Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: robinsa

ORIGINAL: warspite1

warspite1

In agreement?! Fetch me my angry trousers... I'm madder than I've ever been [:@]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMoaq76zzfM
[:)]



And within mainland Europe. Italy being the prime example - Hoare / Laval and all that [&:]

Feel free to tell me. I would be very interested as to what part you do not agree with! I take it most of you are more knowledgeable than I am and as such I would love to hear what you have to say. New perspectives can only be a good thing. Note that this is not a question of personal pride for me and I will not be offended.

warspite1

Okay – as you asked.

Not just the Japanese. It goes for all sides.

True

There are many instances where Americans didn't take prisoners either

I suspect there were. The British too. My uncle, fighting as an infantryman in France, and up against SS troops, was involved in the taking of Hill 112 and was told “there will be no prisoners taken today lads”.

and we all know of the atrocities committed by allied units.

‘We all know’. Yes any of us who know anything about the war – pretty much any war – will know of incidents we would prefer, in our comfy 21st century world, didn’t happen.

Not to mention the decision to target civilian cities with strategic bombing

It can be argued that in total war, there is not much of a distinction between civilians and combatants. If you weren’t fighting you were perhaps, feeding the war machine – an armaments worker, a farmer, a future soldier, and yes sometimes just a housewife, a pensioner or a child. Do I wish bombing of civilians had not happened? Yes I do. BUT do I lose sleep over it? Does it concern me? No – not at all. A visit to the Holocaust museum or reading about Nanking kind of removes any 'issues' about that. The Allies never asked for the war – despite the nonsense fed by imbeciles like David Irving. The war was not some isolated, localised, small scale war BUT total war fought against regimes that were repugnant and for which the losers would lose everything. Hitting back at the enemy was done in the most effective way possible to end the war as quickly as possible, with as few casualties as possible. That meant aerial bombing. I can live with that.

During Pearl Harbor for example the Japanese pilots were explicitly told not to cause any civilian casualties.

No idea if that is true but let’s say it is. So? As has been said, no one is all bad, no one is all good. We are not 7-years olds watching cowboy movies with the baddies easily identifiable by the fact that they have black hats….. Were there some good Germans or Italians or Japanese? Yes – were there some evil Americans or French or Commonwealth? Yes. Just happens to be that there were less of these types – and the governments of the latter were free, democratic and – as said – didn’t ask for the war.

However, from what I understand the Japanese appear to have been a bit more sadistic than most others.

You won’t agree – and that’s fine, but your understanding appears erm…. somewhat less than complete in this regard.

How much of this is propaganda and not is hard to tell.

No, no it isn't.

I think its clear though that westerners were treated a lot better than Chinese prisoners.

Yes, I think that is great comfort to the poor bastards my mother treated in Australia at the end of the war. Grown men, beaten, mentally broken and tortured after years of barbaric treatment at the hands of the Japanese in prisoner of war camps. My mother was a young, innocent, 21-year old. She never forget the sites she saw. But hey – they were better treated than the Chinese so that’s great yeah?

Given how Japanese soldiers were starving all over

Yep – read up on Guadalcanal. A regime that can do that to their own people are really best wiped from the planet.

I don't think its strange that many prisoners didn't get fed properly.

Me neither. What about the beatings? The insanely cruel treatment for the smallest of infractions? Nothing to do with having no food – and everything to do with sub-human, sadistic, behaviour. Cruelty for the sake of cruelty.

It is easy to treat your prisoners well if you're winning and have the means to do so.

Shame that the Japanese didn’t treat their prisoners well then at the start of the war when they were winning isn’t it? Or perhaps the Death marches were made up?

You won’t agree – and that’s fine, but your understanding appears erm…. somewhat less than complete in this regard.

ORIGINAL: robinsa

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: robinsa



Feel free to tell me. I would be very interested as to what part you do not agree with! I take it most of you are more knowledgeable than I am and as such I would love to hear what you have to say. New perspectives can only be a good thing. Note that this is not a question of personal pride for me and I will not be offended.

warspite1

Okay – as you asked.

Not just the Japanese. It goes for all sides.

