Why the Democratic Party Should Be Dissolved

[Gemklctr]

"That does not include all the civilians that would have been in the way of other land combat. Nor the rape and piliage of the small towns (while the US troups are perhaps a bit more civilized than some others - in war and battle conditons of that era - it was only a matter of degree)."


Perry, I agree with everything you''ve said except the quote above. Unlike Germany and Japan, the US did not have a national policy to promote the brutalization of the enemy, especially their civilian population. Quite the opposite, in fact. This is a qualitative difference, not merely a quantitative one of "degree." While it is true that the official US policies were not always followed by individual soldiers, as they are not today, we at least try to punish those who transgress. That makes us very different from those who intentionally promote such activities by their "troops," regulars or irregulars. Imperfection simply does not equate to manifest malfeasance. There is no moral equivalence here, either in WWII or the GWOT.

BTW, my Dad was in Europe with the first medium bomber group on the continent after D-Day (we interred him at Arlington last fall) and, like Storm''s dad, would have been heading off to Japan next if not for the Bomb.

 

[MINE!!]

Perry

I am sure that you could be correct or are correct on the atomic bomb thing. Right now I am archiving and oragnizing a donated archive by Lee Reese on the atomic Bomb and WWII. I just read some interesting theories on the atomic bomb and Japan''s reserach. I will have to write down some of the names and such and pass the info alnog to you. Even though it may prove false, I think that you may be interested in some of the information that it contains. I am processing it right now so it is not accessible to the public yet, so I will make sure that it is good and clear and get some of that info to you. I think that you would find it rather interesting!

 

[movie zombie]

Date: 4/7/2006 11:42:33 PM
Author: strmrdr
Lots to think about in your post Richard.
I think most people see the problems its the solutions that they disagree on.
To be honest there is likely not an answer to a lot of them and things are going to get worse a lot worse.
Of that I''m sure.
I am sad about the world we are giving my nieces and nephews and I shudder at the thought of what their children will see and live thru.

Storm, i completely agree.

Deb, while truman might be my parents fav pres, he''s not mine.

Mine, i actually agree that in many ways after trying to pull a ''rainbow bridge'' effect, richard started ''bashing'' again....however, how this digs anyone in deeper to a mind set that allows them to accept lies is beyond me. lies are lies and they come from both parties. the dems are as bad as the republicans...in some ways worse, imo.

re WWII/Japan/atomic bomb: thanks for all the info everyone.

Perry, education has never been about teaching people to think but rather to accept political/national dogma. an individual that reads many points of views and educates oneself regarding issues is suspect. and while i agree with you that ''the media'' isn''t doing its job in the way i/you think it should, in reality it is: it is entertainment for the masses. sound bites reign. until reality enters peoples lives, people are content; an example i over heard, "i don''t care what they do as long as i have my tv, my dog, and my beer." this was actually uttered by an individual during a political discussion.

dissolving the democratic party isn''t a cure for all evils. richard has it right when he asks how to we get past our differences and create the country we actually all agree we want.

movie zombie

movie zombie

 

[perry]

GemKlctr said:

Quote from Perry''s Post: "That does not include all the civilians that would have been in the way of other land combat. Nor the rape and piliage of the small towns (while the US troups are perhaps a bit more civilized than some others - in war and battle conditons of that era - it was only a matter of degree)."

Perry, I agree with everything you''ve said except the quote above. Unlike Germany and Japan, the US did not have a national policy to promote the brutalization of the enemy, especially their civilian population. Quite the opposite, in fact. This is a qualitative difference, not merely a quantitative one of "degree." While it is true that the official US policies were not always followed by individual soldiers, as they are not today, we at least try to punish those who transgress. That makes us very different from those who intentionally promote such activities by their "troops," regulars or irregulars. Imperfection simply does not equate to manifest malfeasance. There is no moral equivalence here, either in WWII or the GWOT.
BTW, my Dad was in Europe with the first medium bomber group on the continent after D-Day (we interred him at Arlington last fall) and, like Storm''s dad, would have been heading off to Japan next if not for the Bomb.
GK
Gem:

Sorry about your father. I am glad that he was honored to be burried in Arlington.

