Revisionist History-OT

[desicat]

ORIGINAL: Revthought

ORIGINAL: pontiouspilot

If Truman actually knew the true state of the Japanese war capacity he may well have never used the A-bomb and most certainly would not have pressed for a Soviet entry into the Pac/Chinese theatre. In point of fact there was not even any need to invade the home islands. Japan was so thoroughly attrited that they could do little to extend any offensive operations. The Allied Generals and Admirals were fixated on the notion that Japan had to be invaded in the conventional sense. The economy and basics of civilization were in utter collapse. A further year of air and naval blockade and even the Japanese Army would have been forced to see that reality. The truly ironic twist to that non-Abomb scenario is that millions of Japanese may have perished through famine and disease.

I just finished a quite decent book on the last few weeks in Japan: The Fall of Japan by Wm. Craig.

That's true, but only if you reject metanarratives and the notion of absolute humanist values, which I do not. Even without appealing to religion if it is wrong to make war on civilian populations, then it was always the case that it is wrong. You cannot appeal to time, or culture to negate this. Otherwise, everything becomes relative and you can never pass judgement on anything outside of particular cultural contexts. So genocide in Bosnia can only be judged in reference to a very specific cultural frame of Bosnian Serbs in the 1990s, or the actions of ISIS become "crimes" only in the context of that particular culture.

In other words you lose all power to critique the world based on notions of justice and the concepts of right and wrong. You paralyzed and forced to concede things like female castration on the basis of culture and time.

This book may be something that you may want to read to get a better understanding of how the Pre Korean War US Military (and its Civilian masters) conducted itself.

http://www.amazon.com/American-Way-War- ... y+strategy

Again, many modern sensibilities are quite noble but totally out of place when trying to settle military conflicts.

"Americans play to win at all times. I wouldn't give a hoot and hell for a man who lost and laughed. That's why Americans have never lost nor ever lose a war." George S. Patton

If only Post WWII leadership had kept this mindset millions of people would not have fallen to mindless slaughter.

A perfect example is UN Peace Keeping efforts. In most cases they freeze conflicts in place, never allowing one side or the other to actually win the conflict and hence condemning the combatants to off and on conflict over decades causing many, many more causalities over that time period than if one side and won the war in the first place.

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: desicat

"I would make this war as severe as possible, and show no symptoms of tiring till the South begs for mercy." William Tecumseh Sherman

No criticism of you desicat - but I have NEVER held with Uncle Billy's maxim of Total War against civilians.

War has enough horror... I never saw a good excuse to visit every plague possible on innocent civilians....and I feel that civilians are generally innocent.
There's got to be lines drawn as acceptable practice in war.

And when it's over - Lee & Jackson look so much more appealing and noble for insisting on paying for provisions acquired in Maryland and Pennsylvania than Grant and Sherman in pillaging the South... The legacy of war lasts many many generations

[desicat]

ORIGINAL: Revthought

ORIGINAL: pontiouspilot

If Truman actually knew the true state of the Japanese war capacity he may well have never used the A-bomb and most certainly would not have pressed for a Soviet entry into the Pac/Chinese theatre. In point of fact there was not even any need to invade the home islands. Japan was so thoroughly attrited that they could do little to extend any offensive operations. The Allied Generals and Admirals were fixated on the notion that Japan had to be invaded in the conventional sense. The economy and basics of civilization were in utter collapse. A further year of air and naval blockade and even the Japanese Army would have been forced to see that reality. The truly ironic twist to that non-Abomb scenario is that millions of Japanese may have perished through famine and disease.

I just finished a quite decent book on the last few weeks in Japan: The Fall of Japan by Wm. Craig.

That's true, but only if you reject metanarratives and the notion of absolute humanist values, which I do not. Even without appealing to religion if it is wrong to make war on civilian populations, then it was always the case that it is wrong. You cannot appeal to time, or culture to negate this. Otherwise, everything becomes relative and you can never pass judgement on anything outside of particular cultural contexts. So genocide in Bosnia can only be judged in reference to a very specific cultural frame of Bosnian Serbs in the 1990s, or the actions of ISIS become "crimes" only in the context of that particular culture.

