Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OT: The day's that the RAF nuked Japan.

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Anyone wishing to debate the matter should first prepare by reading "Hell To Pay" by D. M. Giangreco. The book describes the situation the invading force would have faced based on what was discovered in Japan during occupation, a situation much worse than the invasion planners had believed existed.

    Comment


    • #32
      You need to remember that the Nazis and Japan were very different enemies, even though they get lumped together. Germans as a population were not prepared to stand to the last man, there were SS units willing to do so and that tried (and actually some of the last units defending Berlin ended up being SS units from France, Scandinavia, and such - there was no way these men could go home, so their option was to die fighting or die after surrendering). In Japan the general population was prepared to sacrifice anything without surrendering. How do you pacify a country like that? You need a very big stick that will show them that resistance will result in complete annihilation of the culture in the end. Enter the bombs.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Tom S View Post
        ...were not prepared to stand to the last man, there were SS units willing to do so and that tried (and actually some of the last units defending Berlin ended up being SS units from France, Scandinavia, and such - there was no way these men could go home, so their option was to die fighting or die after surrendering).
        This is another extraordinarily depressing, yet fascinating aspect to authoritarian governance and preparation of soldiers. It is a key part of the strategic plan.
        Early on, you have your lackeys commit appalling atrocities. Once done, they cannot possibly hope to be 'forgiven'. You then are left with people who will do anything for the 'cause', and will do (are FORCED to do) ANYthing to win. They have nothing left to lose and they can never go back.

        Important reading are the books by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, most notably "On Killing". Depressing stuff to be sure, but key to gaining an understanding.
        The following are a few (nearly random) excerpts. This should give you an idea:

        "Those who command atrocities are powerfully bonded by blood and guilt to those who commit atrocities, and to their cause, since only the success of their cause can ensure that they will not have to answer for their actions. With totalitarian dictators, it is their secret police and other such Praetorian guard-type units who can be counted on to fight for their leader and their cause to the bitter end. Nicolae Ceauşescu’s state police in Romania and Hitler’s SS units are two examples of units bonded to their leaders by atrocity.

        By ensuring that their men participate in atrocities, totalitarian leaders can also ensure that for these minions there is no possibility of reconciliation with the enemy. They are inextricably linked to the fate of their leader. Trapped in their logic and their guilt, those who commit atrocities see no alternatives other than total victory or total defeat in a great Götterdämmerung.

        In the absence of a legitimate threat, leaders (be they national leaders or gang leaders) may designate a scapegoat whose defilement and innocent blood empowers the killers and bonds them to their leaders. Traditionally, high-visibility weak groups and minorities—such as Jews and blacks—have filled this role.

        Women have also been defiled, debased, and dehumanized for the aggrandizement of others. Throughout history women have been probably the greatest single group of victims of this empowerment process. Rape is a very important part of the process of dominating and dehumanizing an enemy; and this process of mutual empowering and bonding at the expense of others is exactly what occurs during gang rapes. In war, empowerment and bonding through such gang rapes often occur on a national level.

        The German-Russian conflict during World War II is an excellent example of a vicious cycle in which both sides became totally invested in atrocity and rape. This reached the point at which, according to Albert Seaton, Soviet soldiers attacking Germany were told that they were not accountable for civil crimes committed in Germany and that personal property and German women were theirs by right.

        The incidence of rape as a result of these encouragements appears to have been in the millions. Cornelius Ryan, in The Last Battle, estimated that there were one hundred thousand births resulting from rapes in Berlin alone following World War II. In recent years we have seen the use of rape as a political tool by all sides in the former Yugoslavia. And some Islamic fundamentalists use systematic gang rape to punish women who have violated Sharia. The thing to understand here is that gang rapes and gang or cult killings in times of peace and war are not “senseless violence.” They are instead powerful acts of group bonding and criminal enabling that, quite often, have a hidden purpose of promoting the wealth, power, or vanity of a specific leader or cause…at the expense of the innocent."



        "The difference is the difference between what the Nazi executioners did to the Jews and what the Allied bombardiers did to Germany and Japan. The difference is the difference between what Lieutenant Calley did to a village full of Vietnamese, and what many pilots and artillerymen did to similar Vietnamese villages.

