Dec. 7th...

Discussion in 'General Military Arms & History Forum' started by Guest, Mar 3, 2003.

  1. Guest

    Guest Guest

    polishshooter
    Senior Chief Moderator Staff
    Posts: 2445
    (12/7/01 10:08:22 pm)
    Reply | Edit | Del All Dec. 7th...
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I hope everybody took a moment today to "Remember Pearl Harbor..."

    And when I did today, I was wondering...20-50-100 years from now, will more people "Remember" December 7th, 1941, or September 11th, 2001...

    As rough as 9-11 was for us, I DON'T think it will lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans, and to our involvement in a global war in which between 40-80 million (They STILL can't agree on the figures!) of military and civilians died, and that so changed the face of the earth, and still directly affects so much we do today....

    But we didn't have live color cable TV reports at Pearl...
    We must make war as we must; not as we would like. - Field Marshal Kitchener, 1915

    LIKTOSHOOT
    Senior Chief Moderator Staff
    Posts: 3021
    (12/7/01 11:06:48 pm)
    Reply | Edit | Del Re: Dec. 7th...
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I just finished watching "Hell in The Pacific" on TLC (The Learning Channel) if you have not seen this doucumentary, it will take you aback if you can make the two hours. Very graphic live footage, you may hate all over again. Regards LTS
    America, we are the symbol of Freedom and Liberty......

    polishshooter
    Senior Chief Moderator Staff
    Posts: 2451
    (12/7/01 11:24:28 pm)
    Reply | Edit | Del Re: Dec. 7th...
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Oh, I'm not sure I "hate" per se, at least contempory Germans or Japanese, but every time I read about WWII I really can't STAND Japanese or Germans....

    Germans with that "holier than thou" attitude thinking their crap don't stink, and that they are SMARTER than everyone else, and that they are the seat of ALL European civiliztion since the Teutonic Knights, all the time being too STUPID or VAIN or DIABOLICAL, whatever to recognize a drooling madman leading them and their country to ruin, along with many of their neighbors to DEATH....

    Japanese with their total allegiance to the Emperor as a God, and willing to believe absolute obedience to cruel, inhumane, racist, traditions and doing whatever the current "little man" army colonel or General Prime Minister said to do was the way to show it, even up to torture, rape, pillage, and ultimately even ritual self-disembowelment...

    WHAT freaking jerks!

    There...I said it, even if it's politically incorrect...

    Now just MAYBE I aim it at WWII era Japanese and Germans,(NOT just Nazis, the everyday Germans must bear guilt too,) but every time I hear some Japanese or German apologist start to "revise" WWII history to "glorify" what they did I want to puke, as well as bang his head against something....

    And the Japanese STILL haven't faced their true atrocities of WWII...at least we made "high and mighty" German civilians bury the dead by hands from some of the Gas Camps at the end of the war...
    We must make war as we must; not as we would like. - Field Marshal Kitchener, 1915

    LIKTOSHOOT
    Senior Chief Moderator Staff
    Posts: 3023
    (12/7/01 11:47:45 pm)
    Reply | Edit | Del Re: Dec. 7th...
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Polish, I have seen most of these shows, but never this one. It will take you there and is told from both sides, up front and no holds barred. Stired up feelings in me and now I know sort of what my Dad spoke of for the first time.
    America, we are the symbol of Freedom and Liberty......

    warpig883
    Moderator
    Posts: 1476
    (12/8/01 12:12:46 am)
    Reply | Edit | Del Re: Dec. 7th...
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Look what the Japs did in China in the Rape of Nanking. Killed and tortured tens of thousands of womend and kids.
    Know what?