In other words you lose all power to critique the world based on notions of justice and the concepts of right and wrong. You paralyzed and forced to concede things like female castration on the basis of culture and time.

One of my favorite quote is from the Roman Tactius: "They make a desert and call it peace."

Via that quote he explained that losses incurred during an immediate total victory were a small cost to pay when compared to the losses caused by extended conflict and resistance. The benefits of an immediate victory and subsequent rebuilding of prosperity dwarf the immediate loss of life.

[desicat]

ORIGINAL: Big B

ORIGINAL: desicat

"I would make this war as severe as possible, and show no symptoms of tiring till the South begs for mercy." William Tecumseh Sherman

No criticism of you desicat - but I have NEVER held with Uncle Billy's maxim of Total War against civilians.

War has enough horror... I never saw a good excuse to visit every plague possible on innocent civilians....and I feel that civilians are generally innocent.
There's got to be lines drawn as acceptable practice in war.

And when it's over - Lee & Jackson look so much more appealing and noble for insisting on paying for provisions acquired in Maryland and Pennsylvania than Grant and Sherman in pillaging the South... The legacy of war lasts many many generations

War is horrible and that is why it needs to end as fast as possible. Extended insurgencies are bloody over decades. From the Napoleonic period on the industrialization of the military war complex has blurred the lines between the civilian and military resistance.

The days of the old British punitive campaigns are gone, I don't like the idea of total war, but unless one side or the other wins we condemn both sides to continued conflict over the course of lifetimes. I think the US in WWII did its best to conduct total war (to achieve unconditional surrender) in as humane a manner as possible - yet the bombing of Germany and Japan, and unrestricted submarine warfare in the Pacific, and yes, the use of the atomic bomb ultimately saved lives - American included.

No offense taken by the way. Even total war has the need for local humanity, that is why the US Military Code of Conduct is so important. No military member should EVER follow an illegal order, they are REQUIRED to disobey and report such. The American Way of War is a very good book and you may find it an interesting read.

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: desicat

ORIGINAL: Big B

ORIGINAL: desicat

"I would make this war as severe as possible, and show no symptoms of tiring till the South begs for mercy." William Tecumseh Sherman

No criticism of you desicat - but I have NEVER held with Uncle Billy's maxim of Total War against civilians.

War has enough horror... I never saw a good excuse to visit every plague possible on innocent civilians....and I feel that civilians are generally innocent.
There's got to be lines drawn as acceptable practice in war.

And when it's over - Lee & Jackson look so much more appealing and noble for insisting on paying for provisions acquired in Maryland and Pennsylvania than Grant and Sherman in pillaging the South... The legacy of war lasts many many generations

War is horrible and that is why it needs to end as fast as possible. Extended insurgencies are bloody over decades. From the Napoleonic period on the industrialization of the military war complex has blurred the lines between the civilian and military resistance.

The days of the old British punitive campaigns are gone, I don't like the idea of total war, but unless one side or the other wins we condemn both sides to continued conflict over the course of lifetimes. I think the US in WWII did its best to conduct total war (to achieve unconditional surrender) in as humane a manner as possible - yet the bombing of Germany and Japan, and unrestricted submarine warfare in the Pacific, and yes, the use of the atomic bomb ultimately saved lives - American included.

No offense taken by the way. The American Way of War is a very good book and you may find it an interesting read.

Glad no offense was taken because none was meant.

Actually, my reference to Uncle Billy was specific to the circumstances of the American Civil War...lines of conduct had not been crossed and shouldn't have been (at least IMO).

Taking it to the grand stage of WW2 is quite different.
The lines of acceptable human conduct were crossed very very very early in WW2.

The thing is this - a war is a clan fight...on a big scale.
If Bob from clan 1 kills John from clan 2 in a fight, then it is normal and expected for clan 2 to retaliate and kill another or two from clan 1... and the feud is on so watch your step.
That's normal human behavior...and nations are after all made up of humans.

What everyone knows is beyond the pall is for clan 2(or clan 1) to decide to go a house on other side and round up the newborn, Grandma, an unfortunate visitor, little Jimmy, and mom, and horribly execute (after having some 'fun' with them) all of them...then go to the local Sunday school and do some more...(and if you don't think that was going on almost daily in Asia/Pacific - you really don't understand what was going on).

