Letters from Iwo Jima

[Doggie]

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

but I guess lawschool failed me there huh

Well that certainly explains a lot. There's certainly nobody less qualified to offer an opinion on ethics than a lawyer. Perhaps your law school should include a little history in it's curriculum, as it's obviously failed you in that department.

I dont know what you think "doctrine" means, but its less about the actions of an emperor or a government, and more about how the army tries to train its soldiers and what tactics they use on various levels.

It's amazing how little you know of Japanese "doctrine." You should read up on it some.

[Doggie]

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund



Suppose we had no knowledge whatsoever about ww2.

You've already demonstrated that you have no knowledge whatsoever about ww2, so you're way ahead of us.

[Rainerle]

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

... The point is that guilt is always individual, never collective.

...

Ahh no, it shows that only the losing side is guilty the winning side is never guilty.

[Hortlund]

ORIGINAL: Doggie
You've already demonstrated that you have no knowledge whatsoever about ww2, so you're way ahead of us.

Brilliant retort.

So I take it this concludes this little discussion then? What you had was a boat-load of predjudice and stereotypes, and nothing of substance? Or perhaps you want to shoot off anoter parting ad hom before moving on?

[Doggie]

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund



Brilliant retort.

Thank you. And I never even went to law school.

But what would I know what with all my racist relatives and all. Obviously it takes somebody from a country which did not participate in world war II at all aside from providing a few volunteer battalions to the SS to provide a more objective view of things.

So I take it this concludes this little discussion then? What you had was a boat-load of predjudice and stereotypes, and nothing of substance?

Nothing of subtance other than a documented history of savagry and sadism that would put Attilla the Hun to shame. "Substance" would be taking a the rare examples of criminal activity on the part of a few individual American soldiers and comparing it to the institutional barbarism that was standard operating procedure with the Japanese armed forces.

[Sarge]

Got to love the self proclaimed historian with all of what ? A week of research on a video game discounting veterans experiences as “ Tall Tails “


And he’s a lawyer ………….shocking [:D]

[mjk428]

All sides in WWII did horrible things to civilians on the opposing side- Deliberately firebombing civilians to death is somehow now seen as less awful than personally killing them face to face, however I don't really see the big distinction there. Slaughtering noncombatants is still slaughtering noncombatants, whether personally slitting their throats or dropping incendiary bombs on them from 30,000 feet in the air. The things the Soviets did when taking over German territory was just as awful as what went on at Nanking, although not on as large of a scale. I'm not trying to say anything negative about the western Allies in my above paragraph, only that the clear-cut idea of "Good guys and Bad Guys" in WWII was created AFTER someone had won.

One single platoon of Japanese on Iwo Jima probably hadn't been participants in Nanking anyway, especially not barely-adult draftees like the protagonist.

It was retribution.

Had WW2 kicked off with Dresden & Tokyo being fire bombed, then yeah, we'd be the "bad guys".

Germany & Japan had a surefire way to avoid the horror they experienced. They could have not started the abominable war - but they called the tune.

I'm glad we weren't "nuanced" back then. Because I doubt Germany, Italy & Japan would be our allied today if we had been.

[mikul82]

ORIGINAL: mjk428

All sides in WWII did horrible things to civilians on the opposing side- Deliberately firebombing civilians to death is somehow now seen as less awful than personally killing them face to face, however I don't really see the big distinction there. Slaughtering noncombatants is still slaughtering noncombatants, whether personally slitting their throats or dropping incendiary bombs on them from 30,000 feet in the air. The things the Soviets did when taking over German territory was just as awful as what went on at Nanking, although not on as large of a scale. I'm not trying to say anything negative about the western Allies in my above paragraph, only that the clear-cut idea of "Good guys and Bad Guys" in WWII was created AFTER someone had won.

One single platoon of Japanese on Iwo Jima probably hadn't been participants in Nanking anyway, especially not barely-adult draftees like the protagonist.

It was retribution.

Had WW2 kicked off with Dresden & Tokyo being fire bombed, then yeah, we'd be the "bad guys".

Germany & Japan had a surefire way to avoid the horror they experienced. They could have not started the abominable war - but they called the tune.

I'm glad we weren't "nuanced" back then. Because I doubt Germany, Italy & Japan would be our allied today if we had been.

So because the military of one side kills a bunch of civilians on the other, it becomes justifiable revenge to then kill THAT sides' civilians in retribution? I'm not sure what you're trying to say here... Claiming that the committing the first act out outright aggression somehow makes it (justifiably) open season on noncombatants of either side doesn't seem to add up to me.

