Topic: A shocking view of Military Tribunals from a Liberal
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
...could have reached...
Let us make one very important distinction here, shall we?
Fact 1: Japan was about to surrender - only a few high-ups wanted to stay in the war 'till the bitter end. Fact 2: Hiroshima was NOT a military target. Fact 3: a lot of lives were lost by using a nuke. Fact 4: a lot more lives were lost by dropping a second nuke - but what the heck, one more atrocity didn't matter too much now did it?
Opinion: the casualty rate could have been much higher if no nuke had been used.
No, you are the only person pretending to be a Master Of Warfare, FoT.
[ January 26, 2002, 11:51: Message edited by: Cartman ]
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Lovely. Rob is now saying a sneak attack on an ally (without which Europe would have certainly, and I mean certainly, fallen under fascist hegemony), that would kill, conservatively, 10 million people == good thing.
They let you in a library?
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Tom, half of Europe DID fall under a fascist Hegemony after World War II. They called it Communism and the Iron Curtain.
Stalin matched, and by some estimates, greatly exceeded Hitler's mass-murder record in his own and other countries.
You call that GOOD? And they let you out-of-doors?
Would a half-kiloton bomb dropped on central Moscow really have killed 10 million people?
NO. There were only around 1 million people in Moscow in 1945. Level the whole city, which a small nuke wouldn't have done, and you still probably wouldn't have killed them all.
Only around 5 million live there now.
[ January 26, 2002, 13:00: Message edited by: First of Two ]
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Saltah'na
Chinese Canadian, or 75% Commie Bastard.
Member # 33
posted
And isn't it funny that these U.S. wartime 'atrocities,' From Dresden to My Lai, all occurred under the aegis of Democratic Party leadership? Hm...
I'm beginning to hate this game of "Blame The Liberals or Democrats". So How does Nixon fit in?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:In June 1945 the Army's Chemical Warfare Service submitted its Top Secret Report on the poisoning of Japan listing 25 cities for destruction. Casualties "might easily kill 5,000,000 people and injure that many more...." Army planners believed that the Japanese would not evacuate their cities because of the lack of public transport and their willingness to "die in place". Therefore, it was not the Army's fault if the Japanese wanted to keep their factories running.
From "Armageddon Watch"
quote:since there is ample evidence that members of the Cabinet were worried by the prospect of further atomic bombings, especially on the remains of Tokyo. The bombs did not convince the military that defense of the home islands was impossible, if their behavior in Government councils is adequate testimony. It did permit the Government to say, however, that no army without the weapon could possibly resist an enemy who had it, thus saving "face" for the Army leaders and not reflecting on the competence of Japanese industrialists or the valor of the Japanese soldier. In the Supreme War Guidance Council voting remained divided, with the war minister and the two chiefs of staff unwilling to accept surrender. There seems little doubt, however, that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki weakened their inclination to oppose the peace group.
The peace effort culminated in an Imperial conference held on the night of 9 August and continued into the early hours of 10 August, for which the stage was set by the atomic bomb and the Russian war declaration. At this meeting the Emperor, again breaking his customary silence, stated specifically that he wanted acceptance of the Potsdam terms.
A quip was current in high Japanese Government circles at this time that the atomic bomb was the real Kamikaze, since it saved Japan from further useless slaughter and destruction. It is apparent that in the atomic bomb the Japanese found the opportunity which they had been seeking, to break the existing deadlock within the Government over acceptance of the Potsdam terms.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Tahna: Nixon wasn't president during My Lai. Oh, he was in for the tail of the war... but it wasn't his war.
True, Nixon shows that Republicans can be just as bad, if they really work at it... but his kill rate isn't nearly so high as others.
[ January 26, 2002, 13:50: Message edited by: First of Two ]
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:True, Nixon shows that Republicans can be just as bad, if they really work at it... but his kill rate isn't nearly so high as others.
Ask a Chilean.
