WW2 Revisionist History (1 Viewer)

[tdubel]

In war, there will always be collateral damage, it is an ugly truth as well as a sad one. BUT, the Atomic Bombs saved a lot of American lives as well as the Japanese they would have been fighting. I for one am grateful with the decisions that were made in 1945 and this is being selfish, but I would not trade my Grandfather's life for even 1 innocent resident of Hiroshima nor Nagasaki, that opinion will never change.

TD

 

[jazzeum]

Here is link to the Ferguson book that I posted about in 2006, for those who may be interested.

 

[Rob]

In war, there will always be collateral damage, it is an ugly truth as well as a sad one. BUT, the Atomic Bombs saved a lot of American lives as well as the Japanese they would have been fighting. I for one am grateful with the decisions that were made in 1945 and this is being selfish, but I would not trade my Grandfather's life for even 1 innocent resident of Hiroshima nor Nagasaki, that opinion will never change.

TD

I agree.And your words are very similar to that of Bomber Harris.

'All the German towns put together arn't worth the bones of a British Grenadier'.

Total War calls for total commitment to win total Victory.

Rob

 

[VIRIATO]

In war, there will always be collateral damage, it is an ugly truth as well as a sad one. BUT, the Atomic Bombs saved a lot of American lives as well as the Japanese they would have been fighting. I for one am grateful with the decisions that were made in 1945 and this is being selfish, but I would not trade my Grandfather's life for even 1 innocent resident of Hiroshima nor Nagasaki, that opinion will never change.

TD

Hi,
I can understand your position on your Grandfather's life and I am absolutely sure I would be equally «selfish» ( I'd prefer to call it survival instinct ) if I were in your position. So I respect your point of view very much.
Even from a neutral point of view, one can always argue that many lives, American and Japanese, were saved with those decisions, which so were justifiable. But that, as you know is debatable, and will always be debated.
Your Grandfather must have had a very rich if hard experience and must surely be an extremely interesting person to talk to. Does he talk much about the war and post war Japan? The veterans that really went through this deserve a lot of sobering respect, can you picture us going through all that?

Best wishes for you and your Grandfather,
Paulo

 

[1879fanatic]

Rob,
Great quote"Total War calls for total commitment to win total Victory"
It ends when the opposing population (which includes the military and leaders) screams for an end. I gather some people believe that war is gentlemanly and that whoever wins the first duel is the winner.
Mike

 

[VIRIATO]

Rob,
Great quote"Total War calls for total commitment to win total Victory"
It ends when the opposing population (which includes the military and leaders) screams for an end. I gather some people believe that war is gentlemanly and that whoever wins the first duel is the winner.
Mike

Not me

Cheers,
Paulo

 

[tdubel]

Hi Paulo,

Grandad is now the ripe age of 89 and starting to look and feel that old. Over the years he has shared many of the positive (family friendly) experiences about his time in the Pacific. Unfortunately, even though quite a number of his POW's he speaks of with high regard (he apparently was very fair in his treatment of his prisoners and was well respected for that), he harbors general ill will toward Japan in general. I guess a lot of the atrocities he witnessed are hard to forget. I heard the Wrath of God when we purchased a Toyota 10 years ago.

Recently, he has shared the more non family friendly photos with me and I can only tell you War is Hell, there is no other way to describe the destruction and casualties that are depicted in these photos. He will talk somewhat about it when pressed, but I tend to not do that and just let him bring it up when he wants too. Like everyone else born long after those times, I will never understand it completely.

On a lighter note, he does like to "crow" about a young Filipino lady he befriended in Manilla while stationed there!

TD

 

[Harrytheheid]

Not me

Cheers,
Paulo

Nor me Paulo. I have to 100% agree with Rob and Mike's posts.
Just a wee side-note; Missus H is quarter Japanese and I only found this out recently. Turns out she's been scared to tell me cos she's heard me express such strong opinions related to Japanese atrocities committed from the early 1930's through to 1945.
I don't believe we should harbour any ill feelings whatsoever toward the present generation in Japan (or Germany either), but when you read books such as "The Knights of Bushido" by Lord Liverpool, or certain passages in Max Hastings book "Nemesis" (I think it might be called "Retribution" in the States), it's easy to understand why hatred for the Japanese Military during WWII possibly still lingers on.

