64 years since Hiroshima...

[throdgrain]

Well you have the right to have your opinions because we won the war. Lucky old you

 

[DaGaffer]

You miss my point Tom, in both instances the war was pretty much won but we decided to launch indescriminate attacks against civilian targets anyway. I am not saying those kind attacks aren't valid in a different context but in these two instances they were unnecessary attacks right at the end of campaigns which were all but effectively won.

The Japanese war wasn't "effectively won". Not even close. The Allies had three options (I'm discounting conditional surrender for the reasons I mentioned earlier); land assault, blockade, or use the bombs. One, or a combination of those options was not only necessary, but inevitable. In the various memoirs of Macarthur, Nimitz, LeMay etc. they all still claimed their service could have done the job, and they're probably right, but a Land Assault was pegged at 1M allied casualties (and nothing has turned up since to downplay that estimate); sure a lot of those lives would have ended up being Soviet rather than American, but that's still a big number. Option 2 was blockade, which might well have worked, and historians have certainly backed the US submarine campaign as decisive, but it could have been 1946 or even 1947 before it played out, and the Soviets would simply have invaded before then anyway, and more important if ethics are your main consideration, the Japanese civilian deathtoll from starvation and disease would have been horrific, probably in the 10s of millions. So the bomb makes its own case.

As for Dresden, it was a military railway crossing and a legitimate target, but probably didn't need the follow-on US raids the next morning. The difference between allied and German bombing is that the allies were better at it, and had got to the point where they were running low on targets. C'est La Guerre. (Although I have to admit biographies of Arthur Harris don't help the allied case in respect to Dresden).

 

[Bugz]

You miss my point Tom, in both instances the war was pretty much won but we decided to launch indescriminate attacks against civilian targets anyway. I am not saying those kind attacks aren't valid in a different context but in these two instances they were unnecessary attacks right at the end of campaigns which were all but effectively won.

Yeah right lol.

Invading Japan effectively would have taken months if not years by the U.S and no doubt the Soviet would have come in to intensify things further. The Japenease were a bunch of ruthless bastards & would no doubt fight to the end and encourage as much pain and death as possible to ensure they won.

As someone said above - it was a necessary evil in face of the fact we could have had a war that stretched on even longer, against a country that is fkin hard to invade.

 

[Zenith]

"Necessary evil"....

How the fuck does things done by the allies count as "Necessary evil" when we hunt and criminalize "terrorists" on a daily basis, and take the moral highground against, pretty much, everyone? The logic doesnt hold very long

 

[Wij]

"Necessary evil"....

How the fuck does things done by the allies count as "Necessary evil" when we hunt and criminalize "terrorists" on a daily basis, and take the moral highground against, pretty much, everyone? The logic doesnt hold very long

The fact that you use stuff that happens now to condemn stuff that happened 60 years ago shows you've no grasp of logic in the first place.

 

[Tom]

You miss my point Tom, in both instances the war was pretty much won but we decided to launch indescriminate attacks against civilian targets anyway. I am not saying those kind attacks aren't valid in a different context but in these two instances they were unnecessary attacks right at the end of campaigns which were all but effectively won.

So, what would you have done?

 

[throdgrain]

He would have said "can't we all just be friends?" then wept a little bit, whilst clutching his manga comics

 

[old.Tohtori]

"Necessary evil"....

How the fuck does things done by the allies count as "Necessary evil" when we hunt and criminalize "terrorists" on a daily basis, and take the moral highground against, pretty much, everyone? The logic doesnt hold very long

Because the allies won

History is written by the victors.

Damn Victor, bastard of a man.

Both allied and axis did the same things, torture, killing innocent, rapes, immoral actions to say the least. Because we're living in an allied world, we get told about the axis evil. Common man, the soldiers, both soldiers followed orders. Both soldiers were there defending what was right. Both soldiers fought for family and country.