    polishshooter
    Senior Chief Moderator Staff
    Posts: 2459
    (12/9/01 8:54:36 pm)
    Reply | Edit | Del Re: Dec. 7th...
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Andgood the good old "Gentleman General Homma" listing to classical music in his HQ as the Bataan Death March is happening YARDS away, and people still believe he was telling the truth he didn't know what was happening, and he thought they were being treated and fed well because he had ordered his troops to treat them well, all the while knowing damn well the weasle colonel what's his name from Tokyo who was NOT under his orders was actually running the show and firing up the guards to do just the opposite...he musta had the Mozart turned up really loud not to hear the troops being beheaded or diemboweled by sword, or run through with the bayonet where they fell....
    We must make war as we must; not as we would like. - Field Marshal Kitchener, 1915

    obelix2
    V.I.P. Member
    Posts: 323
    (12/10/01 1:53:36 pm)
    Reply | Edit | Del beg to differ
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    No denying that the Bataan death march was an atrocity (though not the worst of those committed by the Japanese in their dizzying sweep of the first six months of the war); the Japanese were notorious for their contempt of anyone who would surrender. It's just that I find some credibility in Homma's claim that he was paying no attention to the POW situation; he had other things to do. I rather think that he was hanged less for atrocities committed by his troops than for having used third-line troops to easily defeat a force three times the size of his own (admittedly with total naval and air inferiority and commanded by a pompous ass).

    On the scale of atrocity -- I know I'm being cold-blooded here -- the sum of Japanese atrocities is barely a blip on the screen of senseless Allied fire bombings of German and Japanese cities. The people responsible for those might more justly have been hanged. But we won.

    Now to go even deeper into the pit of incorrectness -- it seems that anyone with a positive word to say for Hitler is automatically a committed Nazi -- Hitler was far from "a drooling madman". No question that toward the end of the War he had lost touch with reality almost completely (I say almost, for his suicide was a reasonable decision based upon fact) -- and here I leave out strings of incredible horrors which I am aware he was responsible for but which are not at issue at the moment -- but can you suppose that his popularity in Germany was entirely due to German self-delusion?

    Did he not (at whatever costs to those civil liberties that I value) take Germany from the depths of defeat and economic depression into a new prosperity and sense of worth? It seems to me he did rather better than Roosevelt on the second score. Was he not a magnetic orator with a communicable vision? I know that this is the worst kind to be in terms of damage done, but I am trying to argue that the nation of Goethe and Beethoven did not turn into a savage monster at the simple beck of a lunatic.

    There were highly placed officers in the Wehrmacht nonetheless who were plotting to remove him as early as 1935. That no serious attempt was made until 1944 is due not so much to his repression of dissent as to his successes internationally, against the belief and advice of the professionals. Another disclaimer: I am talking "success" on the practical not the moral level.

    Why do I think this is worth arguing? Possibly, to discourage the delusion that we might ourselves be forever immune to such a course of events.





    polishshooter
    Senior Chief Moderator Staff
    Posts: 2470
    (12/12/01 12:49:26 am)
    Reply | Edit | Del Re: beg to differ
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ah, OB, a GREAT topic to discuss...

    The firebombings? I agree wholeheartedly that they MAY have been unnecessary in hindsight, and most certainly cruel, BUT no one can dispute the fact that they were STILL conducted under the maybe mistaken but nonetheless accepted at the time "Strategic Bombing" campaign. And do you REALLY think ANYBODY in England would speak out against them after the GERMAN night fire raids? Or after the first "Vengeance" weapons were used?

    The difference, as I see it, is when allied troops, (OK, British, French, and American at least) took the city after it had fallen, there was NOT any systematic raping and pillaging and murders and using citizens for bayonet and beheading "practice."

    PLEASE do not stoop to "The Winners decide what is a war crime" argument, it is SO weak. I KNOW you see the difference between the "Rape of Nanking" and the firebombing.

    I suppose you want the crews of the Enola Gay and Bock's Car hung too? Or just the pilots?

    And to belittle what the defenders of Bataan and Corregidor did, DESPITE the treasonous MacArthur, is a little simplistic....the reason Homma had "too much on his mind" was the fact it was NOT "easy..."
    They held out MUCH longer than anticipated by either side...and the only way you could claim "three times as large" is if you count the Philipine Division(s). The ONLY Philippine troops properly trained and equipped were the "Scouts." The rest can be effectively discounted, as much as the "Phillipine Air Force..." (P-26s)

    And what TOE did YOU see that gave Homma "Third line troops?"

