WWII boming debate

[Dixie]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

I find the quote somewhat elitest. Must have been an airman. Of course, airmen look at the loss of 27,000 "first class" personnel as somehow worse than the loss of 27,000 "second class" (read GRUNTS) personnel.

I don't know/feel that it is elitist (it's probably not meant as such). Aircrew had to undergo a lot of training before they could fight. There is also the fact that for the most part they would be entering a difficult and highly technical job which not everyone was suited to. In comparison almost anyone could be trained to point a rifle at someone and pull the trigger...
I'm not trying to diminish the efforts etc of the infantry BTW.

[HansBolter]

Oh, I quite agree. The elitism imherent in the mentality of airmen is so ingrained that they have a tendency to say things in a callous manner without even meaning to.

My main point was that 10% losses is actully a pretty low number.

[Wirraway_Ace]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

I find the quote somewhat elitest. Must have been an airman. Of course, airmen look at the loss of 27,000 "first class" personnel as somehow worse than the loss of 27,000 "second class" (read GRUNTS) personnel.

Frankly, from the standpoint of comparison to land warfare, the approximately 10% casulaties suffered by the airmen look pretty damn light.

Come on Hans, a Brit of that era an elitest?? [:)] Though, the quote referred to RAF Bomber Command, I tried to draw the parrallel to the U.S. experience. Bomber Command losses actually approached 50%--and that would make even the hardiest infantryman or combat engineer shudder.

[anarchyintheuk]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

Joe D.

As much of the fighting in UV centers around Guadalcanal, how can it not be important news on this forum?

How would the renaming of Henderson Field effect UV? Besides it´s not even called Henderson Field in the game but Lunga. So in the game it was renamed a long time ago. Hmmm...don´t look at me. Maybe you should go campaign for the hex to be renamed ¨Henderson Field¨ in CF if it´s sooooo important for you and others.

anarchyintheuk

There's a difference between saying that the strategic bombing had no or little to no effect on German production and saying that the campaign was a waste of resources. Imho the first is wrong, the second arguable. Which is it?

Anarchy, if the strategic bombing campaign had very limited effect on Axis war production and vast resources put into it wouldn´t that make it both?

It is not simply a matter of looking at this from the point of view that it wasn´t very nice. What did it cost and what was the effect?

100,000 Allied airmen were lost doing this. That´s about 5 divisions right there. Then you have the entire force with all their equiptment, the people, training, on and on, everything included in this campaign. This was an enormous investment in resources.

You say it is wrong to say the strategic bombing campaign had little effect on Axis war production. Why do you say this? Facts, figures, speculation, just an opinion?

How do you come to this conclusion? I´m all ears.

When you get me those figures of war criminals convicted under Art. 6 for aerial bombardment of cities I'll go about looking up stats for the other thing.

[Dixie]

In answer to Hans.
That is true, both parts...
I would think that if someone had offered the US government a casualty rate of 10% for a campaign of the scale that was involved then they would have readily accepted.

As an aside, I would just like to add that airmen (at least in the RAF) refers to the non-commisioned lot who usually don't spend time in the air, rather than aircrew who are mostly officers.

[SuluSea]

The Axis powers didn't adhere to any past pacts, agreements or law between civilized nations.

The Axis powers quest to dominate the world by aggression and brutality in the end cost them dearly.

They reaped just what they sowed. No one should apologize for the "strategic" bombing.

Another Quote by General Sherman , his words ring true even today.

"War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out."

[Wirraway_Ace]

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

The Axis powers didn't adhere to any past pacts, agreements or law between civilized nations.

The Axis powers quest to dominate the world by aggression and brutality in the end cost them dearly.

They reaped just what they sowed. No one should apologize for the "strategic" bombing.

Another Quote by General Sherman , his words ring true even today.

"War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out."

I am not an Axis apoligist, but it would be a bit hypocritical if the Allies convicted V-1/V-2 planners for war crimes at Nuremberg under Article 6. Don't know if they ever did...

Of course, Sherman would have said something like, "you should have won the war you started, if you were wanting to dictate the terms of the peace..."

[SuluSea]

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

The Axis powers didn't adhere to any past pacts, agreements or law between civilized nations.

The Axis powers quest to dominate the world by aggression and brutality in the end cost them dearly.

They reaped just what they sowed. No one should apologize for the "strategic" bombing.

Another Quote by General Sherman , his words ring true even today.

"War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out."

