WWII POST

[NiemandheißtBoshaftigkeit]

This is just an idea I thought of yesterday so please dont be too malicious. I am unsure what I believe consering this topic so do not assume I believe that the attack was justifyable. As we all know, the USA claimed to be neutral during the first years of WWII (1939-1941) but provided the British with equipment and also allowed Americans to join British military organizations. Now, this could be considered as acts of aggresion and suggest that America would later join the war against the Axis powers. So, my question is, was the attack on Pearl Harbor justifyable?

 

[Yahweh Nissi]

I assume that you mean "within the accepted rules of warefare" rather them morally justifiable - it may have been the former but certainly not the latter.

 

[Agrippa]

In my opinion, no. Why should American assistance to GB concern the Japanese? Considering the...ah...difficulties the British were having in Europe, an offensive in the Pacific against Japan would be the last things on their mind. The only reason it would concern the Japanese would be if they were planning their own offensive, which would mean in turn that American aid to GB is justifiable.

 

[Key Of David]

If I only had one of those "don't feed the trolls" smilies.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Well, Japan was certainly afraid that the US would join the war. That's why they made this pre-emptive strike, after all. Otherwise it wouldn't make any sense, would it? From THEIR point of view it was pretty clear that their only chance was to score the first blow. If they were right in assuming this is a completely different manner.
Anyway, every nation involved in WWII has accumulated lots of bad karma. No need to feel heroic for any party involved.
What the *obvious* bad guys did is pretty well known, so I won't detail the war crimes of Germany, Japan and so forth. But if we pick our own nose and take a look at the allies, the picture is pretty dark as well.

The British killed millions of civillians by dropping bombs on german cities, which is *definitely* a crime.

The US dropped nuclear bombs, with the purpose of testing them in the field.

And I needn't tell you anything about the russians as well, because they ceased to be our allies a few years later and we didn't bother to ignore their war crimes any longer.

Criminals, the lot of us. Common murderers, not heroes.

 

[Agrippa]

Well, Japan was certainly afraid that the US would join the war. That's why they made this pre-emptive strike, after all. Otherwise it wouldn't make any sense, would it? From THEIR point of view it was pretty clear that their only chance was to score the first blow. If they were right in assuming this is a completely different manner.

The Japanese didn't think the US was going to attack them. They thought the US was going to attack them after they attacked Malaya and the Dutch East Indies. So, they decided to attack the Philipines, to keep the US from using at a base of operations against them. But, of course, then there was the US Pacific fleet to consider. So, they decided to attack Pearl Harbor. Thus, the attack wasn't pre-emptive in the sense that the Japanese thought the US would attack them, but, rather it was an attack to pre-empt a US attempt to stop blatant Japanese aggression.

The US dropped nuclear bombs, with the purpose of testing them in the field.

Incorrect, the US dropped the atomic bombs to stop the war and save millions of lives.

Criminals, the lot of us. Common murderers, not heroes.

Ouch. Well, the next time a Hitler emerges, I'll remember to act courteously and not fight.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Incorrect, the US dropped the atomic bombs to stop the war and save millions of lives. .

Muhaha... Good joke, next joke. There are japanese children dying from cancer due to these bombs to this day. Maybe you saved AMERICAN lives, but you killed millions of people in the process.

Ouch. Well, the next time a Hitler emerges, I'll remember to act courteously and not fight.

Not fight? No. Refrain from commiting war crimes? Yes. It doesn't make much sense to fight for moral reasons when you act just as unscrupulous and inhumane as those you try to beat.
If you put yourself in the wrong by commiting crimes, you've become just as evil as those you condemn. Of course, there is no one to prosecute you if you are on the winning side, but that doesn't make your deeds less of a crime.

 

[TScott]

I voted yes and no.

The Japanese not only felt justified but felt it was their only chance. Admiral Yamamoto and most of the other naval leadership opposed a war with the USA. The Japanese military had the custom of sending their top officers to embassy duty in countries that they felt specialized in their particular branch of service. Naval officers were assigned to duty in the USA and Britain, while army officers were assigned duty in Germany and Russia. Because of this Naval officers like Yamamoto truly undertood the awesome industrial might of the USA and he felt that a war with them would be impossible to win. When asked to plan for such a war Yamamoto felt that the only chance would be to destroy the majority of the US Fleet at the onset in hopes that the USA may sue for peace rather than fight a two ocean war. Yamamoto also knew well that the attitude of the American people towards such an attack was crucial, he therefore insisted that such an attack should be preceded by at least a half hour with a formal declaration of hostilities. He knew that otherwise, the American outrage would never allow for an armastice. When after the attack Yamamoto heard that because of bureaucratic bungling by the Japanese embassy in Washington, the declaration of hostilities was not given to the American authorities until after the attack he despaired that the great victory over the Americans was for naught. He spent the rest of his days in the war seeking a decisive battle that would finish off the Americans. Because his plans were entirely too intricate and because the Americans knew in advance where he was attacking (they had broken the Japanese naval codes), he failed.