    Tokyo was breathing down his neck because he was so behind schedule...and which is why they sent sadistic Colonel whatshisname to "help," and instead ordered the death march and encouraged the atrocities...BUT even then, Homma SHOULD have known what would happen...he DID know the logistics of even moving them, ordered them to ship them on trucks even though he knew he had none or very few...his ONLY defense that would have worked is that he was STUPID, not "too busy," sorry.

    And yeah, Mussolini even made the trains run on time, I'll give him that...

    Come on, OB! The line of reasoning that says Hitler was good for Germany in ANY way is pure apologistic BS! IT's the other way around, Germany was good for Hitler. The German people CRAVE orderliness and obedience...Hitler played them like a fiddle from day one. Gave them EXACTLY what they wanted, unless of course your German nose was too long...

    And the plot? Simply to protect the "Honor" of the officer corps...AFTER they realized they were losing. And a half-hearted attempt at best...Those same "honorable" German officers followed Hitler like obedient slobbering lap dogs when he was WINNING. The only disagreement he got from OKW or OH during the first two years was how to conduct the war, NOT to stop it!

    THAT argument is the one that makes me want to puke most...almost as much as all the American Generals and Historians that played apologist for them immediately after the war...and sometimes to this day...

    The best paradox of German's of WWI and WWII is the same people who decried shotguns as "inhumane" and uncivilized introduced "Tactical" Phosgene, Chlorine, and Mustard, and the same people who cried "For Shame" over Katyn employed the Einzentruppen to do much WORSE to the general population in the same areas.

    Give me a break...

    But to your final point, I'm afraid I must agree...

    And it HAS happened here, and recently, although Thank God the Constitution survived, even though not intact...

    Clinton got elected and handily reelected by a stupid people also...all because he "gave them what they thought they wanted..." (Like Selfish ignorant sheep...)

    And our freedom and rights suffered more at the hands of that Socialist "Liberal" administration than any time since FDR...

    Hitler would have LOVED Clinton's National Socialism...



    We must make war as we must; not as we would like. - Field Marshal Kitchener, 1915

    Edited by: polishshooter at: 12/12/01 12:54:41 am

    obelix2
    V.I.P. Member
    Posts: 327
    (12/12/01 9:39:49 am)
    Reply | Edit | Del partial response
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    You indicate at several points that I'm using arguments employed by those who seek to glorify the Nazis or the Japanese. That is probably so (I don't usually come across the books of people who are trying to do that), but I know you are not accusing me of this. I am no apologist for what two of the most ruthless war machines in history did during their months of triumph. But to discredit an argument on the fact that it is employed by disreputable people is an ad hominem and does not refute it.

    I don't want anyone hanged, though I think most of those hanged after Nuremberg fully deserved it. You're completely correct that the behavior of American, British and French troops entering a conquered city was in total contrast to their opponents. I do note, however, that you left the Soviets off your list.

    I do think the Allied firebombings had the same effect on helpless civilians as the Axis invasions, though the latter was of course on a more personal level. No argument that the British had good cause for seeking vengeance (they got it in a 10 to 1 ratio), but they might have restrained themselves -- if not for humanitarian reasons, then practical: the aircraft and crews used in that way might better have been employed against the German communications system and in support of ground operations.

    I am not belittling the efforts of the defenders of Bataan, and what you say about the troops is correct. I don't have a reference handy, but I believe Homma was given for the most part overage reservists, since most of the better ones were engaged in China (and yes committing unspeakable barbarities). My point was that the Allies were in part taking out the frustrations pent up since four years before when the Philippines and, especially, Malaya, fell to inferior numbers.

    Since I pressed the wrong button, I no longer have access to the rest of your post, but I'd be glad to discuss any of it (and not necessarily in disagreement).

    Again, I refuse to accept any label that includes "Hitler apologist". I was only reacting to your description of Hitler as a drooling madman, pointing out that the German people -- woefully mistaken as they were -- had as a whole reason to think him much more than that; that their actions are otherwise inexplicable. The OKW's total subservience to Hitler is indisputable, but it didn't make up the Army; as I noted, there were plots against Hitler before the War began to go bad, and even before the War began at all.

