|
gradenko_2000 posted:Yes? The materiel shortages experienced by Japan in the lead-up to their final surrender was the product of years and years of the gradual strangulation of their economy. Well then they should have continued the blockade then, tightening ring as were. Anyway If the troops were to hungry to function, then why continue to attack?
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 11:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 04:18 |
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:I don't believe I said anything about them being war crimes or not in that post. Yes because an operation is called Operation Starvation it clearly means that they were going to literally starve Japan.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 11:45
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:U.S. high command, for one. One of the operations against the Japanese islands was literally called Operation Starvation. Eh operation names are metaphorical. That's no more proof that the goal was killing millions of civilians with starvation any more than claiming Russia's Operation Uranus was about scoring some sweet German rear end...hmmm on second thought maybe I picked a bad example.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 11:47
|
|
|
KaptainKrunk posted:Yes because an operation is called Operation Starvation it clearly means that they were going to literally starve Japan. Japan was (and is) a net importer of foodstuffs. Those imports were targeted, along with all other Japanese shipping, by the "unrestricted" air and submarine campaign waged by the Allies. Result? The Japanese population doesn't get enough food. Add that up and you get starvation. The name wasn't a metaphor.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 11:48
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:The firebombing was part of the overall blockade strategy. So it doesn't mean "blockade" then, by your own admission. Unless, we have different definitions of blockade that is. Giving food to civilians doesn't defeat the purpose of the blockade - its a different way of doing it. Anyway, this is all irrelevant - you asked why allowing a population to decide to starve itself to death was any different than killing them with bombs. You haven't really addressed that at all except to say "the civilians would have died anyway" which misses the point. I'd say ask anyone if they would rather die right now from a bomb, or face starvation and a bet many would answer the latter.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 11:52
|
|
|
klen dool posted:So it doesn't mean "blockade" then, by your own admission. Unless, we have different definitions of blockade that is. To be honest, I have no goddamned clue where you got your definition of blockade from. klen dool posted:Giving food to civilians doesn't defeat the purpose of the blockade - its a different way of doing it. Your ideas of how to carry out a blockade are totally ludicrous in the context of the Second World War. They don't accord with the military doctrine of any country of that time. You are, in three words, not even wrong. Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 11:56 on Aug 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 11:53
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Japan was (and is) a net importer of foodstuffs. Those imports were targeted, along with all other Japanese shipping, by the "unrestricted" air and submarine campaign waged by the Allies. Result? The Japanese population doesn't get enough food. Add that up and you get starvation. It yielded tangible military benefits and was primarily done for that reason. Might this specific mining campaign still constitute war crimes? Maybe. It's still less obviously a war crime than indiscriminate bombing of civilians.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 11:55
|
|
|
klen dool posted:So it doesn't mean "blockade" then, by your own admission. Unless, we have different definitions of blockade that is. Obviously if the USAAF paradropped crates of food labeled "for civilians only please do not give to military personnel" in multiple languages then the IJA would have been obliged to abide by that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 11:56
|
|
|
KaptainKrunk posted:It yielded tangible military benefits So did the atomic bombs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 11:56
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:So did the atomic bombs. Not proportional to the damage caused to civilians; hence, war crimes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 11:57
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Obviously if the USAAF paradropped crates of food labeled "for civilians only please do not give to military personnel" in multiple languages then the IJA would have been obliged to abide by that. If the purpose of the blockade is to keep Japan from resupplying its troops in China, then yes this would still accomplish that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 11:57
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Obviously if the USAAF paradropped crates of food labeled "for civilians only please do not give to military personnel" in multiple languages then the IJA would have been obliged to abide by that. That would be on them, and their troops in China would still be undersupplied.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 11:59
|
|
|
klen dool posted:So it doesn't mean "blockade" then, by your own admission. Unless, we have different definitions of blockade that is. By the last two years of the war, U.S. submarines and aircraft had shredded the Japanese merchant marine to the point where a lot of patrols came back without any sinkings, because there just weren't many ships left to sink. As an island nation, Japan was utterly dependent on imports (and a case can be made that this was a major trigger for war in its own right - the oil embargo in response to the invasion of China was a big reason tensions became so high leading up to Pearl Harbor). When the U.S. Navy is able to bring subs basically onto the beach and airplanes are raiding coasts with impunity, and they're all targeting merchant shipping whenever it is found, it's a bit hard to argue that there was no blockade.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 12:01
|
|
|
