@TG:
Yeah, there’s a difference between military strategy and personal ethics (Good example being the damnYankee, William T. Sherman).
TG:
But don’t you think military commanders ought to be held to the highest moral standards? After all, these guys don’t just “go away” after a war, they stay on as powerful figures–as both W.T. Sherman and N.B. Forest show. W.T. Sherman devastated the South, and the North had little or no ability or desire to invest in “reconstruction” (political expedients aside). He also hated Native Americans with a passion (even though he was named after one) and commented on his visit to the 1870 front in the Franco-Prussian War as attache to the Prussian General Staff that he wanted to see “more refugees, more burning villages”. Morals were of no consequence to this guy–the object was to WIN no matter what the cost or who (on the other side) it hurts.The war might indeed be shorter, but it certainly will be bloodier and more painful for all involved…
bangalore:
Then you’ve got everybody’s “best friend” Nathan Bedford Forest. So this guy was a tenacious soldier and a military visionary (he was). But a peace involved with this fellow would be (and in fact was) an absolute nightmare! I don’t care whether he could stomach the “violence” of the KKK agenda–he helped to START it; in fact his name recognition was a powerful inducement for early members to join! He HATED AFRICAN-AMERICANs and worked to secure their “second-class” status in the South that continued through the early 1960’s (and continues to this day throughout the U.S.). Yeah, this guy was a cavalry genius, but the fact that a man of his dubious moral calibre could achieve high command in the Army of the Confederacy is a testament to that institution’s moral degeneracy. Yeah, the Confederates were fighting for the cause of self-determination (surely a worthy cause), but that cause was a SHAM, because their intention was to shut out from that so-called-“self-determination” half their population!!! :evil: :evil: :evil:
Now I’m not some anti-South nut that has no affinity for the rebel mystique (I am, after all, an American) but lets be real here–the cause was an EVIL one, and commanders must be held responsible for the causes for which they choose to fight. After all, THEY are the guys w/ the guns!
Ozone27
It’s total war. You do what you got to do to win the war at all costs. And if it means burning down a town or even spilling some civilian blood…well I guess that’s just the toils of war.
true Candyman,
but i have a lot of sympathy for Ozone’s point.
War is evil, by nature. At the same time, the concept of it being conducted by “gentlemen” is, i think something that prevents it from being even more unpalatable. Needless cruelty can be an important negative for a commanding officer - particularly where morale of his troops are concerned, as well as recently vanquished foes. Furthermore, our military leaders often assume political leadership (if they do not already have some). If we hold our political leaders to any kind of moral or ethical line, shouldn’t the same be true of military leadership?
(now, of course whether i needed to choose between my general being an ahole who got the job done properly, and some ineffective bleeding heart, then i’ll go with the ahole, however the South was not short of effective generals in the civil war - unlike the North).
war is always won by the side that stoops the lowest
@Ozone:
But don’t you think military commanders ought to be held to the highest moral standards? After all, these guys don’t just “go away” after a war, they stay on as powerful figures–as both W.T. Sherman and N.B. Forest show. W.T. Sherman devastated the South, and the North had little or no ability or desire to invest in “reconstruction” (political expedients aside). He also hated Native Americans with a passion (even though he was named after one) and commented on his visit to the 1870 front in the Franco-Prussian War as attache to the Prussian General Staff that he wanted to see “more refugees, more burning villages”. Morals were of no consequence to this guy–the object was to WIN no matter what the cost or who (on the other side) it hurts.The war might indeed be shorter, but it certainly will be bloodier and more painful for all involved…
Yes, Generals should be held to highest of moral standards. That is why fellow Confederates hate him so much. However, the problem with Confederates was that we forget to realize that all of Sherman’s tactics were not “march to the closest city and burn it down.” Any second rate moron can do that. Maybe his most infamous action, but Sherman was also a very good military strategist. His flanking manuevers were widely studied and practiced by another general with the name, “General George S. Patton.” Also, the inability to keep such a large army intact and a single fighting force (many people forget how difficult this is to do) is commendable.
But here’s another question, if war crime trials were around back then, do you think Sherman should’ve been tried and if so, convicted? This would be similar to the pilots who dropped “the bomb” over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Anyone feel free to answer this.