One could also argue that the starting of a war by the Axis was inevitable due to circumstances put upon them by the Allied powers, Germany being crippled by WWI reperations (had Germany not recessed the way it had after WWI, in part due to the post-war toll taken out of it by the Allies, Hitler may well have never risen to the level he did), a trade embargo that threatened Japan with a crippled economy, etc.

[mikul82]

Nothing of subtance other than a documented history of savagry and sadism that would put Attilla the Hun to shame. "Substance" would be taking a the rare examples of criminal activity on the part of a few individual American soldiers and comparing it to the institutional barbarism that was standard operating procedure with the Japanese armed forces.

As a strictly objective question not pertaining to this discussion or directed necessarily toward you, is it because the Japanese did what they did to Americans in particular, and within the last 70 years, that we tend to really demonize them in particular but don't hold the same level of contempt toward the Romans, or the Spanish for example, both of whom were known for savagery in conquest, torturing captured enemies (including noncombatant women and children) for fun, extravagant public tortures and executons, and etc?

Also, was it after WWII that the standard procedure when going through enemy territory was to pillage, rape, torment, kill and burn suddenly became regarded as evil/bad universally, or did this come about at some earlier point?

[mjk428]

Recently my Mom showed me an excerpt from a letter my Dad sent her. The rest of the letter she keeps private but she thought this bit was important. It was written from a hospital in England after he was wounded at Remagen (April 26th, 1945). I think it fits this thread pretty well.

...I find myself hating these damn Jerries more and more. If I don't watch myself, I'll be asking to go back up there again. I suppose by
this time you people have seen pictures of what the Nazis did to these people of these countries over here. If you hear anybody say it's
just propaganda you can just call him a liar. Every bit of it's true and there were some things that couldn't be shown. I'm a pretty peace
loving guy, but what we saw over here made it possible for us to actually enjoy killing these Jerries. Usually when you shoot one your
stomach does a little flip and then settles down. No more tho. I've seen guys almost pray that some German would stick his head up. I guess
now the civilians have some idea as why there can be no deals made with our boy Adolph. He'll get his deal off the end of some G.I. rifle.
But enough of such morbid conversation...

BTW, my Dad's mother was German. In fact of my 4 grandparents, 1 was born in Ireland, 2 in Italy & 1 in Germany. 3 axis countries and a neutral. Glad they immigrated.

[mjk428]

ORIGINAL: mlc82

So because the military of one side kills a bunch of civilians on the other, it becomes justifiable revenge to then kill THAT sides' civilians in retribution? I'm not sure what you're trying to say here... Claiming that the committing the first act out outright aggression somehow makes it (justifiably) open season on noncombatants of either side doesn't seem to add up to me.

Yep. Don't call the tune and then complain about the dance. It's called "Total War" for a reason.

One could also argue that the starting of a war by the Axis was inevitable due to circumstances put upon them by the Allied powers, Germany being crippled by WWI reperations (had Germany not recessed the way it had after WWI, in part due to the post-war toll taken out of it by the Allies, Hitler may well have never risen to the level he did), a trade embargo that threatened Japan with a crippled economy, etc.

So then it follows that it was "inevitable" that Jews (& others) would be herded into gas chambers. That means that the Holocaust is all France's fault! The Germans will be so relieved.

[mikul82]

Yep. Don't call the tune and then complain about the dance. It's called "Total War" for a reason.

Wow. The idea that a housewife in Germany deserves to die (or at the least has it coming) because the leader of her country declared a war, and the Air Force (Luftwaffe in this case) of said country bombed civilians in an opposing country, really isn't something I could have come up with.

[mjk428]

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

This may be the biggest reason why many folks didn't like the movie: "The uncomfortable truths".

The uncomfortable truths didn't bother me. The uncomfortable lies did.

[mjk428]

ORIGINAL: mlc82


Wow. The idea that a housewife in Germany deserves to die (or at the least has it coming) because the leader of her country declared a war, and the Air Force (Luftwaffe in this case) of said country bombed civilians in an opposing country, really isn't something I could have come up with.

In the immortal words of William Munny: "Deserve's got nothing to do with it."

You do realize that if we, the Allies, had been shackled by civilian casualties the Axis could have never been stopped.

[mikul82]

ORIGINAL: mjk428

ORIGINAL: mlc82


Wow. The idea that a housewife in Germany deserves to die (or at the least has it coming) because the leader of her country declared a war, and the Air Force (Luftwaffe in this case) of said country bombed civilians in an opposing country, really isn't something I could have come up with.

In the immortal words of William Munn: "Deserve's got nothing to do with it."

You do realize that if we, the Allies, had been shackled by civilian casualties the Axis could have never been stopped.

