Looking Back Into History

[scotrace]

Sorry, but better take a class on American and European militarism too. They wre no different than us. And I don't care much what some veterans think. I only want to know the facts. People have always been scared and influenced by manipulation and propoganda. You talk as if these people who disagree with you are ignorant. In fact, they just have a differing opinion.

Oh no you don't.

Surely you are not saying that the atrocious acts of the Japanese military in the 50 year span leading up to 1945 were "just like" United States and European expansionism/colonialism?

 

[Story]

Sorry, but better take a class on American and European militarism too. They wre no different than us. And I don't care much what some veterans think. I only want to know the facts. People have always been scared and influenced by manipulation and propoganda. You talk as if these people who disagree with you are ignorant. In fact, they just have a differing opinion.

You need to go read about the Rape of Nanking.
The Bataan Death March.
Unit 731.

 

[Teekay44]

I agree. But I think that our current ideas of how we treat one another are generally agreed to be superior to the past. AS for social morality, that may be subject to opinion. But the idea that killing and enslaving each other is a bad idea has got to be progress. I have no use for the idea that everything is relative.

I'm sorry but In History I feel it is all relative. You are discussing hindsight. Most historians do not place modern interpretation to history.

 

[AmateisGal]

Sorry, but better take a class on American and European militarism too. They wre no different than us. And I don't care much what some veterans think. I only want to know the facts. People have always been scared and influenced by manipulation and propoganda. You talk as if these people who disagree with you are ignorant. In fact, they just have a differing opinion.

I beg to disagree. Their entire culture was different than us. That makes a huge difference.

I didn't say they were ignorant - I know they just had a different opinion and I respect that. But I also didn't think they were knowledgeable of all the facts, either.

 

[reetpleat]

Oh no you don't.

Surely you are not saying that the atrocious acts of the Japanese military in the 50 year span leading up to 1945 were "just like" United States and European expansionism/colonialism?

Read up on The American occupation of The Phillipines, or British or French rule in their colonies. Perhaps they were not quite as brutal, but make no mistake. Everyone was pretty bad.

 

[reetpleat]

You need to go read about the Rape of Nanking.
The Bataan Death March.
Unit 731.

I suppose one could argue that Japan was worse than a contemporary US, but probably not a US of fifty years before. (Indian "wars" for example) HOwever, even in this century.

The shift to guerrilla warfare, however, only resulted in the Americans acting more ruthlessly than before. They began taking no prisoners, burning whole villages, and routinely shooting surrendering Filipino soldiers. Much worse were the concentration camps that civilians were forced into, after being suspected of being guerrilla sympathizers. Thousands of civilians died in these camps. In nearly all cases, the civilians suffered much more than the guerrillas.

I don't really have time to do more research, but we were no saints.

Besides taht, it isn't like wer ewer ethere to protect any of these countries from Japan. That I might have gotten behind.

 

[reetpleat]

I beg to disagree. Their entire culture was different than us. That makes a huge difference.

I didn't say they were ignorant - I know they just had a different opinion and I respect that. But I also didn't think they were knowledgeable of all the facts, either.

While I have no doubt taht different cultures are different, that is meaningless. Sure cultures are different. That does not justify waging war on them. I guess I should say they wre no worse than us in their intentions and actions. Okay, maybe they wre a little more brutal and heinous, but not much as far as I am concerned.

At this point, we perhaps, better agree to disagree.

 

[K.D. Lightner]

It is always difficult for people in one era to understand or empathize with those who live in the past.

Today's young person is looking at a war that started (in the US) over 65 years ago. That would be like my mother, who was 23 when my father was drafted, looking back on Custer's Last Stand. When I was 23, the Vietnam War was raging -- if I had thought about past wars 65 years earlier, I would be looking at the Spanish-American War. Yes, I read about it in the history books, no, none of it made sense to me. (Nor, for that matter, did the Vietnam War).

World War II makes the most sense if you realize that you had two nations attempting to take over the whole world. Had they done so, they would have then fought each other. Germany would have won (by then, they'd have had the bomb).