There's no difference, just winners and at the end of day, the only difference is the language.

 

[Tom]

Both soldiers were there defending what was right.

Of course. The concentration camp guards were only doing their jobs.

 

[russell]

Power = Corruption. Always imo

A minority of men (those 'in power') are meglomanic and ruthless and they lack/lose basic human compassion.

They believe that they are acting for the greater good or are 'advised' this way (this is debatable depending on your perspective- as we have demonstrated in this thread)

Which is why there will always be hideousness and War and pain and destruction and our world can be such an awful place. Hiroshima is such an example and countless other atrocities, some mentioned here, have happened and worse will happen, undoubtably.

Wow -what a cheery post Ive made to this cheery thread

 

[old.Tohtori]

Of course. The concentration camp guards were only doing their jobs.

Hey, way to miss a point to get some lovely hatred in. But since you asked;

Yes, yes they were. They were soldiers who followed orders.

Much like guards at Iraq terrorist holding cells, guards at quantanamo, etc.

 

[Tom]

Right. Because putting bodies in ovens is the same as holding people in prisons.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Right. Because putting bodies in ovens is the same as holding people in prisons.

I'm not getting on that rail with you, sticking to what i said thank you.

 

[cHodAX]

He would have said "can't we all just be friends?" then wept a little bit, whilst clutching his manga comics

Fuck off, I don't do comics! A good weep now and then is ok though.

 

[cHodAX]

So, what would you have done?

Dresden did not bring the war to an end any sooner, all it did was trade 40,000 civilian lives for potentially a few thousand military lives. We could have easily just targeted the industrial complexes around the city but instead we sent a massive force and effectively carpetbombed large swathes of residential areas.

Now don't get me wrong, Germany had targeted civilians from day 1 and so in effect they are fair game for all but the Dresden bombings doesn't sit well with me because it was not really needed. The factories were legitimate targets but the bombs dropped into the middle of residential areas served no purpose other than killing innocents. It wasn't right when Germany did it to our cities like Coventry and it wasn't right when we reciprocated but more than that it didn't really help us get to Berlin any faster which is why I question the nesscesity.

As for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, yes they certainly ended the Pacific war sooner but this time I have to question the validity of the targets. The cities themselves were important to Japan's war effort but the bombs were dropped into the centres of the cities rather than at being aimed at military camps or production facilities. Of course with the blast radius of a nuke some military and industrial targets were destroyed but most of the military camps around the city survived and surely they should have been the primary targets. Infact why were the islands around Japan that housed massive military bases not targeted instead? That is easy to answer of course, lesser impact upon the hearts and minds of the Japanese people. The American's knew that to crush the spirit of a proud people meant you had to commit a certain degree of genocide against them, just as they had done against the native american tribes a century before.

I will be honest now, targeting civilians of any kind just doesn't sit well with me but killing civilians en masse just for the impact it will create internationally disturbs me greatly. Maybe that makes me a yogurt knitter but I can not see any justification for it no matter the cost.

Tom, you asked me what I would have done differently. Obviously I am no expert on the events, just a normal bloke who has read a little bit on the subject so I cannot give any definitive answer and back it up with facts or a coherant agruement but personally the blockade answer would seem the most humane. Starvation was mentioned before but most of Japan was agricultural at that point in time and so famine would not have been as widespread as has been claimed. The blockade would have starved Japanese industry of metals/fuel/rubber for a start and without those it was just a matter of time before the military collapsed or got to a certain point where they could not mount a serious defence because those materials could not be sourced internally in Japan.

 

[Tom]

Blockades are expensive though, and take a long time to have the desired effect, which isn't always the guaranteed outcome.

The US had killed a reported half a million people by conventional bombing of Japan. I wonder how many more would have died, were it not for the dropping of these two weapons? Even after the first was dropped the Japanese refused to accept unconditional surrender.

