you are commanding the allied forces as you approach the japanese mainland, worrying about the human costs of the invasion. someone alerts you to the potential of the atomic bomb
what do you decide?
your decision may be in line with what the americans did. maybe it isn't but agreeing with the americans in this particular instance is possible as a nonamerican, is possible from a neutral point of view
another scenario: you command the usa in 2003. you dislike saddam hussein. do you invade iraq?
if you arrive at a decision not to invade, consider your neutral point of view to be different than an american point of view in this instance
this little mental exercise of course starts with the assumption that you yourself are not a mindless propagandized anti-american to begin with
the whole point is, sometimes the americans do right, sometimes the americans do wrong. a neutral point of view understands this
a propagandized anti-american always says the americans did wrong, even when they did something right
a propagandized pro-american always says the americans did right, even when they did something wrong
the whole point is, just because you happen to agree with what the americans did in wwii in regards to japan, does not mean you are automaticlaly a pro-american brainwashed idiot
these results to man. for unlike the lower animals, we are motivated by higher mental orders of conscience and reason. of course, some wankers will come along and say that we are also help captive to these lower impulses. but i say-
a pro-american viewpoint on wwii: wrong (btw, that's not me)
an anti-american viewpoint on wwii: wrong
a neutral viewpoint on wwii: my opinion
sometimes, this viewpoint agrees with what the usa did. sometimes, it does not. during the times in which a neutral point of view winds up agreeing with an american point of view, why do you think therefore that the neutral point of view is no different than a jingoistic pro-american's point of view?
i don't know how to not be angry at propaganda and not speak out at it. i envy your reticence on the question, you have a more placid life. but at the same time, i don't think i could live with myself with your attitude
one of the reasons the usa and the uk were victorious in wwii is that they had liberalized notions of how society should function as opposed to the autocratic ones in germany, japan, and the ussr (which eventually collapsed). that is, imperial japan, nazi germany, and communist russia were inherently weaker societies due to oppression and autocracy
what i am saying is the usa and the uk won not because of random luck, but because of their governmental structures and values, which were superior to their enemies
for example, you just said the usa and the uk did crimes in wwii, and they don't have to answer for it
and in fact, anyone in the usa and the uk can publicize and illustrate those crimes, and do so without fear of governmental punishment
you yourself feel comfortable criticizing the usa and the uk without fear of retribution
that means something
you would not feel comfortable right now criticizing the ussr/ germany/ japan if they had won wwii. because you would be punished by those autocratic regimes
and, in no small part, that difference is one of the reasons why the usa and the uk won the war: stronger, more stable societies
the usa and uk, unlike the ussr, germany, and japan allowed (and still allow, in spite of all the propaganda to the contrary) dissent
if you ask someone to choose from a range bad choices and ask them to pick the least bad choice, you cannot hold that person guilty for choosing a bad choice. they are all bad. you are saying that the usa made the prudent choice, but not the correct one. huh?
i'm going to put aside the obvious argument i could have with you about your depiction of the difference between prudent and correct. instead i'm going to say: how is your observation supposed to matter meaningfully in any way whatsoever to the reality of the situation?
is rewriting world war ii history in the name of anti-american propaganda something you condone or deplore? i don't understand your attitude on the subject matter
because there are americans in the heartland who actually believe 9/11 on new york city is valid punishment for wickedness and decadence
which only proves that social conservatives are willing to repay mild sins with grave sins in their mind, and think that that somehow puts them on the side of justice or puts them in the good graces of God(tm) and his teachings
likewise, those who hate the usa: that 9/11 is somehow a valid resposne for american cold war crimes
if you believe any of these things about 9/11, you yourself are worse than all of the cold war american crimes/ decadence that you dislike when you look at the usa/ new york city
you don't beat someone by sinking to their level. plenty of people understand this when considering rendition, torture, guantanamo, the giving up of liberties and rights in the name of the war on terror, abu ghraib, etc. but plenty of those same people, in a blink of an eye, are also willing to rationalize 9/11 as somehow just deserves for cold war american crimes. which is, of course, sinking to the level of your enemy. which is, of course, something they are willing to howl about when talking about water boarding. which means such people's human conscience is SECONDARY to their hatred of the usa. which is more important? the search for justice? or hating the usa? get it right, then open your mouth.
america haters are sad and pathetic. america lovers are no better. but, you do not make yourself better than a blind lover and apologist of the usa by committing the same propagandistic crimes they do in reverse
or at churchill: consider the firebombing of dresden, for example. fire bombing dresden was worse than a bombing hiroshima and nagasaki, but it used ocnventional bombs
or is your high holy righteous outrage only pointed at the usa? even when others do worse or no better?
why is that?
how can you consider yourself angry in the name of justice when you yourself do not apply it fairly?
