Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

World War II's Last Surviving Doolittle Raiders Make Their Final Toast

Posted by samzenpus on from the last-call dept.

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "As we come up on Veteran's Day, Barrie Barber reports for the Dayton Daily News that the last Doolittle Raiders symbolically said goodbye to a decades-old tradition and to a history that changed the course of the Pacific war in World War II. Gathering from across the country together one last time, three surviving Raiders sipped from silver goblets engraved with their names and filled with 1896 Hennessy cognac in a once-private ceremony webcast to the world at the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force. Robert E. Cole, 98, led the final toast to the 80 members of 'the Greatest Generation' who took off in 16 B-25 Mitchell bombers April 18, 1942, from the deck of the USS Hornet to bomb Japan four months after a Japanese surprise naval and air attack on Pearl Harbor. 'Gentleman, I propose a toast,' said Cole, as about 700 spectators watched one final time, 'to those we lost on the mission and those that passed away since. Thank you very much and may they rest in peace.' Acting Secretary of the Air Force Eric Fanning said the raid showed the courage and innovation of the World War II airmen flying from a carrier in a bomber that had never seen combat to attack a heavily defended nation and to attempt to land at unseen airfields in China in a country occupied by Japanese troops. More than 70 years after the attack, Edward J. Saylor, 93, remembered ditching at sea once he and his crew dropped their bombs and several close calls with being discovered by the Japanese Army while making his way through China. 'This may be the last time I see them together,' said the 92-year-old raider who has attended Raider reunions since 1962. 'It's a little sad for me because I've known them so long and know the story of what they did in 1942.'"

55 of 211 comments (clear)

  1. What about the Japanese casualties? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    May the Japanese casualties rest in peace as well.

    1. Re:What about the Japanese casualties? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Such sympathy does not apply to the side that starts a war and loses. Food for thought, when America remembers all the wars it has started and lost.

    2. Re:What about the Japanese casualties? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Chill, dude, WWII is over. Quit holding a grudge.

    3. Re:What about the Japanese casualties? by shikaisi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      More to the point, what about the Chinese casualties? The often ignored result of the raid was that the Japanese, in reprisals against any family, village or town that they thought might have helped the escaping Doolittle raiders, murdered about 250,000 men, women and children. That number is not a typo. It is not a mistake or an exaggeration. Two hundred and fifty thousand Chinese were slaughtered by the Imperial Japanese Army during the search for Doolittle's men.

      Now please remind me again why I should care about the Japanese casualties.

      --
      No left turn unstoned.
    4. Re:What about the Japanese casualties? by Drethon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      IMHO such sympathy does not apply to the leaders who started the war but the innocent casualties still have my sympathies.

      Not so sure about those who blindly followed those leaders without thought or due to political brainwashing and my brain isn't working well enough on a Monday morning to get that deep into philosophy...

    5. Re:What about the Japanese casualties? by jalopezp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Dead citizens in Tokyo were for certain not involved in massacring the Chinese. Why should you care about Japanese casualties? For the same reason you care about anyone that dies needlessly in a war.

    6. Re:What about the Japanese casualties? by Falconhell · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Sympathy applies for all war casualties, there is no more stupid waste of life.

    7. Re:What about the Japanese casualties? by ebno-10db · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't agree. For all that I've no use for people who don't realize that, unlike many recent ventures, the US fought WWII for very good reasons, and probably saved millions of lives by doing so, I'm not completely averse to the Japanese remembering their civilians lost in the war. Personally I have little use for Japanese sanctimony about the use of the A-bombs, but commemorating the dead is another matter. Even remembering, if not commemorating, their rank-and-file war dead, while a touchy subject, doesn't seem completely unreasonable to me. Many of the rank-and-file had little choice but to "serve".

    8. Re:What about the Japanese casualties? by ebno-10db · · Score: 2, Insightful

      May the Japanese casualties rest in peace as well.