In Asia and the Pacific that's exactly what happened from the beginning of the war.
So under those kind of all-out horribly ugly circumstances, where ISIS/ISIL like circumstances exist - you need to end it as fast as possible for everyone's sake.

So - I have no ethical problems with ending it with the A-Bomb if necessary ...as you and others already said "to ultimately save lives on all sides".

So in all out war - I'm not disagreeing with you

[desicat]

In other words you lose all power to critique the world based on notions of justice and the concepts of right and wrong. You paralyzed and forced to concede things like female castration on the basis of culture and time.

No, Right or wrong is defined by the culture you value most - a trait that once help the British civilize their Empire, and they could live with it. Quote from Sir Charles Napier:

"Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs."

-- Reply to Hindu priests who were complaining to him about the prohibition of sati (custom of burning of a widow on the funeral pyre of her husband) by the British authorities. (This quote was first reported in the 1851 biography of Napier, History Of General Sir Charles Napier's Administration Of Scinde, by his brother, William.)

Hence the US military code of conduct. It reflects the US cultural norms in potential war times setting and helps dictate actions by its combatants. Same goes with Rules of Engagement (RoE), rules established to comply with US UCMJ.

Not all cultures are equal, see the Thugee sect, Aztec religious practices, cannibal cultures, slave owning cultures, etc...

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: Revthought

The Soviets did not want the war to end before their enterance into the Asian land war, and the United States... Well come to your own conclusions. My thought is they wanted to use the atomic bomb to test, and then demonstrate to the Soviets, the destructive power of the weapon.

This is a classic misconception. As if Stalin was doing a Mussolinesque move: when he joined the war when France was in her death throes (Germany's gonna swallow everything! I must do something and do it now [:D]).

It IS the other way around. FDR basically harassed ([:D]) him big time so that Uncle Joe unleashed his hordes. Stalin managed to find excuses to not attack Japan until the Tehran Conference in 1943 IIRC. Then he promised he would unleash his hordes (once the nazis were finished). Which he did.

[Alpha77]

ORIGINAL: desicat

"I would make this war as severe as possible, and show no symptoms of tiring till the South begs for mercy." William Tecumseh Sherman

Interesting topic. The above quote from Sherman, who also said, war is hell, assumes he (Sherman aka the North) was the "correct" or "just" side. There can be made a case the Southerners case wasnt as unjust as common history tells us. For starters I do not believe the "freeing the slaves" thing as main reason for the war.

[Alpha77]

ORIGINAL: Big B

No criticism of you desicat - but I have NEVER held with Uncle Billy's maxim of Total War against civilians.

War has enough horror... I never saw a good excuse to visit every plague possible on innocent civilians....and I feel that civilians are generally innocent.
There's got to be lines drawn as acceptable practice in war.

Yup.

However....... I read above how cruel the firebombing and atomic bombs were. Which is true.... and horrible way to die. But we also need to see human nature. They always will fight each other. And look at acient times of warfare, or Napoleonic times. Now in these times the civilians suffered too. Not as much as in WW2, but for sure there was plunder of territories. So civilians would starve. Millions starved in the 30 year war too. And as for methods of killing, is being hacked to pieces by swords less cruel then blown apart by a bomb ? So war was always cruel from the beginning of times. Or burning down villages in the middleages perhaps with some people stil inside the houses? That is litterally "fire bombing" in a more primitive form. Only the scale and areas affected of cause changed with technology.


The case of the atomic bomb IMHO can not be made with 100% certainty. IF the Japanese were ready to surrender and bombs still were dropped is another case as they wanted to fight to the end. Now we can not really know *IF* they wanted to surrender. And perhaps the Allied leaders didnt know this either. So they had to make sure - in this case with a-bombs. Otherwise they would have firebombed more cities to the ground and the blockade would cause perhaps starvation too. I do not know how reliant the Japanese were in the food department.

[Alpha77]

ORIGINAL: Amoral

napalm is a chemical weapon. Agent Orange is a chemical weapon. Unless you are saying the US is a nation of barbarian savages?

