Why does the embargo justify the attack?
How many Japanese civilians would have died as a result of the blockade?
Could you provide a source for that incident? Google isn’t helping.
Far too few Germans were hung as well.
It doesn’t justify the attack, but it does count as a valid casus belli in international relations.
More importantly it helped empower the hardliners in Japan over the moderates so if it was enacted out of humanitarian concern for the Chinese to try to force the Japanese to evacuate it was a spectacular failure as it had just the opposite effect.
There’s nothing to think about. Universal conscription is random except for selecting males over 18. Therefore, any claim that Japanese soldiers were an outlier is ipso facto a claim that Japanese people in general are an outlier. Anyone that believes the latter can safely be dismissed as a crackpot bigot.
Here is a more accurate version of that statement: “There are several differences in accounts of the way Italian soldiers and the SS treated conquered people.” Where words are placed in a sentence is important. No claim about any qualitative difference between any wars or any sides in wars can be taken seriously without evidence to support the plausibility of the alleged differences in motive. Only in the world of war tribunals, myth and legend and stupid history does a biased sample pool of accounts constitute a valid basis for a sociological theory. It’s this kind of stupidity that continues the bigotry between “Japanese” and “Chinese” to this day.
The Nanjing incident? The Kuomitang fabricated the sources? I have the strong feeling that you are a “prologue” type of history reader…You need to do some serious research. Yes, some events quoted in books never happened and some being strongly denied did. That is why I recommend you dive into all kinds of sources before you make amateurish statements.
Cheers!
Surely there were other germans deserving to be hang, as were scores of british, americans and of course russians who should have ended their lives swinging from a rope. I can also tell you that some like Gral. Alfred Jodl should not have been executed (accusations against him were ludicrous). In any event, the Nurnberg trial was a kangaroo court and today it is mostly reognized a such.
I noticed that you completely ignored differences in:
-military training
-political motivation (e.g. the S.S., not necessarily Japan)
-battlefied tactics (intimidation, etc.)
By limiting the explanations for differences in military behavior to cultural/ethnic ones, you enabled the charge of bigotry against me. That is not an honest tactic.
Also, here is a quote from your study:
“Apparently, the Japanese discovered approximately 6,500 soldiers and executed them [during the occupation of Nanking]”
Could you name a comparable mass execution committed by the U.S. in World War II?
Notice that I never brought up the rape of Nanking, but rather I referred you to another book, which you have yet to even reference. I would like to see you address the claims in that book, or at least glance at it. I read your link all the way through.
Maybe the specific accusations were ridicilous (I wouldn’t know), but he still deserved to be executed. Wehrmacht had a standing policy of executing hostages in response to partisan attacks. That’s all I need to know about its general staff.
Wrong. Those were decisions Hitler & Himmler reserved for themselves (I assume you are talking about the massacres in reprisal for partisan acts).
Partisans can be shot or hanged as they are not lawful belligerants.
Sounds to me you’re no libertarian and don’t have morals. So why complain about not hanging Patton and the Russians? What do you care about it, satan-spawn?
Yeah right. Actually the strategy of executing hostages was an in-house development of the army. It was devised by Wehrmacht strategists, not Nazi ideologues.
Most people are not aware that there is actually a group of people that believe that nukes do not exist. That think the videos were just faked and Japan was carpet bombed just like Germany was. It was covered up and an elaborate story was made up. I am not saying that I believe it. I am just making you aware of it.
Just when you thought you had heard it all before. hahah
First of all, you should study history. it is always useful to know something about a subjet, especially when you are involved in a discussion.
I may add -for your benefit- that I a am talking about the law and conventions, and not about what I think is OK to do. That has nothing to do with it.
Gettiing into a discussion about morals per se is something that you should balance with acts carried out by both sides. There was a policy to carpet bomb all german cities killing thousands of women and children. Was that right? Was it moral to bomb Dresden and burn to death tens of thousands for no aparent reason? Was it moral to drop two nuclear bombs in Japan. when there were other valid options which should have been tried?
I want to stress the fact that I am in NO way excusing the atrocities of one side because the others “also did it”. That is NEVER a valid argument however it may satisfy the need for revenge. Just in case you are intersted, the russian partisans as well as regular soldiers committed appalling crimes on German prisoners (horrible tortures, mutilations, etc.), from the very beginning of Barbarossa and during the whole campaign. You can read about this in the writings of german generals after the war. And how can we forget Einsatz Reinhard, the germans killing a couple of million jews in the eastern front…
By the way, you should check on the transcripts made by the british from secret recordings of german generals and other high ranking Wehrmacht officers taken when they were talking to each other in captivity, thinking no one was listening…Among other, they comment that they were appalled at the executions organized by Himmler’s Algemeine SS in the Baltic and Eastern Front.
Cheers!
Kinda crazy and ironic, but Wesker1982 just reappeared in another thread (about John Stossel and his book, no less) to post a link to a Mises Daily that is completely relevant to this thread.
No we are not talking about that. We were talking about whether Jodl deserved to be hanged. You claim he did not because it is legaly accepted to execute captured partisans. Well we aren’t talking about what is legal. We’re libertarians (well I am) talking about whether Jodl needed to die for what he had done.
We should do no such thing. For libertarians there are no “two sides” there are numerous sides.
How extraordinary reliable source! German mass-murdering generals with thoroughly racists views of the Russians, writing to expunge their repugnant record. Yes, I think I’m going to take them at their word!
But not by executions organized by the Wehrmacht, or the starving out of Soviet POWs in their custody. What any comments of this type showcase is rather the human beings’ extraordinary capacity for hypocrisy and self-delusion rather than the inherent decency of German generals.
Suggested reading for worshippers of German generaldom:
- Wolfram Wette, The Wehrmacht: History, Myth, Reality (the story German generals wanted hidden)
- Ronald Smelser and Edward Davies, The Myth of the Eastern Front (on how German generals manipulated the received wisdom after the war)
- Geoffrey P. Megargee, Inside Hitler’s High Command (on how the German generals’ blaming every bad strategic decision on Hitler was a bunch of crap)
Here is also a link to a .pdf of Wette’s book.
Now, come, come. Reach for the fridge, get some icecubes in a towel and place it over your head.
Yes, we were talking about accusations against Jodl about which you said, you knew nothing. We obviously have a problem right there. My friendly suggestion for you to read history still stands. It is good for you as eating veggies. Don’t know about your intake of the later, but the former is surely deficitary and in need of urgent reviewing.
Further, you seem to want to set the discussion in terms of me defending the nazis’ human rights record and you championing that of the allies. The reason for this is probably that you read only selective parts of my posts and wrote yours, before putting some icecubes on your head…
The original discussion was that the law was not applied equally and that the Nurnberg Trial was a Kangaroo Court. The rest added by you was a convoluted tirade devoid of much sense. Keep the ice on your head. I have heard that it works marvels in cases like yours.
Cheers!