      Quoting the PP not because I agree with him, but because moderating him to -1 is censorship. That's ironic considering that one of the freedoms veterans fought to defend is freedom of speech. Don't bother me with "Slashdot is a privately owned forum, it's not the government censoring it", blah, blah, blah. This case isn't going to the Supreme Court. Nevertheless, modding down somebody who made a controversial, but not needlessly inflammatory or insulting remark, is stifling debate. That isn't how things are supposed to work in this country.

    9. Re:What about the Japanese casualties? by rvw · · Score: 2

      Many of the rank-and-file had little choice but to "serve".

      You always have a choice. You never get considered to be more moral for being unwilling to die rather than kill people. You're just selfish. Understandably so, but that changes nothing, especially for the people you kill.

      Get real man! Many of those people, whether serving as soldier or at home doing their normal stuff, didn't even realise they had a choice. Especially in Japan it's in their culture and in their blood. They're raised like that, from the first day of their life. You have to be pretty clever and independent to stand up to that and survive without being put in some kind of institution because you're ill or crazy or criminal.

      No TV, no internet, facebook, phone, twitter or google. Even radio was sparse with limited stations. It's easy talking. Even with what I know now I am not sure I can withstand the pressure if it comes to it.

    10. Re:What about the Japanese casualties? by JoelWink · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Nanking Massacre (AKA "Rape of Nanking") is just one example of the atrocities committed by Japan. From the late 19th century through WWII the Japanese goverment was extremely militaristic and hell bent on expanding their empire by any means necessary. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre

    11. Re:What about the Japanese casualties? by Goaway · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Remind me again what you are doing to stop the American military from killing innocents in its wars?

      Also, to which extent do you feel you deserve death for what they are doing?

    12. Re:What about the Japanese casualties? by shikaisi · · Score: 5, Informative

      I would be interested in a cite about the number of Chinese killed.

      "The First Heroes: The Extraordinary Story of the Doolittle Raid—America's First World War II Victory" by Craig NELSON. London: Penguin Press, 2002. ISBN 978-0-14-200341-1. See pages 226-228.

      --
      No left turn unstoned.
    13. Re:What about the Japanese casualties? by Bigbutt · · Score: 2

      You are coming to the posting early. As the thread matures, other folks will come along and mod him (or her) up. That's how it works with a system of unpaid moderators. You'll get the folks who will mod him down and others who'll mod him right back up. Eventually it'll balance out and the more thoughtful will have moderated him to +5 Insightful.

      [John]

      --
      Shit better not happen!
    14. Re:What about the Japanese casualties? by clovis · · Score: 5, Informative

      RE:
      "The entire attack would not have happened except for a delay by some US political figure whose name I forget at the moment to see the Japanese Ambassador."

      You are totally wrong - the attack was absolutely going to happen when it did. The planes were already in the air.

      The sole purpose of the ambassador's visit was to present the declaration of war immediately before the attack so that Japan could not be accused of a "sneak attack". It planned to be timed so that there would be only a moments delay between the declaration and the actual attack so that there would not be time to warn the American bases.

    15. Re:What about the Japanese casualties? by alex67500 · · Score: 2

      >>November 11th was the end of World War I (28 July 1914 - 11 November 1918; the USA got involved in 1917).

      Wow, not only did you not RTFA, you did not read (or understand) that the F'ing summary is talking about a tradition from a WWII event. At least make ignorant comments or trolling 'corrections' on things that are true or that you actually understand.

        Slashdot where have you gone?

      It still took the USA 2 years and a cowardly attack on Pearl Harbour to pull their fingers and start getting involved.

