Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Zrk2]

So much text. You guys impressed me once again.

Anyway, I for one support the use of the nukes on Japan because had America actually invaded it was forcasted that even more Japanese civilians would have died, given the Japanese government policy of "a man with a spear bazai charging counts as a soldier".

[Erkki]

So much text. You guys impressed me once again.

Anyway, I for one support the use of the nukes on Japan because had America actually invaded it was forcasted that even more Japanese civilians would have died, given the Japanese government policy of "a man with a spear bazai charging counts as a soldier".

I agree. In hindsight, and in hindsight only, I too think it was far better(for everyone) to have the nuke attacks than not.

It still doesnt make using nukes any more right, nor attacking civilian population itself. And its not like if USAAF by 1945 lacked capability(as in quality and quantity of required hardware and well trained people to use them) to hit precision targets like factories, refineries, bases and mines(or Emperor's palace) using traditional HE bombs...

[thobal]

So much text. You guys impressed me once again.

Anyway, I for one support the use of the nukes on Japan because had America actually invaded it was forcasted that even more Japanese civilians would have died, given the Japanese government policy of "a man with a spear bazai charging counts as a soldier".

I agree. In hindsight, and in hindsight only, I too think it was far better(for everyone) to have the nuke attacks than not.

It still doesnt make using nukes any more right, nor attacking civilian population itself. And its not like if USAAF by 1945 lacked capability(as in quality and quantity of required hardware and well trained people to use them) to hit precision targets like factories, refineries, bases and mines(or Emperor's palace) using traditional HE bombs...

That ignores the tactical realities of the situation. LeMay focused on just one metric when deciding his bomb loads and flight profiles. Aircrew Losses vs Target Destruction.

That's it.

It came down to how many of his men would die vs the number of military targets he could destroy.

The answer was low level incendiary bombing. Like it or not, it was about winning the war with the fewest casualties on the friendly side. And if that meant that every Japanese civilian would die: So Be It!

You talk about how the Americans had the precision bombing to hit point targets from high altitude but you dont talk about how the jet streams over Japan would give those bombers a ground speed of 30 or 60 miles per hour. You dont talk about the massive casualties that high altitude bombing would have inflicted on the Americans over Japan.

It wasn't playing nice. It Was War. It didn't matter how many enemies had to die to prevent a single friendly death. It was just done.

If just one plane could take out 200 factories and an entire enemy logistical port, it didn't matter how many civilians would die. There were only 10 or 12 potential friendly casualties. We would just lose one plane. The risk was minimal and the payoff was enormous.

You talk about not wanting to risk your irreplaceable aircrews in this game. That is what LeMay was worried about when he was burning Japan. What they were thinking about when they decided to drop the bomb. They didnt want to risk their aircrews.

[Sheb]

Actually I remember watching some movie with McNamare ("The Fog Of War"?). Where he explains than low-altiude bombing was actually much more dangerous, but much more effective. The Aircrew Loss/Damage ration was the same, but total damage was much higher.

And it still doesn't excuse stuff like the Dresden bombing.

Also, the aim of the attack on Hiroshima and Nagazaki were to demonstrate the power of the Bomb. They could have detonated the first one on the remnant of the japanese fleet, or on something else than a city without any miltiary value. (On the contrary, one could argue than Nagazaki was necessary to show the Japanese government that the US were determined to destroy all of Japan city by city if needed.

[thobal]

Actually I remember watching some movie with McNamare ("The Fog Of War"?). Where he explains than low-altiude bombing was actually much more dangerous, but much more effective. The Aircrew Loss/Damage ration was the same, but total damage was much higher.

And it still doesn't excuse stuff like the Dresden bombing.

Also, the aim of the attack on Hiroshima and Nagazaki were to demonstrate the power of the Bomb. They could have detonated the first one on the remnant of the japanese fleet, or on something else than a city without any miltiary value. (On the contrary, one could argue than Nagazaki was necessary to show the Japanese government that the US were determined to destroy all of Japan city by city if needed.

Let us not pretend Hiroshima had no military value, it was a massive industrial and logistical center. Also, I was watching said documentary when I posted the statements I made, to double check, and it said no such thing. The doc only spoke of a perceived increase in risk: "You lost one wingman, and we destroyed Tokyo"

And Dresden. Dont get me started on Dresden. Never has one attack on one city been so distorted by ethic relationship.