klen dool posted:But I think the extreme reaction that sets the fat man and little boy apart is that people remember the arsenal built up by the us and ussr, and kind of back-port the very real fear that the world can wiped out onto a nuclear naive world of the past. It's not rational, understandable but not rational. This isn't true by the way, although it's been said many times in this thread. The threat of the Cold War was understood even before dropping the bomb. Actually about 70 scientists from the Manhattan Project sent a letter to Truman pleading him to not drop the bomb on Japan. Largely because they understood the threat a nuclear arms race would pose. quote:A PETITION TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 12:46
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:This isn't true by the way, although it's been said many times in this thread. The threat of the Cold War was understood even before dropping the bomb. Actually about 70 scientists from the Manhattan Project sent a letter to Truman pleading him to not drop the bomb on Japan. Largely because they understood the threat a nuclear arms race would pose. I wasn't around before the bomb - and I have the irrational feeling that the bomb is worse because its atomic and because of the cold war. But, I see your point - "we" were not naive to the effects pre bombings.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 12:52
|
|
|
N00ba the Hutt posted:By the last two years of the war, U.S. submarines and aircraft had shredded the Japanese merchant marine to the point where a lot of patrols came back without any sinkings, because there just weren't many ships left to sink. As an island nation, Japan was utterly dependent on imports (and a case can be made that this was a major trigger for war in its own right - the oil embargo in response to the invasion of China was a big reason tensions became so high leading up to Pearl Harbor). When the U.S. Navy is able to bring subs basically onto the beach and airplanes are raiding coasts with impunity, and they're all targeting merchant shipping whenever it is found, it's a bit hard to argue that there was no blockade. I wasn't arguing that there wasn't a blockade, I just didn't understand the military jargon and the implications of it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 12:53
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Obviously if the USAAF paradropped crates of food labeled "for civilians only please do not give to military personnel" in multiple languages then the IJA would have been obliged to abide by that. Well that's obviously not true. If the military and civilians are being fed by the allies, then they might rethink the whole "fight to the last man" idea. Or they may not. Either way, the allies would not be responsible for killing then.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 12:55
|
|
|
klen dool posted:Well that's obviously not true. If the military and civilians are being fed by the allies, then they might rethink the whole "fight to the last man" idea. Or they may not. Either way, the allies would not be responsible for killing then. The only flaw in this reasoning is that anyone suggesting it in 1945 would have been considered batshit insane. Wars weren't then (and aren't now) fought this way. Again, this isn't even wrong. It's just ludicrous. Like claiming 2 + 2 = $TEXAS
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 13:04
|
|
|
klen dool posted:Well that's obviously not true. If the military and civilians are being fed by the allies, then they might rethink the whole "fight to the last man" idea. Or they may not. Either way, the allies would not be responsible for killing then. I don't understand. I think the "be nice and they might surrender then" is a hell of a gamble, and if it fails then you're responsible for more killing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 13:27
|
|
|
Well of course wars weren't fought that way. Isn't that the point of looking back at the wars and going "whoa those were some terrible atrocities, let's agree not to do that again." More generally, isn't that how we make a lot of laws? Insider trading was just the way business was done in the 20s, then we said "whoops that was terrible let's agree that's a crime from now on".
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 13:28
|
|
|
klen dool posted:Well that's obviously not true. If the military and civilians are being fed by the allies, then they might rethink the whole "fight to the last man" idea. Or they may not. Either way, the allies would not be responsible for killing then. You'd make a good humanitarian and a lovely general.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 14:58
|
|
|
I would just like to note that the Berlin Airlift, an operation to feed a single city by landing cargo planes into it for about a year or so, was considered a major achievement that took a great deal of effort and equipment. The population of Berlin at that point was about 2.8 million. The population of Japan proper in 1945 was about 72 million and they were not particularly cooperative about allowing Allied cargo planes to land at their airports. We may, in other words, as well discuss the morality of nailing the Fuhrerbunker with a moon laser. Edit: Which would be totally justified, BTW.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 15:27
|
|
|
Nailing anything with a moon laser would never be a war crime on the grounds that it is "kickin rad"
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 15:35
|
|
|
As long as you're not testing the moon laser on the wives and children of the Nazi leadership, of course.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Well of course wars weren't fought that way. Isn't that the point of looking back at the wars and going "whoa those were some terrible atrocities, let's agree not to do that again." Only for the most part we have. Nuclear weapons are seen as a weapon of absolute last resort now and the only real "total wars" you have these days are regional in scope at best. Also, those wars typically result in a poo poo load of war crimes being committed since that's what happens in a total war and that's what WW2 was with maybe the exception of the western front. The countries involved though knew this, accepted it, and that's how they ran their war which caused everyone to run the war that way. Something you said on the other page about how the USSR was more justified than the US when it came to brutality since on the eastern front the Geneva Conventions were pretty much non existent was absolutely true. Here's the thing though, if given a choice between the most brutal of the three fronts of the war it's pretty much a toss up between the eastern and pacific ones. It's literally why the famous "1000 yard stare" painting is located in that theater, the pacific war was loving hell and even at it's worst the allies on the western front never had it as bad as a good day on either the eastern or pacific fronts. A Winner is Jew fucked around with this message at 16:16 on Aug 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 16:14
