- 8 Mar 2005
- 2,139
- 89
As I've read it, they were treated better (American POWs) in Germany, than in Japan.POWs were treated better in America, Europe and Australia than they were by the Japanese.
As a matter of fact, Civilians are never targeted per-say... Infrastructure is targeted... It certainly isn't in the interest of nations at war to purposely target civilians.Please try to stick to the topic. When I started this thread I wanted to highlight the fact that civilians were targeted during WWII. I feel that the experiences from that time still influences the Japanese today.
Please do not blame me for saying things I never said:I do think you bring up a good point... A lot of people don't understand, know, or appreciate the damages done by incendiary bombing as compared to the two Nuclear attacks... but I don't think it's especially correct to solely blame the United States as some type of terrorist agitator.
If you'd like to get more vitriol to fuel your rage, you might look up the bombing of Dresden.
My point is: did we learn something?
I thought that targeting of civilians was now by most people seen as unacceptable. Certainly it seems like people who experiences large number of civilian casualties during WWII say: "Never again". It is not a coincidence that there are strong pasivist sentiments among germans and japanese. Now so called "collateral damage" is accepted if it not out of proprotion.
Apart from the moral issue, there are serious doubt over if the firebombings actually helped shortening the war. In London it strengthend the resolve of the population, and in germany it seems to have had similar effect. When the occupying forces were welcomed by the civilian populations in Germany and Japan it was rather, because the nightmare which their own rulers had started was over, than because people were thankful for the firebombs.
You claimed it was "premeditated murder... There are always civilian casualties in war, but I don't think that someone says, "Oh, let's target civilians purposefully...", it's just something that is seen as an "acceptable loss".I never blamed USA for beeing terrorist. I think the targeting of civilians during war is a general problem. However, as this thread is about Japan it is natural that I primarily relate it to when the Japanese civil population was bombed during WWII.
(from wiki)When reflecting on the campaign after the war, some expressed doubts about the morality of the firebombing. Curtis LeMay later said: "I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal."[5] He felt, however, that his bombings were saving lives by encouraging Japan to surrender earlier.
"What was the Answer to the invasion of Poland, the occupation of France, and the attempt to create a Fascist hegemony??"... As our world grows older, our wars change, we have different moral reactions to them, and if you don't think that war changes people... for example the "war" in Iraq, people return very saddened... I've spoken to such people.
in the case of Japan and Germany both (did) and would have killed millions disregardful of whether they resisted or gave passive resistance.
Wait what? Japan killed hundreds if not thousands of Koreans and Chinese in experimental biological labs... during the war they had little regard for the POWs many of whom died in captivity, or as I mentioned in the march... they were very brutal fighters.so did USA
however Japan never did racial cleansing that had noting to do with WAR.
ameican did in Vietnam ,Iraq and still goes on
if not thousands of Koreans and Chinese in experimental biological labs... during the war they had little regard for the POWs many of whom died in captivity, or as I mentioned in the march... they were very brutal fighters.
Are you saying that the United States is doing ethnic-cleansing in Iraq? Are you saying that they did this in Viet Nam (which if you understand that conflict makes absolutely no sense in the slightest---) It's like saying that in order to stop the spread of communism (or the influence of communism more correctly), we should wipe out the race of the Vietnamese.
The conflict in Iraq is something I won't get into... I think that on the abstract, removing Sadam from power was a good thing, him and his sons, and the Baath party were a terrible group of people... But there are terrible groups of people all over the world doing similar things (Charles Taylor anyone?)... it's just that the war on so many levels was done so poorly, and so unpreparedly, and so misleadingly... it's about 10 different threads to discuss the why's and what's of that conflict.
Also, it's Viet Nam, (not to nit pick), the phrase Viet Cong, comes from Viet Nam Cong San, which means Vietnamese Communist.