[Sheb]

Well, I watched it years ago, so I'm probably not remembering it right.

[Erkki]

So much text. You guys impressed me once again.

Anyway, I for one support the use of the nukes on Japan because had America actually invaded it was forcasted that even more Japanese civilians would have died, given the Japanese government policy of "a man with a spear bazai charging counts as a soldier".

I agree. In hindsight, and in hindsight only, I too think it was far better(for everyone) to have the nuke attacks than not.

It still doesnt make using nukes any more right, nor attacking civilian population itself. And its not like if USAAF by 1945 lacked capability(as in quality and quantity of required hardware and well trained people to use them) to hit precision targets like factories, refineries, bases and mines(or Emperor's palace) using traditional HE bombs...

That ignores the tactical realities of the situation. LeMay focused on just one metric when deciding his bomb loads and flight profiles. Aircrew Losses vs Target Destruction.

That's it.

It came down to how many of his men would die vs the number of military targets he could destroy.

The answer was low level incendiary bombing. Like it or not, it was about winning the war with the fewest casualties on the friendly side. And if that meant that every Japanese civilian would die: So Be It!

You talk about how the Americans had the precision bombing to hit point targets from high altitude but you dont talk about how the jet streams over Japan would give those bombers a ground speed of 30 or 60 miles per hour. You dont talk about the massive casualties that high altitude bombing would have inflicted on the Americans over Japan.

It wasn't playing nice. It Was War. It didn't matter how many enemies had to die to prevent a single friendly death. It was just done.

If just one plane could take out 200 factories and an entire enemy logistical port, it didn't matter how many civilians would die. There were only 10 or 12 potential friendly casualties. We would just lose one plane. The risk was minimal and the payoff was enormous.

You talk about not wanting to risk your irreplaceable aircrews in this game. That is what LeMay was worried about when he was burning Japan. What they were thinking about when they decided to drop the bomb. They didnt want to risk their aircrews.

And now we get back to the original topic and its points! You took the bait. As in, what exactly are war crimes, if in war, everything is allowed, and how could the rules of war be somehow broken more by one side than the other? Why are many crimes committed by the Japanese, towards civilian population and POWs get judged, but almost genocidal aerial bombings of Germany and Japan not?

Let me re-quote and comment some parts.

That ignores the tactical realities of the situation. LeMay focused on just one metric when deciding his bomb loads and flight profiles. Aircrew Losses vs Target Destruction.

That's it.

It came down to how many of his men would die vs the number of military targets he could destroy.

And here again the target was the civilian population directly, its infrastructure and "logistics" (ability to house and feed itself - winters can be cold in Japan and Germany...). Granted, part of the reasoning behind these strikes was that good part of Japanese industry was within the cities' accommodation areas and spread in small works and factories, while in Germany the industrial areas were more concentrated and located either outside cities or in their own areas.

It still does not remove the responsibility of killing literally millions of civilians and making double the number homeless just for a more effective way of fighting a war of attrition against enemy's industrial capacities. Just like it doesnt remove responsibility of all the things the Japanese did to millions of Chinese, Philippines and many others that were treated either as expendable slave labor or just annihilated because they were, lets face it, a direct or indirect threat to Japan's forces as long as they existed. Thats how they viewed it.

The answer was low level incendiary bombing. Like it or not, it was about winning the war with the fewest casualties on the friendly side. And if that meant that every Japanese civilian would die: So Be It!

So, the US view of fighting a war was no more knightly than the Japanese. It would be hypocrisy to think anything else.

A death should always be viewed as a tragedy, be it civilian, civilian working for military, military drafted or military career. Regardless of sides or who attacked whom first for whatever reasons. "But they did it first" is never a valid reason, and no post-war kangaroo court should never be able to remove the liability from those who were responsible for so many.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes

Every one of them. The Japanese view was that the acquired POWs and "enemy civilians" were either just in their way or could be used as assets, resources, tools. From their POV it was logical to use them as essentially free forced labor force. Why not? How does this differ from US view of bombing cities because they provided supplies and weapons to the military, and their destruction would tie the military assets to jobs other than fighting back even more?