Its very easy to sit in the comfort of our homes and judge the people who made these decisions. I say judge them by the standards of their time. Julius Caesar had 40,000 people killed in Avaricum, you don't see many people complaining about that.

 

[00dave]

Both allied and axis did the same things, torture, killing innocent, rapes, immoral actions to say the least. Because we're living in an allied world, we get told about the axis evil. Common man, the soldiers, both soldiers followed orders. Both soldiers were there defending what was right. Both soldiers fought for family and country.

As per usual you couldn't be more wrong, the only reason the allies were responsible for killing innocents, torture and rape is because of the Russians and everybody is aware of that, it's well documented. The majority of soldiers and civillians wanted to surrender to the british as we were treated prisoners better than the other allies. I once met a veteran who was an armoured car gunner who recalls a nursing station of about 70 women and 10 men surrendering to the 3 British soldiers because they were afraid of what the Russians might do to them.
Also the German soldiers fighting for family and country would often find themselves on the harsh Eastern front, they were soldiers, the rest were mostly Nazis.

Now don't get me wrong, Germany had targeted civilians from day 1

Actually that's not true,at the start of the war both British and German bombers only targeted military targets, the result was that RAF bases were getting torn up and fighters were having difficulty getting in the air. Then one night a returning German bomber dropped his bombs in the dark which landed on a civillian population (quite possibly London but don't quote me on that). In retalliation British bombers bombed Berlin, Hitler got pissed off because he thought we started it and so ordered the bombings of civillian targets. It was one of his first big mistakes as this gave the RAF bases the breathing space they needed to win the battle of Britain.

the blockade answer would seem the most humane. Starvation was mentioned before but most of Japan was agricultural at that point in time and so famine would not have been as widespread as has been claimed. The blockade would have starved Japanese industry of metals/fuel/rubber for a start and without those it was just a matter of time before the military collapsed or got to a certain point where they could not mount a serious defence because those materials could not be sourced internally in Japan.

Blockades take a long time to work, a very long time. Also an efficient and ruthless nation like Japan at the time would have stretched their resources a long way. Just look at their disreguard of the Geneva convention, forcing POWs to build their railways through dense jungle, have you any idea how much money and resources that must have saved them.

 

[ECA]

Blockades are expensive though, and take a long time to have the desired effect, which isn't always the guaranteed outcome.

The US had killed a reported half a million people by conventional bombing of Japan. I wonder how many more would have died, were it not for the dropping of these two weapons? Even after the first was dropped the Japanese refused to accept unconditional surrender.

Its very easy to sit in the comfort of our homes and judge the people who made these decisions. I say judge them by the standards of their time. Julius Caesar had 40,000 people killed in Avaricum, you don't see many people complaining about that.

Avaricum had it coming they opposed the OLED sky roof.

 

[old.Tohtori]

As per usual you couldn't be more wrong, the only reason the allies were responsible for killing innocents, torture and rape is because of the Russians and everybody is aware of that, it's well documented. The majority of soldiers and civillians wanted to surrender to the british as we were treated prisoners better than the other allies. I once met a veteran who was an armoured car gunner who recalls a nursing station of about 70 women and 10 men surrendering to the 3 British soldiers because they were afraid of what the Russians might do to them.
Also the German soldiers fighting for family and country would often find themselves on the harsh Eastern front, they were soldiers, the rest were mostly Nazis.

Normal view, and well documented...by the victors.

All i'm saying on the subject.

 

[00dave]

Normal view, and well documented...by the victors.

All i'm saying on the subject.

No, documented by both the victors and the losers. Take into consideration the fact that the Germans of today avoid the subject of the war, they know full well that what their country was responsible for was very very wrong. And did you know that some German POWs actually enjoyed their treatment in Britain so much that they opted to stay after the war had ended.

 

[throdgrain]

Normal view, and well documented...by the victors.

All i'm saying on the subject.