    16. Re:What about the Japanese casualties? by quacking+duck · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't agree. For all that I've no use for people who don't realize that, unlike many recent ventures, the US fought WWII for very good reasons, and probably saved millions of lives by doing so

      Since you seem a bit confused about the reason the United States of America joined the war effort let me educate you. The USA practised an isolationist policy and refused to join World War II to defeat Germany and its allies until Japan carried out an attack on Pearl Harbor. The entire attack would not have happened except for a delay by some US political figure whose name I forget at the moment to see the Japanese Ambassador. When the Japanese Ambassador and his aid heard of the attack from the person they were meeting they were gravely disappointed. There is a fact-based movie about the events leading up to the attack on Pearl Harbor; not the crap movie made of recent vintage.

      (Bold emphasis mine.)

      Not the poster you're responding to, but if this fact-based movie you speak of is Tora! Tora! Tora!, you're forgetting key details.

      In that movie it's made quite clear that the entire attack would happen whether or not the Japanese ambassador saw the US official. That delay was also secondary to another delay caused by a Japanese security directive that meant the regular typist(s) couldn't type up the last of the 14-part message, and a much slower hunt-and-peck non-typist with enough security clearance had to be used instead.

      Whether that part of the movie is accurate is also largely irrelevant, since in reality the 14-part message was neither a declaration of war nor severed diplomatic relations (though combined with intercepted Japanese instruction to their embassy to destroy their decoding gear, it was taken as a strong indicator that either would've happened shortly afterward). Documents revealed in 1999 also strongly suggest the Japanese military convinced the government not to do so before their surprise attack happened.

    17. Re:What about the Japanese casualties? by jythie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Given how easy it is to get normally good people to do terrible things with a surprisingly small amount of peer pressure, I am comfortable extending sympathies even to those who one might call 'brainwashed'. While we like to think of ourselves as strong, it has been shown a disturbing number of times just how easy it is tweak someone into such behavior.

    18. Re:What about the Japanese casualties? by Drethon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You make an excellent point. Reminds me of the experiments where a person was made to think they were executing someone in the name of science. While a part of me keeps saying the brainwashed are weak, I need to remember I'm probably not any stronger and am deluding myself to think otherwise.

    19. Re:What about the Japanese casualties? by Chickenlips · · Score: 2

      Sorry, but I have to say that the United States has never been a "peace loving" nation. I learned that in public school too, but a closer examination of history, especially the last decade, clearly lays that premise to rest. The U.S. was born in by way of war. The U.S. has never hesitated to use it's military for economic gain (Mexico, Central and South America from centuries past). I don't believe we had a valid reason for entering WWI. President Wilson had to so some fancy maneuvering to get the U.S. into it (General Smedley Butler can shed some light, circa 1930's). WWII was necessary, and Roosevelt saw the writing on the wall long before 1941. He had actually reinstated the draft, and, to the limits of his authority, began nudging industries toward fulfilling military needs. It's true that prior to December, 1941, Americans wanted no part in Europe's war (see WWI). Roosevelt had also been giving Britain military aid (Lend-Lease act).
      After WWII, unlike after WWI, America didn't disarm. Not something a "peace loving" nation would decide to do. The "Cold War" with the Soviets was but a convenient excuse to continue to pour GDP into military might. The U.S. could have maintained military supremacy over the Soviets with a fraction of the amount of GDP actually spent.
      The focus on the military industrial complex served, as an aside to this conversation, to allow other nations to take the lead in consumer electronics. By the end of the "Cold War", nary a TV, radio or any other commercial electronic device (save computers, but they went later) were designed or manufactured in the U.S. Ironically, the fact that military electronics are now essentially manufactured by a potential future foe (China) makes me feel even less safe than if China actually had a military strong enough to threaten the United States.

    20. Re:What about the Japanese casualties? by real+gumby · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The imperial government of Japan bears full responsibility for the pacific war, no question about it.

      Having said that, I do take exception to part about it being a "cowardly attack." It's was a brave, gutsy move, and it could have succeeded (although even if it had succeeded it probably would only have delayed the inevitable). The US blockade on Japanese shipping and imports had caused intolerable problems so something had to change. Disastrously, what changed was an expansion, rather than reduction, of the war.

