^^ That's right, Eastern Germany was ethnically cleansed. Now only Russians live there. I swear I have no idea why I even bother.

9/18/2005 1:25:45 AM

Remember kids, it's only ethnic cleansing if you succeed.

9/18/2005 1:34:10 AM

No, you stupid dork, it's only ethnic cleansing if an ethnicity is targeted. There has never been a plan to forcibly remove (by any means) ethnic Germans from Eastern Germany.

What is it with you? Is this the military thing? You're getting dumber every week.

9/18/2005 1:38:18 AM

Off topic, but...

Quote :

"They nonetheless never terrorized civil population of any country (as in killed part of it to turn the rest into submission)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1956_Hungarian_Revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_spring
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Afghanistan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge

[Edited on September 18, 2005 at 2:15 AM. Reason : off to bed now...]

9/18/2005 2:12:25 AM

I hate to point out the details, but the title of the book said that Eastern Europe was cleansed, not that Eastern Germany was.

Not that it wouldn't be an example of terrorism either way.

9/18/2005 2:24:43 AM

Quote :

"Deliberate killing of civilians in order to achieve political or military goals is terrorism. It was later outlawed by the Geneva convention. Yes, I realize the word "later" is there. It was later outlawed because it had always been immoral and wrong."

As opposed to what?

The point being--the military is itself a product of the civilian population. The conscripts who fight the war, are drawn from the civilian population.

Inarguably the military itself is drawn from the peacetime infrastructure that is buffed up to support it. Industry and such become machines of war.

There is a big difference between "terrorism" as a means of manipulating a nation that is geared towards a general peace, and destroying the infrastructure that supports a whole nation at war with other nations.

In the case of dropping the atomic bomb, we saw the latter. It was aimed at destroying the Japanese war machine: a product not only of its military infrastructure, but its civilian population which was broadly geared towards war. All of Japan was an aggressive war machine.

I personally agree with both instances of the atomic campaign against Japan. Although the effects were terrible, it was merely fighting fire with fire. The Japanese were a country united in war, to the end. They were a thousand atomic bombs, localized, for the purpose of empire.

In rare occasions, the government and the people are indistinguishable in their drive to conquer. World War II was just such an occasion. The Japanese were holistically determined to create an empire; the war was not simply an isolated adventure of their day. It was the country's whole being at that time.

And, on a side note--as others have implied--I am sure the Soviets would have been less generous in their dispensation of punishment against the Japanese.

9/18/2005 2:36:28 AM

Not Eastern Germany, but Germans were kicked out of Poland, Ukraine, Czechoslovakia, etc. Over two million didn't survive the process.

Not exactly the same thing as blowing up people though...

9/18/2005 2:43:56 AM

what MathFreak doesnt realize, is that the leader of soviet russia during wwII, most people remember him as Joseph Stalin, killed more of his own people than Hitler killed Jews

9/18/2005 2:52:30 AM

I'm pretty damn sure Math is aware of Stalin's crimes

he's not saying the USSR was great on human rights, just that they didn't use terrorist tactics

9/18/2005 3:36:36 AM

terrorist tactics are car bombs, airplane hijackings, kidnappings, etc.
terrorism encompasses the things that people do to harm and usually kill innocent and not-so-innocent civilians in order to gain attention and inflict fear. these actions aren't taken to end wars, they're taken to create and perpetuate them.

as for quoting military officials of the time of WWII, it's all fine and good that you admire their opinions, but they will disagree as much as people do now. that hasn't changed. Tanzarian made some good points when it comes to terminology. you can make any part of military action sound horrific and evil, just as easily as you can describe it as glorious and honorable. the solid truth is, war is hell. not one part of it is good except for the purpose of those who are fighting with the sole intention of ending it for the better peace and security of their home. there is death, there is torture. there are immoral decisions, questionable actions. the Japanese tortured POWs in unbelievable ways. Stalin killed millions of his own people and drove his own armies into certain death. Hitler and the Nazis killed their own people and millions of others to literally try to take over the world. the U.S. had questionable actions with the containment of Asian citizens and immigrants, of course, the use of nuclear weapons at the end of the war with Japan. if you think any one person, or any one entity, is entirely in the right, without blame, then you are sadly mistaken.

the U.S. ended the war, on questionable morality, but it was done. the troops came home. wives saw their husbands, sisters saw their brothers, and many of us are even around because those people made it home. it was worth it. you cannot deny that thousands more soldiers and civilians would have died had we not dropped the bombs.