See this article which also highlights "WP" as chemical weapon (which was used in Iraq by the Allied forces)...

http://www.worldbulletin.net/news/11715 ... al-weapons

Also:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/200 ... 5/usa.iraq

[robinsa]

One bomb might have been purposed to bring an quick end to the war. The second one was just a weapons test on human beings. It's not a coincidence that they tried two different bombs but it rather clear that they did this to assess the weapons.

As I've argued before on this forum, I'm of the opinion that all side carry some responsibility for what happened during the war. The fire bombings were without a doubt genocide but it was also a forced play by the "fight to the last man" mentality of the axis powers.

[robinsa]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

ORIGINAL: Revthought

The Soviets did not want the war to end before their enterance into the Asian land war, and the United States... Well come to your own conclusions. My thought is they wanted to use the atomic bomb to test, and then demonstrate to the Soviets, the destructive power of the weapon.

This is a classic misconception. As if Stalin was doing a Mussolinesque move: when he joined the war when France was in her death throes (Germany's gonna swallow everything! I must do something and do it now [:D]).

It IS the other way around. FDR basically harassed ([:D]) him big time so that Uncle Joe unleashed his hordes. Stalin managed to find excuses to not attack Japan until the Tehran Conference in 1943 IIRC. Then he promised he would unleash his hordes (once the nazis were finished). Which he did.

What is the misconception? As far as I know it is a known fact that the Japanese had contacted the Soviets to get some sort of negotiated peace and the soviets stalled.

If I recall correctly the soviets even proposed that they would invade Hokkaido and make it part of the Soviet union, something the US could not accept.

[robinsa]

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

ORIGINAL: Big B

No criticism of you desicat - but I have NEVER held with Uncle Billy's maxim of Total War against civilians.

War has enough horror... I never saw a good excuse to visit every plague possible on innocent civilians....and I feel that civilians are generally innocent.
There's got to be lines drawn as acceptable practice in war.

Yup.

However....... I read above how cruel the firebombing and atomic bombs were. Which is true.... and horrible way to die. But we also need to see human nature. They always will fight each other. And look at acient times of warfare, or Napoleonic times. Now in these times the civilians suffered too. Not as much as in WW2, but for sure there was plunder of territories. So civilians would starve. Millions starved in the 30 year war too. And as for methods of killing, is being hacked to pieces by swords less cruel then blown apart by a bomb ? So war was always cruel from the beginning of times. Or burning down villages in the middleages perhaps with some people stil inside the houses? That is litterally "fire bombing" in a more primitive form. Only the scale and areas affected of cause changed with technology.


The case of the atomic bomb IMHO can not be made with 100% certainty. IF the Japanese were ready to surrender and bombs still were dropped is another case as they wanted to fight to the end. Now we can not really know *IF* they wanted to surrender. And perhaps the Allied leaders didnt know this either. So they had to make sure - in this case with a-bombs. Otherwise they would have firebombed more cities to the ground and the blockade would cause perhaps starvation too. I do not know how reliant the Japanese were in the food department.

I am not sure how comparing this to ancient times can help us understand or justify this. There is much more to human nature pillaging and misery, and we do decide what we bring to the table ourselves.

As for what the Japanese intentions were and their thought process I truly recommend (I know Ive recommended it before in threads like this..) John Tolands - The Rising Sun as it gives a nuanced picture. There is even an audiobook for the lazy one.

I agree with Big B. War has enough horrors. Even IF the bombing raids were needed to end the war quickly it is a VERY tough sell morally when it comes to sacrificing innocent people. Remember, these were ordinary families, father, mothers and children who just wanted their families to survive.

[postfux]

I dont see a problem comparing ancient times with modern ones. Society and weapons are more sophisticated but people stayed the same.

What did the Romans do after the first (or second) phonician war or the first (or second or third) macedonian war? They didnt crucify everyone or such. They reduced their enemies ability to fight and trade and therefore eliminated them as a threat and a major power. And they made them pay reparations.

Perhaps they went too easy or too hard on Carthage or Macedonia but it was always the other side who wanted a rerun, for obvious reasons.

