LogFAQs > #891330629

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, Database 2 ( 09.16.2017-02.21.2018 ), DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Is it okay to kill civilians in war?
darkknight109 11/30/17 11:24:27 AM #52:	Solid Sonic posted... Japan was notorious for fighting to the last man. If the US didn't hit them hard and profoundly, the war in the Pacific was going to continue and do more harm to Japan than the two atomic bombs did. If anything we did them a favor because we got their emperor to concede defeat before he threw his people's lives away any further. This is the most revisionist crock of shit I've ever read and suggesting that killing several hundred thousand civilians in any way represents "a favour" is downright fucking disgusting. Japan was already beaten and they were well aware of that. Their navy and air force were in tatters, their allies had all surrendered, and they were stuck next to the most powerful country on the planet in the USSR, with the US bearing down on them as well. They had already communicated to the allies that they were willing to discuss terms of surrender. However, the US had a conundrum, that being that the longer negotiations dragged on, the more likely the Soviets were to launch an invasion of their own. US/Soviet relations were already souring due to strong anti-communist sentiment in the American government and America had just seen Germany divided as the Soviets claimed the Eastern half of the country as territory and established a new communist state. They had no desire to see the same in Japan. As such, when it came time to broker the terms of a peace agreement, the US sent a list of demands that seemed custom-tailored to be rejected by the Japanese leadership (chief among them being that the Emperor had to step down and the Japanese had to formally acknowledge that he was not divine, which served no strategic purpose beyond a nationalistic insult). When the Japanese balked at the demands, the US dropped the bombs - not on military targets, but on civilian centres. You can argue the strategic merit against Japan, but a great number of strategists and historians (notably including Supreme Allied Commander Eisenhower) believe that dropping the bombs were totally unnecessary against Japan. What they did do, however, was send an implicit warning to the Soviets, which was likely the true goal all along. By the way, just to illustrate how little the US actually cared about their demands, the Emperor was allowed to remain in power after Japan tendered an unconditional surrender in the aftermath. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:891330629] in Is it okay... [t:76035585]...</cite> <quote><cite>Solid Sonic posted...</cite> <quote>Japan was notorious for fighting to the last man. If the US didn't hit them hard and profoundly, the war in the Pacific was going to continue and do more harm to Japan than the two atomic bombs did. If anything we did them a favor because we got their emperor to concede defeat before he threw his people's lives away any further.</quote> This is the most revisionist crock of shit I've ever read and suggesting that killing several hundred thousand civilians in any way represents "a favour" is downright fucking disgusting. Japan was already beaten and they were well aware of that. Their navy and air force were in tatters, their allies had all surrendered, and they were stuck next to the most powerful country on the planet in the USSR, with the US bearing down on them as well. They had already communicated to the allies that they were willing to discuss terms of surrender. However, the US had a conundrum, that being that the longer negotiations dragged on, the more likely the Soviets were to launch an invasion of their own. US/Soviet relations were already souring due to strong anti-communist sentiment in the American government and America had just seen Germany divided as the Soviets claimed the Eastern half of the country as territory and established a new communist state. They had no desire to see the same in Japan. As such, when it came time to broker the terms of a peace agreement, the US sent a list of demands that seemed custom-tailored to be rejected by the Japanese leadership (chief among them being that the Emperor had to step down and the Japanese had to formally acknowledge that he was not divine, which served no strategic purpose beyond a nationalistic insult). When the Japanese balked at the demands, the US dropped the bombs - not on military targets, but on civilian centres. You can argue the strategic merit against Japan, but a great number of strategists and historians (notably including Supreme Allied Commander Eisenhower) believe that dropping the bombs were totally unnecessary against Japan. What they did do, however, was send an implicit warning to the Soviets, which was likely the true goal all along. By the way, just to illustrate how little the US actually cared about their demands, the Emperor was allowed to remain in power after Japan tendered an unconditional surrender in the aftermath. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1