P.S. MathFreak : stop the name-calling. just get your two cents worth in and be done. if you're right or wrong, we'll know who is less intelligent by what they have to say.

9/18/2005 4:23:00 AM

Quote :

"There is a big difference between "terrorism" as a means of manipulating a nation that is geared towards a general peace, and destroying the infrastructure that supports a whole nation at war with other nations. In the case of dropping the atomic bomb, we saw the latter. It was aimed at destroying the Japanese war machine: a product not only of its military infrastructure, but its civilian population which was broadly geared towards war. All of Japan was an aggressive war machine."

The problem with this logic is that your criterion is absolutely subjective and in the eyes of the beholder. I would even suspect that you'd have an audacity to suggest the US has been "geared towards peace". That being despite the fact that they have attacked more countries in the last 50 years than any other nation.

The war in Iraq and Afghanistan is unquestionably a product of civilian support (among other things). That's the nature of a democracy. According to your logic, it is ok to view the American population as a continuation of the American war machine and attack them. I know it's Prof. Churchill's thesis, but is it yours as well?

Quote :

"And, on a side note--as others have implied--I am sure the Soviets would have been less generous in their dispensation of punishment against the Japanese."

I know you're sure. I just wonder if you have anything to back this up with. I repeat that I don't know of any decision made by the Soviets to go ahead and kill a bunch of civilians (not as a collateral but as a primary target) in order to gain anything politically and militarily. Do you?

Quote :

"Not Eastern Germany, but Germans were kicked out of Poland, Ukraine, Czechoslovakia, etc. Over two million didn't survive the process. "

Which Germans? Ones who came because of Hitler's promise to give them land and let rule the undermen? What did they expect? A cup of tea with a cake?

9/18/2005 10:00:40 AM

I saw a History Channel special about Operation Downfall, the plan for an Allied invasion of Japan that would've gone down if we hadn't dropped the bombs. We expected the invasion to last two years, and our casualties were projected to be tremendous—so tremendous that half a million Purple Hearts were manufactured in anticipation of Downfall, a supply that the military was still using as late as 2000.

9/18/2005 10:13:46 AM

^no doubt overestimated.

The japs were getting to a point where their resistance would just fold. Will to fight aside, you still need food, oil, organization, air support, etc. It would have been clean up duty.

9/18/2005 10:18:27 AM

Just like 'Nam, right?

9/18/2005 10:19:17 AM

the japanese people wouldnt have stood for an invasion of their homeland

would you? i mean shit...say if we were ever invaded, and I saw someone coming down the road to my house...you think im gonna buckle? I'd give them all I could, and thats exactly what the japanese would have done...and thats not even counting what their military could have done

9/18/2005 10:21:45 AM

Quote :

" We expected the invasion to last two years"

No, you didn't. The Soviet Union ha dalready declared a war. No sane person thought Japan would last more than a few weeks.

9/18/2005 10:25:04 AM

Quote :

"the japanese people wouldnt have stood for an invasion of their homeland would you? "

As a matter of fact, yes. Let's imagine the situation: the japs had been at war time mobilization for about a decade, and for the last couple of years, they had been losing. Standard of living was plummeting, families were losing members to the war, freedom had become atrocious.

I would welcome the end of the war in that situation. Furthermore, there is no way in hell I am going fight an infinitely superior invading force just to face an almost certain death. The bottom line is self preservation.

You'd have to be seriously irrational to do otherwise. Assertions that the japs would not have done so is purely speculation. What we do know is that they were surprisingly docile in occupation. You wouldn't expect that from people who would purportedly fight an invasion with every man, woman, and child.

Quote :

" i mean shit...say if we were ever invaded, and I saw someone coming down the road to my house...you think im gonna buckle? I'd give them all I could, and thats exactly what the japanese would have done."

That's because you are an idiot. Idiots die, and you would have.


[Edited on September 18, 2005 at 11:15 AM. Reason : df]

9/18/2005 11:10:27 AM

^ Most people would resist an invation. I'm not saying I would, but I think most people (at least most Americans) would.

9/18/2005 12:05:41 PM

Quote :

"No sane person thought Japan would last more than a few weeks."

Do you have a source for that so that we know that its not coming directly out of your ass?

