Hiroshima Anniversary

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
www.tarleton.edu/~jdixon/WWIIOpinion.ppt

Not original source material, but here is a PowerPoint presentation that references a number of prewar and wartime public opinion polls conducted by the American Institute of Public Opinion, circa 1938-1945.

Here is the relevant question, and its answer:

December 1944: What do you think we should do with Japan as a country after the war?
Re-educate, rehabilitiate: 8%
Supervise and control: 28%
Destroy as a political entity, break up: 33%
Kill all Japanese: 13%[/quote]

8% + 28% + 33% + 13% = 82%.

[quote]For comparison, here’s the equivalent question concerning Germany:

July 1944: If you had your say, how would we treat the people who live in Germany after this war?
Lenient treatment, active assistance, re-education, etc: 65%
Strict supervision, probationary period, isolation, disarmament: 42%
Severe measures, punitive action, torture, extermination: 8%[/quote]

65% + 42% + 8% = 115%

[quote]lixy wrote:

So…you think dehumanizing the Japanese to the point where 13% of Americans want them all dead (that’s women, children included) is a PR failure?[/quote]

Think about this for a moment. If only 13% of all Iranians gathered in the street to shout “Death to America, Death to Israel.” Wouldn’t YOU think this was a pr failure?

Of course I’m not contesting the fact that in the three years you mention, the US bore the lion’s share of the fighting, but to imply that we went it “mostly alone” in the Pacific is not entirely true, and I think Aussie486 will probably back me up on this.

There were two commands in the Pacific Theater, the Pacific Ocean Areas command and the South West Pacific Area command. I assume that when you say “War in the Pacific” you are referring to the Pacific Ocean Areas command, which was as you say a predominantly American undertaking, however there was active participation by New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Mexico (!), and Fiji. The British assisted in the Battle of Okinawa, and the fleet was poised to invade right along with us. And indeed, the Occupation was by not only American troops, but troops from the British commonwealth.

http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-conflicts-periods/other/bcof-japan.htm

The British, Dutch, New Zealanders and Australians took a more active role in the South West Pacific Area, because it was, after all, mostly their land that was being threatened: as you probably know, on the same day as they bombed Pearl Harbor, the Japanese invaded British Hong Kong, Dutch Indonesia, the American Philippines, and Thailand (to use as a base to launch their invasion of British Singapore and Malaya. The recapture of Burma was almost entirely a British undertaking (with some help from the Gurkhas and the Chinese), and would have pushed into Malaya, had not the Japanese surrendered first. The Australians were instrumental in the liberation of Borneo, Timor (assisted by the Dutch), and the Philippines. In the Battle of New Guinea, the Australian army was largely responsible for handing Japan their first land defeat since 1939. Meanwhile, just offshore in the Bismarck Sea, the Royal Australian Air Force assisted the US Army Air Force in devastating a convoy of Japanese troop ships, also sinking three destroyers.

http://www.history.army.mil/brochures/new-guinea/ng.htm
http://www.awm.gov.au/atwar/remembering1942/bismark

The British Pacific Fleet formed about 25 percent of the total Allied strength in the Pacific, with 17 aircraft carriers carrying 300 planes, four battleships, 10 cruisers, 40 destroyers, 18 sloops, 13 frigates, 31 submarines, 19 corvettes, 35 minesweepers, and a plethora of oilers, store ships, sub depot ships and other support vessels.

[i]The British Pacific Fleet was a reluctant ally in the Japanese war. The Americans regarded the defeat of the Japanese as “their” war, and had evolved fleets with “long legs”. This meant that the fleet could remain at sea for extended periods as their supply ships could provide food, fuel, ammunition and other supplies as they steamed. They used atolls as fleet anchorage to carry out repairs. In contrast, few British ships rarely remained at sea for more than eight days, and had become dependent on ports for repairs. The Americans demanded that the BPF be able to be at sea for 20 days per month as a minimum. The BPF had tried to develop their supply and repair fleet to American standards, but often had to ask the Americans for fuel or food when the British fleet train process was unable to deliver.