Here is the difference that I see:

There are two kinds of rape and pillage: What happens immediately after the conquest of a city or town (the next 12 - 24 hours); and what happens long term.

Most people these days do not understand that the wars of the last 30 years really were minor police type actions with a fraction of the troops in WW I and WW II. Thus it is much easier to control the immediate aftermath of a battle.

In full scale warfare what happens immediately after the conquest of a city or town is not pretty - and all nations are pretty much the same because a lot of it is human instinct or reactions from battle situations. Many troops claim thier individual trophies... both sexual and some object. The officers largly sequester themselves in private villas in part so that they do not have to "officially" recognize the situation (not that they could effectively control it anyway). Anyone who claims that the US, or anyone else, does not - and did not act in this way is unimformed. It was muted in Europe as most cities captured by the allied forces were glad to be free and the ladies of the cities tended to freely reward the allied solders (this kept the rape levels lower than normal), but it did happen.

I agree that the US and several other nations then largly collect their folks (after that first day), get most out of the city or town, and then work on rebuilding the cities instead of long term looting and enslavement (and will even punish someone that went way beyond the normal in the post conqure period); whereas other nations have pollicies of maintiaining their solders in town - encouraging their continued rape of the gals, long term looting of major items from the cities (even official organized convoys to empty museums and factories), etc.

I agree there is a difference in long term policies towards the town.

Many of my older adult friends served in WW II (most have now passed on). Several of them started to talk about some of their experinces after about 40 years (I noticed that many people from WW II rarely talked about what they did in battle before - just they served, they were here and there - not details to anyone for decades - or even to their grave). The tank driver who drove over lots of allied troups and civilians because he had to get the tank down that street for the ongoing battle. The infintryman who killed an entire civilian family (including the kids) to prevent them from revealing the US troop locations (and felt to his dying day that it was the right thing to do - there were no other options - what he did in order to protect the troops). They guy in the Navy who left a bunch on to drown in order to save others. I asked a few of these people - who had started to talk - about the immediate aftermath of battle & conquest of a city. That too finally came out.

Of course, what happened in Viet Nam was more typical (I know people who served and died in Viet Nam - it was my older brothers generation war, and I enlisted just after it was over - and served with lots of people who had been in Nam). Anyone here think Mia Lia was only a massicure, or the only one? The surprising thing in my mind is that press picked up on it while ignoring the others.

As I stated in my post above: There is a reason why war is called hell. Which is why we should be carefull about engaging in one; and I have very mixed feelings about the "limited" police actions we seem to get into.

Perry

 

[Gemklctr]

Date: 4/8/2006 7:59:32 PM
Author: perry

GemKlctr said:

Quote from Perry''s Post: ''That does not include all the civilians that would have been in the way of other land combat. Nor the rape and piliage of the small towns (while the US troups are perhaps a bit more civilized than some others - in war and battle conditons of that era - it was only a matter of degree).''


Perry, I agree with everything you''ve said except the quote above. Unlike Germany and Japan, the US did not have a national policy to promote the brutalization of the enemy, especially their civilian population. Quite the opposite, in fact. This is a qualitative difference, not merely a quantitative one of ''degree.'' While it is true that the official US policies were not always followed by individual soldiers, as they are not today, we at least try to punish those who transgress. That makes us very different from those who intentionally promote such activities by their ''troops,'' regulars or irregulars. Imperfection simply does not equate to manifest malfeasance. There is no moral equivalence here, either in WWII or the GWOT.

BTW, my Dad was in Europe with the first medium bomber group on the continent after D-Day (we interred him at Arlington last fall) and, like Storm''s dad, would have been heading off to Japan next if not for the Bomb.
GK

Gem:

Sorry about your father. I am glad that he was honored to be burried in Arlington.

Here is the difference that I see:

There are two kinds of rape and pillage: What happens immediately after the conquest of a city or town (the next 12 - 24 hours); and what happens long term.

Most people these days do not understand that the wars of the last 30 years really were minor police type actions with a fraction of the troops in WW I and WW II. Thus it is much easier to control the immediate aftermath of a battle.