      Please do not interpret this as any defense of the Japanese. Both of my parents faced Japanese invasion -- and not all of my relatives survived the occupation. I would not have been born had the Americans not been willing to enter the war and completely finish the job. But even with all of that I cannot consider the attack on Perl Harbor to be in any way "cowardly" -- unless you can take the position that violence is always the coward's way out (a position I do respect, though perhaps cannot share).

    21. Re:What about the Japanese casualties? by ebno-10db · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Pop quiz: Who sold the Nazis fuel and metal so that they could run around killing

      Pop quiz: were all 150 millions Americans of a like mind and did they act in perfect concert during WWII?

      As for for FDR's cynical, but perhaps justified, treatment of such actions during the war, perhaps you'd like to read the descriptions of the very people whose research uncovered this treason. You can start here. Should the "business people" responsible been tried for treason after the war? Hell yes.

      We fueled the war deliberately

      You mean by things like the Lend Lease Act? Ask the British if they objected to US aid prior to our entry into the war.

      then entered the war

      You mean an America with a strong isolationist sentiment, and a desire not to get hundreds of thousands of her own people killed, didn't enter the war until after we were attacked by Japan, and then a few days later, Nazi Germany declared war on us? That's true.

      It permitted us to reduce a bunch of our excess population

      You mean the population that people were concerned had a declining birth rate, due to the Great Depression? At any rate, it wasn't a very effective policy for reducing our population. As horrific as our losses of over 400,000 Americans were, it reduced the population by only 0.27%. Then the whole thing was undone by the millions born in the post-war baby boom. A seriously failed policy.

      One other minor problem: there is absolutely no evidence for the absurd notion that we wanted to "reduce a bunch of our excess population".

      You always have a choice.

      Technically that's true. If somebody puts a gun to your head and tells you to either join the military or be shot now, and you choose the bullet now, your heirs will be free to praise you morality. Until and unless that happens to you, shove your sanctimony.

    22. Re:What about the Japanese casualties? by SonnyDog09 · · Score: 2

      It *was* cowardly in that they attacked before declaring war.

      If you are going to start a fight with a sucker punch, you get no sympathy when the other guy kicks your ass.

      --
      Your "fair share" is NOT in my wallet.
  2. Godspeed and thank you by Drethon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...

    1. Re:Godspeed and thank you by Drethon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Godspeed an expression of good wishes to a person starting a journey.

      Yes the phrase had a religious connotation originally but it does not really any more (to me anyway). Do you prefer god's speed or goodspeed (which to me sounds more like wishing someone a speedy journey to a known destination whereas godspeed or god's speed is more wishing a person a good journey to a destination which I do not and cannot know)?

    2. Re:Godspeed and thank you by ebno-10db · · Score: 2

      Would it have lessened his contribution if he had? His service is far more important than any religious differences you may have with him. Interestingly, there are few "Jesus Saves" postings on Slashdot, presumably because it's an inappropriate forum. For some reason, Evangelical Atheists think themselves different.

  3. Re:Why must we celebrate violence? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Perhaps you should learn the difference between celebration and commemoration.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  4. Thank You Veterans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    On this Veterans Day, I would like to thank all veterans for serving our country for protecting our freedoms and way of life.
    Without these brave men and women, we would not be the mightiest, richest, most powerful nation on Earth.
    God Bless America.

    1. Re: Thank You Veterans by Drethon · · Score: 2

      Be glad these people fought so you can have the right to express this opinion. In my opinion the wars that came afterward had little to do with our freedoms but I don't think things would have turned out as well if we were currently under Japan Empire or Nazi rule today.

      My bent $0.02 and I don't care where you'd like me to shove it, I'll give my opinion when it suits me and you are welcome to do the same.