The command of the BPF was split between Sir Bruce Fraser (fleet operations) and Sir Philip Vian (air operations). The BPF had six new fleet carriers, HMS Indomitable, HMS Victorious, HMS Illustrious, HMS Implacable, HMS Indefatigable and HMS Formidable, but not all were active at the same time because of refits and engine problems. There were two battleships, HMS King George V and HMS Howe. These were escorted by six cruisers and 12 destroyers. The air crews were a mixture of Canadians, South Africans, New Zealanders and British pilots. They flew mostly American aircraft such as the Corsair, Avenger and Hellcat, with a few Sea Fires.

The BPF was initially designated as Task Force 57, under Admiral Raymond Spruance. They joined the Okinawa campaign on March 26, but in early April they were allocated to their own theatre of war in the Sakishima Gunto group of islands north-east of Formosa. The BPF performed well in these operations, even though targets were scarce. The objective was to prevent the Japanese from using the islands to supply aircraft to Okinawa where the kamikaze squadrons were wreaking major damage to the U.S. Fleet.

The BPF pilots (including Lt. Hammy Gray) carried out successful strikes against several airfields. The BFP came under attack from the kamikazes. Both HMS Indefatigable and HMS Formidable were hit, but their armoured flight decks prevented much damage, and the ships were back into operation within a few hours. In contrast, many of the faster and lighter American carriers suffered crippling damage because their flight decks were not armoured.[/i]

Oh, and why “surprisingly strong” insurgency from Vietnam?

Considering that Vietnamese insurgents were somehow able to force the surrender and retreat of the invading and occupying armies of the Song Chinese, the Mongols, the Ming Chinese, the French, and even the Americans, I’d be surprised if the insurgency against the Japanese invaders was anything but strong.

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
www.tarleton.edu/~jdixon/WWIIOpinion.ppt

Not original source material, but here is a PowerPoint presentation that references a number of prewar and wartime public opinion polls conducted by the American Institute of Public Opinion, circa 1938-1945.

Here is the relevant question, and its answer:

December 1944: What do you think we should do with Japan as a country after the war?
Re-educate, rehabilitiate: 8%
Supervise and control: 28%
Destroy as a political entity, break up: 33%
Kill all Japanese: 13%

8% + 28% + 33% + 13% = 82%.

For comparison, here’s the equivalent question concerning Germany:

July 1944: If you had your say, how would we treat the people who live in Germany after this war?
Lenient treatment, active assistance, re-education, etc: 65%
Strict supervision, probationary period, isolation, disarmament: 42%
Severe measures, punitive action, torture, extermination: 8%

65% + 42% + 8% = 115%
[/quote]

Ha!

That’s funny. Nice catch, Gunslinger. That’ll teach me to post without a calculator nearby.

The first one is probably simply omission of other responses, but the second one is a pretty egregious transcription error by whoever compiled the Power Point file. Let me see if I can find the survey referenced elsewhere.

Well, I managed to track down the original source material. It’s in Public Opinion Quarterly (published by the American Association for Public Opinion Research), volume 8 (Winter 1944), page 500. The name of the article is If the American People Made the Peace, by Harry M. Field and Louise Van Patten.

Unfortunately, to see the original article, one must subscribe to AAPOR, which I don’t particularly feel like shelling out a hundred fifty bucks to do. So the actual percentages of Americans in 1944 who wanted leniency and rehabilitation vs. torture and extermination for the Japanese and the Germans must, for the time being, remain a mystery.

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
lixy wrote:

So…you think dehumanizing the Japanese to the point where 13% of Americans want them all dead (that’s women, children included) is a PR failure?

Think about this for a moment. If only 13% of all Iranians gathered in the street to shout “Death to America, Death to Israel.” Wouldn’t YOU think this was a pr failure?[/quote]

No.

I would be REALLY surprised (and outraged) if 13% of Iranians said Americans should be exterminated.

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
pushharder wrote:
lixy wrote:
An 1944 opinion poll found that 13% of Americans were in favour of exterminating ALL the Japanese.

That should tell you something about the extent of the anti-Japanese propaganda.

A 2008 T-Nation poll found that 94% of PWIers were in favor of exterminating Lixy because he reneged on his deal with Rainjack.