As for the bomb, for many years, I thought it was terrible that we had dropped the bomb on Japan. I still feel it was a terrible thing, but, after reading Flags of Our Fathers and seeing the Burns documentary on The War, I realized that the casualties would have been far greater if we had invaded Japan: it was estimated we would have probably lost at least 500,000 more American soldiers. And, just as bad, the Japanese people had been told by their military that they should not surrender to us, so most would have resisted and died, either by being killed or by suicide. (Some Japanese civilians on one of the islands we invaded jumped off cliffs, convinced by the military that if we captured them, we would eat them)

Our leaders thought we had to use the bomb. We did. The bomb ended our innocence, if we ever had it to lose. Who knows what would have happened had we invaded Japan instead, we will never know.

karol

 

[LizzieMaine]

I'm sorry but In History I feel it is all relative. You are discussing hindsight. Most historians do not place modern interpretation to history.

Most trained historians call such a practice "presentism," and it's considered completely unacceptable in serious historical writing. Armchair history is a whole 'nother realm.

 

[A.R. McVintage]

Okay, maybe they wre a little more brutal and heinous, but not much as far as I am concerned.

lol

 

[reetpleat]

It is always difficult for people in one era to understand or empathize with those who live in the past.

Today's young person is looking at a war that started (in the US) over 65 years ago. That would be like my mother, who was 23 when my father was drafted, looking back on Custer's Last Stand. When I was 23, the Vietnam War was raging -- if I had thought about past wars 65 years earlier, I would be looking at the Spanish-American War. Yes, I read about it in the history books, no, none of it made sense to me. (Nor, for that matter, did the Vietnam War).

World War II makes the most sense if you realize that you had two nations attempting to take over the whole world. Had they done so, they would have then fought each other. Germany would have won (by then, they'd have had the bomb).

As for the bomb, for many years, I thought it was terrible that we had dropped the bomb on Japan. I still feel it was a terrible thing, but, after reading Flags of Our Fathers and seeing the Burns documentary on The War, I realized that the casualties would have been far greater if we had invaded Japan: it was estimated we would have probably lost at least 500,000 more American soldiers. And, just as bad, the Japanese people had been told by their military that they should not surrender to us, so most would have resisted and died, either by being killed or by suicide. (Some Japanese civilians on one of the islands we invaded jumped off cliffs, convinced by the military that if we captured them, we would eat them)

Our leaders thought we had to use the bomb. We did. The bomb ended our innocence, if we ever had it to lose. Who knows what would have happened had we invaded Japan instead, we will never know.

karol

To suggest taht two powers wanted to take over the world is an incredibly simplistic view of the war. Especially Japan. It was much more complex than that.

And to think that complete invasion of japan was the only possible end is also simplistic. There is no reason a truce could not have been made. If we had let them keep the emporer and certain territories, or not, it may well have been over. Most war before then was solved taht way, not by unconditional surrender and occupation.

 

[Teekay44]

To suggest taht two powers wanted to take over the world is an incredibly simplistic view of the war. Especially Japan. It was much more complex than that.

And to think that complete invasion of japan was the only possible end is also simplistic. There is no reason a truce could not have been made. If we had let them keep the emporer and certain territories, or not, it may well have been over. Most war before then was solved taht way, not by unconditional surrender and occupation.

WWI stopped the fighting with an ("truce") Armistice but included an occupation. The fighting stopped but the blockade and suffering went on. One of the German high command war aims when it was clear that no clear cut victory was to obtainable was to restart the war when conditions favored them. The occupation and demilitation ended that. (Of course reparations were another matter. Too much was done. ) That is the chance of a truce. That is not a realistic option in a global conflict.

To leave Japan with occupied territories is rewarding aggression. I suppose that the occupied would not be considered? Throw them to the aggressor and hope for appeasement? Didn't work 8 years prior. That is a simplistic answer IMHO. You have not dealt with the cause of the problem.

Your arguments are not convincing. And yes I do believe that a few governments IE countries were trying to take over the word and /or influence it so that their will and not peoples liberty's prevail.

 

[K.D. Lightner]

I, too, think a truce might have been made within time, but, our leaders did not think in terms of time, they were ready to invade. My father was on a destroyer and, in two weeks was going to head out to Japan to be one of a huge fleet to invade that country (as his admiral said, "we are going for glory"). Father was very worried.

Then, came the bomb. And then, probably not necessary, if in fact the first bomb was necessary, a second bombing.

Our take on that country at that particular time in history is that there was no getting to a truce, having dealt with the Japanese armies on those Pacific islands. It was going to be suicide and fighting to the last man and more deaths than occurred by our using the bomb.