|
|
|
Why does there have to be an admission that the atomic bombings were a war crime if we don't fight wars that way anymore regardless?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 16:31
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Why does there have to be an admission that the atomic bombings were a war crime if we don't fight wars that way anymore regardless? In my opinion how you view history influences your future actions. If firebombing and nuking the Japanese was OK and moral because we had to win the war, than maybe the same goes for all the towns in Isis control?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
Sounds about right.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
IAMNOTADOCTOR posted:In my opinion how you view history influences your future actions. If firebombing and nuking the Japanese was OK and moral because we had to win the war, than maybe the same goes for all the towns in Isis control? The approach seems to be to ignore the firebombings and focus on the nukes, though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
IAMNOTADOCTOR posted:In my opinion how you view history influences your future actions. If firebombing and nuking the Japanese was OK and moral because we had to win the war, than maybe the same goes for all the towns in Isis control? Its a false comparison though because we have surgical strikes now. E:and for a lot of different reasons.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
IAMNOTADOCTOR posted:In my opinion how you view history influences your future actions. If firebombing and nuking the Japanese was OK and moral because we had to win the war, than maybe the same goes for all the towns in Isis control? I think the fact that this comparison gets made is a really good example of why this thread goes around and around. The base ineffectiveness of military action against irregular opposition raises the bar immensely for the morality of strikes on ISIS-controlled territory.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
I mean the easiest way to get rid of ISIS is to nuke all ISIS-occupied territory, but I don't think anyone worth giving a drat about is advocating for that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Its a false comparison though because we have surgical strikes now. In my opinion there were different alternatives next to your dichotomy of terror-bombing and surgical strikes. I don't think the war would have been lost if we didn't incinerate 350.000 civilians. To make a further comparison: i don't think that the barrel-bombing of cities by the Syrian regime is moral, even though they lack the capacity for surgical strikes. Chantilly Say posted:I think the fact that this comparison gets made is a really good example of why this thread goes around and around. The base ineffectiveness of military action against irregular opposition raises the bar immensely for the morality of strikes on ISIS-controlled territory. I agree that a lack of effectiveness raises the bar, but I've also not yet been convinced of the effectiveness of these campaigns in Japan. Moreover, to me they clearly fail the other two aspects commonly cited for a moral war: The first, the proportionality argument we discussed and appear to disagree on(the harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated by an attack on a military objective). The second, distinction is clearly missed( A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) as the target was not an industry but an entire city with the specific aim to burn everything down. The thirds is military necessity: i'm not convinced that burning and killing 40% of every major city in japan was the only way to win the war, i'd say the war was won at that point in time. Edit: finally, there is a separate argument to be made that terror bombing ISIS could be effective as their entire existence is based on holding ground and people in a caliphate. Without territory and people they are clearly not the holy last caliphate as listed in the Hadith of the Twelve Successors. But this is more suited for the middle east discussion thread. IAMNOTADOCTOR fucked around with this message at 18:57 on Aug 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
The Shortest Path posted:I mean the easiest way to get rid of ISIS is to nuke all ISIS-occupied territory, but I don't think anyone worth giving a drat about is advocating for that. If only MAD wasn't a thing now. But no, even after using the first two devices, Truman found the devices generally unpalatable, which is why he took away LeMay's ability to use them without presidential oversight. They achieved their purpose and brought the war to a much quicker close. IAMNOTADOCTOR posted:In my opinion how you view history influences your future actions. If firebombing and nuking the Japanese was OK and moral because we had to win the war, than maybe the same goes for all the towns in Isis control? It was a matter of the Japanese Navy, Army, and Imperial Family being pretty much in favor of continuing regular combat if Russia didn't respond to them and if the US invaded, which would've meant a continuation of the bombing campaigns and an eventual invasion (MacArthur had already been picked to lead it shortly before the surrender.) The Japanese had made it pretty clear on Okinawa they were willing to obliterate the lives of their own people to maintain 'order' in the face of the American forces, going so far as to hand out hand grenades to families and even forcing them to use them on themselves, or forcing them to jump off cliffs via coercion or propaganda. The Okinawa campaign also made it clear that even when the Japanese Imperial Army that knew it was likely to be defeated would cause immense casualties among American forces. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 19:02 on Aug 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
