Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Because now you're showing me a picture of Sylvia, Rebel Leader of the Shining Path.

The infamous "Sylvia Path"?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
To put what they were told in perspective, we did not, as a rule, take prisoners in the Pacific theater.

Yes but there was no evidence that we were killing Japanese civilians. We did take a lot of prisoners and they were treated much better than our prisoners taken by the Japanese.

I think it is much easier to justify the Atomic Bombs than the Fire bombing of Tokyo (which killed a hell of a lot more people). I don't think anyone believe that the firebombing was going to get Japan to surrender. The focus of it also was on the wood and rice paper structures, which generally did not house manufacturing. When I was living in Japan I never felt ashamed of the Atomic Bombs, but I didn't feel ashamed about the Firebombing.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The infamous "Sylvia Path"?

Okay, that was good.

Originally posted by Not Bob
Japanese soldiers were indoctrinated with the belief that surrender was a cowardly act

As opposed to our boys, who were taught that discretion is the better part of valor.

"You maggots! Let me see your surrender face! Is that the best you can do? I want to see fear, goddammit! I want to see groveling! You beg for mercy like old people fuck, do you know that private?"

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Not Bob
I hear you. Not to be tiresome, though, I would note that (a) Japanese soldiers were indoctrinated with the belief that surrender was a cowardly act, and they would have been reluctant to attempt to surrender even if they thought that it would have been accepted, and (b) we tended not to torture, starve, mistreat, etc. those Japanese prisoners who survived making it past the front lines.

I'm not excusing the shooting of those Japanese soldiers who did attempt to surrender. But simply saying "it went both ways" is absurd.

2. As I said yesterday, there were battles on the islands in which not one Japanese soldier surrendered. Think about that. Even after massive bombing, an invasion by overwhelming force, and use of weapons like flamethrowing tanks, people didn't surrender. They fought to the death.

And let's remember, also, that during the war the Emperor was not merely infallible, but divine. People tend to fight pretty hard for a god, whether they be nominally soldiers or civilians.

In sum, while in hindsight I'm sure you could pick attacks that were not warranted in any strategic or national morale sense, I would say this in very, very few instances. This excludes individuals shooting prisoners or surrendering soldiers, but that wasn't what we were discussing.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It's not absurd at all. Read War Without Mercy, by John Dower. It takes two to tango. You can talk about differential treatment of prisoners, but the fact remains that very few prisoners were taken, because both sides were convinced, with good reason, that the other side wouldn't take prisoners. We didn't often get the chance, and we didn't. Naturally, you didn't read about the latter part much in Life or The Bestest Generation.

A great many allied prisoners were taken at the beginning of the war in the Phillipines and Singapore. Around twenty five percent of the Allied prisoners held in captivity by the Japanese died, where less than 1% of the Japanese prisoners held by the the Allies dies in captivity.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It's not absurd at all. Read War Without Mercy, by John Dower. It takes two to tango. You can talk about differential treatment of prisoners, but the fact remains that very few prisoners were taken, because both sides were convinced, with good reason, that the other side wouldn't take prisoners. We didn't often get the chance, and we didn't. Naturally, you didn't read about the latter part much in Life or The Bestest Generation.

It takes two to tango? If they are shooting our soldiers when they surrender, that means ipso facto we are shooting theirs? That's some interesting logic.

Read Freedom from Fear. It paints a very different picture, and indicates pretty strongly that the reason so few Japanese prisoners were taken is because they were so unwilling to surrender.

And when did this become the Politics Sixty Years Ago Board?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
A great many allied prisoners were taken at the beginning of the war in the Phillipines and Singapore. Around twenty five percent of the Allied prisoners held in captivity by the Japanese died, where less than 1% of the Japanese prisoners held by the the Allies dies in captivity.

Fucking lazy Americans.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ironweed
As opposed to our boys, who were taught that discretion is the better part of valor.