True

There are many instances where Americans didn't take prisoners either

I suspect there were. The British too. My uncle, fighting as an infantryman in France, and up against SS troops, was involved in the taking of Hill 112 and was told “there will be no prisoners taken today lads”.

and we all know of the atrocities committed by allied units.

‘We all know’. Yes any of us who know anything about the war – pretty much any war – will know of incidents we would prefer, in our comfy 21st century world, didn’t happen.

Not to mention the decision to target civilian cities with strategic bombing

It can be argued that in total war, there is not much of a distinction between civilians and combatants. If you weren’t fighting you were perhaps, feeding the war machine – an armaments worker, a farmer, a future soldier, and yes sometimes just a housewife, a pensioner or a child. Do I wish bombing of civilians had not happened? Yes I do. BUT do I lose sleep over it? Does it concern me? No – not at all. A visit to the Holocaust museum or reading about Nanking kind of removes any 'issues' about that. The Allies never asked for the war – despite the nonsense fed by imbeciles like David Irving. The war was not some isolated, localised, small scale war BUT total war fought against regimes that were repugnant and for which the losers would lose everything. Hitting back at the enemy was done in the most effective way possible to end the war as quickly as possible, with as few casualties as possible. That meant aerial bombing. I can live with that.

During Pearl Harbor for example the Japanese pilots were explicitly told not to cause any civilian casualties.

No idea if that is true but let’s say it is. So? As has been said, no one is all bad, no one is all good. We are not 7-years olds watching cowboy movies with the baddies easily identifiable by the fact that they have black hats….. Were there some good Germans or Italians or Japanese? Yes – were there some evil Americans or French or Commonwealth? Yes. Just happens to be that there were less of these types – and the governments of the latter were free, democratic and – as said – didn’t ask for the war.

However, from what I understand the Japanese appear to have been a bit more sadistic than most others.

You won’t agree – and that’s fine, but your understanding appears erm…. somewhat less than complete in this regard.

How much of this is propaganda and not is hard to tell.

No, no it isn't.

I think its clear though that westerners were treated a lot better than Chinese prisoners.

Yes, I think that is great comfort to the poor bastards my mother treated in Australia at the end of the war. Grown men, beaten, mentally broken and tortured after years of barbaric treatment at the hands of the Japanese in prisoner of war camps. My mother was a young, innocent, 21-year old. She never forget the sites she saw. But hey – they were better treated than the Chinese so that’s great yeah?

Given how Japanese soldiers were starving all over

Yep – read up on Guadalcanal. A regime that can do that to their own people are really best wiped from the planet.

I don't think its strange that many prisoners didn't get fed properly.

Me neither. What about the beatings? The insanely cruel treatment for the smallest of infractions? Nothing to do with having no food – and everything to do with sub-human, sadistic, behaviour. Cruelty for the sake of cruelty.

It is easy to treat your prisoners well if you're winning and have the means to do so.

Shame that the Japanese didn’t treat their prisoners well then at the start of the war when they were winning isn’t it? Or perhaps the Death marches were made up?

I agree with most of the things you wrote but I also think some parts are too simplified and do not capture the suffering on ALL sides. I know of starvation island and I also know of the fire bombings of Tokyo and the "rape of nanking". They were all terrible in their own way.

You won’t agree – and that’s fine, but your understanding appears erm…. somewhat less than complete in this regard.

I wont agree with what? That whole statement is in agreement with your point. The "a bit" part was too mild in hindsight but I was trying to make the point that everyone did horrible stuff.

I personally think the suffering of all involved in this terrible conflict was a tragedy. That goes for everyone. Both the Australian servicemen who fought the Japanese army/navy and the Japanese children who were killed by allied bombers (they likely outnumber the former by the way).

I am not trying to take away the suffering of anyone but it is a fact that you were MUCH more likely to survive capture by the Japanese if you were a western.

Did abuse happen? Yes. Was it widespread? Yes. Do I think that the Japanese have been portrayed excessively brutal and that sadistic individuals have been portrayed as the "ordinary Japanese soldier" for propaganda purposes? Yes. Are some of the POW deaths directly attributable to western strategy and action? Yes. I really don't think it black and white. It was a terrible war and both sides did horrible things. The starvation war and the sinking of POW transports massively attributed to the high death rate of western POW.

