2008-11-18, 17:10 | Link #21 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
|
The UN will never work so long as the medium of political power remains the nation-state. Fundamentally, nation-states have divergent interests (in terms of territory, natural resources, sphere of influence, etc. etc.) and this divergence cannot be absolved just by establishing an international body dedicated to its absolving.
Globalization is the only solution that may produce a functioning UN (by entangling the great powers in a web of mutual dependency from which they can't escape), yet globalization is opposed on nearly all fronts by a variety of forces. With the recent financial meltdown, these forces will gain a stronger voice, and as protectionism rises and countries disengage from each other, the world will return to being multi-polar and adversarial - as it was prior to the world wars. The players are different, but the end result is the same - resurgent nationalism will pit nation against nation, and if diplomacy fails, then the bombs will fly. Quote:
None of the major powers in World War II were saints. They all bought into the notion of racism, total war, and us vs. them. That's why World War II was so brutal and that's why so many atrocities occurred. By singling out the US because it managed to escape the war relatively unscathed (though even the US, it must be said, lost hundreds of thousands of drafted soldiers), you're basically holding the US to a higher standard by virtue of its victory. That's not how warfare works. The victor frequently suffers less losses in a war than the loser (indeed, that's one definition of victory). Does that mean the victor is always more brutal and cruel than the loser? Surely not. |
|
2008-11-18, 17:15 | Link #22 | ||
Gregory House
IT Support
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
||
2008-11-18, 17:19 | Link #23 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
|
Nonsense.
It's certainly more brutal to target civilians intentionally than to kill them incidentally (though both are brutal). It's certainly more cruel to capture civilians for use in biological weapons research than to bomb industrial cities in order to deny your enemy the means of production (though both are cruel). Taking a child from his parents, putting him in a factory, and forcing him to make tank ammunition - that's cruel. But is it the same as taking a child from his parents, putting him in a gas chamber, and seeing how long he survives? Surely not. Last edited by Lathdrinor; 2008-11-18 at 17:30. |
2008-11-18, 18:19 | Link #24 | ||||||
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Germany
Age: 44
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
lol good line describes the attitude of the US nuke apologists nicely. Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||
2008-11-18, 19:10 | Link #25 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
|
Quote:
Quote:
In terms of military and political policy, nobody in WW II was free from the factors I listed. That doesn't mean they were all the same. Two different arguments. Quote:
War is hell, not some kid's game. That's why you try to avoid it in the first place. But even though the Allies were not all good, I'd still prefer them - by far - over the alternative. |
|||
2008-11-18, 19:53 | Link #26 |
Observer/Bookman wannabe
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 38
|
I think an important issue when studying history is not to use the standards of the present to judge the past. What is the prevailing train of thought in the 1940s? It's exactly what you said: Every major nation involved in the war was into racism. And, they don't mince their words over it as well. To dismiss that as something casual misses the point. Presentism is something I myself have to guard against all the time (historian in training).
Personally, I think old Joe's theory of "one death = tragedy, 10,000,000 = statistic" is on the mark, never mind the barbarity.
__________________
|
2008-11-18, 20:00 | Link #27 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Land of the rising sun
|
Quote:
The nukes were just two of more systematic bombings on Japanese cities. Tokyo, Osaka, Nagoya, Yokohama, Fukuoka,etc. were all flattened out buy US carpet bombing and anything left were torched by incendiary bombs. The Tokyo bombings killed more then that of Hiroshima. In a way Tokyo looked in better shape after Gozilla roamed through Ginza strip compared to the Tokyo bombings. One more point I like to make, Pearl Harbor was a surgical strike only aiming military installations and had very limited civilian casualties. |
|
2008-11-18, 20:03 | Link #28 | |
Observer/Bookman wannabe
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 38
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2008-11-18, 21:23 | Link #29 | |
Gregory House
IT Support
|
Quote:
Soldiers are people, too.