I am not an Axis apoligist, but it would be a bit hypocritical if the Allies convicted V-1/V-2 planners for war crimes at Nuremberg under Article 6. Don't know if they ever did...

Of course, Sherman would have said something like, "you should have won the war you started, if you were wanting to dictate the terms of the peace..."

Please accept my humble apolgies Wirraway, I wasn't accusing anyone here of being an apologist.

It sounds to me people on the other side of the debate want apologies or for the citizens of the allies to rebuke the decisions made by the Commander in Chief/s during WW2.

I don't think you can judge the action of the two warring powers under the same guidelines.

The Axis powers had no use for any agreements forged by peace loving nations.


The Axis powers made the rules that the Allies had to utilize to win the war at the least cost to its people.


One was an aggressor the other defending its own freedom and freedom of other peoples.

[Ike99]

One was an aggressor the other defending its own freedom and freedom of other peoples.

Is that right? Let´s examine the history of the Pacific War a little closer.

Let´s go back to the beginning. As usual some people like to pick and choose some parts of history and ignore the rest so they can sit on a false moral high ground.

Up until 1853 Japan had been a strictly isolationist country and indeed had enjoyed 200 years of internal peace.

Then what happened?

Perry sailed a fleet of warships into Tokyo Bay with guns and demands. They demanded Japan to open up its ports to US ships. Japan refused.

Who is the agressor?

Perry returned to Japan with more ships and more guns. Japan again refused. So Perry threatened he would shell Tokyo if they didn´t open up their country and harbors to them.

So under threat of violence Japan was forced to sign a treaty with the US. This treaty forced them to provide provisions for American ships that docked in Japan.

It also forced them to agree to an exploitive trade agreement. Basically as much as they could force out of them from a cannon.

Then in came all the other imperialist powers to cut up Japan as they were cutting up the rest of Asia among themselves.

Japan was to become just another territory in someone elses empire. As well these foreigners were busy and undermined the Tokugawa Shogunate government and caused its collapse.

What would be expected when someone comes into someone elses house at the point of a gun and demand they open it up to them for plunder happened.

They militarised. Being an island nation with scant resources she launched wars of conquest to aquire the raw materials needed to build the big gun needed to defend herself.

But, she did no more and no less than those who threatened her had done when they were building an empire where the sun never sets and making their way across a continent to get their resources for their big guns. Japan just got a late start at it but caught on quick.

It should be obvious to all what would have happened to Japan had she not done this if you like to admit it or not.

Japan would have went the way of the...

¨Dutch¨ East Indies.
¨British¨ Hong Kong.
¨US¨ Phillipines.
¨British¨ Maylaya.
¨French¨ Indo China.

Just another colonial possession in someone elses empire. Another place to exploit. Another place to sip lemonade by tennis courts with aires of superiority.

¨Darling, it´s dreadfully hot today¨

You kicked in their door. You started the fight with them. The Japanese didn´t sail into San Francisco and make demands with cannon and threaten. They didn´t sail across the ocean and attempt to undermine your Sovereignty. This was done to them and they reacted.

So don´t open the history book at the chapter you like. You have to start at the beginning of the book. Now you know where that is with the war against Japan.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

One was an aggressor the other defending its own freedom and freedom of other peoples.

Is that right? Let´s examine the history of the Pacific War a little closer.

Let´s go back to the beginning. As usual some people like to pick and choose some parts of history and ignore the rest so they can sit on a false moral high ground.

Up until 1853 Japan had been a strictly isolationist country and indeed had enjoyed 200 years of internal peace.

Then what happened?

Perry sailed a fleet of warships into Tokyo Bay with guns and demands. They demanded Japan to open up its ports to US ships. Japan refused.

Who is the agressor?

Perry returned to Japan with more ships and more guns. Japan again refused. So Perry threatened he would shell Tokyo if they didn´t open up their country and harbors to them.

So under threat of violence Japan was forced to sign a treaty with the US. This treaty forced them to provide provisions for American ships that docked in Japan.

It also forced them to agree to an exploitive trade agreement. Basically as much as they could force out of them from a cannon.

Then in came all the other imperialist powers to cut up Japan as they were cutting up the rest of Asia among themselves.

Japan was to become just another territory in someone elses empire. As well these foreigners were busy and undermined the Tokugawa Shogunate government and caused its collapse.

What would be expected when someone comes into someone elses house at the point of a gun and demand they open it up to them for plunder happened.

They militarised. Being an island nation with scant resources she launched wars of conquest to aquire the raw materials needed to build the big gun needed to defend herself.