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
"If one was dropped on Nagasaki to prove that the US could make two, why wasn't another one dropped to prove you could make 3?"
Because it was a bluff, really. There were only three to begin with, and the first one had already been exploded at Los Alamos. They figured they could drop one and Japan would say "Yeah, that's a neat trick, but can you do it twice?" and hoped that, after the second one, no-one would say "Okay, you can do it twice, but what about a third time?".
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
We're going well off-topic, but seeing as I am a history student, I can't bear to let some of this stuff go unrebutted. Not that the world will be a better place if I do.
First of all, First, you prescribed a nuclear knock-out punch that would reduce the Soviet Union to the point where it would collapse with little or no conventional fighting. And that's not one half-kiloton bomb in Moscow and one half-kiloton bomb in Leningrad. Hell, a nuke in New York and a nuke in Washington would bring down neither the US government nor the US people's willingness to fight off an invader. Two bombs would only unify an already-incredibly patriotic people ever closer and the Soviet Union would only fall after an incredibly bloody conventional invasion that still might have been unwinnable. If you wanted to "lop off the head" of the USSR in 1945, I'd imagine you'd want to rapidly launch a surprise attack and obliterate at least the dozen largest cities, followed by a quick ground campaign and occupation. And that would be monumentally amoral, regardless of how one interprets history would flow from then on.
First's comparison of Soviet domination of Eastern Europe and a Nazi victory in WW2 is also rather flawed. While the Eastern bloc had no shortage of horrors, I think it's safe to say that I'll take an Allied + Soviet victory over Nazi victory any day. A Europe from Madrid to Moscow to the Middle-East under Nazi rule with perhaps a destroyed and very timid Britain still independent would be far, far worse than what ended up transpiring in Eastern Europe. We'd certainly be looking at extermination numbers as high or higher than Stalin's purges of the thirties. And that's assuming the Second World War would have been stopped somehow. If Hitler had conquered Europe, who's to say there wouldn't have been a nuclear war between Germany and the US, or at the very least a Cold War between the two similar to that between the Allies and the Eastern Bloc with the exception that Nazi Europe would probably have the advantage? In other words, we should be thankful for the Soviets, much as they themselves were a nasty bunch, too.
But hey, so long as we're playing the "what if" game... A subjugated, then democraticized and reindustrialized Russia could have led to a stronger UN Well, one must assume that you're defining a stronger UN as one with fewer disagreements on the Security Council level. Which isn't necessarily a good thing, especially for those of you who subscribe to the "efficient government = dictatorship" theory. Doesn't Jeffersonian thinking dictate that there should be someone on the security council scrutinizing the Western powers, as well? Besides, the UN today with a non-communist Russia could hardly be said to be significantly more effective, now, could it? no large-scale nuclear arms race, no Cold War, Granted. Probably no Apollo program either, while we're at it likely no Korea or 'Nam Well, if you assume that the USSR's occupation of Korea north of the 54th would never happened and that Communist China wouldn't have moved in anyway, then I guess no North Korea and therefore no Korean War. I'd venture the thought that Nam could have happened without the USSR. Actually, I think it would. No Communist Cuba Actually, Castro most likely would still have come to power. It's just he wouldn't have found a major ally post-Bay-of-Pigs in the form of Russia and therefore probably never would have gotten labeled "communist." , no brush wars in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, and who knows what else. Socialist Revolution would continue to gather grassroots support in impoverished nations ruled by wealthy dictators that were puppets to American business and political interests. You'd have to knock off Marx a hundred years earlier to make a dent in that, and even still there'd be no guarantee that a similar doctrine wouldn't arise. When you look at the amount of aid that the Soviet Union actually gave to the various guerillas/freedom-fighters/terrorists/insurgents/rebels (choose your term), I don't think it could be fingered as a major factor in ensuring their survival.