__________________
|
|
2008-11-18, 22:10 | Link #30 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
|
Quote:
? If not, then my point stands. Don't get me wrong, the Allies were no saints (I already said this), but they weren't nearly as terrible as governments that put civilians in gas chambers en masse just because they were of a certain ethnicity. Most people do regard Pearl Harbor as a surgical military strike. In fact, one could argue that despite the war, Americans did not emerge out of it hating Japan because Japan never really touched the US mainland. Sure, propaganda during the war ensured that the Japanese were regarded as subhuman, but you know, the firebombings of Tokyo and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are regarded as terrible acts by many Americans and today, Japan is one of America's closest allies. America even apologized and compensated the Japanese Americans they interned (wrongfully) during the war. You don't get there by way of intense hatred. Japan's actions in China, Korea, and Southeast Asia, on the other hand, were not so "light," and correspondingly, the people there take a much dimmer view of Japan. Last edited by Lathdrinor; 2008-11-18 at 22:47. |
|
2008-11-18, 22:26 | Link #31 |
Observer/Bookman wannabe
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 38
|
Japan's attempt to downplay her role in the war is the boner for her East-Asian neighbours. While she did contribute huge amounts of money to her neighbours, it's literally easier for the camel to walk through the eye of the needle than for leaders to say "sorry" without reservation. There was no Japanese equivalent of Brandt's kneeling in 1970.
In any case, I personally think that alot of nukes would have to be used, across the entire world, for the "most of us to be dead" scenario to happen. There are 6 billion people now, 6000 million, and counting. For all of man's warring abilities, we couldn't even match the killings of a flu bug (the Spanish flu pandemic in 1918-19). I don't know what is more galling: The destruction of 3000 million people through the use of 1000+ nukes (or any other means), or the fact that after that carnage, half of humanity still remains.
__________________
Last edited by yezhanquan; 2008-11-18 at 23:05. |
2008-11-18, 22:55 | Link #32 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
|
Quote:
There's a reason the Geneva Conventions make a specific distinction between combatants and non-combatants, and it's to prevent excess brutality & cruelty during time of war. Yes, soldiers are people, too, but whether you are a soldier or not makes a difference with regards to the nature of violence directed against you. If you take up arms against an enemy, then by virtue of self-defense that enemy has a right to take up arms against you. That's why combatant kills (on the battlefield, not POWs) are not listed as war crimes. War, by its very nature, is organized violence between combatants, and though it is brutal and cruel it is not "wrong" to shoot at someone who's shooting at you. This is especially true if that someone started shooting first, which is why there is also a moral distinction made between aggressors and defenders in a war. Aggressors take more blame. Defenders take less. This isn't always the right rule to apply, but generally, if you're the one who started the violence, you're the one who's going to take more responsibility (though victor's justice complicates things). But shooting at someone who's not shooting at you, and who does not pose a threat to you? That's a whole different story. What does your "gut feeling" tell you - that shooting at a defenseless little girl is the same as shooting at an enemy soldier whose orders are to kill you? I should hope not. Last edited by Lathdrinor; 2008-11-18 at 23:05. |
|
2008-11-18, 23:07 | Link #33 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Land of the rising sun
|
Quote:
I wonder what you are comparing it with??? And still you say the allied forces were better than the Japanese on the battle field. Japan did not operate gas chambers either nor killed based on ethnicity. Quote:
Ethnic Chinese were targeted because they collaborated with the allies troops and resisted Japanese occupation not because they were ethnic Chinese. I do not have any intent to down play what Japan did but there are still facts that needs to be straightened out. |
||
2008-11-18, 23:12 | Link #34 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
|
Quote:
As for Japan... I think the rate of POW kills alone is enough to make the distinction. I could also bring out the biological experiments and forced labor/death camps but hey, do you really want me to drag out all the dirty laundry? Quote:
And as for the targeting of ethnic Chinese you should realize that it's no different than ethnic Jews being targeted by Nazi Germany because they "collaborated with the forces of International Jewry." Yes, some Chinese no doubt collaborated with the Allies (can you blame them? Japan was invading their homeland), but the massacres conducted by Imperial Japan went far, far beyond executing rebels and bordered on state terrorism. Anywhere from 20-30 million Chinese civilians perished during the war. Japan's casualties were "light" by comparison. |
||
2008-11-18, 23:29 | Link #35 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Land of the rising sun
|
Quote:
Death rates of POWs held by Axis powers Western Allied POWs held by Japan: 27% Death rates of POWs held by the Allies Japanese POWs held by U.S.: relatively low, mainly suicides according to James D. Morrow[78] or according to Ulrich Straus high as many prisoners were shot by front line troops. The US can't even generate the numbers.LOL Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Some dumb CCP propaganda no doubt. Chinese were killing other Chinese before Japan went in. Don't dump the blame all on Japan because it is a easy. Look at facts. |
||||
2008-11-18, 23:47 | Link #36 |
Observer/Bookman wannabe
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 38
|
Er... Korea was officially annexed in 1910. Besides, what is the difference between occupation and annexation? To annex a territory, you have to occupy it first. Becoming part of the country officially changes little on the ground. When Austria-Hungary annexed Bosnia in 1908, did it make any difference in the perception of the Serbs? No. Same here.