and all of the top generals had ordered a surrender, japanese civilians themselves would have mounted fierce resistance to the death, on an individual by individual basis
you forget how propagandized and rabidly nationalistic people were in those days
i think that if the american tanks in a land invasion were rolling towards nagasaki and hiroshima (after many times more japanese soldiers and civilians and american soldiers were dead in the mainland invasion than the nuclear bombs), the local militia there in defense of the japanese homeland would have to disagree with you
the japanese were hardcore nationalists in wwii. they fought tooth and nail, down to the individual decision making, regardless of what the japanese generals ordered
if the war was progressing where japan was confronted with stopping an imperialistic and rabidly nationalistic usa that promised rabid defense of the mainland, and that had invaded mexico and canada and were killing and torturing millions of civilians in those countries, then yes, dropping the a bomb on san francisco and los angeles would have been prudent
are you willing to talk about what the japanese did to chinese, filipino, korean, etc. civilians? how about the germans? how about the russians? how about everyone who fought in the war? no, but you are willing to talk about the americans doing terrible things, and find them guilty of various crimes. but no one else
i always wondered what the point was with people who are willing to try americans and find them guilty for crimes every single nation that has ever existed and ever will exist are guilty of. on the flipside, it would be of course equally stupid for a jingoistic american to forgive the usa it's crimes. blindly loving your country is no replacement for a valid human conscience
so because some stupid jingoistic americans are propagandized, you are going to be stupid and propagandized too? loving the usa is stupid. hating it is equally stupid. especially when your reasons for hating it are no worse than what any other country has done. do you hate the chinese? the russians? the germans? well, based on your rationale for hating the usa, you should
no: the allies looked at the costs involved in a mainland attack, and decided the bomb cost less lives. please feel free to spin that anyway you like to hate the usa. feel free to ignore the crimes of everyone else in that war. it's ok to hate the usa, go ahead, be my guest
but it would be more valid if you hated the usa for real and genuine bad american intentions in the world. there are many to choose from throughout history, especially recent history
spinning wwii history into propagandistic misreadings doesn't make the usa look bad. it only makes you look desperate and braindead
which is fine, go ahead, hate america. but hate america for genuine bad american intentions, not propagandistic misreadings of intentions
the japanese, in their actions throughout southeast asia and the island hopping campaign, made it abundantly clear time and again that they were not going to give up one inch of land without fierce resistance to the death, even when that meant suicide by the thousands of personnel, down to the individual decisions of individual japanese soldiers
consider japanese actions on iwo jima, saipan, etc, by the truckload of examples. now ask yourself at the time what any level headed allied personnel would have prudently gauged the japanese attitude to be like in reaction to a land invasion of their mainland
now ask yourself, when faced with the decision to drop this bomb, compared with the number of certain deaths, of americans AND japanese, in a mainland invasion, what YOU would have decided (as opposed to what a "typical american" would have decided)
and now you want to say that some future cold war, that no one knew was coming, that geopolitical posturing, was going to be more prevalent in the minds of allied personnel in making that decision than simply considering the number of lives lost in a mainland invasion?
what nationality are you? because i want to call you a "typical {}ian" for your idiotic propagandized thinking
which would of course be a grave insult to your fellow countrymen, who are most probably a lot less propagandized and jingoistic than you are. but it would be fitting to hurl that insult at you anyways, to make you aware of how stupid and unfair your propaganda is
the japanese, in their actions throughout southeast asia and the island hopping campaign, made it abundantly clear time and again that they were not going to give up one inch of land without fierce resistance to the death, even when that meant suicide by the thousands of personnel, down to the individual decisions of individual japanese soldiers
consider japanese actions on iwo jima, saipan, etc, by the truckload of examples. now ask yourself at the time what any level headed allied personnel would have prudently gauged the japanese attitude to be like in reaction to a land invasion of their mainland
and now you're going to tell me that there was some mysterious watershed change in their attitude?
how you can find only one side responsible in a two sided fight
you do realize the japanese were slaughtering millions themselves in the name of imperialism? you do realize that if no A bomb was dropped, that more japanese and americans would have died in a land invasion of japan?
Slashdot Mirror
you are commanding the allied forces as you approach the japanese mainland, worrying about the human costs of the invasion. someone alerts you to the potential of the atomic bomb
what do you decide?
your decision may be in line with what the americans did. maybe it isn't but agreeing with the americans in this particular instance is possible as a nonamerican, is possible from a neutral point of view
another scenario: you command the usa in 2003. you dislike saddam hussein. do you invade iraq?
if you arrive at a decision not to invade, consider your neutral point of view to be different than an american point of view in this instance
this little mental exercise of course starts with the assumption that you yourself are not a mindless propagandized anti-american to begin with
the whole point is, sometimes the americans do right, sometimes the americans do wrong. a neutral point of view understands this
a propagandized anti-american always says the americans did wrong, even when they did something right
a propagandized pro-american always says the americans did right, even when they did something wrong
the whole point is, just because you happen to agree with what the americans did in wwii in regards to japan, does not mean you are automaticlaly a pro-american brainwashed idiot
get it?
