouldn't you let them surrender conditionally: ie you promise not to kill them all and treat them according to the Geneva convention. The only end to the war would be unconditional surrender. We tried conditional surrenders with Versaille; how'd that turn out?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 06:42
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:You can resume morality after an unconditional surrender is agreed to. But why? It's so confining. What is the point of resuming it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 06:43
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:The only end to the war would be unconditional surrender. We tried conditional surrenders with Versaille; how'd that turn out? That isn't really fair, it was hardly conditional, and the condition was 'Ruin Germany financially as vengeance'
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 06:44
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:To maintain their grasp on their Indo-China colonies that they still held prior to the Soviet's breaking the Neutrality Pact. Which is why they tried hard to get in touch with the Soviet Premiere to surrender through them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 06:44
|
|
|
KaptainKrunk posted:Also lol at that idea that everyone living in a country that attacks you first is now an animal free to be killed even if there are other options available. Really.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 06:45
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I studied abroad in Beijing and had a great teacher who made a big deal about V-J day. I told him that there was a significant controversy about the morality of dropping the atomic bombs on Japan in the U.S. He looked at me like I was completely nuts. Can we really pretend that the US cared about the lives of slaves, any more than they cared about the lives of Jews?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 06:45
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I studied abroad in Beijing and had a great teacher who made a big deal about V-J day. I told him that there was a significant controversy about the morality of dropping the atomic bombs on Japan in the U.S. He looked at me like I was completely nuts. The Germans were killing Poles every day of the war, that doesn't mean the bombing of Dresden was moral or that we were free to kill as many German civilians as we cared to. Japanese schoolchildren in Nagasaki were not committing any war crimes. Also I don't think anyone making the decisions actually gave a poo poo about which course of action would kill the fewest Chinese, or they might have done things like say guaranteed the emperor's position beforehand to reassure the Japanese that the surrender demand wouldn't obliterate their culture. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 06:48 on Aug 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 06:46
|
|
|
Cardboard Box A posted:And with respect to the emperor? It was always assumed that the Emporer would be maintained, or they would fight on. No mention of the Emperor being removed was found in the Potsdam Declaration, and after the Japanese asked for clarification, we made it quite clear the Emporer would maintain his position, but would be subject to the Supreme Allied Commander until the terms of the surrender were completed. VitalSigns posted:The Germans were killing Poles every day of the war, that doesn't mean the bombing of Dresden was moral or that we were free to kill as many German civilians as we cared to. Japanese schoolchildren in Nagasaki were not committing any war crimes. Nagasaki and Hiroshima were chosen for the military value. It wasn't all 'Let's gently caress up the civilians', they had to target based on targets of value that might help should an invasion of Japan be necessary.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 06:46
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Right but what is the point of demanding an unconditional surrender if it's not an unconditional surrender. If you don't want to kill every single POW once the IJA turn themselves in, then why wouldn't you let them surrender conditionally: ie you promise not to kill them all and treat them according to the Geneva convention. The Japanese were seeking to end the war with whatever they could. Above all else, they sought to preserve the Emperor's (central) status in the constitutional order. When people use the term 'unconditional surrender,' they don't mean a surrender without conditions; they mean a surrender without specific political conditions e.g., a return to the status quo, preservation of a political order, no disarmament or demobilization during negotiations and so forth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 06:46
|
|
|
KaptainKrunk posted:Also lol at that idea that everyone living in a country that attacks you first is now an animal free to be killed even if there are other options available. If you can't handle the nuclear heat stay out of China 
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 06:47
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:That isn't really fair, it was hardly conditional, and the condition was 'Ruin Germany financially as vengeance' That wasn't the condition, that's the nazi revisionism to justify the 2nd war. We avoided that with an unconditional surrender. KaptainKrunk posted:The Japanese were seeking to end the war with whatever they could. Above all else, they sought to preserve the Emperor's (central) status in the constitutional order. When people use the term 'unconditional surrender,' they don't mean a surrender without conditions; they mean a surrender without specific political conditions e.g., a return to the status quo, preservation of a political order, no disarmament or demobilization during negotiations and so forth. What an entitled mindset. They didn't deserve anything; they lost, we won, they would only get what we wanted them to have. They don't like it? Ok, we'll nuke you until you realize that we're a very merciful lot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 06:48