Who knows what would have happened if the poisonous bomb had not been dropped. Maybe there would have been a truce within days, or weeks or months. Or...? We just don't know because the other didn't happen.

No, it is never simplistic. Just humans thinking that they need to go to war since the beginning of the human race.

As for taking over the world, the Germans certainly did want to do that. Perhaps Japan only wanted Asia and the Pacific. Between the two of them, that would pretty much have been the world. Then what? War between those two countries, and, I think, Japan would have gotten the bomb, anyway.

karol

 

[AmateisGal]

Sorry, but better take a class on American and European militarism too. They wre no different than us. And I don't care much what some veterans think.

I did take a class on European colonialism, and what I learned shocked me. I don't for a second believe that Americans and Europeans were pure as the driven snow. Far, far from it. Read a book called Late Victorian Holocausts: El Nino Famine and the Making of the Third World by Mike Davis and you will never look at the British colonialism experience through the same eyes again. Same with King Leopold's Ghost: A Story of Greed, Terror, and Heroism in Colonial Africa by Adam Hochschild where punishment was meted out to the African natives by chopping off their hands.

I am by no means ignorant of the tragedies instigated by Americans and Europeans throughout history. BUT, within the American and European cultures, there were several people who recognized that what the government was doing was wrong and sought to change it. This is within that time period. That, to me, proves that American and European cultures are not on the same level as Japan was during their militaristic period. Were there people in Europe and America who thought what they were doing in Africa and other colonies (plus the assault on Native Americans) as just fine? I'm absolutely sure there was. But the key is that America and European countries (most of them) allowed dissent among the populace and also allowed relief groups to go in and help these people, not to mention editorials, letters to the editor, public meetings (look at the abolitionist movement in America) etc., etc.

I don't think Japan sent in anyone to help the Chinese after the rape of Nanking.

Therein lies the difference, I think. I could be wrong on this, and may have to dig out my history books and look, but militarism was a belief that completely engulfed the entire Japanese society. It wasn't just the government itself. I'm also absolutely sure that there were those Japanese who disagreed with the government. But were they allowed to express their dissent? Doubtful.

I was a little astonished at your comment about not caring what most veterans think about the bomb being dropped. Veterans I have talked to who served in the Pacific, who saw what was going on and were in the thick of the fighting, probably have all the facts they need to determine the validity of the bomb being dropped.

In the end, yes, it's probably better that we agree to disagree. This is a hot-button topic and I don't want it to degenerate into a shouting match. But I did want to just clarify a few matters.

 

[K.D. Lightner]

Yes, most veterans are going to reply that they were grateful the bomb was dropped as it ended the war; they, like my father, were being geared up for a big strike on mainland Japan that was going to cost them plenty -- their lives, their friend's lives, Japanese civilian lives, and the war would drag on for another year, or more.

They'd had four-plus years of grueling warfare, had seen much bloodshed, horrific things we who never fought can't even imagine. They wanted to go home. And they did.

karol

 

[Teekay44]

AmateisGal,
I think you are right on the money. Dissents were not allowed in Germany, Japan or Italy for fear of your life. While the western country's are not snow white, I do not think they are/were as bad as the ones they were facing. Not by a long shot. You still have your civil liberty's. (Sure mistakes were made IE interment camps put to put them on the same plane as the German concentration camps is not possible by any stretch of the imagination. )

Any hard judgment will invite "what if's" for the future. You have to ask was the proper decision made with the best information available at the time. That debate will go on for as long as history is remembered

 

[KilroyCD]

And to think that complete invasion of japan was the only possible end is also simplistic. There is no reason a truce could not have been made. If we had let them keep the emporer and certain territories, or not, it may well have been over. Most war before then was solved taht way, not by unconditional surrender and occupation.

Your argument is being made with the benefit of 60-plus years of hindsight. The prevailing sentiment on both sides would not have allowed it at that time. On the Japanese side, the armed forces were following the Bushido code, which was to fight to the death. There was no honor in surrender. Suicide was preferred to surrender. On the Allies side, there was outrage over the Rape of Nanking, Pearl Harbor, the Bataan Death March and more. Neither side was willing to give quarter, so the invasion of Japan was inevitable. The Japanese rulers were preparing the public to fight to the death, and every able-bodied man, woman and child were expected to fight the "invaders". Japanese radios throughout that summer cried out to the people to "form a wall of human flesh" and when the invasion began, to push the invaders back into the sea, and back onto their ships.
The Japanese people fervently believed that the American invaders would be repelled. They all seemed to share a mystical faith that their country could never be invaded successfully and that they, again would be saved by the "divine wind."
Does it sound like Japan was willing to declare a truce? Hardly.