You talk about how the Americans had the precision bombing to hit point targets from high altitude but you dont talk about how the jet streams over Japan would give those bombers a ground speed of 30 or 60 miles per hour. You dont talk about the massive casualties that high altitude bombing would have inflicted on the Americans over Japan.

It wasn't playing nice. It Was War. It didn't matter how many enemies had to die to prevent a single friendly death. It was just done.

Just like the Japanese didnt like feeding the POWs. Its the same operational and tactical realities - POWs needed food, space, accommodation, men to guard them. It was far more effective to just use them as practice targets(Dwarf Fortress way?) or as expendable slave labor. And the same with hostile civilian population in China.

It wasn't playing nice. It Was War. It didn't matter how many enemies had to die to prevent a single friendly death. It was just done.

From catching the enemy his pants down, to viewing every person, friendly, civilian, enemy civilian and enemy military personnel, as either assets, liabilities, targets, free labor, you name it.


To sum it up, WW2 in many ways was a "Total War" where everyone and everything could become a target for a variety of reasons.

There are too many examples.

The unlimited submarine war, especially by the USN and Kriegsmarine(targeting not only military shipping but also food and coal used by civilians, almost starving first Britain and then Japan).

Aerial bombing civilian targets when the same aircraft and valuable aircrew could have arguable been of better use when attacking pure military targets or factories in daylight(especially over Germany) - generally attacking a nations "morale" when everyone knew it didn't work - especially Britain and USA. Just as bad as mass killings of civilian population by Japan, Germans, Soviets. Look at Bomber Command night bombing campaign aircraft and aircrew losses - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Bomber_Command#Casualties worth so many lives, training and billions of $ equipment have been used more effectively against Germany's capabilities to wage war than destruction of civilian population and a handful industrial areas? Especially when it was known it was ineffective by the very political and military leaders that were responsible?

Slave labor and killings of POWs and civilians(often "ethic reason") by Soviet Union, Japan and Germany. See aerial bombing, genocides by Germany and Japan, Soviet partisans, looting and mass rapes, you name it. There is a difference between attacking ability to wage war and produce military equipment, and just killing everyone for ethic, racial or other reasons.

Or we can do just what was done and forget who we are.

[Erkki]

I'd like to give you more examples (from the POVs most of you have) from another conflict, my apologies if this is boring.  However the problems and things that happened were the same, just usually in a smaller scale than with the typical examples of Germany, Japan, UK or USA.

Russo-Finnish wars, the Winter War(105 days of late 1939 to early 1940) and the Continuation War(summer 1941 to late summer 1944).


Winter War first.

Treatment of civilian population: The Soviets "sovietized" the conquered areas after the war, by removing the remaining civilian population to Siberia(quite literally) and changing names of every city, town and village, forests, rivers, lakes and hills to Russian ones. The same was repeated after Continuation War. If that is not "ethic cleaning" I dont know what is. Luckily most of the original civilian population managed to escape.

Treatment of POWs: There werent many POWs in Winter War for either side. Soviets were viewed as evil, almost devilish, a conqueror that had came to not just conquer more land, resources and people, but to loot, kill and destroy the whole culture. While the POWs were never executed(other than spies and partisans), they were often mistreated or even shot. "Dead man needs no boots". Soviets didn't treat their prisoners any better - most were shot outright.

Other: the Soviets also flew multiple air raids to Helsinki and other cities. The motive behind these raids was to kill civilians to turn them against the political leaders(ie. attacking a nation's "morale"). The effect was 180 degrees off as these attacks that were clearly aimed at civilians united the whole divided political field(parties from almost-nazis to communists) and created the "Spirit of Winter War" which lasted through the next war, where even the communistic party which had wide support then, declared the Soviet Union as an enemy. As later, the Soviets also sent "partisans" behind the lines. Partisans are often depicted as near-hero resistance guerrilla fighters, but their real task was to attack remote villages far behind the lines and kill everyone to create chaos and fear among the civil population. Many partisan units were made of all kinds of criminals and often had the politically most fanatic men in them.


Continuation war:

Before and during the Continuation War it was often thought that the West, especially Britain and France, and betrayed Finland. Majority of the promised help had never arrived, and most of the little that arrived had to be bought. And now those same countries had allied themselves with the Soviets, and Britain even declared war. Political leadership was forced to choose its side. Options were limited between Soviets and Germany, and needless to say there wasnt much to choose there.