But, she did no more and no less than those who threatened her had done when they were building an empire where the sun never sets and making their way across a continent to get their resources for their big guns. Japan just got a late start at it but caught on quick.

It should be obvious to all what would have happened to Japan had she not done this if you like to admit it or not.

Japan would have went the way of the...

¨Dutch¨ East Indies.
¨British¨ Hong Kong.
¨US¨ Phillipines.
¨British¨ Maylaya.
¨French¨ Indo China.

Just another colonial possession in someone elses empire. Another place to exploit. Another place to sip lemonade by tennis courts with aires of superiority.

¨Darling, it´s dreadfully hot today¨

You kicked in their door. You started the fight with them. The Japanese didn´t sail into San Francisco and make demands with cannon and threaten. They didn´t sail across the ocean and attempt to undermine your Sovereignty. This was done to them and they reacted.

So don´t open the history book at the chapter you like. You have to start at the beginning of the book. Now you know where that is with the war against Japan.

At no point, NONE, did the Western imperialists ever unleash upon Asia the likes of that which sprang from that which you euphemistically brandish as the virtue of "Tojo's Loins." Go ahead and dig, IKE, but there is no parallel to Nanking, NONE.

That you'd insult the intelligence of EVERYONE that follows this forum with the insinuation that such is the case is as concise a statement of exactly who and what you are as you're harshest critic might ever have dreamed of.

But, WTF, go ahead and enlighten us, IKE. Tell us about the Dutch, or French or Brits surrounding a major city, and then having their officer corps lead hordes of European devils on a psychopathic pogrom the likes of which would have made a Himmler or Heidrich blush.

Go ahead, Ike. By all means, tell us all about it. Educate us to how the manifold slights that were visited upon the Japanese people were responsible for as degenerate an episode of inhumanity as the world has ever witnessed. Or did you not learn about that in school?

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[bradfordkay]

No nation whose military committed the Rape of Nanking can make any claim to moral high ground.

First of all, Nagasaki was the center of the Portugese - Japanese trade that started in the 1570's, so to say that Japan was nicely isolated before Perry so rudely forced trade upon Japan is a misleading statement. Aside from his visits, were there ever attempts to actually invade and establish an american base in Japan? Of course not. Trade was what the US was after - preferably in a beneficial ratio for us, but that's not exactly murder is it?


Japan was not forced to invade China, she chose to do so. Recent history shows that she could have purchased the raw materials rather than capture them, but that is not what Japan chose to do. Instead, she started a vicious, murderous campaign to steal the wealth of China - all under teh guise of an innocently named idealistic "Greater East Asia". I'm sure that the people of eastern China were ecstatic under the loving care of their Japanese brethren.

Give us a break, Ike.

I see it as there were three basic choices:

1. Invade Japan. What do you think the casualties would be for the Japanese people from that?

2. Maintain the blockade. If it had lasted another year, how many would have starved? In six months?

3. Drop the bomb. After we dropped the first one, we dropped a warning to evacuate the cities. No, the warning did not name the exact targets, it just said "Evacuate your cities now!"

That the United States was willing to allow the continuance of the imperial family shows how much we were willing to give in an attempt to end the war. Had the Japanese ever actually contacted the west during the late spring of '45 saying that they would surrender with the only condition being the continuance of the imperial family the allies would probably have accepted.

Did they? No... they discussed a fantasy of offering the Soviets territory in Manchuria and the Kuriles in exchange for brokering a peace. They didn't even give the soviets a chance to turn them down, but derailed their own negotiations with an even more fantastic dictum from the Supremem Command: The Fundamental Policy to be Followed henceforth in the Conduct of the War.

"With a faith born of eternal loyalty as our inspiration, we shall - thanks to the advantages of our terrain and the unity of our nation - prosecute the war to the bitter end in order to up hold our kokutai, protect the imperial land and achieve our goals of conquest."

Even in the last months of the war, Japan's leaders were thinking in terms of maintaining their brutal control of Asia. Do you really believe that there was going to be a peace achieved at less cost to Japan than was achieved through the bombing campaign?

[Wirraway_Ace]

Ike, while I have some sympathy for you being badly outnumbered on this forum, defending the Japanese decision to go to war and its general conduct during the war seems like misspent energy. While it is fair to remind students of history that the Allied conduct during the war could have been better, the Japanese conduct was so awful that defending it becomes intellectually offensive...Sorry to pile on...

