Matrix Games Forums

So Demosthenes, tell us what is the difference between comitting "atrocities" on civilians for pleasure, and comitting "atrocities" on civilians just only to show Soviets their new weapon?

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

So Demosthenes, tell us what is the difference between comitting "atrocities" on civilians for pleasure, and comitting "atrocities" on civilians just only to show Soviets their new weapon?

If you really believe that, then there is nothing for me to say to you.

Has this thread not been closed yet.........hmmmmm.......well....gentlemen...........

Some might say that the Atomic bomb saved lives when dropped......and was only an extension of an endless array of terror weapons that have..and for that matter, will become available...and Truman......was acting in good faith...and not as an act of vengence.........some might say.......

Some might also say that the rape of Nanking is not ...on the whole .....unique......and that in every war...and on every side.....things are done during war...that are not ....well....civilised/correct/right/moral........

Some might say.........Let he who is without sin cast the first stone..........I, for one....will not be reaching for a rock......


Anyway....War in the Pacific......good game.......I think...yes?

Agreed my flippered friend. Let's not keep on flaming and getting another topic closed guys.
 

For what ever reason people are looking for moral equivelance between the United States and the Japanese Empire.
You are confusing unavoidably killing civilians to put an end to war with a calculated campaign of terror, dehumanization, conquest, and genocide – of using inhuman acts of barbarity as a tactical and psycologocal weapon. For example, did you ever read how the Japanese got the Hong Kong Garrison to surrender? I doubt it.

The diference you seek (if you really think you have to dig deeply to find that diference) is in how the conquered were treated. Americans did not enter Japan and comit mass murder, mass rape, loot the country, and inhumanely torture the conquered Japanese – as Japanese soldiers did routinely everywhere in Asia and the Pacific that they went.

Is the level of education and knowledge so shallow around the world that this must be explained?

Where does this need to show everyone as equally guilty come from? Why? So we don’t have to be judgmental?

This has nothing to do with young Japanese today, or members of the Japanese race in general. This is simply history.




I have said all I will ever say on this because it is falling on deafe ears, but it erks me to see this latter day trend of rewriting history and coloring everything neutral gray.

Hawker, there is a diference between using a "Terrible" weapon to end a long ugly war, and comitting "atrocities" on civilians for pleasure.

I'll let you figure out the rest.

So,drop an atomic bomb on innocent womens,kids is not an atrocity?
Let me tell you something,atrocity is atrocity.Nanking,Hiroshima,Nagasaki,Dresden,Auswitz,Birkenau...etc...etc...
ALL THAT WAS ATROCITY!

But,just like fabertong says,this is witp and i love this game[;)]

ORIGINAL: hawker

Hawker, there is a diference between using a "Terrible" weapon to end a long ugly war, and comitting "atrocities" on civilians for pleasure.

I'll let you figure out the rest.

So,drop an atomic bomb on innocent womens,kids is not an atrocity?
Let me tell you something,atrocity is atrocity.Nanking,Hiroshima,Nagasaki,Dresden,Auswitz,Birkenau...etc...etc...
ALL THAT WAS ATROCITY!

But,just like fabertong says,this is witp and i love this game[;)]

No hawker it's not all the same - you are just demonstrating you're lack of ability to reason and use discriminating judgment.

You fail to understand the difference between atrocity for it's own sake and military necessity to end hostilities.

Between causing terror to rule and subjugate, and the unfortunate regrettable suffering of the innocent in war.

You are confusing the difference between killing and murdering. They are morally and legally separate concepts but you fail to understand the difference - and think you are being profound about it.

"I also must agree with Terminus that the movie has a BIG propaganda load, and is pretty much one sided."



I'm curious to know how you think it would be possible to make a film that wasn't "one-sided" when on one hand you have defenseless men, women, and children..., and on the other an army of bayonet- and sword-wielding thugs bent on raping and murdering as many of them as possible? What are the Chinese supposed to do? Bleed on the Japs?

And it's hard to call the portion shot by the Japanese themselves (evidently pleased with their handiwork) "Propaganda". Some of the garbage added in later is heavy-handed and propagandistic---but the basic truth is that the IJA behaved in a manner that would have done Tilly or Wallenstien proud. And was unfortunately in keeping with most of their behaviour during the entire war.

I was worried about this one from the start. Then I went out for the afternoon and the mice got to playing.

This one is locked.

This is a game forum, not a political forum. I'm sure you can find a political forum somewhere on the net, if that is what you seek.