Matrix Games Forums

OK since there does seem to be some life in the board:

Let me toss this idea out.

When the Japs took Nanking they killed 30k
civilians. They were fighting a declared war
at the time.

When we destroyed Hiroshima, we killed 240k
(eventually)

So I am puzzled. Why do the Japs get the heat?
I see no essential difference. You can claim
that 'they' started it, but even if you accept such a lame excuse the honest man has to admit
that 240k is gross.

But all you hear is people hailing on them for
China. I doubt being incinerated in a radioactive
firestorm is much better than being bayonetted to death.

Ok a few things here....first off I think that this post would be much better in "The Art Of Wargaming" than here.

There is a book out called "the Rape of Nanking" don't know what the ISBN is but it should not be to hard to find....it details the deliberate killing of civilans just for the fun of it...unlike allied troops, the japanese seemed to really enjoy being cruel......and if I had the time I could name you hundereds of examples to back this up. Where as the people involved with the A-bomb were doing a job I can't say that they took any enjoyment from what the bomb did to civilans.

Additionally, the Japanese had demonstrated on many occasions that they were willing to take massive numbers of losses before they would surrender. I think that the dropping of the two atomic bombs woke the Japanese up to the idea that the Americans were willing to kill every one of them in order to force them to surrender, thus precipitating their capitulation.

The rape of Nanking, on the other hand, was just a meaningless display of cruelty against a conquered people.

Really this belongs in 'Art of Wargaming' all the really smart people post up there, they don't read the actual 'game' threads.

You make 'they started it' sound lame? I think one of the points was we (the allies) were going to kill them intill they stopped fighting. It was up to them how many people we killed. I think once they surrendered we stopped dropping bombs on them (and after another month or so even the Soviets stopped killing them) War is not a chess game played between two polite players both of whom shake hands when the game is over. Win lose or draw. Before they start down that road a nations leaders have to weigh carefully what they are about to embark on. In the examples you cited I think it is clear the Japanese were ultimatly responsible for both cases. Their troops killed the Chinese and their goverment gave the Allies no choice but to inflict more in the justified endeavor to prevent Japan from continuing to do it in other places. Now if you think this forum is 'active' to your posts just wait till you post one up where they belong.

In the war cabinet minutes they spent 12 min talking about Hiroshima, and 4.5 hours talking about the soviet drive into Manchuria.
It is my opinion that they had other things on their mind. I think that the 400k cut off troops
in Manchuria and the realization that they had been shafted by Stalin is why they surrendered.

You see, 'if' there is any chance/doubt at all
that the bombs didnt hasten the end, then that means it was simply mass butchery. Quicker perhaps
yes, but the end being the same.
Most people are reluctant to confront that horror
so they 'comfort' themselves with that illusion.

Then of course like Dresden we wanted to show
Stalin our awesome might so that he would know
what lay in store should he push things in Germany. It worked, he was very impressed.

I have read the art of war threads and frankly they dont talk about anything that interests me.
maybe you are correct, I never considered posting there. I am sure the moderator can easily move it.

You see I am a historian. The one thing I have learned is that NEVER assume what you hear/read
is gospel. ex post facto rationalizations are
especially suspect. But I was asking for your opinions on the 'moral' quality of the decision.

>'if' there is any chance/doubt at all that the bombs didnt hasten the end, then that means it was simply mass butchery.

I do not follow your logic on this at all. If there is any doubt that a military tactic might not bring about the precipitous surrender of their opponent then any attack that causes noncombatant deaths is "butchery?" And therefore Hiroshima/Nagasaki were "mass" butchery? Or is it that the use of what amounts to an area weapon (which it was known would kill non-combatants, although non-combatants were not the explicit targets... ground zero in both cases were military facilities or weapons plants) is the same as tossing infants into the air and bayoneting them for sport? If that's your argument I don't accept the apparent assumption that the deeds are moral equivalents.

Your comparison would be better made discussing the fire-bombing raids in Japan. The Dresden firebombing was largely a Bomber Command offensive. The US participation was daylight raids, the US targets were industrial and railroads, and the weapons used were HE. Even so, I'm not sure that comparing the firebombing raids (which, even in the British case, had some military objectives beyond slaying noncombatants) are the moral equivalent of the Asian holocaust.

"When the Japs took Nanking they killed 30k
civilians. They were fighting a declared war
at the time"

Japan never declared war on China, they always referred to it publicly as an incident in private it was known as 'the special undeclared war'
as a historian it's little things like this you should be aware of.