Oh I'm not saying that I think the Allies were "wrong", just commenting directly on the response. As I said above, I'm not taking much of a stance on either side as I try to remain completely objective, but don't see the difference in mass killings of noncombatants, whether it's done personally with a bayonet, or with incendiary bombs from thousands of feet in the air. I don't understand why people treat WWII as if it's still going on now.

My grandpa was a Marine .50 cal machine gunner wounded on May 9, 1945 fighting on Okinawa near the village of Naha (if anyone can tell me what,if any, particular battle this may have been I'll appreciate it!). He was hit by Japanese mortar fire and lost his leg, and never really had anything good to say about the Japanese on the very rare occasion that he even spoke of the war. I can't understand though how/why I could conceivably be angry about this, or hold it against the Japanese to this day even though I wasn't even alive yet, without also hating the Romans for what they to my much older ancestors in Europe.

[mjk428]

ORIGINAL: mlc82
Oh I'm not saying that I think the Allies were "wrong", just commenting directly on the response. As I said above, I'm not taking much of a stance on either side as I try to remain completely objective, but don't see the difference in mass killings of noncombatants, whether it's done personally with a bayonet, or with incendiary bombs from thousands of feet in the air. I don't understand why people treat WWII as if it's still going on now.

My grandpa was a Marine .50 cal machine wounded on May 9, 1945 fighting on Okinawa near the village of Naha (if anyone can tell me what,if any, particular battle this may have been I'll appreciate it!). He was hit by Japanese mortar fire and lost his leg, and never really had anything good to say about the Japanese on the very rare occasion that he even spoke of the war. I can't understand though how/why I could conceivably be angry about this, or hold it against the Japanese to this day even though I wasn't even alive yet, without also hating the Romans for what they to my much older ancestors in Europe.

Well there you go. I don't hold it against the Japanese to this day (and I'd bet Doggie doesn't either). I still hold it against the Japs of that day anytime it appears somebody is trying to excuse away or mitigate their actions. It's an important distinction. Doggie's Uncles were friendly with the Japanese after the war even though they were killing them not long before.

[KG Erwin]

ORIGINAL: mjk428


You do realize that if we, the Allies, had been shackled by civilian casualties the Axis could have never been stopped.

Whose civilians? American civilian casualties were miniscule, as compared to Russian losses (in the millions). Are you implying that our Allies' lives were worth less than ours?

[mikul82]

(please don't think I'm being 100% serious here, but this IS a genuine question)

Do you think then, that if the Japanese given their WWII history should not be portrayed as anything less than savage and barbaric (and not just in an obvious scenario such as a movie about Nanking, but rather ALL of them), then did you also find it atrocious that the recent 300 movie showed Spartans as being anything less than what we today would consider hard core totalitarian fascists completely devoid of any sympathy for anyone other than fellow Spartans (similar to Nazi sentiment toward Jews, Eastern peoples, etc)? That they were portrayed as freedom loving heroes of mankind should be especially galling...

[mjk428]

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

ORIGINAL: mjk428


You do realize that if we, the Allies, had been shackled by civilian casualties the Axis could have never been stopped.

Whose civilians? American civilian casualties were miniscule, as compared to Russian losses (in the millions). Are you implying that our Allies' lives were worth less than ours?

Our enemy's civilians.

If we never fired a shot if there was the slightest chance a civilian (or for that matter, a soldier "just following orders") met an undeserved end, we'd have been completely paralyzed.

[mikul82]

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

ORIGINAL: mjk428


You do realize that if we, the Allies, had been shackled by civilian casualties the Axis could have never been stopped.

Whose civilians? American civilian casualties were miniscule, as compared to Russian losses (in the millions). Are you implying that our Allies' lives were worth less than ours?

Well, in the US public education system, the Soviets are those allies that we aren't really supposed to learn about... According to the ridiculous history classes I had in my school days, the Western Allies won the war, with the Eastern side of things being a little side show that the US lend-leased to. Makes sense though given that public education history here is bascially propaganda, as if you actually include the USSR in it's proper role, WWII no longer gets the "Good Guys vs Bad Guys" label but instead becomes "Bad Guys (Nazis) vs Even Worse Guys (Soviets)", and that ruins all the fun.

This is similar to how we also learned that, in the war between the North and South in the US, everything started because the nasty racist South refused to get rid of slavery, and so the North was forced to go to war with the South in name of things like "Freedom for All", and "Equality Among Men", and etc. If I hadn't already been a history nerd when I was a kid, I'd hate history like most young people here in the US currently do because of this kind of crap.

Sorry for going OT here, I blame it on the coffee...