In full scale warfare what happens immediately after the conquest of a city or town is not pretty - and all nations are pretty much the same because a lot of it is human instinct or reactions from battle situations. Many troops claim thier individual trophies... both sexual and some object. The officers largly sequester themselves in private villas in part so that they do not have to ''officially'' recognize the situation (not that they could effectively control it anyway). Anyone who claims that the US, or anyone else, does not - and did not act in this way is unimformed. It was muted in Europe as most cities captured by the allied forces were glad to be free and the ladies of the cities tended to freely reward the allied solders (this kept the rape levels lower than normal), but it did happen.

I agree that the US and several other nations then largly collect their folks (after that first day), get most out of the city or town, and then work on rebuilding the cities instead of long term looting and enslavement (and will even punish someone that went way beyond the normal in the post conqure period); whereas other nations have pollicies of maintiaining their solders in town - encouraging their continued rape of the gals, long term looting of major items from the cities (even official organized convoys to empty museums and factories), etc.

I agree there is a difference in long term policies towards the town.

Many of my older adult friends served in WW II (most have now passed on). Several of them started to talk about some of their experinces after about 40 years (I noticed that many people from WW II rarely talked about what they did in battle before - just they served, they were here and there - not details to anyone for decades - or even to their grave). The tank driver who drove over lots of allied troups and civilians because he had to get the tank down that street for the ongoing battle. The infintryman who killed an entire civilian family (including the kids) to prevent them from revealing the US troop locations (and felt to his dying day that it was the right thing to do - there were no other options - what he did in order to protect the troops). They guy in the Navy who left a bunch on to drown in order to save others. I asked a few of these people - who had started to talk - about the immediate aftermath of battle & conquest of a city. That too finally came out.

Of course, what happened in Viet Nam was more typical (I know people who served and died in Viet Nam - it was my older brothers generation war, and I enlisted just after it was over - and served with lots of people who had been in Nam). Anyone here think Mia Lia was only a massicure, or the only one? The surprising thing in my mind is that press picked up on it while ignoring the others.

As I stated in my post above: There is a reason why war is called hell. Which is why we should be carefull about engaging in one; and I have very mixed feelings about the ''limited'' police actions we seem to get into.

Perry

Perry,
Again, I fully agree except for the suggestion that there is a moral equivalence between the US soldier/government and the German or Japanese soldier/government of the WWII era. There was a major article in the Washington Post this morning reporting on the friction between China and Japan over the latter''s WWII atrocities, and the fact that the Japanese government still honors many of the perpetrators of those atrocities. We wouldn''t, and don''t with respect to Muy Lai or Vietnam in general, do that. I am very familiar with the Vietnam experience - many of my classmates served, one of my professors set up Diem''s security police and one of my former roommates was shot down over North Vietnam - and you are right: bad things happened, but it was to our regret, not our intent. It''s more than just whether or not a country corrals its troops after they capture a town, it''s concentration camps and biological experiments and comfort women and the Bataan death march and .... It seems that too many many people currently can''t see that forrest for the trees of isolated incidents.

War is hell, and it must be fought at a very brutal level in order to protect the things we hold dear. Your examples above chronicle that horror, but they are notable also for the regret of the actors even though they did only what they had to do for the greater good. They are emphatically not war crimes. Yet, as Aristotle observed, in a state of war you can''t act any better than the next guy (in terms of scruples) or he will destroy you. Nonetheless, I think the US tries in general to be better, sometimes to the detriment of its people, but that''s what sets us apart. We accept some additional suffering, some avoidable losses, in order to uphold certain principles of liberty and morality. We can argue over where exactly that line should be drawn, but we should not be misled into thinking either that such a debate reduces us to the level of our enemies or that our enemies have similar concerns.

I appreciate your sentiments about my Dad. He viewed his country like his family, and took care of us both to the best of his ability. I was able to return some of that in the last year of his life, and for that opportunity I will be forever grateful. He didn''t know about his eligibility for Arlington when he died, but I am sure he would have been pleased.

