Enola Gay, heroism or insanity? - Page 4




 
--
 
May 30th, 2015  
lljadw
 
No : the US demanded unconditional surrender and they got it .

What Japan wanted was negociations resulting in a a compromise peace.

They proposed to surrender at certain conditions;meaning that they would not accept certain other conditions . This was what the Allies refused : there would be no conditions,they would accept no Japanese proposals .After the death of FDR, Truman said in the congress : our aim is still unconditional surrender .
May 30th, 2015  
lljadw
 
Second sentence of the Japanese surrender in the bay of Tokyo signed on 2 september 1945:


We hereby proclaim the UNCONDITIONALsurrender to the Allied Powers of the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters and of all Japanese Armed Forces and of all Armed Forces under Japanese control wherever situated .

UNCONDITIONAL was expressily mentioned .
May 30th, 2015  
MontyB
 
 
The Japanese Government accepted the terms offered in the Potsdam Proclamation subject to the continuation of the Emperor System, to which the United States agreed tacitly, the victors made no move to abolish the Japanese Government or State. Rather, it signed an instrument of surrender with that Government, signalling its acceptance of that Government's legitimacy.

Based on this the surrender of Japans armed forces was unconditional but the surrender of the Japanese state was not.
--
May 30th, 2015  
JOC
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
But once again the argument becomes about magnitude, would you feel better about the Nazi's if they had "only" killed 5 million instead of 25 million or would 600,000 dead Jews have been less of a crime than 6 million?

No I don't think you would because at some point numerically in our minds it ceases to be about how many were killed and becomes about the process of killing and the factors and processes that lead perfectly normal people to carry out or turn a blind eye to these acts.

The reality is I no longer care about the specific numbers of Russians that died or how many Jews perished because the shear volume of victims is too large to comprehend and it is the same for the Armenian, Rwandan Cambodian genocides or Mao and Stalin's slaughters the magnitude of the crime far outweighs the number of dead.

And I somewhat agree with Yossarian's comments because in many ways we lessen the crimes of the Nazi's by focusing on 6 million Jewish murders and ignore the millions of other minorities that were slaughtered by these goose stepping lunatics and the other ideological lunatics that came before and since.

I believe it would have been less of a crime if fewer murders had occured. It would have effected less innocent people. I also believe there's something to be said in the numbers. So not only were the Nazi's the worlds most prolific killers they brought on histories worst catastrophe. This duality of evils makes them unique.

I don't entirely agree with the fact that most of the coverage goes to the killing of 6 million Jews. Hitler and the Nazi's were responsible for the killing of 12 million++ Soviets, 3 million poles, 1+ million Gypsies, I million Yugoslavs, the list continues. The number of Slavs alone out numbers the number of Jewish murders by at least 3:1.

I think the Jewish murders are put in the lime light because Hitler made the elimination of the Jews a more immediate goal and the Jews have influence. I do not condone this horrible crime.

Also let us not forget the 10 million "minimum" murdered by Imperial Japan (likely even more since nobody knows the true number of Chinese killed by Japan).
May 30th, 2015  
MontyB
 
 
The crimes of the Nazi's were no less or no more than any other state sponsored mass murder of the past 200 years, Leopold II's actions in the Congo are completely ignored and we went out of our way for 4 years to facilitate Stalin's actions and these days we avoid getting involved by being pedantic over what constitutes "Genocide" or just turn a blind eye to it because they are on our side.

The Nazi's practiced eugenics at an extreme level it did not matter whether you were Jewish or walked with a limp you were pretty well screwed.

As to the idea that the Nazi's created histories worst catastrophe I am not sure that is quantifiable as I imagine every era has its own worst catastrophes, Pompei was pretty big to the Roman world, the Bubonic plague would also rate pretty highly given that it wiped out about half the population of Europe in the 1400s.
May 30th, 2015  
I3BrigPvSk
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
The crimes of the Nazi's were no less or no more than any other state sponsored mass murder of the past 200 years, Leopold II's actions in the Congo are completely ignored and we went out of our way for 4 years to facilitate Stalin's actions and these days we avoid getting involved by being pedantic over what constitutes "Genocide" or just turn a blind eye to it because they are on our side.

The Nazi's practiced eugenics at an extreme level it did not matter whether you were Jewish or walked with a limp you were pretty well screwed.

As to the idea that the Nazi's created histories worst catastrophe I am not sure that is quantifiable as I imagine every era has its own worst catastrophes, Pompei was pretty big to the Roman world, the Bubonic plague would also rate pretty highly given that it wiped out about half the population of Europe in the 1400s.
Hold on a second here, are you comparing natural disasters with what the Nazis did? What about the Spanish flu, it killed more people than the Second World War, is that also comparable with the holocaust?
May 30th, 2015  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk
Hold on a second here, are you comparing natural disasters with what the Nazis did? What about the Spanish flu, it killed more people than the Second World War, is that also comparable with the holocaust?
Of course I am not comparing them I am saying that defining WW2 as history's worst catastrophe is subjective as every era in human history has its worst catastrophe.