Treatment of civilian population: same as Winter War. This time, Finns also conquered areas that had belong to the Soviet Union, but majority of the people were Karelian and so related to Finns, and usually treated well. Not many fled.

Treatment of POWs: both sides treated POWs considerably better than in the previous war. Soviet POWs were almost always treated by Geneva convection rules, and only used as a labor force in wood industry, farming and harvesting etc. Finnish POWs were treated considerably better than Germans, and while many would find themselves in Siberia and never return, the survival rate was still far higher than for Germans. Soviets did not view Finns as an enemy that had come to destroy, and many Soviet units had Finnish, Estonian or Karelian people or people who had lived in the area or nearby before the war. Almost every captured Finnish pilot and aircrew member survived captivity. Sadly, after the war, many Soviet POWs would not have wanted to return as they knew they had little future as ex-POWs in Stalin's USSR.

As in Winter War, the Soviets kept bombing cities to some extent, with the same results. Partisan operations were now more frequent and targeted again only civilians. Finnish forces also conducted many "far patrol" strikes but these targeted solely military installations and infrastructure. Attacking civilian population was never given a thought.

During Siege of Leningrad, the Finnish forces did not attack in the city or bombard it despite demands by the Germans. Finnish generals also refused to continue attacks in Eastern Karelia that would further flank Leningrad. It was considered that Germans could either capture the city or lose the war, so maintaining "good relationships" with the Soviets wouldnt hurt, and could be used in any future negotiations(which was to happen).

After the war... You might want to read this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War-responsibility_trials_in_Finland

[Sheb]

Soviet POW weren't executed, but were shot? How the hell did you execute people up there, with bare hands and sheer badasseness? :p

[Erkki]

Soviet POW weren't executed, but were shot? How the hell did you execute people up there, with bare hands and sheer badasseness? :p

Often shot when being captured and during "handling" - but not executed or mistreated as a policy.

[Sheb]

Okay, so it was like Soviet rapes, not an official policy, but the officers conveniently looked the other way while soldiers exacted their revenge.

[Erkki]

Back in the Pacific;

May 2nd


Another silent day...

No planes lost today, not even in accidents, its the 2nd such day in the war to the Japanese.

Kido Butai location classified.

IJAAF ordered to strike Chittagong tomorrow. 50 bombers escorted by circa 50 fighters, no opposition expected.


CPT Izawa, Ishinosuke (Inteuniso): CVL Shoho has been sitting for some time in a secret hideout with the CVs Akagi, Soryu, and Hiryu. The ship is ordered to prepare to set sail tomorrow, and the escorting destroyers are refueled from the fuel bunkers of the CVs and battleships.

Additional orders await in a white, sealed letter on Admiral Yamaguchi's desk aboard the Akagi. The order to open it will arrive later. Meanwhile, the force has orders to set sail heading 120 at cruising speed and keep its airgroups in full readiness.

[Sheb]

May I enquire about the need to keep the KB's position classified? And to keep those orders secret? Do I win a cookie if I manage to guess what you're going to do next?

[Fishbreath]

OPSEC concerns? For shame, other readers!

[Erkki]

May 3rd


Burma: 40 Japanese Ki-21s bombing at 15,000ft managed to score mighty 2 runway, 1 supply depot and 1 base hit at Chittakong! Allies didnt fly.

DEI: Kuching on Borneo falls, 3/4 of the 1½ battalion garrison dies or surrenders. Survivors flee in the rain forest... There are just 2 bases on whole Borneo still in Allies' control, but one is inland and neither has garrison. We'll go raise the flag some time later. Soekarta on Java falls tomorrow and we should need less than 2 weeks to conquer the rest of the island.

Kido Butai: Looks like CS Chitose has some 1000 tons of fuel as CARGO. No idea how that happened. It'd better not receive any penetrating hits before KB returns to port!

May I enquire about the need to keep the KB's position classified? And to keep those orders secret? Do I win a cookie if I manage to guess what you're going to do next?

Lets say that KB will most likely make its position known in 3 or 4 days... I'd wonder if it didnt. We should be able to bag at least something, but possibly/probably no warships bigger than destroyers, corvettes or other escorts. It should still be worth the burned fuel, making the Allies fear, that.