        The difference is that, emotionally, when we dwell on the butchers of Babylon or Auschwitz or My Lai, we feel revulsion at the psychotic and alien state that permitted these individuals to perform their awful deeds. We cannot understand how anyone could perform such inhuman atrocities on their fellow man. We call it murder, and we hunt down and prosecute the criminals responsible, be they Nazi war criminals or American war criminals. And by prosecuting these individuals we gain peace of mind by affirming to ourselves that this is an aberration that civilized societies do not tolerate.

        But when most people think of those who bombed Hamburg or Hiroshima, there is no feeling of disgust for the deed, certainly not the intensity of disgust felt for Nazi executioners. When we mentally empathize with the bomber crews, when we put ourselves in their places, most cannot truly see themselves doing any different than they did. Therefore we do not judge them as criminals. We rationalize their actions and most of us have a gut feeling that we could have done what the bomber crews did, but could not ever have done what the executioners did.

        Incredibly, yet undeniably, there is a qualitative distinction in the eyes of those who suffered: the survivors of Auschwitz were personally traumatized by criminals and suffered lifelong psychological damage from their experiences, whereas the survivors of Hamburg were incidental victims of an act of war and were able to put it behind them.

        Glenn Gray, educated as a philosopher, served in an intelligence unit in World War II that was responsible for dealing with civilians ranging from spies to Nazi collaborators to survivors of concentration camps. He understood this qualitative distinction in the manner of death:

        Not the frequency of death but the manner of dying makes a qualitative difference. Death in war is commonly caused by members of my own species actively seeking my end, despite the fact that they may never have seen me and have no personal reason for enmity. It is death brought about by hostile intent rather than by accident or natural causes that separates war from peace so completely."



        "The Israeli research mentioned earlier indicates that the risk of death for a kidnap victim is much greater if the victim is hooded. Cultural distance is a form of emotional hooding that can work just as effectively. Shalit notes that “the nearer or more similar the victim of aggression is, the more we can identify with him.” And the harder it is to kill him.

        This process also works the other way around. It is so much easier to kill someone if they look distinctly different from you. If your propaganda machine can convince your soldiers that their opponents are not really human but are “inferior forms of life,” then their natural resistance to killing their own species will be reduced. Often the enemy’s humanity is denied by referring to him as a “gook,” “Kraut,” “Nip,” or “raghead.” In Vietnam this process was assisted by the “body count” mentality, in which we referred to and thought of the enemy as numbers. One Vietnam vet told me that this permitted him to think that killing the NVA and VC was like “stepping on ants.”

        The greatest master of this in recent times may have been Adolf Hitler, with his myth of the Aryan master race: the Ubermensch, whose duty was to cleanse the world of the Untermensch.

        The adolescent soldier against whom such propaganda is directed is desperately trying to rationalize what he is being forced to do, and he is therefore predisposed to believe this nonsense. Once he begins to herd people like cattle and then to slaughter them like cattle, he very quickly begins to think of them as cattle—or, if you will, Untermensch.

        According to Trevor Dupuy, the Germans, in all stages of World War II, consistently inflicted 50 percent more casualties on the Americans and British than were inflicted on them. And the Nazi leadership would probably be the first to tell you that it was this carefully nurtured belief in their racial and cultural superiority that enabled the soldiers to be so successful. (But, as we shall see in “Killing and Atrocities,” this enabling also contained an entrapment that contributed greatly to the Nazis’ ultimate defeat.)

        But the Nazis are hardly the only ones to wield the sword of racial and ethnic hatred in war. European imperial defeat and domination of “the darker races” was facilitated by cultural distance factors.

        However, this can be a double-edged sword. Once oppressors begin to think of their victims as not being the same species, then these victims can accept and use that cultural distance to kill and oppress their colonial masters when they finally gain the upper hand. This double-edged sword was turned on the oppressors when colonial nations rose up in fierce insurrections such as the Sepoy Mutiny or the Mau Mau Uprising. In the final battles that overthrew imperialism around the world, the backlash of this double-edged sword was a major factor in empowering local populations.

        The United States is a comparatively egalitarian nation and therefore has a little more difficulty getting its population to wholeheartedly embrace wartime ethnic and racial hatreds. But in combat against Japan we had an enemy so different and alien that we were able to effectively implement cultural distance (combined with a powerful dose of moral distance, since we were “avenging” Pearl Harbor). Thus, according to Stouffer’s research, 44 percent of American soldiers in World War II said they would “really like to kill a Japanese soldier,” but only 6 percent expressed that degree of enthusiasm for killing Germans."