In a pre WWII setting the important question is who wanted the war and - even more important - who did risk total war.

And there was one player going all in every time from the beginning. Hitler without doubt could have stopped after the Treaty of Munich. I think he also could have stopped after the conquest of France in a not too uncomfortable position.

He did not stop and would not have stopped no matter what would have been done. Its like in the story of the scorpion and the frog. A scorpion stays a scorpion and thats not the Allies fault.

There was one way the Allies could have avoided total war and the suffering it brought. A negotiated peace with Nazi Germany. Should they have done that? And when? In my eyes Hitler destroyed the chance for a negotiated peace with Barbarossa and didnt have it before. After Barbarossa there simply where no options left.

Talking about strategic bombing is either talking about firebombs with attached shrapnell bombs timed for 15 minutes or talking about the risk of starting total war by sending your army (and airforce) to the east with an unsinkable aircraft carrier in the west and all the worlds economic power behind it. I have a strong opinion about who is responsible for that.

In total war a weapon that can be built will be built and used. That is pretty much the nature of total war.

[robinsa]

ORIGINAL: postfux

I dont see a problem comparing ancient times with modern ones. Society and weapons are more sophisticated but people stayed the same.

What did the Romans do after the first (or second) phonician war or the first (or second or third) macedonian war? They didnt crucify everyone or such. They reduced their enemies ability to fight and trade and therefore eliminated them as a threat and a major power. And they made them pay reparations.

Perhaps they went too easy or too hard on Carthage or Macedonia but it was always the other side who wanted a rerun, for obvious reasons.

I fail to see how history can be used as a justification. It has happend before so it is accepted practice? Concentration camps in North Korea are not morally acceptable just because it has done before by Germans, Japanese and Russians (and more on different scales).

Actively targeting your enemy and trying to kill him is something I can find morally acceptable. If that enemy is a people you have strayed and you're doing the exact same thing the Germans were doing.

I think the discussion for who was responsible for the war is a much more complicated thing than just Hitler and that many more people were to blame (maybe not the same extent as Hitler, but Hitler was a product of the day it had been shaped by past events).

ORIGINAL: postfux
In total war a weapon that can be built will be built and used. That is pretty much the nature of total war.

There is truth to this but I don't think this is a morally acceptable argument for genocide or deliberate mass killings of civilians.

[Alpha77]

ORIGINAL: robinsa

As for what the Japanese intentions were and their thought process I truly recommend (I know Ive recommended it before in threads like this..) John Tolands - The Rising Sun as it gives a nuanced picture. There is even an audiobook for the lazy one.

I agree with Big B. War has enough horrors. Even IF the bombing raids were needed to end the war quickly it is a VERY tough sell morally when it comes to sacrificing innocent people. Remember, these were ordinary families, father, mothers and children who just wanted their families to survive.

Thanks for the reminder. In fact I agree with this. And I advocated this view also in another WW2 forum a year ago. But I was flamed there quite a bit cause ca. 90% of the people there were the opinion "the Axis brought it upon themselves, who seeds the wind will get the storm...." or "it is total war, so civilians are combatants too". These were not my opinions I just quote the overall mood there. I bring this up because in fact I changed my opinion a bit on this topic. I still agree that killing civilians is wrong and a war crime (by either side). However if the other option is to bring much pain and suffering for both sides (but here especially the side that is already almost on their knees), than perhaps the option to end it quickly is the better one. Even with these crual consequences. Hope it is more clear what I meant...[:)] Also note I did not change my mind this little bit, because I was "flamed", this change came from overthinking the topic and considering other opinions (not the extreme ones for sure) as valid too.

I might be a bit dissillusioned too. Because it seems the slaughter & evil of war has not gotten better after WW2. In fact even after WW1 it was said, "this is the war to end all wars". We see how that worked out. THIS is also the reason I pointed out the historic stuff - as in the complete picture - nothing has really changed from say 2000 years ago.

[postfux]

I dont try to justify Versailles. I just think it was only a consequence of defeat and doesnt need justification. It might have been a bad treaty and "unfair" but I dont see it as the reason for WWII they way it happened. The shelling of Paris by the Prussian Army might also qualify as a reason for WWII in this line of thinking.