Such a prattish thing to say

 

[Vintersorg]

I can't agree, just like the firebombing of Dresden the nukes on Japan were not needed, Japan had all but lost the war and targeting civilians to force a surrender is fucking horrific.

Oh really?
Japan killed between 10 million and 20 million chinese in 5 years.
How many tens of thousands of Chinese alone would have died if the war had dragged on just a few more months?
now add to that the Allied troops, Axis troops, and civilians in all other occupied territories who would have died...
That would have been way more than the number of dead because of the nukes.

At least, that's just my opinion

 

[Raven]

Such a prattish thing to say

Its usually true though, history is written by the victor.

Though since the advent of news media this is not so true (including WW2)

 

[DaGaffer]

Its usually true though, history is written by the victor.

Though since the advent of news media this is not so true (including WW2)

Its a bit of a cliche tbh. In the west there's no shortage of contrary perspectives, even during wars. There's been a shitload of historical analysis of the relative vices and virtues of the allies in WWII, particularly from British authors; read Max Hastings or Antony Beevor for example; neither pull any punches about allied behaviour and skewer a lot of propoganda and "Hollywoodisation" of WWII.

The biggest risk when looking at WWII, as certain people on here are prone to do, is judge 1940s behaviour through a 21st century lens, none of the people back then were like us; their thinking was shaped by an experience utterly alien to ours.

 

[Tom]

The people loosely described as Celts used to have sex with horses. Perfectly natural by the standards of their day.

 

[cHodAX]

The people loosely described as Celts used to have sex with horses. Perfectly natural by the standards of their day.

Scotland is a big place with a small population, it can get lonely up there...

 

[mr.Blacky]

and that is now stolen for another forum and changed Scotland for Ireland

 

[Ch3tan]

"Necessary evil"....

How the fuck does things done by the allies count as "Necessary evil" when we hunt and criminalize "terrorists" on a daily basis, and take the moral highground against, pretty much, everyone? The logic doesnt hold very long

What is your magic solution that would have ended the conflict then? If you live in a world where there is only right and wrong then you are very naive. Often times your choices are not straight forward, and you are forced to choose between the lesser of two evils.

Also there is a vast difference between deaths during a time of war, and terrorists targeting civilians. I'm not justifying war here btw, just trying to point out how flawed your argument is. Also the fact you are comparing soldiers to terrorists is pretty disgusting. Soldiers do a job to protect their country and people, terrorists cause pain to further a extreme political or religious agenda that the majority of their people may not even agree with.

 

[Ch3tan]

Normal view, and well documented...by the victors.

All i'm saying on the subject.

Also toht, stop being a prat. If you have a view make it known, none of this vague "you wouldn't like what I am going to say, but I'll say a little and then not discuss it" bollocks. Either make your point or say nothing at all in the first place. It's the worst kind of trolling.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Also toht, stop being a prat. If you have a view make it known, none of this vague "you wouldn't like what I am going to say, but I'll say a little and then not discuss it" bollocks. Either make your point or say nothing at all in the first place. It's the worst kind of trolling.

I made my point earlier already.

Propaganda effects every day news, victors make the history.

The reason we hear less about allied monstrosity is because the events are not as well recorded.

What Raven said; "Though since the advent of news media this is not so true (including WW2)" is true, in the WW2 era especially, propaganda forced the media to report what was fitting.

Hitler was a maniac(at some points), even as a hugely successful leader, the regular soldier on the front was as much as a human as the allied soldiers. Nazis weren't even considered bad before Hitler had his way with the concept.

If Churchill had ordered a force attack on another nation with "any means necessary"(this meaning civilian casualties etc), the regular soldier wouldn't have blinked twice to follow those orders.

It goes on even today; soldiers follow orders, that's the job. If you don't, well, you know what happens these days, imagine back then. You got shot.

So in essence; while there are clear monstrosities done by the axis, i wouldn't dismiss the possibility of some underhanded bad stuff done by the allied.