        Location: North Central Texas

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Lew Hartswick View Post
          There is nothing worse than 70 years later "Monday morning Quarterbacking" . all you kids that don't remember WWII should just shut the hell up . :-(
          ...lew...
          Maybe they should answer this question before complaining. “Would the Japanese have used the bomb on us, had they developed it first?” We all know that answer. Hell yes.

          Comment


          • #35
            Joel, that is a nice distillation of a lot of information.

            Comment


            • #36
              I'm a boomer, born long after WWII. My dad was assigned to the army air force in the pacific theater. I had uncles there too. Most survived. My mother in-law was in Tokyo. She was 13 when the war started. She and her family lived at the British consulate where her father worked until the British left. That was across the street from the imperial palace. I think they spent the rest of the war living in her grandmother's apartment.

              She does not speak about the war much. She told me that the bombing runs were terrifying, but became routine. Sirens sounded. They moved to the shelters. When the all clear was sounded she'd come out and look around to see what was left. They then went home to resume their lives. Those were her words. She never said anything about willingness to fight to the death. Nothing about being armed. Like the American women in war time she supported the war effort by working at a business that supplied the armed forces. She was the CEO's assistant. At 16.

              It's easy to say that every person would fight to save their country. The reality might be far different.

              It's interesting to hear what she said about the atom bombs. She said that she was glad that they ended the war.

              My mother in-law married an air force officer (an interpreter) and has lived here in the USA for the last 70 years. She speaks english poorly despite having been surrounded by english speakers most of her life. This makes it hard to get her to talk about things like the war. For instance, she will not speak of what her dad did in the war. She just changes the subject. Strangely, that's what my dad used to do when asked what he did. He'd mumble something about planes and then end up talking about his time in college.

              Dan
              At the end of the project, there is a profound difference between spare parts and extra parts.

              Location: SF East Bay.

              Comment


              • #37
                When my father returned home from the war in March of 1946, he told my mother that he had seen the results of "unspeakable cruelty" committed by Japanese soldiers. He apparently never shared more than that with her, and I never questioned him about it. Somehow, my father never developed any animus towards the Japanese - I imagine that was a minority perspective among returned allied soldiers.


                In my parent's social circle was a survivor of the Bataan death march. I never met the gentleman myself, but on the few occasions when my mother spoke of him, her entire affect changed. She became sober, soft-spoken, almost reverent: this was a man who had been to Hell and back - and, I presume, one who bore physical and psychological wounds that would never fully heal.

                Comment


                • #38
                  My father and my uncle both served in the Pacific in WW2, father in the Signal Corps, uncle as a Navy diver. My uncle was on duty in Pearl Harbor when the ship was sunk beneath him. He and the other divers had just enough time to get their gear on, get off the boat and proceed to rescue others. My father said the allied forces were welcomed on each island they liberated as the Japanese had been cruel conquerors.

                  I'm sure the HSM 'net Nanny has already reported this topic.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by reggie_obe View Post
                    .... My father said the allied forces were welcomed on each island they liberated as the Japanese had been cruel conquerors.

                    I'm sure the HSM 'net Nanny has already reported this topic.
                    That attitude toward the Japanese is still evident throughout the Pacific to this day. I spent two years on Guam back in the '80s and saw that attitude reflected every day. Japanese companies, as motivational incentives, send employees on company-paid vacations to various resort spots in the Pacific, of which Guam was one. The companies would typically charter or book an entire plane for a company group, and book hotel arrangements for the entire group. They would arrive seemingly in waves, none for a week or so, then they'd cover the island for a few weeks. The coolness of the Guamanians (Chamorros) toward them was palpable
                    Lynn (Huntsville, AL)

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Lew Hartswick View Post
                      There is nothing worse than 70 years later "Monday morning Quarterbacking" . all you kids that don't remember WWII should just shut the hell up . :-(
                      ...lew...
                      Agree +1

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Around the end of the 19th century, and extending through the first half of the 20th, Japan owned or controlled a large portion of the south pacific and northern asia. This map shows those areas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japane...rojection).svg

                        Colonization is seldom considered a great thing by those who live in the occupied lands.


                        At the end of the project, there is a profound difference between spare parts and extra parts.