  5. Re:Why must we celebrate violence? by ebno-10db · · Score: 5, Informative

    I don't know why you mention chemical weapons and atom bombs, since the Doolittle Raid involved neither. Nevertheless HE and incendiaries do kill people. They're not celebrating the violence of the mission, but the value of, and the the sacrifices made by, the men who flew that mission. That's what Veteran's Day is about. Considering the idiocy of getting into many of the wars we've gotten into, or started, in recent decades, you may forget that WWII was fought for very good reasons, and that the US was attacked by Japan. The US fight in the Pacific probably saved many lives elsewhere in Asia, the surrounding archipelagos, and Australia. We were allied with just about every other country fighting Japan. The penchant of the Imperial Japanese Forces for mass slaughter was not just propaganda. Good news though: we won, and have been at peace with Japan for 68 years. None of the Doolittle Raiders have complained about that.

  6. Re:Imagine Japan doing the same by Ogive17 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Have you ever gone to Pearl Harbor? It's a hotspot for Japanese tourism. Americans also go to Hiroshima when site seeing in Japan.

    Remembering historic events does not indicate rubbing it in the face of your former enemy.

    --
    "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
  7. Re:Imagine Japan doing the same by SJester · · Score: 2

    You really should have posted as Anonymous Coward; your comment is too stupid to have associated with your name. There is a difference between celebrating an act of aggression vs an act of defense or defiance. Both the Pearl Harbor raid and the Blitz were attacks carried out by expansionist aggressors. The Blitz was in fact deliberately targeting civilians, and both were not fought against incredible odds by a small force using unproven equipment with uncertain support.

  8. Re:Imagine Japan doing the same by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2, Informative

    > Just imagine Japan doing a celebration of pilots raiding Pearl
    > Harbor. Or how about Germany holding annual celebrations for pilots of the Blitz?

    So many pseudo-intellectuals posting things like this. Do you not understand you would not dare say such things in those societies in the reverse?

    Do you enjoy your freedom to speak? Good. I'm glad.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  9. Who paid the price. by willy+everlearn · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Doolittle's raid had little/no actual strategic value.

    The price tag was..... I have read estimates that between 300 thousand to 1 million Chinese paid the ultimate price for getting the crews out.

    Not taking away from the valor of the crew. They deserve our undying respect.

    But, the price paid for it..... I wonder.

    willy

    --
    No hour on a horse is ever wasted. Winston Churchill
    1. Re:Who paid the price. by Drethon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The short of it is the Doolittle raid led to the battle of Midway which is considered a major turning point of the war.

      http://www.angelo.edu/content/news/1466-doolittle-raid-remembered-for-impact

    2. Re:Who paid the price. by Deadstick · · Score: 4, Informative

      What Drethon said. The Doolittle raid was a major embarrassment to the Japanese military, and it became clear that any repetition would be followed by rolling heads. As a result, some major naval assets were pulled back into home-waters defense, and that contributed a lot to the outcome at Midway.

    3. Re:Who paid the price. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Doolittle's raid had little/no actual strategic value.

      The price tag was..... I have read estimates that between 300 thousand to 1 million Chinese paid the ultimate price for getting the crews out.

      Not taking away from the valor of the crew. They deserve our undying respect.

      But, the price paid for it..... I wonder.

      willy

      WRONG

      The Japanese response to the Doolittle raid was to attempt to seize Midway Island and the ensuing Battle of Midway

      The Battle of Midway ( Middow Kaisen?) in the Pacific Theater of Operations was one of the most important naval battles of World War II. Between 4 and 7 June 1942, only six months after Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, and one month after the Battle of the Coral Sea, the United States Navy decisively defeated an Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) attack on Midway Atoll, inflicting irreparable damage on the Japanese fleet Military historian John Keegan called it "the most stunning and decisive blow in the history of naval warfare." It was Japan's worst naval defeat in 350 years.

      The Japanese operation, like the earlier attack on Pearl Harbor, sought to eliminate the United States as a strategic power in the Pacific, thereby giving Japan a free hand in establishing its Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. The Japanese hoped that another demoralizing defeat would force the U.S. to capitulate in the Pacific War and thus ensure Japanese dominance in the Pacific.