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Nagasaki and Hiroshima were chosen for the military value. It wasn't all 'Let's gently caress up the civilians', they had to target based on targets of value that might help should an invasion of Japan be necessary. No, they were chosen based on being major cities mostly untouched by previous bombing and thus good for showing off the bombs. Military value was a secondary consideration CommieGIR posted:To maintain their grasp on their Indo-China colonies that they still held prior to the Soviet's breaking the Neutrality Pact. Which is why they tried hard to get in touch with the Soviet Premiere to surrender through them. Right, and when the Red Army decisively finished their military future in China, they surrendered. The bombs had very little to do with it icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 06:51 on Aug 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 06:49
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:No, they were chosen based on being major cities mostly untouched by previous bombing and thus good for showing off the bombs. Military value was a secondary consideration They were untouched by previous bombings for a reason: to provide military value. And they did.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 06:50
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:It was always assumed that the Emporer would be maintained, or they would fight on. No mention of the Emperor being removed was found in the Potsdam Declaration, and after the Japanese asked for clarification, we made it quite clear the Emporer would maintain his position, but would be subject to the Supreme Allied Commander until the terms of the surrender were completed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 06:53
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Right, and when the Red Army decisively finished their military future in China, they surrendered. The bombs had very little to do with it No, the Bombs helped seal the shock that there was no escape. Between the Soviets (which the Japanese Army Intelligence still underestimated even after the attack. They even declared they could fight the Soviets successfully) and the bombings, it made it clear. There was more to it: The Americans and British were keenly aware that the Soviets could be in Japan within 10 days and did not want to risk another Berlin issue. The bombs helped push the surrender, whereas the Japanese Army believed they could fight the Soviets. Cardboard Box A posted:So given Japan was cool with that, was the sticking point how many/which colonies they kept? Specific islands/territory? They wanted to keep mainland China and Korea. No, they could not keep anything but the Japanese mainland per the declaration. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 06:56 on Aug 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 06:54
|
|
|
The reason they nicknamed U.S. Grant "unconditional surrender" is not because he massacred confederates after they surrendered (unfortunately)
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 06:54
|
|
|
"Did the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki damage the Japanese government's willingness to continue the war to an extent at least proportionate to the cost of lives potentially lost in the continued war had the bombs not been dropped" is a hell of a math problem.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 06:56
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:
It has nothing to do with entitlement and everything to do with the diplomacy of violence. The Japanese, like any other almost-by-not-entirely-defeated army in history, figured that they could exchange something. What did they have to offer? Well, the Americans weren't particularly keen losing more troops in a bloody invasion of Japan. Japan still had forces in China and Manchuria that could inflict some damage. Just because the enemy can harm you more than you can harm him doesn't mean your ability to inflict harm is inconsequential. What did they want? Well, I already said it, but they essentially wanted to preserve the Emperor's political role. Until the Soviet invasion of Manchuria made it clear that there was no avenue for surrender, they weren't going to give up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 06:57
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:There was more to it: The Americans and British were keenly aware that the Soviets could be in Japan within 10 days and did not want to risk another Berlin issue. Hello, say what now?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 06:58
|
|
|
KaptainKrunk posted:It has nothing to do with entitlement and everything to do with the diplomacy of violence. The Japanese, like any other almost-by-not-entirely-defeated army in history, figured that they could exchange something. What did they have to offer? Well, the Americans weren't particularly keen losing more troops in a bloody invasion of Japan. Japan still had forces in China and Manchuria that could inflict some damage. Just because the enemy can harm you more than you can harm him doesn't mean your ability to inflict harm is inconsequential. What did they want? Well, I already said it, but they essentially wanted to preserve the Emperor's political role. We were even less keen on a japanese conditional surrender, which we made clear to them. We'd much rather have no nation of japan exist than accept a conditional surrender, and we had it in our power to do so. Japanese should feel blessed that America is the most merciful nation on the planet, and that we allowed most of them to live despite the crimes they committed. We told them there was no avenue for conditional surrender; their entitlement complex made them deaf to our words of wisdom.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 07:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 15:13 |
|
|
KaptainKrunk posted:The Japanese were seeking to end the war with whatever they could. Above all else, they sought to preserve the Emperor's (central) status in the constitutional order. When people use the term 'unconditional surrender,' they don't mean a surrender without conditions; they mean a surrender without specific political conditions e.g., a return to the status quo, preservation of a political order, no disarmament or demobilization during negotiations and so forth. No that's not what a conditional surrender is. Conditional surrenders of e.g. besieged fortresses and military units are common in history and don't have to have political conditions. JeffersonClay posted:The reason they nicknamed U.S. Grant "unconditional surrender" is not because he massacred confederates after they surrendered (unfortunately) It was because it sounded cool but actually he promised that he would treat the garrison according to the customs of war and not kill them all, so he never got one either.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 07:00
|
|