mrle01 on 5/11/2007 at 20:57
Quote Posted by Fragony
A friend from Bosnia had quite some juicy stories to tell, war isn't a condition for the innocent. NATO has a tendency to back one group to it's fullest and forget about other atrocities. The muslims weren't exactly innocent lambs.
Believe me I know all about wars that happened since Yugoslavia fell apart. Although Serbs started the war and did a lot of war crimes, neither Croats nor bosnian muslims were innocent. They too did a lot of bad things and some of the Croatian generals are in Haag right now.
The EU and NATO didn't really support either of the countries involved in the war, they just didn't do a good job at peacekeeping since a lot of war crimes happened right in front of them (Srebrenica, Vukovar, Ahmići to name a few).
I posted the first time because Trappin's post didn't make much sense to me.
The Americans bombarded Serbia not EU.
And I don't understand the next passage. Maybe it's my bad knowledge of English, but it just doesn't make any sense to me:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappinThen the EU allowed KIA backed Croat forces to literally roam free to pillage and plunder the homes and businesses of non-muslim residents
demagogue on 5/11/2007 at 21:10
I think he was just trying to make the same basic point you made that "they just didn't do a good job at peacekeeping", and just worded it provocatively.
Another thing:
Quote:
as for example the people of France and Japan have.
France had its foibles at times that I've read about, but I can basically agree.
But Japan? Having lived there for a while, it came across as one of the most history-oblivious countries I've ever known. In the conversations I had, and everything I read, there was no real public sense about any of the things Japan was doing in WWII. I mean, even a few months ago the prime minister could still get away with denying that there was any involuntary sex slavery, when that was one of the most destructive parts of the war for civilians ... up to an estimated million dead by itself. (Public pressure forced him to recant a few days later, but the point is that he felt able to gratuitously say that with a straight face in the first place.)
Actually (lots of sources on this; (
http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/wwii.html) here is one bullet point version) ... Japanese invasions, uncontrolled pillaging, use of chemical weapons, and POW death-labor were much more lethal to civilians than Germany's. From the cite I linked: "If one includes China and all the occupied countries (Indonesia, Vietnam, Malaysia, etc), Japan caused the death of about 12 million civilians, far more than those caused by Germany." Most people in
Allied countries don't recognize that Japan was worse than Germany in terms of civilian deaths, much less Japan itself. It got off way too easy in the "coming to terms with their history" dept, IMO.
Or, to put it more provocatively, how can it be that Germany is so vilified for the holocaust, but when Japan actually caused the death of almost twice as many civilians in arguably more brutal ways, it doesn't get anywhere near the same recognition? Is it just because they were only poor villagers invisible in the jungles?
Quote:
Something some people of the USA have yet to do.
As for the allies (to be even-handed), I think they get off too easily on targeting civilians, as in the Dresden bombing, Tokyo firebombing, and the atomic bombs, which were all pretty straightforwardly trying to break morale by terrorizing civilians as their principal objective. And I have issues with the argument that they saved more lives in the end ... probably not
civilian lives, not at the time they were done (e.g., at the time the Soviets started entering the Pacific theater; a stated surrender-point by J's military gov't). But even if true, the fact that civilians were not just incidental but actually targeted is a big deal however you slice it.
snauty on 5/11/2007 at 21:12
@mrle01
making sense is obviously not really the issue here. ;)
SD on 5/11/2007 at 22:59
Quote Posted by demagogue
Or, to put it more provocatively, how can it be that Germany is so vilified for the holocaust, but when Japan actually killed almost twice as many civilians in arguably more brutal ways, it doesn't get anywhere near the same recognition? Is it just because they were only poor villagers invisible in the jungles?
The atrocities perpetrated by the Japanese didn't have quite the same brutal, calculated efficiency that the German death camps did. The Japs got a couple of nukes for their troubles too, which some might consider evened up the scores a little.
Magospietato on 6/11/2007 at 09:19
Quote:
The atrocities perpetrated by the Japanese didn't have quite the same brutal, calculated efficiency that the German death camps did. The Japs got a couple of nukes for their troubles too, which some might consider evened up the scores a little.
So, the Rape of Nanking can't be described as brutal, calculated efficiency? :rolleyes:
Kuuso on 6/11/2007 at 14:20
Quote Posted by SD
The atrocities perpetrated by the Japanese didn't have quite the same brutal, calculated efficiency that the German death camps did. The Japs got a couple of nukes for their troubles too, which some might consider evened up the scores a little.
Nah, it was worse.
SubJeff on 6/11/2007 at 14:32
I think you may need to re-read some of the literature on the Japanese atrocities SD. They had some very similar operations to the Nazis in terms of systematic killing and medical experimentation, which was far less controlled scientifically but still as horrific. I've not heard of any Japanese findings being relevant to science today but a lot of the Nazi experiments are and there is knowledge we have today that was gleaned from them. Remember than Mengele really attempted to do scientifically valid research, inexcusable as it was.
I suppose the big difference is that the Japanese seemed to just be brutal just because they could and they were seemingly just being bastards, whereas the Nazis had an entire ideology that they used to rationalise a systematic brutalisation and mass murder as absolutely normal and necessary. The Japanese just appeared to be random, whereas the Nazis were out to get people for the most ridiculous reasons.
SD on 6/11/2007 at 17:25
Quote Posted by Magospietato
So, the Rape of Nanking can't be described as brutal, calculated efficiency? :rolleyes:
Was the Rape of Nanking deliberately intended to wipe an entire race of people off the planet? The Holocaust was.
It would be churlish of me to play the numbers game. But fuck it. The killing of a few million people by the Japanese barely caused a dent in the population of China (c550m in the 1940s). On the other hand, the Nazis managed to eliminate most European Jews.
Swiss Mercenary on 6/11/2007 at 17:29
Quote Posted by SD
Was the Rape of Nanking deliberately intended to wipe an entire race of people off the planet?
No, for the simple reason that the Japanese understood that it's really, really fucking hard to wipe out a few hundred million people. :rolleyes:
SubJeff on 6/11/2007 at 17:51
That's a pretty lame argument SD: you're essentially saying "There are more Chinese people so it's not as bad if you kill 3 million of them as killing the last remaining People X who number much less". Come on.