Regards
H

 

[VIRIATO]

Hi TD,
I loved the ligher note. Fortunately there are always the ladies to lighten things up ( on 2nd thoughts, not always to lighthen things up ). Also loved the Toyota part.

Paulo

 

[VIRIATO]

Now talking about revisionism, what is an innocent civilian? Just to stirr things up, here's a book that might be revisionist: Hitler's willing executioners, by Daniel Goldhagen ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler's_Willing_Executioners ). Did the German people in general know about the Holocaust? If so, did they willingly cooperate? Or were they guilty of passiveness? Haven't read this book and really have no solid opinion on this, would love to hear your opinions on this.

Paulo

 

[Dickbuttons]

Pres. Truman was faced with the issue of either dropping the a-bomb or risking approximaely 1 million US casualties when landing in Japan and securing the Islands.


Speaking for myself, it was absolutely, a "no brainer."

 

[Rob]

Rob,
Great quote"Total War calls for total commitment to win total Victory"
It ends when the opposing population (which includes the military and leaders) screams for an end. I gather some people believe that war is gentlemanly and that whoever wins the first duel is the winner.
Mike

Thank you Mike

I agree with Harry on this.I have no grudge against todays generation of Germans as they cannot possibly be held to account for the crimes against humanity of their forefathers.In the same way i cannot be held responsible for crimes the British Empire carried out during its heyday.The Japenese question is slightly different in that the older generation of them was very slow in expressing regret for their atrocities.But once again we cannot hold the generation of today to account,but we can encourage them to learn the real story of their country's involvement in WW2 and not the version their own government give them.

What is it famously said 'Those that ignore the lessons of History are doomed to repeat them'(have i quoted right chaps?)

Rob

 

[tdubel]

Now talking about revisionism, what is an innocent civilian? Just to stirr things up, here's a book that might be revisionist: Hitler's willing executioners, by Daniel Goldhagen ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler's_Willing_Executioners ). Did the German people in general know about the Holocaust? If so, did they willingly cooperate? Or were they guilty of passiveness? Haven't read this book and really have no solid opinion on this, would love to hear your opinions on this.

Paulo

Well, never being one without an opinion , I have often thought about the question you pose and it is a good one regarding the German people. Little background, most of my family heritage is German and I am married to a Jewish gal, so if you read into that, it is a very interesting question. My opinion is that there were definitely German civilians who were in stride with Hitler's beliefs and they are as guilty as the Nazis, however, I do believe there is a large part of the population who was passive and just didn't want to know about nor recognize the atrocity. It is also amazing how engaging Hitler was and how he basically turned neighbors upon neighbors. In general, throughout history, it is fascinating how the common person can be turned into a sheep who just follows the flock, not knowing why or caring about the consequence. Again, "......ignore history, it will repeat itself".

TD

 

[Harrytheheid]

Thank you Mike

I agree with Harry on this.I have no grudge against todays generation of Germans as they cannot possibly be held to account for the crimes against humanity of their forefathers.In the same way i cannot be held responsible for crimes the British Empire carried out during its heyday.The Japenese question is slightly different in that the older generation of them was very slow in expressing regret for their atrocities.But once again we cannot hold the generation of today to account,but we can encourage them to learn the real story of their country's involvement in WW2 and not the version their own government give them.

What is it famously said 'Those that ignore the lessons of History are doomed to repeat them'(have i quoted right chaps?)

Rob

In the same way i cannot be held responsible for crimes the British Empire carried out during its heyday.

Ummm....what crimes would they be Rob...???

Okay, okay, Angry People, I'm only kiddin'.
Boer War, Zulu War, AWI, Sudan Campaigns, Aftermath of the Sepoy Mutiny (oops, sorry, "First War of Independence"), Amritser Massacre, Burning of The Summer Palace during the 2nd Opium War, and so on and so forth, ad nauseum.
I'm certain sure I've missed out heaps of other CRIMES perpetrated by my unspeakable ancestors.
Oh God, I feel so GUILTY. Please God forgive me for being a nasty Brit and make me pay for all the CRIMES my country committed during the appalling days of Empire.

H

 

[Rob]

In the same way i cannot be held responsible for crimes the British Empire carried out during its heyday.

