Japan in WW2

Oct 2018
1,209
Adelaide south Australia
#11
"And you're thinking FDR himself should have justified this to the American Public? With quotes from Sun Tzu?"

That's not what I said or meant to imply. FDR was a pragmatic man. I was asking about how much of his moral outrage was hyperbole to get the cannon fodder riled up..


Rules of war? Are ignore once the shooting starts. Chivalry such as that between fighter pilots in both wars, made fighting to the death into a gentleman's game

Why Keep war civilised? It's arguably the last civilised thing humans do. War is vile and it is murder. There is nothing sportsmanlike or romantic about it. War should be intentionally kept as vile as possible. Perhaps then we might be more reluctant to send our gormless young men to other countries to kill their gormless young men.

I guess it may be me who is naive.

@HardtackJuniper

"So in a way, your dad's mates were kinda lucky to have "good" enemies "

Absolutely. It was pretty much accepted that German behaviour was due to Rommel.

Those on the Kokoda Track were in fact very unlucky . Many were called 'chocos' (Chocolate Soldiers) because they were untrained reservists, fighting seasoned Japanese

There are a LOT of clips on Youtube if you want to have a look
 
Feb 2016
4,357
Japan
#12
The Afrika Korea was fighting mainly in the dessert, significantly less civillians in theatre so that’s why DAK kept the image of fighting a clean war.

Japanese nationalism and war mentality had twisted the behavior of its troops. Russian prisoners in 1902 were treated with much mercy and civility. It was NOT a cultural trait to turn prisoners to slaves, rape everything and torture. That was a symptom of cocktail of weak leadership, propaganda and militarism.

Pearl Harbour was a crime, just as Britain bombed Paris, unprovoked, then declared war the next day.
 
Likes: BuckBradley

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,226
#13
Rules of war? Are ignore once the shooting starts. Chivalry such as that between fighter pilots in both wars, made fighting to the death into a gentleman's game

Why Keep war civilised? It's arguably the last civilised thing humans do. War is vile and it is murder. There is nothing sportsmanlike or romantic about it. War should be intentionally kept as vile as possible. Perhaps then we might be more reluctant to send our gormless young men to other countries to kill their gormless young men.
The Rules of war have a pragmatic basis.

if POW rules are not respected soldiers are much more likely to fight to the death. If civilians are targeted and war crimes rules are ignored, itcan become total war, where guerilla terrorists actions continue for ever., where no real; victory is possible. with no rules the cost of victory canbe enourmous and defeat looks like genocide. Victors need the coast to be accpetable and that teh defeated recognise them. Wars can only really be ended by an agreement by both sides to end the fighting. Witout rules, norms, conventions it's not going to end.

War has been constrained by Human society because generally it's for every bodies benefit. Wars are fought for reaons and and overwhelmingly only constrained war will bring the results desired.

look at the rgeiems which rejected the rules of war. They generally don't last very long.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,226
#15
I'm glad we all agree that the attack on Mers-el-Kebir was a war crime then.
Well the Fernch had treherously made a seperate peace as they had promised and sign a treaty of alliance not to do so. So British were skeptical of French assurances that the French fleet would not fall into German hands.

While ruthless it was not a simple surprise attack, notice was given, options presented. Not exactly similar circimstances.
 
Sep 2016
29
France
#16
Well the Fernch had treherously made a seperate peace as they had promised and sign a treaty of alliance not to do so. So British were skeptical of French assurances that the French fleet would not fall into German hands.
Well, the British had betrayed the French by signing a naval agreement with Germany, a complete violation of the treaty of Versailles. The British also betrayed France by sending only 500 000 men for the battle of France against Germany. The British expected the French to be cannon fodder and were wrong. They had no legal right to attack the French fleet, it was unprovoked as Edric said, unless losing the war is a provocation.

Regardless, Pearl Harbour wasn't classified as a war crime but as a crime against peace. The Tokyo trials didn't sentence anyone to death for Pearl Harbour, so even if it's a crime, there are magnitudes in that regard. Americans were outraged because the attack took place on their soil and while they don't really have qualms bombing other countries, they view it as a great insult when they're the ones being attacked.
 

Bart Dale

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
7,095
#17
Western POWs.their treatment of Eastern front prisioners was way worse. basically staved teh first 3 million to death before realizing in a long war they needed the labour.
Since Americans were fighting on the Western front and not Eastern, they could expect ok treatment from the Germans but not the Japanese when they became prisoners, and that affected their attitude and opinion toward the Japanese soldierz I a negative manner.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,226
#18
Since Americans were fighting on the Western front and not Eastern, they could expect ok treatment from the Germans but not the Japanese when they became prisoners, and that affected their attitude and opinion toward the Japanese soldierz I a negative manner.
Well you did not put that qualifier on it. Are war crimes onlyt war crimes when they happen to Americans?
 

Bart Dale

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
7,095
#19
Well you did not put that qualifier on it. Are war crimes onlyt war crimes when they happen to Americans?
Americans would have been ignorant of what happened on the Eastern front, and atrocities were committed on both sides. It was the Soviet Union that executed the captured Polish officers in the he Katyn massacre,.and blamed the Germans for it. And when the Soviets captured Berlin, they engaged in an orgy of rape. Both sidez treated each other poorly.

And I was responding to.ans explaining why Americans and British troops has a different opinion nd treated German and Japanese soldiers differently, it was just natural. Sinced Germans treated their American prisoners better, American rank and file soldiers had a better opinion of them.
 

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
5,549
#20
Interestingly Japan had a previous experience of a successful naval surprise attack, in 1904 against Russia, with little consequence:
Japan’s Attack on Port Arthur | History Today
Anticipating the events of thirty-six years later, the Japanese launched a sudden, surprise attack on the Russian naval base of Port Arthur on the coast of Manchuria without the formality of declaring war. [...] On the same day [Feb 8] a Japanese army took control of Seoul, the capital of Korea, and on the 10th, Japan declared war. The Russians naturally complained at the breach of internationally accepted rules, but opinion in Britain generally favoured ‘Gallant Little Japan’ and in London The Times pronounced that ‘The Japanese Navy has opened the war by an act of daring which is destined to take a place of honour in naval annals.’
Unlike in 1904 apparently the Japanese in 1941 felt they needed to issue some kind of declaration prior to the attacks, except not so much prior it might actually give the to-be-attacked-Americans any useful advance warning. But then they went and screwed that up regardless:
Japan Admits It Bungled Notice of War in '41