I knew something was missing around here…rainjack. I miss that cranky bastard.[/quote]

He posts on IM occasionally. They don’t allow political discussions there though. He’s still pissed at Biotest, so we probably won’t be seeing him back.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
lixy wrote:

So…you think dehumanizing the Japanese to the point where 13% of Americans want them all dead (that’s women, children included) is a PR failure?

Think about this for a moment. If only 13% of all Iranians gathered in the street to shout “Death to America, Death to Israel.” Wouldn’t YOU think this was a pr failure?

No.

I would be REALLY surprised (and outraged) if 13% of Iranians said Americans should be exterminated.[/quote]

Maybe not exterminated, but you said you would not shed a tear if a nuke goes off in an American city. I’m sure there’s more than 13% of Iranians who’ve been indoctrinated with anti-US propaganda who also would not shed a tear if this happened.

end of hijack.

Varq, you said we bombed a bunch of Christians in Japan…When the Gemans were holed up in an ancient monastery in Italy (I believe) the allies didn’t think twice about bombarding it.

Do you think, had Germany not surrendered, the allies would have dropped the A bomb in Europe…killing…gasp… European Christians? Or was this something the Allies could never do.

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
lixy wrote:

So…you think dehumanizing the Japanese to the point where 13% of Americans want them all dead (that’s women, children included) is a PR failure?

Think about this for a moment. If only 13% of all Iranians gathered in the street to shout “Death to America, Death to Israel.” Wouldn’t YOU think this was a pr failure?

No.

I would be REALLY surprised (and outraged) if 13% of Iranians said Americans should be exterminated.

Maybe not exterminated, but you said you would not shed a tear if a nuke goes off in an American city. I’m sure there’s more than 13% of Iranians who’ve been indoctrinated with anti-US propaganda who also would not shed a tear if this happened.

end of hijack.

Varq, you said we bombed a bunch of Christians in Japan…When the Gemans were holed up in an ancient monastery in Italy (I believe) the allies didn’t think twice about bombarding it.

Do you think, had Germany not surrendered, the allies would have dropped the A bomb in Europe…killing…gasp… European Christians? Or was this something the Allies could never do.[/quote]

Actually, I said we wiped out two-thirds of all of the Christians in Japan. Not “a bunch.”

Of course, if we had incinerated two-thirds of all German Christians with a bomb developed by German Jews, then I would call that doubly ironic. Especially considering that the word “holocaust” means “burned completely.”

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
No sarcasm intended.

But do you think had the Japanese just set up a huge ass colony in mainland China, no one else would have cared?[/quote]

I do not believe anyone in the West would care, as long as it did not interfere with their foreign interests. But that might be besides the point. The U.S. had many points of interest throughout the Pacific to resupply a large deep water naval capability. I do not believe that if Japan had a huge colony in China, they would have been satisfied. Expansionist aggressors tend to keep pushing until they hit a wall, then start shooting at the wall, so to speak. That wall was perceived to be the U.S., so the powers in Japan elected to attack U.S. assets in the Pacific.

As we can see with German expansion, they were not satisfied with the Sudetenland, or Czechoslovakia. And we all know how German ‘expansion’ or ‘conquest’ turned out in that theater.

P.S. forgive my slow response. I was somewhat inebriated when I made my first responses to your post. Intelligent discussions are so hard to find in the PWI, don’t you think? I hope to continue this line of discussion with anyone with something constructive to add.

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Maybe not exterminated, but you said you would not shed a tear if a nuke goes off in an American city. [/quote]

That was said in a particular context. That is, if you blow up Iran and they retaliate, don’t count on the rest of the world’s sympathy following 9/11.

The two propositions are imcomparable. One is about advocating your military exterminates a people and the other is about not crying if a city on the other side of the planet gets nuked by some obscure group?

Yes, many Iranians are indoctrinated. But what’s your fucking excuse? Do you think HH, RJ, Push, PRCal or Jeff would shed a tear if the USAF dropped a couple of big ones on Iran?

Don’t compare the imcomparable. This is 2009, not the 1940s. And even in Iran, people have access to a plethora of media. Find me a single state-sponsored Iranian propaganda piece that paints the American people as vermin or tries to dehumanize them WWII anti-Jap-propaganda style.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Maybe not exterminated, but you said you would not shed a tear if a nuke goes off in an American city.

