Hitler, the Nazis and World War Two etc etc

[Errata]

Yes Hunter, and I am "racist" enough, if you like, to think that Allied lives were more important than Japanese ones. Sorry if that offends anyone, but that's how I feel. The Japanese started the war.

I think a "don't pick fights you can't win" attitude is perfectly valid

[Robert]

Yes Hunter, and I am "racist" enough, if you like, to think that Allied lives were more important than Japanese ones. Sorry if that offends anyone, but that's how I feel. The Japanese started the war.

[Hunter]

If the atomic bombs had not been dropped, I would probably not be here. My father's ship was destined to go into a Japanese harbor to clear mines for the invasion forces. It was as close to a suicide mission as you could get, but was deemed necessary to quickly establish a port of supply for the invasion forces. Also, there were not many viable beachheads outside of heavily populated areas because of the mountainous terrain.

My dad's ship had just gotten back into service after a Kamikaze attack that had struck the bridge at Okinawa, killing every officer on board. A chief petty officer 'captained' that ship all the way back to 'Pearl'.

Those who were there will tell you that there was no sign of Japanese capitulation.

[Robert]

Phil, I think you may be right that any alternative method of prosecuting the war would have cost even more Japanese lives (I'm assuming that an unopposed conventional bombing campaign or an economic blockade would not have cost many Allied lives). Even an economic blockade where the Americans just sat there and starved the Japanese into submission would probably have led to precisely that - starvation. And of course the intervention of the USSR would have led to a new ball game in any event.

[Errata]

Phil H:

I think you'd find that feelings of "guilt" were limited to far less than the majority after the war, on all sides. Let's not forget that war crimes were not limited to the Axis powers, though theirs were by far the more severe. Look at the Nuremberg trials for instance with the high ranking Nazis, only Albert Speer really showed any genuine remorse - the rest remained in denial or stated that they were "just following orders", if they stated anything at all.

Personally I think it's just a little ridiculous to be chasing war criminals now, yet some organisations still try and do it. All of the major offenders have now either been brought to justice or are dead, the few that are remaining were very minor links in the chain and are now men who are well into their 80's and 90's - go after war criminals, absolutely - they deserve to be brought to justice - but i'm not sure what exactly it's going to solve by chasing people who are either too old or frail to stand trial, and certainly for it to drag on for months or even years as some recent cases have highlighted. It just re-opens 70 year old wounds.

If they wanted them they should have gone after them 30,40,50 years ago when they were after Eichmann and Mengele and the other big fish.

Cheers,
Adam.

I'm of two minds about this one.

It is my understanding that there was a list of war criminals that were wanted for questioning/trial. And they were after them the same time they were after Eichmann and Mengele, they just didn't find them. I do not think it's the case that they kept shopping for new people to hunt down.

There is certainly no practical benefit in trying a 90 year old camp commandant. But there may be some more intangible benefits that outweigh the slightly obsessive nature of Nazi hunters.

Firstly there are still camp survivors, and they deserve justice. And by the very nature of war crimes trials, they already may not get it. My friends mom was a child in Dachau, and her mother and sister were shot in the face by a guard who then brought her to a guard shack to be gang raped by his buddies. Now, had this happened in another place and another time, the cops would not stop looking for that man. And there would be no statute of limitations. But because its a War Crimes tribunal, the man who did that will never be pursued for justice. He and his were dismissed as unimportant, while certainly my friends mom would prefer to have that lowly guard hang than Ribbentrop or Frank. But that makes it more important for the leaders and for the men who created this environment to be held accountable, not less.

I'm also not really comfortable with the idea that there should be a point at which we stop pursuing the architects of genocide. I mean, if you're home free after 20 years, what does that say to people currently waging a genocidal war? We already don't handle it well. We already don't do enough or care enough. I don't think we need to announce to the world that we really only give a crap for about a decade, but we don't have the attention span or the requisite moral outrage to keep caring beyond that.

But currently, no one benefits from a Nazi war crimes trial at this remove. There may be a sense of closure, but there is no satisfaction to be had. So it might be slightly ridiculous.

[Phil H]

I don't know about the Japanese considering surrender. After all, after two atomic bombs they were still considering! This might suggest a lack of urgency.

And also to Truman - having to make decisions involving the loss of large numbers of American lives - that they might fight on. Either way the decision for the president was a difficult moral and political one.

I admire Truman quite a bit.

Phil

[Robert]

I don't know about the Japanese considering surrender. After all, after two atomic bombs they were still considering! This might suggest a lack of urgency.

[Phil H]

On that subject also the US must be held accountable for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with atomic bombs,weapons which make no pretence of selecting military targets but exist only to obliterate whole cities.Especially as this was at a time when the Japanese Navy and air force had been all but destroyed and bombers were pounding Japan with impunity,and a new Japanese government was already negotiating surrender.

So the 500,000 or more casualties (including 100,000s of civilians) predicted had the US been forced to invade the Japanese home islands would have been a "better" option than the casualties at Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

In that light you could see the nuclear attacks as "humane" even "clean".