While I am opining, I think the fairest assessment of the Japanese decision to go to war was they saw an opportunity to defeat the colonial powers in a resource rich area and they attempted to take advantage of the situation. Germany had overrun both France and the Netherlands, seemed on the verge of knocking out Russia and was likely to keep Britain's attention for many years. The U.S. was militarily weak for brief window of opportunity. If you were set on conquest, the situation was not going to get any better. They were further encouraged by a string of military successes over the previous 40 years and the high state of readiness of their armed forces. If they had attacked just the British and Dutch to dispossess them of their colonial holdings, it might have worked (at least as well as any military conquest really works in the long run).

As to pride...
At the end of the day, it seems to me that pride in the excellence of the Japanese armed forces during WWII must be tempered by their strong tendancy towards extreme brutallity and the nature of the decision to go to war. Same for the Germans. Regardless of all their positive attributes, they needed to be beaten, and both Japan and Germany (along with the rest of the world) are better for it. This coming from a guy who always played as the Germans while growing up...

[ILCK]

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace

Ike, while I have some sympathy for you being badly outnumbered on this forum, defending the Japanese decision to go to war and its general conduct during the war seems like misspent energy. While it is fair to remind students of history that the Allied conduct during the war could have been better, the Japanese conduct was so awful that defending it becomes intellectually offensive...Sorry to pile on...

I have no sympathy and his bombing question is a legit debate but now he's gone so far as to be a Japanese apologist? Sorry, the WWII Japanese gov't would be recalled as king scumbags of history except that Hitler and Stalin have been busy sucking up all the historical bad karma. The Japanese invaded, w/o provocation, China. Killing 20-35 MILLION Chinese - most of them civilians. The Japanese "Kill All", "Burn All" and "Loot All" policy in 1942 alone enslaved 10m Chinese and killed 2.5m. Hirohito authorized more than 300 specific uses of chemical weapons,

They enslaved millions more Asians - 10m in Indonesia alone and the death rate was 75 of every 100 slaves so do the math on that casualty rate. They subjected millions of Indonesians and Vietnamese to starvation and death during a preventable famine in 1944. They had the same sort of awful racial hierarchy that the Nazis had. They tortued PoW's, subjected them and civilians to chemical and biological experiments all that in addition to being a grotesque totalitarian system at home.

The overall body county of Japanese imperialism is even greater than Nazi Imperialism and reflected a deliberate and systematic policy of aggression, racism and violence.

[tocaff]

To bad, he's back and the tranquility has been upset again.  People, he doesn't answer questions and has a deep hatred of the USA, Great Britain and who knows what other countries.  Nanking?  Hell, we all know the western powers forced Japan to invade China so Nanking was probably the USA's fault somehow.  Maybe the green button was created with a certain someone in mind?  

[GaryChildress]

Obviously two wrongs don't make a right but it appears the Allies were not alone in strategic bombing in Asia.

The Japanese strategic bombing were done independently by the Imperial Japanese Navy Air Service and the Imperial Japanese Army Air Service. These were mostly done against large Chinese cities, such as Shanghai, Wuhan and Chonging, with around 5 000 raids from February 1938 to August 1943 in the later case.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_ ... rld_War_II

Did strategic bombing have any effect on the outcome of the war in the Pacific? It looks so.

Emperor Hirohito's viewing of the destroyed areas of Tokyo in March 1945, is said to have been the beginning of his personal involvement in the peace process, culminating in Japan's surrender five months later.

Source: Ibid.

I think if the Allies had simply stuck to bombing ships and tanks on the battlefield the war quite probably could have gone on forever. I don't think Japan would have surrendered even if they were down to their last tug boat. Why surrender? Japan was preparing it's civilian populace for a fight to the death if the US invaded.

In October 1945, Prince Fumimaro Konoe said that the sinking of Japanese vessels by U.S. aircraft combined with the B-29 aerial mining campaign were just as effective as B-29 attacks on industry alone[28], though he admitted that "the thing that brought about the determination to make peace was the prolonged bombing by the B-29s." Prime Minister Baron Kantarô Suzuki reported to U.S. military authorities that it "seemed to me unavoidable that in the long run Japan would be almost destroyed by air attack so that merely on the basis of the B-29s alone I was convinced that Japan should sue for peace."

Source: Ibid.

I don't know. Tough decision. Bomb the enemy into submission from the air or send close to 1 million US soldiers to invade Japan on the ground where surely many would be killed. If I were a US G.I. in 1945 I would be thankful that the war ended without me having to fight my way through the streets of Tokyo.