"You maggots! Let me see your surrender face! Is that the best you can do? I want to see fear, goddammit! I want to see groveling! You beg for mercy like old people fuck, do you know that private?"

Under the code of the Bushido, surrender was dishonorable. That is why all the suicide Banzai attacks (instead of surrending when it was hopeless, the Japanese did bayonet charges. The Americans knew it was coming and we simply mowed them down). That is also why the Japanese treated Allied prisoners so badly. They thought that these "prisoners" had dishonored themsevles by surrrendering, so they did not need to be treated respectively. When Americans saw things were hopeless, the surrendered.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch

And when did this become the Politics Sixty Years Ago Board?

Obviously, we're bored with Iraq.

We're also working our way backwards in time. Come back in a couple of weeks -- we'll be working on the Peloponnesian War, in a calculated attempt to bring Atticus back with something particularly scathing to say about Thucydides.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It's not absurd at all. Read War Without Mercy, by John Dower. It takes two to tango. You can talk about differential treatment of prisoners, but the fact remains that very few prisoners were taken, because both sides were convinced, with good reason, that the other side wouldn't take prisoners. We didn't often get the chance, and we didn't. Naturally, you didn't read about the latter part much in Life or The Bestest Generation.

The point is it is facile to say "oh, no one took prisoners" and leave it at that. That's like suggesting that "oh, both sides killed civillians" without discussing the differences

War, even a just war, is a bad thing. People do bad stuff, mostly because there is no good alternative, but not always. The Allies admittedly did some things that have no real justification.

But there is a very significant difference between Marines at the front lines choosing to shoot individuals first and ask questions later (and Japanese soldiers doing the same thing to us) and the systematic torture, starvation, and mistreatment that faced the tens of thousands of Allied troops who surrendered when Singapore and the Phillipenes fell.

Was the war in the Pacific more brutal than the one in Western Europe? Absolutely. Can one honestly compare the way the Allies acted to the way the Japanese acted, and conclude that they were similar? No fricken way.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by ironweed
As opposed to our boys, who were taught that discretion is the better part of valor.

"You maggots! Let me see your surrender face! Is that the best you can do? I want to see fear, goddammit! I want to see groveling! You beg for mercy like old people fuck, do you know that private?"

You, Ironweed, are our Big Toe.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Not Bob
You, Ironweed, are our Big Toe.

Hey, Ironweed is a wild man. You remember the time that he and his friends took that cow, and his friends tried to make it with the cow?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
It takes two to tango? If they are shooting our soldiers when they surrender, that means ipso facto we are shooting theirs? That's some interesting logic.

Read Freedom from Fear. It paints a very different picture, and indicates pretty strongly that the reason so few Japanese prisoners were taken is because they were so unwilling to surrender.

And when did this become the Politics Sixty Years Ago Board?

As it happens, we were shooting them when they tried to surrender. The story from the obituary I linked to was typical, if not something that the popular press talked about much at all. The pictures of the war also tend not to show decapitations, disembowellments, severe burns, or other sorts of really ugly death. And yet it happened lots. Self-censorship during a popular war.

I'm sure the Japanese were unwilling to surrender. My point is, they had good reasons.

Re Freedom From Fear, assuming you mean this, and not one of these:



Or maybe Swami Rama is your kind of thing, NTTAWWT.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Under the code of the Bushido, surrender was dishonorable. That is why all the suicide Banzai attacks (instead of surrending when it was hopeless, the Japanese did bayonet charges. The Americans knew it was coming and we simply mowed them down). That is also why the Japanese treated Allied prisoners so badly. They thought that these "prisoners" had dishonored themsevles by surrrendering, so they did not need to be treated respectively. When Americans saw things were hopeless, the surrendered.

Look, without getting too far into it, there were all sorts of things said about the Japanese during the war to explain why they were better or worse fighters than us, etc., and much of it was about the quality of information you would expect from wartime propaganda.