I'd also wager that, had the "bomb" not been used there an then - and thus proven to exist - the Cold war would not have turned out as it did. There would have been questions to answer about whether the US atomic weapon actually worked - Russia might have claimed it was simply words and propaganda to frighten others, not a practical weapon.

Thus the Japanese atomic attacks, however, appalling by most standards, introduced a wholly new era of warfare - the atomic age - in a way that shocked the world into taking the new development seriously. It showed the arrival of a new weapon, and meant no other time or place was needed as a demonstration.

If the two cities had not been attached in 1945, I am convinced either the US or Russia would have used the "bomb" in other circumstances later - Berlin (during the airlift) maybe, or Korea when the UN forces were under threat in the earlier stages (we know MacArthur wanted to use the bomb against China and was dismissed for that reason)?

Without Horoshima and Nagaski there might have been a need to demonstrate willingness to use a real weapon, in even more dangerous circumstances.

I recognise this is pragmatism in the extreme and takes nothing from the horror and awfulness at what happened in late 1945, but just maybe it was the best of a number of bad options.

Phil

[brummie]

If WWII shows anything it shows that in time of war civilized behaviour and 'rules' of warfare go out the window, and that the winners decide who to blame. While the Nazi warcrimes were easily the most vile and offensive and clearly deserved more punishment than was handed out less was made of the Japanese crimes in China and its treatment of allied POWs not to mention the sneak attack on Pearl Harbour all worthy of condemnation.
Allied hands were not entirely clean either as in the reprisals carried out by the red army in Ukraine and Germany.While you may say they were understandable given the savagery of the Nazi regime nevertheless crimes.
The British fire bombing of whole cities like Dresden and Cologne was also clearly against any convention banning the targetting of civilian populations.
On that subject also the US must be held accountable for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with atomic bombs,weapons which make no pretence of selecting military targets but exist only to obliterate whole cities.Especially as this was at a time when the Japanese Navy and air force had been all but destroyed and bombers were pounding Japan with impunity,and a new Japanese government was already negotiating surrender.

[Adam Went]

Phil H:

I think you'd find that feelings of "guilt" were limited to far less than the majority after the war, on all sides. Let's not forget that war crimes were not limited to the Axis powers, though theirs were by far the more severe. Look at the Nuremberg trials for instance with the high ranking Nazis, only Albert Speer really showed any genuine remorse - the rest remained in denial or stated that they were "just following orders", if they stated anything at all.

Personally I think it's just a little ridiculous to be chasing war criminals now, yet some organisations still try and do it. All of the major offenders have now either been brought to justice or are dead, the few that are remaining were very minor links in the chain and are now men who are well into their 80's and 90's - go after war criminals, absolutely - they deserve to be brought to justice - but i'm not sure what exactly it's going to solve by chasing people who are either too old or frail to stand trial, and certainly for it to drag on for months or even years as some recent cases have highlighted. It just re-opens 70 year old wounds.

If they wanted them they should have gone after them 30,40,50 years ago when they were after Eichmann and Mengele and the other big fish.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Errata]

I thought it was the UN that determined the creation of the state of Israel, having brought the British (old League of Nations) mandate to an end.

I don't think it was a unilateral decision by the UK.

Phil

In the end the British had no hand in it whatsoever. They withdrew without any succession. They didn't give it to anyone, just withdrew a couple of years before the UN voted on partition. Not that I blame them, but in the end no agreement with any party (Balfour or otherwise) was honored. They just left.

[Phil H]

I thought it was the UN that determined the creation of the state of Israel, having brought the British (old League of Nations) mandate to an end.

I don't think it was a unilateral decision by the UK.

Phil

[Errata]

I was making a moral, not a legal point. Since the territory wasn't British, any arrangement made by Britain - whether pro-Israeli, pro-Palestinian or pro-Eskimo - is morally vacuous.

I'd go with the moral ambiguity on this one. But it does raise the question of whether or not anybody had a moral right to make any kind of arrangement with the territory. And whether a simple withdrawal letting whoever is left fight it out is a more moral decision. I don't know the answers to those questions.

[Robert]

I was making a moral, not a legal point. Since the territory wasn't British, any arrangement made by Britain - whether pro-Israeli, pro-Palestinian or pro-Eskimo - is morally vacuous.

[Phil H]

Historical claims to possess land are a bit difficult for me.

If there are ethnic Assyrians around (and I think there are) can they not claim the land once occupied by the Assyrian Empire? or the Etruscans?

Surely such a view made the Sudeten Germans right in 1937/38? What about the Boers in S Africa - they were there before the black tribes in some accounts.

And in fact Israel did not exist from several hundred years before the birth of Jesus - the Roman province was Judaea. David and Soloman ruled Judah and Israel was a break away nation, in a split "Holy Land".

Since Muslims conquered the area after the fall of the Roman and Byzantine province,, do they have a superior claim to the land? Or the crusaders? Could anyone claiming Frankish descent have a right to ownership? Maybe the Templars, the Hospitallers, the Order of St John or even the Prieurie de Sion?

What are the rules of the game?

By the way - on a separate but not unrelated matter - can someone knowledgable help me?

Did Mohammed actually visit jerusalem, or was it just in a dream. I have never been able to determine that from my reading - it always seems to be expressed vaguely.

Phil