 

[perry]

GemKlctr

I think we are saying somewhat similar things. I am just not making any moral judgements about it.

To all:

Many people today do not understand much about WW II. Here are a few facts to give an idea on it''s scope:

Military Deaths (All Sides): 25 Million People
Non Holocost Civilian Deaths (All Sides): 31 Million People
Holocost Deaths: 6 Million People
============
Total Deaths 62 Million People

This was between September 1939 and August 1945 (1 month shy of 6 years) ==> which works out to just over 10 million deaths per year.

This represents a death rate of 32 peope per 1000 out of the total population of the countries who participated (1 person out of every 30 people, on average, of the total population of the participating countires were killed). The US got off lightly because war did not occur here - some countries paid a very high price (I think Russia paid the worst price in civilian and military casualties).

The scope of these deaths including the civilian death rates were known during the war. Many battles saw thousands of people an hour die in them (and people in the US are concerned about several thousand deaths over 5 years...: I''m not saying that those deaths don''t matter - but It just doesn''t relate for real "total" warfare).

When people talk of civilian casualties - and reducing them - they need to understand that the way war used to be faught targeted civilian populations for many reasons (like they ran the factories producing the war materials and grew the food feeding the armies and navies - and because targetting was not that good). Only in the last 30 years have attempts been made to seriously minimize civilian casualties (Actually led by the US with the development of the "smart" bombs so that you could hit just the factory and not need to carpet bomb the entire neighborhood in order to get the factory).

When people talk of the decission to drop the atomic bombs they need to know that the consideration on the table was that an invasion could easily have 3 million more casualties. 1 million Allied forces, 1 million Japan Forces, 1 million Japanease Civilians. Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the other "alternate" target cites for the atom bomb were going to be destroyed by firebombing as part of that invasion (anyway), and that may have killed more people than what the atom bombs did (i.e - the civilians were already targets).

When viewed with that information - when looking at 6 more months of "total" war by people who understood the horrors of "total" war. I don''t think use of the Atom Bomb was that hard of a decission. However, It was debated and considered. The final decission was to use it to try to get Japan to surrender and end the war and save millions of people.

Post war research has produced estimates that indicate that the military deaths could even have been much higher than the intial estimates during the war planning for both sides (1.5 - 2 million people per side: Thus the Japan invasion could have been 5 million causualtis 2 million Allied Forces, 2 millon Japan Forces, 1 Million Civilian). This is due to the fact that Japan was truely ready and willing to fight to defend its homeland - including the civilians. In addition, many peope in Japan would have committed ritural suicide for the loss of honor on being defeated by "normal" means. I have only seen speculation on the number of additional deaths that would have caused - but it could have been a significant fraction of the remaining population. I have read that the use of the Atom Bombs gave the Emperor of Japan an "Honarable" reason to surrender. It was obviously a new technology - and one that they could not defend against and fight.

In some ways use of the Atom Bombs is regretable. On the other hand - they worked and ended a war without adding millions of more causulaties. As a country - Japan survived and quickly rebuilt with their culture intact. I''m not sure that would have happened after an invasion - not to the extent it did.

Perry

 

[rainbowtrout]

another note I seem to remember (could be wrong)

Japan refused to surrender after we dropped the first bomb, no? My impression was that the emperor still refused to step down.

I''m agreeing with the idea that all soldiers to some extent "rape and pillage," but I really don''t think there is any comparision at all between Japan/German systematized torture, mass execution, etc. Even our incarceration camps for the Japanese-Americans, which WERE sad and awful things, still couldn''t hold a candle to these atrocities. That''s pretty much why, although it may sound a little harsh, my bottom line point of agreement for dropping the bomb was "I like us better."

 

[MINE!!]

Interesting about the Japanese interment camps. DH and I were talking about this yesterday. These camps were also set up in Canada. I made the comment that you hear very little baout them and that they are only emntioned in passing. I had heard that people died and that they were horrible. HUbby... corrected me that people were well treated but misplaced. They were not starved or killed and that the goverment did commit abuse in that they were able to confiscaste property and take away livelihoods that Japanse Americans had no say in recollecting.