EDIT: Typo.

[Ike99]

People, he doesn't answer questions and has a deep hatred of the USA, Great Britain and who knows what other countries.

Tocaff, I do not have a deep seated hatred for USA & Britain. Why do you say this and how would you know anyways?

Maybe you have a grudge against me because of the signs against USA you see where you live so you assume everyone puts up these signs?

But in these topics here you seem to have a very polarised view of things. One side was very good and did nothing wrong while the other side was very bad and did everything wrong.

And if you scroll up you´ll see I asked you ¨What Questions¨ and you didn´t reply.

ILCK & Wirraway_Ace. What do you mean ¨apologist¨?
I´m not exactly sure what this word means. I looked up a definition and it doesn´t seem to fit here. You´re saying I aplogise for everything Japan did?

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

People, he doesn't answer questions and has a deep hatred of the USA, Great Britain and who knows what other countries.

Tocaff, I do not have a deep seated hatred for USA & Britain. Why do you say this and how would you know anyways?

Maybe you have a grudge against me because of the signs against USA you see where you live so you assume everyone puts up these signs?

But in these topics here you seem to have a very polarised view of things. One side was very good and did nothing wrong while the other side was very bad and did everything wrong.

And if you scroll up you´ll see I asked you ¨What Questions¨ and you didn´t reply.

ILCK & Wirraway_Ace. What do you mean ¨apologist¨?
I´m not exactly sure what this word means. I looked up a definition and it doesn´t seem to fit here. You´re saying I aplogise for everything Japan did?

And that, gentleman, is Ike's troll for the day.

Throw out a bunch of B.S. and watch the great-unwashed respond.

Very manipulative.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[tocaff]

I don't know what he posted as I green buttoned him and I don't care so if it concerns me he should save the key strokes knowing I won't see it.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

But in these topics here you seem to have a very polarised view of things. One side was very good and did nothing wrong while the other side was very bad and did everything wrong.

Take a very, very long hard look into the mirror. You are the one claiming the Japanese did nothing wrong and were merely protecting themselves from the imperialistic world powers by launching an imperialistic drive of their own.

No one here has ever claimed the Allies were paragons of virtue. You need to stop embarrassing yourself with such hollow baseless claims.

Tocaff, Ike seems to suffer from the same "anti-western powers" malady commonly found amongst the populations of third world countries. Granted, during the ages of imperialism of the European powers many third world countries were exploited economically and many of the peoples of those countries were denied what many in the world today have finally come to recognize as a fundamental right - self determination.

Even the USA made an ill considered (from my point of view) foray into imperialism driven by Teddy Roosevelt's desire for America to "step up onto the world stage". However, by the time of WWII American policy had already moved back towards our countries roots of "anti-emperialism". Teddy's cousin (or is it nephew) Franklin consistently worked to thwart what he and Marshal saw as attempts by Britain to drag America into supporting operations to regain Britian's lost "colonies". There were already plans to release the Phillipines from American administration and give them their freedom before the war started.

Instead of pursuing the noble course of freeing Asia from the bonds of imperialism, the modern Japanes state, modeled on the western powers by the way, chose a course of imperialism for itself. The main difference between the imperialsim of the western powers and the imperialism of the Japanese was that the main drive of the imperialism of the western powers was for economic purposes...ie...markets for their goods, while the unique brand Japanese imperialism was the complete and total subjugation and domination of the peoples of the region. The Japanese didn't want to force trade on soutrheast Asia the simply wanted to rape it wholesale. The brutality and sadism with which they pursued this goal guarantees they will be reviled for it forever.

What Ike persists in demonstarting that he is completely blind to is the difference between a Brit treating an Indian like a second class citizen in his own country and a Jap raping and slaughtering a Chinese for the mere sadisitic pleasure of it!

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

... ILCK & Wirraway_Ace. What do you mean ¨apologist¨?
I´m not exactly sure what this word means. I looked up a definition and it doesn´t seem to fit here. You´re saying I aplogise for everything Japan did?

Ike, "apologist" is a noun, not the verb "apologize" or asking forgiveness.

apologist: A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution.

Apologetics is the field of study concerned with the systematic defense of a position. Someone who engages in apologetics is called an apologist or an "apologete". The term comes from the Greek word apologia (απολογία), meaning defense of a position against an attack ...

In your case, Ike, you are perceived to be an apologist for the institutional policies and practices of Imperial Japan.