The droppings of the atomic bombs are justified. It was a military means of ending the war and it was not a deliberate act to kill civillians and destroy cities. In effect, the droppings saved lives.
I’m not fully read up on Sherman and his “march to the sea” to contemplate whether his actions warranted a war crimes trial.
“But here’s another question, if war crime trials were around back then, do you think Sherman should’ve been tried and if so, convicted? This would be similar to the pilots who dropped “the bomb” over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Anyone feel free to answer this.”
Any deliberate attack on the civilian population is immoral. I know in war, civilians are accidentally caught in the crossfire and many are indirectly killed, but to purposely use civilians as targets is a serious crime. I understand destroying weapons factories, railroad networks, and supply to deprive the enemy of resources but not when it would jeopardize the lives of innocent children exempt from any wrong doing. I think it is very cowardly of grown men engaging humanitarian violence and using war as a cover up :(
@TM:
Any deliberate attack on the civilian population is immoral. I know in war, civilians are accidentally caught in the crossfire and many are indirectly killed, but to purposely use civilians as targets is a serious crime. I understand destroying weapons factories, railroad networks, and supply to deprive the enemy of resources but not when it would jeopardize the lives of innocent children exempt from any wrong doing. I think it is very cowardly of grown men engaging humanitarian violence and using war as a cover up :(
…exactly. The Civil War was coming to a close as it was and while the “March to the Sea” may have hastened the “end” somewhat, the ends certainly did not justify the means. I agree that W.T. Sherman was a great general and probably not on a par with Forest in the “evil” department; still he used his army to rampage across virtually undefended civilian territory with the intent to “bring the war home” to the South by wantonly pillaging their country. This did a lot to prevent the reconciliation between North and South that continues in some forms to this day. Many Southerners still recall the name of Sherman with bitterness. This can hardly be called “ending the war sooner” at least in peoples’ minds.
Ozone27
@TM:
“But here’s another question, if war crime trials were around back then, do you think Sherman should’ve been tried and if so, convicted? This would be similar to the pilots who dropped “the bomb” over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Anyone feel free to answer this.”
Any deliberate attack on the civilian population is immoral. I know in war, civilians are accidentally caught in the crossfire and many are indirectly killed, but to purposely use civilians as targets is a serious crime. I understand destroying weapons factories, railroad networks, and supply to deprive the enemy of resources but not when it would jeopardize the lives of innocent children exempt from any wrong doing. I think it is very cowardly of grown men engaging humanitarian violence and using war as a cover up :(
This is a toughie. I agree that bombing civie’s is a bad thing in many cases (what simplistic language for the Crypt), in that you kill children, parents, people who are innocent of the war, etc. At the same time, you are also killing those who would “aid and abet” their country’s practices, thus blurring the lines of civilian/military distinction. This is through factories that supply the military, voting in war-hawk governements, exalt a culture that glorifies dying in “honor” and killing, and perpetuating evil deeds as a way of life.
I agree that the bombing of Japan, tho’ something i could never do, might be considered a necessary evil. Would the Japanese have continued their war of attrition, thus losing many more lives without the shock of a one time, devestating mess? If so, then would their civilians not soon be military targets (not merely civilian ones)?
As a pacifist, the whole idea is a little stomach-queasy-inducing, but as a rational person, there are somethings that hindsight will never predict.
So far, these have all been great post. But I just like to clear up a few things.
“The Civil War was coming to a close as it was and while the “March to the Sea” may have hastened the “end” somewhat, the ends certainly did not justify the means.”
This is true, us Confederates were scrapping the bottom of the barrel. Much of the Supplies from Richmond and the other Southern cities were cut off from reaching Robert E Lee, so I doubt even burning those down would of done much worse to the Confederate Army anyways.
“still he used his army to rampage across virtually undefended civilian territory with the intent to “bring the war home” to the South by wantonly pillaging their country.”
Well I would exactly call his campaign a walkthrough as Sherman met fierce resistance along the way from a great Civil War hero, Joseph E Johnston. In fact, Johnston even bested Sherman at and was able to retreat while keep most of his army intact.
“This did a lot to prevent the reconciliation between North and South that continues in some forms to this day. Many Southerners still recall the name of Sherman with bitterness. This can hardly be called “ending the war sooner” at least in peoples’ minds.”