Why did Japan feel they had to go to war with the USA? When the USA froze Japanese assets and shut off their oil supply, the Japanese decided that in order to survive as a nation they could not back down from all their gains in China, whom they had invaded in the thirties. Because of their Bushido code and their cultural points of view they felt that such a loss of face would doom them as a nation. The army saw war as the only alternative, and since they held a majority of the power, and because any senior officers that advocated peace publicly were being assasinated, they pretty much got their way.

I've always thought that it must have been frustrating for the Japanese naval leadership, especially Yamamoto. He genuinly liked Americans, he not only served at the embassy in Washington, but also attended Harvard. He had many American friends. But besides those feelings he also was acutely aware that the naval struggle would be futile if it went on more than a few years. Yamamoto was killed when a group of P-38s jumped his plane in the Solomons.

During the war the Japanese Navy did exremely well in surface engagements. Their destroyers and cruisers dominated the Americans in engagements fought before the Americans perfected the use of radar in battle.

Anyway, they were justified in their eyes, and foolhardy in everyone elses.

Here is a pretty cool site for JApanese navy stuff:

http://www.combinedfleet.com/

 

[TScott]

Muhaha... Good joke, next joke. There are japanese children dying from cancer due to these bombs to this day. Maybe you saved AMERICAN lives, but you killed millions of people in the process.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing but really doesn't teach you anything. According to your user info you are 24 years old and from Britain. That means you were born 40 years after the German blitz over the cities of your country. Europe was at peace in 1938 and in 1939 the Germans decided to have a war. The war extended around the globe and in the end 50 million lives were snuffed out, almost 40 million in Europe alone. I always felt that it was hard to be too critical of the decisions made by the people who were fighting this war without at least trying to put myself in their shoes. They were making decisions daily that would mean the deaths of thousands, every day. After 40 million people had their lives snuffed out I can only imagine that the overriding impulse would be to just end the darn thing as soon as possible.

Anyway, I just think you should know that it I think it must be awfully easy for you to sit here in the luxury of never having had to make the terrible decisions these people had to make and criticize.

 

[SolomonVII]

The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor as a purely tactical maneuvre to remove American threat to their plans to dominate the whole of Eastern Asia. Militarily it was justified American military might needed to be removed to ensure Japanese victory.
Stategically however, Japan failed to fully understand the psychology of the Americans. They failed to recognized that such a blow to American pride would stimulate the whole of the American population to abandon its isolationist stance and become determined to win at all costs. If the Japanese had realized the source of American power lay not in its actual military hardware, but in its people and its industrial ability to reproduce military hardware quickly, then they would have realized the folly of their venture.
As a military venture then the attack was justified and even necessary if Japan was to reach its goals. Strategically however, it was pure folly.

 

[SolomonVII]

Hindsight is a wonderful thing but really doesn't teach you anything. According to your user info you are 24 years old and from Britain. That means you were born 40 years after the German blitz over the cities of your country. Europe was at peace in 1938 and in 1939 the Germans decided to have a war. The war extended around the globe and in the end 50 million lives were snuffed out, almost 40 million in Europe alone. I always felt that it was hard to be too critical of the decisions made by the people who were fighting this war without at least trying to put myself in their shoes. They were making decisions daily that would mean the deaths of thousands, every day. After 40 million people had their lives snuffed out I can only imagine that the overriding impulse would be to just end the darn thing as soon as possible.

Anyway, I just think you should know that it I think it must be awfully easy for you to sit here in the luxury of never having had to make the terrible decisions these people had to make and criticize.

After the way that Germany had relentlessly bombed London at the beginning of the war, The British people themselves would have been contemptous of any British leader that would have taken the stance that Dresden should not be fire-bombed due to humanitarian considerations.
The American people too, had had enough. If the price that they had to pay to get their troops back home was 300,000 dead Japanese civilians, they were quite willing to pay that price. It must have been a hard decision for Truman to make, but if his responsibility was to his own American citizens, and to world peace through the removal of an agressive enemy, the courage he displayed in making such a terrible choice is commendable.
The last half a century of peace that we in Britain and Canada have enjoyed sometimes make humanitarian considerations seem paramount. Without suffering the losses and the hardships that the people of another generation has had to live through, it is perhaps a little naive to put on an air or moral superiority. Good posts, TScott!

 

[Agrippa]

Muhaha... Good joke, next joke. There are japanese children dying from cancer due to these bombs to this day. Maybe you saved AMERICAN lives, but you killed millions of people in the process.

The atomic bomb saved both Japanese and American lives. Do you think no Japanese soldiers would have been killed in the invasion? Especially considering the fact that most of the nation was mobilized into a miltia. Especially considering the fact that the militia had no uniforms, so any civilian Americans encountered could potentially have been an enemy. You would still have radiation poisoning anyway, considering the American plan to nuke the beachheads before landing. Then there would be the starvation factor. Even with the war ending in September and an influx of American aid, there was still a great deal of starvation during the winter of 45-46. That would have been multiplied by quite a bit in the event of an invasion and the complete destruction of an remaining infrastructure.