      The Japanese plan was to lure the United States' aircraft carriers into a trap. The Japanese also intended to occupy Midway as part of an overall plan to extend their defensive perimeter in response to the Doolittle air raid on Tokyo. This operation was also considered preparatory for further attacks against Fiji, Samoa, and Hawaii itself. ....

    4. Re:Who paid the price. by smpoole7 · · Score: 5, Informative

      > Doolittle's raid had little/no actual strategic value.

      I may be a little older than you, but I'm surprised at the number of people nowadays who don't know what actually happened in WWII. It has been over half a century now, so at most it gets a chapter in the history books, highly condensed. I had the great pleasure of reading (among other things) Admiral Nimitz's history of that war, very detailed, with a look at every decision -- juggling horribly short assets against needs everywhere.

      In fact, the Doolittle Raid had a significant strategic impact -- it caused the Japanese to redistribute their forces. In particular, they strongly weakened their carrier forces in the Indian Ocean. It also strengthened Yamamoto's position in favor of the Battle of Midway, which was the turning point of the entire Pacific war. (Some revisionist historians now want to argue with that, but their heads are filled with revisionist cheese. Losing several aircraft carriers in a single battle meant that Japan would never again be able to take the initiative.) :)

      I hate war. As Sherman said, "War is hell." But if you attack me, or threaten those I love, I'm a typical American: I gitterdone, the entire time wishing that you'd just kept your mind right and left me alone. I'm not saying that everyone feels that way, but I am typical.

      Only those who've seen the suffering can begin to imagine how awful war is. My Veteran's Day story comes from Sandy's grandfather, who was in a foxhole in St. Vith when the Germans kicked off the Battle of the Bulge. In my eyes, he was a freakin' hero, and I begged him to talk about it.

      All he would say was, "I lost a lot of friends that day." Nothing more. I felt ashamed for bringing it up, and we changed the topic.

      Yes, you can argue about Korea, Vietnam, et. al. But go back and read histories written by Nimitz and others who were there. No, there wasn't a great deal of fear that Germany or Japan could actually occupy the United States, but there was still a very real possibility that Japan and Germany would win. We've gotten cocky nowadays, but back then, what with bad torpedoes, ossified admirals who didn't want to use that "newfangled" radar, planes that couldn't keep up with the Mitsubishi Zero, it was anything but a guaranteed thing.

      As for the results of an Axis victory, I suggest a good dose of Turtledove or other alternative history. It wouldn't have been pretty. At all.

      --
      Cogito, igitur comedam pizza.
    5. Re:Who paid the price. by smpoole7 · · Score: 2

      > It tends to sent off my I know I read otherwise flag and my must reeducate style rants :)

      Hah. Me as well. :)

      Actually, if we're honoring heroes, here's one bunch that rarely gets a mention nowadays: the submariners who served in the Allied Navies in WWII. I'm going from memory, but at the end of the war, Nimitz chose to do his change-of-command ceremony on the deck of a submarine. He wanted to honor the fact that (here's the memory part, don't hold me to this) something like only ONE IN TEN (or was it one in twenty???) of those who served on submarines in the Pacific survived the war.

      The losses were staggering. Being in the sub service was tantamount to a death sentence in WWII, but they did it anyway.

      --
      Cogito, igitur comedam pizza.
    6. Re:Who paid the price. by T.E.D. · · Score: 3, Informative

      We've gotten cocky nowadays, but back then, what with bad torpedoes, ossified admirals who didn't want to use that "newfangled" radar, planes that couldn't keep up with the Mitsubishi Zero, it was anything but a guaranteed thing.

      Can't emphasise this part enough. If you know nothing else about WWII in the Pacific, a person should really acquaint themselves with the Battle of Midway.