How can you possibly say that the strategic bombings is nothing to lose sleep over? How is the indiscriminate killings of civilians any different from genocide? If they were bombing the people responsible I could understand your position but the fact is that they were indiscriminately bombing civilians because they happened to be born in a certain country? Was it the best course of action ? It possibly was, but it still something we should regret having had to do.

Again to clarify a few other things. I am not a holocaust denier (actually I don't even know why you brought it up). Neither am I denying that the Japanese did terrible terrible things. I am just trying to say that while we remember the terrible things they did we often try to forget what we did in return.

ORIGINAL: robinsa

Did abuse happen? Yes. Was it widespread? Yes. Do I think that the Japanese have been portrayed excessively brutal and that sadistic individuals have been portrayed as the "ordinary Japanese soldier" for propaganda purposes? Yes. Are some of the POW deaths directly attributable to western strategy and action? Yes. I really don't think it black and white. It was a terrible war and both sides did horrible things. The starvation war and the sinking of POW transports massively attributed to the high death rate of western POW.

How can you possibly say that the strategic bombings is nothing to lose sleep over? How is the indiscriminate killings of civilians any different from genocide? If they were bombing the people responsible I could understand your position but the fact is that they were indiscriminately bombing civilians because they happened to be born in a certain country? Was it the best course of action ? It possibly was, but it still something we should regret having had to do.

I think the war could likely have been avoided with better diplomacy and that the allied powers carry some responsibility for the spot they put the Japanese leaders in.

ORIGINAL: rustysi

I think the war could likely have been avoided with better diplomacy and that the allied powers carry some responsibility for the spot they put the Japanese leaders in.

I'm sorry I can't just sit here any more. Let me say that this is not a personal attack, but I've heard this tripe far too many times. No one 'put the Japanese leaders' in any spot, other than themselves.

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: rustysi

I think the war could likely have been avoided with better diplomacy and that the allied powers carry some responsibility for the spot they put the Japanese leaders in.

I'm sorry I can't just sit here any more. Let me say that this is not a personal attack, but I've heard this tripe far too many times. No one 'put the Japanese leaders' in any spot, other than themselves.

There is some ground for that argument. It's important to understand the circumstances around which these decisions were made.

The US economic embargo essentially placed the Japanese leaders in an impossible position.

Option A was to abandon the war in China.

Option B was to extend the war to get the resources to beat China.

While Option A would be the morally correct choice, it was a political impossibility. Japanese foriegn policy was simply too invested in the war with China for such a drastic change to be acceptable, and the losses already sustained by Japan in China contributed it extensively to it. Japan simply lost too many men to make the war with China something that it could walk away from.

Option B, then, was the best choice for Japan. The sunk cost fallacy in action.

ORIGINAL: Terminus

What is being attempted here is just another instance of the same denial of Japanese responsibility that's been going on since 1945. It's foul and disgusting. There's no "sharing" of the blame here. The Japanese military dictatorship decided to go to war. THEY. CHOSE. TO. GO. TO. WAR. They chose to subjugate the populations of other countries in Asia, starting with Korea, with the utmost brutality, all of it based on the perceived racial superiority of Japan. Nazi Germany's emissary to China was shocked at the savage barbarity of the Rape of Nanking.

There's a mountain of evidence, but that does nothing when people in Japan (and unfortunately elsewhere) keep putting their hands over their ears and screaming LALALALALALALALA!!! Again, there is no sharing of blame, no moral high ground, no grey area. Stop it.

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: rustysi

I think the war could likely have been avoided with better diplomacy and that the allied powers carry some responsibility for the spot they put the Japanese leaders in.

I'm sorry I can't just sit here any more. Let me say that this is not a personal attack, but I've heard this tripe far too many times. No one 'put the Japanese leaders' in any spot, other than themselves.

There is some ground for that argument. It's important to understand the circumstances around which these decisions were made.

The US economic embargo essentially placed the Japanese leaders in an impossible position.

Option A was to abandon the war in China.

Option B was to extend the war to get the resources to beat China.