    Given what Hitler did to his country and to the world, of course it is nonsense to argue that he was in any way good for either. I am only saying that the majority of Germans PERCEIVED something else and were able to delude themselves that the positive measures to revive the economy and self-respect of Germany more than offset the loss of civil liberties and the increasing persecution of Jews and other minority groups. At least until it was too late.



    Edited by: obelix2 at: 12/12/01 10:05:33 am

    Xracer
    Senior Chief Moderator Staff
    Posts: 1274
    (12/12/01 9:55:14 am)
    Reply | Edit | Del Re: partial response
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I feel that the firebombings were fully justified. Japanese war production was highly diversified. Much of it was conducted in thousands of small sub-contractor shops disbursed throughout the cities.....2 and 3 person machine shops, small assembly factorys, even small garment factories in people's homes.

    There's no way we could identify, and individually bomb, all of these.

    obelix2
    V.I.P. Member
    Posts: 328
    (12/12/01 10:09:35 am)
    Reply | Edit | Del There is certainly a better case
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    for the fire bombings of Japan in terms of disruptiion of their war machine. In Germany the effect of city bombing on production was fairly minor, and some of them were directed against targets of essentially no military value.

    LIKTOSHOOT
    Senior Chief Moderator Staff
    Posts: 3067
    (12/12/01 10:21:15 am)
    Reply | Edit | Del Re: There is certainly a better case
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Don`t mind me, as I love to just tag along on history stuff. not that well read in it but love it just the same....SOOOOO, keep it going. AND by the way, what if we had been fire bombed.....weren`t we also building out of homes so to speak, collection drives and such, and isn`t war, in it`s approach to destroy moral.....civilian and military.....civilian more so because of the numbers of supporters that back the military machines???? LTS sittin back.....
    America, we are the symbol of Freedom and Liberty......

    polishshooter
    Senior Chief Moderator Staff
    Posts: 2475
    (12/12/01 11:19:05 am)
    Reply | Edit | Del Re: There is certainly a better case
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Hey, OB, I WILL lighten up, you are a challenging and effective sparring partner, and I KNOW you well enough to know you know I would NEVER disparage your motives or positions. Hell, I have taken that SAME tack in arguments in the past, to stimulate discussion, there are plenty of "apologists" for this side too...

    But the thing people seem to miss, is that warfare IS fought by fallible humans in a fog without benefit of our hindsight...

    ...and one of my tenets is that MOST things done in the course of a "just" war to end it are amoral, not immoral.

    War is hell, we need to accept that from the get go, so picking and choosing small parts of it as worse than others is splitting hairs in my book...

    BUT I ALSO believe there IS a fine line between "atrocities" and accepted methods of warfare, and that perhaps we a blurring that line even further with our "modern" form of war crimes trials...

    In a "just" war, there is generally a "Good" side and a "Bad" side...the thing that most people. historians included, fail to see, ESPECIALLY about WWII, is that we were the "Good Guys..." Yeah, the "Good Guys" can do things wrong too, i.e., Vietnam, but that doesn't change the fact that 'intentions" are what makes the sides 'Good" or "Bad."

    "Moral equivalency" is probably what I get upset about most...yeah, MAYBE the Northern Alliance carrying on centuries old Afghan tradition of slitting the throats of captured Afghan enemies who failed to surrender before the battle when given the chance is barbaric, and unsettling to western "civilized" nations, BUT there is NO WAY it is "elevated to the level" (God I hate that phrase...) of having the best and the brightest engineers, bureaucrats and social scientists of a so-called "civilized" nation calmly designing, testing and building "efficient" methods for the "Final Solution..."

    Now I know you may think my Afghan analogy flies in the face of my pronouncements about the code of Bushido and Samurai that the Japanese used to justify there treatment of US prisoners...I do NOT. If an Afghan did it to OUR POWs, I would expect us to make the most VIOLENT response to convince them to stop, and it MAY INCLUDE some action that may be later seen as "atrocities..." Such as, just maybe, up to and including "firebombing and A-bombs" on civilian populations....