      We had some advantages, and some disadvantages. But without incredible sheer luck, and the willing essentially suicidal sacrifices of the men of Torpedo Squadron 8, things would have turned out completely differently. If the same strokes of luck had happened for the Japanese instead of for the US, the balance of our entire carrier force would have been wiped out (which was what the Japanese plan was when they forced that action in the first place). Had that happened, at best it would have been years before we could have built enough replacements to make it a war again.

      BTW: Of Torpedo Squadron 8, only one man (and none of the planes) survived their runs. Their planes were hopelessly obsolete, and scored no hits on either their carrier targets or enemy planes. However, their pitiful attacks drew the air cover down at just the moment other squadrons of US dive-bombers arrived on the scene from high altitude, and oddly found the skies up there uncontested...

  10. Re:Imagine Japan doing the same by LordLucless · · Score: 2

    Australia would like to talk to you about ANZAC Day.

    --
    Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
  11. Re:Why must we celebrate violence? by GenieGenieGenie · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The US fight in the Pacific probably saved many lives elsewhere in Asia, the surrounding archipelagos, and Australia. We were allied with just about every other country fighting Japan.

    If everyone had just surrendered to the Japanese, there would have been much fewer deaths in the Pacific theater in WWII. The point of fighting that war was not about saving the quantity of lives, but the quality of them.

  12. Re:Why must we celebrate violence? by Drethon · · Score: 4, Informative

    Given some of the reports of the war crimes committed by Japan (yes some of these may be the victor writing the history but I don't see many reports refuting this) I'm not sure things would have been better if we surrendered to them. Some of the crimes I believe were committed when the resistance of an area was effectively eliminated...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes

  13. Re:Imagine Japan doing the same by Deadstick · · Score: 3, Funny

    that any of the Axis powers in WW2 were richeous in any way.

    Or even righteous.

  14. Can't a bunch of old farts get together and drink by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    . . . without everyone making a international political fuss about it? War is terrible for all . . . and these lucky few just want to celebrate that they managed to get their hairy asses out of that shit alive.

    Leave 'em alone.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  15. Re:Imagine Japan doing the same by Drethon · · Score: 2

    Stuck on an old version of IE with no spell checker due to IT policy and too lazy this morning to paste it into Word to make sure I got it right... or maybe I'm just inventing new words, I don't think the English language is confusing enough yet!

  16. Re:Why must we celebrate violence? by ebno-10db · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Japanese government was installed by the United States after WWII

    To their benefit, and I don't give a damn about complaints of paternalism. The US occupation of Japan was one of the most beneficent occupations of a vanquished enemy in history, and whether the motivation was genuine beneficence, ensuring that Japan never threatened us again, or a bulwark against the communists, doesn't change the fact.

    Furthermore, the Japanese are free to to change their Constitution, but have chosen not to do so. The "under our direct control" may have been true in the 50's, or arguably the 60's, but certainly not in the 40+ years since. Do you think we'd invade Japan if, for example, they told us to close our bases there? We didn't invade the Philippines when they did so, or France, or New Zealand when they broke the ANZUS agreement.

  17. Re:Why must we celebrate violence? by cold+fjord · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I am quite content to both commemorate and celebrate the victory of the allied powers over:

    Imperial Japan
    Nazi Germany
    Fascist Italy

    I am quite happy to welcome the friendship of, and cheer for, democratic Japan, Germany, and Italy.

    The world would be a very dark place indeed had the former regimes not been defeated.

    Now their peoples and nations are shining examples to the world - long may they live and prosper.

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  18. Re:Imagine Japan doing the same by Drethon · · Score: 4, Informative

    Sure the US has fucked up and is doing so more often than it used to but can you point to specific examples where the government supported war crimes that could not be considered strategic actions (yes that is a massive grey area but can you define any of this in black and white in a way everyone will agree to)?

