Japan in WW2

robto

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,082
Lisbon, Portugal
#51
disagree. occasional self-sacrifice can be noble but I find organized group-level suicide abominable.
someone compared to suicide bombers today. I grant that the Kamikazes targeted military objectives.
Aren't most today's suicide bombers targeting military objectives or police facilities? The suicide bombings that usually get mentioned in international news are the ones that target civilians (and targeting civilians usually get a higher death toll), but I saw somewhere that most suicide bombings from 2003 till 2016 have been towards military targets and security personnel - especially in Iraq, Yemen and Syria (most suicide bombings takes place in those three countries) - how's that any different than Japanese pilots crashing their planes on military ships in the Pacific War?

Besides, those Kamikaze pilots didn't exclusively chose crashing over military targets out of moral and ethical reasons, they did it out of completely tactical reasons. They had no valuable civilian targets in the middle of the Pacific ocean. The only valuable civilian targets, were probably in the Philippines, but they didn't need planes to do the work - Japanese foot soldiers already slaughtered 100.000 Filipino civilians in Manila alone during the American invasion campaign of the Philippines in 1945.
I don't put a 1940s Japanese military soldier, suicide pilot or not, on a higher moral ground than a 2010s Isis fighter in Iraq or Syria - they are absolutely comparable.
I don't understand why we should respect them somehow. We might pity them, but should not respect their military conduct throughout the entire war.
 
Likes: Linschoten

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,494
San Antonio, Tx
#52
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.
The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor without any advance notice of even a few hours was a huge mistake. First, there was no follow through after the initial attacks. Second the oil storage tanks located on the hills overlooking Pearl Harbor were completely undamaged, meaning that they could continue to be used. The Japanese should have destroyed them. Third, the Japanese had no known follow up plan - it was as if all their planning stopped at the end of their initial attack. Fourth, there was no contingency plan for the possibility that the carriers were not at their home base instead of delivering airplanes to various bases. Occupation of French Frigate Shoals by US forces at the time prevented the Japanese from knowing where the carriers were.

Maybe the Japanese felt that after the initial victories, the allies - the Americans — would fold like a cheap tent. Remember, that when Pearl Harbor took place, the US Navy was at peace; in fact, the whole US Navy was still at peace, so there were, essentially, no prospects for immediate action in either the Pacific ofr the Atlantic.
 

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,494
San Antonio, Tx
#53
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.
When did the British bomb Paris?
 
Mar 2019
1,474
Kansas
#56
Maybe the Japanese felt that after the initial victories, the allies - the Americans — would fold like a cheap tent. Remember, that when Pearl Harbor took place, the US Navy was at peace; in fact, the whole US Navy was still at peace, so there were, essentially, no prospects for immediate action in either the Pacific ofr the Atlantic.

I strongly suggest this

Amazon.com: japan 1941 countdown to infamy

And the answer is going to surprise you
 

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,494
San Antonio, Tx
#57
But the treaty of Versailles also prevented Germany to build a strong navy, both Germany and the UK had signed the treaty of Versailles. So by what rights could the UK discard the limitations agreed at Versailles without consulting its allies ? At the Stresa conference, Italy, France and the UK had agreed to oppose against any repudiations of the treaties. The UK betrayed both France and Italy. Many British might not like to hear it, but their country bear its fair part of guilt in the german rearmament.



Maybe British are bad at geography, but France shares a direct border with Germany, I know the British were protected by the sea, but they should have taken it into consideration. The French did what they could to defend their country, mobilizing more than 5 millions men. British might also be bad when it comes to demography, so here is the thing : France had a population of 40 millions, Germany about 70 millions. France couldn't defeat Germany alone, and contrary to what happened during WW1, the Germans weren't fighting a two-fronts war in 1940. The British had sent millions of men in France during WW1, surely they should have realised what kind of sacrifices were needed to defeat Germany. Where were those men in 1940 ? The British only sent 500 000 men, for a country with roughly the same population as France, it's quite pathetic. So yeah, you can claim France should have defended itself, losing, again, millions of men in the process, but in the end, it was in the british interest to prevent the collapse of France.
Of course it was in the British interest to defend France against the Germans. It was also in France’s interests to do so. It was an accident of geography that placed the British on the far side of the English Channel, but history is anything but fair. The simple fact is, the Germans were spoiling for war and neither the French nor the British were doing so. Yes, I’m familiar with the British and French guarantees to Poland. These were a nice thing to do or give, but they weren’t practical or even achievable, in other words, probably a.mistake.
 
Likes: BuckBradley

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,494
San Antonio, Tx
#58
Or as Fouché, right next to him might have observed:
"Eet ez worse zan a crime. Eet ez a mistake."

The politics of the situation also meant that Churchill wedded himself and the UK to de Gaulle and the Free French. That made it all that much harder to later distance themselves from the Free French in favour of the Vichyists.
Why would Churchill even want to “favor the Vichyites”? DeGaulle was a difficult person, but he was not Vichy, and he was willing to fight, to take it to the enemy. He rightly figured that if France was to have any honor at all after the war, the French would need to fight the Germans and the defeat them French troops marched out of colonial Africa and joined the British in Egypt and took the war to the Germans.

Vichy was crap. It’s leaders expected (and hoped) that the Germans would defeat the British. I honor the French who stood up against the Boches. Vive la France!
 
Likes: BuckBradley

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,494
San Antonio, Tx
#59
Eh, post-WW1 situation in Europe was quite a mess, in fact I would argue it was much more messy than in 1945. I don't think the US could really help much.
It does take a bit of “cheek” to suggest that WW1-era American GIs should stay behind to help sort out Europe’s problems. This is an admission that they couldn’t regulate their own affairs. Frankly, those people were probably right but didn’t have 20-20 foresight to know how Europe would evolve. I tend to doubt that the US could have done much post-WW1. The French were ‘feeling their oats’ and would not have paid much attention to US doufghboys teeling them what to do.

Post WW2, that mistake was not made again, but even then, there was plenty of chaos to go around.
 

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,494
San Antonio, Tx
#60
It does take a bit of “cheek” to suggest that WW1-era American GIs should stay behind to help sort out Europe’s problems. This is an admission that they couldn’t regulate their own affairs. Frankly, those people were probably right but didn’t have 20-20 foresight to know how Europe would evolve. I tend to doubt that the US could have done much post-WW1. The French were ‘feeling their oats’ and would not have paid much attention to US doughboys telling them what to do.

Post WW2, that mistake was not made again, but even then, there was plenty of chaos to go around.