That was said in a particular context. That is, if you blow up Iran and they retaliate, don’t count on the rest of the world’s sympathy following 9/11.

I’m sure there’s more than 13% of Iranian Realize that who’ve been indoctrinated with anti-US propaganda who also would not shed a tear if this happened.

The two propositions are imcomparable. One is about advocating your military exterminates a people and the other is about not crying if a city on the other side of the planet gets nuked by some obscure group?

Yes, many Iranians are indoctrinated. But what’s your fucking excuse? Do you think HH, RJ, Push, PRCal or Jeff would shed a tear if the USAF dropped a couple of big ones on Iran?

Don’t compare the imcomparable. This is 2009, not the 1940s. And even in Iran, people have access to a plethora of media. Find me a single state-sponsored Iranian propaganda piece that paints the American people as vermin or tries to dehumanize them WWII anti-Jap-propaganda style.[/quote]

I would be saddened. I know that most Iranians have no interest in hurting anyone, and that their government is using Israel and the USA as ‘threats’ to retain their power. But if it was a choice to kill a million innocent Iranians or let a million Americans or Israelis die, I would choose the Iranians.

You would do the same wrt Moroccans.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Well, I managed to track down the original source material. It’s in Public Opinion Quarterly (published by the American Association for Public Opinion Research), volume 8 (Winter 1944), page 500. The name of the article is If the American People Made the Peace, by Harry M. Field and Louise Van Patten.

Unfortunately, to see the original article, one must subscribe to AAPOR, which I don’t particularly feel like shelling out a hundred fifty bucks to do. So the actual percentages of Americans in 1944 who wanted leniency and rehabilitation vs. torture and extermination for the Japanese and the Germans must, for the time being, remain a mystery.[/quote]

I have it from JSTOR. Pg 510… whoever PDFed it didn’t do a word catch (or whatever it’s called)… anyway, I’ve got to go now, I’ll leave it open on my laptop and try to get to copy later.

[quote]lixy wrote:
That was said in a particular context. That is, if you blow up Iran and they retaliate, don’t count on the rest of the world’s sympathy following 9/11.
[/quote]

Nice Freudian slip.

Actually, the context was about America attacking Iraq, and the Iraqis (or more likely an Iranian or Pakistani based group, take your pick) nuking an American city for revenge.

That was the parallel you used comparing Pearl Harbor and Hiroshima to modern day events.

And I believe the world would be horrified and filled with sympathy.

The USA and USSR were armed at the teeth with nukes for more than 40 years and never engaged in a hot war.

Your statement speaks volumes for the non-proliferation of nuclear arms.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Actually, I said we wiped out two-thirds of all of the Christians in Japan. Not “a bunch.”
[/quote]

So, it was a loosely paraphrased. . . . lol

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I would be saddened. I know that most Iranians have no interest in hurting anyone, and that their government is using Israel and the USA as ‘threats’ to retain their power.
[/quote]

What happened to “burn the nest”?

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
The USA and USSR were armed at the teeth with nukes for more than 40 years and never engaged in a hot war.
[/quote]

The USA and USSR never engaged in a hot war for more than 40 years precisely because both were armed at the teeth with nukes.

But Lixy asks an interesting question, which nobody has really addressed, because (a) they don’t like Lixy, and (b) the question is too emotionally charged. So let’s stop talking about the United States and Iran for just a bit, because it’s too close to home.

So instead, let us talk about a completely hypothetical planet, called Dearth, in a parallel universe, and two completely hypothetical countries which bear absolutely no resemblance any country here on our planet.

The names of these countries are the Unilateral Spates of Amocria, and the Iambic Repugnic of Urine.