And now for an interesting counterpoint to all this talk about nuclear weapons. It's been speculated by numerous noted historians (AJP Taylor and Richard Overy, for starters) that the use of the Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima was exactly what caused the Cold War in the first place. Stalin met Truman (yet another evil Democrat, yes. Because they spill blood for fun) at Pottsdam and wasn't told that the very next day the Americans were going to drop an A-bomb on Hiroshima, or even that the Americans were working on an A-bomb. Stalin was an incredibly paranoid character, and rightly or wrongly took this as mounting evidence that the West planned to rebuilt Germany and then invade Russia for the third time in a half-century. (Had Rob been in power, Mr. Stalin would have been right.) And this directly led, or so say the evil liberal America-hating historians, to Soviet hegemony over its occupied territories and the descent of the Iron Curtain. But what would they know, not being librarians?
A final alt-history puzzle: Wasn't it a lucky thing that the Japanese didn't have intelligence telling them that the Americans only had the two bombs? For all Truman knew, they could have called his bluff after Nagasaki. And then the war would continue (at least until the Americans managed to build more A-bombs or alternately firebomb the Japanese until they were scared (or terrorized, *ahem* *ahem*) into surrendering. And many more people would die and the civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have died in vain.
[ January 26, 2002, 18:43: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
They would have died under any circumstances: nuke, firebombing, invasion, or starvation. They were being mobilized AS SOLDIERS, and would have fought as such.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
not to quibble here, but babies with rifles can be some bad motherfuckers when the need arises.
Re: Vietnam Re: Bosnia Re: Columbine. (huh? no, it's true.)
I've always been of the opinion that while it's fun to speculate about alternative histories to such a great extent, it has no real value.
Better instead to learn in depth about what actually did happen. But you bunch know that, obviously.
The point is that nobody, no matter how educated, or sophiticated, can say with any authority how things WOULD have happened IF X happened instead of Y...it's not algebra. The broad sweep of history contains too many *ahem* X factors.
Say, for example, that the US hadn't dropped the atomic bombs on Japan...
The War Department was projecting massive causualties for an invasion of Japan on both sides, but since it never happened, how can we say with any certainitude that it would have?
I remember reading about projected causualties for D-day...seem to recall 60%-80% losses expected on some fronts for allied forces. Things in reality were bad, but not THAT bad. Although individual squads may have been fucked pretty well, Divisions came through pretty much intact.
War is hell for soldiers. For statistics, it's just Fucked Up.
Tangent: You all should read "Dirty Secrets of WW2" If you haven't. Excellent stuff, and full of stats, for those that like that sort of thing. Like me.
[ January 27, 2002, 01:09: Message edited by: thoughtcriminal84 ]
Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Re: Vietnam Re: Bosnia Re: Columbine. (huh? no, it's true.)
Uh, well, no, those were children, certainly, but babies can't even TALK, much less fire rifles.
As for the projected casualties of an invasion of the Japanese home islands, original estimates placed the number in the low tens of thousands. One million wasn't brought up until much later. And since we've got to analyze the decision to use atomic weapons with the estimates the policymakers would've had, its irrelevent.
posted
well, since you were talking about JUST babies (re: infants, with small limbs and all) with rifles, your sarcastic thing is duly noted.
My point was that killers come in all shapes and sizes, and that is an observable phenomenon from times past. And present.
This whole thread leads me down some dark thought-paths, to be honest.
Was the united states justified? Who knows? After what happened with the airplanes last year, and with information We Don't Have factored into the equation, the CIA may have honestly thought it wouldn't be a bad Idea to spy on them.
We don't know all the facts, and to me, friends and neighbors, that's the scary part.
Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
*steals a few minutes of\n his parents' computer*
As Churchill said, "In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies." In other words, war is about defending fundamental principles, and the protection of first truths often requires sacrificing secondary and tertiary ones.
Children can't use weapons? Tell that to the Vietnamese. Or those two munchkins who were running "God's Army" in Cambodia a little while back. Give a little kid an armed hand grenade and tell him to run towards the big guys in green, and he'll do it. Those folks proved it.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
