The Amercian Soldier in ETO - WW2

[Scrogdog]

At the risk of being a newbie and suddenly becoming unwelcome, I am going to forgo replying. I am an admitted devil's advocate and debater that doesn't mind discussing uncomfortable issues. But I do not care to make others uncomfortable. Sorry if I did so.

My strength is PTO, but I look forward to discussing and learning ETO in greater detail with all you knowledgeable folks. Now, if the game would only show up on my doorstep when I get home this evening, all would be right with the world.

[This message has been edited by Scrogdog (edited 12-15-2000).]

[Polar]

Ok, I have lots of points to make about this particular subject. I won't make them all, don't worry... :^)

First, concerning the difference in willingness to kill Japanese over Germans. THeir is too much involved in that question to lable it as a descision based on race. For example, we entered the War because the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor (I know... this too is over simplified... but just for the sake of arguement). I am not convinced that had it been the Nazis that bombed... say... Norfolk that drew us into the war that those numbers wouldn't be greatly skewed in the other direction. We had a bone to pick with the Japanese, but we faught in Germany out of a political Alliance. You'll usually find that desire to kill wanes a bit when driven soley by training and duty.

Remember, the concentration camps were not widely known of at the time the time this survey was done... and the scope was certainly not comprehended.

Now, the atomic bomb issue is another convoluted discussion that too many people do a diservice to by pulling the race card, or the "making a showing for Russia" arguement.. etc etc... The driving force behind the US dropping the bombs can be summed up in a very simple yet telling statistic. Before the ultimate descision was made, the War department went ahead with plans to invade Japan. This preparation included purchasing purple hearts to cover the expected casualties... when the invasion never came, the Purple Hearts were held in reserve to be handed out in future wars.

They expected so many casualties and ordered so many Purple Hearts that CURRENT recipients are recieving their Purple Hearts from that stock pile.

Maybe it was this expectancy in the War Department that led to the Nuclear alternative?????

Joe

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Major Tom:

Who is qualified? Can we not judge anyone in the past just because we haven't walked in their shoes? We feel free to judge the Japanese, and the Germans, even though they were under the same stress to make these important choices. We can't just sit back and look throughout history and accept the actions of everyone based on the fact that we weren't there or we weren't them. We deserve the right to second guess, to question, and when we don't we just blindly follow, agree and become ignorant. Asking questions and second guessing doesn't hurt, especially after 60 years.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I did not see we should not judge, I said we should not judge the actions from a different era by the standards of today.

I can judge the Holocaust by the standards of its time and find it abhorrent. I can judge the Rape of Nanking by the standards of its time and find it morally unacceptable. I cna judge the massacre at Lei Lai by the standards of its time and find that an atrocity was committed.

In the same vein, I can judge the bombing of London, or Berlin, or Kyoto by the standard of today, and blithely find them unacceptable, but that is no more meaningful than an 18th century bishop finding my co-habitation prior to my marriage immoral. Or the fact that we would allow a black man to attend the same church.

You insist that a war fought under vastly different standards and a vastly different world should be judged by your particular standard of morality defined by you 60 years after the fact. You can certainly make that judgement, your morality is your own to define, but I would claim it show a lack of understanding, empathy, and reason.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Everything else I am flexible on, I don't think that dropping the bomb SHOULD NEVER have happened, I just don't believe that it is a morally correct choice. Do I lose sleep knowing that atomic bombs have been used and are still around? No. I just don't see any way to morally justify. They were militarily justified, but not morally.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, where does you morality draw the line? It was immoral to drop a bomb that killed 100K at a blast, but moral to sink merchant ships carrying food to keep millions from starving? Immoral to fire bomb Tokyo, but moral to cut off medical supplies to Nazi Germany?

IN a total war (and hopefully WW2 was the last of those) there is only one morality: End the war as quickly as possible. Any other course of action, even one cloaked in the false modesty of "morality" leads to more death. The simple reality is that dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved lives. It saved American lives, it saved British lives, it saved Soviet lives, it saved Chinese lives, and it saved Japanese lives.

I think what you have shown is that war, and most especially total war, is an ugly, nasty, unpleasant business. No more, and no less.

Jeff Heidman