                        Location: SF East Bay.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Doc Nickel View Post


                          it's as Orwellian as calling today's molotov-cocktail throwing, explosives-using, laser-blinding terrorists as "peaceful protestors".

                          Doc.[/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]

                          Typical Doc .. just had to go there.

                          Many times the reports of violence are just propoganda. Take Lafayette Park, When the pres wanted a photo shoot. Even the cops that were there admit that
                          they were peaceful, but they had orders to move them for the photo shoot. And they gassed them. And just ignore the constant evidence showing that
                          there are outside instigators (spelled white nationalist) trying to make them look bad. But I admit the violence that is being done by the protesters is ugly
                          and hurtful to the cause.
                          Last edited by Mike Amick; 08-08-2020, 02:22 PM.
                          John Titor, when are you.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Friday night in Portland. Yep, looks pretty peaceful to me.

                            And "white nationalists"? That's Obama-brith-certificate level ignorant stupidity. Are you telling me there's 200 "white nationalists" in Portland, Oregon, or that a small handful of them have enough influence to keep fomenting riots for over 70 days? Please. That insults your intelligence and mine.

                            The rioters have burned cop cars, tried to set fire to police stations, blinded federal agents with lasers, have taken to throwing improvised explosives and molotov cocktails... None of that is in any way, shape or form a "peaceful" protest. They're the very textbook definition of terrorist.

                            But I admit the violence that is being done by the protesters is ugly and hurtful to the cause.
                            -It's not just "hurtful", it's ruinous. But hey, go ahead and keep blaming it on those mysterious "white nationalist" scapegoats that no one can seem to actually find and expose.

                            Doc.
                            Doc's Machine. (Probably not what you expect.)

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              You must not read enough Doc.

                              And shame on you for grouping the protesters with the rioters.

                              And your right.. most of the violence can not be attibuted to these guys but
                              to deny them is just not accurate.

                              And you might want to read the reports of the protesters being peaceful until
                              having tear gas lobed at them then all hell breaking loose.

                              Pretty easy to guess what you think of the BLM movement but if I
                              am wrong, thats a good thing.

                              https://www.businessinsider.com/whit...rotests-2020-6

                              https://www.cbsnews.com/video/author...e-at-protests/

                              https://americanindependent.com/new-...2VqZ5RIaeozr1M

                              https://www.cbsnews.com/news/twitter...cists-removal/

                              And if you want to do your normal bully reply, you better hurry before George locks this.
                              Last edited by Mike Amick; 08-08-2020, 04:03 PM.
                              John Titor, when are you.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Mike Amick View Post
                                You must not read enough Doc.
                                -I read plenty, thank you, and unlike many, I read enough to try to get both sides of the story.

                                And shame on you for grouping the protesters with the rioters.
                                -By all means, please show me the difference between a protestor throwing rocks and molotov cocktails, and a rioter throwing rocks and molotov cocktails. I'll wait.

                                And your right.. most of the violence can not be attibuted to these guys but to deny them is just not accurate.
                                -Never 'denied' them in the least. I just don't attribute to them the same vast magic powers you seem to think they have, where a few individuals can manipulate hundreds of rioters, through dozens of cities across the country, for months on end.

                                And you might want to read the reports of the protesters being peaceful until having tear gas lob[b]ed at them then all hell breaking loose.
                                -Read plenty of those, thanks. And the fact everybody seems to miss, is that said "protestors" were doing something to CAUSE said tear gas to be fired at them. It might have been as simple as trespassing, but it has most often involved vandalism, arson or attempted arson, throwing rocks, bottles and the aforementioned molotov cocktails, shining high-powered lasers in their eyes, throwing fireworks, etc. etc.

                                Pretty easy to guess what you think of the BLM movement[...]
                                -Pretty easy to guess where you stand. You're clearly a gropin'-Joe-Biden-supporting bleeding-heart, anti-gun liberal weenie that wears a T-shirt of Che`.

                                I'll bet I'm just as accurate in my pulled-out-of-my-ass assumption of you as you are of me. But nice jab! Laying the groundwork, as the cable news places do, of trying to dismiss anything I say- that you don't want to hear- by calling me a racist. It's worked so well so far, keep playing that card!

                                And if you want to do your normal bully reply, you better hurry before George locks this.
                                -This thread should have never even been started. What in the green flying f**k does the OP have to do with machining?

                                Doc.


                                Doc's Machine. (Probably not what you expect.)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X