IAMNOTADOCTOR posted:In my opinion there were different alternatives next to your dichotomy of terror-bombing and surgical strikes. I don't think the war would have been lost if we didn't incinerate 350.000 civilians. To make a further comparison: i don't think that the barrel-bombing of cities by the Syrian regime is moral, even though they lack the capacity for surgical strikes. They were called strategic bombings and were basically indistinguishable from the terror bombings. Traditional strategic bombings didn't work in Japan because industry was built of wood and spread out in many small workhouses around the cities. Barrel bombs don't serve any strategic purpose other than brutalizing a civilian population. Miltank fucked around with this message at 19:03 on Aug 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
Miltank posted:They were called strategic bombings and were basically indistinguishable from the terror bombings. Traditional strategic bombings didn't work in Japan because industry was built of wood and spread out in many small workhouses around the cities. Barrel bombs don't serve any strategic purpose other than brutalizing a civilian population. 90% of the bombs on japan were dropped in the last 5 months if I recall correctly. They were not instrumental in anyway in swinging the naval might in favor of the US. The war was won at that point and Japan was effectively isolated in most economic and military definitions of the word. I'm not trying to be an armchair general and saying I could have done better at the time, I'm proposing that with the benefit of hindsight we should conclude that the actions that were taken in those last 5 months were immoral.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
IAMNOTADOCTOR posted:90% of the bombs on japan were dropped in the last 5 months if I recall correctly. They were not instrumental in anyway in swinging the naval might in favor of the US. The war was won at that point and Japan was effectively isolated in most economic and military definitions of the word. I'm not trying to be an armchair general and saying I could have done better at the time, I'm proposing that with the benefit of hindsight we should conclude that the actions that were taken in those last 5 months were immoral. Uhhhhhh, no the attacks on their ability to manufacture new aircraft, fuels and even armaments was distinctly helpful in ensuring the remaining Japanese Naval forces were unable to come out to engage the US Navy. Combined with the mining of harbors and submarine attacks on merchant shipping, it helped ensure Japan was REALLY cut off, while destroying what remaining oil stores they had within the country and ensuring they did not have the industrial ability manufacture alternatives. But that is beside the point: The Japanese had already proven they they did not need or want fuels to continue their war, and had planned their resistance against the coming US Invasion around not having any fuel at all. And the bombing campaign began in June of 1944 from the China Mainland.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
KaptainKrunk posted:The blood of those who starved would be on the Japanese government and military for not effectively rationing the food they had, and for not surrendering. I am fairly certain that people would make the argument that America is solely responsible for mass starvation and needs to apologise.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Uhhhhhh, no the attacks on their ability to manufacture new aircraft, fuels and even armaments was distinctly helpful in ensuring the remaining Japanese Naval forces were unable to come out to engage the US Navy. Combined with the mining of harbors and submarine attacks on merchant shipping, it helped ensure Japan was REALLY cut off, while destroying what remaining oil stores they had within the country and ensuring they did not have the industrial ability manufacture alternatives. Around 90 percent of the American tonnage fell in the last five months of the war.[296] (thats the first reference i could find) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_raids_on_Japan#cite_ref-296 Is your position that the US was at risk of losing the war if the firebombings of Japanese cities in these last 5 months had not occurred? I wont pretend to be an expert on the pacific theater, but if that is your position and not a straw men set up by me then that is a very odd position. If the result of not firebombing civilians is that the US had to kick IJN naval but one more time than that is clearly a better outcome to me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 04:18 |
|
|
IAMNOTADOCTOR posted:Is your position that the US was at risk of losing the war if the firebombings of Japanese cities in these last 5 months had not occurred? I wont pretend to be an expert on the pacific theater, but if that is your position and not a straw men set up by me then that is a very odd position. No, the position is that if you think the nuclear weapons and the firebombing campaigns were immoral, you don't want to know how many Japanese were likely to die in the Invasion of Japan, likely at their own hands. Again, Okinawa: quote:In its history of the war, the Okinawa Prefectural Peace Memorial Museum[53] presents Okinawa as being caught between the United States and the Empire of Japan in the fighting. During the 1945 battle, the Japanese Army showed indifference to Okinawans' safety, and its soldiers even used civilians as human shields against the Americans, or just outright murdered them. Japanese military confiscated food from the Okinawans and executed those who hid it, leading to a mass starvation among the population, and forced civilians out of their shelters. Japanese soldiers also killed about 1,000 people who spoke in the Okinawan language in order to suppress spying.[55] The museum writes that "some were blown apart by [artillery] shells, some finding themselves in a hopeless situation were driven to suicide, some died of starvation, some succumbed to malaria, while others fell victim to the retreating Japanese troops." It didn't help that the Japanese Army had a tendancy to use their own civilians as human shields. I don't know how you think an invasion of Japan would've gone well, or that the Japanese would not resist a embargo to the bitter end. IAMNOTADOCTOR posted:Around 90 percent of the American tonnage fell in the last five months of the war.[296] (thats the first reference i could find) And this is only because they had to sacrifice bombs for fuel to make the trip from China. Either way, the bombing campaign started a lot earlier than you claimed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2015 19:35
|
|