9/18/2005 12:23:23 PM

How about you read the thread?

9/18/2005 12:45:06 PM

Quote :

"You'd have to be seriously irrational to do otherwise. Assertions that the japs would not have done so is purely speculation. What we do know is that they were surprisingly docile in occupation. You wouldn't expect that from people who would purportedly fight an invasion with every man, woman, and child. "

are you seriously arguing that the Japanese weren't tenacious to a point well past what anyone could consider rational? i mean, we're talking about the people who's civilians hurled themselves off of cliffs when their islands had been overtaken, as they felt so shamed in defeat.

not to mention the fact that Japanese soldiers holed up on islands who never got the word that the war had ended shot at cruise ships into what, the 1970s?

i'm not convinced that an invasion would've been necessary, but if it DID become necessary to invade in order to effect surrender, you can bet your sweet ass that it would've been absolutely hellish.


and for all of you who are making all kinds of half-assed, fringe arguments for either side, go back to my first post on the first page. i pretty much covered things there.

9/18/2005 1:34:26 PM

Quote :

"The problem with this logic is that your criterion is absolutely subjective and in the eyes of the beholder. I would even suspect that you'd have an audacity to suggest the US has been "geared towards peace"."

Well, I kinda figured you'd respond with the "Blame America First" line. Are you saying that America is in any way similar to Imperial Japan? How many mass rapes have we performed in our 50 years of attacking more countries than anyone else?

Quote :

"According to your logic, it is ok to view the American population as a continuation of the American war machine and attack them. I know it's Prof. Churchill's thesis, but is it yours as well?"

No, I think my logic is that it was OK to view the Japanese population as a continuation of the Japanese war machine, and therefore to attack them. When did I mention America?

Honestly, I am not going to have this "let's assume all military engagements are equal" debate with you. It's just pointless, and it's going to come down to your assumption that we should Blame America First and mine that maybe Japan was a pretty unique instance of a mass-raping, totalitarian, militaristic society that was Hell-bent on empire at all costs.

Quote :

"I repeat that I don't know of any decision made by the Soviets to go ahead and kill a bunch of civilians (not as a collateral but as a primary target) in order to gain anything politically and militarily."

First off, I rather disagree that the civilians were the "primary target" in the atomic bombing campaigns. In general I think the element of surprise inherent to the campaign led to a lot of civilian casualties, but both cities were legitimate military targets. Of course the American generals knew that civilian casualities would be huge.

So my question to you is: are you implying that a Soviet invasion of Japan would NOT have entailed massive cilivian casualities? And when you consider their own imperial ambitions at the time, are you also implying that they would've settled for anything less than total domination of Japan?

Given a Soviet advance, I'd find it hard to believe that the dictators bent on "total war" wouldn't have just started conscripting whomeever they could from the civilian population until every old man was dead. It wouldn't be the first time empires have subjected themselves to such insanity.

9/18/2005 1:45:13 PM

Either way, theDuke866, an invasion from the US military would have resulted in mass casualualties of both cilivians and soldiers either way.

Also , their would not have been much of a lost in US casualities as Japanese casualities , because the United States would have been armed anyway, given them a better advantage of seizing Japan's Government, end not to mention our allies that would also invade japan

My third point is, I don't think an invasion would have prolonged us to war .Japan is a small island, we could have easily seized the island if we had ships that surrounded the island just like when President Kennedy order ships to surround Cuba during the Bay-Pigs war. An Invasion of Germany did not prolong its resistance to Allied forces .

9/18/2005 2:27:25 PM

Quote :

"Which Germans? Ones who came because of Hitler's promise to give them land and let rule the undermen? What did they expect? A cup of tea with a cake?"

The vast majority of them were ethnic Germans whose ancestors had been living in those Eastern European countries for a good long while.

Of course, the program with accepted by all the Allies, and especially supported by many in the countries in question.

But killing two million people ain't no joke, even if they were members of an "evil" ethnic group.

Quote :

"i mean, we're talking about the people who's civilians hurled themselves off of cliffs when their islands had been overtaken, as they felt so shamed in defeat."

Eh, part of the reason they did was the overstated but somewhat justified fear of what the Americans would do to them if they allowed themselves to be captured.

Quote :

"and mine that maybe Japan was a pretty unique instance of a mass-raping, totalitarian, militaristic society that was Hell-bent on empire at all costs."