While Option A would be the morally correct choice, it was a political impossibility. Japanese foriegn policy was simply too invested in the war with China for such a drastic change to be acceptable, and the losses already sustained by Japan in China contributed it extensively to it. Japan simply lost too many men to make the war with China something that it could walk away from.

Option B, then, was the best choice for Japan. The sunk cost fallacy in action.

ORIGINAL: robinsa

I think Roosvelt did what he could and had he actually led to negotiations himself it is likely that there wouldn't have been a war with Japan. Much can be attributed to poor communications but also to the unwillingness of secretary Hull to negotiate. The rising sun by Toland gives a good account of this for those interested.

ORIGINAL: Terminus

What is being attempted here is just another instance of the same denial of Japanese responsibility that's been going on since 1945. It's foul and disgusting. There's no "sharing" of the blame here. The Japanese military dictatorship decided to go to war. THEY. CHOSE. TO. GO. TO. WAR. They chose to subjugate the populations of other countries in Asia, starting with Korea, with the utmost brutality, all of it based on the perceived racial superiority of Japan. Nazi Germany's emissary to China was shocked at the savage barbarity of the Rape of Nanking.

There's a mountain of evidence, but that does nothing when people in Japan (and unfortunately elsewhere) keep putting their hands over their ears and screaming LALALALALALALALA!!! Again, there is no sharing of blame, no moral high ground, no grey area. Stop it.

ORIGINAL: rustysi

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: rustysi



I'm sorry I can't just sit here any more. Let me say that this is not a personal attack, but I've heard this tripe far too many times. No one 'put the Japanese leaders' in any spot, other than themselves.

There is some ground for that argument. It's important to understand the circumstances around which these decisions were made.

The US economic embargo essentially placed the Japanese leaders in an impossible position.

Option A was to abandon the war in China.

Option B was to extend the war to get the resources to beat China.

While Option A would be the morally correct choice, it was a political impossibility. Japanese foriegn policy was simply too invested in the war with China for such a drastic change to be acceptable, and the losses already sustained by Japan in China contributed it extensively to it. Japan simply lost too many men to make the war with China something that it could walk away from.

Option B, then, was the best choice for Japan. The sunk cost fallacy in action.

Now your gonna make me get books out again.[:D] Going by memory (always a bad thing these days) wasn't the oil embargo put in place after Japan 'occupied' Indo-China? At any rate Japan was the aggressor long before any embargo, and it didn't look as if she were going to stop. Embargoes have been used as an attempt to get aggressors to back off for a long time. Albeit not successfully AFAIK. Whether this forced Japan into a war with the United States to me is immaterial, we were headed there anyway. By this time the war in Europe had already started and I'm sure Washington knew we were in it one way or another sooner or later.

Besides an embargo was probably the only political option open for us at the time anyway, as the nation still wasn't interested in going to war. As Winston Churchill once said (again going from memory) "the United States will eventually make the right decision, after she's tried all the wrong ones". As far as I'm concerned Japans' leaders put her on the path to her ultimate destruction when she invaded Manchuria in 1931.

Question:

What exactly was President Roosevelt supposed to do?

ORIGINAL: robinsa

Yes. Konoes cabinet would have given concessions (and actually did) but they were caught in limbo between Hull and IJA which made it impossible to reach an agreement. The IJA an the other Japanese leaders carry the largest responsibility no doubt but the inflexibility and the inablility of the west to understand the position of Konoes cabinet contriuted to the failure of negotiations.
Even Tojo was willing to withdraw from China in some manner but by that time the Americans were fed up with Japanese "Incincerity" and the mixed message they were sendig. The mixed message was enhanced by poorly translated magic intercepts that effectively misled the US administration of the true Japanese intent. The slowness to negotiate and the supicion in turn made the Japanese think the US was buy for time to prepare their military and to make the effects of embargo more felt. The November first deadline passed without an agreement and the rest is history. Again, I really recommend Tolands book for a different perspective.

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Question:

What exactly was President Roosevelt supposed to do?

Roosevelt, in my view, did all that he could considering the situation of US politics at the time. A stronger American stance is a debatable issue, but.....