There were many reasons for a war to come that could be traced back to the first stone ever thrown. But to escalate the war the way it did the responsibility lies elsewhere

Comparing Versailles to concentration camps is perhaps not what you wanted to express but it doesnt help validating your argument.

The path to total war is not accepting defeat. Germany had options to avoid war or at least an escalation that would have been far away from being called a defeat and choose to go for total victory. That did backfire pretty badly.

The firebombing of Hamburg with Germany waging a limited war of attrition against Britain and hoping to come out of it better than they entered it? Unlikely.

Arming heavy bombers and using them to strike your enemy in the hope of helping your war effort or hindering the enemies is an act of war. A pretty cruel one that in the way it was done is only thinkable in a total war setting. Moral has nothing to do with it. If it can be done it will be done. I hold the people responsible that paved the way to total war and not the ones who did lead it. I do think there were some highly proplematic characters among them.)

I think the most important lesson of WWII is to avoid escalation in international relations especially in armed conflict and not that the allied bomber fleets were criminal organisation.

[Revthought]

ORIGINAL: Amoral

ORIGINAL: wegman58

WW I showed the horror of chemical weapons; no major war has seen them used since - barbarian savages have but not the major powers.

Napalm is a chemical weapon. Agent Orange is a chemical weapon. Unless you are saying the US is a nation of barbarian savages?

And white phosphorus... which has a legal use as an illuminating agent, but which the United States pretty convincingly used illegally as a burning agent in Iraq.

Not to mention, my recollection is that chemical weapons were used during the Second World War, particularly in China. It's just that they were not used by "major" Western (I'm counting Japan here) combatants against each other out of fear of retaliation.

Though, as Churchill came pretty close to ordering the death of tens of millions of people through the deployment of weaponized anthrax in Germany. I'm glad he decided not to because, it would have been pretty difficult to spoil the moral high ground the Allies had during the war against the Nazis in the eyes of history; just look at our use of nuclear weapons.

Yet, somehow I feel some of the civilian death toll predictions on the tune of more than half the population of Germany (and probably occupied Europe) that would have resulted from Operation Vegetarian might have come close to doing the job.

[Alpha77]

ORIGINAL: Revthought
Though, as Churchill came pretty close to ordering the death of tens of millions of people through the deployment of weaponized anthrax in Germany. I'm glad he decided not to because, it would have been pretty difficult to spoil the moral high ground the Allies had during the war against the Nazis in the eyes of history; just look at our use of nuclear weapons.

Interesting - can you give a source ? But the Allied soldiers and people (like in France, Belgium, Poland etc.) were immune to this Anthrax [&:]

Sounds a like a bad idea from every point of view to me [8|]

[robinsa]

ORIGINAL: postfux

Comparing Versailles to concentration camps is perhaps not what you wanted to express but it doesnt help validating your argument.

I have not made a comparison between Versailles and concentration camps so I'll have to suggest you re-read my post.

ORIGINAL: postfux
Arming heavy bombers and using them to strike your enemy in the hope of helping your war effort or hindering the enemies is an act of war. A pretty cruel one that in the way it was done is only thinkable in a total war setting. Moral has nothing to do with it. If it can be done it will be done. I hold the people responsible that paved the way to total war and not the ones who did lead it. I do think there were some highly proplematic characters among them.)

I agree, moral or ethics were not part of the decision to bomb civilian targets and that is the problem. The allies are supposed to (and I do believe they were and are, without a doubt) the good guys in this conflict. That does not make them beyond criticism. In fact, they should be criticized for missteps because they were and are hopefully to remain the good guys. It is easy to become the devil yourself when you're fighting evil.

If you are sincere in believing that sacrificing innocent people to reduce the enemy's morale in a war of terror is something acceptable I strongly disagree with you.

ORIGINAL: postfux
I think the most important lesson of WWII is to avoid escalation in international relations especially in armed conflict and not that the allied bomber fleets were criminal organisation.

Avoiding war is often the best option indeed.

I will stay out of this thread now. Feel free to respond to my post and I'll probably read it. As I have been told myself on this forum before, well have to agree to disagree.