Many Southerners!? Try all of them! :wink: You cannot walk in a Southern bar today, even mention Sherman’s name, and expect not to be thrown out.
“Many Southerners!? Try all of them! You cannot walk in a Southern bar today, even mention Sherman’s name, and expect not to be thrown out.”
I should try that sometime in the future. Hell, atleast it would be cooler than being thrown out for not meeting the legal drinking age.
The droppings of the atomic bombs are justified. It was a military means of ending the war and it was not a deliberate act to kill civillians and destroy cities. In effect, the droppings saved lives.
I’m not fully read up on Sherman and his “march to the sea” to contemplate whether his actions warranted a war crimes trial.
This was idiots, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were just place to show how powerfull their little toy were, no real stategic importance. Those who send those bomb get no sentence at the end of the war but they sentence Goring and other Nazi to death; like Goring said at the judgement; “we are here because we loose”. American should have send a bomb on a desolated island first, it would have save life and the japanse would have understand, or at least they would have try to save life, also the number of death was really high, i am not sure it has save life, maybe American life, but not civillian life. But like Great Brittain that throw in the melee people from their colonies in wwi; no americans were judged for their war crime because they win.
The droppings of the atomic bombs are justified. It was a military means of ending the war and it was not a deliberate act to kill civillians and destroy cities. In effect, the droppings saved lives.
I’m not fully read up on Sherman and his “march to the sea” to contemplate whether his actions warranted a war crimes trial.
This was idiots, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were just place to show how powerfull their little toy were, no real stategic importance. Those who send those bomb get no sentence at the end of the war but they sentence Goring and other Nazi to death; like Goring said at the judgement; “we are here because we loose”. American should have send a bomb on a desolated island first, it would have save life and the japanse would have understand, or at least they would have try to save life, also the number of death was really high, i am not sure it has save life, maybe American life, but not civillian life. But like Great Brittain that throw in the melee people from their colonies in wwi; no americans were judged for their war crime because they win.
Poor Nazi’s. Just because they lost the war, they get sentanced for a little bit of genocide. Boy, it sure sucks to be them.
You have a point about THE BOMB, but of course the winner’s don’t get sentanced for using whatever means necessary to win a war. By the same token, in Afghanistan, members of the US-led coalition who needlessly killed civilians (and fellow soldiers) are facing/have faced trials - maybe not international ones yet, but these things take time.
But who is going to seek to prosecute people who freed China from the Japanese, and Europe from the Germans?
Ozone, I’m going to have to continue to disagree with you. This is not personal, I just think I’m right! :P
“Yeah, this guy was a cavalry genius, but the fact that a man of his dubious moral calibre could achieve high command in the Army of the Confederacy is a testament to that institution’s moral degeneracy.”
So how do you want to explain Bill Clinton? Don’t tell me he doesn’t have a “dubious moral calibre”! Why do we let the media continue to cover the jerk? Why did he “achieve a high command”? This crap is on both sides of the political spectrum, and I just get tired of only hearing about it on the conservative side.
Finsterni, what do you think those Jap civilians would have done to themselves anyway; if the US ended up invading the homeland? They would have either been forced to fight or commited suicide! Ever hear about Saipan?
The A bombs were COMPLETELY justified! Anyone who knows anything about how maniacal the Japs were in that war knows that they were put out of their misery, and many more, probably more Japs than Americans would have died had the invasion taken place. 'Nuff said.
Poor Nazi’s. Just because they lost the war, they get sentanced for a little bit of genocide. Boy, it sure sucks to be them.
You know that not what i said
Nevermind the Japanese had already tried surrendering to the russians twice before the bombs were droped. I believe the Japanese would have surrendered much sooner to the US if we hadn’t demanded an unconditional surrender, in which the emporer might have been removed or worse. Imagine the prospect of your god being defeated and humiliated, would you want to surrender under those conditions?
Boosk is right… When the japanese start the restructuration of their country, they take the prussian model of army and make shintoism the prime religion to reinforce patriotism, and in shintoism the emperor is the incarnation of a kami (gods), the bomb were clearly not usefull, a little bomb on an unhabited island and the emperor would have stop the war, and if america were a little more comprehensive in the first place it would never have happened.
comparing bill clintons cheating on his wife and lying about it, to beating and killing african americans (or any non whites) doesnt really work, im afraid.