Ummm....what crimes would they be Rob...???
Okay, okay, Angry People, I'm only kiddin'.
Boer War, Zulu War, AWI, Sudan Campaigns, Aftermath of the Sepoy Mutiny (oops, sorry, "First War of Independence"), Amritser Massacre, Burning of The Summer Palace during the 2nd Opium War, and so on and so forth, ad nauseum.
I'm certain sure I've missed out heaps of other CRIMES perpetrated by my unspeakable ancestors.
Oh God, I feel so GUILTY. Please God forgive me for being a nasty Brit and make me pay for all the CRIMES my country committed during the appalling days of Empire.

H

Now Harry, play nicely!!!.

(We can't be held responsible for all the ills of the world,i mean it wasn't a Brit who thought up 'The Dukes of Hazzard was it'?!)

Rob

 

[noli-poli]

Hi,
War is war, that's a fact.
An innocent civilian is an innocent civilian, wherever he lives. That's another fact.

Regards,
Paulo

But who started the war in the first place? It is the Japanese government ,bringing the war against the U.S. (treacherously), is responsible for the death of its citizens.

Schools in Japan today don't even mention in their books about WWII.

Read up on the Malate Massacre, Bataan Death March, The Rape of Nanking, Medical Experimentation in Manchuria, POW Camp in Cabanatuan (made into a movie..The Great Raid), British POWs at River Kwai

N-P

 

[damian]

There is a whole branch of ethics about this sort of thing. Most of it is based on the Just War Theory as worked out by St Augustine. There are a number of criteria to be met when declaring a war to be just. The question of bombing civilians is always a troublesome one. During WWII at one point the Germans were shipping Heavy Water from Norway to Germany across a lake. They used a civilian ferry to do so. The British used secret agents to blow up the ferry, knowing full well that there may be innocent passengers on board. The operators decided to blow the ferry up on a Sunday so as to minimize civilian casualties. In other words they tried to limit the loss of innocent lives as far as possible. This case is often used in ethics classes to discuss just war. Apart from WWII very few wars in history and certainly very few in the last century meet the criteria for being a just war. The other issue is moral equivalence. So is dropping the A bomb justified by the fact that the Japanese were the aggressors. Were innocent little old ladies in Nagasaki responsible for Pearl Harbor. The answer is no. If you say they were guilty by association then you are evoking the concept of collective guilt which is also problematic. Personally I believe that the only valid justification for the A bomb was the one Truman used, namely he was sparing the lives of many American soldiers who would have died in the invasion of Japan. One can argue against this by saying that he had not exhausted all options of getting the Japanese to surrender, but that is a matter for historians not ethicists. During apartheid there were bombs placed targeting civilians in Amamzimtoti and Durban. These were cold blooded acts yet the system of apartheid was a cruel and evil system. the apartheid security forces also used disproportionate force and extra-judicial killings and torture. The liberation movements claim that they were resisting oppression and therefore met the criteria for a just war. However bombing innocent civilians may be considered as excessive and disproportionate. It is really a slippery slope. At Nurmemberg the Allies accepted as a defense the argument that they themselves had committed a specific act. That was why submarine warfare on civilians was not a war crime as both sides had done it. Similarly bombing of civilians was not a war crime.
I don't have the answers and do not pretend to. It was a messy situation to be in and I think bomber Harris did what he thought best and right with the information he had.
However I do think we should be careful about just casually accepting things by saying things like "They had it coming" etc
Regards
Damian Clarke

 

[Harrytheheid]

Now Harry, play nicely!!!.

(We can't be held responsible for all the ills of the world,i mean it wasn't a Brit who thought up 'The Dukes of Hazzard was it'?!)

Rob

Nice one Rob...!!!

Cheers
H

 

[Harrytheheid]