    When the Germans threatened to execute anyone caught with a Trench Gun in WWI, we threatened back a tit for tat execution of German prisoners...and it never happened...on either side...THAT was appropriate...obviously, since the Japs assumed their prisoners "dead" anyway, something stronger was needed, somehow...

    Lest I fall into the trap of sounding like an "American Apologist," yes, I DO think we have been involved in "unjust" wars...but surprisingly maybe, Vietnam isn't one of them IMO....

    We must make war as we must; not as we would like. - Field Marshal Kitchener, 1915

    Edited by: polishshooter at: 12/12/01 11:28:56 am

    obelix2
    V.I.P. Member
    Posts: 329
    (12/12/01 12:31:29 pm)
    Reply | Edit | Del I was afraid this was going to happen.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I agree in general with pretty much all you say here.

    WWII did a good deal more than anything else in the modern era to blur that line between legitimate warfare and atrocity. For example, the immorality of unrestricted submarine warfare -- which made us indignant enough to enter the First War -- wasn't even an issue in the Second. In fact, we used it ourselves, to considerable effect.

    Seems to me the issue about Vietnam is not its justice but its practicality, given the realities of guerrilla warfare and the restraints necessary to avoid broadening a local conflict into yet another world war.

    I do feel the need to dispute something, though. How about your tagline? I don't disagree with the idea, but since it is attributed to Kitchener, might I say he was dead wrong (and soon dead period, but that's another matter) about making war "as we must". What did "must" imply for that war? It was after all his personally raised army that ended up mangled amid German barbed wire during the First Day of the Somme.

    obelix2
    V.I.P. Member
    Posts: 330
    (12/12/01 12:43:36 pm)
    Reply | Edit | Del This is supposed to be a reply to LTS,
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    but I know it's not going to end up in the right place.

    Yes, weakening of civilian morale is a legitimate object in a modern war. In fact, that is one of the major causes for both the Russian collapse in 1917 and the German in 1918.

    Where we disagree is on the effectiveness of the bombing of civilian targets to bring this about. Goering thought it would work -- it had, after all, tactically, during the offensive of 1940, by clogging the movement of Allied armies with panicked civilians.

    But in the very different circumstances of the Blitz in England all he accomplished beyond wanton destruction was a STIFFENING of British morale, and a determination that Britain would never leave the War until it was won. Why should we suppose that the same ruthless policy that had failed with the Brits would work on the Germans?



    Xracer
    Senior Chief Moderator Staff
    Posts: 1275
    (12/12/01 7:52:32 pm)
    Reply | Edit | Del Re: This is supposed to be a reply to LTS,
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I agree with the Kitchner statement.....especially as it applies to bombing. The idea of "Daylight Precision Bombing" during WWII was perhaps noble....targeting military and industrial complexes...perhaps pragmatic, but it didn't work very well. After the war, the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey showed that only 1 bomb in 5 hit within a half-mile of it's intended target!

    The British carpet bombing was much more effective, and fire-bombing more effective still.

    Not nice, perhaps not humane.......but it damn well worked.

    obelix2
    V.I.P. Member
    Posts: 333
    (12/12/01 9:06:31 pm)
    Reply | Edit | Del Supporting the American version
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    American strategic bombing was not, as you say, very accurate. But we at least retained the idea of going after targets of military value.

    You say that the British system of all-out random destruction worked, but worked to do what? It certainly worked to eradicate cities and kill hundreds of thousands of civilians. What effect did it have, though, on German war production?

    Suppose that carpet bombing had been used instead on rear areas the Germans were attempting to move into during their retreat across France, further crippling their already inadequate communications network? Mightn't that have had a greater impact on shortening the war?

    polishshooter
    Senior Chief Moderator Staff
    Posts: 2485
    (12/15/01 9:09:08 pm)
    Reply | Edit | Del Re: Supporting the American version
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Well, OB, the Eighth DID that right before D-Day, concentrated on bridges, marshalling yards and railways, some reports had NO bridges standing within 50 miles of Normandy...and that may have been the ONLY trully successful use of strategic bombing in the entire war! And Lemay and Harris fought it to the end, too...Eisenhower had to ORDER it and stay on them...thought it detracted from the true goal, ending the war by airpower alone, by attacking the factories...