Not so unique. There's nothing special about killing a whole bunch of Chinese folks. Both Mao and Chiang did it. Heck, even the Mongols did it back in the day...

9/18/2005 2:34:00 PM

Eisenhower's opinion about what would have happened in Japan is invalid since he was not involved in that aspect of the war.

9/18/2005 2:47:49 PM

Quote :

"My third point is, I don't think an invasion would have prolonged us to war .Japan is a small island, we could have easily seized the island if we had ships that surrounded the island just like when President Kennedy order ships to surround Cuba during the Bay-Pigs war."

um...are you talking about the cuban missile crisis? because the bay of pigs wasn't a war but rather a failed invasion...

9/18/2005 2:56:27 PM

As for Soviet atrocities in Germany, there's certainly evidence that they were at least accepted by Stalin and company. It's a pain to find good info on the subject, though, 'coz it's too often connected with sources of accused of being Neo-Nazi or what have you.

9/18/2005 2:58:19 PM

Quote :

"My third point is, I don't think an invasion would have prolonged us to war .Japan is a small island, we could have easily seized the island if we had ships that surrounded the island just like when President Kennedy order ships to surround Cuba during the Bay-Pigs war."

Ever heard of Iwo Jima? Its about 8 square miles of land in the middle of the pacific. It took 110,000 marines over a month to win control of it. They suffered over 25,000 casualties. This was in the final stages of the war. So yes, an invasion of Japan would have been horrific and would have prolonged the war.

Quote :

"How about you read the thread?"

How about you provide a source when making wild claims? I can re-read your pro-Soviet chest pumping as many times as you want me to, sadly it doesn't prove anything.

9/18/2005 3:08:08 PM

Yeah, obviously it would have cost at least 500,000 American lives, considering how many Americans died when taking Germany.

Oh, wait...

9/18/2005 3:10:41 PM

Quote :

"Well, I kinda figured you'd respond with the "Blame America First" line."

I kinda figured anything I say non-coforming with your views would prompt a standard meaningless Sean Hannity like accusation instead of at a minimum an attempt to carefully understand (doesn't mean "accept") the argument that is being put forth.

Quote :

" Are you saying that America is in any way similar to Imperial Japan?"

Am I? Where?

I think I was saying you cannot deliberatly target civilian population.

Quote :

"No, I think my logic is that it was OK to view the Japanese population as a continuation of the Japanese war machine, and therefore to attack them. When did I mention America?"

I think you have a fuzzy view of what the word "logic" actually means. You would have a "logic" if one could sense any attempt on your part to construct some sort of a rule with a more or less general applicability. Well, technically "American => good" is an example of a "logic", but it's too degenerate and primitive to be worthy of any serious consideration.

Quote :

"Japan was a pretty unique instance of a mass-raping, totalitarian, militaristic society that was Hell-bent on empire at all costs."

Not in August 1945.

Quote :

"So my question to you is: are you implying that a Soviet invasion of Japan would NOT have entailed massive cilivian casualities? And when you consider their own imperial ambitions at the time, are you also implying that they would've settled for anything less than total domination of Japan?"

Leahy and Eisenhower didn't think so. I see no problem trusting them.

P.S. At any case your argument is that terrorism is what you wanna call it on a case by case basis. I also have no intention of going too deep into a further discussion once this basic fact is established. I believe in moral absolutes, and I further believe in that following moral absolutes is practical (before I get accused of living in a fantasy land). Saying a mere belief that deliberate killing of a certain number of civilians because of an existing preconception that it may be better than other possibilities (living in your head) makes it justified is a dangerous road to take. In particular, I hope to never hear from anyone who subscibes to this point of view any complaints about terrorists attacking "the innocent people" at the WTC.

Quote :

"How about you provide a source when making wild claims?"

Quote :

"How about you read the thread?"

... or go fuck yourself. Either way is fine with me.

[Edited on September 18, 2005 at 3:19 PM. Reason : .]

9/18/2005 3:16:00 PM

Because the situations of Japan and Germany were exactly alike.

9/18/2005 3:16:22 PM

Yeah, obviously the Japs would have resisted more.

Why? Well, them Asians is crazy. I see it with my own two eyes on Tee-Vee. They'd just pull out their Sam-yoor-aye swords and fight to the last.