There is a whole branch of ethics about this sort of thing. Most of it is based on the Just War Theory as worked out by St Augustine. There are a number of criteria to be met when declaring a war to be just. The question of bombing civilians is always a troublesome one. During WWII at one point the Germans were shipping Heavy Water from Norway to Germany across a lake. They used a civilian ferry to do so. The British used secret agents to blow up the ferry, knowing full well that there may be innocent passengers on board. The operators decided to blow the ferry up on a Sunday so as to minimize civilian casualties. In other words they tried to limit the loss of innocent lives as far as possible. This case is often used in ethics classes to discuss just war. Apart from WWII very few wars in history and certainly very few in the last century meet the criteria for being a just war. The other issue is moral equivalence. So is dropping the A bomb justified by the fact that the Japanese were the aggressors. Were innocent little old ladies in Nagasaki responsible for Pearl Harbor. The answer is no. If you say they were guilty by association then you are evoking the concept of collective guilt which is also problematic. Personally I believe that the only valid justification for the A bomb was the one Truman used, namely he was sparing the lives of many American soldiers who would have died in the invasion of Japan. One can argue against this by saying that he had not exhausted all options of getting the Japanese to surrender, but that is a matter for historians not ethicists. During apartheid there were bombs placed targeting civilians in Amamzimtoti and Durban. These were cold blooded acts yet the system of apartheid was a cruel and evil system. the apartheid security forces also used disproportionate force and extra-judicial killings and torture. The liberation movements claim that they were resisting oppression and therefore met the criteria for a just war. However bombing innocent civilians may be considered as excessive and disproportionate. It is really a slippery slope. At Nurmemberg the Allies accepted as a defense the argument that they themselves had committed a specific act. That was why submarine warfare on civilians was not a war crime as both sides had done it. Similarly bombing of civilians was not a war crime.
I don't have the answers and do not pretend to. It was a messy situation to be in and I think bomber Harris did what he thought best and right with the information he had.
However I do think we should be careful about just casually accepting things by saying things like "They had it coming" etc
Regards
Damian Clarke

Excellent post as usual Damian.
It's a very, very, thorny subject. I don't think there can ever be a complete black or white answer to this one, just a vague shade of grey.
Of course I myself have sympathy for Japanese civilians victims of the A bomb, and indeed victims of the firestorms caused by more conventional bombings. And then I think about some of the books I've read, The Rape of Nanking and Prisioners of the Sword being two others in addition to the two I mentioned in a previous post.
The conclusion has to be that in war there's no 100% right and no 100% wrong.

Regards
H

 

[OzDigger]

There is a whole branch of ethics about this sort of thing. Most of it is based on the Just War Theory as worked out by St Augustine. There are a number of criteria to be met when declaring a war to be just. The question of bombing civilians is always a troublesome one. During WWII at one point the Germans were shipping Heavy Water from Norway to Germany across a lake. They used a civilian ferry to do so. The British used secret agents to blow up the ferry, knowing full well that there may be innocent passengers on board. The operators decided to blow the ferry up on a Sunday so as to minimize civilian casualties. In other words they tried to limit the loss of innocent lives as far as possible. This case is often used in ethics classes to discuss just war. Apart from WWII very few wars in history and certainly very few in the last century meet the criteria for being a just war. The other issue is moral equivalence. So is dropping the A bomb justified by the fact that the Japanese were the aggressors. Were innocent little old ladies in Nagasaki responsible for Pearl Harbor. The answer is no. If you say they were guilty by association then you are evoking the concept of collective guilt which is also problematic. Personally I believe that the only valid justification for the A bomb was the one Truman used, namely he was sparing the lives of many American soldiers who would have died in the invasion of Japan. One can argue against this by saying that he had not exhausted all options of getting the Japanese to surrender, but that is a matter for historians not ethicists. During apartheid there were bombs placed targeting civilians in Amamzimtoti and Durban. These were cold blooded acts yet the system of apartheid was a cruel and evil system. the apartheid security forces also used disproportionate force and extra-judicial killings and torture. The liberation movements claim that they were resisting oppression and therefore met the criteria for a just war. However bombing innocent civilians may be considered as excessive and disproportionate. It is really a slippery slope. At Nurmemberg the Allies accepted as a defense the argument that they themselves had committed a specific act. That was why submarine warfare on civilians was not a war crime as both sides had done it. Similarly bombing of civilians was not a war crime.
I don't have the answers and do not pretend to. It was a messy situation to be in and I think bomber Harris did what he thought best and right with the information he had.
However I do think we should be careful about just casually accepting things by saying things like "They had it coming" etc
Regards
Damian Clarke

I feel we need some clarification here. The allied airmen (and perhaps the axis) did not just drop bombs on cities in a random fashion. They had specific aiming points be they harbour facilities, specific industrial factories or whatever was considered an important target. I know this fact personally because my father kept a number of the target maps (for want of the correct term) that were produced to represent the Radar image of the intended target. Granted the technology at the time did not guarantee accurate bombing, but the fact is that the majority of these guys did go to great lengths to ensure their bombs were on target.

Whereas the deliberate planting of remote detonated or timed bombs in civilian complexes by terrorists to cause maximum terror and injury to civilians is a very different matter - at least imo.