    And the further raids on transportation and rail was what actually caused all the POL shortages Germany faced at the end of the war, not necessarily production...what they HAD they couldn't MOVE...but Lemay and Doolittle insisted on going after Ploesti (again) and production/refineries more than the railyards..

    Now I'm sure OB you are aware of Bomber Harris and his dilemma...he did NOT have Fortresses, Liberators, the Norden, and was in the war 2 years earlier, when the Spit was a LONG range fighter...and his Bomber Command couldn't come within a mile of the target even when dropping LEAFLETS...his bombers could ONLY be sure of hitting a target as large as a city...NO WAY could he at all aim at and hit a factory if he wanted to...and he HAD to do something with the bombers or Coastal Command would get them all...some argue they should have, but BOTH arms eventually got enough...production of "strategic" bombers would have just stopped...

    "Area" bombing WAS the only solution, and assured SOME industry would be hit, but also the homes of the workers...dead workers, or ones fighting fires, cannot produce...I do NOT think the Brits considered their "area bombing" as a direct attack on morale...

    And before we lose sight of it, the Air War DID break the back of the Luftwaffe...the pilots, the planes, the emphasis on fighter production only, as well as night fighters, the massive resources devoted to Flak, Radar, interceptor pilot training, developing and testing wierd Jet and Rocket interceptors, and the fuel used in intercepts, and fighter pilot training, was resources and fuel that COULD have been used elsewhere...for example, those AA troops COULD have been on the front, (What would all those 88s and 128s have done around Caen, or in the East at this time?)and Nazi Tac Air was essentially non-existent in the West, and weak at best in the East...

    So those airmen did NOT die in vain, even if they usually DIDN'T hit their targets...

    BTW, I'm reading a new book called "Gunner...",a full color book showing the airwar from the eyes of the gunner and the gun positions...of every plane from the B-17 to the Avenger to the Bf110 to the Sturmovik...even the Savoia Marchetti! Its TREMENDOUS so far...starts with a repro of a real debriefing report from a 17 gunner after a typical attack...

    BTW, what is a HE 113? It's mentioned in the report, the gunners claimed it climbed faster than the 109s they faced that day...
    We must make war as we must; not as we would like. - Field Marshal Kitchener, 1915

    warpig883
    Moderator
    Posts: 1554
    (12/16/01 12:28:22 am)
    Reply | Edit | Del Re: Supporting the American version
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Polish, who is the author. I am a bookworm and cannot pass one up if somebody says it is good.
    Know what?

    Xracer
    Senior Chief Moderator Staff
    Posts: 1296
    (12/16/01 10:38:23 am)
    Reply | Edit | Del Re: Supporting the American version
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There was no He-113. The numbers go from 112 (a failed competitor to the Bf-109....only 30 built) to 114 (parasol-wing, single engine seaplane).

    Polish....I think most of those bridges were knocked out by the 9th Air Force's 25s, 26s, and A20s, rather than the 8ths heavies. I believe the 8th, at that time, concentrated on the railyards.

    obelix2
    V.I.P. Member
    Posts: 334
    (12/16/01 3:07:12 pm)
    Reply | Edit | Del I can't argue that strategic bombing had no effect
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    on German war production, though indirectly that also fell on the civilian population, since a major part of the effect was to channel resources from civilian goods to military. War production reached its highest levels in 1944.

    Given the Nazi ideology of home and fatherland, though, women were not employed in manufacturing, so the greater part of war-industry labor consisted of imported workers from the West (some freely at first, before the word got out on the treatment), slave-laborers, and Soviet POWs.

    I think the only unescorted strategic-bombing campaign that had the High Command gravely worried was the series of raids on the ball-bearing complex at Schweinfurt. Since ball bearings were essential to the war machine, the equipment could not readily be transferred underground, and the only other supply was one from Sweden, insufficient in any event, and uncertain.

