Test

@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.

@FinsterniS:

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.

Excellent posts.

I’d just like to point out on the issue of “cruelty vs. inefficiency” in the conduct of peace & war that, as TG points out, the Civil War and its resulting cruel peace (and cruel prosecution) are not forgotten TO THIS DAY in the South. After WWII, the USA and her Allies, largely for cold political reasons, but also for the purpose of preventing from happening again the nightmare the world had just been through, helped rebuild the nations of their former enemies. Today they are economically 2 of the most powerful economies on Earth, both are good friends of the USA; powerful allies of the US; and one (Japan) has the world’s only Constitution renouncing War as an instrument of foreign policy. Now, I dunno about you, but considering WWII, WWI, the Franco-Prussian War, the American Civil War and countless other wars throughout history, I’d say the side of “limited cruelty” and “compassion for the vanquished” has been the better long-term choice, as well as the best preventer of future war. A great General tries not only to defeat the enemy and end the war as quickly as possible, but to prevent future war with that enemy.

As far as the use of the Bomb goes, that is an extremely difficult moral issue to tackle. I hate what happened, but I also can’t imagine being in the shoes of the Washington decision-makers at that time with a possible choice between the possible unnecessary destruction of an entire generation of young American men (which an invasion of the Home Islands might have caused), and the eternal damnation of responsibility for the unleashing of mankind’s most terrible weapon. If only there HAD been a clear-cut alternative, but at the time there just wasn’t. Speaking of course as an American; to a degree, I think USA’s mercy for her former enemies after the war partially exhonerated us of some of the ignominy for the horror of the nuclear decision–but we still did it, we are the only power that has ever done it, and we sacrificed others in order to save ourselves. I personally think it WAS justified in the circumstances, but I can totally understand the POV that disagrees. Whose “fault” it was almost doesn’t matter–at that point so much ugliness had occured it is difficult for us (younger people) to comprehend the mindset of the times.

However I know one thing which no one can deny: the Japanese & Germans in WWII also had the experience of conquering vast foreign enemies. And their record was, shall we say, somewhat less compassionate than the Western Allies…

Ozone27

“A great General tries not only to defeat the enemy and end the war as quickly as possible, but to prevent future war with that enemy.”

No, usually great generals are never satisfied with such hastily thrown “peace” as they still know there’s a war left to be fought (Patton, Macarthur being fine examples). Merely calling the game over when the “end” is within reach is not very fulfilling to them. However, fine political strategists are the category you’re looking for. It was very Bismarck of you to make that statement (though I prefer making Allies of your Enemies). “Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.”

“As far as the use of the Bomb goes, that is an extremely difficult moral issue to tackle. I hate what happened, but I also can’t imagine being in the shoes of the Washington decision-makers at that time with a possible choice between the possible unnecessary destruction of an entire generation of young American men (which an invasion of the Home Islands might have caused), and the eternal damnation of responsibility for the unleashing of mankind’s most terrible weapon.”

Funny, I would of thought of it that way, too. I hate to be the President responsible for making the decision on whether or not to use nuclear weapons. The resolution would’ve haunted me forever and would be the controversy of the media and scholars even today. But not in Truman’s case. When asked if he had any regrets of dropping the bomb, he merely snapped his fingers together and said he made the decision like that.

“And their record was, shall we say, somewhat less compassionate than the Western Allies…”

Let’s not forget the Russians! Lord knows what happened last time we made them angry. :wink:

@FinsterniS:

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.

Hey guy, They dropped 2 bombs.
After the first bomb did japan surrender?
No.
How would have a bomb on an empty island made them surrender?

Japan got exactly what it desevered.

Pearl Harbour was a sucker punch.
Unconditional surender was completely justified, just like 9/11 is.

Hey guy, They dropped 2 bombs.
After the first bomb did japan surrender?
No.
How would have a bomb on an empty island made them surrender?

I perfectly know that, but the American want something the Japanese where not ready to accept easily, the Emperor himself was not a danger, with a little more tolerance and maybe a little “show of power” maybe this could have end more easily.

Also they 2 bombs were send to kill civilians, to show how their little toy were powerfull. I am not sure it save life, american life; yes.

Japan got exactly what it desevered.

That is very cruel, there is pre-war issues you seem to forget, Japan did’nt attack just for the fun of killing peoples.

Pearl Harbour was a sucker punch.

It was far less barbarian than the 2 bombs !!! At least not directed after civilians….