The Urinians and the Amocrians have had an uneasy peace, with political intrigue, ideological dispute and terrorism tainting what would otherwise be a simple trade relationship for both countries. At the heart of the matter is the fact that the Urinians possess great quantities of the most valuable substance on the planet, metroleum, which the Amocrians do not produce, yet consume in great quantities to feed their cities and machines. The Urinians loudly condemn the Amocrians for their growing militarism and imperialism, which the Amocrians defend by pointing to the other great military empires on the planet, and stating that they are just after theor share. When the Amocrians march into the country to their immediate north, Chlamydia, massacring thousands of civilians and setting up a puppet govrnment, the Urinian government delivers an ultimatum that they will no longer sell metroleum to the Amocrians. Diplomatic talks fail, and there is talk of war.

One morning, the Amocrians launch a preemptive strike against the Urinians, bombing one of their ports, destroying half of their navy and a good deal of their air force, and killing thousands of civilians. At the same time, they invade Urinian and Laughgani colonies in South-East Aplasia, taking over the Urinian metroleum fields. Over the next three years, the Amocrians, along with their allies the Skittish, fight a desperate land and sea war in the Soporific Ocean against the Urinians and their allies the Laughganis, until finally, defecting Skittish kineticists assist the Urinian military in creating a devastating new weapon: the Richter bomb.

The Urinians, unable to press the Amocrians to surrender, drop a pair Richter bombs (“Splat Man” and “Piddle Boy”) on two Amocrians cities, Chiblago and New Spork. When the bombs detonate, they cause an immediate tectonic reaction, spawning tremendous Dearthquakes which devastate both cities, killing and maiming hundreds of thousands of Amocrians, and bringing the war to an immediate end.

Were the Urinians justified?

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
The USA and USSR were armed at the teeth with nukes for more than 40 years and never engaged in a hot war.

The USA and USSR never engaged in a hot war for more than 40 years precisely because both were armed at the teeth with nukes.

But Lixy asks an interesting question, which nobody has really addressed, because (a) they don’t like Lixy, and (b) the question is too emotionally charged. So let’s stop talking about the United States and Iran for just a bit, because it’s too close to home.

So instead, let us talk about a completely hypothetical planet, called Dearth, in a parallel universe, and two completely hypothetical countries which bear absolutely no resemblance any country here on our planet.

The names of these countries are the Unilateral Spates of Amocria, and the Iambic Repugnic of Urine.

The Urinians and the Amocrians have had an uneasy peace, with political intrigue, ideological dispute and terrorism tainting what would otherwise be a simple trade relationship for both countries. At the heart of the matter is the fact that the Urinians possess great quantities of the most valuable substance on the planet, metroleum, which the Amocrians do not produce, yet consume in great quantities to feed their cities and machines. The Urinians loudly condemn the Amocrians for their growing militarism and imperialism, which the Amocrians defend by pointing to the other great military empires on the planet, and stating that they are just after theor share. When the Amocrians march into the country to their immediate north, Chlamydia, massacring thousands of civilians and setting up a puppet govrnment, the Urinian government delivers an ultimatum that they will no longer sell metroleum to the Amocrians. Diplomatic talks fail, and there is talk of war.

One morning, the Amocrians launch a preemptive strike against the Urinians, bombing one of their ports, destroying half of their navy and a good deal of their air force, and killing thousands of civilians. At the same time, they invade Urinian and Laughgani colonies in South-East Aplasia, taking over the Urinian metroleum fields. Over the next three years, the Amocrians, along with their allies the Skittish, fight a desperate land and sea war in the Soporific Ocean against the Urinians and their allies the Laughganis, until finally, defecting Skittish kineticists assist the Urinian military in creating a devastating new weapon: the Richter bomb.

The Urinians, unable to press the Amocrians to surrender, drop a pair Richter bombs (“Splat Man” and “Piddle Boy”) on two Amocrians cities, Chiblago and New Spork. When the bombs detonate, they cause an immediate tectonic reaction, spawning tremendous Dearthquakes which devastate both cities, killing and maiming hundreds of thousands of Amocrians, and bringing the war to an immediate end.

Were the Urinians justified?[/quote]

So are we going to debate what is “just” and what is “unjust”?

[quote]Therizza wrote:
So are we going to debate what is “just” and what is “unjust”? [/quote]

No, simply what is justified and what isn’t.

Surely, if it meant an end to the war, and avoiding an invasion of the Amocrian homeland, the Urinians were justified in dropping their bombs, were they not?