    It is certainly understandable that those raids were abandoned as too costly -- costly they were, losing something like 500 B17s -- but after they ceased, production returned to normal. Given the casualties, it's not easy to argue that they should have been continued, but continuation might have crippled aircraft and vehicle production and likely have shortened the War.


    jimejones
    Member
    Posts: 2
    (1/4/02 9:11:44 pm)
    Reply | Edit | Del Victory erases guilt
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    America can't excape all guilt. We ineptly tried to sink the submarines of a country with which we weren't at war (Germany), We napalmed a few hundred school kids on Okinawa and sank many more en route to Japan, despite the arranged safe passage. We fired the first shots at Pearl Harbor (with much justification). We sorely provoked the Japanese before the war with unwise social, political, and economic actions. I found little open resentment against us in my several years in Japan, although they had many emotional reasons to despise us. Sometimes emotions blind people on both sides of the Pacific to the brutal logic of winning a war. Fire raids on Japan and the atomic bombs saved lives. A Japanese aquaintance was a girl 13 years old at the end of the war, and trained to sharpen a bamboo pole to use as a spear if we had invaded. The bloodbath that the invasion could have precipitated would have been worse for America than any we have yet known, and far worse for Japan. I do believe America was more humane than most of the belligerents of WWII. Yet, we were not perfect. We cannot hope to approach perfection if we are unwilling to honestly face our past.

    obelix2
    V.I.P. Member
    Posts: 350
    (1/7/02 4:13:01 pm)
    Reply | Edit | Del I may be contradicting myself,
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    but then this happens quite a lot. I am not opposed to the use of the atomic bomb against Japan -- at least the first one. The devastation and mass civilian deaths it caused were likely the lesser evil.

    What were the alternatives, since Japan showed no disposition to surrender?

    1) The two planned invasions, which would have cost the US perhaps twice the casualties sustained during all the rest of the war. We did not realistically have much to fear from schoolgirls with sharpened sticks (though it would have hardened a great many hearts to have to shoot them down), but Japan had many more formidable units reserved for the defense of the home islands. btw, however appalling casualties might have been among US units, Japanese civilians would have taken twenty times as many.

    2) Stand off the coast and blockade until food shortages forced a surrender (or, most likely, the death from starvation and pestilence of most of the population first). This would have confronted us with a number and quality of kamikazes dwarfing anything seen off Okinawa, where the losses were enormous.

    In the balance, I do not think Truman had any choice but to use the new atomic weapon. He had no way (nor did anyone else) to foresee the future cost to the world. If I fault Roosevelt and Truman in this regard, it is not for employing the Bomb but for not trusting its effectiveness enough. Their efforts to bring the Soviet Union into the War (at Yalta and Potsdam) -- unnecessary since the Bomb worked -- created many of the most severe political and military problems in the aftermath.

    polishshooter
    Senior Chief Moderator Staff
    Posts: 2591
    (1/9/02 12:47:13 am)
    Reply | Edit | Del Re: I may be contradicting myself,
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    And one other thing, OB...we really didn't have the troops! At least WILLING ones...when we started winding down the war in Europe and making plans to transfer Divisions to the PTO, many came close to MUTINY!

    For sure, we wanted to use experienced troops for Downfall, BUT they just wanted to go home, use the 4Fs and rookies to do it, THEY were finished with the war! And many people at home AGREED, politically, we may not have been able to support the invasion, much less militarily...

    In fact THAT had as much to do with the debacle in Korea later, as the use of the bomb...once we decided to "bring them home" from Europe, it became a landslide...demobilization went so fast, almost out of control shipping them BACK, coupled with the "points" system that got experienced men home and out of the military FIRST, even by 1946, the US military was a paper tiger, the occupation troops in Korea, Japan, Europe were all green...and unmotivated.

    How often CAN you wax a Tank?

    jime, good points, but again I go back to my original point...War IS Hell, no matter how you slice it...and no matter what anybody says, WE, and SOME if not most of our Allies, were the "Good Guys" in that one at least, revisionist History be DAMNED.

    Too many people forget that, when pointing out our "faults." And it is a short step from that to "moral relativism," that frankly, I have no time for....and niether should ANY true Historian...


    We must make war as we must; not as we would like. - Field Marshal Kitchener, 1915

Share This Page