these results to man. for unlike the lower animals, we are motivated by higher mental orders of conscience and reason. of course, some wankers will come along and say that we are also help captive to these lower impulses. but i say-
mmm... who's cooking brownies?
but social conservatives are evil
given the choice, i'd rather be stupid than evil
a pro-american viewpoint on wwii: wrong (btw, that's not me)
an anti-american viewpoint on wwii: wrong
a neutral viewpoint on wwii: my opinion
sometimes, this viewpoint agrees with what the usa did. sometimes, it does not. during the times in which a neutral point of view winds up agreeing with an american point of view, why do you think therefore that the neutral point of view is no different than a jingoistic pro-american's point of view?
you find yourself in the uncomfortable position of defending your point of view with a hypothetical, contrary to what actually happened
another example: the ussr lost the cold war, for the same reasons i elucidated above
you believe "might makes right"
which is an empty, hollow, kneejerk way to view history
i ask you consider the contrary: "right makes might"
that is, a liberal society is intrinsically stronger than an illiberal one, and is better equipped to win wars
i kiss you!
well said, you win this thread
so forgive me
i don't know how to not be angry at propaganda and not speak out at it. i envy your reticence on the question, you have a more placid life. but at the same time, i don't think i could live with myself with your attitude
one of the reasons the usa and the uk were victorious in wwii is that they had liberalized notions of how society should function as opposed to the autocratic ones in germany, japan, and the ussr (which eventually collapsed). that is, imperial japan, nazi germany, and communist russia were inherently weaker societies due to oppression and autocracy
what i am saying is the usa and the uk won not because of random luck, but because of their governmental structures and values, which were superior to their enemies
for example, you just said the usa and the uk did crimes in wwii, and they don't have to answer for it
and in fact, anyone in the usa and the uk can publicize and illustrate those crimes, and do so without fear of governmental punishment
you yourself feel comfortable criticizing the usa and the uk without fear of retribution
that means something
you would not feel comfortable right now criticizing the ussr/ germany/ japan if they had won wwii. because you would be punished by those autocratic regimes
and, in no small part, that difference is one of the reasons why the usa and the uk won the war: stronger, more stable societies
the usa and uk, unlike the ussr, germany, and japan allowed (and still allow, in spite of all the propaganda to the contrary) dissent
you are saying american crimes were worse than japanese crimes in world war ii
justify that comment, or apologize and say you are wrong
if you ask someone to choose from a range bad choices and ask them to pick the least bad choice, you cannot hold that person guilty for choosing a bad choice. they are all bad. you are saying that the usa made the prudent choice, but not the correct one. huh?
i'm going to put aside the obvious argument i could have with you about your depiction of the difference between prudent and correct. instead i'm going to say: how is your observation supposed to matter meaningfully in any way whatsoever to the reality of the situation?
first Windows for Warships
now Windows for Tanks
"officer on my mark, fire at will on target 254 delta!"
"user account control is asking if i approve or deny the action"
"approve! approve! target is acquiring cover!"
"windows firewall is asking if i should unblock port 666 for application gitty.usuckusa.exe"
"aaaaahhh!"
is rewriting world war ii history in the name of anti-american propaganda something you condone or deplore? i don't understand your attitude on the subject matter
because there are americans in the heartland who actually believe 9/11 on new york city is valid punishment for wickedness and decadence
which only proves that social conservatives are willing to repay mild sins with grave sins in their mind, and think that that somehow puts them on the side of justice or puts them in the good graces of God(tm) and his teachings
likewise, those who hate the usa: that 9/11 is somehow a valid resposne for american cold war crimes
if you believe any of these things about 9/11, you yourself are worse than all of the cold war american crimes/ decadence that you dislike when you look at the usa/ new york city
you don't beat someone by sinking to their level. plenty of people understand this when considering rendition, torture, guantanamo, the giving up of liberties and rights in the name of the war on terror, abu ghraib, etc. but plenty of those same people, in a blink of an eye, are also willing to rationalize 9/11 as somehow just deserves for cold war american crimes. which is, of course, sinking to the level of your enemy. which is, of course, something they are willing to howl about when talking about water boarding. which means such people's human conscience is SECONDARY to their hatred of the usa. which is more important? the search for justice? or hating the usa? get it right, then open your mouth.
america haters are sad and pathetic. america lovers are no better. but, you do not make yourself better than a blind lover and apologist of the usa by committing the same propagandistic crimes they do in reverse
as if that discrimination decides this matter, or even intelligently comments on it
or at churchill: consider the firebombing of dresden, for example. fire bombing dresden was worse than a bombing hiroshima and nagasaki, but it used ocnventional bombs
or is your high holy righteous outrage only pointed at the usa? even when others do worse or no better?