Well, we could have done a blockade instead of an invasion. That would have killed millions through starvation. And don't forget that as we're waiting for the Japanese to starve to death, roughly 100,000 Chinese people are dying every month. So if the war ends in three months, you've already exceeded the deaths by the atomic bombs.

Not fight? No. Refrain from commiting war crimes? Yes. It doesn't make much sense to fight for moral reasons when you act just as unscrupulous and inhumane as those you try to beat.
If you put yourself in the wrong by commiting crimes, you've become just as evil as those you condemn. Of course, there is no one to prosecute you if you are on the winning side, but that doesn't make your deeds less of a crime.

But you're stating that we're all war criminals. Remember, "Criminals, the lot of us. Common murderers, not heroes."?

 

[NiemandheißtBoshaftigkeit]

Well, first, the Japanese wanted to die. Also, what were the Germans tried for at Neuremburg? Hmmmm, was it the murder of non-combatants? See as "carpet bombing" killed alot of civilians I would agree with Jane_the_Bane.

To Key of David: Please do not post here again.

 

[TScott]

Well, first, the Japanese wanted to die.

What Japanese wanted to die?

 

[SolomonVII]

Well, first, the Japanese wanted to die. Also, what were the Germans tried for at Neuremburg? Hmmmm, was it the murder of non-combatants? See as "carpet bombing" killed alot of civilians I would agree with Jane_the_Bane.

To Key of David: Please do not post here again.

Whatever the Germans were tried for at Nuremburg, what they weren't tried for at Nuremburg was the blitz of London.
Smart bombs hadn't been invented yet. But even if they had, I would argue that once the evil of war is resorted to, one side cannot be expected to act in a manner that is more high-minded that the tactics employed by its enemy, if by doing so they are in effect fighting with one hand tied behind their back.
Similar to what happened in the first world war, once Germany decided to break the rules of engagement and use chemical weapons, the alllied forces actually owed it to their own soldiers to respond in similar fashion. Once the actual soldiers on the ground begin to witness their own friends dying horrible deaths due to mustard gas, it would be too much to ask of them to play the role of saints and take the high road by not responding in kind.

War trials such as Nuremburg cannot be expected to achieve a perfect justice, or even to be equally fair to all sides. War is in and of itself is a crime against humanity. Even if it is the lesser of two evils, even its necessity does not make it any less of an evil. However, by highlighting the most egregious examples of bad behavior committed under the cover of war, and punishing those responsible for the attempted extermination of a entire sectors of non-combattants in European society, the Nuremburg trials served a useful function. As even Milosevic is discovering, there may be consequences for the political courses they choose.

As for the Japanese wanting to die, there was a code of honor among the soldiers that it would be honorable to fight to death than to ever surrender. The contempt that they showed for soldiers that they took as prisoners of war illustrates this attitude. It would be stretch, though, to state that the whole of the Japanese nation believed in this manner.

However the attitude displayed by the Japanese military in their determination to fight to its bitter end, even when the illusion of victory disappeared, likely was a factor that led President Truman into deciding as he did.

 

[NiemandheißtBoshaftigkeit]

What Japanese wanted to die?

Hmmm...maybe the ones who killed themselves rather than surrender....

 

[TScott]

Hmmm...maybe the ones who killed themselves rather than surrender....

How crass can you be?
Those people didn't want to die any more than you or I. It's easy to think that people who kill themselves rather than surrender, or that will purposely crash a plane into a ship have a low regard for their lives, but nothing could be further from the truth. They had a high regard for their life. They felt that it was honorable to die and dishonorable to surrender. They felt that they were giving the most important thing they had: their life.
To us the "Day of Infamy" was December 7, 1941, the day they bombed Pearl Harbor, but to the Japanese the Day of Infamy was February 15, 1942, the day that the British forces surrendered to the Japanese at Singapore. To the Japanese this was the most dishonorable event they had ever witnessed, the British force still larger than the Japanese attackers, still with the means to fight surrendered. It made the Japanese ashamed of their humanity. That was why you didn't want to be a POW with the Japanese. You would not be treated well.
Difference in culture, but they valued their lives just as much as you or I.

 

[NiemandheißtBoshaftigkeit]

I never said that they did not value their lives. I said basically what you did only in fewer words. I fully realize what their beliefs were and respect those beliefs very much. I respect those beliefs to the point that I wish America was the same instead of fat cowards whom I wish would only realize how well off they are.

 

[Key Of David]

Well, first, the Japanese wanted to die. Also, what were the Germans tried for at Neuremburg? Hmmmm, was it the murder of non-combatants? See as "carpet bombing" killed alot of civilians I would agree with Jane_the_Bane.

To Key of David: Please do not post here again.

LOL

 

[NiemandheißtBoshaftigkeit]

LOL to what? Do you have nothing better to do with your time than annoy me or is your life really that sad? I cry for you