Besides, many local partisan groups did participate in pogroms against the Jews.
__________________
|
2008-11-19, 00:00 | Link #37 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Land of the rising sun
|
Quote:
I really do not think the ethnic counter parts who were born in the European occupied South Eastern Asian colonies enjoyed those same rights. So if you compare details occupation and annexation is different. |
|
2008-11-19, 00:19 | Link #38 |
Bittersweet Distractor
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 32
|
Just to contribute more to the debate going on, lets not forget that the U.S. had internment camps for the Japanese during the war.
Anyway, does it really matter? I think comparing the foolishness of every nation during this horrific war gets us no where as people. We need to focus on the present.
__________________
|
2008-11-19, 00:31 | Link #39 | ||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
|
Quote:
Nonetheless, if you look at the Allied numbers for other POWs, you'll notice that it's nowhere close to being as high as the Japanese numbers were for POWs. The Soviet Red Army, which was brutal in its own right, had only a 10% death rate for Japanese POWs. The Japanese had a 99% kill rate for Chinese POWs and a 27% for Western Allied POWs (36% for US POWs). That's horrendous compared to the Allied powers. Quote:
No, it was by occupation of the Korean capital, assassination of Korean leaders, and coercion of Korean politicians by threat of force. Now, don't get me wrong - at the time such annexations were often tolerated because the European empires were doing the same things, but by modern interpretations, it was a treaty produced by coercion and therefore null and void. History is written by the victors, and corrected by the victims. I'll go with the victims' interpretation of this era, and not the victimizers', thanks. Quote:
But the Nazis took it to the extremes because they genuinely believed that the Jews were working against Germany and turning Europe against them. Here's Goebbels' last anti-semitic essay, as an example: http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb64.htm "One could not understand this war if one did not always keep in mind the fact that International Jewry stands behind all the unnatural forces that our united enemies use to attempt to deceive the world and keep humanity in the dark. It is, so to speak, the mortar that holds the enemy coalition firmly together, despite its differences of class, ideology, and interests. Capitalism and Bolshevism have the same Jewish roots, two branches of the same tree that in the end bear the same fruit. International Jewry uses both in its own way to suppress the nations and keep them in its service. How deep its influence on public opinion is in all the enemy countries and many neutral nations is plain to see that it may never be mentioned in newspapers, speeches, and radio broadcasts. There is a law in the Soviet Union that punishes anti-Semitism — or in plain English, public education about the Jewish Question — by death. The expert in these matters is in no way surprised that a leading spokesman for the Kremlin said over the New Year that the Soviet Union would not rest until this law was valid throughout the world. In other words, the enemy clearly says that its goal in this war is to put the total domination of Jewry over the nations of the earth under legal protection, and to threaten even a discussion of this shameful attempt with the death penalty." That's the first paragraph. Quote:
Quote:
You need to understand the effect of Japan's invasion of China. China's agricultural economy, which sustained the lives of its 400 million citizens (around the time of war), was devastated by the war. What gains were made during the Republican period was destroyed by sustained Japanese offensives and bombings. The result was widespread famine, disease, and anarchy. Collateral damage, combined with numerous documented massacres, combined with forced labor under abhorrent conditions, combined with the effects of disease and famine, caused the large number of deaths. But that was just in China. You really should do some research (and not in Japanese history books) before you question me. Quote:
Last edited by Lathdrinor; 2008-11-19 at 01:18. |
||||||
2008-11-19, 04:10 | Link #40 | |
Le fou, c'est moi
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Age: 34
|
The who's-worse-than-who-in-this-situation is one of the worst forms of debate one can possibly encounter on the internet.
The universal answer? We are all murderers, oppressors, self-interested parasites of Mother Earth. Get over it, your country committed heinous, unforgivable crimes against fellow humans. Mine did, too. Quote:
I think the Koreans will have a very different opinion of the Japanese occupation period than you appear to have. To put it simply, they consider it attempted cultural genocide. Mind, colonialism and cultural genocide goes hand-in-hand, so it's not like Japan's breaking new grounds in the favorite human pastime of oppression when it conquered Korea. |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|