why is that?
how can you consider yourself angry in the name of justice when you yourself do not apply it fairly?
ok, let's say you convinced the americans to hold off on a mainland invasion and not drop the a bomb
now convince the russians not to invade
now convince the chinese not to
no convince the koreans, filipinos, etc.
good luck
and all of the top generals had ordered a surrender, japanese civilians themselves would have mounted fierce resistance to the death, on an individual by individual basis
you forget how propagandized and rabidly nationalistic people were in those days
i think that if the american tanks in a land invasion were rolling towards nagasaki and hiroshima (after many times more japanese soldiers and civilians and american soldiers were dead in the mainland invasion than the nuclear bombs), the local militia there in defense of the japanese homeland would have to disagree with you
the japanese were hardcore nationalists in wwii. they fought tooth and nail, down to the individual decision making, regardless of what the japanese generals ordered
you're going to have to justify that
your swimming strongly against historical fact now, friend
agreed
if the war was progressing where japan was confronted with stopping an imperialistic and rabidly nationalistic usa that promised rabid defense of the mainland, and that had invaded mexico and canada and were killing and torturing millions of civilians in those countries, then yes, dropping the a bomb on san francisco and los angeles would have been prudent
are you willing to talk about what the japanese did to chinese, filipino, korean, etc. civilians? how about the germans? how about the russians? how about everyone who fought in the war? no, but you are willing to talk about the americans doing terrible things, and find them guilty of various crimes. but no one else
i always wondered what the point was with people who are willing to try americans and find them guilty for crimes every single nation that has ever existed and ever will exist are guilty of. on the flipside, it would be of course equally stupid for a jingoistic american to forgive the usa it's crimes. blindly loving your country is no replacement for a valid human conscience
so because some stupid jingoistic americans are propagandized, you are going to be stupid and propagandized too? loving the usa is stupid. hating it is equally stupid. especially when your reasons for hating it are no worse than what any other country has done. do you hate the chinese? the russians? the germans? well, based on your rationale for hating the usa, you should
no: the allies looked at the costs involved in a mainland attack, and decided the bomb cost less lives. please feel free to spin that anyway you like to hate the usa. feel free to ignore the crimes of everyone else in that war. it's ok to hate the usa, go ahead, be my guest
but it would be more valid if you hated the usa for real and genuine bad american intentions in the world. there are many to choose from throughout history, especially recent history
spinning wwii history into propagandistic misreadings doesn't make the usa look bad. it only makes you look desperate and braindead
which is fine, go ahead, hate america. but hate america for genuine bad american intentions, not propagandistic misreadings of intentions
the japanese, in their actions throughout southeast asia and the island hopping campaign, made it abundantly clear time and again that they were not going to give up one inch of land without fierce resistance to the death, even when that meant suicide by the thousands of personnel, down to the individual decisions of individual japanese soldiers
consider japanese actions on iwo jima, saipan, etc, by the truckload of examples. now ask yourself at the time what any level headed allied personnel would have prudently gauged the japanese attitude to be like in reaction to a land invasion of their mainland
now ask yourself, when faced with the decision to drop this bomb, compared with the number of certain deaths, of americans AND japanese, in a mainland invasion, what YOU would have decided (as opposed to what a "typical american" would have decided)
and now you want to say that some future cold war, that no one knew was coming, that geopolitical posturing, was going to be more prevalent in the minds of allied personnel in making that decision than simply considering the number of lives lost in a mainland invasion?
that's called a hindsight bias
what nationality are you? because i want to call you a "typical {}ian" for your idiotic propagandized thinking
which would of course be a grave insult to your fellow countrymen, who are most probably a lot less propagandized and jingoistic than you are. but it would be fitting to hurl that insult at you anyways, to make you aware of how stupid and unfair your propaganda is
the japanese were pretty hardcore on defense
the japanese, in their actions throughout southeast asia and the island hopping campaign, made it abundantly clear time and again that they were not going to give up one inch of land without fierce resistance to the death, even when that meant suicide by the thousands of personnel, down to the individual decisions of individual japanese soldiers
consider japanese actions on iwo jima, saipan, etc, by the truckload of examples. now ask yourself at the time what any level headed allied personnel would have prudently gauged the japanese attitude to be like in reaction to a land invasion of their mainland
and now you're going to tell me that there was some mysterious watershed change in their attitude?
to a range of reasons, but the most cynical reason is the one you will consider to be the deciding factor
which only means you are a cynic, not a historian
how you can find only one side responsible in a two sided fight
you do realize the japanese were slaughtering millions themselves in the name of imperialism? you do realize that if no A bomb was dropped, that more japanese and americans would have died in a land invasion of japan?