Also CC a lots of generals made war crimes; they only go in trials when they loose…

@FinsterniS:

Hey guy, They dropped 2 bombs.
After the first bomb did japan surrender?
No.
How would have a bomb on an empty island made them surrender?

Quote from" FinsterinS"
I perfectly know that, but the American want something the Japanese where not ready to accept easily, the Emperor himself was not a danger, with a little more tolerance and maybe a little “show of power” maybe this could have end more easily.

Well its easier to say that in hindsight.
It was a war, Japan was completely viscous with its attacks and to the prisoner they took, civilian and military.
We should have America shown tolerance? Because Japan has an honor system and the terms of surrender were unfair…Cry…its war, no mercy, especially after Pearl harbour.
They were an angry nation that was “stabbed in the back”
It so easy to take the moral high ground on things like this!

Quote from FinsterinS"
Also they 2 bombs were send to kill civilians, to show how their little toy were powerfull. I am not sure it save life, american life; yes.

American(ailled) lifes is all they should have been concerned with.
If they thought they could land on Japan and walk up the beaches pounding back the Jap army with minimal casualties, they would have done it. And Im sure they would not have cared how many Japan soldiers they kill along the way.

Japan got exactly what it desevered.

Quote from “FinsterinS”
That is very cruel, there is pre-war issues you seem to forget, Japan did’nt attack just for the fun of killing peoples.

Yes, and America was just killing Japanese for the “fun” of it.

Pearl Harbour was a sucker punch.

Quote from “FinsterinS”
It was far less barbarian than the 2 bombs !!! At least not directed after civilians….

Im pretty sure civilians were killed at Pearl Harbour as well.

Also CC a lots of generals made war crimes; they only go in trials when they loose…

@Mr:

Unconditional surender was completely justified, just like 9/11 is.

As I pointed out before, there were pros and cons to unconditional surrender [“US]. For example, one con would be the war might’ve been shorter since “US” forced Hitler’s and Tojo’s many of men to fight to the death. Also, “US” made it more difficult for the underground to stage a successful coup in order to oust the dictators and secure a favorable peace or at least an armistice. One pro of unconditional surrender would be without it, there might still have been Nazi or Imperial Japanese rule in those countries. It depends on how you look at it.

@FinsterinS:

That is very cruel, there is pre-war issues you seem to forget, Japan did’nt attack just for the fun of killing peoples.

Yes, I’m sure the 369,366 Chinese that were butched by the Japanese in the Rape of Nanking was not at all out of “sadist fun.” Nor were the estimated 80,000 women and girls who were raped; many of them were then mutilated or murdered. :( Thousands of victims were beheaded, burned, bayoneted, buried alive, or disemboweled.*

And lets not forget the barbarous torture the Japanese endured on our American POWs (many of them used for “bayonet practice” or forced into hard labor in Japanese mines :evil:). Oh, I forgot, the Japanese said they never “signed” the Geneva Conventions. As for “prewar” actions, what America did with the embargos on Japan was justifiable (prevent further war with China).

• = To this day the Japanese government has refused to apologize for these and other World War II atrocities, and a significant sector of Japanese society denies that they took place at all. :o

@FinsterinS:

I perfectly know that, but the American want something the Japanese where not ready to accept easily, the Emperor himself was not a danger, with a little more tolerance and maybe a little “show of power” maybe this could have end more easily.

Also they 2 bombs were send to kill civilians, to show how their little toy were powerfull. I am not sure it save life, american life; yes.

Everybody is entitled to his or her opinion. But I also like to note that America’s “show of power” was not confined to atomic bombs. In terms of causalities (short term at least), the incendiary raids on Tokyo were much more devastating (in terms of lives lost and structural damage) compared to the Atomic bombers dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Each day, tens of thousands (sometimes even hundred of thousands) of Japanese died due to these bombings (and starvation, disease, fire).

American(ailled) lifes is all they should have been concerned with.
If they thought they could land on Japan and walk up the beaches pounding back the Jap army with minimal casualties, they would have done it. And Im sure they would not have cared how many Japan soldiers they kill along the way.

I’m not sure if I can agree with this. I don’t kill people after they have surrendered.

@Mr:

We should have America shown tolerance? Because Japan has an honor system and the terms of surrender were unfair…Cry…its war, no mercy, especially after Pearl harbour.
They were an angry nation that was “stabbed in the back”
It so easy to take the moral high ground on things like this!

Even being “stabbed in the back” does not always justify the killing of millions of Japanese civilians. What did they have to do about it? There is no “moral high ground,” only how we see fit.