I’m referring to the concept of morality. (Do you mean it’s more ok to “beat and kill” whites than non-whites? You don’t want to be accused of racism do you?) :o Don’t get me wrong: I don’t have anything against blacks (or non-whites as you say), it’s just that I get kind of ticked when people can’t find anything better to do than say that “white men” are the worst thing to happen to civilization.
“Ozone, I’m going to have to continue to disagree with you. This is not personal, I just think I’m right! ”
I always try to think I am wrong that way you are more desperate on defense.
“Finsterni, what do you think those Jap civilians would have done to themselves anyway; if the US ended up invading the homeland? They would have either been forced to fight or commited suicide! Ever hear about Saipan?”
This is true; the Japanese people were to fight to the death or risk dishonor. There’s no doubt that many more civilians lives were saved over the planned American invasion of mainland Japan. Children (both male/female) were trained to fire rifles (and charge with bayonets). Many others (esp. the elders) were trained to use sharp bamboo poles and lay in wait to ambush American soldiers. Regardless, the result wouldn’t have been pretty.
“The A bombs were COMPLETELY justified! Anyone who knows anything about how maniacal the Japs were in that war knows that they were put out of their misery, and many more, probably more Japs than Americans would have died had the invasion taken place. 'Nuff said.”
I wouldn’t say that it was “completely” justified. Nothing is ever completely justified. However, you can always say, “Well those Japanese shouldn’t have bombed Pearl Harbor in the first place!” Problem is that the government still keeps a lot of this information “classified,” so we might never know “the rest of the story.”
“Nevermind the Japanese had already tried surrendering to the russians twice before the bombs were droped. I believe the Japanese would have surrendered much sooner to the US if we hadn’t demanded an unconditional surrender, in which the emporer might have been removed or worse. Imagine the prospect of your god being defeated and humiliated, would you want to surrender under those conditions?”
Correct, secret negotiations were made with the Japanese and the Russians before the dropping of the bomb prior to the Potsdam Conference convened on July 17, 1945, between Japan and the Soviet Union. From June 3-14, 1945, Koki Hirota, a Japanese envoy with Emperor Hirohito’s blessing, had met with the Russian ambassador to Tokyo to propose a new relationship between the two countries. Japan proposed to carve up Asia with the USSR . Later on July 3, 1945, Hirota told the Russian ambassador: “Japan will increase her naval strength in the future, and that, together with the Russian Army, would make a force unequaled in the world….” I
It was further revealed that throughout June and July 1945, Japan’s militarist leaders were adamantly determined that they would never surrender unconditionally to the British and the Americans.
On July 16, during the Potsdam Conference, the first A-bomb was successfully tested and US, Britain and China issued the Potsdam Declaration to Japan to surrender unconditionally. However, on July 25, Japanese Premier Kantaro Suzuki announced to the Japanese press that the Potsdnm declaration was to be Ignored." Meanwhile, Tokyo was demanding that Moscow accept a special envoy from Emperor Hirohito, presumably to cement the deal offering to divide Asia between Japan and Russia while Moscow brokered a Japanese surrender with the U.S. and Britain that would be acceptable to Tokyo.
This is what the Americans President Truman, Secretary of War Stimson and Gen. Marshall knew the day before the first atom bomb fell on Japan. Confronted by an enemy leadership that was self-deluded, neither prepared to surrender nor to negotiate seriously, the Americans decided that the only way to end the war quickly would be to use overwhelming force: nuclear weapons.
I can’t fully disagree/agree with the concept of unconditional surrender. On one hand it might of shortened the war with Germany and Japan, though on the other it showed that the Americans and British were faithfully in the war with the Russians (important political move).
“a little bomb on an unhabited island and the emperor would have stop the war,”
Then how come two bombs had to be dropped? But a little “secret” I like to mention. Japanese military planners thought they could “defend” against such atomic weapons with the right combination of AA guns. However, after the second bomb was dropped, the Emperor Hirohito personally called off the war and sought terms of surrender.