    Not saying all of this is 100% true and unbiased but given I was born 30 years after WW2 its the best I have to go on.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II

    Death rates of POWs in WW2:
    Chinese POWs held by Japan: 56 reported survivors at the end of the war (meaning nearly 100% were killed)
    U.S. and British Commonwealth POWs held by Germany: ~4%
    Soviet POWs held by Germany: 57.5%
    Western Allied POWs held by Japan: 27%
    German POWs in British hands 0.03%
    German POWs in American hands 0.15%
    German POWs in French hands 2.58%
    Japanese POWs held by U.S.: relatively low, mainly suicides according to James D. Morrow
    Japanese POWs in Chinese hands: 24% (though it seems like they have reason to be pissed off)

    "However, Japanese civilians "were often surprised at the comparatively humane treatment they received from the American enemy." According to Islands of Discontent: Okinawan Responses to Japanese and American Power by Mark Selden, the Americans "did not pursue a policy of torture, rape, and murder of civilians as Japanese military officials had warned.""


    In some cases the US in fact court martialed American soldiers due to war crimes (even though many were ignored). As best as I can tell the US as a whole did not support war crimes even if a number of people in power did, whereas both the Nazis and Japan Empire at the highest levels supported and encouraged atrocities. If you have indications to the contrary, please show me the reports.

  19. Re:Why must we celebrate violence? by T.E.D. · · Score: 2

    The penchant of the Imperial Japanese Forces for mass slaughter was not just propaganda.

    No, it was most certainly not. I follow a WWII twitter feed (@RealTimeWWII). They sent one last week talking about the Japanese airdropping food into Chengde full of plague-infected lice.

    Now this is the kind of thing that is so cartoonishly evil that I immediately hit Google looking to debunk it. Nope, it happened (note: that link is the human-rights equivalent of a goatse link. Don't click it lightly). In fact, they did a great deal of research into weaponing diseases before discovering that infected lice survived being dropped from altitude better than free diseases do. Then they used it. Over half a million people died.

  20. Pinpoint raid, not carpet bombing by drnb · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yes, those damn civilians who started a war by going about their daily business! It's great that they died painfully by being burned to death!

    The Doolittle Raid was not like the fire bombings that would come in 1945. The attacking bombers were small in number, carrying rather small loads and attacking at a low altitude where they had decent accuracy for the day. They were conducting pinpoint attacks on specific military targets, they were not carpet bombing a city. The raid was largely symbolic for the US and psychological for the Japanese, it did very little damage.

    If you are a civilian working on a military base or working at a war munitions factory you legitimately *are* part of the war.

  21. Japan celebrates its war criminals ... by drnb · · Score: 3, Informative

    Just imagine Japan doing a celebration of pilots raiding Pearl Harbor.

    While the pilots themselves were not war criminals, merely military personnel following legitimate orders to attack a legitimate military target. Actual war criminals, including those who committed atrocities against civilians and prisoners or war, are explicitly included in annual commemorations of Japan's "heroic war dead".

    This is one of the major sources of ill will between Japan and its Asian neighbors who were victimized by Imperial Japan. It suggests a lack of sincere remorse.

    Or how about Germany holding annual celebrations for pilots of the Blitz?

    What Japan does every year is more like including the SS camp guards in their memorial service.

  22. Re:Imagine Japan doing the same by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

    We kept Stalin from unifying Europe. So say thanks and leave it at that.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  23. Re:now, China... by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 2

    I'd dispute that. Though they're no doubt capable of inflicting massive damage, the Chinese military does not have the overconfidence borne of defeating a major power in war, like the Japanese had against Russia.

    Exactly. Being that you know something of early-mid 20th century history, are you allowed to participate in this thread?

  24. Embargo, not blockade by drnb · · Score: 3, Informative

    The US blockade on Japanese shipping and imports had caused intolerable problems so something had to change.

    There was *no* blockade. There was an embargo. The U.S. told Japan that as long as it invades/occupies China we would not sell oil, steel, etc to Japan. The change the U.S. *wanted* was for Japan to withdraw its troops from China.