WW2 was certainly a catastrophe for many people and in the scheme of things it "might" rate as the worst man made catastrophe but I suspect based on the worlds population at the time it wasn't.

To back this up, it is believed that 15% of the population of the Soviet Union died in WW2 and that Leopold II was responsible for the death of 20% of the Congolese population should we look at the effect on indigenous populations due to the colonisation of South America, The Pacific and North America by Europeans as I am betting that 20% will pale into insignificance.

Despite the 20 million Chinese that died in WW2 it was still less than 5% of its population, Italy, Canada, UK and USA casualties do not even get to 5% of their combined populations.

Everything has its perspective, the closer you are the larger it gets and for us WW2 is much closer than all these other events.
May 30th, 2015  
JOC
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
The crimes of the Nazi's were no less or no more than any other state sponsored mass murder of the past 200 years, Leopold II's actions in the Congo are completely ignored and we went out of our way for 4 years to facilitate Stalin's actions and these days we avoid getting involved by being pedantic over what constitutes "Genocide" or just turn a blind eye to it because they are on our side.
I would argue they were more of a deliberate act of the Germanic new order which excluded Jews, Slavs, Gypsies and other so called "subhuman's". An example of this deliberation can be seen at the Wannsee conference in which 12 top Nazi - SS officials devised the final solution for Jews in January 1942. There is a definite difference between a dictator killing of unruly ethnic groups or killing subjects for profit and the methodical swift killing machine implemented by the Nazi's.

We have been though this thing about Stalin before. Fact: Stalin greatly toned down his war on his own people during WW2 in order to gain popular support. This is the reason the people so rapidly turned against the Nazi's who rapidly became the worse of the 2 evils. Stalin allowed many religious and ethnic freedoms until the final stages of the war.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
The Nazi's practiced eugenics at an extreme level it did not matter whether you were Jewish or walked with a limp you were pretty well screwed.
True

Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
As to the idea that the Nazi's created histories worst catastrophe I am not sure that is quantifiable as I imagine every era has its own worst catastrophes, Pompei was pretty big to the Roman world, the Bubonic plague would also rate pretty highly given that it wiped out about half the population of Europe in the 1400s.
By history worse catastrophe, I am referring to the fact that it resulted in more people dying and suffering than any other man made event in the history of mankind.
May 30th, 2015  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOC

By history worse catastrophe, I am referring to the fact that it resulted in more people dying and suffering than any other man made event in the history of mankind.
In terms of actual numbers you may be right but in perspective WW2 may not even finish in the top 10.

For example WW2's casualties would have made the human race extinct in 500BC yet today China's most populous province could suffer the entire losses of WW2 civilian and military and still have 8 million people in it.

Losses, casualties and definitions are all a matter of perspective and I would suggest that the Congolese, the South American tribes, Pacific Islanders nor the American Indian see WW2 as the greatest catastrophes to have been inflicted on their people throughout history.
May 30th, 2015  
Yossarian
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB

Losses, casualties and definitions are all a matter of perspective and I would suggest that the Congolese, the South American tribes, Pacific Islanders nor the American Indian see WW2 as the greatest catastrophes to have been inflicted on their people throughout history.

Nail on the head on that one,

The glory and joy to be seen in WW 2 is the victory over murderous regimes who were out for domination by force of there neighbors.

But hey let's look in context, we do that exact same thing now in the West and even by countries of the east now financially.

You don't need a military occupation to control the world, just a world bank some sanctions and the reserve currency.

The story is repeating itself but this time the war isn't being won by tanks and planes, but financial and diplomatic positioning and low intensity conflicts.

WW 2 in a broader context can be seen as an example of a style of empire dying out in survival of the fittest, the Nazis and Imperial Japan were less fit.

The West and USSR won, then 50 years later the USSR died out, now the US and the EU are on the same path of national Darwinism. If East Asia and India end up becoming the social, economic and military leaders of the world by the end of the 21st Century, the impact and rules laid down after WW 2 will be quite mute.

And the honor and glory shared by the victors will be most likely long faded.
The new powers to be would have little interest in that.

Regardless I am very happy the Allies won, don't consider me ungrateful. Just the one thing that remains the same is that change in constant.
 


Similar Topics
Enola Gay!
Married gay couples win equal tax benefits nationwide
Gay rights advocate seeks to overturn gay Boy Scouts ban
Millions of Chinese wives wed to gay men: expert
Canada 'can permit gay marriage'