9/18/2005 3:20:04 PM

Quote :

"Eisenhower didn't think so"

Eisenhower has nothing to do with the Pacific theatre. It's not a quesiton about crediblity, it's a question about validity. Eisenhower's comments on Japan are not valid.

9/18/2005 3:21:34 PM

We should just be glad they didn't pull any of that Sailor Moon shit on our asses.

We would have been toast.

9/18/2005 3:21:46 PM

I'm glad that they didn't poop on us.

9/18/2005 3:22:46 PM

i heard they could chop planes out o' the sky...

9/18/2005 3:24:02 PM

Just imagine the devastation that would be unleashed if they realized the seventh Dragon Ball was sealed deep within the Pentagon's vaults.

9/18/2005 3:26:57 PM

Quote :

"Eisenhower's comments on Japan are not valid."

Right. I mean it's not like he was a capable military leader with access to all information he needed to draw his conclusions. It's only when you are appointment to be someone on the Pacific front that your opinion gains credibility or "validity".

9/18/2005 3:56:24 PM

Quote :

"Right. I mean it's not like he was a capable military leader with access to all information he needed to draw his conclusions. It's only when you are appointment to be someone on the Pacific front that your opinion gains credibility or "validity"."

I doubt Eisenhower had all the information available to him. Why would Eisenhower, the Supreme Allied Commander who's only job was to beat the Germans be worried about MacArthur's war in the Pacific? As a mathematician, I would figure you wouldn't fall pray to such things. Also, I love how you've fallen back to logical fallacies constantly throughout this thread.

9/18/2005 4:04:44 PM

Quote :

"Why would Eisenhower, the Supreme Allied Commander who's only job was to beat the Germans be worried about MacArthur's war in the Pacific?"

WHAHH?!!!

9/18/2005 5:45:11 PM

Quote :

"Ever heard of Iwo Jima? Its about 8 square miles of land in the middle of the pacific. It took 110,000 marines over a month to win control of it. They suffered over 25,000 casualties. This was in the final stages of the war. So yes, an invasion of Japan would have been horrific and would have prolonged the war. "

yeah, Iwo Jima was fucking nuts. or look at Tarawa, where Marines fought a force of around 5,000 Japanese, of whom only 17 survived. They nearly literally did fight to the last man (i think most of that handful of survivors were incapacited, and were captured in that state). i believe about 1,000 Marines and sailors died in the battle, with a couple thousand more wounded.

9/18/2005 6:08:48 PM

Quote :

"Learn history in school "

history is all perception

textbooks are written so that you learn what people who control textbooks want you to learn

9/18/2005 6:20:26 PM

This thread needs the bucket of truth.

9/18/2005 7:06:37 PM

Quote :

"They nearly literally did fight to the last man (i think most of that handful of survivors were incapacited, and were captured in that state)."

That doesn't mean all Japanese would have done the same.

But really, it's kind of silly to focus on the nukes. The question should be about bombing civies, which we did both with conventional and nuclear weapons. And the Japanese Emperor did cite the burning cities as a reason for surrender, so the argument can be made that it helped.

A nasty bizness no matter how you spin it, though.

9/18/2005 7:14:37 PM

i agree on all counts.

9/18/2005 7:21:01 PM

It also needs a hot chicks room.

9/18/2005 7:51:50 PM

How about some poo on a stick?

9/19/2005 9:20:12 AM

When's the next Titte Brothers concert?

9/19/2005 3:26:07 PM

Quote :

"if an infantry division stormed a city, executing every man, woman, and child, that would be viewed by almost anyone as horrendous. however, there was widespread targeting of civilians by both sides in WWII from bombing raids, and we think of that as wholly different."

This is true, people do view them differently. However, I defy anyone to come up with a meaningful moral distinction between the two forms of mass murder you mentioned.

9/20/2005 2:13:16 PM

^ The biggest distinction I can think of is that we have survivors from Hiroshima, meanwhile the chinese cities in question were not so lucky.

On the otherhand, I can imagine a different moral distinction. I think it is more wrong to murder a female civilian with a gun/knife than it is to kill the same civilian by bombing his city.

The person doing the bombing could at least argue his target was the city itself, which was daily producing soldiers and weapons, where-as the later murderer has no such argument, valid or not.

[Edited on September 20, 2005 at 3:23 PM. Reason : arg]

9/20/2005 3:19:24 PM