 

[scotrace]

Well Twitch, your point has been proven.

 

[reetpleat]

Well, the original thread seemed to imply that people are ignorant today of how things were, and may are. but I think people can be very informed about things and still have very different opinions. So while there will always be the ill informed, many people have good info behind their reasoning. Others may not care about the details, but feel they have the right to apply modern standards in their judgement. That is their right. There is no should or shouldn't in that case because all we have is our opinions about the past, and we should arrive at that as best we know how. I would suggest however, taht we must both look at things through the perspective of the time, and also look at it through our modern pespective. Only then can we hope to have a full understanding.

A good spirited debate with plenty of informed opinions and a level of respect and politeness rare on the internet. Gott alove the loundge.

 

[Twitch]

Hahaha! I guess so Scot.

While the concept of applying today's morals, values, perceptions on any past historical event and revising it to be clear by current standards sounds interesting it is bewildering. Firstly when we peer back we have magic knowledge simply because we know how things turned out and how events were initially recored for posterity- if they occurred in historic times. We use that magic advantage to change the perspective of our conclusions.

During any war or series of ongoing events of the past no one knew how things would end and how the near future scholors and scribes would portray the happenings. That would to some degree be driven by contemporary mores, and values of the era.

If we were sent back in time there is no way any of could become immersed in tradtional Victorian society and be comfortable or not use some vestage of what we value now. We are prejudiced when looking back and that can't be helped. But we need know and acknowledge we are prejudiced and view things accordingly.

In history we can find multiple sources describing events however. People wrote letters in the Civil War, for example, that provided an superb incite to personal feelings, points of view and eye witness accounts from another perspective. Sure there were official battle acccounts writen by military or government scribes but there were other sources that combined to paint a clear tapestry instead of the monotone bla-bla-bla of sterile history books.

When I say we cannot, without prejudice, put ourselves in our forebearers' places it does not mean we cannot read what they wrote during past historic times and in the 20th century see and hear them say it. We know that everyone was ready to end the conflict ASAP because we have the benefit of reading and seeing quotes from both civilians and military personnel stating exactly that!

In the closing stages of WW II the military planners sought solutions for bringing hostilities to a close with as few casualities as possible. We know this to be true since we only need to look at our enemies then end even the Soviets who squandered human life when no possible tactical or strategic advantage was possible. By comparisons American and British casualties were rather moderate relative to Japanese, German and Soviet losses in combat.

As we sit as armchair stategists we retain not only the safety of distance in time and space but that magic knowledge of the outcomes which our counterparts did not have. We sometimes are blinded to the fact that the Normandy landings were almost tentative and by luck only were weren't repelled. We forget that Germany was never contimplating a prolonged war and therefore didn't plane for it. What if she had? The Japanese knew and were told by men like Admiral Yamamoto that Japan could only have a slim advanatge for 6 months or a year at most. We didn't know that and appearantly that didn't stop them from sacrificing combat men and civilians for years.

The US War Department produced communicaes to the military to expect nuclear missile attacks from Germany. Now, today we know they didn't get that far in development but in 1944 NO ONE knew that. It was a real threat, believed at the time. When we poo-poo it 60+ years later we are totally wrong for obvious reasons.

We just can't understand, and by no means put ourselves in the places of some past personna with alien moral values, for example. None of us can rationalize the validity of blood sacrifice by pre-Colombian peoples because is is something we have never experienced. We can however detach ourselves from the weight of today's morals and catch glimpses of lives, events and occurances. We can't understand or know the sensations of witnessing 1000 people beheaded and their hearts torn out to insure that the sun will rise tomorrow. We can mentally picture the carnage and view other aspects of how they lived in which we can relate. They had a daily grind, an oppressive government, worried about weather for crops, fretted their spouse giving birth and had hope for their children.

But as I return to my salient concept here, what we can't due is damn their blood sacrifices simple because we have evolved away from them when they were the norm on 2 contenents immulated by innumerable people. That's the problem with projecting morals and values back in time,